I don't think it's pointless. Maybe the discussions were the same but the wingspans and amount of difficulty in accommodating each aircraft are totally different. And there were a number of US airports where they didn't have to do anything to accommodate the B747 except expand gate parking areas for it. Not so with the A380. Jose Prize In a message dated 3/11/2004 8:16:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, Peter.Schneider@xxxxxxxxxx writes: > Subj: Re: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Lufthansa - > Pointless argument > Date: 3/11/2004 8:16:43 AM Eastern Standard Time > From: Peter.Schneider@xxxxxxxxxx > Reply-to: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent from the Internet > > This is a pointless argument. This same discussion was made when the B747 > was coming down the line!! > > Regards, > > Peter Schneider > ATL > > > > > > From: "Grant McKenzie" <gjmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 8:15 PM > > >Personally, if LH are right, I think major US airports need to get up off > their collective ar**s and get >a few gates ready. The plane ain't going > to > go away and the US is a big travel market. > > The plane may not go away. but it may not come here either. > > Alternates don't have to be capable of taking care of the passengers, do > they? As long as you can hope to get the plane down in one piece, it's a > satisfactory alternate? > > Gerry > http://www.pbase.com/gfoley9999/ > http://foley.ultinet.net/~gerry/aerial/aerial.html > http://home.columbus.rr.com/gfoley > http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pollock/263/egypt/egypt.html >