At last, a voice of sanity. Excellently put, David. The A380 is here to stay. Smart airport operators will recognise this. Dumb ones will not. (Although I think CNS is being a little optimistic in catering for it. I can't see it flying there in the near future) Grant SYD QF At 03:38 PM 12/03/04, you wrote: >Jose I think you are missing the point Baha is trying to make. > >Correct me if I am wrong here but you seem to think that because many US >airports can't handle the A380, that it's a design fault of the 'Flying Pig' >(as you refer to it). I don't think it was Airbus's primary goal to design >and build an aircraft that neatly fitted into US airports. They have >designed an aircraft that (it believes) meets the future needs of travel >world wide. > >Basically you don't design an aircraft to fit an airport, you design an >aircraft and an airport to meet the needs of air travel. If travel demands >the use of an aircraft the size of the A380 (which it clearly does given the >number and variety of airlines that have ordered it) then as an airport you >have to make a decision. Do you expand to accommodate it or decide not to >accommodate it? Either way its completely up to the airport, and like any >major organisational decision, will likely impact on the future success of >the airport. It may be a rational business decision not to accommodate it >and instead choose to focus on existing aircraft types, - or it may not. >Time will tell. > >Some people might say - 'Oh but we have no room'! I don't think those >airports are going to find too many shoulders to cry on in the future. It >might be then that airports like DEN, MEL and KLIA will finally find their >place in life. > >I can offer but a simple example which demonstrates that this is not a >political debate in countries outside the USA. In Australia QF has ordered >the A380 because it sees the need for such a plane in its future operations. >Work has already commenced at MEL, SYD, BNE and CNS airports to accommodate >the plane. With the exception of SYD airport, all of these airports are >privately owned. As QF is the major operator at each of these airports, the >respective airport owners have decided it is in their best commercial >interests to accommodate the A380 otherwise they will lose business. (Even >if personally, like Jose, they don't particularly like the look of the >aircraft) > >A smart airport will look at the A380 as an opportunity to advance >operations, rather than just a 'big ugly thing' that will cause problems. At >the end of the day despite all you read on the internet, I would be very >surprised if by the time the A380 is operational, airports like ORD, LAX and >SFO etc - are not accepting the big bird with welcoming arms, just the way >they did the 747. > >David > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <B787300@xxxxxxx> >To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 3:49 AM >Subject: Re: [Sky-1] RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says >Lufthansa > > > > Your take is wrong again Baha. This is not some US vs. EU war over who >has > > the biggest jetliner in the sky. If Boeing had built this flying pig >there > > would be the same problems with not enough land at airports to move >taxiways. A > > lot of airport just can't create additional land to provide the necessary > > clearances between runways and taxiways, taxiways and taxiways, >taxiways/taxilanes > > and terminals, etc. > > > > We're talking a difference of about 50 feet of additional wingspan. The > > 747's wingspan fortunately did not create as many problems for airports as >the > > A380 will. > > > > What do you mean by your statement that RIC can't handle 747's? Are you > > talking runways lengths and widths, clearance limits between runways and >taxiways, > > taxiways and taxiways, taxiways/taxilanes and the terminal, or the fact >that > > they can't put a jetbridge on it at a gate? Please specify why they can't > > handle 747's yet seem to do so on diversions. And there's one heck of a > > difference between 747's causing minor inconvenience, if any at all, to >the relatively > > few flights that RIC has to major inconvenience to other operators at a > > tremendously busy airport like LAX. RIC is a pathetic example to use in >this case. > > > > Jose Prize > > Fan of airports > > > > In a message dated 3/11/2004 8:58:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, > > bahadiracuner@xxxxxxxxx writes: > > > > > Subj: [Sky-1] RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says >Lufthansa > > > Date: 3/11/2004 8:58:35 AM Eastern Standard Time > > > From: bahadiracuner@xxxxxxxxx > > > Reply-to: Skyone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Skyone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Sent from the Internet > > > > > > My take on this: > > > This is turning to a US vs. EU war where US is too proud to admit that >the > > > biggest jetliner will not be B747 anymore. > > > > > > Airbus is not dumb. They decided to go ahead with this plane because >there > > > is a demand for it. Yes, US airlines are in bad economical shape to >order > > > these huge birds, but as it will come as a surprise, there are 3 billion > > > people who live outside of US. :) > > > > > > Highest traffic and pax increase will be seen in Southeast Asia where > > > population and economical growth will be phenomenal for years to come. >If > > > you are an airport and say that "we are landlocked", this is not the >Airbus' > > > problem, it is the problem of the airport authority. > > > > > > Couples of arguments about diversions are not valid points as well. I >have > > > seen many times a BA or LH 747 diverting to RIC because of weather in >IAD. > > > Now, RIC is not able to handle 747s, but I haven't seen people crying to > > > Boeing and telling them stop making those 747s. :) > > > > > > Lastly people mentioned similar problems with 747s when they first came >out. > > > Go to LAX, SFO, JFK, IAD, ORD and watch those airports handle 747s as >easy > > > as 717s. > > > > > > BAHA > > > Fan of adopting to change > > > > >