David, I respect what you are saying and you have valid points to consider. One correction though: I do like the aircraft's appearance but then again I like most everything that flies. However, I still feel that Airbus should have taken airport constraints into consideration, especially with the modification cost figures on the site that Al provided from the FAA document written in the late 90's. I think it was foolish on the part of their decision makers to expect that some US airports would spend millions of dollars to accommodate 1 or 2 or even 5 A380 flights a day, and even after spending that much they would have operational restrictions on what could takeoff, land or taxi near the A380. Your point of designing an aircraft to meet future needs of travel worldwide is valid but in this country people are more concerned with frequency than flying on a huge airliner that takes forever to load and unload. Your example of Austalia's airports giving full cooperation in making modifications is no doubt influenced by the Qantas purchase. As someone else said, if United, American, Continental, etc. were buying scads of them I'm sure US airports would be more enthused about making the necessary modifications if they can. Fortunately, MIA will be able to handle the A380 with some modifications and restrictions. There are a couple of A380 capable gates designed on the new Concourse J which is under construction for the Star Alliance carriers. Jose Prize In a message dated 3/11/2004 11:54:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, thedarkstar2@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: 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