quote:Originally posted by flygirl: There isn't an airport in the world, as they stand today, able to handle this monster.
I heard a story on NPR about airports and the A380 a few months ago. The reporter talked to representives from a few major airports asking if they're prepared for the A380. As Class Bravo says, LAX is not, but they are working on it. The spokesman for SFO claimed they could handle one today, as did DFW. Story here.
quote:"If an airline called up tomorrow," says Capps, and said, 'Hey we're gonna fly an A380 to DFW airport,' we could land it right now, go out and get the double-decker jet bridge that we already have and put it out, and be ready to handle that aircraft. So great, bring it on."
-------------------- "Unseasonable is an odd word to begin with. It sounds like it's describing something that it's impossible to sprinkle pepper on." -- Nonny Posts: 5483 | From: Just south of Folsom Prison, CA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by flygirl: There isn't an airport in the world, as they stand today, able to handle this monster.
These photos show the A380 landing at Tullamarine Airport, Melbourne in November 2005.
This page (from January 2005) talks about 60 airports around the world making the necessary improvements.
QANTAS started service between Melbourne and LA in October of this year.
quote:Originally posted by flygirl: Not one US carrier has even shown interest in the 380.
quote:None of the financially strapped U.S. airlines has placed an order. U.S. transport companies FedEx and UPS have ordered cargo versions of the A380.
-------------------- "I always tell the truth. Even when I lie." - Tony Montana Posts: 890 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
I saw something that I thought was an A380 go over when I was walking in the Peak District near Manchester at the end of September. I'm not sure whether it can really have been - it seemed unlikely to me at the time.
Interestingly, though, later that afternoon an Antonov An-225 went over while I was sitting outside a pub. And I know that one was real because I got a photo... So perhaps there was an airshow featuring very large aircraft going on, or something.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This Airbus press release announces a "technical route proving exercise" for the A380, starting 13th November 2006. The aircraft will start at Toulouse and land at Singapore, Seoul, Hong Kong, Narita, Guangzhou, Beijing, Shanghai, Johannesburg, Sydney and Vancouver. All these ten commercial airports seem to be able to handle the aircraft. The tests performed at the airports will - among other procedures - cover bridge docking, cleaning and catering, refuelling and boarding procedures.
Richard W., what you saw may have been one of "(f)our (A380) aircraft, (that) are now actively involved in the intensive flight test programme, which has already reached over 730 flights and 2,300 flight hours."
Don Enrico
-------------------- My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling, but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. - Pooh Bear Posts: 2209 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Surely the A380 is only going to fly in and out of major airports. I read a report a couple of months ago about a test landing at London Heathrow and this seemed to go all right (at least I didn't hear of it crashing into a terminal building).
As regards terrorism, I know that London Stansted (my 'local' airport) is the one to be used if terrorists take over a plane, is that big enough to take an A380 if it is hijacked en route to London Heathrow? (Jumbos can land at London Stansted.)
-------------------- Andrew, Ware, England Posts: 1709 | From: Ware, England | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
It's more the terminals than the runways that would have to be upgraded to handle double-decker boarding and a larger plane, isn't it? I'd have thought the runways at any major airport would already be large enough to handle it. For an emergency landing they probably would just use the chutes to get everybody out.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every major aviation project is initially declared a failure. They cost more than expected, they are not completed at the planned deadline, there are problems not expected. In fact, that probably goes for most projects of this magnitude.
Still, most of them turn out OK in the end.
The A380 fills a need, and compared to the other costs involved, upgrading the airports is not that expensive. It's also important to remember that the airspace over major cities is becoming increasingly cramped, as is the runway availability. More passengers on each aircraft is the best way of handling these problems. If the choice is between upgrading airports or building new airports to handle more traffic, what do you think is the cheapest alternative?
As for the A380 being terrorist bait, take a look at how few 747s that has been hijacked. A large aircraft means more passengers which means more potential for problems for the hijackers. The hijackers are just as safe from attack with 100 hostages as they are with 500, and 100 is easier to control. You probably need to have something like 10-15 hijackers to have some measure of control over the passengers, and every additional hijacker you need to sneak aboard is a risk of detection.
Look at the wikipedia page on the A380 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A380 ). With 176 aircraft preordered, it will not be a failure. It will take them many years just to build those aircraft, and by then, more orders will arrive.
quote:Interestingly, though, later that afternoon an Antonov An-225 went over while I was sitting outside a pub. And I know that one was real because I got a photo...
Now, that's cool!
-------------------- /Troberg Posts: 4360 | From: Borlänge, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Richard W: I saw something that I thought was an A380 go over when I was walking in the Peak District near Manchester at the end of September. I'm not sure whether it can really have been - it seemed unlikely to me at the time.
Interestingly, though, later that afternoon an Antonov An-225 went over while I was sitting outside a pub. And I know that one was real because I got a photo... So perhaps there was an airshow featuring very large aircraft going on, or something.
Ohh how exciting! I note from the picture that the wheels are down... Which direction was it headed?
-------------------- "British English speakers point to Americans adding more syllables so that they can make even more noise without actually saying anything." Llewtrah
Posts: 2235 | From: Sussex , UK | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Approximately southeast, I think. The pub was The Railway in Marsden. (edit) I said this was the end of September, but in fact it was Sunday 1st October.
Yes, the wheels were out and it was quite low - I assumed it was on an approach to Manchester Airport, but it would have to have circled round a bit first (if you zoom out on the map a couple of times, you can see where I was in relation to the airport). I got a pretty decent view but by the time I'd thought of taking a picture and got my camera out of my bag, it was already heading off into the distance - because it was so huge, the photo still came out OK though!
(edited again) - Just thought to look on Airliners.net, and here's a picture of it in Manchester on Sunday 1st October, so I was right.
(another edit) I think I must have been wrong about the A380, though - at least, I can't see any picture of it on Airliners.net and I'm sure there would be one.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
DH was at an air show in England earlier this year (sometime over the summer), and the A380 took off and landed without problem. He said for it's size, it stopped very quickly.
-------------------- "England and America are two countries divided by a common language." - George Bernard Shaw Posts: 555 | From: Ireland | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
There's a paragraph about the A380 and Airbus's financial problems in this article. It also mentions that Boeing had similar difficulties on the launch of the 747.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: Every major aviation project is initially declared a failure. They cost more than expected, they are not completed at the planned deadline, there are problems not expected. In fact, that probably goes for most projects of this magnitude.
Yep. The Boeing Model 299 was declared "too much aircraft for two men to fly" after the crash of the prototype. It went on to be known as the B-17 Flying Fortress and one of the hardiest bombers to fly during WWII.
Posts: 296 | From: Crawfordville, Florida | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by flygirl: There isn't an airport in the world, as they stand today, able to handle this monster.
These photos show the A380 landing at Tullamarine Airport, Melbourne in November 2005.
This page (from January 2005) talks about 60 airports around the world making the necessary improvements.
QANTAS started service between Melbourne and LA in October of this year.
quote:Originally posted by flygirl: Not one US carrier has even shown interest in the 380.
quote:None of the financially strapped U.S. airlines has placed an order. U.S. transport companies FedEx and UPS have ordered cargo versions of the A380.
Yes, they can land and take off. I was referring to actually operating a commercial flight with passengers.Posts: 3 | From: Warren, MI | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Richard W: It's more the terminals than the runways that would have to be upgraded to handle double-decker boarding and a larger plane, isn't it? I'd have thought the runways at any major airport would already be large enough to handle it.
Not necessarily. Just because a runway is long enough and/or wide enough for an extremely large plane doesn't mean that it can handle the weight of that plane.
Posts: 918 | From: Southern CA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troberg: Look at the wikipedia page on the A380 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A380 ). With 176 aircraft preordered, it will not be a failure. It will take them many years just to build those aircraft, and by then, more orders will arrive.
I had no idea there were so many orders already.
I agree with your assessment of the terror risk. (It does make a nice, large target for missiles but so far there haven't been any and any large plane is just as much of a target.)
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by flygirl: Yes, they can land and take off. I was referring to actually operating a commercial flight with passengers.
According to the article I linked to in my previous post, it sounds like at least SFO is prepared for that.
quote:In December, 2000 SFO opened a terminal built to serve a new generation of super jumbo jets. It houses twenty-four gates. From the drawing board up, says Mike McCarron SFO's director of community affairs, designers were planning for the future.
According to McCarron, changes included creating enlarged waiting areas so more passengers can wait for planes, expanding baggage carousels to twice the normal size, and having two boarding bridges -- the bridges that take passengers from the terminal to the plane -- available at each gate.
I almost quoted that bit in my last post, but I liked the way the guy from DFW said "Bring it on."
-------------------- "Unseasonable is an odd word to begin with. It sounds like it's describing something that it's impossible to sprinkle pepper on." -- Nonny Posts: 5483 | From: Just south of Folsom Prison, CA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Richard W: It's more the terminals than the runways that would have to be upgraded to handle double-decker boarding and a larger plane, isn't it? I'd have thought the runways at any major airport would already be large enough to handle it. For an emergency landing they probably would just use the chutes to get everybody out.
This is what I was referring to. Sure it can take off and land, but operate a commercial flight with passengers? There isn't an airport yet that can do this.
Posts: 3 | From: Warren, MI | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by flygirl: This is what I was referring to. Sure it can take off and land, but operate a commercial flight with passengers? There isn't an airport yet that can do this.
Did you read the passage I just quoted about the new terminal at SFO, with larger waiting areas, baggage carousels twice the usual size, and double boarding bridges? Do you not believe it is adequate to handle an A380? If not, what improvements do they still need to make?
-------------------- "Unseasonable is an odd word to begin with. It sounds like it's describing something that it's impossible to sprinkle pepper on." -- Nonny Posts: 5483 | From: Just south of Folsom Prison, CA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by flygirl: This is what I was referring to. Sure it can take off and land, but operate a commercial flight with passengers? There isn't an airport yet that can do this.
Did you read the passage I just quoted about the new terminal at SFO, with larger waiting areas, baggage carousels twice the usual size, and double boarding bridges? Do you not believe it is adequate to handle an A380? If not, what improvements do they still need to make?
And, as I said earlier , the A380 is about to make a "technical route proving exercise" tour to 10 major commercial airports around the world, testing, among others, boarding procedures. After these tests, we will know whether or not the airports can handle it.
Don Enrico
-------------------- My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling, but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. - Pooh Bear Posts: 2209 | From: Hamburg, Germany | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
They're 2 years late, 2% over target weight, and now short one buyer...
-------------------- "My neighbor asked why anyone would need a car that can go 190 mph. If the answer isn't obvious, and explaination won't help." - Csabe Csere Posts: 1225 | From: Wichita, Kansas | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think on design alone the A380 could be sucessful but the snafu's at airbus have made the break even date for the plane something like 20 years away. The management at Airbus is at bigger fault than the design itself.
Personally I would not want to fly with 600+ people. Just imagine the waits if you only have one jetway. Or if you have an emergency! I think people go for frequency over capacity, passengers at least.
quote:Originally posted by CheseJRS: I think people go for frequency over capacity, passengers at least.
I don't understand- surely people take whichever flight is on at the time they want to leave? What does it matter if Virgin have 5 flights a day to New York- if they're at ridiculously early times, then everyone will want the single BA flight at 1pm.
Do you have any wine? All of this would go a lot smoother in an altered state of reality. Posts: 779 | From: Southampton, England | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Doesn't "frequency" imply that they're fairly evenly spaced throughout the day? You're right, if one carrier boasted of five flights a day but they were at 5.30am, 5.31am, 5.32am, 5.33am and 5.34am it would be a bit useless.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many people actually check what type of A/C they're flying on when they buy tickets?
quote:Or if you have an emergency!
The A380 is held to the same 90 second @ max capacity requirement every other a/c is (that's under test conditions, of course). It has 16 exit doors. The slide from the upper deck is supposed to be pretty sporty, tho. Depends on the configuration, too. A 3-class 550 passenger flight would be much easier to evac than a 850 single-class flight. (Japanese domestic flight 747's hold 565 or so)
-------------------- "My neighbor asked why anyone would need a car that can go 190 mph. If the answer isn't obvious, and explaination won't help." - Csabe Csere Posts: 1225 | From: Wichita, Kansas | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Delta-V: How many people actually check what type of A/C they're flying on when they buy tickets?
I take it you've never heard "if it's not Boeing, I'm not going."
I've heard that from people who don't work here, btw.
Seaboe
-------------------- Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Delta-V: How many people actually check what type of A/C they're flying on when they buy tickets?
I regularly check, and will examine the seating diagram when possible to help me choose a good seat.
Posts: 296 | From: Crawfordville, Florida | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CheseJRS: I think people go for frequency over capacity, passengers at least.
If given a choice, you're probably right. However, given the traffic at some of the busiest airports it may not be possible for airlines to simply add more flights. (I'm sure Class Bravo knows much more about this than I do).
quote:Originally posted by SeaboeMuffinchucker:
quote:Originally posted by Delta-V: How many people actually check what type of A/C they're flying on when they buy tickets?
I take it you've never heard "if it's not Boeing, I'm not going."
I once had a professor who refused to fly on Airbus planes. As a computer scientist, he didn't trust their "fly by wire" system.
I typically look at what type of A/C I'm flying on, but usually price and schedule are the deciding factors. I have to admit, though, one time when I was looking at flights in the back of my head I was thinking "Northwest will be retiring their DC-9s soon... this might be my last chance to fly on one."
-------------------- "Unseasonable is an odd word to begin with. It sounds like it's describing something that it's impossible to sprinkle pepper on." -- Nonny Posts: 5483 | From: Just south of Folsom Prison, CA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Griffin, you do realize that it's the airlines that determine how many seats go into the plane, don't you?
Airbus and Boeing will, within a certain range, put in the number of seats the airlines request.
Seaboe
-------------------- Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Delta-V: How many people actually check what type of A/C they're flying on when they buy tickets?
I take it you've never heard "if it's not Boeing, I'm not going."
Oh, I've heard it. I've also heard of engineers who keep a list of aircraft numbers not to fly on. I always check and try to avoid older aircraft (not for safety, but general cleanliness). In general, I rarely have a choice...departure time being the driving factor.
-------------------- "My neighbor asked why anyone would need a car that can go 190 mph. If the answer isn't obvious, and explaination won't help." - Csabe Csere Posts: 1225 | From: Wichita, Kansas | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeaboeMuffinchucker: I take it you've never heard "if it's not Boeing, I'm not going."
I was just thinking about something that reminded me of this -- once when I was looking at flights I noticed Northwest listed the aircraft type as a "Boeing-Douglas DC-9." At the time I guessed that it was a trademark thing -- that since McDonnell-Douglass merged with Boeing they were requiring airlines to mention their name along with the name of Douglass aircraft.
But then today I was thinking about this thread, and the whole "if it's not Boeing, I'm not going" thing, and was thinking maybe Northwest was mentioning Boeing because of the brand recognition . In other words, to influence people who only fly on Boeing aircraft, but don't know enough about aircraft to know that these DC-9s were manufactured by McDonnell-Douglass decades before the merger with Boeing.
-------------------- "Unseasonable is an odd word to begin with. It sounds like it's describing something that it's impossible to sprinkle pepper on." -- Nonny Posts: 5483 | From: Just south of Folsom Prison, CA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by WildaBeast: . . .once when I was looking at flights I noticed Northwest listed the aircraft type as a "Boeing-Douglas DC-9." At the time I guessed that it was a trademark thing -- that since McDonnell-Douglass merged with Boeing they were requiring airlines to mention their name along with the name of Douglass aircraft.
That is truly weird. So far as I'm aware, there is no such policy (mind you, I don't work for BCA, I'm SSG & Corporate).
Seaboe
-------------------- Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by WildaBeast: I was just thinking about something that reminded me of this -- once when I was looking at flights I noticed Northwest listed the aircraft type as a "Boeing-Douglas DC-9."
How long ago was this? Because I thought every DC-9 had been converted to an MD-80 long before the Boeing-McD-D merger.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GenYus: How long ago was this? Because I thought every DC-9 had been converted to an MD-80 long before the Boeing-McD-D merger.
Northwest actually still operates quite a few rather old DC-9s of 1970s and early 1980s vintage. According to Wikipedia they're in the process of phasing them out and negotiating to buy replacements for them, but for the time being they're still flying.
-------------------- "Unseasonable is an odd word to begin with. It sounds like it's describing something that it's impossible to sprinkle pepper on." -- Nonny Posts: 5483 | From: Just south of Folsom Prison, CA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
