You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Economy
Airbus Jumbo Won't Be the Elephant in Boeing's Living Room
2005-02-11
EFL: It's one thing to build a really, really big airplane. It's quite another to find a place for it to land.
snicker, I love it when a plan comes together
U.S. airports from Seattle to Atlanta say accommodating Airbus SAS's new superjumbo A380 in anything other than an emergency would require major construction. Runways would need widening and terminals would need upgrades to load and unload the double-decker plane easily. Even with those improvements, airports might need to curtail other airport traffic to let the big jet lumber through the airfield. And some officials worry the weight of the A380 would collapse tunnels and buckle overpasses. What's more, some airport officials say they just aren't seeing the demand for the A380 that would warrant such cost and inconvenience. "Let's do a cost/benefit analysis: Are you really going to spend millions of dollars (when) you might have two of them a day fly in?" said aviation analyst Mike Boyd.

Stretching about three-quarters of the length of a football field, the A380 isn't much longer than Boeing Co.'s latest version of the 747, the largest commercial airplane in the skies until the A380 enters service next year. But the A380's 261-foot wingspan is 50 feet wider than the 747, broader than many runways and taxiways were built to accommodate. The airplane also weighs in at a maximum of 1.2 million pounds, 30 percent more than the biggest 747. The Federal Aviation Administration says just four U.S. airports - John F. Kennedy in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Miami - are formally working with regulators on plans to accept the new plane for passengers. Another two - Anchorage and Memphis - are working with the FAA to take the cargo version. Airbus says it also has talked with many other U.S. airports and anticipates several more will be able to land the plane on a regular basis by 2011. Worldwide, the company also says plenty of airports will see the A380 in the next five years, but it's unclear how many of those airports will be ready by 2006.

Outside the United States, those that are making preparations include London's Heathrow - which is spending more than $800 million on renovations - Charles de Gaulle in Paris, Changi Airport in Singapore and Australia's Sydney Airport. Dan Cohen-Nir, an Airbus North America program manager, said the company is initially targeting the world's busiest airports, major hubs that are most likely to need a plane designed to carry around 555 passengers on long international routes. Still, Boyd and other analysts say the scant interest among U.S. airports could be trouble for Toulouse, France-based Airbus, which has 139 firm orders for the A380 so far.
Of course, they still have to build one and prove it can fly.
Posted by:Steve

#8  These all sound like problems that the 747 had when it was new.

The A380 will only be used on long-distance flights between major international hubs, anyway.
Posted by: gromky   2005-02-11 11:06:46 PM  

#7  And Los Angeles International Airport plans to spend $53 million on airport-wide improvements, including $2.25 million to make sure underground structures don't buckle under the A380's weight.

They better. I'd hate to be driving down Sepulveda Blvd. if an A380 rolling over it fell through.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-02-11 11:02:51 PM  

#6  Just another airplane. It's the cutting edge of 1980's technology.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-02-11 6:09:00 PM  

#5  SteveS touched on it. Not just one, but several of these puppies [each operated by different airlines] will overload the ability of an airport to receive, park, process, screen, load/unload the number of passengers and their luggage. Unless, the airlines are going to pay themselves for the infrastructure upgrades, this is a no go from the start.
Posted by: Ebbavith Gleack2775   2005-02-11 4:51:36 PM  

#4  Another two - Anchorage and Memphis - are working with the FAA to take the cargo version.

Yeah, they can just park on the ramp off Runway 6R at Anchorage. There will be no room for the other freighters, but that will be OK.

It sounds to me that Airbus pulled this GRAND IDEA out of their collective asses so they could claim to make the biggest airplane. What they forgot or rather felt not necessary to do was to work closely with the world's airports on how to make it work. The other thing is that a plane with 800 people on it is a HUGE liability if it goes down. Heathrow airport is putting out almost a billion dollars for improvements for this elephant because the Brits are part of Airbus.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2005-02-11 4:22:52 PM  

#3  555 passengers? How long does it take to load and unload that many people? Bit of an issue in an emergency, eh? Maybe the top flips up for easy access.
Posted by: SteveS   2005-02-11 4:22:40 PM  

#2  Didne Boeing at one time have plans for a super-jumbo? It was shelved...
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-02-11 4:19:43 PM  

#1  McCarron's phasing out by 2026.

They're building a new one, cargo only at this time.

As to ORD, do I really want that thing flying over my home?

Peotone could handle cargo.

I can understand coastal airports, but internal???

Atlanta sez will cost the $20 mill to upgrade and they might not do it.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2005-02-11 4:12:25 PM  

00:00