Article

2005-02-11 Home Front: Economy

Airbus Jumbo Won't Be the Elephant in Boeing's Living Room

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-02-11 3:25:52 PM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2005-02-11 4:12:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-11 4:19:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-11 4:22:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-11 4:22:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-11 4:51:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Just another airplane. It's the cutting edge of 1980's technology.

Posted by Shipman 2005-02-11 6:09:00 PM|| 2005-02-11 6:09:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-11 11:02:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2005-02-11 11:06:46 PM|| Front Page Top

23:31 Sherry
23:20 Paul Moloney
23:17 trailing wife
23:14 trailing wife
23:12 trailing wife
23:12 gromky
23:11 Atomic Conspiracy
23:10 Barbara Skolaut
23:09 trailing wife
23:06 gromky
23:02 Bomb-a-rama
23:02 Infidel Bob
23:02 trailing wife
22:58 trailing wife
22:58 gromky
22:51 trailing wife
22:50 JosephMendiola
22:50 trailing wife
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:45 gromky
22:42 Darth VAda
22:42 Alaska Paul
22:28 JosephMendiola
22:28 Robert Crawford