The key word lies in the word "typical", which means "in general", "normally". Of course an 850 pax machine wouldn't be built for the long haul routes.
Correct. An 850 seater would be heavier than the "typical weight" due to all the seats on board. I have reweighed many aircraft and I am quite ofay with the terms.
WOW! It's four! I'm so overwhelmed...
That still doesn't give you the numbers needed to have the infrastructure built already. Just wait a few years, then every airport with a 10 000ft runway will also be able to accept an A380. To be A380-ready is a excellence-label for every airport.
I think the point TnB made is that as it stands now a huge majority of the B744 transits happen at only 50 airports. The B744 was previously the largest pax transport aircraft in operation and the A380 has now replaced it in many but not all roles.(theoretically)
Seems like the A380 is a typical wide body airbus.
Good for certain roles but not equivalent to the Boeing counterpart/redundant.
Why on eath would an airport authority spend all the money to up grade its run way and terminal facilities for little return in traffic.
In OZ Melbourne (MEL) widened the run way and put extra air bridges in to handle the BIG bus but it stands to gain only 14 transits a week for the near future.
The airport fees will bee horrendous if passed directly on to the operator.
So before any airport becomes "A380-ready" market forces will dictate first, not a strive for "excellence" which is virtuous but plays little part in todays business models.
DANI
As you now seem to be the resident A380 apologist I will bow out of this thread as it seems you are emotively involved.
rgds
Bolty