ATL refuses to accomodate A380
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allright, I guess I know of two pilots now that would choose the Bus over the others.
I don't get where this inferiority complex comes come; I would have to have some latent feelings of being inferior in some way, wouldn't I? Prior to you pointing out that there are a couple of Pro-Bus people on this forum, I have never met one pilot out of hundreds that has flown both and preferred the Bus. What can I say?
Heavy metal does not = Heavy composite
Respectfully,
MN
I don't get where this inferiority complex comes come; I would have to have some latent feelings of being inferior in some way, wouldn't I? Prior to you pointing out that there are a couple of Pro-Bus people on this forum, I have never met one pilot out of hundreds that has flown both and preferred the Bus. What can I say?
Heavy metal does not = Heavy composite
Respectfully,
MN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not too keen on "Uncle George" liberating Alberta, but I have no problem if he wants to liberate Quebec from the influential "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys".
As far as "The A380 and The U.S." debate goes...
A large portion of the A380 is built in the U.S. by aerospace engineering firms- Good news for the U.S. aviation industry.
Most of the routes the A380 will fly will be to the U.S. dropping of pax in large U.S. cities- Good news for the U.S. local economies.
A lot of those arriving pax and freight will need onward connections throughout the U.S./Canada/Carrib/Latin America- Good news for the U.S. domestic carriers and freight companies.
Look at what the 74' did for airport development. This is just the next chapter. Gentlemen, the glass is always half full, never half empty. N'est pas?
Oh and Managed NAV, for your info the A345 has a higher MTOW than the 747-100, now you aren't calling the 'Classic' a lightweight are ya?
As far as "The A380 and The U.S." debate goes...
A large portion of the A380 is built in the U.S. by aerospace engineering firms- Good news for the U.S. aviation industry.
Most of the routes the A380 will fly will be to the U.S. dropping of pax in large U.S. cities- Good news for the U.S. local economies.
A lot of those arriving pax and freight will need onward connections throughout the U.S./Canada/Carrib/Latin America- Good news for the U.S. domestic carriers and freight companies.
Look at what the 74' did for airport development. This is just the next chapter. Gentlemen, the glass is always half full, never half empty. N'est pas?
Oh and Managed NAV, for your info the A345 has a higher MTOW than the 747-100, now you aren't calling the 'Classic' a lightweight are ya?
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My dear Panda - after five or so years of visiting this fine forum, I have determined this: the reason folks deride us "Cousins" is that a few of us are good targets.
You've travelled enough over here to know the vast majority of us are different.
I was at Epcot last month and saw an American father taking a picture of his three kids in the "France" section - he told them to hold their noses. But then again, thousands of other Americans there did not. 'Tis a brave new world.....
You've travelled enough over here to know the vast majority of us are different.
I was at Epcot last month and saw an American father taking a picture of his three kids in the "France" section - he told them to hold their noses. But then again, thousands of other Americans there did not. 'Tis a brave new world.....
Bear Behind
Huck, I couldn't agree more. Certain of your countrymen on here lay themselves open to it. But much as I deride Grandpa for his anti-Americanism and pro-European standpoint, I have to put the shoe on the other foot and defend the Europeans from the Americans from time to time.
I love the States, I love the people, but at the moment I despair of the politics - and that goes for my own home nation too.
And I meant "Cousin" in the most endearing way - I hope it didn't come across as sarcasm. The U.S. is inextricably linked to the U.K. in just about every way as far as I'm concerned, hence my affinity. I just thoguht ManagedNav's comments were crass and uncalled for. Certain of that applies to some of Wino's posts as well.
Like I said, my tourist Dollars are almost exclusively spent in your fine country, but my business Euros are spent on this side of the pond.
As Pontious said, about 50% of the A380 airframe is bad for the U.S. Every other single thing is pretty much good (except for the oil companies, I suppose, but then we all just love them so much, don't we?)
I love the States, I love the people, but at the moment I despair of the politics - and that goes for my own home nation too.
And I meant "Cousin" in the most endearing way - I hope it didn't come across as sarcasm. The U.S. is inextricably linked to the U.K. in just about every way as far as I'm concerned, hence my affinity. I just thoguht ManagedNav's comments were crass and uncalled for. Certain of that applies to some of Wino's posts as well.
Like I said, my tourist Dollars are almost exclusively spent in your fine country, but my business Euros are spent on this side of the pond.
As Pontious said, about 50% of the A380 airframe is bad for the U.S. Every other single thing is pretty much good (except for the oil companies, I suppose, but then we all just love them so much, don't we?)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very short-sighted CEO of ATL if he doesnt see market for the A380, whats wrong is he a majority share holder in Boeing or something? Another stupid point is why should US tax dollars be used to upgrade, as opposed to operators. Well surely the operators do invest in the airport, but if like any other business, an airport wants airlines to use it then it needs to offer them something in return.
This smacks of US vs Europe or Airbus vs boeing, look at Delta's fleet....................
This smacks of US vs Europe or Airbus vs boeing, look at Delta's fleet....................
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No its a different way of doing business.
The Eurpoean model is much more socialist. And I reject that socialism completely.
The proper model for A380 integration is the FEDEX/MEMPHIS model were FEDEX the corporation (the operator) is industriously pouring concrete, rearranging its facilities, and generally prepping its operations for the arrival of the 380 at THEIR OWN EXPENSE.
If the aircraft is that efficient, then these one time costs will be but a triffling and the 380 prosper.
I am sure that UPS will shortly embark on a similar program.
It is NOT government's responsibility to do all of this in yet another huge corporate welfare move.
Cheers
Wino
The Eurpoean model is much more socialist. And I reject that socialism completely.
The proper model for A380 integration is the FEDEX/MEMPHIS model were FEDEX the corporation (the operator) is industriously pouring concrete, rearranging its facilities, and generally prepping its operations for the arrival of the 380 at THEIR OWN EXPENSE.
If the aircraft is that efficient, then these one time costs will be but a triffling and the 380 prosper.
I am sure that UPS will shortly embark on a similar program.
It is NOT government's responsibility to do all of this in yet another huge corporate welfare move.
Cheers
Wino
Bear Behind
Couldn't agree more. So let United and USAirways go under. Don't let them have anything from the stabilisation board. And take back all of the money doled out to the other U.S. carriers to prop them up , with interest at commercial rates, so that they fall off, too. Survival of the fittest - Southwest and Jetblue.
Or is that different?
Or is that different?
Plaything of fine moderators everywhere
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: On the beach
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is NOT government's responsibility to do all of this in yet another huge corporate welfare move.
So we dont have subsidies in europe,except of course the millions
pumped into air france, alitalia etc. The only idiots to play the level playing field are the poms (brits to the us). The french are adept at backhanders to favour their industries.
Has virgin firmed up on its 380 orders or deferred them due to lack of somewhere to go with them?
pumped into air france, alitalia etc. The only idiots to play the level playing field are the poms (brits to the us). The french are adept at backhanders to favour their industries.
Has virgin firmed up on its 380 orders or deferred them due to lack of somewhere to go with them?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Panda.....I am sorry if I came across as crass; Just not going lay down when someone calls me a troll....
Truce.....
"Couldn't agree more. So let United and USAirways go under. Don't let them have anything from the stabilisation board. And take back all of the money doled out to the other U.S. carriers to prop them up , with interest at commercial rates, so that they fall off, too. Survival of the fittest - Southwest and Jetblue."
Now back to the debate in a civilized manner.....
In many ways there may be an argument for saying enough is enough with respect to USA and UAL. Their ability to operate at considerably less expense than other non-bankrupt carriers is putting alot of downward pressure on the other airlines and may very well drag them into bankruptcy as well.
That money was doled out with the intent of softening the blow of 9/11; NOT to subsidize failing management practices.
Although a morbid thought, there are many employees at other airlines that secretly wish for an end to the madness because it is directly impacting our ability to survive.
Truce.....
"Couldn't agree more. So let United and USAirways go under. Don't let them have anything from the stabilisation board. And take back all of the money doled out to the other U.S. carriers to prop them up , with interest at commercial rates, so that they fall off, too. Survival of the fittest - Southwest and Jetblue."
Now back to the debate in a civilized manner.....
In many ways there may be an argument for saying enough is enough with respect to USA and UAL. Their ability to operate at considerably less expense than other non-bankrupt carriers is putting alot of downward pressure on the other airlines and may very well drag them into bankruptcy as well.
That money was doled out with the intent of softening the blow of 9/11; NOT to subsidize failing management practices.
Although a morbid thought, there are many employees at other airlines that secretly wish for an end to the madness because it is directly impacting our ability to survive.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: By the Sea
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more. So let United and USAirways go under. Don't let them have anything from the stabilisation board. And take back all of the money doled out to the other U.S. carriers to prop them up , with interest at commercial rates, so that they fall off, too. Survival of the fittest - Southwest and Jetblue.
And while you may or may not think US bankruptcy laws provide unfair protection, keep in mind that no taxpayer money is involved. In the US, bankruptcy is an agreement between a debtor and its creditors, facilitated by the court. Again, I can see why you think it's unfair to compete against an airline in bankruptcy, but it's the creditor's money that is being burned, and the majority of the creditors agree to let it happen.
I'm trying to learn, so I'll ask: why has not the EU countries enacted a similar scheme? I see how it is unfair to the competitors of a bankrupt company, but then again those same competitors may wish the protection was available to them at some point in the future.
--ev--
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggles,
Sorry I missed your earlier post.
However, someone else just answered it quite well, and of course I will counter with ALitalia and Olympic (not to mention AirFrance and BA, though not quite as recently) that got DIRECT injections of taxpayer dollars. SO a lot more cash is going out on the otherside of the pond then on the US side. How about you get your own house in order before criticizing ours?
The only two airlines that got loans from the Gov't were USAir and America West. And in my opinion it never should have been granted, but those were just guarantees.
The other grants that were given out sept.11 were done equally to all USA based airlines that were forbidden from carrying out their trade by Government action. VERY different, and the money was granted on an equal basis (relating to size). Consider that more of a tax rebate, rather than chosing one over the other.
So since you charged it biggles, why don't you list EXACTLY where billions have been poured into proping up "grossly inefficent" US majors. And then btw, why don't we compare seat mile costs with your airline and see which airline is REALLY inefficient...
Cheers
Wino
Sorry I missed your earlier post.
However, someone else just answered it quite well, and of course I will counter with ALitalia and Olympic (not to mention AirFrance and BA, though not quite as recently) that got DIRECT injections of taxpayer dollars. SO a lot more cash is going out on the otherside of the pond then on the US side. How about you get your own house in order before criticizing ours?
The only two airlines that got loans from the Gov't were USAir and America West. And in my opinion it never should have been granted, but those were just guarantees.
The other grants that were given out sept.11 were done equally to all USA based airlines that were forbidden from carrying out their trade by Government action. VERY different, and the money was granted on an equal basis (relating to size). Consider that more of a tax rebate, rather than chosing one over the other.
So since you charged it biggles, why don't you list EXACTLY where billions have been poured into proping up "grossly inefficent" US majors. And then btw, why don't we compare seat mile costs with your airline and see which airline is REALLY inefficient...
Cheers
Wino
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone is still reading... one ATL customer who might be peeved is SAA. They are seriously looking at A380 if oil price permits (and have said so on the record).
As for any airport that doesn't want to spend for the 380... let them off! The market will compensate. If the 747Adv requires 80x80m stands etc. what then? No we don't want to build coz the frogs would be able to put a 380 on stand?
If UVF (St. Lucia) can accommodate a 744 I'm sure a lot of one horse airports will sort a 380!
As for any airport that doesn't want to spend for the 380... let them off! The market will compensate. If the 747Adv requires 80x80m stands etc. what then? No we don't want to build coz the frogs would be able to put a 380 on stand?
If UVF (St. Lucia) can accommodate a 744 I'm sure a lot of one horse airports will sort a 380!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that the money was handed out equally, Wino doesn't make it fair. The point is if any European govt had handed it out you would no doubt be describing it as an unfair subsidy. As for the handouts to Air France, Alitalia etc, I couldn't agree more (although not sure why you include BA). It is unfair and it annoys us too -but no more unfair than "Fly America" or the Federal Security Dollars Handout.
If, say, BA was in the same position as any of your Chapter 11 carriers it would be bust -lock the doors, impound the aircraft, sack the staff..yet the US carriers are still competing with a big advantage. Unfair, although I'm not sure it will prove to your long term advantage. Anyway at least we're getting towards the true reasons for these anti-A380 posts.
If, say, BA was in the same position as any of your Chapter 11 carriers it would be bust -lock the doors, impound the aircraft, sack the staff..yet the US carriers are still competing with a big advantage. Unfair, although I'm not sure it will prove to your long term advantage. Anyway at least we're getting towards the true reasons for these anti-A380 posts.
If anyone is still reading... one ATL customer who might be peeved is SAA. They are seriously looking at A380 if oil price permits (and have said so on the record).
Atlanta is not one of their largest points. They just DOWNGRADED their daily operation there, from B744 to A346.
Bear Behind
Was it a downgrade? Was the 744 going full or was it payload limited? If the A346 is going out at max pax plus a few tonnes of cargo it might actually be an upgrade (from SAA's point of view).
Wino,
We all know what was intended but given the mess that the airlines were actually in pre-Spet 11th, and given that the unfortunate events served as an excuse to enter Ch.11 for some of those operators, is that what actually happened? The fact remains, taxpayers money was made available in one form or another to those operators. And screaming "well you did it" doesn't really hold water, does it?
Wino,
We all know what was intended but given the mess that the airlines were actually in pre-Spet 11th, and given that the unfortunate events served as an excuse to enter Ch.11 for some of those operators, is that what actually happened? The fact remains, taxpayers money was made available in one form or another to those operators. And screaming "well you did it" doesn't really hold water, does it?
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino
Why did you include BA in your swipe at the 'subsidised' European majors? Sheer ignorance or just getting carried away with that tar-covered brush again?
The A380 is coming and it's going to be around for a long,long time- the U.S. needs to get its' head around the concept and get their gateways prepared otherwise they will lose out. The more you see the crassness of some of the thread contributions from the army of 'Ludites', the more apparent it becomes that the 'anti-A380' vommitted from the U.S. is nothing more than gross protectionism. Like I stated on earlier threads... Concorde all over again.
When the first 'Clipper' 747 arrived at LHR on its inaugural service, the world marvelled. The world is marvelling again at the A380 phenomenon apart from the bit that's throwing its teddies out of the cot whilst crying "...We didnt build it so we dont want it!!..."
A truly sorry attitude to possess.
Why did you include BA in your swipe at the 'subsidised' European majors? Sheer ignorance or just getting carried away with that tar-covered brush again?
The A380 is coming and it's going to be around for a long,long time- the U.S. needs to get its' head around the concept and get their gateways prepared otherwise they will lose out. The more you see the crassness of some of the thread contributions from the army of 'Ludites', the more apparent it becomes that the 'anti-A380' vommitted from the U.S. is nothing more than gross protectionism. Like I stated on earlier threads... Concorde all over again.
When the first 'Clipper' 747 arrived at LHR on its inaugural service, the world marvelled. The world is marvelling again at the A380 phenomenon apart from the bit that's throwing its teddies out of the cot whilst crying "...We didnt build it so we dont want it!!..."
A truly sorry attitude to possess.