ATL refuses to accomodate A380
 

Hi,
this was posted on a German news page today:

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,339687,00.html

The article is in German. It basically says that Atlanta Hartsfield Airport (ATL) is not going to make architectural changes to serve Airbus' new mega-jet A380. The CEO of ATL believes that there is no market for the A380.

Does anybody know any more details? Do you think that this is a wise decision for ATL? Opinions or comments?
Thank you!

I thought United Parcel Service, who have a large hub in Atlanta, had just ordered 10 A380 a/c?

Doesn't suprise me - ATL is pretty much Delta owned and operated - and Delta has no plans for the plane (any new planes!!). Hard to see who else would have the traffic volume into ATL to justify the 380 so why spend a lot of money on it.
Delta runs 4-5 flights a night to Gatwick but they are spread out over 6 hours and that works well for their feed from Domestic travel.
UPS hub is Louisville - don't know if they run all their international through there though. I's duspect they build their own ground acilities so they will build what they need where they need it.

It was also reported by AP, here is an english language copy I found via google.

I think the title of this thread is misleading. ATL did not 'refuse' the A380, they said that right now the cost of upgrading the airport is not justified. Let's not get too excited by such a thing, it's not like the A380 will be visiting every airport in the world. Yes. I know ATL is an extremely busy airport, but it is mostly domestic and Caribbean flying that is done there.

If you want to read an article that shows the Americans are ready for the A380, you can read this article instead.

Primarily a domestic airport?
 

ElectroVlasic wrote: I know ATL is an extremely busy airport, but it is mostly domestic and Caribbean flying that is done there.

I am a rare visitor to ATL. However, here is a list of international destinations served nonstop from ATL:

Amsterdam
Aruba
Bermuda
Bogota
Brussels
Cancun
Caracas
Dublin
Frankfurt
Grand Bahama Island
Grand Cayman
Guadalajara
Guatemala City
Liberia (Costa Rica)
Lima
London
Madrid
Manchester
Mesico City
Milan
Montego Bay
Monterrey
Montreal
Munich
Nassau
Ottawa
Panama City
Providenciales
Rome
St Lucia
St Maarten
San Jose
San Salvador
Santiago (Chile, not D. R.)
Sao Paulo
Seoul
Shannon
Stuttgart
Tokyo
Toronto
Zurich

Interesting question of why US tax dollars should be used to make the airport ready. It seams to me that is should be the operator's dollars.

Would the world really come to an end if airports didn't spend hundreds of million of tax payer dollars for this aircraft?

I remember the manufacturers paying to strengthen the piers at La Guardia to accomodate certain larger aircraft than the airport was orginally designed for. That seams far more appropriate to me.



Cheers
Wino

Not really tax dollars as much as user fees that the airlines pay for landing etc. Untill someone says they want it makes no sense for ATL to spend the money. Most ATL traffic is domestic and there are no real high volume long haul destinations.

Be interesting to see if Orlando is on anybodies A380 list - they certainly generate the international tourist traffic.
Really depends on the airport opeartor and how they see their market.

VS are planning to use the A380 to Orlando.

The same article which I cited earlier mentioned that SFO and JFK are going to serve the A380. SFO has actually completed all modifications already.
Wino, tax dollars are not required to pay for airport modifications. Airports are mostly independent businesses who make their own money, as mentioned, through landing fees, etc. Whether airlines operating the A380 should be required to pay for necessary airport modifications is a matter of negotiation between individual airports and airlines. Bare in mind that larger airplanes will probably create higher landing fee revenues and also bring more customers (passengers) to airport businesses (stores, restaurants). Therefore airports will probably have some economic interest in accomodating such giant planes.
In my opinion, it should also be a matter of pride for such a large airport to be able to serve the largest planes! I thought "pride" was a great issue in the US, isn't it...?

Wino,
When the 707 needed longer runways than the aircraft that went before, who paid for the extensions? Why, the airport owners did - and they made loads of money by attracting the big new plane.
When the 747 needed new ground infrastucture, who paid for the piers and bigger lounges? Why the airport owners did - and made loads of money...
I'm amazed you say that Tax dollars will be used. I thought everthing in the USA was paid for by the owners - who will make loads of money by attracting the big new plane!

Sorry, but Airports in the United states are not independant for profit organizations.

With very few exceptions they are government owned and dollars spent on them come out of government coffers. While they do charge landing fees and pax fees and what not, expenses are paid out of government dollars as well.

There was a VERY good reason for expanding runways in earlier times, or have we forgotten that all the military aricraft of the world needed a longer runway as well, and the more runways, the more options in times of war. Those justifications are VERY hard to make in the case of the 380...

WHile I view it with extreme distaste on how much airport money is diverted into the cities, the fact remains that its a function of the government. Done by Government, WITH government money... And that includes the only new airport in the last 15 years (Denver)

Infact the only privately owned airport (Its really leased to BAA but its the same thing) is Stewart Newburg, and its been a flop all the way around.



Cheers
Wino

From an American point of view, I certainly have mixed emotions about our government making it easier for Airbus to win over Boeing again.

Hopefully the lack of interest in the 380 is a subtle hint to Airbus and foreign carriers that we don't intend to subsidize the failure of Boeing or the loss of piloting jobs via cabotage.

By the way, I think it is Fedex that put in an order, not UPS. They can upgrade their own facilities to accomodate the 380. All they need is a real tall K-Loader and a long rope for the crew to ascend/descend to and from the cockpit!

I think the US pax carriers would be smart to go with the 7E7 instead and pressure the airports to not make any special arrangements for the 380 so as not to jeapordize their international load factors.

ManagedNav, is the A380 really the death knell for Boeing? Or is it the challenge they need to bring out another inspired design to compete with it? Would the B777 be as great an aircraft without the competition of the A330/340? For that matter, would the A320 be as good without the 737 to show the way for narrowbody excellence?

Many parts of the 380 are built in the US. Engines and brake assemblies come to mind, and I'm sure quite a lot of avionics as well. These all create jobs in the US.

Don't let wounded pride get in the way of clear thinking. This plane with the new capacity and technology it brings to the market is PROGRESS, even though it is built in Europe.

Wasn't it Delta that committed a few years ago to only purchasing Boeing jets for the next 20 years? That must look like a pretty stupid decision with hindsight. Wow, they will have all of ONE aircraft to choose from in the future!

Protectionism and wounded pride at their most comical.

Che

HEY There are various of you asking why you (America) should use Tax dollars to expandairports, and anyway, why should the operators not pay for it all.
Well when the 707 and later the 747 started operating, it was Heathrow and the like that expanded to take the aircraft.
Secondly American Operators may well operate the 380. Btrit operators flew the 747 in various marques happily.
I hesitate to mention the Queen of the Skies - but can't resist Concorde. The amount of resistance form various US pressure groups to stop this aircraft flying commercially smacked and smelt of vintage sour grapes.
Could this be another campaign coming up to try and retard entry of service into the USA of those nasty Europeans. The level playing field, yet again, seems to be jacking up to a 45 degree slope again.
Try and put yourselves in Industry Brit shoes and see how it looks to us. Entente Codiale my friends.

Over 80% of B747 operations in the US are from airports which do not meet the full US generic design standard for the type, known as ‘Group V’, and therefore have been granted waivers.

US Federal Aviation Agency Advisory Circular (FAA AC) 150/5300, classes aircraft in Groups I to VI.

The actual facts are the US airports have been taking the fees, but have not been providing the US FAA required facilities for larger aircraft.


:rolleyes:

None, how many of those warrant a 747 sized aircraft now, and will warrant an A380 in the near future?

Anyhow, it does seem like a touchy subject to many. In any case, I'm sure the A380 will be supported where it makes commercial sense, and in the US this means spending money from user fees and from the Aviation Trust Fund.

--ev--

I'm not sure how it breaks out but a lot of the rebuild of JFK was semi privately financed. User and PATH bonds - have paid for the last round of terminals including the new jet blue terminal. The bonds are paid by airport fees - rents etc - Note JFK is on the 380 compatible list.

That aside - I doubt there is a big demand for the 380 types here - certainly not on domestic and very few international routes have the loads. Where there are the loads the airlines and the passengers prefer the frequency.

If it serves American passengers and companies to make the airport A 380 ready I don't see why not. After all - the only scheduled Concorde routes were to the USA.

Taildragger:

"Entende Cordiale" is an agreement of freindship between the British and the French. We Americans, even though we value our freindship with the British, couldn't give a flying ***t about the French.

What does being an "industry Brit" have to do with it?

ManagedNav

UPS have also ordered 10 x A380, see here.