A380 - UK/USA nervous ??

[Phibes]

I read an article that said that UK/USA airport operators might be reluctant to invest the money needed for jetways, TWY changes etc. for A380 - NLA's - even though it will reduce congestion & make money. The article never said why in the UK/USA would be reluctant, more than enywhere else, and it intriques me. Any ideas ? I though the World and his dog wants the A380, despite the cost :8

[TheOddOne]

LHR have invested heavily in infrastructure for the A380; runways, taxiways and new stands.

At LGW, we started taxiway re-alignment a few years ago (hence the strange wiggles as you taxi down Juliet). This summer, we're widening the runway shoulders and other works will follow, probably in the next financial year.

So, I'd say we're making appropriate investment ahead of time. My understanding is that jetties/airbridges are still a bit problematical - I've yet to see a definitive design. One concept is for a 'double-decker' bridge; another is 2 separate jetties, one for each level. If anyone has some more info, please let's see it.

Cheers,
TOO

[Phibes]

Thanks for that - I suppose money is a big factor but presumably you 'have to speculate to accumulate ', so, design problems aside I still don't see why the UK/USA would have a problem that the rest of the Worlds does not - weird...perhaps it is to do with the Trans-Atlantic angle. Or maybe the fact the the A380, is only just inside ICAO Annex 16 ch 4 regs (WEF 2006), or the noise of it (apparently is is quieter on tkoff, but not landing)...I'm fishing here - so any thoughts wd be welcome.

[Rainboe]

The main terminals are already spending a fortune. As the operations develop, I think you will find that other airports that MAY be in the running for operating it will suddenly reveal that they are almost ready for it. Certainly a few brownie points if LAX was ready before JFK. Maybe HKG, BKK, SYD would all like the kudos of being early terminals for it?
It's all happened before. The B747 was initially shunned and laughed at. Suddenly, everyone wanted them. It will be the same again! It's like getting the very first phone. Other people don't really want to invest in one because there's only you on the other end. But when there starts getting a few of them, people don't want to be left out. Then suddenly you have to wait 6 months for one!

[av8boy]

An Aviation Week article last month suggested that it was those airports which already have large numbers of 747 transiting that will be among the first to prepare for the 380. AWST seems to imply that, given the low number of 747-400s flown by US carriers, such an approach is probably not unreasonable. LAX and JFK are looking like the first ones. They cite an Airbus analysis which says LAX handles 100 74 flights per day, while JFK has 75 and SFO 51...

Dave

[Phibes]

So, am I right in thinking the the B747 (and therefore the a380) will be less popular for domestic use in the USA ?

Surely the US is big enough ? Bet you are right that a number of airports will 'declare' their interest closer to the time. Apparently the GAO (General Account office) of the US Govt. sent out a survey a few years ago, and from it, reckoned that about 3/4 are ready now (KJFK/KDEN and errr..) 14/15 airports will be if not ready, then close to it by 2010, with another 5/6 to be ready later. It seems very much like a chicken and egg situation tho'. The airlines waitng to see if the airports are ready, and the airports waiting to see if the airlines are buying A380's, and the ICAO's and FAA's dithering about standards for the superjumbo (tho' they have a new CFR CAT 10 standard, and DG VI (USA)....what will Boeing come up with...B747 seems to be yesterday's man.

BA not committed to buying A380's, I think they will try and squeeze a good price out of them later....they (BA) have a young fleet

[Omark44]

Whilst Airbus may have hoped that the A380 would replace the B747 airframe for airframe and sell over 1000 the truth is somewhat different!
Certain airlines desperately want the A380 to fill a very small niche market that they have, these airlines are not going to turn round to Airbus and say, "We love your aircraft but won't be buying it because it won't break even", they will say, "If you are game enough to build it, bring it on!"
Given budget over runs already decalared Airbus need to sell close to 500 to break even and the market simply isn't there. The B777/787 family and Airbus similar types are going to be the backbone of long haul flying, airports are far more interested in expanding to meet this need than they are of meeting the half dozen aircraft a day of the A380 variety.
The suggestion that once one airline has them they will all want them is simply not valid. As already mentioned, the A380 will fill a small niche market admirably. Boeing realised this when they cancelled their plans for a VLA.

[Sheep Guts]

Well upgrades of Airports in the US are definitely needed in LAX and JFK to name a few. LAX is way too small now and is too tight allready for alot of the ops in and out of there. Very squeezy at the international GATES, with 747s let alone the new A380.


Sheep

[PAXboy]

It sounds as if the origins of the original 'article' are suspect. Don't forget that all major companies these days must work to place stories into the media. They may do so to generate positive or negative results.

This approach is now used by most govts. They 'leak' stories to the press about a certain approach/idea/brain storm and wait to see the reaction. It is called test marketing.

I suggest that someone wants to frighten folks into thinking that airports will not be ready for the big bus OR to frighten the airports into doing something. Quite apart from the fact that many fields are tight on investment funds and want to be darn sure that the carriers are going to use them. If you had the prospect of, say, two A380s a day, would you start building right away? Probably not.

[seacue]

There is essentially no domestic USA service using the 747 (Hawaii excepted). Thus it would seem highly unlikely that one would see the A380 used domestically in USA.

We now see quite a bit of non-stop coast-to-coast service using A320-family and 737NG aircraft. They are attractive to certain passengers since:
1) greater frequency means more convenient departure times, and
2) service is practical between lesser cities.

Perhaps the "less congestion" promised by the A380 may not be 100% true. Surely it can get lots of people from point A to point B with one departure. It will be very efficient if there is mostly O&D traffic at both places.

But what if many pax didn't start their journey at point A and need to go beyond point B. That could mean a swarm of smaller aircraft feeding into A and flying the pax from B to their desired destinations. Hub-and-spoke twice over.

The A380 may have replaced two or three 777, etc, but the feeder traffic may actually increase. I suppose the self-serving Boeing line is that by using the 777/787 directly to smaller destinations, you would reduce the feeder traffic as well. We shall see.