Congressman Mica says no to Fed-funded A380 airport improvements
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the govt is loaning them the money to build it, not exactly free enterprise and capitalism.
I don't think anybody said foreigners were dirty. (not even the caveman in Dallas) and personally I wonder why people go to visit Florida.
As far as the big bus, less usefulness in the US as we have far more airports to fly to and from which means less use for one big huge airplane except as a freighter. And guess what, that is the orders they have for it here. If we only had one runway between three 12th century villages that couldn't be knocked down, then things might be different.
As far as improving the airports, as the few customers that are buying it don't seem to plan to go to many places here, why build something for a demand that doesn't exist. Are you planning to widen all the village roads in the UK so Chevy can sell Suburbans over there?
I don't think anybody said foreigners were dirty. (not even the caveman in Dallas) and personally I wonder why people go to visit Florida.
As far as the big bus, less usefulness in the US as we have far more airports to fly to and from which means less use for one big huge airplane except as a freighter. And guess what, that is the orders they have for it here. If we only had one runway between three 12th century villages that couldn't be knocked down, then things might be different.
As far as improving the airports, as the few customers that are buying it don't seem to plan to go to many places here, why build something for a demand that doesn't exist. Are you planning to widen all the village roads in the UK so Chevy can sell Suburbans over there?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
upgrades for concorde to fly into usairports seem to be wasted now that concorde is a museum piece (this is a real shame too! at least concorde could do something special )
So some US airports won't upgrade their facilities to handle the A380. Big deal. If enough airlines buy them then the airports will make the upgrades and the pax will pay for them one way or another. Anyway, all 'apple pie for brains' Mica is demanding is that no federal funds are used for the upgrades.
It seems there are some luddites on here that have missed that point and are in free rant mode.
What's the big deal? Did someone steal your candy?
The logic of altering entire airport infrastructures just to meet the commercial aspirations of a few does rather escape me.
OK - so the A380 is big. But for massively expensive airport reconstruction to be required to accommodate it does seem rather presumptuous by Airbus. Although if the size of the average lard-arsed American keeps increasing, pretty soon even bankrupt-in-all-but-name American airlines (small a!) will need the A380 to haul their porky 'Passengers of size'
punters across the pond - the old 747 will be just too slimline for many of them. And the Plastic Plane in-your-dreams-liner will be wayyy too small.
But, more seriously, if demand for the A380 picks up as many expect, those airports unable to accept it will be out in the cold. A bit of a gamble to cut themselves out like that.... But if the money is spent and the A380 doesn't become a success, well - at least there will be more airport space for the rest.
On another tack - I was at FRA last week and the queues of folk waiting hours to get through the absurd US security procedures were a poor incentive for anyone ever intending to visit the place.
OK - so the A380 is big. But for massively expensive airport reconstruction to be required to accommodate it does seem rather presumptuous by Airbus. Although if the size of the average lard-arsed American keeps increasing, pretty soon even bankrupt-in-all-but-name American airlines (small a!) will need the A380 to haul their porky 'Passengers of size'
punters across the pond - the old 747 will be just too slimline for many of them. And the Plastic Plane in-your-dreams-liner will be wayyy too small.But, more seriously, if demand for the A380 picks up as many expect, those airports unable to accept it will be out in the cold. A bit of a gamble to cut themselves out like that.... But if the money is spent and the A380 doesn't become a success, well - at least there will be more airport space for the rest.
On another tack - I was at FRA last week and the queues of folk waiting hours to get through the absurd US security procedures were a poor incentive for anyone ever intending to visit the place.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 60
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about the US but most international airports around the world operate as commercial ventures, i.e. they try to make money. They provide services for passengers and airlines and make them pay for it by renting space to retailers, restaurants, car parking charges, landing and aircraft parking charges etc. etc. The bigger the aircraft the more they charge the airline and the extra passengers they carry will also spend more money in their terminals. The A380 is a new aircraft and will be around for a long time, so any infrastructure expenditure should be well and truly covered by normal fees and charges in time. Any airport improvements will also benefit other operations at that airport so there shouldn't be any argument really.
However the above assumes that passengers do use the airport and that airlines pay the bills so that the airport operators have the funds or credit to provide the service. Perhaps this is why some are complaining. They simply don't have the cash or credit to do the work.
However the above assumes that passengers do use the airport and that airlines pay the bills so that the airport operators have the funds or credit to provide the service. Perhaps this is why some are complaining. They simply don't have the cash or credit to do the work.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why spend money on improvements before the airplane rolls off the assembly line? There are threats being made by carriers and leasing companies to cancel orders do to late deliveries, weight and design problems.
Airports haven't changed in almost 20 years. Airbus has had the opportunity to design their super white elephant around current airport designs. It is utter arrogance on the behalf of Airbus to assume that airports should be redesigned to accomodate their A-380.
Hey Airbus... heres a thought... instead of giving customers large rebates for purchasing your planes, foot the bill for airport redesigns to accomodate your flying metal cumulus cloud.
Airports haven't changed in almost 20 years. Airbus has had the opportunity to design their super white elephant around current airport designs. It is utter arrogance on the behalf of Airbus to assume that airports should be redesigned to accomodate their A-380.
Hey Airbus... heres a thought... instead of giving customers large rebates for purchasing your planes, foot the bill for airport redesigns to accomodate your flying metal cumulus cloud.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AUTOGLIDE
That's an interesting comment from someone from a state that advertises constantly (and I mean constantly, and very boringly) on UK/European TV to attract tourists. In line with the wishes of many US posters on this site (or rather the more reactionary, less intelligent ones), our tourists have been staying away from the US hence the blanket advertising. Fine, don't build the airport enhancements, whether that be state owned, or private enterprise but then don't complain when the deals offered to other destinations that an take the A380 and offer value due to it's economy of scale take away even more of the visitors to the US. It's a big wide world out there with many many places to go. If the US wants to be behind the rest of the world so be it. The argument basically reads as " The US carriers don't want the A380, and anyway are all bankrupt nd can't afford it anyway, so we won't adapt our airports as that will help out the dirty foreigners". As for the bitterness against Airbus, they built the A380,get over it, capitalism and free trade are a two way street and there's little point sulking about it when everything doesn't go your way.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been pointed out - many of the A380 improvements would have been made for the 747-800. Of course we were also told the Sonic Cruiser would make aircraft above 773 obsolete and there was no need for a 747 stretch...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Anywhere and Everywhere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We already have enough traffic here in America. If the A380 doesn't come here, that's one less plane.
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 411A
KLAX. - - - at the same time mentioned (and have) enlarged the west end hard stands to specification.
) to ferry 500+ pax from terminal to stands?
Originally Posted by junior_man
Not only does your destination need to be able to accomodate it, but you need alternates for the thing as well.
As a passenger, I'm looking forward to experiencing my first flight in the 380. Wondering if some of the extra cabin-floor-space will be utilised to give me a tad more leg/elbow-room in Y-class.
Though, if it happens on my "regular" route, I guess it willl mean one 380 per day instead of two 332s - not sure if I'd appreciate my preferred flight time being dumped.
Have to wait and see how it all works out - anyone remember when the first "2-storey" aircraft was launched? Boing said that their plan was to extend that top deck all the way back eventually? I guess ScareBus have done it first
Last edited by ExSimGuy; 25th Jun 2006 at 21:41.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>Do they have enough busses (NOT Toulouse ones ) to ferry 500+ pax from terminal to stands?<<
Not only enough non Toulouse busses, ExSimGuy, but the customs and immigration facilties have been greatly enlarged as well.
Now, all the folks get to smile while on candid camera...
AirBoos is daft if they don't intend to finance airport improvements to accomodate their (what seems to becoming) white elephant.
Hey, if the French are involved, what else can you expect...?
Not only enough non Toulouse busses, ExSimGuy, but the customs and immigration facilties have been greatly enlarged as well.
Now, all the folks get to smile while on candid camera...
AirBoos is daft if they don't intend to finance airport improvements to accomodate their (what seems to becoming) white elephant.
Hey, if the French are involved, what else can you expect...?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing many of these contributers have is short memories.
I remember very well the first B747's ( but then I am probably older than some of you guys ! ).
We looked at them with my airline and rejected them because many of our destinations could not handle them
Many people ( Probably the fathers of some of the people on here
) made the same comments.
I know its French but you will just have to learn to live with it
I remember very well the first B747's ( but then I am probably older than some of you guys ! ).
We looked at them with my airline and rejected them because many of our destinations could not handle them
Many people ( Probably the fathers of some of the people on here
) made the same comments. I know its French but you will just have to learn to live with it
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GotTheTshirt
One thing many of these contributers have is short memories.
I remember very well the first B747's ( but then I am probably older than some of you guys ! ).
We looked at them with my airline and rejected them because many of our destinations could not handle them
Many people ( Probably the fathers of some of the people on here ) made the same comments.
I know its French but you will just have to learn to live with it
I remember very well the first B747's ( but then I am probably older than some of you guys ! ).
We looked at them with my airline and rejected them because many of our destinations could not handle them
Many people ( Probably the fathers of some of the people on here
) made the same comments. I know its French but you will just have to learn to live with it
Leave the few A380s that will be sold/operated to Europe and Asia, and the hadj.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if it is a success, then the airports will make the improvements or the airlines will pay for improvements to use it there.
If it turns into a big flop, or an aircraft that is only used on a few markets with severe slot constraints, then most will not.
Is Airbus an aircraft manufacturer? Or a religion?
Why does everybody get so excited about things like this? Nobody is being insulted if there is something better or worse between Boeing and Airbus. I have flown both and both had their faults and great features.
Remember too, the 747 became a success in far different market conditions (cheaper fuel and regulated air travel) and had far fewer competitors. The success of the 747 against the 777 in the long haul pasenger market now days isn't that good either. Airlines prefer to offer more frequency if possible and they are concerned about the fuel bill.
If it turns into a big flop, or an aircraft that is only used on a few markets with severe slot constraints, then most will not.
Is Airbus an aircraft manufacturer? Or a religion?
Why does everybody get so excited about things like this? Nobody is being insulted if there is something better or worse between Boeing and Airbus. I have flown both and both had their faults and great features.
Remember too, the 747 became a success in far different market conditions (cheaper fuel and regulated air travel) and had far fewer competitors. The success of the 747 against the 777 in the long haul pasenger market now days isn't that good either. Airlines prefer to offer more frequency if possible and they are concerned about the fuel bill.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless you want this thread relegated to the spotters forum then please try and have the debate using what could be termed mature argument and less of the willy waving that some of you only seem able to produce. It's pathetic reading some of the debate when it is quite obvious to anyone with an IQ with more than two digits that your knowledge of the industry and basic economics is so flawed or non-existent and the kindergarten level of argument used boils down to which side of the pond the A380 is assembled on.
Yes, many of us know how delightful it will be when LAX immigration has to handle two A380's simultaneously. They can hardly handle two B744's at the same time right now, even if they have put enough infrastructure to handle the A380. Also, those Americans who are not too embarrassed by Congressman Mica's proposals should remember that there is an awful lot of US manufactured and designed content in the A380.
A reminder that the congressman's proposal is only against federal funds being used. No one is saying that private funding can't be used but you'd think it was by some of the poorly thought out arguments by some of the more red-necked posters on this thread.
Yes, many of us know how delightful it will be when LAX immigration has to handle two A380's simultaneously. They can hardly handle two B744's at the same time right now, even if they have put enough infrastructure to handle the A380. Also, those Americans who are not too embarrassed by Congressman Mica's proposals should remember that there is an awful lot of US manufactured and designed content in the A380.
A reminder that the congressman's proposal is only against federal funds being used. No one is saying that private funding can't be used but you'd think it was by some of the poorly thought out arguments by some of the more red-necked posters on this thread.
Does anyone know why Congresscritter Mica has this Airbus fixation? (And in case anyone thinks it's grounded in reality, please check the US content in any Airbus, the non-US content in the 787, and the importance of competition in aircraft to the airline business.) He's much too old to have been frightened by one when he was a child.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that Congressman Mica is fixating more on the mid term elections coming up later in the year, and sees the Eurobus as a handy fat juicy target to stir the Xenophobes up into a lather. At the end of the day the big destinations will get with the program.....maybe I'm just old eneogh to be cynical,,,
If the A380 brings in more passengers to shop, eat and drink, and if the landing-fee payments don't bounce, I somehow think that the airports will find the money to accommodate the aircraft.