A380 Aircraft

[Macka]

Just read with interest Steve's (Snapper) comments about the A380 twin deck aircraft from Airbus.

A little disappointing that Orlando won't be gearing up for it, however that aside, I wonder if the Airlines will take the opportuntiy to improve the lot of Economy passengers and put some decent seating on them with a bit more space, or will they use it as an excuse to pack more passangers in with the same pitch and seat width as now. I did see graphics of large bar areas/lounges but I didn't think they'd actually go for that come the crunch.

Does anyone know anything more about these aircraft? Also, which U.K. airports can handle it?

[Twiglet]

I read somewhere here in Oz, that different airlines are going to do different things with the extra space, like extra seating, or maybe a bar, or I even read somewhere a Gym!

Melbourne is ready to receive the plane, it was always ready in terms of runway capability, but now the terminal has been adjusted so the planes can go to the gates! I am definately going to be out there when the first one lands....there's a brilliant viewing area here.

[Twiglet]

Just found this:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/...380/a3807.html

Macka, I have posted this before but here it is for you![msnwink]

The airports where the A380 is first likely to be introduced are determined partly by the airlines which have first ordered the aircraft, and partly by the routes over which they are likely to be operated. On this basis, it is likely that the A380 will operate in the main between the airports at JFK, CDG (Paris), NRT (Narita), SIN (Singapore), and LAX. This is not an exclusive list, and Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Bangkok and San Francisco to name but a few are unlikely to be far behind.

Another recent article states.....

Now that the Airbus A380 has taken to the skies on its first test flight, this giant bird needs someplace to land. For Airbus, selling its new superjumbo jet to the world's airports has been only slightly less strenuous than selling it to airlines.
Representatives of airports in Europe, Asia, and the US gathered here on Thursday, energized after Wednesday's smooth flight, to discuss how they are getting ready for the A380, which is scheduled to go into service in the middle of next year with Singapore Airlines.

But as the talk at the conference drifted to the costly, unglamorous business of reinforcing taxiways and retrofitting gates, some of the excitement faded. The A380, people here acknowledge, is going to be more of a burden, and a risk, for airports than Airbus likes to suggest.

"What's going to happen when two of these planes arrive at the same time and dump 1,000 people into immigration and baggage claim?" said John Kasarda, an expert on airports and professor of business administration at the University of North Carolina.

Preparing for all these people, and buttressing runways for a plane that can weigh 544 tonnes on takeoff, is not cheap. It will cost airports an average of US$100 million to upgrade their facilities, according to industry studies. Heathrow Airport near London is spending US$857 million.

For Heathrow, one of the world's most congested fields, that heavy investment may pay off. By 2016, analysts estimate, the A380 could account for one of every eight flights there. That would increase Heathrow's capacity by nearly 10 million people without adding a single new flight.

But for airports that will attract only a handful of A380s, the arithmetic is more troubling. Among the busiest airports, Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta has said it plans no upgrades for the A380; O'Hare in Chicago has not yet decided. Only Kennedy, Los Angeles International, San Francisco International and Miami International among US airports are committed to the plane.

"What happens if you spend US$100 million, and your only airline with an A380 flight cancels it?" said Kasarda, who was chairman of the conference here. "This industry is turbulent and unforgiving."

Airbus, which is based in Toulouse, France, brushed aside such worries.

"Why would airports not want to adapt? They'll have to adapt," said Richard Carcaillet, the head of product marketing for the A380.

Carcaillet's confidence stems from what he describes as the A380s remarkably strong order book. Airbus has firm orders and commitments for 154 planes from 15 customers -- distributed among Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. But among American carriers, only FedEx and United Parcel Service have ordered A380s -- 10 freighters each.

Few people predict that major airports will not be ready for the A380. But there may be some close calls. Los Angeles International wants to move one of its four runways several feet to the south to create a center taxiway wide enough to be used by A380s after they land.

But the plans have been bogged down in litigation, and Los Angeles World Airports, the authority that runs the airport, is not sure it will finish construction before the first flight is expected there, in November next year. It says it has a backup plan: obtaining Federal Aviation Administration approval for the plane to land on one of the other runways.

The airport has had to compromise in other ways. Because space is at such a premium, it is converting only two gates at the Tom Bradley International Terminal to serve A380

[ellie]

Fascinating article, Mach2, thanks!

Love the Virgin Floor Layour, too.

[Macka]

Nice one Julie.

Interesting indeed. We'll see what happens, I expect the fantastic images on their site will be first class. I just can't see them giving up such huge areas when they could pack so many people in.

One of the images of the lounge/bar area, had 4 seats in it!![msnscared]

To be honest I think those images are all for the sales pitch, economy will be the same as it is now[msnscared] The only cabin that will be special will be first class[msnwink]

It still looks like a wonderful aircraft though[msnwink]

[Robert5988]

It is going to be an interesting battle between the A380 and Boeing’s 7E7 Dreamliner for future domination of the long distance market.

The Airbus moves huge numbers to a few hub airports and passengers will take feeder aircraft to their final destination.

The Boeing has a similar range(9,000+ miles) and speed and can transport 250 passengers between almost any two airports in the world; and these airports will not require any improvements to handle the Boeing.

Unless you wish to fly from and to a hub airport, it is pretty obvious that the Boeing will provide shorter travel times for most passengers – provided airlines fly that route of course.

It is also likely that the USA will do little to help an Anglo French aircraft win a battle with a home grown plane. Especially as the US government are furious with what they consider ‘unfair’ subsidies to Airbus from the French and UK governments.

Interestingly neither of the Flagship carriers(BA and Air France) have whole-heartedly committed themselves to the Airbus.

If I were a gambling man I would stake a little money on Boeing having the greater commercial success – but not with any degree of confidence!

[moodyvilla]

Yes but where are the checkbooks pointing first, I would say that the airbus has it at the moment. The Boeing is far more efficient though and with the way oil prices are going things could change.