Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: Airbus A380 (was: Big plane)

  1. #1

    Registered
    Dec 2004
    Location
    At Silly Mid-Off
    Posts
    517

    Airbus A380 (was: Big plane)

    now that's a big plane....

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4183201.stm

    I love the diagram with the London bus as comparison!

  2. #2
    Cyburbian zman's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    8,991
    Blog entries
    2
    The A380 is certainly big. It is supposed to take the place of other jumbo jets by providing service for around 550 people. While folks in the aviation community welcome the new addition, many fear that it won't be able to serve many airports around the world, and some even fear it won't fly. Being an aviation buff myself, I welcome something new in the skies and hope to see the A380 have a long productive career as a passenger and cargo jet.

    And it is HUGE. Not being around a computer the pasdt couple days I liked seeing that article with new photos. Helped me track the progress of the jet myself.
    You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

    You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
    -Peart

  3. #3

    Registered
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Blue County in a Red State
    Posts
    117
    And guess which country's airports won't be able to accomodate the A380 upon its inaugural passenger flight? That's right, the United States of America. Melbourne, London-Heathrow, Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Singapore, etc...all are currently widening taxiways, lengthening runways and making modifications to terminals to accomodate the monster. Not one US airport currently has any preparations under construction. Amusingly, the Charlotte airport has a new 10,000 ft runway about to begin construction and the Feds have no plans to alter the design for future use of the A380. Far be it from us to ever think ahead.

  4. #4
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    9

    US airports behind?

    Quote Originally posted by Pride of Place
    And guess which country's airports won't be able to accomodate the A380 upon its inaugural passenger flight? That's right, the United States of America. Melbourne, London-Heathrow, Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Singapore, etc...all are currently widening taxiways, lengthening runways and making modifications to terminals to accomodate the monster. Not one US airport currently has any preparations under construction. Amusingly, the Charlotte airport has a new 10,000 ft runway about to begin construction and the Feds have no plans to alter the design for future use of the A380. Far be it from us to ever think ahead.

    I'm not sure why you think no American airport is preparing for the A380. As far as I know, most of the big ones are:

    The wraps are barely off the Airbus A380 "superjumbo," and airports are already scrambling to handle the double-decker aircraft and the 555 passengers it will carry.

    Major airports are budgeting hundreds of millions of dollars to build everything from passenger bridges to baggage carousels.

    At London's Heathrow Airport, nearly $1-billion has been set aside to widen runways, install ramps and upgrade immigration sites.

    Joining the frenzied race to spend big money to revamp infrastructure are Los Angeles International Airport, New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport and Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.
    If this information is wrong I'd be interested in a link to the correct story.

    Sorry, the link for the quote above is here:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ess/TopStories
    Last edited by Tranplanner; 18 Jan 2005 at 11:09 AM.

  5. #5

    Registered
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Blue County in a Red State
    Posts
    117
    Norman, you are correct, US airports are planning. European and Asian airports are under construction.

    One of Sir Richard Branson's reasons for delaying his order for Virgin is that LAX won't be able to accomodate the aircraft until late 2008 or early 2009. Clairification: I was wrong about no US airport being prepared. It appears that SFO will be the only airport in the Nation with the ability to handle it when passsenger service begins next year. When the new international terminal was built, the A380 was taken into consideration (in its design).
    Last edited by Pride of Place; 18 Jan 2005 at 11:22 AM. Reason: Missing some facts. Should always research more!

  6. #6
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    4,767
    Is the A380 the one with a bar in it or is that the 7E7? Anyways.. I believe that more spatial comodities for the passengers is the way to go in the future.. specially for long intercontinental flights. It's not healthy to be sitting in a narrow seat for +15 hours... and adding LCD screens to the seats is just adding dead weight that could be used to reinforce security measures.

  7. #7

    Registered
    Dec 2004
    Location
    At Silly Mid-Off
    Posts
    517
    Quote Originally posted by SkeLeton
    Is the A380 the one with a bar in it or is that the 7E7? Anyways.. I believe that more spatial comodities for the passengers is the way to go in the future.. specially for long intercontinental flights. It's not healthy to be sitting in a narrow seat for +15 hours... and adding LCD screens to the seats is just adding dead weight that could be used to reinforce security measures.
    Definately want to see more space in planes generally....although somehow doubt it will happen, especially for those of us who have to travel in cattle class.

    Always like to see the old drawings/adverts for planes when passenger flights first became mass market; the ones with the little boy sitting on the floor playing with lego/toy cars or such like (think they were for Pan-Am)

  8. #8
    Cyburbian zman's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    8,991
    Blog entries
    2
    Seeing soime internal photos of the first and coach class cabins, I think that it will be a comfortable ride.

    As for airports, I know Denver International installed a 16,000 foot runway to allow for large jumbos like the 747 and the A380 to take off in the think air. It is the longest runway in North America and already has goliath Russian transport planes taking off from it. As for the taxiways, I think that they are standard size, but Denver only has a handful of flights to Canada and Mexico, and one daily nonstop to both London and Frankfurt. I don't think we'll be seeing the A380 soon as the markets for international travel in high capacities is non-existent...
    You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

    You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
    -Peart

  9. #9
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally posted by Pride of Place
    Norman, you are correct, US airports are planning. European and Asian airports are under construction.

    One of Sir Richard Branson's reasons for delaying his order for Virgin is that LAX won't be able to accomodate the aircraft until late 2008 or early 2009. It appears that JFK will be the only airport in the Nation that might get improvements completed by early 2007. Alas, the aircraft enters service in 2006.
    I'm guessing the governments of France, Germany and the UK have more of an incentive to facilitate airport upgrades in their hub cities than the US since those governments have provided funding for A380 development and really want to see it become a success. As for Singapore and Melbourne, I guess they're just ahead of the curve.

    Just out of curiosity, who funds US airport renovation? Is it exclusively government money?

  10. #10
    Cyburbian zman's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    8,991
    Blog entries
    2
    Quote Originally posted by norman
    Just out of curiosity, who funds US airport renovation? Is it exclusively government money?
    Airport renovation is kind of a two-way street (at least I have experienced) In the case of Denver, United want to expand their concourse (Before their money troubles). The City of Denver wanted them to foot the bill mostly. I think if the renovation is something for the whole airport, the city will fund most of it. (See the addition of a 5th concourse at the old Denver airport Stapleton)

    Smaller airports/commuter and business airports are typically funded by the city or county (governing body).

    A roundabout conclusion: It basically depends on the type of renovation, where it is, and who wants it done.
    You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

    You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
    -Peart

  11. #11
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally posted by zmanPLAN
    Airport renovation is kind of a two-way street (at least I have experienced) In the case of Denver, United want to expand their concourse (Before their money troubles). The City of Denver wanted them to foot the bill mostly. I think if the renovation is something for the whole airport, the city will fund most of it. (See the addition of a 5th concourse at the old Denver airport Stapleton)

    Smaller airports/commuter and business airports are typically funded by the city or county (governing body).

    A roundabout conclusion: It basically depends on the type of renovation, where it is, and who wants it done.
    Thanks. I was thinking that if US airport renovation was even partly privately funded, that may be a reason why all of the major airports are not immediately upgrading for the A380. I imagine airlines and airports not receiving public funds would want to wait to see if the A380 takes off (literally anf figuratively) before pumping millions into getting their facilities ready for it. Governments usually don't feel the need to operate so prudently.

  12. #12

    Registered
    Dec 2004
    Location
    At Silly Mid-Off
    Posts
    517
    Airports in the UK are virtually all privately funded. A lot of the airports here were previously owned by local Councils but were then floated and became private. The main airport group, BAA, owns the three London airports (Heathrow, Gatwick & Stansted) and also Edinburgh and Glasgow + some other smaller regional airports.

  13. #13
    Member
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally posted by noj
    Airports in the UK are virtually all privately funded. A lot of the airports here were previously owned by local Councils but were then floated and became private. The main airport group, BAA, owns the three London airports (Heathrow, Gatwick & Stansted) and also Edinburgh and Glasgow + some other smaller regional airports.
    Interesting; I assumed the opposite would be true. You know what happens when you assume...

  14. #14
    Cyburbian zman's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    8,991
    Blog entries
    2
    I never knew there were other aviation enthusiasts on the Cyb'! This is great...!
    You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

    You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
    -Peart

  15. #15
    Cyburbian Emeritus Chet's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    South Milwaukee
    Posts
    8,935
    Quote Originally posted by Pride of Place
    Norman, you are correct, US airports are planning. European and Asian airports are under construction.
    This thing has at least one more year of air trials before they will even be allowed to start to fill orders. The big boys at HNTB and the like can move from planner's plan to engineer's bid ready construction documents quite fast. I have no doubt the major airports will be ready when it comes into service.

  16. #16
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    4,767
    Speaking of Santiago... they're currently doing a 2nd runway (yes, it currently only has one (aeronautically it's 2... but physically it's one, of course) and I believe it's a bit longer than the current, so I guess it'll do for the A380; since the one that exists is a-ok for the 747s.
    As for Valdivia... since it only has around 4 daily flights, and the runway is not that long anyways; only 737s and I think the max that can land safely are A320s. I doubt I'll see an A380 in a looong time. If I do, it'd be on the news.

  17. #17
    Cyburbian zman's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    8,991
    Blog entries
    2
    Quote Originally posted by Chet
    This thing has at least one more year of air trials before they will even be allowed to start to fill orders. The big boys at HNTB and the like can move from planner's plan to engineer's bid ready construction documents quite fast. I have no doubt the major airports will be ready when it comes into service.

    While I agree that there is more testing that will be done, but Singapore Airlines and Air France have filled porders and agreed to puchase the 380 upon certification. That is the most specific info I can get without looking deeper.
    Which has also led me to believe that only the U.S. airports being served by these carriers will really need to upgrade to the 380's size. There has been talk of converting mid-continent "emergency landing" airports for the beast.

    Also I think FedEx has ordered a couple for their Memphis base operations over seas.
    You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

    You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
    -Peart

  18. #18
    I heard they were already prepared for the upgrade, uh extension, so that the future plane will carry 800 people.

  19. #19
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally posted by norman
    Joining the frenzied race to spend big money to revamp infrastructure are Los Angeles International Airport, New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport and Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.
    That quote is wrong. Well, I don't know about JFK, but O'Hare and LAX are both being renovated to relieve congestion not to make way for a bigger plane. In fact the LAX renovations aren't even going to *touch* the runways, just the terminal, because that's where the congestion is.

    Last I heard, the FAA wasn't going to let the A380 land in America because it can't evacuate passengers in a short enough period of time.

  20. #20

    Registered
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Blue County in a Red State
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally posted by Chet
    This thing has at least one more year of air trials before they will even be allowed to start to fill orders. The big boys at HNTB and the like can move from planner's plan to engineer's bid ready construction documents quite fast. I have no doubt the major airports will be ready when it comes into service.
    Not to disparage, but are you high (pun intended)? Getting a local government to approve or build anything is a long, arduous process. We, of all people, should know that fact far too well. Throw state and federal agencies in the mix and, well, you've got yourself a cluster.

    While I'm sure the folks at HNTB (have a meeting with them today, I'll ask) would be thrilled to design and build every airport on the globe, there has to be money present first for them to take the job. Our Nation is behind the eight ball on this one. Let's just admit it.

  21. #21
    Cyburbian ludes98's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally posted by Pride of Place
    Our Nation is behind the eight ball on this one. Let's just admit it.
    I don't really see that as a bad thing. While I do marvel at the size of the aircraft, I don't see it as necessary.

  22. #22
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    ^-- If the A380 doesn't fly in America it'll be to protect Boeing. That's the long and the short of it. If the Feds want to find money to waste on on the airline buisness, believe me, they'll find it. They've been doing it for 50 years.

    But you are right about airports taking forever to renovate. The O'Hare plan has been on the books from before the A380 was even announced. And it's been a massive hardball political battle the whole time. One time, when the funding was about to go through Congress, an Illinois Republican (who are opposed to the expansion) Senator fillibustered it! It was his seat that Barak Obama won in the last race, btw.

  23. #23
    Cyburbian FueledByRamen's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2003
    Location
    A Dog in a Hat
    Posts
    449
    Yeah....thats big....but have you ever seen one of these?



    Antonov 225
    I saw one at an airshow once....jeez they are frickin huge.



  24. #24
    Cyburbian ludes98's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally posted by FueledByRamen
    Yeah....thats big....but have you ever seen one of these?

    [Antonov 225
    I saw one at an airshow once....jeez they are frickin huge.
    Not in person, though I think one made a refueling stop here a couple years ago. Discovery Channel Wings had a show dedicated to it that was pretty cool. Even the pictures are amazing. I think it transports the America's Cup boats.

  25. #25
    Cyburbian Emeritus Chet's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    South Milwaukee
    Posts
    8,935
    Quote Originally posted by Pride of Place
    Not to disparage, but are you high (pun intended)? Getting a local government to approve or build anything is a long, arduous process. We, of all people, should know that fact far too well. Throw state and federal agencies in the mix and, well, you've got yourself a cluster.
    Depends on the locale. NY Port Authority has Uberpower over their airports. Citizens be damned. Chicago on the other hand has the issues you describe (can you say Peotone?). As was mentioned, only 2 international carriers that fly to the US have ordered them. I would expect a few selesct hubs to accommodate them expeditiously when the time comes.

+ Reply to thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 ... LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Shadow plane zoning
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 9
    Last post: 15 Mar 2011, 10:38 AM
  2. Snakes on a Plane
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 0
    Last post: 29 Mar 2006, 10:39 AM
  3. Replies: 25
    Last post: 31 Mar 2005, 7:04 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last post: 26 Jun 2004, 2:13 PM