Depends on how you handle it. You could get the plane turned in about an hour if you had enough jetways and people servicing the plane. But it may not be cost-effective to have that many people on staff. Or, it may cost less to have those people than the opportunity cost of the aircraft sitting on the ground. Too many unknowns to answer that one.
A380 Success?
- Thread starter 1AA
- Start date
mrfish3726
Veteran
- Jul 7, 2004
- 931
- 0
Success. Int'l markets will expand greatly in the next decade but will not necessarily align to the frequency issues will have here in the states. One A380 a day will be just what the doctor ordered for many (especially Pacific) routes.
ITRADE
Veteran
Folks should remember that the A380 will also have cargo variants that dont require passenger gates, boarding agents, baggage carrousels, and the like.
Other folks should remember that the A830 doesn't have to only ply international routes. Take a look at China. Air China flies 777s and A340s all the time between PEK and CTU, SHA, and CAN. They could easily replace them with A380s.
Same with the HND/NRT to ITM/KIX routes.
Other folks should remember that the A830 doesn't have to only ply international routes. Take a look at China. Air China flies 777s and A340s all the time between PEK and CTU, SHA, and CAN. They could easily replace them with A380s.
Same with the HND/NRT to ITM/KIX routes.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #23
Lets say for some reason that the A380 is unable to land in JFK, what will be the alternate airport?
This will be a problem for some time to come. Airbus wants to put this aircraft into service, but we the taxpayers have to pay to upgrade the airports to handle this large aircraft. Especially alternate landing fields. Most airports will use their user fees from the airlines, but you know money still comes in from the government to supplement the rest needed. Instead of our government helping Boeing out they would rather help Airbus with the A380 even though no U.S. commercial carrier has shown any kind of interest in the A380 as of yet.
This will be a problem for some time to come. Airbus wants to put this aircraft into service, but we the taxpayers have to pay to upgrade the airports to handle this large aircraft. Especially alternate landing fields. Most airports will use their user fees from the airlines, but you know money still comes in from the government to supplement the rest needed. Instead of our government helping Boeing out they would rather help Airbus with the A380 even though no U.S. commercial carrier has shown any kind of interest in the A380 as of yet.
Don't have the airfirled plans or anything, but I expect EWR and Stewart-Newburg both have the runways for the beast. However, in both cases they'd have to park on the ramp and bus the pax in -- slow deplaning
I'd think that EWR would be able to support the 380 at a couple of gates at least. It's not that much bigger than a 747.
They just would have to hook the jetway to the lower deck only. No big deal.
They just would have to hook the jetway to the lower deck only. No big deal.
Both EWR and BDL would be considered local alternates for JFK. Weather that affects JFK a lot of times also affects EWR and BDL. You could end up looking a LONG distance to find a suitable alternate.
You would have the same issue on the West Coast. SFO weather is notorious, and LAX can be problematic.
Also, if one did divert to an airport that had no or limited customs, (assuming these are international flights), can you imagine the nightmare that would cause? Remember NWA Flight 33 that diverted to MWH last December? Now multiply the passengers by 2.5...
You would have the same issue on the West Coast. SFO weather is notorious, and LAX can be problematic.
Also, if one did divert to an airport that had no or limited customs, (assuming these are international flights), can you imagine the nightmare that would cause? Remember NWA Flight 33 that diverted to MWH last December? Now multiply the passengers by 2.5...
jimntx said:So, since when did passenger convenience or comfort enter into the equation?
[post="243165"][/post]
Whoops :blink: ...I started to make sense...It won't happen again...
jimntx said:So, since when did passenger convenience or comfort enter into the equation?
[post="243165"][/post]
Well, I think it's always thought about. It's just that the customers don't want to pay for it. They'd rather have a cheap ticket and a cattle car seat . . . . and then complain about it.
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
Not to long ago when the 747 arrived on the scene, we saw piano bars in the upper deck. Then the airline industry became primarily a profit driven industry and passenger comfort and convenience took a back seat. The A380 right now looks more like a cruise ship than an airliner. It's just a matter of time before the bean counters realize the more seats you cram onto this thing, the more profits that will be realized.
