For most flights from Asia to the west coast of the USA, the fuel load won't be a problem and they will be able to use somewhat distant alternates like LAS or ONT. However, weight will be a problem with the load bearing capacity of runways and taxi ways, and they will need to be reinforced.
A380 Success?
- Thread starter 1AA
- Start date
Some large airports in the US will be improved to handle the landing and taxi/park weight of the 380. But it will take time in the current economic climate. Many facilities were slow to improve to accept the 747 when it first came on line, and it could use normal jetways. The 380 could use but not require double deck jetways. Also from the Johnson years ttrough Reagan some military base closures have added some nice heavy runway facilities to the system. These aircraft have to be utilized where they can pick up a profitable load, just selling the plane does not make it a success imediately, the 747 was not an immediate success either and had many teething problems to overcome. A 600 pax electric jet....I guess we will all see soon enough.! 
jimntx said:However, as a culture, Americans require much more personal space than most people in the world. I don't see them willing to travel in herds of 550+.
Plus, would you do this to your gate agents? With the staff cutbacks at every airline, can you imagine the chaos at boarding time--particularly in the 800+ configuration?
[post="240085"][/post]
First of all I would like to think back some 30+ years ago when the B747 arrived. Airports had to be reconfigured and yes it was unclear if passengers would get on that type of a large aircraft. Every one was skeptic. Ab747 is rated at +500 passengers. So do not even attempt to say that American passengers would not get onto an aircraft that could hold so many passengers. Look at Japan where they cramped the B747 with nearly 600 passengers on domestic routs. We did not complain about that. So why should +500 PAX on aan A380 be so different? It is just because it is a different dimension that we have not gotten used too.
And regarding the gate agents, lets hope that many of these aircrafts will be lying in the US, since it would mean that more agents and other personnel will be needed and some of the good people that are still unemployed might have a chance to work again in a field they love.
Think positive!!!!
SilentWarrior said:
Apples and Oranges. The only thing the 380 and the 7E7 have in common is they are both airplanes. They have two totally seperate mission. The 7E7 is a replacement for the 767 and 757. The 380 is much much bigger going after the 747 market.
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH
Veteran
- Oct 9, 2003
- 1,401
- 2
Has anyone considered the ramifications if one of these A380's crashes and burns with over 800 people on board?
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
Just Plane Crazy said:
A few comments...
1) There are very few 747s which are carrying more than 350 passengers. PE used to fly them with 516 seats, and it was a mess trying to board that pig.
2) "We" did not complain about Japanese domestic routes because they were in Japan, and most of us weren't. They were also limited to shuttle markets where nobody had anything more than a briefcase. Quite another story where you're doing 10-14 hour transoceanic flights.
3) There's something called a point of diminishing return. 350-400 seems to be a practical upper limit. Anything above that is simply uncontrollable. We have enough trouble locating hotel rooms for a full 777 today. I can't imagine trying to find 300-400 hotel rooms available when an A380 goes out of service awaiting parts somewhere.
B6Busdriver said:
Agreed when comparing aircraft to aircraft. I apologize if I was too vague, but I was meaning Boeing versus Airbus. Airbus will have it’s newer aircraft out earlier than Boeing, and infuse itself with “fresh†income.
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH said:
Even someone who was bottle-fed Boeing doesn’t want to think about that. The ramifications would be all too obvious.
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH
Veteran
- Oct 9, 2003
- 1,401
- 2
Since you used Tenerife as an example, has anyone considered the ramifications if two A380's packed with 800+ passengers per plane collide,crash,and burn?
Do you have a point, or are you just ghoulish?PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH said:
Commercial jet airliners are the safest way to travel by far. Undoubtedly, there will be A380 accidents like all aircraft have accidents and they will be tragic, but no different than any other accident. Tens of thousands die on the highways year after year, yet the world continues to spin.
Or would you be happier if 2 787s crash?
People will be horrified, and then life will go on. Just like it did when two B747s collided, crashed, and burned.PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH said:
BTW, the same thing was said when we started to get to the "big" 150 passenger jets in the 50s, too.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
mweiss said:
Depends on where it happens. If it is two A380s operated by foreign carriers, I doubt that it will get much attention here in the US... The only reason that the tsunami victims got coverage on CNN was because there were American tourists lost in the disaster. When a couple thousand people die daily due to civil war and unrest in places like Dafour, it's just a footnote between something about the Michael Jackson Trial and a labor strike in Europe...
mweiss said:
Perhaps, but there's still the point of diminishing returns that nobody is addressing. Is there really demand for 600 seats a day in enough markets to make the aircraft profitable? A lot of early adapters of the 747 eventually downsized into DC10s and L1011s because there just wasn't enough demand to fill the whales on a daily and annual basis. AMR still won't consider the 744 because of that.
Agreed. I was talking about worst case.Former ModerAAtor said:
In the US, probably not. In Asia, though, there's likely to be sufficient demand for the aircraft. And, of course, freighters will be pretty popular as well.
Whether that's enough to make the program profitable or not is a tougher question.
