Qantas superjumbo causes a super headache at airport

[Montague S]

LAX is, and has been, a dump for many years!

[Philip Argy]

Originally Posted by Montague S

LAX is, and has been, a dump for many years!

As a solicitor it's always fun to go through Tom Bradley Terminal where the perpetual recorded message is "Please do not give money to solicitors".

Of course they mean vagrants and beggars but it was alarming the very first time I heard it as a young solicitor on my first trip to USA in 1982.

[D Chan]

Controllers say it is only because of the slump in air traffic since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that the airport can manage the A380.

not a credible statement - sept 11th happened 7-8 years ago. Has little or no bearing on an airport accomodating the a380. But then we all know how credible the media is!

[Rhys Xanthis]

I'd prefer for them to show some evidence that air traffic has dropped since sept 11...

[Mike W]

Just as a matter of interest. Where does an Airport get an ROI on money they spend to accomodate the 380? BTW, this is a genuine question.

[Shameel Kumar]

Originally Posted by Mike W

Just as a matter of interest. Where does an Airport get an ROI on money they spend to accomodate the 380? BTW, this is a genuine question.

I guess some of it would come from the landing fees, as well as increased revenue from airport tax for passengers as a result of increased passengers numbers that the A380 is supposed to bring.
Also, I'd imagine it's a long-term investment since the A380 isn't going anywhere for many many years (just like the 747), so it's less of an option and more of a neccessity to investment the money to facilitate A380 operations.

Any idea if airlines foot a portion of the bill to make an airport A380-compatible.. or would they only have to pay for airline-specific extras such as an all-glass aerobridge for EK First Class passengers (that's just my idea...but I'm suprised they haven't thought of it!) ??

[Mike W]

Originally Posted by Shameel Kumar

I'd imagine it's a long-term investment since the A380 isn't going anywhere for many many years (just like the 747), so it's less of an option and more of a neccessity to investment the money to facilitate A380 operations.

Pretty much what I was thinking. No wonder LAX is reluctant to get too carried away with the behemmoth. They would account for a miniscule percentage of their business, yet command huge costs to accomodate. Even if they're (380) not going away, they're not exactly going to be every second aircraft either with only a handful of airlines ever going to use them.

[Kieran Wells]

Must be a slow day for news, and this has been bought up again...

from http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/...014090,00.html

THE giant Qantas Airbus A380 is too big for Los Angeles international airport.

As Qantas plunges billions on the aircraft, LA air traffic controllers warned that, without changes, they may have no choice but to turn away the world's biggest passenger planes, the Daily Telegraph reported.

America's National Air Traffic Controllers Association believes Los Angeles airport would be unable to accommodate the A380 if not for the recession-related slump in air traffic.

"It is pretty inconvenient moving that Airbus around the airport," the association's LA tower president Mike Foote said yesterday. "There are restrictions that apply to that aircraft that don't apply to others."

Its enormous wingspan was too broad for the existing runway and each time an A380 landed, all ground traffic on the tarmac had to be brought to a standstill, he said.

"They are 50ft (16m) wider than any other aircraft we have so it causes all sorts of problems," Mr Foote said.

The aircraft, which has been flying to LA from Melbourne and Sydney since October, carries between 450 and 853 passengers over two levels and has room for 50 per cent more cargo than most other planes.

Its wings measure about 80m from tip to tip, the tail is 24m tall and its maximum take-off weight is 544 tonnes. That compares with a Boeing 747, the tail of which measures 20m and wingspan 64m.

Australia's national carrier has invested heavily in the A380, with plans to have seven in the air by the end of this year and a fleet of 20 in operation by 2013.

Now Qantas has three in the air - two flying to Los Angeles from Melbourne and Sydney and a third A380 covering the London route. They cost about $350 million each.

The A380 Qantas route had "worked well to date" but the airline was hustling to improve infrastructure at LA, a Qantas spokesman said.

"The city has always been fully aware of our requirements and of the economic benefits our A380 operations bring," said the spokesman. "Airports need to be able to handle these larger aircraft and we are working with the airport to develop longer-term infrastructure improvement options."

Qantas is the only airline running A380s at LAX, Mr Foote said. It runs six flights from Melbourne and Sydney a week, three from each city.

Mr Foote said, even if there were four or five A380 flights into the airport each day, the operation would crumble and flights across the airport would face chronic delays.

"Because of the recession, the traffic has gone down somewhat but at pre-recession traffic levels it would be almost impossible to move around the airport," he said.

The association is pressing for a new, bigger runway on the other side of the airport. Average daily landings and departures at LA airport have dropped 1000 to 1500 since 2000 amid fuel price rises, terrorism fears and the economic downturn.

[Robert S]

Originally Posted by kieran wells

Must be a slow day for news, and this has been bought up again...

So slow in fact that it made the front page banner on The Daily Telegraph print edition.

[Kieran Wells]

Originally Posted by Robert S

So slow in fact that it made the front page banner on The Daily Telegraph print edition.

ended up going down to grab some food for a meeting tonight from franklins and grabbed the paper and there it was...when i first saw it this morning it was sitting 5th top news story on the website...