Old Oct 28, 04, 10:02 am
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SCL, MCT, LGW and a variety of 1W lounges in between.
Programs: BA Mucci (Seigneur et Ingenieur des Appareils Volants (Gold)), QF (WP and LTG), AA EXP, GF Gold
Posts: 3,929
Some answers.

The book figures for operating costs for the A380 are approximately 10-15% lower per pax mile when compared with the 747-400. Boeing are having a good look at a new version with lower operating costs.

Remember, BA has a lot of its fleet up for sale at the moment. They have far too many 747-400s and 777s and could lose about half a dozen of each without worrying.

BA always harps on about LHR capacity and then replaces the 757 with a 319.

A380 wake vortex has been designed to be "no worse" than the 747, therefore, the 4 nautical miles heavy-heavy arrival and 1 miute heavy-heavy take off separations apply.

The A380 is shorter than the A340-600 and easier to taxi.

The A380 slides reach further than the 747s and this can cause the odd airport design problem with bridges over taxiways (boy we had fun with that one at a certain airport. If you got out of the fire and down the shoot then fell down the cutting onto the dual carriageway, it was not your day)

The worst case scenario for airport design is the A380 tug as it rips hell out of the tarmac.

The ICAO book says it needs 60 metre wide runways which is rubbish (Annex 14 Code F) as it will be certified for 45 metre wide runway operations.

The extra weight of 4 tonnes translates into 4 tonnes less payload so fewer passengers (40 at 100 kg including bags) or 4 tonnes less fuel (say 300-400 km range) or 4 tonnes less cargo (at about US$1 a kilo, loss of US$ 4000).

It will be possible to board from multiple points but the airports have to get the infrastructure right. If BA still cannot get "congestion by the aircraft side" right even though they have been operating the 777 for years, who knows what cockups will occur.

The other infrastructure issues you may see are the stupid rules about taxiway to runway separations, holding point positions, wingtip clearances, jet blast.

Take off distances and landing distances are not a significant issue.

Just imagine the additional number of in-flight diversions you will get with all those extra heart attacks on board.

As for frequency, give me that over size for long haul. I want a midday departure for HKG so I can party all night with JenBel and then stagger onto the aircraft and sleep it off for 12 hours to wake up in the morning refreshed.

As for the Japanese with their compliant baggage, try a Nigeria flight. The worst I know of was 270 kg of baggage.

What about launch customer for the Trident etc...
spotwelder is offline