A380

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Mar 10, 2005 | 12:37 pm

#16

bnrdad

Join Date: Dec 2003

Location: 160 acres in paradise

Programs: CO Plat, DL Million Miler

Posts: 502

Quote:

Originally Posted by lensman

It seems to me from your original quote that ThyssenKrupp is saying that an A380 will take 45 minutes to deplane using two bridges. You seem to be saying in your second statement that it's an extra 45 minutes of connection time (compared to a 744-400 - it's competitor). Does this mean that you contend that a 744-400 can be deplaned in zero minutes? Or am I misunderstanding your original quote?

Think of it this way - if you land at 1200, and you are the last passenger to deplane at 1245, obviously you will need longer than 45 minutes from arrival to make a connection.

The A380 is capable of holding twice the pax a 744 can and 70% more gross take-off weight, so I don't see a valid comparison at all.

Since CO doesn't do hub-to-hub internationally - almost all intl' shceduling is done to coincide with connecting flights throughout the system, so the A380 would be a poor choice for CO. Connecting time would be in issue for them.

More from Boyd:

"We noted that one US airline CEO told us that if some other airline wanted to fly an A-380 into a hub airport, great. But let that airline pick up the tab for the major facility construction that would be required. He wasn't alone. The chief executive of Air New Zealand last week in no uncertain terms told the folks who run Auckland International Airport that his carrier "has no intention" of subsidizing competitors flying WhaleJets into that airport.

What Airbus is facing, and what they need to tumble to, is that the A-380 is not going to be a ubiquitous part of the airline scene. This isn't the early 1970s when airports had to prepare for an onslaught of new widebody airliners, like the 747, the DC-10, and the L-1011. The A-380 is different. It's a one-off airplane, which will have only limited mission applications. That'd be no problem if it weren't for the fact that the size, weight, and capacity of this thing requires that airports invest millions of dollars in new facilities. At JFK, LHR, FRA, TPE, SHA, that's probably not a problem.

But get much below these airports in terms of future traffic demand, and the cost-benefit ratio for such facilities will be running neck-and-neck with building a deep water seaport in Nebraska".

Mar 10, 2005 | 12:39 pm

#17

channa

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: Aug 2002

Location: Bay Area, CA

Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K

Posts: 35,093

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErgoTraveler

Would this meet the FAA requirement of emergency exit of the aircraft? Would seem that this size/configuration would be close to failing the egress requirement.

There are more doors for emergency exit than used for normal boarding/off-loading.

Mar 12, 2005 | 4:14 am

#18

classy

Join Date: Aug 2002

Location: SAN

Programs: UA/CO-1KPlat, MARRIOTT-LT PLAT

Posts: 420

Do Not Wake For Takeoff Or Landing!

You will be able to get extra sleep during boarding and deplaning of the other passengers!

Don't LQQK for me, I will be waiting for the 7E7's! :-: :-: :-: