NWA and the A380
 

I did a search and was surprised to find that nobody's been predicting about the A380.

Is the A380 going to end up serving NRT and AMS routes? Can DTW handle it? Does NW's current 74X retirement schedule call for a new crop of jumbo jets in 2008? What's the pricetag gonna be like on those puppies? Can Richard and his midwestern boys afford it?

In other words, should I start saving up NOW to buy a J ticket on the A380's inaugural JFK-NRT flight? (That's of course assuming that I-class availability won't get any better in 4 years, and that hopefully they'll give up on these awful new WBC seats ...). Either that, or Tower Air will come back to life and figure out a way to cram 700 people onto that ship (bigger than most high schools!)

I recall a few years ago reading a Northwest comment that they weren't interested in the A-380 (logically, the A-350). Didn't elaborate on why, but it would seem to be a suitable aircraft on some of their heavier routes like MSP>NRT, DTW>NRT, MSP>AMS and DTW>AMS where they have typically run multiple frequencies daily at times. On the other hand, there's something to be said for having the added flexibility of multiple flights with smaller aircraft, which is the direction they've taken with the elimination of the DC10-40 on domestic routes.

I don't believe all the pie-in-the-sky propaganda about the A-380 with excercise rooms, lounges, etc. Airline accountants will never allow it. I doubt the coach seeating will even be any more spacious than what is presently offered. Remember, the 747 used to have a lounge on the upper deck and only 9 seats across in coach when it was introduced. In the mid-late 70's they all popped a 10th seat in each row.

I know I don't think I'd enjoy being in the gate area or baggage claim area for a fully loaded A-380!

Agreed. I think you'll see a heavier concentration of A380's on int'l gateways that have limited slots (i.e Heathrow) or competitive restrictions (i.e. Delhi).

Lots of airline geeks here in the US scoff at the A380, but I think it will be a smash hit. Many will recall that there lwere lots of skeptics about the 747 in the 1960', much of it identical to the complaints about the A380 (too big to be economically viable, too many people in the waiting area, etc.) Of course, we all know how successful that jumbo has turned out to be. Too bad that Boeing has been so mismanged that the USA is now in the process of losing its edge in civil aviation. Boeing got distracted by fat Dept. of Defense contracts and its hubris blinded it to the competition.

The cumulative history of civil aviation suggests that moving more people at a lower cost is almost always a winner in the long run. The A380 will be a success.


[This message has been edited by senatorgirth (edited Jan 10, 2004).]

I was in Paris during the Paris Airshow and Airbus was introducing the Airbus A380 and prototypical seating schemes were being handed out. A lot of Airshow attendees were staying at the Paris Hilton (where I was staying) and the Airshow magazine was being distributed for free at the front desk of the hotel.

The big joke at the time was you could seat 550 on major airlines, but on Southwest you could squeeze 975 pax plus the crew.

I thik NWA would possibly buy this a/c at a discount from a carrier that decides to pull out and already has firm orders (non-cancelable) with airbus.

Also the A380 needs wider runways, and as far as I know the runways we presently utilize for 747's are not wide enough. Therefore before this new "whale" starts flying there needs to be multiple runway projects around the world.

RC

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif How was their in-room movie selection http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Hmmm... I seem to remember reading that the A380 actually has a smaller wing span and is a little shorter than a 747. I think this was a design consideration so that existing airports would not have to be modified.

Also, I agree all the talk about A380 on-board work-out centers and such is just a bunch of fluff and will not turn into reality.


[This message has been edited by Wayne (edited Jan 10, 2004).]

The 380 has to fit into existing gates and use existing runways...That was a requirement of the airlines AND airports.

While European and Pacific airlines are
changing to larger aircraft ( to prevent
congestion in the air) the US carriers are going RJ crazy and increasing the congestion in the air thus the delays.
Remember there is already a shortage of controllers with a LARGE number due to retire shortly and no big effort going on to replace them.

Can someone lookup and check the A380 Specs from Airbus vs. the Boeing 747-400 specs.

I was told specifically that the A380 needs runways at least 50 feet wider than 747's (and that airports would need to widen the runways to be able to accommodate the A380's) and much more room at the ramps too.

RC

Requiring major airport renovations to accomodate the A380 just doesn't make sense. Airbus would never have brought something to market that needed that kind of modifications from customers. Besides the logic piece, I do recall reading some documents relating to ground service specifications for the new airplane and they made a point of saying that it would work in existing gates and airports. They pointed out several ways that boarding and so forth could be done more efficiently with purpose built jetways and gates, but in no way were they a requirement.

I don't think the exact specs for the A380 runway requirements are out yet.

However, I did read a report from one Dan Cohen (A380 Program Manager?) that indicated the A380 was being designed for operation in SFO, LAX, JFK, MIA, YUL, and potentially EWR and IAD plus SIN, LHR, HKG, DXB, SYD, CDG, NRT, KHI, JED, KUL, LGW, MEL, FRA, BKK when first released... "BOTTOM LINE OBJECTIVE: Simultaneous JAA/FAA certification in early 2006, including all-weather-operations capability on 45-m wide runways."

Basically, for landing the 747-400 Requires 7000 feet of runway while the A380-800 requires only 6890 feet (takeoff, 11000 feet vs. 9350 feet). However, with the wingspan at 262 feet, who knows.

For what it is worth:

A380:

height: 79 feet
wingspan: 261.83 feet
length:
-700: 222.56 feet
-800: 231.50 feet
-900: 260.26 feet

B747-400:

height: 63 feet 8 inches
wingspan: 211 feet 5 inches
length: 231 feet 10 inches

It looks like the airports have some work to do. If NW were to order them, I guess the only hub that could use it would be MEM. Don't think that's going to happen!

http://www.airbus.com/pdf/a380/a380airport_compat.pdf

2006/2007:
• LHR, CDG, LGW, SIN, NRT, SYD, JFK, LAX, SFO, MIA, DXB, DOH

2007/2009:
• FRA, BKK, HKG, KIX, EWR, MEM, ORD, IND, ANC, STN, YUL,

Other early potential destinations could be:
• MAD, AMS, TPE, SEL, DEL, BOM, KUL, MEL, BNE, AKL, IAD, MCO, RUH, JED, KHI, EZE, MEX, YVR...

[This message has been edited by bergamini (edited Jan 10, 2004).]

The Wings are exactly 50' wider overall than a 747 and the A380-900 is 29' longer in length. I don't know what the weight difference will be, but this plane loaded with all those extra pax and the extra fuel required would probably increase the specifications for the runways too.

Would someone with the technical knowledge confirm whether the wider wing span on the A380 will require wider runways or if the wings can overhang the medians between runways/taxiways?

RC

[This message has been edited by Radiocycle (edited Jan 10, 2004).]

The A380 can taxi on your typical taxiway, no problem. The trouble is when you have a taxi parallel to another taxiway, such as at LAX. Then there's a problem because a 747 on one taxiway and an A380 on the other would clip wings...

Also, at LAX, for example, the gates at TBIT are too close together. They were designed o *just* fit a 747 (so they got a couple of extra gates), but for the A380, there's work to be done. The total for just LAX, for example, has been estimated at $1 billion.

It'll be interesting to see if LAX decides to float the bond issue for the airport or not...

Steve

I don't think A380 is realistic for NW. When aircrafts are leaving 1/2 full on the current widebodies, filling A380 would be a challenge. Remember guys, there are still some usable 747's.

If there is a route that can support A380, I think airlines are more interested in offering frequency rather than one big flight.

Also, in light of security threat to the US, this will be a biggest target of them all.

I'd say Nada for Northwest.

[This message has been edited by jiburi (edited Jan 11, 2004).]