Accommodating the A380
#16




Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Programs: JAL Global Club & oneworld Sapphire, ANA SFC & Star Alliance Gold
Posts: 4,568
Originally Posted by Threy
Japanese carriers, at least the potential A 390 operators ANA and JAL are firmly in the Boeing camp considering that they are more or less building half of the 767 and 777.
Would they need A 380 on domestic routes ?
Definitely, but it would not be the first case where national interests reject an airline from making an econimically sound choice...
Would they need A 380 on domestic routes ?
Definitely, but it would not be the first case where national interests reject an airline from making an econimically sound choice...
I certainly don't see a big need for A380s domestically in Japan.
#17




Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southern California/Los Angeles
Programs: Various
Posts: 2,822
Alternative to LAX
As an alternative to LAX, I would suggest that A380's could be accomodated at ONT (Part of LAX airports) and would probably less complicated:
* The volume of traffic at ONT presently would give the airport time to make any enhancements (Gate/Ramp/Runway) and not disrupt any daily flow. This is the majorhurdle at LAX. I wouldn't be surprised if they could make something like this happen within 6 months if "they" wanted to.
* The airport terminal is not used to near full-capacity and there's plenty of room in many aspects.
* I recall when the Concord flights were operating. In the few instances of landings in the southland, ONT was the ONLY option in all of Southern California. What's to say it couldn't be done for A380's?
* Very likely the only not-so-positive factor would be people not wanting to drive to ONT from metro LA (those within 15 miles of LAX). Then again, much of North Orange County, Eastern LA County, and all of the Inland Empire have the most growth, and the probability that at present, 1/2 of the PAX taking flights into/out of LAX are from these areas...myself included.
* Doing this would relieve LAX of some of it's volume, not to mention releif of air traffic. Heck, it would probably prompt more international flights and networking out of ONT.
* What's to say somebody couldn't do something like make ONT mostly a connecting hub of sorts...after all, what percentage of passengers aren't even going to LA, but only in transit, you could transit anywhere doesn't HAVE to be LAX.
* What about transportation such as rail? There's plenty of space and try setting up something like that at LAX, I could only imagine the jam ups that would cause.
* I'm not a planner/city engineer, so what do I know?
* The volume of traffic at ONT presently would give the airport time to make any enhancements (Gate/Ramp/Runway) and not disrupt any daily flow. This is the majorhurdle at LAX. I wouldn't be surprised if they could make something like this happen within 6 months if "they" wanted to.
* The airport terminal is not used to near full-capacity and there's plenty of room in many aspects.
* I recall when the Concord flights were operating. In the few instances of landings in the southland, ONT was the ONLY option in all of Southern California. What's to say it couldn't be done for A380's?
* Very likely the only not-so-positive factor would be people not wanting to drive to ONT from metro LA (those within 15 miles of LAX). Then again, much of North Orange County, Eastern LA County, and all of the Inland Empire have the most growth, and the probability that at present, 1/2 of the PAX taking flights into/out of LAX are from these areas...myself included.
* Doing this would relieve LAX of some of it's volume, not to mention releif of air traffic. Heck, it would probably prompt more international flights and networking out of ONT.
* What's to say somebody couldn't do something like make ONT mostly a connecting hub of sorts...after all, what percentage of passengers aren't even going to LA, but only in transit, you could transit anywhere doesn't HAVE to be LAX.
* What about transportation such as rail? There's plenty of space and try setting up something like that at LAX, I could only imagine the jam ups that would cause.
* I'm not a planner/city engineer, so what do I know?
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Programs: Bar Alliance Gold
Posts: 16,280
The A380 is designed to be a "hub to hub" aircraft.
ONT is not a hub for any current or projected A380 operator.
It is not O&D traffic at LAX that will fill an A380 (though it will help). It is all the folks connecting there to/from other US cities on AA, and UA and AS and CO and DL and US and NW.
ONT is not a hub for any current or projected A380 operator.
It is not O&D traffic at LAX that will fill an A380 (though it will help). It is all the folks connecting there to/from other US cities on AA, and UA and AS and CO and DL and US and NW.
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: DEN
Programs: UA 1MM, Delta Plat
Posts: 11,224
Originally Posted by SEA_Tigger
One should also know that most A380s going into service will be outfitted for ~470 seats, not 555, to say nothing of 850. So most A380s will be adding around 100 more seats then the 744 they replace. This should result in much less impact on existing facilities.
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: DEN
Programs: UA 1MM, Delta Plat
Posts: 11,224
Originally Posted by Robt760
As an alternative to LAX, I would suggest that A380's could be accomodated at ONT (Part of LAX airports) and would probably less
#21
Original Poster




Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: EWR, PHL
Programs: UA1k 3MM, AA Plt, peasant on everybody else, elite something or other at a bunch of hotels.
Posts: 4,648
Originally Posted by SEA_Tigger
The A380 is designed to be a "hub to hub" aircraft.
ONT is not a hub for any current or projected A380 operator.
ONT is not a hub for any current or projected A380 operator.

