From the Wall Street Journal, 11/26/05:

"Airports around the world are scrambling to prepare for the arrival next year of the mammoth Airbus A380 superjumbo jet, a plane so large that some facilities must be rebuilt to accommodate it. But many of the worst bottlenecks for the new aircraft could develop at Los Angeles International Airport."

"Efforts are under way at dozens of airports to reinforce runways, widen taxiways, speed up baggage-handling systems and construct higher-capacity gates connected to supersize lounges. Such megaprojects are necessary to cope with the anticipated crush of luggage and people posed by an aircraft capable of seating more than 850 passengers -- nearly twice as many as the largest version of Boeing Co.'s venerable 747 jumbo."

Balance of article is here , but requires subscription.

The article's main focus is on LAX and that airport's preparation (or lack thereof) for the A380.

But here is the scary part:

"Today, Los Angeles boasts more jumbo-jet traffic than New York's JFK, America's dominant international air hub for decades. If all goes as planned, after 2010 Los Angeles will serve as many as 15,000 passengers aboard nearly two dozen A380 flights daily, the largest concentration of superjumbos envisioned in North America. By 2023, JFK and San Francisco are projected to rank second and third, respectively, behind LAX in North America."

If that pans out, much as I might like to try the A380, I will avoid TBIT like the plague if airlines try to move that many pax without a new terminal designed for such crowds. The place is already a pit.

It is not only TBIT but also terminals 4 and 2, I believe. The entire airport needs to be rebuilt. At the very least it should be highly renovated.

I thought the previous LA mayor devised a plan to completely renovate LAX, but no one bought into it because it was too expensive. Why don't they just tack on surcharges for passengers flying the A380s since those renovations (I am only talking about the current renovations) will only benefit them and no one else? I agree that LAX does need some serious updates, but no one is willing to pay for it, though!

LAX

Excellent idea let the users of the A380s pay.most flyers will never travel on it so they should not be burdened with the cost.Pay as you go.

I was surprised to see NRT to be one of the airports to be heavily visited by the A380 considering no US or Japanese carriers have ordered them yet. Korean, Virgin, AF and LH are the ones mostly likely to fly A380 into NRT.

Great idea. Not too mention the A380 requires larger space for following aircraft because of the large wake left behind.

No it doesn't - final recs have not been issued.

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.

Even if the A380 flops faster and further than a Mulally dream, I'd avoid LAX. The airport is fast reaching it's limits and between spineless politicos and NIMBYs solutions aren't as far along as they should be. That airport is a mess, TBIT or not.

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...

Very well said. I lived in LA for three years and almost always dreaded using the airport. TBIT is the worst; not sure which I like less, TBIT or the airport formerly known as Dulles (now known as third world hellhole).

Just that fact that none of the lounges in TBIT have showers is enough to make me avoid the place.

Quite. A lot of the fear over the unloading and loading times and the passenger flows through the terminals is just negative PR aimed at intimidating people from flying on it.

Maybe. But I wouldn't fly one in coach. Would you?

Yes of course I would if, as it appears, I would get more room for the same fare. I'd much prefer to be in the back of one of those than anything Delta has in the sky.

Chances are most of the "extra" seats will be in F and C so, as USA_flyer notes, it may not be quite so bad in back.

EK might very well run a 3+5+3 config, but I expect most others will be doing 3+3+3 in the upper deck and 3+4+3 downstairs. Depending on loads, there is a decent chance of an open middle...


I am sure they could possibly use the capacity - especially in the 850-seat config - however the A388 is not really designed for short-haul ops. That is why the Japanese prefer the 777-300 in 501-seat configs.