|
A380 At EWR?
|
|
| cassini-m | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:14 | Сообщение # 1 |
|
Полковник
Группа: Персонал
Сообщений: 113
Награды: 0
Репутация: 6
Замечания: 0%
Статус: Не в сети
| There are a couple of airlines that have the A380 at New York's JFK like Air France, Lufthansa and Emirates. With EWR being a major hub for United would it make sense for Star Alliance carriers to fly into there? Terminal B, the international terminal seems a little conjested is it possible to fit one or two A380's? Any thoughts?
|
| |
| |
| cassini-m | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:15 | Сообщение # 2 |
|
Полковник
Группа: Персонал
Сообщений: 113
Награды: 0
Репутация: 6
Замечания: 0%
Статус: Не в сети
| I don't know if EWR has any plans for the 380 but I am going to venture to say it will be a very tight fit in both B and C terminals. Even if it could fit from a wingspan perspective it would still likely only be able to board via one jetway.
|
| |
| |
| Tu-154B-2 | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:16 | Сообщение # 3 |
|
Лейтенант
Группа: Персонал
Сообщений: 36
Награды: 0
Репутация: 0
Замечания: 0%
Статус: Не в сети
| Hi cassini-m!
AFAIK EWR is not able to handle A380 at this time. PANYNJ needs to put in some considerable work before it will be ready to receive A380s
Если мальчик любит труд- значит звать его "Джамшут"
|
| |
| |
| cassini-m | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:17 | Сообщение # 4 |
|
Полковник
Группа: Персонал
Сообщений: 113
Награды: 0
Репутация: 6
Замечания: 0%
Статус: Не в сети
| Quote (Tu-154B-2) AFAIK EWR is not able to handle A380 at this time. PANYNJ needs to put in some considerable work before it will be ready to receive A380s
Hi Paul!!!
Yor are American?
|
| |
| |
| Tu-154B-2 | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:18 | Сообщение # 5 |
|
Лейтенант
Группа: Персонал
Сообщений: 36
Награды: 0
Репутация: 0
Замечания: 0%
Статус: Не в сети
| Quote (cassini-m) Hi Paul!!!
Yor are American?
Yes! But I am Russian imigrant.
Если мальчик любит труд- значит звать его "Джамшут"
|
| |
| |
| DHL-777 | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:19 | Сообщение # 6 |
|
Группа: Посетители
| From my experience I can only recommend: stay out!
EWR is a nightmare for skippers of bigbig birds!
|
| |
| |
| cassini-m | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:21 | Сообщение # 7 |
|
Полковник
Группа: Персонал
Сообщений: 113
Награды: 0
Репутация: 6
Замечания: 0%
Статус: Не в сети
| Quote (DHL-777) From my experience I can only recommend: stay out!
EWR is a nightmare for skippers of bigbig birds!
Interesting. I thought most of the major airports could handle the A380 but if EWR can not then I guess my assumption is incorrect. Obviously the A380 destinations are capable (YYZ, JFK, CDG, FRA, DXB, ICN, JNB, etc) but what others can handle the A380?
|
| |
| |
| @737@ | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:21 | Сообщение # 8 |
|
Полковник
Группа: Персонал
Сообщений: 104
Награды: 0
Репутация: 0
Замечания: 0%
Статус: Не в сети
| MOST airport that can handle a B744 can handle the A380, UNLESS the airport has an absolute weight limited structure the aircraft must use. I don't know what EWRs problems are.
It must be remembered that airports are not mass produced items, every single one is different from every other one so it is impossible to generalise very much or very accurately. Even the ICAO airport category standards are more guidelines than set standards that must be met. I doubt any airport FULLY complies with every point in the relevent standard.
|
| |
| |
| САА | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:21 | Сообщение # 9 |
|
Генералиссимус
Группа: Генеральный директор
Сообщений: 674
Награды: 0
Репутация: 438
Статус: Не в сети
| I brought up something from the PANYNJ from 2006 when they were starting the construction to make JFK A380-ready, it makes no mention of EWR. If you go to page 17 of the following PDF (a.k.a. page 9 of 76), that is the only mention of the A380 in terms of planning. A search on the PANYNJ website for A380 Ready only brings up a few results, none mentioning EWR. I don't think we are going to see service unless they make a few upgrades. Here's the old PANYNJ update:
http://www.panynj.gov/corporate-information/pdf/annual-report-2006.pdf
С уважением, А.А.Степанов.
http://avsim.pp.ru/blog/
|
| |
| |
| @737@ | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:22 | Сообщение # 10 |
|
Полковник
Группа: Персонал
Сообщений: 104
Награды: 0
Репутация: 0
Замечания: 0%
Статус: Не в сети
| Quote (САА) I brought up something from the PANYNJ from 2006 when they were starting the construction to make JFK A380-ready, it makes no mention of EWR. If you go to page 17 of the following PDF (a.k.a. page 9 of 76), that is the only mention of the A380 in terms of planning. A search on the PANYNJ website for A380 Ready only brings up a few results, none mentioning EWR. I don't think we are going to see service unless they make a few upgrades. Here's the old PANYNJ update: http://www.panynj.gov/corporate-information/pdf/annual-report-2006.pdf
Oh ok, thanks for clarifying gemuser. Yeah I guess then what is the specific problem with EWR?
|
| |
| |
| cassini-m | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:23 | Сообщение # 11 |
|
Полковник
Группа: Персонал
Сообщений: 113
Награды: 0
Репутация: 6
Замечания: 0%
Статус: Не в сети
| There are a number of airports in the US that were built on a relatively small piece of land and traditionally they have pretty tight taxiway's and jetways. EWR is one of those airports, I don't know how they fit all that they do at B during the European rush. The planes are pretty much wing tip to wing tip and I'm pretty sure the A345/6 have to board from the first door.
|
| |
| |
| bar_rodoy | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:24 | Сообщение # 12 |
|
Группа: Удаленные
| It is my understanding that EWR could be made to accommodate the A380 but the impact to the operations (runway and taxiways) of the airport would make it a nightmare. They would be impacted on the gate side and I would guess that only a few potential gates could be made A380 ready and I am betting most of them are in T3 (PMCO terminal).
All of the benefits of the whale would be destroyed by the impact on other operations.
Based on my understanding there are only a few A380 operators that fly into EWR.
I am sure this list is not complete, but here goes:
SQ - can't make it non-stop to EWR from SIN. They fly a all-business plane to EWR
QA - same as SQ
LH - the most logical operator, but preference may be frequency between COUA and LH to hubs, like FRA
AF - could do it, but most operations at EWR are handled and operated by DL. Demand does not appear to be present.
|
| |
| |
| capitan_cg | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:25 | Сообщение # 13 |
|
Группа: Удаленные
| With the necessary and costly changes made at JFK to take the A380 and really only a few potential flights a day involvintg them, you really don't need EWR to also have A380 ops too. While EWR could have A380s land and take off there, perhaps if an emergency at JFK like the Concorde used EWR a few times when problems at JFK, the problem is the lack of terminal space, ground ops space (very tight at EWR) hangers, etc. Then you have the issue of then having 2 places to have parts, mx, etc, it is better to hold it to one.
As much as I would love to see the A 380 operate at EWR, even if by FedEx, I don't see it in the forseeable future.
|
| |
| |
| САА | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:26 | Сообщение # 14 |
|
Генералиссимус
Группа: Генеральный директор
Сообщений: 674
Награды: 0
Репутация: 438
Статус: Не в сети
| From what I've heard, this is really THE issue. What I've heard is that taxiway and runway spacing would require all ground ops to go on hold if an A380 lands at EWR.
I do. In my opinion they'll have no choice for two main reasons: The next gen widebodies will likely have a wingspan just as wide as the current A380 so unless EWR wants to be relegated to a domestic hub they'll have to make the improvements with or without A380 ops. The other reason is that JFK is also very congested and will eventually run out of A380 gates. I'll add a 3rd reason for good measure although not as significant PANYNJ will lose *A business to IAD if they don't.
С уважением, А.А.Степанов.
http://avsim.pp.ru/blog/
|
| |
| |
| capitan_cg | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:27 | Сообщение # 15 |
|
Группа: Удаленные
| It is a problem with real estate and money, and to an extent a lack of planning over the last few decades.
I would love to see EWR made into an airport that largest aircraft would be a 737/A320, keeping all the traffic in the medium to low wake turbulence categories. And make JFK only to handle aircraft of the 757 and larger, i.e. heavy and super categories. It would make JFK the defacto international gateway to NYC.
It would make ATCs job a lot easier, and allow for more efficient traffic flow for both airports.
Naturally improve the link between the two airports, underground, and no need to additional runways.
The solution would give an increased capacity at both airports.
|
| |
| |
| @737@ | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:27 | Сообщение # 16 |
|
Полковник
Группа: Персонал
Сообщений: 104
Награды: 0
Репутация: 0
Замечания: 0%
Статус: Не в сети
| There is absolutely no way that JFK can handle basically all the operations of United as you would be killing their hub essentially. (Not to mention the MASSIVE legal fight that United would put up, with the support of the state of NJ, the pharmaceutcal industry, the oil industry, FedEx and UPS to name a few...it would make no sense to have United's international flights depart JFK and domestic flights depart EWR...that's worse than the failed split airport hub Delta tried with JFK/LGA).
The frequency of whatever transportation solution you would have between JFK would have to be every 2-5 min MAX and nothing less than dedicated tracks/lanes at bullet train speeds would be sufficent...Which would require you to tunned under a MAJOR shipping port, two rivers, all the the infrastructure and subway lines in manhattan and then all the way out to JFK.
For the price that would cost (winning the inveitable legal battle + building all that infrastructure) you probably could buy land and build a green field airport in central NJ and connect it to existing rail lines.
|
| |
| |
| bar_rodoy | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:28 | Сообщение # 17 |
|
Группа: Удаленные
| First of all you would need to rip Terminal B down and then completely rebuild it. It is a nightmare building... Completely packed that you can't move before all the European departures in the evening and arrivals are like waiting in line to see the Sistine Chapel (i.e. never ending queues).
I flew in a VS 346 from EWR a few years ago and it boarded through the front door only, taking forever. Just imagine how long it would take to board and deboard an A380 through one of Terminal B's jetways.
The only option would be to build an A380 gate at the UA terminal and hope that a Star Alliance partner will use it.
|
| |
| |
| САА | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:28 | Сообщение # 18 |
|
Генералиссимус
Группа: Генеральный директор
Сообщений: 674
Награды: 0
Репутация: 438
Статус: Не в сети
| Just silly. Obviously a statement from someone who doesn't live there. Actually, it sounds like a statement from someone who doesn't understand aviation at all...
С уважением, А.А.Степанов.
http://avsim.pp.ru/blog/
|
| |
| |
| bar_rodoy | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:29 | Сообщение # 19 |
|
Группа: Удаленные
| That makes absolutely no sense. By eliminating anything smaller than a 757 from JFK you'd eliminate 99% of domestic flying and which carrier woudl want to operate at JFK without domestic feed? None whatesoever. The reverse is also true for your EWR scenario. What's the point of having all those narrowbody flights into EWR is there are not long haul flights to feed? Each EWR and JFK are large stand-alone hubs.
I still think EWR will be A380 ready sooner rather than later for the reasons I posted in reply 11. Just like ATL they won't be able to keep saying no for very long.
|
| |
| |
| Tu-154B-2 | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:29 | Сообщение # 20 |
|
Лейтенант
Группа: Персонал
Сообщений: 36
Награды: 0
Репутация: 0
Замечания: 0%
Статус: Не в сети
| "I still think EWR will be A380 ready sooner rather than later for the reasons I posted in reply 11. Just like ATL they won't be able to keep saying no for very long."
Yeah? And whos paying for it?
The PA widened/realigned taxiways at JFK, rebuilt 4 taxiway bridges and the AIRLINES that use the 380 upgraded T1 and T4 to accomodate the plane.
Who is doing that at EWR? You think LH or AF are paying to do it like they did 20 miles away at JFK?
Если мальчик любит труд- значит звать его "Джамшут"
|
| |
| |
| cassini-m | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:30 | Сообщение # 21 |
|
Полковник
Группа: Персонал
Сообщений: 113
Награды: 0
Репутация: 6
Замечания: 0%
Статус: Не в сети
| That is Airbus propoganda hogwash. ATL can handle any 744 it wants, but if they could handle the A388 they wouldn't be spending the money to make all of the ramps and taxiways ready.
|
| |
| |
| capitan_cg | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:30 | Сообщение # 22 |
|
Группа: Удаленные
| Quote (cassini-m) That is Airbus propoganda hogwash. ATL can handle any 744 it wants, but if they could handle the A388 they wouldn't be spending the money to make all of the ramps and taxiways ready.
You are. The flying public and the tax payers. Isn't that how airport improvements are paid for?
|
| |
| |
| @737@ | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:31 | Сообщение # 23 |
|
Полковник
Группа: Персонал
Сообщений: 104
Награды: 0
Репутация: 0
Замечания: 0%
Статус: Не в сети
| Take it up with Airbus!
I have found in every case I have looked at that Airbus is accurate AND also in every case the airport authorities have elected to make improvements that are not REQUIRED but are very useful for "operational" reasons. From posts on here I understand a lot (most?) of the cost in ATL is adding A380 gates to the concourse, an action that is NOT required as the A380 can quite happily use remote stands, but it is "operationally" convenient for both the airport operator and airlines to have it access the terminal directly.
There is nothing new in this. The first B741 into SYD caused operational "chaos" as it had to use specific taxiway routes, couldn't pass B707/DC8 aircraft at certain points and used remote stands. It all passed as the airport caught up and developed its infrastructure to meet it customers needs, which is the point of an airport after all.
|
| |
| |
| bar_rodoy | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:32 | Сообщение # 24 |
|
Группа: Удаленные
| While a good portion of the cost are the gates, ATL (and most airports) have to expand taxiways and such to keep the engines from picking up debris.
I have the upmost respect for you gesumer, and you are right, I should take it up with airbus. I just think it is extremely disingenuous that they said that the whale is able to go where the Queen can land.
|
| |
| |
| @737@ | Дата: Понедельник, 18.07.2011, 05:33 | Сообщение # 25 |
|
Полковник
Группа: Персонал
Сообщений: 104
Награды: 0
Репутация: 0
Замечания: 0%
Статус: Не в сети
| Sorry TeanInTheSky, not true. Most airports have put "fillets" on taxiway turns (SYD being an example) and have sealed the edges of some taxiways (and 45m wide runways too) "expanded" taxiways have not been required in most cases. But as I said above airports are such custom things its hard to generalise.
The A380 was designed to fit in ICAO category E airports, same as the B744 and it does but as I said above most airport don't completely fit the category they were nominally designed for. I doubt either ATL or EWR are fully Cat5 compliant, I know SYD is not and it is home base for 20 A380s (10 delivered, 2 due this year, 8 more from 2013).
|
| |
| |
