7 ms·

One interesting point, about airports being at capacity. A third runway at London Heathrow is estimated to cost roughly the same as the entire A380 program! I

One interesting point, about airports being at capacity. A third runway at London Heathrow is estimated to cost roughly the same as the entire A380 program! In a world where an additional runway (at the most congested airport) costs as much as creating a futuristic gigantic airplane from scratch, maybe it's not that crazy? (Not sure how the additional spacing and other costs with the A380 add into this, but still interesting to think about). An additional runway at London Heathrow Airport will cost $20B USD [1]. The A380 development costs are estimated between $17B-$28B USD [2]. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-42399840 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-42399840 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Total_development_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Total_development_...

Gibbon1 9y ago
Reminds me, got called for mentioning the cost of expanding California's airports as a justification for California's high speed rail. Combining the two would make more sense, meaning put the airport farther away where land is cheap and the flights won't annoy people and run passengers too and from via a high speed shuttle. Bonus you can put security on the pickup side of the rail line.
- ant6n 9y ago
  Put security inside the damn train and we'll talk.
  - petecox 9y ago
    I'm not sure on the train but Spain has security scans at railway departures for long distance rail. Not as stringent as for an international aeroplane flight but, given the investment, in theory it could be.
    - ant6n 9y ago
      Security theatre for trains? Then it's not a train no more, but just an airplane that doesn't fly.
- angled 9y ago
  > Combining the two would make more sense, meaning put the airport farther away where land is cheap and the flights won't annoy people and run passengers too and from via a high speed shuttle. Bonus you can put security on the pickup side of the rail line. This is exactly what Hong Kong did: http://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin.html http://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin.h...
  - masklinn 9y ago
    Shanghai has a maglev shuttle between Longyang Road and the airport, the 30km trip takes ~8mn. Going by car or on line 2 takes ~45mn.
- chiph 9y ago
  > where land is cheap and the flights won't annoy people You'd need to back this up with strong zoning. I think it was Sacramento where they put the airport out in the countryside .. and then land developers discovered all this cheap land near it. Sure enough, the new residents started complaining about the noise from takeoffs and landings. Flight paths is one of the things I look at when I pick a new place to live.
  - Gibbon1 9y ago
    In San Jose they ended up buying up and demolishing a whole neighborhood. It was a big deal at the time, but likely forgotten by most people. I find it annoying that they build commuter rail projects and scrupulously avoid going too close to the airport when by rights the airport aught to be a standard stop.
  - samtho 9y ago
    I'm from Sacramento. The land that developers built on was formerly designated floodplain (still is a floodplain) but did some trickery to get it cheaply and build houses on it. I believe some rezoning was at play, but regardless, the area around the airport when they built it, was suppose to not ever have houses built on it.
jsjohnst 9y ago
The problem is the extra capacity of the A380 is possibly negated by the extra spacing it needs due to the hellish jet wash behind it.
- sho 9y ago
  That's a relevant point - the 380 needs more separation, typically 3 minutes instead of 2. However most of the big "hub" airports are just as constrained by gate availability as by raw landing slots, and the capacity of the 380 makes up the difference (they get paid by passenger and MTOW). For example, an airport like heathrow might have 3 gates free and 8 minutes clear air on the runway. They could take 2 a380s at 0 and 3 minutes for ~900 passengers, or 3 787s (0, 2, 4 minutes) for about the same number pax. In both cases the runway is clear at 6 minutes, but with the 380 they have a gate free. If they can get another plane then they're ahead. And the numbers get even better if you replace the 787s with narrowbodies..
  - Arn_Thor 9y ago
    But the A380 takes longer to unload, clean and load again and so takes up gate space for longer. I'm sure it's not long enough to equal three 787s, but it's certainly diminishing returns.
    - sho 9y ago
      Oh absolutely. You can turn around a small plane in under an hour, a feat you'd be really pushing to do with a 380. Even refuelling for a long haul can take longer than that. And different constraints apply to different airports. If you have plenty of gates but no landing slots, like Heathrow, you don't mind if the planes hang around a little longer. Atlanta would have the opposite issue with their 5 runways, which could theoretically fill all their gates in just over an hour. It's a fairly interesting optimisation problem.
      - dx034 9y ago
        I was always wondering why no one has started using 6/7 doors for loading/unloading. You could get all passengers on/off in less than 10 minutes each, the doors are there. Cleaning is just a question of how many people work on it and refuelling could be done by 2 trucks I guess? At the moment they just don't need it because the plane won't be turned around faster anyway (boarding with 3 doors takes 20+ min alreay).

Gibbon1 9y ago

Reminds me, got called for mentioning the cost of expanding California's airports as a justification for California's high speed rail. Combining the two would make more sense, meaning put the airport farther away where land is cheap and the flights won't annoy people and run passengers too and from via a high speed shuttle. Bonus you can put security on the pickup side of the rail line.

ant6n 9y ago
Put security inside the damn train and we'll talk.
- petecox 9y ago
  I'm not sure on the train but Spain has security scans at railway departures for long distance rail. Not as stringent as for an international aeroplane flight but, given the investment, in theory it could be.
  - ant6n 9y ago
    Security theatre for trains? Then it's not a train no more, but just an airplane that doesn't fly.
angled 9y ago
> Combining the two would make more sense, meaning put the airport farther away where land is cheap and the flights won't annoy people and run passengers too and from via a high speed shuttle. Bonus you can put security on the pickup side of the rail line. This is exactly what Hong Kong did: http://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin.html http://www.mtr.com.hk/en/customer/services/complom_checkin.h...
- masklinn 9y ago
  Shanghai has a maglev shuttle between Longyang Road and the airport, the 30km trip takes ~8mn. Going by car or on line 2 takes ~45mn.
chiph 9y ago
> where land is cheap and the flights won't annoy people You'd need to back this up with strong zoning. I think it was Sacramento where they put the airport out in the countryside .. and then land developers discovered all this cheap land near it. Sure enough, the new residents started complaining about the noise from takeoffs and landings. Flight paths is one of the things I look at when I pick a new place to live.
- Gibbon1 9y ago
  In San Jose they ended up buying up and demolishing a whole neighborhood. It was a big deal at the time, but likely forgotten by most people. I find it annoying that they build commuter rail projects and scrupulously avoid going too close to the airport when by rights the airport aught to be a standard stop.
- samtho 9y ago
  I'm from Sacramento. The land that developers built on was formerly designated floodplain (still is a floodplain) but did some trickery to get it cheaply and build houses on it. I believe some rezoning was at play, but regardless, the area around the airport when they built it, was suppose to not ever have houses built on it.

jsjohnst 9y ago

The problem is the extra capacity of the A380 is possibly negated by the extra spacing it needs due to the hellish jet wash behind it.

sho 9y ago
That's a relevant point - the 380 needs more separation, typically 3 minutes instead of 2. However most of the big "hub" airports are just as constrained by gate availability as by raw landing slots, and the capacity of the 380 makes up the difference (they get paid by passenger and MTOW). For example, an airport like heathrow might have 3 gates free and 8 minutes clear air on the runway. They could take 2 a380s at 0 and 3 minutes for ~900 passengers, or 3 787s (0, 2, 4 minutes) for about the same number pax. In both cases the runway is clear at 6 minutes, but with the 380 they have a gate free. If they can get another plane then they're ahead. And the numbers get even better if you replace the 787s with narrowbodies..
- Arn_Thor 9y ago
  But the A380 takes longer to unload, clean and load again and so takes up gate space for longer. I'm sure it's not long enough to equal three 787s, but it's certainly diminishing returns.
  - sho 9y ago
    Oh absolutely. You can turn around a small plane in under an hour, a feat you'd be really pushing to do with a 380. Even refuelling for a long haul can take longer than that. And different constraints apply to different airports. If you have plenty of gates but no landing slots, like Heathrow, you don't mind if the planes hang around a little longer. Atlanta would have the opposite issue with their 5 runways, which could theoretically fill all their gates in just over an hour. It's a fairly interesting optimisation problem.
    - dx034 9y ago
      I was always wondering why no one has started using 6/7 doors for loading/unloading. You could get all passengers on/off in less than 10 minutes each, the doors are there. Cleaning is just a question of how many people work on it and refuelling could be done by 2 trucks I guess? At the moment they just don't need it because the plane won't be turned around faster anyway (boarding with 3 doors takes 20+ min alreay).