The double-decker Airbus A380, the world’s largest passenger jet, is proving to be high maintenance for Melbourne and other destinations.
The world’s newest and largest passenger aircraft, the double-decker Airbus A380, has come with a large price tag – not just on the $350 million aircraft itself but on passenger terminals around the world that have to accommodate it.
Melbourne has already spent $220 million and is spending another $330 million on upgrading its airstrips and terminal. Sydney is spending $500 million, Adelaide $300 million and Brisbane $250 million.
Tullamarine’s upgrading program, driven mostly by the A380, is being replicated across the world. According to National Public Radio in the United States, American airports are spending nearly a billion dollars on changes to accommodate the A380.
In the meantime, the price of these upgraded facilities will be delays at airports.
Qantas did not return calls about the A380 upgrade. Its pilots are less reticent, with one recently telling passengers arriving at Melbourne from Sydney that the delays they were experiencing in taxiing to the terminal were to be blamed entirely on the A380 upgrade.
The Australian and International Pilots Association president, Ian Woods, said the terminal upgrades were leading “to an amount of inconvenience” worldwide.
“Normally what would happen at an airport where they were upgrading to accommodate the A380 is they would have no aerobridge,” he said. “So it’s a bit more inconvenient to get on and off and it takes a little longer to bus the passengers in and out. The need to bus people to and from the aircraft (and the terminal) may lead to delays.”
Although the Airbus, with its 30-metre-wide wheelbase, can operate on standard 45-metre-wide runways, many runways around the world – including Melbourne’s – have been widened. Tom Perry, spokesman for Melbourne Airport, said the airport’s main runway had been widened 15 metres – 7.5 metres each side – for a total width of 60 metres.
“The soil type we use in Melbourne is quite brittle,” Mr Perry said. “If the aircraft were to use our runway, the soil would be churned up and end up in the engines of the aircraft.
“As a result, every time the A380 would come into land we would have to sweep the runway, which is not feasible.”
Mr Perry said the widening was done in 2005, with accompanying work on the tarmac, taxiways and parking spaces for the aircraft, and also the terminal.
“Our total A380 development program was $220 million,” he said. “We added a whole other level to (the terminal) including two double-decker airbridges. These bridges can service two levels of the A380 independently. In our next expansion, we’ll be adding another three of those gates.”
The A380 had already visited the airport twice and would operate regularly from the middle of next year, he said. The new upgrade, the largest upgrade of the international terminal since the airport was built in the 1960s, would cost $330 million. It began this month and is due to finish in 2011.
The upgrade will include an additional two A380 baggage carousels; baggage delivery for outbound flights will increase to 4500 bags per hour from 3000 bags per hour.
There will be more security stations and customs desks as well as a new passenger precinct of various shops.
In a statement last month, the pilots’ association said the A380 would “create new challenges for pilots”.
“We haven’t seen anything like this in the skies since the first jumbo jet arrived in Australia,” said Captain Woods in the statement.
“The wingspan and engine size of the A380 limits the number of airports at which the plane can safely land . . . there will also be fewer diversion airports en route able to handle any emergency landings.”
Qantas has ordered up to 20 of the A380s, which are due for a late arrival in October 2008. “We are looking forward to this challenge but we need Qantas management to support us making this historic transition,” said Captain Woods.
He said that although the A380 could land at fewer airports than other aircraft because of its massive size, this would not present a safety issue.
Many airline routes – cross-ocean routes such as Sydney to Los Angeles, for example – already covered large distances without airstrips along the way, he said.
Source: Australian Associated Press
By: Schorsch - 30th November 2007 at 18:45
I did a sim in january with a loss of all flight controls. We landed back onto 31L at JFK with no damage using back up only (A340-600). Just to prove it wasn’t a fluke the sim was reset and we did it again, also without damage. Since the Sioux City incident we tend to look into things like this to a greater degree. For example, prior to that incident Airbus operators used to look at flying in back up mode was just something you would have to do until you could reset enough systems to regain conventional control however nowadays we see flight in back up through to its conclusion.
The A340-600 has the great advantage of a back-up yaw damper (independent). Without it things may become tricky.
With differential thrust one can change direction (very gently) and with overall thrust one can control pitch.
The A380 was built with experience in those accidents in mind. Minimum flight controls often suffice when crew is experienced and conditions are OK. You can land an Airbus 320 in backup mode (just trim and rudder).
By: wysiwyg - 30th November 2007 at 13:55
Nice theory but complete bull!
By: chornedsnorkack - 30th November 2007 at 13:35
I did a sim in january with a loss of all flight controls. We landed back onto 31L at JFK with no damage using back up only (A340-600). Just to prove it wasn’t a fluke the sim was reset and we did it again, also without damage. Since the Sioux City incident we tend to look into things like this to a greater degree. For example, prior to that incident Airbus operators used to look at flying in back up mode was just something you would have to do until you could reset enough systems to regain conventional control however nowadays we see flight in back up through to its conclusion.
A340 has the advantage that it has 4 engines. The thrust lines are not in the same plane – so that you have three degrees of control by throttle, and keep them even if you have one engine out – unlike A300 which only has 2 degrees of throttle control with both engines intact.
By: wysiwyg - 30th November 2007 at 12:40
I did a sim in january with a loss of all flight controls. We landed back onto 31L at JFK with no damage using back up only (A340-600). Just to prove it wasn’t a fluke the sim was reset and we did it again, also without damage. Since the Sioux City incident we tend to look into things like this to a greater degree. For example, prior to that incident Airbus operators used to look at flying in back up mode was just something you would have to do until you could reset enough systems to regain conventional control however nowadays we see flight in back up through to its conclusion.
By: Schorsch - 30th November 2007 at 09:52
The Sioux City DC10, with 1 engine out, could be and was flown by throttle. So was DHL A300. Both managed to reach a runway, though they then came to grief – DC10 just before touchdown, A300 ran out of runway side afterwards. B747 could be flown by throttle, too.
A B747, as well as a DC10 with central engine operative, would have one more degree of freedom when flown by throttle, compared to 2-engine A300 or DC10.
Aha. How many people were killed in these accidents?
The DHL A300 pilots were clearly above average. Try the same in a loaden A300 with average pilots and prepare bodybags.
Check your information again!
An airliner with thrust only is hardly controllable, not manageable by average pilots. It is no comparison to the A380, which retains full control authority even with severe damage.
By: chornedsnorkack - 30th November 2007 at 08:48
No, it reads like this:
B747, DC10 and A300 have no control at all in case of hydraulic failure.
The Sioux City DC10, with 1 engine out, could be and was flown by throttle. So was DHL A300. Both managed to reach a runway, though they then came to grief – DC10 just before touchdown, A300 ran out of runway side afterwards. B747 could be flown by throttle, too.
A B747, as well as a DC10 with central engine operative, would have one more degree of freedom when flown by throttle, compared to 2-engine A300 or DC10.
By: Schorsch - 29th November 2007 at 11:11
Surely not?
A380 has over 15 m extra wingspan. Therefore there are fields where 747 narrowly misses a fixed obstacle to wingtip, and A380 catches it. (Taxiway centerline distance is another matter, because you can close the taxiway for other planes while receiving A380).
A380 has about 2 m extra wheel track width. You can land 747-s at Rand airport (wheel track width 14,3 m will fit by 70 cm or so into the 15 m width of runway) but you cannot do the same stunt with A380.
A380 is way heavier than 747. The OEW is something like 280 tons for A380, 170 tons for 747. Sure, A380 has 20 wheels against the 16 of 747, but the total load still is bigger. There are bridges and swamps which 747 remains on top of, but A380 punches through.
Doublecheck your information and read what I wrote correctly!
First: I don’t say the A380 can land everywhere in scope of regular, commercial, reliable operation. I say it can divert anywhere where a B747 can divert. The point of being less safe because of reduced diversion airports is stupid.
Please show me one airport where a 70m span B747 can land and an 80m span A380 would hit something.
B747 are not allowed to operate into 15m runways.
The A380 has comparable wheel loads as B747. Landing speeds are lower for the A380.
Equally applicable to 747. But there are emergencies besides one engine nicely shut down.
The heavy -400 versions have high wing load and are quite edgy especially at hot&high conditions.
At least, I understand that since A380 has local hydraulic systems (powered by electricity?), an A380 with all global hydraulics drained would have better control than the JAL 747, Sioux City DC10 or DHL A300.
No, it reads like this:
B747, DC10 and A300 have no control at all in case of hydraulic failure.
The A380 retains full control even for double hydraulic failure.
All Tested & Certified.
By: chornedsnorkack - 29th November 2007 at 08:13
Crap. Of course the A380 cannot land in every airport for commercially useful flights (taxiways, airbrigdes, facilities). But in case of emergency, it gets down on every field that accommodates a B747-400.
Surely not?
A380 has over 15 m extra wingspan. Therefore there are fields where 747 narrowly misses a fixed obstacle to wingtip, and A380 catches it. (Taxiway centerline distance is another matter, because you can close the taxiway for other planes while receiving A380).
A380 has about 2 m extra wheel track width. You can land 747-s at Rand airport (wheel track width 14,3 m will fit by 70 cm or so into the 15 m width of runway) but you cannot do the same stunt with A380.
A380 is way heavier than 747. The OEW is something like 280 tons for A380, 170 tons for 747. Sure, A380 has 20 wheels against the 16 of 747, but the total load still is bigger. There are bridges and swamps which 747 remains on top of, but A380 punches through.
With 4 engines and nice performance you don’t need to land as soon as possible.
Equally applicable to 747. But there are emergencies besides one engine nicely shut down.
At least, I understand that since A380 has local hydraulic systems (powered by electricity?), an A380 with all global hydraulics drained would have better control than the JAL 747, Sioux City DC10 or DHL A300.
By: Schorsch - 29th November 2007 at 07:57
Melbourne has already spent $220 million and is spending another $330 million on upgrading its airstrips and terminal. Sydney is spending $500 million, Adelaide $300 million and Brisbane $250 million.
I doubt it is solely for the A380. A few taxiway extensions don’t add up to this sums.
In a statement last month, the pilots’ association said the A380 would “create new challenges for pilots”.
How? It flies like an A320.
“We haven’t seen anything like this in the skies since the first jumbo jet arrived in Australia,” said Captain Woods in the statement.
“The wingspan and engine size of the A380 limits the number of airports at which the plane can safely land . . . there will also be fewer diversion airports en route able to handle any emergency landings.”
Crap. Of course the A380 cannot land in every airport for commercially useful flights (taxiways, airbrigdes, facilities). But in case of emergency, it gets down on every field that accommodates a B747-400.
With 4 engines and nice performance you don’t need to land as soon as possible.
Sign In
November 28, 2007 at 8:31 am