It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Looks like Airbus did it.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And that has exactly what to do with the lack of space for Honolulu to expand? SeaTac is busy too, but they've got more room around them than we do here.


Yeah, our airport is barely IN Seattle!




posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Ours is about five minutes from the center of downtown Honolulu. Planes have to make an immediate turn after takeoff so they don't overfly the city.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Richard, i used to unload bags at SFO. First off, yes traffic has increased alot over the years, but also airports (esp the big international ones) are more 24/7 entities than they were in the past. So you do have alot of flights spread around the clock.

I can attest to the Chaos that 3 747 caused when unloading I cannot imagine 3 A380's at the same time. One fundemental part that of that is that the internal infrastructure of most airports have not keep pace with the traffic requirements.


So why arent the airports using the extra income generated to upgrade and expand their existing infrastructure? At London Gatwick, BAA gets £8 per passenger to operate the terminals, baggage handling, checkin desks etc. with a 747 running at 400 people, thats £3,200 per flight for providing services. Are you saying the airport should provide what is essentially a lower level of service for the A380 because its providing that service with a capacity that tops out at 400 passengers? At £8 a passenger and 550 passengers, thats an extra £1,200 the airport is getting, so wheres it going to? The poor guys on baggage duty shouldnt just have to 'work harder'.

£1,200 extra and the level of service is worse than for a 747? I still maintain that the problem is with the airport, it should be increasing its capacity because its getting an increase in income from the flight.



Also, I doubt highly that the airports will give a snot about somebody complaining. The first class and business class passangers get off first anyway and they are the ones the airlines listen too. Poor schlubs like me in coach will be lucky if we get to complain to a voice mail let alone an actually human who will nod with sympathy and thats about it.


I agree, but passengers tend to complain to their airline, their travel agents or whomever. Once people start complaining to the airlines, the airlines carry a lot more weight with the airports and stuff can get done.

Who do you blame when a mall doesnt have enough carparking spaces? The mall for bad planning and implementation or the people coming?



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Are you saying the airport should provide what is essentially a lower level of service for the A380 because its providing that service with a capacity that tops out at 400 passengers? At £8 a passenger and 550 passengers, thats an extra £1,200 the airport is getting, so wheres it going to?


Hmmmmm, no I never said that the A380 should get a lower level of service than the 747 or any other plane that exceeded 400 passengers. (Can't get much lower than it is). However, even in new airport like DIA were space is not a concern, they recently did away with the automatic baggage system and went back to grunt labor. Now look at an Airport like SFO. Even if they had the land which they do not, environmentalist do not allow expansion at least here in the US.


While you can put more men on the plane you can only get so much baggage off the it at one time. I do admit my ignorance to any special baggage handling measures taken in the plane.

Most airport are not going to spend the money needed to make it as efficient as it can be. I'm not saying it right, I'm just pointing to how it seems to always be.

First and Business passengers may receive extra attention ie. priority bag handling etc. The rest of us in the coach flying on our discounted fare? I doubt the airline would care. But they will listen to the latter.






[edit on 8/1/05 by FredT]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And that has exactly what to do with the lack of space for Honolulu to expand? SeaTac is busy too, but they've got more room around them than we do here.


Looking at some pictures of Honolulu International it seems like there might be a couple possibilities for runway expansion. You would end up having to do something like Laguardia and extending the island runway a bit further onto pylons or landfill. The other East-West runway looks to have a little room for expansion to the west. The crosswind runways would be a problem. It also appears terminal expansion wouldn't be too difficult in terms of construction. It's the funding that would be questionable. Take a look at Midway in Chicago. Talk about making lemonade from lemons. They took a horrible terminal and added 13 new gates to the original 28. Passenger load went from 11.4 million in 1998 to roughly 19 million in 2004. And during the expansion they added hundreds of parking spaces in a new garage. So anything is possible.



BTW, if you want to see an ambitious airport project take a look at the O'Hare Modernization Program.

Sorry to stray away from the topic that much.


[edit on 8/1/2005 by CyberianHusky]



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join