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.

 

A380 flies into Heathrow today

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
The US averages 4500+ per day in the air. Especially from the Mississippi east.




posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Waynos I don’t think this is true, unless you live very near an airport, look up at the sky and count the number of planes you see, 2 perhaps 3? The skies are nowhere near crowded.

I don't know how( Iwill be able to soon I hope), but you can see what the air traffic over America on Radar looks like in a single day. I don't know about you, but all I saw was green.(a single green image of a plane standing for one flight moving from it's origin to destination.)

If that's not crowded skies, I don't know what is.


Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   


but I don't think we’re at breaking point just yet


Even so Westy, leaving mine and everyone elses view of crowded skies out of it for a moment, do you not agree that the A380 allowing passenger growth without increasing air traffic (or the utopian view that passenger levels can be maintained with FEWER flights) is a good thing? After all we surely don't WANT to reach breaking point in civil ATC do we? Also, just think of all the room it leaves for those point to point 787's which, by their very nature, will require more aircraft in service than their predecessors.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   
On the 'crowded skies' issue, yeah it is a problem, and its been looked at to let the pilots find their own way outside the airport airspace, ahh, I can't remember the right term for it... free flight paths maybe.


Effectively air corridors would become a thing of the past, and pilots would use their radars and ACAS to negotiate any problems.

This would reduce the strain on ATC allowing them to concentrate on the airports.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
From what I understand the whole IFR corridor thing is going to be phased out over the next couple of years. Even still, I fly almost every week in the busiest area in the country, and the skies are busy, but not to the breaking point. And holding up the A380 sales numbers as a success does not hold true in my book. Sales have been well below what they thought they would be, and the plane in an era of rising energy prices begins to look more and more like a fuel sucking oversized pig. I have been on far too many flights where the plane was half empty. This includes overseas and cross country. What purpose does having a shopping mall or a bar in the sky serve? My prediction is the A380 line dies in 10 years.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I've no quarrel with the rest of your post, except to disagree but thats just opinion, however this saeems unfounded;



holding up the A380 sales numbers as a success does not hold true in my book. Sales have been well below what they thought they would be


Why, what did Airbus predict the sales figure to be roughly 12 months before it entered service? As far as I know all sales predictions relate to the life of the progreamme.

How many sales did the 747 have in Jun 1968, for instance?



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mxboy15u
What purpose does having a shopping mall or a bar in the sky serve?



WHAT?!?!?!



Please don't say you actually expect the A380 to be decked out like a mini cruise-ship inside?


It will be the usual pack-em-in arrangement we all know and love so well.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I don't know about you, but all I saw was green.


Again, those radar maps are not to scale, of course your going to see all green when one plane icon is a quarter the size of New Jersey.



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Again, those radar maps are not to scale, of course your going to see all green when one plane icon is a quarter the size of New Jersey.



Whatever way you wanna cut it, airports are very, very busy these days.

For instance, we didn't get a gate at Boston Logan the other day.


With massive increases in the number of flights projected things can only get worse, whether it plays into the hands of fewer bigger planes, or greater use of smaller regional airports I don't know, but the hubs are definitely packed.


Some 'proper' evidence:

www.ohare.com...



* The industry projections may or may not take account of fuel price increases, both with direct effects upon flight cost, and indirect effects on the global economy.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by mxboy15u
What purpose does having a shopping mall or a bar in the sky serve?



WHAT?!?!?!



Please don't say you actually expect the A380 to be decked out like a mini cruise-ship inside?


It will be the usual pack-em-in arrangement we all know and love so well.


I took a flight on Northwest Airlines from JFK to Tokyo in 1989. As you can imagine, that's a whole lotta flyin' and we didn't pay a couple grand a head for upper class seating.

So, we're into the flight and crammed into the oldschool coach seating when all of a sudden an announcement is made - something I have never experienced on another flight since.

They took a whole center seating section of this 747 and turned it into a free self-serve salad/sandwich bar.

That was the only time i've made a trip to Asia that I didn't want to kill myself by the end of the flight.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by vinrock]



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Whatever way you wanna cut it, airports are very, very busy these days.

For instance, we didn't get a gate at Boston Logan the other day.


With massive increases in the number of flights projected things can only get worse, whether it plays into the hands of fewer bigger planes, or greater use of smaller regional airports I don't know, but the hubs are definitely packed.


Some 'proper' evidence:

www.ohare.com...



* The industry projections may or may not take account of fuel price increases, both with direct effects upon flight cost, and indirect effects on the global economy.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by kilcoo316]



I am going to take issue with the airspace density argument. I live under the busiest airspace in the world! ZTL and believe me…it is not that full. There is plenty of room. In fact the single biggest reason it is the busiest is pointed out in Kilcoo316’s post. KORD KLGA KJFK are all poorly designed. If you do not believe me look at the airport diagrams:

BAD:

KORD-O'Hare
KJFK-Kennedy
KLGA-La Guardia

Good:

KATL- Hartsfield Jackson
KDEN-Denver
KDFW-Dallas/Ft.Worth
KLAX-Los Angeles

In fact there was an article just a few weeks ago about the transition KORD is going to be going through for the next 20+ years to bring it up to standards. I could not find it but here is recent one. It discusses the newest woes Chi-Town is facing.
Chicago Tribune

Remember the DEP/ARR caps were put into place for safety reasons. At O’Hare the problem is runways that intersect each other. The ATC have to give larger spacing for safety issues. Half the time they are running on two active runways. The “good” airports I listed will run 2 departure and 2 arrival runways even in II III ILS conditions. Add in KATL new 10/28 runway they will, in the fall once FAA ILS certification is complete, they will be able to run departure/ arrival at 3/2 or 2/3 (depending on the current volume). That is including a more favorable spacing. Approach control would vector in aircraft with similar wake turbulence tolerances on the same runways. You would have “light-medium” traffic (ATR, CRJ, MD-88/90/717 737 and 757) on one runway and “heavy” traffic (767 A340 777 747) on another. Heck on the 2/3 setup you could have all turboprop traffic on the 10/28 leaving the larger runways for heavier traffic.

What it all means is that the biggest traffic problems do not come from traffic volume in the air. It comes from taxing to/from your gate, poor layout and weather. One of the next projects for the new 10/28 runway, at KATL, is an “end-around” taxi way. As the airport is setup now you have to cross two active runways. The estimated time from gate to runway (or runway to gate) is 20 minutes!!!

If any one is interested you can listen in on Atlanta’s air traffic here:
atcmonitor-TRACON, TOWER, & NE STARS

Best times to listen are weekday afternoons 1530-1900EST. The most volume in the air is Thursday afternoons. That is when you have all the business travel coming back in to Atlanta (via KATL) and you have the executive jets landing at Peachtree-Dekalb airport (KPDK)


So to avoid a complete thread-jack. Good job Airbus! I can not wait to see a A380 in KATL. You know I will be risking tangeling with Atlanta PD for some good photos.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Not that busy? That's why ATL is opening their 5th runway next week, ORD is frantically looking for space to expand, they're trying to get the Wright Act repealed to use a few other airports, etc. But they're not that busy.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Not that busy? That's why ATL is opening their 5th runway next week, ORD is frantically looking for space to expand, they're trying to get the Wright Act repealed to use a few other airports, etc. But they're not that busy.




I believe that if you read my post, you would see that I addressed this fact. The statement I has arguing against was not that the facilities were in need of updating. Once again you have confused traffic on the ground, not in the air. In fact it is in the air is the easiest to address.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Oh yeah, you're right, because airports add runways and expand because the traffic on the ground gets worse but the air traffic doesn't.


But of course every airport in the world is badly designed. That's why they're all expanding. That's why Airbus is building the A380, because there's no increase in air travel, so airspace isn't getting more crowded and isn't pushing things about as far as they can be pushed right now.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh yeah, you're right, because airports add runways and expand because the traffic on the ground gets worse but the air traffic doesn't.


But of course every airport in the world is badly designed. That's why they're all expanding. That's why Airbus is building the A380, because there's no increase in air travel, so airspace isn't getting more crowded and isn't pushing things about as far as they can be pushed right now.


Wow all I get is sarcasm? Man expected more from you! May be some links to prove your esteemed points. Like say this goody:

Oh yeah, you're right, because airports add runways and expand because the traffic on the ground gets worse but the air traffic doesn't.

And you good sir, have you ever thought that maybe...just maybe... the good people that are in charge of such things, decide that the problem lies not with the volume of air traffic but the ability to process A/D. Think about the scale of things for a second. You know in racing there is a saying, “You make more time up in the corner than on the straight.” Same thing here.
The bottle neck has always been the airport is has never been the sky.


That's why Airbus is building the A380, because there's no increase in air travel, so airspace isn't getting more crowded and isn't pushing things about as far as they can be pushed right now.


Ok I got it you love the A380...so do I. you have never seen me in a single B vs. A thread arguing the about how the A380 sux. Why....because it is a darn good piece of kit. I would kill to one day fly one. But if you think that the A380 is going to solve anything, you are delusional. They will simply pack more people onto them, in Econ config. The new gen. aircraft will drive down $/seat but that cost saving will just make the price point/seat more attractive to more people. Hub vs. point to point is a non argument. The reality is that the compromise is far more efficient and attractive. In the end neither philosophy will win out over the other. They will just evolve into each other.

And as far as the density of traffic, no it is not even close to being pushed as far as it can go. I just spent 5 hours at KATL today. There were time in which the 26/27 active (A/D) were without traffic for 5 min at a time. That may not seem much to you, but that is a long time for KATL. They push the whole two min for wake terb. pretty close most of the time. They are now grouping A/D based, as a I said before, on their size. Once the new end around is complete, a first for CONUS, their time will dramatically increase. As it stands now, 10/28 will allow KATL to process 40% more flights. (or .985 million to over 1.3 million flights A/D)That is huge. And all from adding a new taxi way, new tower facilities, a new runway and the 1999 ARTCC. No new plane nothing like that. The FAA need to continue with their modernization plans and once those are completed start all over again.

BTW KATL is going to start soon on the new International Concourse (F). They already have plans for the A380 ramps. All 10 gates will be able to accommodate the A380. They anticipate up to 10 flight a day in the next 5-10 years. But that is because while KATL is the busiest airport in the world, it is not the busiest international airport in the US (Let alone the world).

www.airport-technology.com...

The biggest single problem facing commercial airline traffic, in regards to volume en-route, is the ATC. The systems in use now are from the late 70s. New systems that are coming on line have helped revolutionize the way ATC works (i.e. FAST). ATL has not had a cap in place, for A/D, because the first ARTCC was brought on line here, and there are no active runways that intersect.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
As far as loving the A380, I'd hardly say that I love it. I don't really like the idea of flying on a plane that's going to cram me in with 700 other people, but I don't have anything against Airbus. I prefer to fly Boeing, but that's my personal choice and I'm not going to sit here slamming Airbus and going off about how stupid they are or they need to go away, or cheering if they are in trouble or anything like that.

As far as the sarcasm, I'm sick and short on sleep and I get a little testy sometimes when that happens. I'm usually better about that here in the aviation forum. I apologize for that.

Actually the biggest problem faced with air traffic in the US is NOT the airports, it's the ATC system. Since the FAA won't change anything until a major disaster occurs then the radars are old and breaking down, tens of thousands of controllers are retiring every year, and the system is slowly breaking down. Our current system is stretch to the limits and in some cases beyond. It's just a matter of time before we have our next major midair collision because a controller was short on sleep or a radar went down or something.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As far as loving the A380, I'd hardly say that I love it. I don't really like the idea of flying on a plane that's going to cram me in with 700 other people, but I don't have anything against Airbus. I prefer to fly Boeing, but that's my personal choice and I'm not going to sit here slamming Airbus and going off about how stupid they are or they need to go away, or cheering if they are in trouble or anything like that.

I do like the A380, but I am a Av junkie so what do you expect. I love new kit, whomever makes it.

As far as the sarcasm, I'm sick and short on sleep and I get a little testy sometimes when that happens. I'm usually better about that here in the aviation forum. I apologize for that.

As far as the cranky thing; no worries. I gave you a WATS, just because you are man enough to admit it.

Actually the biggest problem faced with air traffic in the US is NOT the airports, it's the ATC system. Since the FAA won't change anything until a major disaster occurs then the radars are old and breaking down, tens of thousands of controllers are retiring every year, and the system is slowly breaking down. Our current system is stretch to the limits and in some cases beyond. It's just a matter of time before we have our next major midair collision because a controller was short on sleep or a radar went down or something.



Actually the FAA is make good steps to revamp the ATC system in the US. In 1999 they opened the ARTCC in Atlanta. Since then they have been modernizing the infrastructure all over the US.
Here check out their Plan 2006-2010:
FAA 2006-2010 Plan

Also check out the current initiatives, like STAR, GPSNAV & ERAM:
FAA Current Initiatives

They are doing some good work. Revamping a system as large as CONUS is quite an undertaking. And as far a govt. agencies go, FAA is one of the better ones.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
You've never worked with them have you? *laugh* They have their moments I admit, and the new ATC system IS going to be a good one when it finally comes online. I'm really looking forward to seeing how it's going to work. However, the FAA has a severe case of "let's not do anything until we HAVE to". The airlines have been known to put pressure on them, and they give into it and let things slide.

As far as the A380, it's got a lot of potential, but personally I don't think I'd like flying it. I have enough trouble on some flights being packed in there like you wouldn't believe. And that's with 300 people. I can't imagine having 700 or more.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You've never worked with them have you? *laugh* They have their moments I admit, and the new ATC system IS going to be a good one when it finally comes online. I'm really looking forward to seeing how it's going to work. However, the FAA has a severe case of "let's not do anything until we HAVE to". The airlines have been known to put pressure on them, and they give into it and let things slide.

True they are govt. and have the same problems associated with that. I do not work with them. Do you? Are you in aviation,just curious?



As far as the A380, it's got a lot of potential, but personally I don't think I'd like flying it. I have enough trouble on some flights being packed in there like you wouldn't believe. And that's with 300 people. I can't imagine having 700 or more.


1st Class baby! Worth the extra money every time. I fly TRS alot and always get Biz class...so worth it.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I used to work with a private security company at the airport. We had a maintenance department that worked on the FAA equipment (trace detectors, metal detectors, etc.). We had a very close relationship with the FAA, and later the TSA. Most of the FAA inspectors went over to the TSA when they took over.

I flew first class twice.
Once when I took a trip to do an installation for Boeing and the TSA, and once when I moved, from Honolulu to Reno.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join