Airports that made changes to accommodate the A380 - are those changes wasted when A380 is no longer flying or still useful for other reasons?

[-]

afriendincanada@reddit

YYC’s new international terminal has 2 gates that can accommodate the A380, which doesn’t fly here. Other aircraft use the gates. It’s overbuilt but the gates aren’t wasted.

[-]

andrewrbat@reddit

They can be used if an a380 flight to another airport diverts. Diverting and having no gate is a real pain In the ass.

[-]

Cptknuuuuut@reddit

Why not just let them board/unboard via stairs? Or is that one of those things that are really common in Europe and unheard of in the US?

I'd say that in about 50% of my flights passangers are being bussed to the plane and board it via stairs, not via a gate that's attached to the plane.

[-]

I mean, in the US it's really only a thing at smaller airports. As someone who's flown domestically a fair bit, I've only ever boarded or deplaned via stairs in the US once that I can remember, and that was flying into North Dakota. Jetways seem to be the standard here.

[-]

LookoutBel0w@reddit

Here in the US we’re civilized and don’t subject passengers to that sort of torture.

[-]

dagelijksestijl@reddit

Stairs are the prestigious way to board a plane

[-]

LookoutBel0w@reddit

Most people don’t care. Now try and board 200 people in windy rain and report back.

[-]

NoBuilder2444@reddit

Does the airport have stairs tall enough? Remember when Khrushchev came to the US.

[-]

Cptknuuuuut@reddit

If it's a small regional airport, maybe not. But mobile passenger stairs that can be used on a Boing 777 can also be used for an A380. And that height is only required to reach to upper deck.

In a pinch you could also let people exit from the lower door only. In that case the height is in a completely normal range for a passenger airplane.

[-]

sourcefourmini@reddit

I know PHX has had this problem at least three times, with 2 Qantas A380s en route to DFW and a Lufthansa A380 en route to LAX. Strong enough runway to be an approved diversion airport + no gates that can accommodate one = not a great time for anyone involved except the planespotters.

[-]

andrewrbat@reddit

Sit there on a taxiway, in everyone’s way until you can get to a hardstand thats out of the way and get fuel somehow, the weather improves, and you take off again. And after the pax have been on the plane for 13 hours, who doesn’t want another 5 hours!?

[-]

afriendincanada@reddit

Absolutely.

[-]

FunClothes@reddit

Chc airport in NZ is I believe the smallest airport in the world to have a scheduled A380 service. A daily Emirates flight to/from Dubai via Sydney. They widened the taxiway in front of the terminal because the plane would have to go back on the main runway to access its parking spot. In hindsight was probably a big cost to avoid a few minutes main runway disruption, but it would have been a gamble either way, a guess as to whether etops widebody planes would dominate.

[-]

Tomato_Head120@reddit

They would've had to either widen the ends or enlarge the taxi, the taxiway probably ended up benefiting in the long term imo

[-]

Tomato_Head120@reddit

NZCH is the smallest airport in the world with a daily a380. If it wasn't able to be used anymore (I.e. Emirates stops) it can accommodate literally any other plane

[-]

AlternativeAerie2903@reddit

KIND rebuilt taxiways and aprons to handle the nonexistent FedEx A380F.

It did help in that IND frequently will take ORD diversions

[-]

Gone213@reddit

DTW made modifications to accommodate the A380. I dont think one has ever landed there since the A380's first flight.

[-]

flyingcircusdog@reddit

I don't think so. Delta hasn't gone to the A380, and Lufthansa switched from the 747 to A350. I think it would take Korean Air deciding to make it a major transfer hub to get one.

[-]

hobbesmaster@reddit

There’s probably some parallel universe where the DL-NW merger doesn’t happen and… idk, NRT slot pressure increases or something and that was a good idea.

[-]

Substantial_Point_57@reddit

I remember being at JFK and two A380s were boarding at the same time at neighboring gates. It gate agents yelling over the intercom, loud crowd of people, and what felt like a hundred wheelchairs.

It was wild.

[-]

MasterChief813@reddit

They stopped the A380 routes from KATL a few years back unfortunately but the Antonov(s) flew in regularly during Covid dropping off and transporting supplies using the runway they added to accommodate the A380s.

[-]

Kseries2497@reddit

Antonov only had one super, the A225, and that was destroyed a few years ago when the Russians invaded. The A124 is "just" a heavy, although it's pretty funny to see it parked at a gate.

[-]

Odd_Fox_1944@reddit

The A380 is still flying passengers, so no wasted.

The gates can still be used for other airframes, so not wasted.

[-]

Pilot0160@reddit

They can accept any widebody aircraft at those gates so it wouldn’t be a waste. Hell, even Indianapolis, Indiana can technically accept an A380 in a pinch even though there is not good reason for one to go there

[-]

njsullyalex@reddit

What if people from the UAE want to go watch the Indy 500?

[-]

SaltLakeBear@reddit

F1 makes a triumphant return to the Brickyard...

[-]

Suspicious-Gur-8453@reddit

Unless Emirates goes bankrupt most international airports that made those changes will be seeing A380s for a very long time.

[-]

Difficult_Camel_1119@reddit

except Berlin where it made no sense at all to even add A380 gates.

Some weeks ago, there was an A380 in Berlin and had to stay on the remote stands as there is no A380 compatible pushback

[-]

Bi0botaniker@reddit

Although I love to shit on Berlin, in this time we need to defend Berlin at least a little.

Emirates wanted to fly to Berlin since a long time (large Arabian population, 3mio people etc) but is not allowed because they aren’t granted the rights to do so.

[-]

dagelijksestijl@reddit

No wonder BER is such a joke when every airline that isn’t Lufthansa gets shat upon whenever they try to offer long distance.

And Lufthansa isn’t going to let Berlin compete with Frankfurt and Munich.

[-]

eggzs@reddit

BER is the textbook example of when design by committee goes wrong

[-]

Aexibaexi@reddit

Big German infrastructure projects always tend to have massive hold ups. Just google Stuttgart 21.

[-]

knorkinator@reddit

A big factor isn't even the planning or execution, though, it's NIMBYs.

[-]

curveball_82@reddit

You are getting this wrong. The 21 stands for the 21st century. We are still perfectly on time.

[-]

FoximaCentauri@reddit

No it’s the budget. We‘re currently at 11.5 billion so everything is in order

[-]

DashTrash21@reddit

The Wikipedia page reads like an Onion article.

[-]

jooxii@reddit

Wow, you weren't kidding

"The most significant cause for the continuing delays was the fire protection and alarm system... FBB proposed an interim solution employing up to 700 human fire spotters"

"For aesthetic reasons, designers decided that the terminal would have smoke extraction ducts in its ceiling but that they would not exhaust to its rooftop. During a fire, smoke would be pumped from the ceiling into a shaft running down and through the basement below the structure."

"It emerged that Alfredo di Mauro, who designed the fire safety system, was not a qualified engineer. While his business cards stated he was an engineer, he was actually qualified as an engineering draughtsman."

" A total of 60 kilometres (37 mi) of cooling pipes were allegedly installed with no thermal insulation. To correct this, the demolition of numerous walls was necessary. Furthermore, exterior vents appeared to be in improper locations, which allowed rainwater from the western facade to enter them"

[-]

VanguardDeezNuts@reddit

"Wir können alles - außer Flughäfen."

[-]

PropOnTop@reddit

Is that the airport construction project that has a game ridiculing it?

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1364130/Chaotic_Airport_Construction_Manager/

[-]

EmpunktAtze@reddit

lol

[-]

DutchBlob@reddit

That’s hilarious! I knew BER was a gigantic fuckup but this is new level of stupidity

[-]

Biker1124@reddit

That’s really funny. Let’s build something but not have the capability to use it

[-]

AdamN@reddit

They built it so it’s ready if a380s want to fly there. Not having a pushback is just because it’s not worth the effort because no a380s fly there now (aside from the aforementioned one) - but getting a pushback figured out would be easily resolved.

Of all the BER issues this just seems like 20/20 hindsight and although the bet didn’t turn out in their favor it could have also gone the other way.

[-]

kiimosabe@reddit

Anecdotally, I've been to multiple Airports that serve the A380. Not every airport accommodates them the same.

Seoul Incheon - Designed gates for the A380, with Multi-Level Boarding. Boarding can occur directly to the upper deck.
Denver International - Essentially uses the widest gates available and flips a jet bridge from another gate for dual bridge boarding. Multi-Level Boarding is not available and Upper deck passengers utilize the internal stairs.

[-]

Dry_Restaurant_9526@reddit

Though the A380 was unsuccessful, it created many necessary changes that has allowed airports to host larger aircraft today. Many airports created larger taxi-ways, stronger runways and more support for large aircraft. It is likely these changes would of happened regardless, but the A380 helped fast track this to the early 2000. These changes have allowed more heavy aircraft to be at airport and flying.

[-]

ExtensionFly4481@reddit

In EDDF they added another jetway where A380s usually parked. They also implemented that some of those positions could also be used by 2 smaller aircraft at the same time, with L3 for one, and L1 for the other. Only if the positions are big enough that is. That will probably stay.

[-]

k_dubious@reddit

As a passenger most airport widebody gate areas feel laughably small to accommodate 300+ people. I’m sure the passengers catching flights on smaller aircraft from A380 gates appreciate actually having a place to sit before boarding.

[-]

kingrikk@reddit

I don’t know why airports use all their gates in the same area for departures at the same time. I was at the end of Pier 5 at Heathrow T3 last year and there was 3 wide body flights going out at the same time, and about 100 seats.

[-]

Sltre101@reddit

Just how it works out sometimes. On another day they could all be leaving from different parts of the terminal. It’s up to the airport to park the aircraft in a suitable spot to meet their needs, the airline schedule their aircraft to meet their needs. Sometimes that means you have three next to each other going out at the same time, just how it is.

[-]

kingrikk@reddit

And like someone said - especially in Europe where the airports are generally run for shareholder profit and not transportation excellence, it saves a couple of miles of wear on the tugs and probably a few staff.

[-]

Eat_Locals@reddit

Just a guess, but using the same gates might save on stuff like the number of baggage handlers you need?

[-]

a380b787@reddit

Gate capability, not all aircraft fit at certain gates. And many other reasons.

[-]

Biker1124@reddit

JFK used to put both emirates a380 flights at 11pm right next to each other. One was direct and one stopped in Milan. It was absolute chaos when I took one of those flights.

[-]

Sltre101@reddit

All gates are capable of handling multiple different types. The A380 gates also handle regular wide body aircraft and some even have a left and right centreline to split the gate into two. Realistically the only difference is a third high jetbridge that’s only used when an A380 is there - but everything else can be used for everything else.

[-]

Longjumping-Tour-350@reddit

A380s are still out there, and will be for many years (without another pandemic or major event that might kill it). Regardless large wide bodys will be here forever as far as I can tell. planes like the 777X will also really appreciate the extra room.

[-]

apeceep@reddit

777x has folding wings to specially not need the extra space which was build for a380

[-]

StellaArtois3000@reddit

EBBR spent 52 million and only ever had a two A380s land there during ceremonial flights. The investment was scoped broad enough to accommodate wide body jets in general though. So not a waste.

[-]

MaddingtonBear@reddit

The changes aren't A380 specific, it's for any Group VI aircraft. A Group VI gate (A380/B748) is 15m wider than a Group V gate (B777/A350), which isn't all that much in terminal scale, and you can still park a Group V or smaller aircraft in a Group VI stand. Depending on how the jetbridges are configured, a Group VI stand (80m wide) can also be split into two positions for narrowbodies (36m wide) - called a MARS gate.

As far as runways and taxiways go, airports routinely make capital improvements and building to Group VI aircraft is still a smart long-term trend. The 777X, for example, has the folding wingtips that make it a Group V aircraft for gates, but a Group VI aircraft on the runway.

[-]

Space--Buckaroo@reddit

According to Google AI, LAX spent $121 Million to accommodate the A380.

[-]

Bumoris@reddit

At AKL we have 5 gates that can accept A380. 1 of them probably always could because it's right at the tip of a terminal. The other 4 can either accept an A380 or take 2 narrow bodies.

[-]

nickgasm@reddit

I miss seeing the three daily Emirates A380s all lined up and leaving within about 30 mins of one another.

[-]

jettech737@reddit

777X will take advantage of that

[-]

bears-eat-beets@reddit

Ummm the 777-9 and -8 (I assume that's what your talking about with the 777x) have a wingspan that is 2 inches (5cm) wider than a standard 777-300er (the most common one used on trans-a/p flights). The wingtips are designed to fold up as soon as the plane slows to taxi speed and drop down just before takeoff.

[-]

Ok-Insurance-9456@reddit

I mean if the wingtips ever fail to retract then I guess it can use 380 gates

[-]

Complete_Item9216@reddit

Some parts of airport areas were designed to accommodate the two level boarding. Often separating the premium passengers to the top level so the lounges will feed into it directly. Thus premium passengers would not need to interact with the plebs below.

So this is gone and now people paying 35,000USD per ticket need to look at your poor shoes when boarding

[-]

RadosAvocados@reddit

Chicago O'Hare paid $5M to upgrade one of the gates to accept the A380. British Airways was the only carrier that regularly used it for a few years before switching back to the 777. Supposedly the upgrades were paid by raising the fees for airlines using Terminal 5 but I don't know the details.

This was the only upgrade made specifically to accommodate the A380. Plenty of other infrastructure upgrades were made like adding new longer runways, wider taxiways, etc, that happen to help facilitate the A380.

[-]

flightist@reddit

Most 380 gates can do double duty as two gates for other types. It isn’t really wasted capacity.

[-]

Accomplished-Toe-468@reddit

Aside from a bigger box at many, the main difference is having a bigger airbridge that can reach the upper deck. Many airports have solved this issue by using that gate as a tandem gate for 2x A320/737 sized aircraft. Of course it can also be used for regular large aircraft like 777 etc. Where 3x airbrushed midges have been installed is where the issue is. I would think most airports that don’t regularly see A380 would take out the 2nd main deck airbridge (leaving 2 as in my example above to allow for tandem operations).

[-]