LAX Runway Construction for A380

[Alcatraz]

I always take the Boyd Group's hypothesis' with a grain of salt. Assuming the assertion that the LAX 25L runway construction IS, in fact, primarily to support the A380, however, then I agree that this is a waste of government (MY government) money...

Fly safe, ya'll...

-Alcatraz

From the Boyd Group website at www.aviationplanning.com:

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]Foreign Aid: A-380 Airport Upgrades[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]It's Not Preparing For The Future.[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]It's Preparing For A One-Off Airplane.
[/FONT]

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]Starting this week, one of the four runways LAX will be closed until March, 2007. And for a year after that, it'll be closed at night. If the project is on schedule.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]The project is to demolish the runway, and build a new one 55 feet south. The cost? $333 million - again, without cost overruns, or the expenses related to finding that historical gee-nobody-knew-it-was-here 8th century used car lot built by the Vikings.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]The reason to tear up a perfectly good runway? Why, it's for the A-380. You know, the wave of the future airliner that's registered, say somewhere less than 200 orders. The one that no US passenger carrier has ordered, nor has indicated much interest in. The one that best case, will eventually log maybe 350 entries in the Airbus orderbook. (We notice that the term we coined for the A-380, WhaleJet, is now being commonly used to describe the 550-seat airliner.)[/FONT]​

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]Somehow, there's a public policy issue here. LAX is tearing out and rebuilding one fourth of its runway capacity, just so Singapore Airlines, or Air France (or, FedEx or UPS) can eventually drop in a couple of flights a day.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]Rep. John Mica announced a few weeks ago he would propose legislation to bar such expensive upgrades that would benefit foreign airlines and a foreign aircraft manufacturer at the US taxpayer's expense...[/FONT]​

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]“Until a US airline chooses to acquire and operate the passenger version of the A380, foreign airlines that operate A380 passenger service to and from the United States should pay for any needed infrastructure improvements at the airports they serve.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]Congressman Mica is on to something. Upgrading A-380s is NOT improving airports for the future. It's simply spending lots of money for what well eventually be a pint-sized fleet of big airplanes. In passenger service, they'll be mostly operated - if not entirely operated - by foreign airlines.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]Marion Blakey is constantly whining about the FAA not having enough money. [/FONT][FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]Blowing millions demolishing good runways for a one-off airliner so foreign airlines can compete with ours, is one of the reasons.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida](c) 2006, The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc. All Rights Reserved[/FONT]​

 

[1st Rate]

Agreed! What a waste for, MAYBE, a few flights a day.

 

[Dan Roman]

My guess is all airlines will end up paying higher landing fees to pay for the "improvements" that will allow a few airlines to operate the 380. Also it appears it will require greater wake turbulence spacing, creating more delays for all airlines that fly into LAX.

 

[Tomct]

That provided the big POS gets out of the hanger!:laugh: Boeing is going to EAT ITS LUNCH!!!

 

[320AV8R]

My guess is all airlines will end up paying higher landing fees to pay for the "improvements" that will allow a few airlines to operate the 380.

I agree.

Don't forget about the cozy relationship between Govenor Arnold & Richard Branson. He got a lot of tax breaks, etc to set up shop in SFO with Virgin America. He's ordered some 380s, & is probably somewhat behind the LAX construction also.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida] (We notice that the term we coined for the A-380, WhaleJet, is now being commonly used to describe the 550-seat airliner.)[/FONT]

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida](c) 2006, The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc. All Rights Reserved[/FONT]​

Just when I read a comment I liked from Boyd he inserts this arrogant BS.

If we were at a bar, I'd have to walk away immediately.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

I[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]Somehow, there's a public policy issue here. LAX is tearing out and rebuilding one fourth of its runway capacity, just so Singapore Airlines, or Air France (or, FedEx or UPS) can eventually drop in a couple of flights a day.[/FONT]

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]Rep. John Mica announced a few weeks ago he would propose legislation to bar such expensive upgrades that would benefit foreign airlines and a foreign aircraft manufacturer at the US taxpayer's expense...[/FONT]​

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Lucida]“Until a US airline chooses to acquire and operate the passenger version of the A380, foreign airlines that operate A380 passenger service to and from the United States should pay for any needed infrastructure improvements at the airports they serve.”[/FONT]​

This is what the move from SEATAC was all about. Then the "Public" threw a hissy fit about it and the politicians changed their minds. I say let the handful of A-380 carriers pay for the projects needed to serve them.​

I hope the public likes higher fares due to these expensive airport projects, because they will be here momentarily.​

 

[Bookingsareup]

Agreed! What a waste for, MAYBE, a few flights a day.

It's all about creating revenue. People had the same feelings about the 747. More people equals more money for the airport.

 

[Junkflyer]

So flying in an A-380 now and then will pay off the$330 milliion tab for runway construction?

 

[jetexas]

Who's gonna pick up the tab for the other airlines that fly in and out of LAX? SWA, AA, Quantas, UAL, CAL, etc. will have longer delays, higher taxi burn, etc. due to the closure of one of the two primary landing runways at LAX.