Airbus A380 is a mixed blessing for LAX

[oz_mark]

Every time Qantas lands one of its giant Airbus A380s at LAX, parts of the nation's fourth-busiest airport come to a halt.

Service roads, taxiways and runways must be closed to airfield trucks, cars and other commercial aircraft as the world's largest passenger plane -- with wings almost as long as a football field -- arrives, departs and taxis with an official escort of operations vehicles.

Airbus A380 is a mixed blessing for LAX - Los Angeles Times

 

[Evan]

Right now it sounds great for QF, they get priority all the way, no waiting, great for them thats for sure.
E

 

[pauly7]

Great for QF passengers!

 

[Skoogle]

The article sounds like LAX really stuffed up their past & future planning. I am sure SFO is begging for them to give up.

 

[Starship]

Great for QF passengers!

Not necessarily! Even under the ASPIRE program, with prioritised taxiways, from pushback to take off, it is still takes nearly 30 minutes because of the procedures and route it has to take.

Even with a business in LA, my preference is still to fly to SFO (and avoid LAX).

I love the Airbus comment on passenger numbers!

Whilst the aircraft can carry up to 850, which they certified with ex olympians in the emergency exit test [and there are articles about the sardine cans planned for specific Asian domestic routes] the issue is weight and fuel loads - as it cannot do a SIN / LHR or MEL / LAX with more than the <600's QF are flying.

This brings the efficiency back into balance / deficit for the A380 when you consider....

If an A380 flies into or out of the airport, aircraft behind it must maintain a longer distance because of strong wake turbulence, swirling air that can cause a trailing plane to go out of control. Heavy jets like a 747 must stay at least six miles away, while light planes must maintain a distance of 10 miles.[\quote]

While LAX is suffering a reduction in traffic, given the 50% penalty [6miles vs 4miles separation for a 747 following a 747] there is still an advantage for the ongoing 744's [747-400] in passenger numbers at many other constrained airports. Qantas advise that the business case for the 747-800 does not stack up - and possibly has the same issue as the A380.


It should be noted that there is internal dissent within Airbus about the applicability of the 6NM separation, but after 4 years of testing have been unable to support a reduction. The issue in my mind is the testing methods they have used, and given the wing loadings of other Airbus aircraft, there could be an argument for this to be reduced. - a question that focus's my mind most days! [And no i am not sick, this is my business].

 

[NYCguy]

The A380 was supposed to have a very similar wake-turbulence profile to the 744, however it didn't quite turn out that way, according to the ICAO report entitled "Wake Vortex aspects of the Airbus A380 aircraft", published 11/10/2005: T 13/3-05-0661.SLG. The report recommended that:

1) One additional min to be added to all separations, when the A380 is the leading aircraft;
2) Horizontal spacing on final approach to be no less than 10 NM between A380 and following aircraft, and;
3) Vertical spacing to be no less than 2000ft when following behind the A380.

The increased minima don't sound like much, but during peak-hour at a heavily slot-constrained airport where every second counts, I imagine that they would cause ongoing problems.

 

[Starship]

The A380 was supposed to have a very similar wake-turbulence profile to the 744, however it didn't quite turn out that way, according to the ICAO report entitled "Wake Vortex aspects of the Airbus A380 aircraft", published 11/10/2005: T 13/3-05-0661.SLG. The report recommended that:

1) One additional min to be added to all separations, when the A380 is the leading aircraft;
2) Horizontal spacing on final approach to be no less than 10 NM between A380 and following aircraft, and;
3) Vertical spacing to be no less than 2000ft when following behind the A380.

The increased minima don't sound like much, but during peak-hour at a heavily slot-constrained airport where every second counts, I imagine that they would cause ongoing problems.

Quite correct NYC. The separation minima has now been formally reduced to 6NM for a following 744, but the distances for a following 767 / A320 - or even a Dash 8 [thinking of MEL and SYD] are horrendous. (with ATC tapping their fingers and watching the clock whilst the runway is empty). Airbus however are presenting that an A380 following another aircraft requires no separation - other than for collision avoidance.

Airbus were relying on the wingtip 'gates' to ameliorate the vortices, but were advised, and have since had proven that these have little impact as the vortices develop from the whole trailing edge of the wing.

ICAO / FAA / Eurocontrol are currently revising the 'weight' categories for separations - but this is only scratching the surface in the process. Even comparing a 738 to an A320 there are worlds of difference - and they are in the same category. But the structure of the vortices for the A380 and 744 - and the Bo [the distance between the vortex pairs] based on what i have seen are significantly different. Note: Airbus data from their 4 years of testing is heavily buried - and only shared on a must know basis, with heavy confidentiality agreements.


With the expectation that aviation growth (notwithstanding the current economic trough) is going to double in the next 15 years, most major airports, if not all ready constrained, are going to be past their limit - unless they can lay more concrete [which is unlikely for most]. For this reason, the Single European Skies ATM research project is looking for ways to overcome the wake separation, and have the only constraint being a 45 second runway clearance time.

In an area such as NY [and San Francisco with the added issue of a closely spaced parallel runway] as well as many other places - the vertical separation is also a major issue given the density of traffic for JFK, EWR, LGA [and SFO, SJC, OAK].

Any delay then has flow on effect for land side efficiency for airlines (gates / staffing / turnaround), passengers and other services.

 

[Evan]

Actually the A380 is easier to handle at airports until now compared to the B747-8 since they have the reduced runway width and taxiway approved that the B747-8 does not yet have. So completely no point at all purchasing a 747-8 for reasons of separation as yet and probably never. Both are greater than size F.
E