Very True on the first point...Originally Posted by mirrodie
But the 2nd point? World's Largest plane?
An-225; 12/21/88
C-5 Galaxy; 1969
I hardly doubt that, take a C5, add the amenities & windows and you get a PAX hauler...technically there are seats onboard it as well for crew and MX...
and your right doesn't dwarf a 747 at all, don't have the numbers infront of me, but based on seeing it daily along side the SQ744 @ T4, I believe it's shorter in fuse length...
EDIT; For minor mistakes.
SA is the iata code for South African. Perhaps you mean SQ for Singapore?Very True on the first point...
But the 2nd point? World's Largest plane?
An-225; 12/21/88
C-5 Galaxy; 1969
I hardly doubt that, take a C5, add the amenities & windows and you get a PAX hauler...technically there are seats onboard it as well for crew and MX...
and your right doesn't dwarf a 747 at all, don't have the numbers infront of me, but based on seeing it daily along side the SA744 @ T4, I believe it's shorter in fuse length...
Next, it is facinating to see that plane. It is something unique and something that stands out. I remember driving to Montreal just to see it. It is a amazing aircraft it will be sad to see it go.
Also, how often does the C-5 or AN-225 visit JFK? And the 380 has a longer wingspan then the C-5, and is only 7 feet shorter. mirrodie's comment could simply be understood as the largest plane that visits JFK. And now we are loosing it just to get another 777-300.
The runway modifications are not only to accommodate scheduled A380 service, but also for JFK to act as a safe alternate should the A380 need to divert.
Email me anytime at [email protected].
Interesting rant but certainly doesn't address any of the points you made in your first post regarding the A380.My comment is based off the concept that the A380 has done NOTHING innovative for this industry...aviation thrives on innovation, which will keep is going further."No more Euro Trash????" What kind of comment is that? First off last I checked Emirates is based a few thousand miles away from Europe but I guess you mean the A380 which is built with parts from around the world...much like the 787 is, so yes the 787 is part Euro Trash as well....second the reduction in capacity is a sign of the times which effects the local economy. As for 13L yeah lets not tear it up now...Port can breach the contract that's signed pay a hefty fine for breach of contract and the contracting company can lay off the workers who were going to do the work and put money back into the economy....yep great idea.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
The 787 is game changing; eliminating the pneumatic system onboard the aircraft which will save weight...making the aircraft entirely electric...
What's the A380? an A340 with an upper deck?
Same flightdeck...more sheet metal...
the 777 is a fully FBW aircraft, Boeing used it as it's testbed for testing Fiber (IFE system) and Composites (control surfaces) in aviation...using what it learned, BCA created the 787...
the 757/767 brought along the idea of ARINC429 databuses, and now we use the ARINC 629 on the 777...and the 787 continues this with a redesigned databus system...
I can keep going on with the 747, 707, etc...
So I don't make my comment from ignorance, I make my comment out of insult, that you would sit here and praise an aircraft that doesn't HELP the develop of aviation, I made my comment from a technical standpoint, because THAT'S what keeps this industry going!
EDIT; Due to minor mistakes...
Regardless if the 787 is a "game changer" many of its parts come from Europe...so to go back to your "Euro Trash" statement the 787 and A380 are a bit related. Regarding the A380 as being "Euro Trash" The key designers for the A380 were former Mac Doug engineers that went to work for Airbus after Boeing bought out MD. The A380 while based on an older design is essentially the MD-12, an American idea. I'm sure the engineers who worked for MD would love being called Euro Trash. In any even the statement was pointless and ignorant.
Your rebuttal never addressed any of the points I made so I'm not sure how your points address mine...fact is they don't. Oh I don't recall anyway praising the aircraft either. The loss of any capacity at an airport is a blow the revenue stream of the particular airport. The landing fees for the A380 are higher then the a 747 or 773 so JFK will not see a return on the investment made to accommodate the A380 until much later then previously thought. So to see the A380 leave JFK is a great loss to the invests made to bring her here.
As for the 31L/13R project would you rather see JFK never have any improvements made simply to keep the airport fully operational? That's not a good long term strategy and will only hamper JFKs ability to operate at any reasonable capacity in the future. The projects going on at JFK while my cause some headaches for a period of time will generate jobs and inject money into the local and regional economies which is what we need right now.
I honestly don't care where the parts come from; Many of the same suppliers Airbus uses; Boeing uses as well. I respect companies such as Thales.
But you said it, yourself OLDER design. It was an idea that late, and missed it's slot. That's my problem with it, why should we be praising a design that's 20 years too late?
Empty seats take up the same amount of space as full seats. What I mean is that EK can't fill the aircraft 100% out of JFK. So there goes that concept of a revenue stream. Also the aircraft can't make it as a cargo hauler either. Don't believe me; talk to a few guys in engineering at Fedex. The A380 maindeck can take a decent load, but after you fill the maindeck you pretty much reach the MTOW, and your top deck is useless. So unless your plan is to ship empty boxes. Aircraft is useless. Also you can't remove the floor between the top and maindeck; because that removes structural integrity. The airframe would collapse on itself.
You want improvements to JFK? Tell Port Authority to give up their lease of all NYC Airports...
They can spend the money to tear up a perfectly good runway, but can't spend the money to lay new fiber on the field to support the equipment that the aircrafts use?
My statements are made out of ignorance, because my PAYCHECK depends on this industry. Every day I'm one of the people behind the scenes making sure your flight follows a normal operation. I'm the one making sure the equipment is in calibration and working correctly.
Port is tearing down perfectly good buildings, tearing up a perfectly good strip of pavement...for what?
To justify a bigger budget next year...
Sometimes I wish Rudy did succeed with the Port Authority leases...
Don't get me started on NextGen either; you want to help this economy...well pushing that forward isn't the way...
There are 2 things in this world you can't privatize; Healthcare & National Airspace System...
Subcontractors will put the bottom line first before the lives of the people onboard an aircraft...
LADIES,
PLEASE!
You are BOTH beautiful!!!
The investments made were not contingent on the A380, regardless what press you read.So to see the A380 leave JFK is a great loss to the invests made to bring her here.
I'm certainly not an engineer who can evaluate runways, but do you have the skills to come to that conclusion?Port is tearing down perfectly good buildings, tearing up a perfectly good strip of pavement...for what?
Carry on, carry on....
And I, I took the path less traveled by
and that has made all the difference......yet...
I have a feeling a handle of people are going to be very interested in what I post in the near future.
http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=187
Thanks; I want to feel pretty too...
I'm certainly not an engineer who can evaluate runways, but do you have the skills to come to that conclusion?Port is tearing down perfectly good buildings, tearing up a perfectly good strip of pavement...for what?
Carry on, carry on....[/quote]
I'm not a civil engineer; but according to the FAA's engineers who are working along side Port because our equipment is affected, off the record feel differently...
But I do want to say i've got nothing personal against T-Bird76...if it comes across that way.
this is a forum, for discussion and we are using it to it's potential...
It's all good!!! :borat:
And I, I took the path less traveled by
and that has made all the difference......yet...
I have a feeling a handle of people are going to be very interested in what I post in the near future.
http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=187
Once again who is praising the A380? I personally think its the spirit of the Concorde, another failed venture but none the less the loss is a loss.I honestly don't care where the parts come from; Many of the same suppliers Airbus uses; Boeing uses as well. I respect companies such as Thales.
But you said it, yourself OLDER design. It was an idea that late, and missed it's slot. That's my problem with it, why should we be praising a design that's 20 years too late?
Mario the investments made around T4 were solely for the A380 as T4 wasn't able to handle her in its original layout. The upgrades that were done to the taxiways and the gates in no way benefit other aircraft.The investments made were not contingent on the A380, regardless what press you read.
MMedford your totally missing my point, a great deal of money was spent to accommodate this bird and for EK to pull her out is going to result is a slower return on the investment made to handle her. I don't care about the older design, or Nextgen, or w/e else...the topic discusses her being pulled out. The Port should hand EK a bill and make them pay up, they certainly have the money.
Concorde was only a failure for AF, as BA made profit on it.
We'll have to agree to disagree as my info comes straight from Port press releases that are available online and no where state that these were a fix for the A380. Yours and the public's is an assumption that the investment solely benefited one a/c type.Mario the investments made around T4 were solely for the A380
Its OK though. You're still pretty.
And I, I took the path less traveled by
and that has made all the difference......yet...
I have a feeling a handle of people are going to be very interested in what I post in the near future.
http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=187
Its to bad that the 380 will be leaving JFK.and hopefully it will be back soon. I believe the improvements to the infrastructure for the 380 at JFK are already finished.All the other airlines are cutting capacity and aircraft. It was only a matter of time before this happened. Don't forget we are scheduled to see the Lufty and the Quantas 380 at some point in time.
The upcoming construction at JFK is not just because we have or had the 380. It is due to the fact that the bay runway is due for a major overhaul. After many years of maintenance its just time to replace the runway.Yes they are making it wider and yes they are adding the run off pads for safety but this is necessary to bring JFK into the future. We need to be ready for whatever aircraft the future brings to JFK. As spotters you always want to be the first kid on the block to see the new A3XX or the Boing 7XX. Wouldnt it be something if when they wanted to fly into JFK we couldnt handle it because our infrastructure is out of date. Its never a good time to take a runway OOS and yes its a huge bill to pay but doesnt it make sense to do it now while the economy is slow so we can create jobs and get ready for the future...
"You above all"
Mario the gate project at T4 was solely for the A380 (right now) as is the one at T1 regardless of what press releases tell you. There is no other double decker plane that requires a jet bridge to access the upper deck. While the projects will benefit larger and new designs down the road, right now the A380 is the true benefactor of the investment. If you look at the gate design at T1 and T4 the gates that were put on specifically for the A380 configuration. This isn't saying other planes can't use them but the modifications had to be made so the jet bridge could reach the A380s upper deck. The mods are useless for a 747 as the 74s upper deck door is only an emergency exit. Its not only JFK that invested the money but LAX had to spend millions on adding two A380 gates.
We need to be ready for whatever aircraft the future brings to JFK. As spotters you always want to be the first kid on the block to see the new A3XX or the Boing 7XX.So then, Tom, you are basically supporting what I said and what Mmedford also said, which is that the improvements were safeguarding JFK for larger types the future may hold.While the projects will benefit larger and new designs down the road, right now the A380 is the true benefactor
The A380 was simply the first benefactor but Port did not just do the expansion for the A380's sake and thus EK and other 380 operators should not have to foot the bill as you stated earlier.
SLam dunk!!
And I, I took the path less traveled by
and that has made all the difference......yet...
I have a feeling a handle of people are going to be very interested in what I post in the near future.
http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=187
So then, Tom, you are basically supporting what I said and what Mmedford also said, which is that the improvements were safeguarding JFK for larger types the future may hold.[quote:2o2pzdj0]While the projects will benefit larger and new designs down the road, right now the A380 is the true benefactorWe need to be ready for whatever aircraft the future brings to JFK. As spotters you always want to be the first kid on the block to see the new A3XX or the Boing 7XX.
The A380 was simply the first benefactor but Port did not just do the expansion for the A380's sake and thus EK and other 380 operators should not have to foot the bill as you stated earlier.
SLam dunk!![/quote:2o2pzdj0]
The gate enchantments would not have been done if the A380 didn't come about...the facts and evidence are the projects were done for the A380. Do your research about the A380. She wasn't designed for today's airports hence the updates that were made. As it also stands now Boeing will not be making anything larger then the 747-8. Boeing's next plans are for a totally different animal all together that almost no airport today can handle.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks