Aer Lingus A380

urajoke

3.1​Runways

Runway width
Annex 14 prescribes a runway width of 60m for Code F aircraft. Many long-range traffic airports however, and certainly those that will be filed as an alternate, have runways which are expected to comply with ICAO Code E requirements, i.e. a width of 45m.
Subject to the A380 being certified on 45m wide runways, the AACG recommendations state that a 45 meter wide runway can be used for Airbus A380 operations.

No specific alternative measures, operational procedures and operating restrictions are proposed for operations of an A380 on a 45 meters wide runway.

Runway strength
The runway need only support the reduced operating weight at an alternate (airlines have quoted maximum MLW and two hours fuel) and the infrequent use would allow pavement concession action for the appropriate bearing strength.

Runway shoulders
For destination airports, AACG recommendations state that a 45 meter wide runway with 7.5 meter shoulders on both sides can be used for Airbus A380 operations if the runway is also provided with additional “outer” shoulders. These outer shoulders should be prepared for jet blast protection, engine ingestion protection, and for supporting ground vehicles and their width should be at least 2x7.5m.
The use of 2* 7.5 meter shoulders in Code E alternate airports instead of 2*15 meter wide shoulders (including the AACG “outer” shoulders) could therefore be an issue.

For an alternate airport, upgrading the total runway + shoulder width to 75m is mostly not viable. To find whether, and under what conditions, the A380 can be operated on code E runways and shoulders, the focus should be put on the intended use of the “outer” shoulder.

1. Jet blast and engine ingestion protection.
The outboard engine of the A380 is located inside the shoulder of a code E runway (see picture below), so there is still some protection (4.3m margin) against any blast, erosion and A380 outer engine ingestion that could be generated by its thrust.

On landing, blast, erosion and A380 engine ingestion protection is not critical for the A380 on such a runway, as the outboard engines are not fitted with thrust reversers.

Take-offs however may require the blast and erosion protection capabilities of the outer shoulders, beyond the 4.3m margin offered by the inner shoulder. Absence of the “outer” shoulder could result in an ingestion risk for the A380 on takeoff, or FOD on the runway or inner shoulders which could be hazardous for the following movement.


Use of a runway at a landing alternate is likely to happen on short notice. Specific preparation of the runway and runway shoulders is not necessarily possible within the available time frame. However the landing does not present a specific risk and therefore special procedures are not necessary (although runway inspection is advisable).
In the take-off case more time is available and the departure of an A380 can be coordinated with other traffic and the need to inspect the runway,(if a 75m wide runway area is not already inspected on a regular basis). Runway inspection must be carried out immediately after take off to check that no loose objects have been blown onto the runway. In addition, a de-rated thrust may be used for takeoff at alternate airports, further reducing the engine hazard. It should be noted that the ingestion risk occurs in the very early part of the takeoff roll, below about 35 knots. A special procedure would be required for A380 operations on 45m runway without inner shoulders

http://www.aci.aero/aci/aci/file/Technical_Safety/A380%20infrastruture%20reqs%20-%20alternates.doc

A380s are certified for 45m runways like Dublin.

Stovepipe

Just to clarify: the airbridges at Dublin are designed for current aircraft and the 380 uses a 2 or 4 tunnel bridge, not available in Dublin. Hence, it's inability to cater for an emergency evacuation means they can't have a 380 on any of the existing stands. Also, some of the taxiways can't cope with it's potential maximum weight. So unless there are radical mods to EIDW, you won't see one in.

regards
Stovepipe

lufties

I recently flew the 787 on Qatar, Lovely cabin, but the seats were not half as comfy as the A380 or A330 for that matter, I can't understand why airlines can't get it right with regard to seat comfort. CX are the same, a poxy recline that makes longhaul unbearable.

Any the A380 is nice to fly, spacious cabin and quieter, with decent seating(qantas config at least).

Comhrá

Any the A380 is nice to fly, spacious cabin and quieter, with decent seating(qantas config at least).

+1. I flew to Australia with QF a few years back and the A380 was very comfortable in econ class, esp the seats. Didn't feel at all like a 12 hrs flt to Singapore going out.

Had an adventure in NZ, finished up in hospital with sudden illness, and my travel insurance kicked in. I was flown home Business Class with Emirates, another A380, AUK - LHR and Emirates Business Class was sublime.

Probably the only time I'll ever be able to travel so far in such comfort & luxury,

lufties

tippman1 wrote: »

+1. I flew to Australia with QF a few years back and the A380 was very comfortable in econ class, esp the seats. Didn't feel at all like a 12 hrs flt to Singapore going out.

Had an adventure in NZ, finished up in hospital with sudden illness, and my travel insurance kicked in. I was flown home Business Class with Emirates, another A380, AUK - LHR and Emirates Business Class was sublime.

Probably the only time I'll ever be able to travel so far in such comfort & luxury,

Ah you lucky man .. I've flown in business as a flying spanner a few times on the A330, but 5 hours max. Another time I flew PER to MEL and by default I got upgraded to biz.

Zonda999

I have flown A380 once only with Malaysian Airlines LHR to KUL. Without doubt, the most comfortable long haul flight I have ever been on. Really comfortable seats in economy, plenty legroom and great service(Although this Is the airline rather than aircraft)

JUst for comparison purposes, when coming back on that trip I flew Malaysian airlines KUL to AMS on board a B777-200ER. That was also a really comfortable flight although in fairness Malaysian airlines B777's are configured 2-5-2 which means noticeable extra seat width, compared to an Emirates 777 with 3-4-3 seating config This flight wasn't too far behind the A380 for comfort in fairness

Obviously though, the A380 I was flying in was 3 months in service at the time, the 777(As in that particular aircraft) was from late 90's. I found that particular 777 journey more comfortable than numerous flights I;'ve had in BA 744's

Mister R

Wouldn't the middle of a 5 be horrendous even if you did know the people beside you, I guess the other seats would be ok.

I went to NZ on A380 with Emirates but my return was a 777 via Melbourne before it was upgraded. The aisle did seem narrow but I really didn't feel as uncomfortable as everyone makes out the 3-4-3 777 config is. Sure the A380 was better but it seems a lot more airlines are squeezing in the 10th seat on the 777.

markpb

Stovepipe wrote: »

Just to clarify: the airbridges at Dublin are designed for current aircraft and the 380 uses a 2 or 4 tunnel bridge, not available in Dublin. Hence, it's inability to cater for an emergency evacuation means they can't have a 380 on any of the existing stands

Why does the airbridge configuration have a bearing on an emergency evacuation?

NewSigGuy

Stovepipe wrote: »

Just to clarify: the airbridges at Dublin are designed for current aircraft and the 380 uses a 2 or 4 tunnel bridge, not available in Dublin. Hence, it's inability to cater for an emergency evacuation means they can't have a 380 on any of the existing stands. Also, some of the taxiways can't cope with it's potential maximum weight. So unless there are radical mods to EIDW, you won't see one in.

regards
Stovepipe

Sorry mate just to clarify, the airbridge capacity has no effect with regard to a possible evacuation, the 380 needs three airbridges to unload and load 500pax in a reasonable time. From time to time and at some destinations only one air bridge or worse one set of steps are available and the turnaround takes a couple of hours.
In the highly unlikely event of an evacuation on stand, the doors would be armed and the slides used..

I am sure that there are issues with regards to certain taxiways in Dub for the 380, but this is also the case in many airports including LHR, JFK and many other major international airports. I think a significant problem for the 380 is the wingspan would mean it would block a number of stands if it were parked at the terminal.

ozzy jr

I got off an A380 in Dubai down the steps and onto a bus and so did those sitting upstairs!

I wouldn't see steps and buses being a problem for a one off promotional A380 visit to Dublin.

Mister R

Some rumours of Emirates attempting 11-across on A380 economy, honestly can't they just leave possibly the most comfortable economy layout alone without trying to cram in another seat.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

NewSigGuy wrote: »

Sorry mate just to clarify, the airbridge capacity has no effect with regard to a possible evacuation, the 380 needs three airbridges to unload and load 500pax in a reasonable time. From time to time and at some destinations only one air bridge or worse one set of steps are available and the turnaround takes a couple of hours.
In the highly unlikely event of an evacuation on stand, the doors would be armed and the slides used..

I am sure that there are issues with regards to certain taxiways in Dub for the 380, but this is also the case in many airports including LHR, JFK and many other major international airports. I think a significant problem for the 380 is the wingspan would mean it would block a number of stands if it were parked at the terminal.

For what it's worth, I've a dim memory of someone saying that Air France were designating DUB as a diversionary airport for their A380s. The taxiways at DUB (IIRC) would be as wide as Shannon, and the 747 needs a longer runway than the A380.

I've also a dim memory of someone saying that T2 does have one stand with an airbridge capable of connecting to an A380, if absolutely required.

That said, I wouldn't see any immediate need to cater for A380. Things seem to be going well in DUB; if they continue to build the T/A routes, and such other long haul routes as can be accommodated by the existing runway, who's to know what the future will bring. I suppose the ultimate fantasy would be Singapore. But, as with the unhappy history of the AL 747s, you don't make money from buying stuff you don't really need.

ozzy jr

Not an Aer Lingus A380, but the discussion on this thread got around to an Emirates A380 visiting Dublin.

I see Glasgow is getting a one off visit of an A380 to celebrate 10 years of Emirates visiting Glasgow.

Still hope we may get to see one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-26157751

jamo2oo9

How many years has it been since Emirates starting flying to Dublin from Dubai? I'm guessing they launched it in 2007 but I've a gut feeling that I'm wrong so could someone tell when they started it?

Jamie2k9

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

How many years has it been since Emirates starting flying to Dublin from Dubai? I'm guessing they launched it in 2007 but I've a gut feeling that I'm wrong so could someone tell when they started it?

January 2012, you are thinking Etihad who started in 2007.

jamo2oo9

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

January 2012, you are thinking Etihad who started in 2007.

Ah that's who it was then. I guess we won't be seeing an A380 in Dublin until 2022

LoonyLovegood

In fairness, if the growth in Dublin continues, we could end up like Manchester and get an A380 and A330/B777 a day. Although that probably wouldn't be until the T2 extension is completed (if it ever is)

jamo2oo9

CTYIgirl wrote: »

In fairness, if the growth in Dublin continues, we could end up like Manchester and get an A380 and A330/B777 a day. Although that probably wouldn't be until the T2 extension is completed (if it ever is)

T2 Extension? That's the first I've heard of this.. Where can I find plans of it?

L1011

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

T2 Extension? That's the first I've heard of this.. Where can I find plans of it?

Pier F, its in the long-term plans. Along with A and B being turned in to proper piers rather than the odd setups now, B being extended, and D mirrored out the other side as G.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tearbringer/5443369696/

This is all VERY long term - I'd suspect if any of its done soon enough it'll be F though. Note the second runway is built and open on the plan.

jamo2oo9

Oh that part? I believe that's part of the Parallel Runway plan where they will build and revamp the piers and construct a new runway. I believe a new cargo apron is included over the western area where there is parking available for the aircraft as of now.

L1011

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Oh that part? I believe that's part of the Parallel Runway plan where they will build and revamp the piers and construct a new runway. I believe a new cargo apron is included over the western area where there is parking available for the aircraft as of now.

It, and the parallel runway, are part of an overall master-plan rather than being anything tied *to* the parallel runway. As it stands, the terminals that are there could take more than the current runways can handle, assuming the extra traffic all wanted to use T1 - the runway will be needed a long time before piers B2 and G are.

!coolnate!

Quick question, did they fly transatlantic on 747's because if they did that would of being extremely dangerous due to small fuel tanks

EICVD

!coolnate! wrote: »

Quick question, did they fly transatlantic on 747's because if they did that would of being extremely dangerous due to small fuel tanks

I presume you mean 737?.......

L1011

!coolnate! wrote: »

Quick question, did they fly transatlantic on 747's because if they did that would of being extremely dangerous due to small fuel tanks

If you mean the 737s they had until the mid 2000s - no, neither the -200s or Classics they had had the range to even consider it.

They flew their 741s TATL all the time, as did nearly every other operator of them.