Commercial Aviation
Costs and Major Factors Influencing Infrastructure Changes at U.S. Airports to Accomodate the New A380 Aircraft Gao ID: GAO-06-571 May 19, 2006Airbus S.A.S (Airbus), a European aircraft manufacturer, introduced a new aircraft, the A380 that will be the largest passenger aircraft in the world with expected delivery to its first customers in late 2006. The A380 has a double deck and is expected to seat between 555 and 853 passengers. The A380 is much larger than its competitors with a wingspan of 262 feet, a tail fin about 80 feet high, and a maximum takeoff weight of over 1.2 million pounds. A freight version of the A380 is scheduled for delivery in 2008. Because of the size of the A380, U.S. airports have to make changes to accommodate the aircraft. This may include widening runways and taxiways, or restructuring gate areas to accommodate the additional passengers. This report examines (1) the costs and nature of the changes U.S. airports are making to their infrastructure to accommodate the A380, (2) the funding sources being used to finance these changes, and (3) the major factors influencing the changes being made. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airbus provided technical comments on the report. Airbus also commented on the 18 airports' cost estimates of the changes being made for the A380 and estimated $720 million for these changes. Based on the costs airports reported initially and our subsequent reconfirmation efforts, we did not change the cost estimates provided by the airports.
The 18 U.S. airports that GAO identified as making changes to accommodate the Airbus A380 estimated that they would spend about $927 million in completed, ongoing, or planned infrastructure projects. About 83 percent of the costs reported were identified for runway or taxiway projects. The remaining costs were for changes at gates, terminals, or support services. Some airports noted that if FAA changed the current runway requirements for accommodating the A380, their plans and estimates would change. For example, if FAA allows the aircraft to operate on 150-foot-wide runways under certain conditions, this would reduce costs at most airports. However, if FAA decided that more stringent standards should apply, at least half of the airports could face costs in excess of those reported. Airport officials reported using several sources to finance the infrastructure changes. About 50 percent of the costs would be financed though federal grants under the Airport Improvement Program, they said. Passenger facility charges were identified as the source of financing for about 21 percent of the costs, with 29 percent from airport revenues, bonds, and other sources. FAA's design standards and market considerations have been two major factors influencing the A380 changes at airports. For example, airports generally based their plans and estimates on either FAA standards that require 200-foot-wide runways and 100-foot-wide taxiways for this size aircraft or FAA's interim guidance. The guidance allows the conversion of existing 150-foot-wide runways to 200 feet by adding 25 feet of reduced strength pavement to each side and extending the shoulders and allows use of 75-foot taxiways by widening shoulders and adding center lights. Airports are also making changes based on the market they serve. For example, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and San Francisco are major gateway airports that had little choice but to make changes to receive the A380 if they were to maintain their competitive status. Other airports have been approached with plans for future A380 passenger or freight service and weighed the costs of making infrastructure changes against the potential impact on their business. Still others have not been approached for A380 service but are making changes to accommodate it so that they can market their availability for this aircraft and potentially increase their international market presence.
GAO-06-571, Commercial Aviation: Costs and Major Factors Influencing Infrastructure Changes at U.S. Airports to Accomodate the New A380 Aircraft
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-571
entitled 'Commercial Aviation: Costs and Major Factors Influencing
Infrastructure Changes at U.S. Airports to Accommodate the New A380
Aircraft' which was released on June 23, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives:
May 2006:
Commercial Aviation:
Costs and Major Factors Influencing Infrastructure Changes at U.S.
Airports to Accommodate the New A380 Aircraft:
GAO-06-571:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-571, a report to Chairman, Subcommittee on
Aviation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Airbus S.A.S (Airbus), a European aircraft manufacturer, introduced a
new aircraft, the A380 that will be the largest passenger aircraft in
the world with expected delivery to its first customers in late 2006.
The A380 has a double deck and is expected to seat between 555 and 853
passengers. The A380 is much larger than its competitors with a
wingspan of 262 feet, a tail fin about 80 feet high, and a maximum
takeoff weight of over 1.2 million pounds. A freight version of the
A380 is scheduled for delivery in 2008.
Because of the size of the A380, U.S. airports have to make changes to
accommodate the aircraft. This may include widening runways and
taxiways, or restructuring gate areas to accommodate the additional
passengers. This report examines (1) the costs and nature of the
changes U.S. airports are making to their infrastructure to accommodate
the A380, (2) the funding sources being used to finance these changes,
and (3) the major factors influencing the changes being made.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airbus provided technical
comments on the report. Airbus also commented on the 18 airports‘ cost
estimates of the changes being made for the A380 and estimated $720
million for these changes. Based on the costs airports reported
initially and our subsequent reconfirmation efforts, we did not change
the cost estimates provided by the airports.
What GAO Found:
The 18 U.S. airports that GAO identified as making changes to
accommodate the Airbus A380 estimated that they would spend about $927
million in completed, ongoing, or planned infrastructure projects.
About 83 percent of the costs reported were identified for runway or
taxiway projects. The remaining costs were for changes at gates,
terminals, or support services. Some airports noted that if FAA changed
the current runway requirements for accommodating the A380, their plans
and estimates would change. For example, if FAA allows the aircraft to
operate on 150-foot-wide runways under certain conditions, this would
reduce costs at most airports. However, if FAA decided that more
stringent standards should apply, at least half of the airports could
face costs in excess of those reported.
Airport officials reported using several sources to finance the
infrastructure changes. About 50 percent of the costs would be financed
though federal grants under the Airport Improvement Program, they said.
Passenger facility charges were identified as the source of financing
for about 21 percent of the costs, with 29 percent from airport
revenues, bonds, and other sources.
FAA‘s design standards and market considerations have been two major
factors influencing the A380 changes at airports. For example, airports
generally based their plans and estimates on either FAA standards that
require 200-foot-wide runways and 100-foot-wide taxiways for this size
aircraft or FAA‘s interim guidance. The guidance allows the conversion
of existing 150-foot-wide runways to 200 feet by adding 25 feet of
reduced strength pavement to each side and extending the shoulders and
allows use of 75-foot taxiways by widening shoulders and adding center
lights. Airports are also making changes based on the market they
serve. For example, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and San Francisco are
major gateway airports that had little choice but to make changes to
receive the A380 if they were to maintain their competitive status.
Other airports have been approached with plans for future A380
passenger or freight service and weighed the costs of making
infrastructure changes against the potential impact on their business.
Still others have not been approached for A380 service but are making
changes to accommodate it so that they can market their availability
for this aircraft and potentially increase their international market
presence.
Figure: The Airbus A380 in Flight:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-571].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Gerald Dillingham at
(202) 512-2834, or dillinghamg@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Infrastructure Changes at U.S. Airports to Accommodate the
A380 Aircraft:
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix III: Summary Costs Reported by Airports to Accommodate the
A380:
Appendix IV: Status of Modifications of Standards Requested by Airports
to Accommodate the A380:
Appendix V: Comments by Airbus:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport's Estimated A380-
Related Costs as of March 1, 2006:
Table 2: Fort Worth Alliance Airport's Estimated A380-Related Costs as
of March 1, 2006:
Table 3: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport's Estimated
A380-Related Costs as of March 1, 2006:
Table 4: Chicago O'Hare International Airport's Estimated A380-Related
Costs as of March 1, 2006:
Table 5: Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport's Estimated A380-
Related Costs as of March 1, 2006:
Table 6: Denver International Airport's Estimated A380-Related Costs as
of March 1, 2006:
Table 7: Indianapolis International Airport's Estimated A380-Related
Costs as of March 1, 2006:
Table 8: Los Angeles International Airport's Estimated A380-Related
Costs as of March 1, 2006:
Table 9: Louisville International Airport's Estimated A380-Related
Costs as of March 1, 2006:
Table 10: Memphis International Airport's Estimated A380-Related Costs
as of March 1, 2006:
Table 11: Memphis International Airport's Estimated A380-Related Costs
as of March 1, 2006:
Table 12: New York John F. Kennedy International Airport's Estimated
A380-Related Costs as of March 1, 2006:
Table 13: Ontario International Airport's (Ontario, California)
Estimated A380-Related Costs as of March 1, 2006:
Table 14: Orlando International Airport's Estimated A380-Related Costs
as of March 1, 2006:
Table 15: Philadelphia International Airport's Estimated A380-Related
Costs as of March 1, 2006:
Table 16: San Francisco International Airport's Estimated A380-Related
Costs as of March 1, 2006:
Table 17: Tampa International Airport's Estimated A380-Related Costs as
of March 1, 2006:
Table 18: Washington Dulles International Airport's Estimated A380-
Related Costs as of March 1, 2006:
Table 19: Status of A380-Related Modifications of Standards Requests
(as of March 1, 2006):
Figures:
Figure 1: Depiction of the Airbus A380 Aircraft:
Figure 2: Costs Reported by Airports for Infrastructure Changes Needed
to Accommodate the A380 (as of March 1, 2006):
Figure 3: Sources of Funding Reported by Airports for Changes to
Accommodate the A380:
Abbreviations:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 19, 2006:
The Honorable John Mica:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Aviation:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Airbus S.A.S. (Airbus), a European aircraft manufacturer, is
introducing a new aircraft called the A380 that will be the largest
passenger aircraft in the world.[Footnote 1] The A380 has a double deck
and is expected to seat from about 555 to 853 passengers. The largest
commercial aircraft in use today, the Boeing 747, generally seats 416
passengers. The A380 is much larger than its competitors, with a
wingspan of about 262 feet, a tail fin reaching 80 feet high, and a
maximum takeoff weight in excess of 1.2 million pounds. The A380 is
currently undergoing certification tests prior to its expected delivery
to air carriers in late 2006. A freight version of the aircraft, the
A380F, is to follow in 2008. Airbus has orders from 16 air carriers for
159 passenger and freight aircraft. The only U.S. air carrier customers
to date are Federal Express and UPS, which have each ordered 10 A380F
aircraft.[Footnote 2]
Figure 1: Depiction of the Airbus A380 Aircraft:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Because of the size of the A380, it is subject to the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) design standards for the largest aircraft
(Airplane Design Group VI standards), which require 200-foot-wide
runways and 100-foot-wide taxiways. However, FAA has reviewed the
specification of the A380 and in 2003 issued interim guidance--
Engineering Briefs 65 and 63--which would allow airports to convert
existing 150-foot-wide runways to 200 feet by widening them 25 feet on
each side at a lesser strength than required under Design Group VI
standards and widening runway shoulders. FAA's guidance also allows the
A380 aircraft to operate at airports with 75-foot-wide taxiways, if
they widen the shoulders and impose certain operating restrictions on
the aircraft.
In 2002, we reported that 14 airports had estimated that it would cost
them more than $2 billion dollars to upgrade their infrastructure to
receive new large aircraft like the A380.[Footnote 3] However, at that
time, we noted that determining the cost to serve these aircraft was
difficult because a number of important issues affecting the
infrastructure changes that airports needed to make were unresolved.
Since that time, FAA has issued interim guidance to airports addressing
some of these issues and has granted Modifications of Standards to some
airports planning to receive the A380.[Footnote 4] Air carriers have
also placed orders and contacted a number of U.S. airports about their
plans for the A380 arrival.
With the first scheduled A380 flights to the U.S. expected in 2007, a
number of airports have made, or are planning to make, changes to their
infrastructure to better accommodate this aircraft. You asked us to
review and identify the impact of the Airbus A380 on U.S. airports. In
examining this issue, we addressed the following questions: (1) What
are the costs and nature of changes that U.S. airports are making to
their infrastructure to accommodate the A380 aircraft? (2) What funding
sources are being used to finance the infrastructure changes at U.S.
airports? (3) What major factors influence the changes being made by
airports to accommodate the A380 aircraft? On March 16, 2006, we
briefed your staff on the results of our work to date. Appendix I
contains an updated and modified version of the materials we presented
at that time.
To answer these questions, we sent a survey in August 2005 to officials
at 18 airports that we identified as making preparations to receive the
A380. We asked airport officials to estimate the costs for those
infrastructure changes that have been completed, are ongoing, or are
planned to accommodate the A380. We also asked officials at each
airport to identify the sources of funding used to make the changes
identified. We received responses from all 18 airports. We did not
verify the accuracy of the airports' estimates. However, after we
received the responses to our surveys, we visited officials at each
airport to review the cost estimates, the assumptions that the airports
used in developing their estimates, and the major factors affecting
their cost estimates. In addition, we contacted each airport again to
update and validate its costs as of March 1, 2006. We also reviewed the
68 requests for modifications to FAA's standards that 11 airports had
submitted as of March 1, 2006, to identify what was being proposed and
what FAA had approved or denied. We also interviewed aviation
association representatives, FAA officials, and aviation experts. We
performed our work from May 2005 through April 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Additional details on
our scope and methodology can be found in appendix II.
Results in Brief:
The 18 U.S. airports that we identified as making changes to
accommodate the Airbus A380 estimated that they would spend about $927
million in completed, ongoing, or planned infrastructure projects.
Figure 2 shows the costs reported by each airport. Additional details
on each airport's estimated costs and the assumptions used in
developing the cost estimates can be found in appendix III.
Figure 2: Costs Reported by Airports for Infrastructure Changes Needed
to Accommodate the A380 (as of March 1, 2006):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
About 83 percent of the costs reported by airports were identified for
runway or taxiway projects. The remaining costs were for changes at
gates, terminals, or support services. Of the A380 costs reported,
about 18 percent had been spent on completed projects, about 22 percent
were allocated to ongoing projects, and about 60 percent were
identified for planned projects. As a result, some airports noted that
if FAA changed the current requirements for accommodating the A380,
their estimates could change. For example, should FAA allow the
aircraft to operate on 150-foot-wide runways under certain conditions,
this would reduce costs at most airports. However, if FAA decided
during the certification process, or later, that Design Group VI
standards should apply, at least half of the airports could face costs
in excess of those reported.
Airport officials reported using several funding sources to finance
their infrastructure changes. As shown in Figure 3, about half of the
funds would be provided through the Airport Improvement Program, they
said.[Footnote 5] Passenger facility charges were identified as the
source of funding for about 21 percent of the costs, with revenues the
airports generate, bonds, and other sources, such as local government
funds, making up the remainder.[Footnote 6]
Figure 3: Sources of Funding Reported by Airports for Changes to
Accommodate the A380:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The figure shows sources of funding for about $813 million of the
$927 million in infrastructure changes reported by airports. Airports
did not report the sources for the remaining $114 million.
[End of figure]
FAA's design standards and market considerations have been two major
factors influencing the changes airports are making or planning to make
to accommodate the A380. For example, in identifying the infrastructure
changes, airports generally based their plans on either (1) the 200-
foot-wide runway and 100-foot-wide taxiway requirements for this size
aircraft under Airplane Design Group VI standards or (2) the
Engineering Brief guidance FAA issued, allowing airports to widen
narrower runways to 200 feet albeit at reduced strength and requiring
widened runway and taxiway shoulders and operational restrictions. A
number of airport officials noted that they might revise their plans if
FAA makes decisions later this year as part of the certification
process for the A380 that allows them to use existing 150-foot-wide
runways and 75-foot-wide taxiways for the A380. In addition, FAA has
been using a Modification of Standards process to review and approve
A380-related infrastructure changes with some airports. As of March 1,
2006, 11 airports had submitted 68 requests for Modifications of
Standards to FAA, of which 47 were approved, 10 disapproved, and 11
were under consideration. Appendix IV contains further information on
the requested Modifications of Standards. We also found that some
airports are making changes to accommodate the A380 based on the market
they serve and their future plans for the airport. For example, Los
Angeles, Miami, New York, and San Francisco are major gateway airports
that had little choice but to make changes to receive the A380 if they
were to maintain their competitive status as international hubs. A
number of other airports have been approached by air carriers with
plans for future A380 passenger or freight service. These airports have
considered the costs of making the necessary infrastructure changes
against the potential impact on their business of receiving (or not
receiving) A380 flights. Some other airports that have not been
approached for A380 service are also making changes to accommodate it.
Some of these airports want to market their availability for this
aircraft in hopes of increasing their presence in the international
market.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation
(DOT) and Airbus North America Holdings, Inc. (Airbus) for their review
and comment. FAA (which is part of DOT) and Airbus provided technical
comments which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.
The Programs Director of Safety and Technical Affairs - Airbus, also
provided written comments that are included in appendix V. Airbus
commended us for our efforts in providing a comprehensive assessment of
the infrastructure changes the U.S. airports have undertaken, or may
undertake, to accommodate the A380. The Airbus response also included
comments on each of the 18 airports in this report. It provided a total
cost estimate for A380 modifications at these airports of $720 million,
compared to the $927 million we are reporting.
We recognize that it was difficult for airports to estimate the cost of
infrastructure changes being made to accommodate the A380. For example,
airports had to decide which projects were being done for the A380,
while recognizing that some changes would also benefit other aircraft.
In developing our $927 million estimate, we sent a survey to the 18
airports, which completed the document and returned it. After analyzing
the responses, we visited each airport to discuss the basis for their
responses and to ensure that the appropriate costs were included. We
again contacted each airport to confirm the information as of March 1,
2006. We also recognize that the estimates contained in this report
could change over time. As the report notes, should FAA allow the
aircraft to operate on existing 150-foot-wide runways under certain
conditions, costs could be reduced at most airports. However, if FAA
should decide during the certification process, or later, that Design
Group VI standards should apply, at least half of the airports could
face costs in excess of those reported. Based on the information that
we originally received from the airports and subsequent reconfirmation
efforts, we have not changed the costs estimates provided to GAO by the
airports.
The Airbus comments can be found in appendix V.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 10 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of
Transportation, and representatives of Airbus. We also will make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-2834 or by e-mail at dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Contributors to this report are listed in
appendix VI.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Gerald Dillingham, Ph.D.
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Infrastructure Changes at U.S. Airports to Accommodate the
A380 Aircraft:
Infrastructure Changes at U.S. Airports to Accommodate the A380:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Airbus.
[End of figure]
Briefing for House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
March 16, 2006:
Research Questions:
1. What are the costs and nature of changes that U.S. airports are
making to their infrastructure to accommodate the A380 aircraft?
2. What funding sources are being used to finance the infrastructure
changes at U.S. airports?
3. What major factors influence the changes being made by airports to
accommodate the A380 aircraft?
Methods:
Identified a universe of potential A380 airports by calling selected
airports to determine if they were making changes to infrastructure in
anticipation of receiving the A380. Eighteen airports indicated that
they had made or were planning to make such infrastructure changes.
Surveyed the 18 U.S. airports that were making or planning to make
infrastructure changes to obtain information on nature and costs of the
changes.
Visited and interviewed airport management at 18 airports and met with
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials to identify the
infrastructure changes and funding to accommodate the A380.
Reviewed the design standards (Airplane Design Group VI standards and
those contained in Engineering Briefs 63 and 65) that FAA applies to
the airports receiving the A380 and results of FAA's process for
reviewing and approving Modifications of Standards, while maintaining
safety at those airports.
Interviewed FAA airport and certification officials; aviation experts;
and representatives from Airbus, Boeing, and various trade associations.
Background:
A380 passenger aircraft characteristics:
* Maximum takeoff weight: 1.235 million pounds:
* Range: 8,000 nautical miles:
* Estimated in-service date: End of 2006:
A380F freighter aircraft characteristics:
* Payload: 331,000 pounds:
* Maximum takeoff weight: 1.3 million pounds:
* Range: 5,600 nautical miles:
* Estimated in-service date: 2nd half of 2008:
Figure 1: Comparison of the Airbus A380 and the Boeing 747-400:
[See PDF for image]
AIRBUS A380
Airbus A380:
Wingspan: 261.7 feet:
Length: 239.3 feet:
Height: 79.6 feet:
Max Takeoff Weight: 1.235 million pounds:
Seats: 555-853:[Footnote 1]
Max Fuel Capacity: 81,890 gallons
Boeing 747-400:
Wingspan: 211.4 feet:
Length: 231.8 feet:
Height: 63.7 feet:
Max Takeoff Weight: 875,000 pounds:
Seats: 416-6602:[Footnote 2]
Max Fuel Capacity: 57,285 gallons:
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Sixteen air carriers worldwide have ordered the passenger and freight
versions of the A380.
No U.S. carriers have ordered the passenger version of the A380.
Two U.S. carriers, Federal Express and UPS, have each ordered 10 of the
freight (A380F) aircraft.
Figure 2: A380 passenger and freight version orders, as of January 27,
2006:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: Airbus.
[End of figure]
Advantages of the A380 cited by Airbus, include:
* More cost-effective, lower cost per seat and more fuel efficient):
* Increased airport capacity (more passengers per flight):
* Half the noise of existing large aircraft and lower emissions:
Figure: Photograph of A380:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Airbus.
[End of figure]
The introduction of the A380 is expected to generate benefits to
airports and nearby communities in increased revenue from concessions
and parking fees from the additional passengers that the A380 is
expected to carry. However, airport authorities will incur costs to
alter their runways, taxiways, and gates to accommodate the aircraft.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey contracted for an
assessment of the A380's impact on New York's Kennedy airport.
[Footnote 3] The study, which included a primary analysis and two
sensitivity analyses to test the effect of alternative assumptions,
found that:
* The project would generate positive net benefits (benefits minus
costs) of about $55 million (in present value terms). For example, the
study estimated that the additional revenue generated by the project
would equal about $163 million while the costs associated with airfield
improvements would be about $108 million.
* The study also found that the magnitude of the estimated net benefits
are sensitive to the planned schedule of the project. in one
sensitivity analysis, delays of 2 years in the state-of-good-repair and
new-large-aircraft projects would result in estimated costs outweighing
benefits by $4.5 million. In the second sensitivity analysis, a delay
in only the new-large-aircraft portion of the project would result in
estimated benefits outweighing costs by about $6.3 million.
The Florida Department of Transportation has authorized an assessment
of the A380's impact on state and local economies. It would focus on
measuring the impact of the project on construction jobs and revenue,
aircraft operations, and visors.
The size of the A380 makes U.S. airports that receive it subject to
FAA's Airplane Design Group VI standards, which require, among other
things, greater separation between taxiways, taxiways and runways, and
in terms of infrastructure, 200-foot-wide runways and 100-foot-wide
taxiways. Many of the U.S. airports that anticipate receiving the A380
do not meet FAA's Design Group VI standards, although half of the A380
airports we surveyed have at least one 200-foot-wide runway.
FAA developed guidance (called Engineering Briefs) for airports that
allow a reduced-cost means of creating a 200-foot-wide runway b
adding 2 feet to each side of existing 150-foot-wide runways at a
reduced strength, widening shouldErs, and moving existing runway edge
lighting and edge markings outward. Existing 75-foot-wide taxiways can
be used under specified conditions, such as widening shoulders and
installing additional centerline lighting. The Engineering Brief
regarding taxiways indicates that the guidance is good for 5 years.
Officials at the FAA have been examining aspects of the standards that
could impact the A380 requirements. For example,
* In February, FAA decided to remove the 15-mile-per-hour taxiing speed
restriction for the A380 that it had imposed under the Engineering
Brief. The FAA took this step based on field research conducted at JFK,
ANC, and other international airports expected to serve the A380.
* FAA reduced the Design Group VI distance between runway and taxiway
centerlines from 600 to 500 feet in good weather and from 600 to 550
feet for operations in more restricted weather conditions. FAA took
these steps because simulated tests indicated that the 747 and the A340
aircraft, which are similar to the A380, generally do not deviate
significantly from the runway centerline.
* During the airplane certification process, FAA will determine
operating requirements that may apply to the A380 on runways less than
200 feet wide. A decision is expected in late 2006.
Nature and Cost of U.S. Airports' Changes to Accommodate the A380:
We identified 18 U.S. airports that are making or planning to make
infrastructure changes to accommodate the A380.
Costs reported by the airports for these changes total about $927
million.
Figure 3: Cost Reported by Airports for Infrastructure Changes Needed
to Accommodate the A380, as of March 1, 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
About 83 percent of the costs reported by airports were for runway and
taxiway projects.
Remaining cost, reported for changes to terminals, support services,
and gates, were 4, 6, and 7 percent of the total cost, respectively.
Figure 4: Airport Costs by Type of Infrastructure Change Reported:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airports.
[End of figure]
Airports in New York, Anchorage, Atlanta, Miami, and Los Angeles
reported the highest costs for A380-related projects.
*To accommodate the A380, 17 airports reported runway projects and 16
reported taxiway projects.
Figure 5: Infrastructure Cost by Airport and Type of Project:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airports.
[End of figure]
Of the costs reported by airports for runway projects, about 63 percent
were for changes to shoulders and pavement.
Figure 6: Runway Infrastructure Changes Identified by Airports for
Accommodating the A380:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airports.
Note: The figure shows details on about $295 million of the $325
million in runway changes reported by airports.
[End of Figure]
Of the costs reported by airports for taxiway projects, about 77
percent were for changes to pavement, shoulders, and fillets (the
additional paved areas at runway or taxiway intersections that ensure
that the aircraft have adequate pavement for turning).
Figure 7: Taxiway Changes Reported by Airports for Accommodating the
A380:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airports.
Note: The figure shows details on about $368 million of the $449
million in taxiway changes reported by airports.
[End of Figure]
Most of the costs reported by airports for accommodating the A380 were
for projects that have not yet been undertaken.
Figure 8: Status of Infrastructure Changes Reported by Airports for
Accommodating the A380:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airports.
Note: The completed projects total includes $12.5 million of completed
costs from airports' ongoing projects. The ongoing projects total
represents only the cost of unfinished work for airports' ongoing
projects.
[End of figure]
Funding Sources Used by Airports to Make Infrastructure Changes to
Accommodate the A380:
Airport Improvement Program funds were identified as the largest
funding source for airport changes, followed by passenger facility
charges, airport revenues, and bonds.
Figure 9: Sources of Funding Reported by Airports for Changes to
Accommodate the A380:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airports.
Note: The figure shows sources of funding for about $813 million of the
$927 million in infrastructure changes reported by airports.
[End of Figure]
Major Factors Influencing the Changes Being Made at Airports:
The runway and taxiway standards that airports must meet to receive the
A380 will significantly affect the proposed changes and costs at
airports. Airports have three basic options:
* Comply with FAA Design Group VI standards. This requires, among other
things, greater separations between parallel taxiways, taxiways and
objects, and runways/to parallel taxiways and, in terms of
infrastructure, 200-foot-wide runways and 100-foot-wide taxiways. This
is the most expensive option for airports.
* Comply with FAA guidelines (Engineering Briefs 65 and 63). This would
allow airports receiving C A380 to (1) convert existing 150-foot-wide
runways to 200 feet by adding 25 feet of asphalt to each side of the
runway, widening shoulders, and moving existing runway edge lighting
and edge markings outward, and (2) use existing 75-foot-wide taxiways
by widening shoulders, adding centerline lighting and restricting
operations. This approach would reduce airports' costs by their not
having to build runways and taxiways to meet all Design Group VI
standards.
* Wait for FAA's decision on the adequacy of 150-foot-wide runways that
is expected later this year. Should FAA allow the aircraft to operate
on 150-foot-wide runways under certain conditions, this would be the
lowest-cost option for those airports that lack a 200-foot-wide
runway. However, if FAA decided during the certification process, or
later, that Design Group VI standards should apply, half of the
airports could face costs in excess of those reported.
The A380's anticipated arrival time influences when airports need to
decide on the changes to infrastructure needed to accommodate the
aircraft.
* Some airports that are expected to receive the A380 the earliest have
had to decide on what changes they are going to make in order to be
ready in time. Chicago (O'Hare), Los Angeles, Memphis, Miami, New York,
San Francisco, and Washington D.C. (Washington-Dulles) are anticipating
the arrival of the A380 as early as 2007 or 2008.
* The Anchorage, Atlanta, Louisville, and Ontario airports anticipate
that they may receive the A380 in 2009 or 2010. They have reviewed
their needs and planned for the changes they will be making. However,
these airports have some time to alter their plans if FAA makes
decisions that affect airport requirements for the A380.
* Other airports that will be receiving the A380 after 2010 have time
to wait for FAA's decisions on airport standards before making major
changes specifically for the A380.
FAA's process for approving exceptions to airport design standards
(Modification of Standards process) affects what airports must do to
safely receive the A380. Airports that cannot or do not plan to meet
the design criteria required to accommodate the A380 must obtain
approval through this process.
* As of March 1, 2006, 11 airports had requested 68 Modifications of
Standards from FAA, of which 47 had been a proved, 10 had been
disapproved, and 11 were under consideration by FAA.[Footnote 4]
* Many of the approved Modifications of Standards follow the
Engineering Briefs' guidance for runways and taxiways or establish
operating restrictions on the ground.
Airports' decisions on what changes to make to accommodate the A380 are
affected by the market they serve and their future plans.
* Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and San Francisco are major
international gateway airports and had little choice but to make
changes to be ready for,the A380 if "they were to maintain their
status. Major freight airports like those in Anchorage, Memphis, and
Louisville have to be ready to receive the A380 since Federal Express
and UPS each have contracted for 10 of the freight version of the
aircraft.
* Other airports have been approached by air carriers planning to begin
A380 passenger and/or cargo service in the future. These airports weigh
the cost of making changes,to accommodate the A380 and the
potential impact on their business of receiving or not receiving A380
flights. Airports that are not ready or turn down the A380 and could
lose lights and carriers to competing airports.
Some airports that have not been approached for A380 service are also
making changes to accommodate it. These airports want to market their
availability for this aircraft, hoping to increase their presence in
the international market and benefit from the resulting increase in
connecting domestic flights. For example, the Dallas/Fort Worth and
Orlando airports hope to,attract A380 passenger service while the
Ontario and Fort Worth Alliance airports UPS to be ready for the
freight version of the A380 should Federal Express or UPS decide to use
them.
[End of Slide presentation]
Slide Footnotes:
[1] The A380 is designed to seat 555 passengers in a 3-class cabin
configuration. Airbus plans to certify the A380 to seat a maximum of
853 passengers. The actual number of 5 seats on the aircraft will
vary depending on the desires of the airline owners.
[2] The 747-400 typically seats 416 passengers in a 3-class cabin
configuration. The 747-400 is certified to seat a maximum of 660
passengers.
[3] Economic Assessment of the Airfield Improvements Necessary to
Accommodate the New Large Aircraft at John F. Kennedy International
Airport (Ricondo and Associates, February. 2004).
[4] Miami International Airport submitted 32 individual requests for
Modifications of Standards. The remaining 10 airports submitted a total
of 36 requests.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
You asked us to review and identify the impact of the Airbus A380 on
U.S. airports. In examining this issue, we addressed the following
questions: (1) What are the costs and nature of changes that U.S.
airports are making to their infrastructure to accommodate the A380
aircraft? (2) What funding sources are being used to finance the
infrastructure changes at U.S. airports? (3) What major factors
influence the changes being made by airports to accommodate the A380
aircraft?
To determine the costs and nature of changes that U.S. airports are
making to their infrastructure to accommodate the A380 aircraft, we
developed and administered a survey to 18 U.S. airports that are making
or planning to make changes to accommodate the A380 aircraft. We then
visited each of the airports to discuss their responses. We interviewed
FAA, Airbus, and U.S. airport officials; trade associations; and
aviation experts to identify the regulations governing aircraft
certification and airport operations.
In creating the survey of airports, we developed questions to obtain
information on the changes that have been made, are ongoing, or are
planned to accommodate the A380 and the costs of the component parts of
each project. We segmented the survey into five airport areas: runways,
taxiways, terminals, gates, and support facilities such as hangars or
fire and rescue equipment. We developed the airport survey document in
consultation with FAA, airport officials, and aviation experts. Because
these were not sample surveys, there are no sampling errors. However,
the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce
errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,
differences in how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources
of information that are available to respondents, or how the data are
entered into a database can introduce unwanted variability into the
survey results. We took steps in the development of the survey, the
data collection, and data analysis to minimize these nonsampling
errors. For example, prior to administering the survey, we pretested
the content and format with FAA officials, airport officials, and
several aviation experts to determine whether (1) the survey questions
were clear, (2) the terms used were precise, (3) respondents were able
to provide the information we were seeking, and (4) the questions were
unbiased. Based on these results, we made changes to the content and
format of the final survey instrument.
To determine which U.S. airports to survey, we identified 29 airports
that had received regular 747 service, were included in our prior
review as potentially receiving the A380,[Footnote 7] or had been
identified by Airbus or in literature as potentially receiving the
aircraft for regularly-scheduled service. We called officials at these
29 airports and identified 18 that were making or planned to make
changes to their infrastructure to accommodate the A380 by 2015.
We administered the survey to 18 airports in August 2005 via the
internet. All airports responded to the survey. However, after we had
sent the surveys, St. Louis International Airport officials informed us
that they were no longer planning to make changes for the A380;
therefore we dropped St. Louis from our survey list. During the course
of our work, we were informed that Tampa International and San
Bernadino International Airports were also making changes to
accommodate the A380. After Tampa officials confirmed that they were
making some A380- related changes, we invited them to complete our
survey. But while Tampa completed the survey, San Bernadino officials
told us that the changes they were making were not A380-specific and
that they would be making these changes even if the A380 did not exist.
As a result, we did not include them in the survey.
After reviewing the airport responses, we visited each airport and
interviewed officials regarding the projects and costs they had
identified. We wanted to understand the necessity for the construction
and its relationship to other airport capital-improvement projects. We
also met with FAA regional and local officials regarding the
infrastructure changes, and any Modification of Standards requested by
airports that did not plan to meet Design Group VI standards. We did
not verify the accuracy of the cost estimates airports provided.
In addition to the survey, to obtain information on the cost and nature
of changes, we reviewed and discussed with FAA officials Airport Design
Group VI and V standards and their application at U.S. airports. We
interviewed FAA, Airbus, trade association officials, and aviation
experts to identify the regulations governing aircraft certification
and airport operations. We also obtained and analyzed any requests for
Modifications of Standards requested by the 18 airports and summarized
FAA decisions regarding the infrastructure and operational impacts to
the airports. We also discussed--with FAA and airport officials--the
effect that Modifications of Standards would have on airports'
infrastructure.
To identify the funding sources used to finance the A380-related
infrastructure changes at U.S. airports, we also used the internet
survey discussed above. We included questions regarding the source of
funds for the various segments of projects such as shoulders and
lighting for runways and taxiways. Specifically, we asked airports to
identify funding from the Airport Improvement Program, passenger
facility charges, airport revenue, airport revenue bonds, or other
sources such as local government funds. We asked airports to provide
funding information for projects that were completed, ongoing, and
planned. We also discussed airport project funding with FAA program,
regional, and local officials.
To identify the major factors that influenced the changes being made by
airports to accommodate the A380 aircraft, we interviewed FAA officials
and officials at each of the 18 survey airports. We obtained the views
of trade association officials and aviation experts to identify the
reasons for making the infrastructure changes. We also reviewed
literature and assessments of the impact of airport construction and
expansion on airport revenues and regional economic benefits.
During the review, the following aviation experts reviewed our methods
and a draft of the report for accuracy and balance: Ms. Rose Agnew,
Aviation Innovation, LLC; Mr. Cedric Curtis, Carter-Burgess, Inc; Dr.
John Kasarda, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Mr.
Richard Marchi, Airports Council International-North America.
We performed our work from May 2005 through April 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Summary Costs Reported by Airports to Accommodate the
A380:
Table 1: Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport's Estimated A380-
Related Costs as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $30,000.0;
Total estimated costs: $30,000.0.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $30,000.0.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $36,237.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $36,237.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $35,899.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $35,899.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $72,136.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $16,974.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $16,974.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $1,498.0;
Total estimated costs: $1,498.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $18,472.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $36,237.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $52,873.0;
Cost of planned projects: $31,498.0;
Total estimated costs: $120,608.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of Table]
Anchorage airport officials provided the following information
regarding A380-related infrastructure project costs:
* Airport officials expect the airport to serve as a flight destination
for the freight version of the A380. Federal Express and UPS have both
contracted for 10 A380F aircraft. Anchorage expects to begin receiving
the Federal Express flights in 2009 with two daily A380 flights
initially and a maximum of five A380 daily flights by 2020.
* The airport's estimate assumed that it would reconstruct an existing
runway to meet Design Group VI standards for runway pavement width,
object-free area, and safety area. They anticipate that construction
will begin in 2007. The estimate also included the construction of a
taxiway that was completed in 2004 to accommodate A380 traffic flow.
Airport officials also included the costs of reconstructing two other
taxiways to Design Group VI width. Airport officials noted that if FAA
were to approve lesser standards for the A380 they may alter their
plans, which could reduce costs. In estimating the support costs,
airport officials said they included plans to purchase two new Aircraft
Rescue and Fire Fighting vehicles and the cost associated with building
two new remote parking positions for A380 cargo aircraft.
* Airport officials have requested--and been approved for--two
Modifications of Standards from FAA.
* Airport officials estimated that projects would be funded with about
93 percent from Airport Improvement Program funds, 1 percent through
airport revenue, and 6 percent through airport bonds.
Table 2: Fort Worth Alliance Airport's Estimated A380-Related Costs as
of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $18,392.1;
Total estimated costs: $18,392.1.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $18,392.1.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $3,985.9;
Total estimated costs: $3,985.9.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $3,985.9.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: $22,378.0;
Total estimated costs: $22,378.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of Table]
Fort Worth airport officials provided the following information
regarding A380-related infrastructure project costs:
* As of March 1, 2006, no air carriers had identified Alliance Fort
Worth for A380 service. However, the airport is a freight center for
Federal Express, which purchased 10 aircraft. The airport wants to be
ready to receive flights after 2008 when the freight aircraft is
expected to be certified. In addition, airport officials expect that
Alliance Fort Worth could be an alternate airport if an A380 were
unable to land at Dallas/Fort Worth.
* The airport estimate assumed that planned runway construction would
widen one existing 150-foot runway to 200 feet and add shoulders to
meet Design Group VI standards. In addition, it assumed that
construction would widen the shoulders on the 75-foot taxiways to
comply with Engineering Brief 63 requirements. The airport also plans
to lengthen the 200-foot-wide runway from 9,600 feet to 13,000 feet to
allow a fully loaded A380 freighter to take off during hot weather. The
runway extension requires moving a railroad line and road at a
substantial cost that is not included in the estimate. Airport
officials said the project was conceived long before the A380 was being
planned, and that the runway extension is not exclusive to the A380
because other aircraft would also benefit. Airport officials noted that
construction will not begin before A380 certification so they can
modify projects to comply with whatever runway and taxiway standards
FAA applies to the A380.
* If necessary, the airport will request a Modification of Standards
for FAA approval to construct taxiways that meet Engineering Brief 63
requirements.
* All construction would be paid for by Airport Improvement Program
funds.
Table 3: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport's Estimated
A380-Related Costs as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $52,337.0;
Total estimated costs: $52,337.0.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $52,337.0.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $44,622.0;
Total estimated costs: $44,622.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $44,622.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $730.0;
Total estimated costs: $730.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $730.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $611.0;
Total estimated costs: $611.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $611.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: $98,300.0;
Total estimated costs: $98,300.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of Table]
Atlanta airport officials provided the following information regarding
A380-related infrastructure project costs:
* As of March 1, 2006, no air carriers have identified Atlanta's
airport for A380 service. Airport officials do not expect A380 service
until after 2010.
* Atlanta's cost estimates include planned runway construction to widen
shoulders and blast pads, and relocation of lighting and signage to
comply with Engineering Brief 65 guidance. Existing runways are 150
feet wide. Construction is not expected to begin before A380
certification later this year. As a result, airport officials noted
that they may change projects to comply with whatever standards FAA
applies to the A380. Atlanta's cost estimate for taxiways includes
construction to widening shoulders on their 75-foot-wide taxiways and
change taxiway lighting, signage, and markings to meet Engineering
Brief 63 guidance. The cost estimated for gate projects assumed that
gate and terminal modifications would be undertaken to add passenger
boarding bridges at two gates.
* Atlanta has not submitted any requests for Modifications of
Standards, as of March 1, 2006.
* Airport officials estimated that projects would be funded from
Airport Improvement Program funds (about 75 percent), passenger
facility charges (about 5 percent), and general airport revenue bonds
based on the projected revenues of airlines (about 20 percent). Airport
officials noted that these A380-related projects must compete with
other higher priority airport projects.
Table 4: Chicago O'Hare International Airport's Estimated A380-Related
Costs as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $9,056.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $9,056.0.
Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $25,612.0;
Total estimated costs: $25,612.0.
Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $34,668.0.
Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $11,258.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $11,258.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $18,511.0;
Total estimated costs: $18,511.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $29,769.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $500.0;
Total estimated costs: $500.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $500.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $20,314.0;
Cost of planned projects: $44,623.0;
Total estimated costs: $64,937.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of Table]
Chicago airport officials provided the following information regarding
A380-related infrastructure project costs:
* As of March 1, 2006, one air carrier has identified O'Hare for A380
service which is expected to begin in the summer of 2008. FAA recently
approved O'Hare's major modernization program with 200-foot-wide
runways and some 100-foot-wide taxiways to meet Design Group VI
standards by 2013.
* O'Hare's estimate includes both short term and long term costs. In
the short term, through 2008, O'Hare estimated the cost of making
changes to two existing runways and one taxiway that would meet either
Design Group VI or Engineering Briefs 65 and 63 standards. However,
airport officials said that, should FAA approve the use of these
existing runways and taxiways without any changes, their estimated
costs could be reduced by about $31 million. In estimating the longer-
term costs associated with their modernization plan through 2013,
O'Hare officials calculated the incremental cost of building two new
200-foot-wide runways and two new 100-foot-wide taxiways to Design
Group VI standards and the lesser cost of building them to Design Group
V requirements. The gate cost includes the expense of converting an
unused gate in the international terminal to allow it to provide a
second jetway access to an A380. Only lower-deck access is anticipated
at this time.
* Airport officials said they will apply for Modifications of Standards
to allow use of existing infrastructure in the short term, with only
minimal changes being made to runways and taxiways. They would take
mitigating operational actions to provide an equivalent level of safety
for the A380 and other aircraft.
* Airport officials identified 51 percent of costs as being financed
through airport bonds, 34 percent through Airport Improvement Program
funds, and 13 percent through passenger facility charges.
Table 5: Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport's Estimated A380-
Related Costs as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $4,525.0;
Total estimated costs: $4,525.0.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $4,525.0.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $1,600.0;
Total estimated costs: $1,600.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $1,600.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $1,745.0;
Total estimated costs: $1,745.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $1,745.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: $7,870.0;
Total estimated costs: $7,870.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of table]
Dallas/Fort Worth airport officials provided the following information
regarding A380-related infrastructure project costs:
* As of March 1, 2006, no air carriers had identified Dallas/Fort Worth
for A380 service. However, airport officials told us that they expect
A380 service in the future. In addition, they said that to remain
competitive with other airports and attract air carriers, they need to
be ready for the A380.
* Airport estimates assumed that runway construction will be needed to
widen shoulders and blast pads to comply with Design Group VI
standards. Existing runways are 200 feet wide. In addition, they
estimated costs associated with construction that would widen the
taxiway shoulders 15 feet to comply with Design Group VI requirements.
Existing taxiways are 100 feet wide. The costs of three gates that will
accommodate the A380 in the new international terminal were not
included in the airport estimates. In addition, the estimates did not
include the cost of additional aircraft rescue and fire-fighting
equipment that the airport may need to purchase to better respond to
incidents involving the A380. Airport officials noted that construction
will not begin on these projects before A380 certification in late
2006. As a result, the airport may change projects to comply with
whatever runway and taxiway standards FAA applies to the A380.
* The airport does not plan to apply for any Modification of Standards
for A380 operations.
* All construction would be funded by passenger facility charges.
Table 6: Denver International Airport's Estimated A380-Related Costs as
of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $18,207.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $18,207.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $18,207.0.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $18,318.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $18,318.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $9,000.0;
Total estimated costs: $9,000.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $27,318.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $4,800.0;
Total estimated costs: $4,800.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $4,800.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $4,100.0;
Total estimated costs: $4,100.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $4,100.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $36,525.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: $17,900.0;
Total estimated costs: $54,425.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of table]
Denver airport officials provided the following information regarding
A380-related infrastructure project costs:
* One air carrier has indicated that it may begin A380 service at some
time in the future. Airport officials said they believed that other
carriers would eventually bring Design Group VI aircraft to this
airport in its role as a major U.S. hub, especially if other large
airports were only able to provide limited facilities to accommodate
them.
* In estimating costs, airport officials included some of the costs of
constructing one 200-foot-wide runway and two taxiways to meet Design
Group VI standards. These projects were completed in 2003. The airport
included the incremental cost to upgrade the new runway from Design
Group V standards to Design Group VI standards. Planned construction
includes bringing one taxiway into compliance with Engineering Brief 63
requirements and modifying two gates to receive the A380. Airport
officials also plan to expand the customs and immigration areas. Costs
do not include additional aircraft rescue and fire-fighting equipment
that the airport may need to purchase to better respond to incidents
involving the A380.
* The airport has submitted a Modification of Standards to FAA to
operate the A380 on taxiways that comply with Engineering Brief 63.
* Runway and taxiway construction have been (and will be) paid for from
Airport Improvement Program funds and airport bonds. Customs and
Immigration facility expansion will be funded from airport bonds.
Table 7: Indianapolis International Airport's Estimated A380-Related
Costs as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: $13,434.3;
Total estimated costs: $13,434.3.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $13,434.3.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: $16,409.6;
Total estimated costs: $16,409.6.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $16,409.6.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Costs of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Costs of planned projects: $29,844.0;
Total estimated costs: $29,844.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of table]
Indianapolis airport officials provided the following information
regarding A380-related infrastructure projects:
* As of March 1, 2006, no air carriers have identified this airport for
A380 service. However, airport officials indicated that Federal Express
plans to begin A380 flights after 2010. The airport could also serve as
an alternate airport for A380s carrying either passengers or freight.
* Airport estimates assumed that because existing runways are 150 feet
wide, one runway would be widened to 200 feet to comply with
Engineering Brief 65--adding 40-foot erosion control shoulders, and
moving the runway edge lighting to the edge of the new shoulders.
Similarly, the airport assumed that they would widen taxiway shoulders
for one designated taxiway route to the new Midfield Terminal and
Federal Express apron to comply with Engineering Brief 63 requirements.
The new Midfield Terminal will include one gate that can serve an A380,
but is designed for regular use by other aircraft; there are no
terminal costs directly attributable to accommodating the A380. Airport
officials said that construction timing is not definite, but will occur
after A380 certification in 2006. As a result, the airport may change
projects to comply with whatever runway and taxiway standards FAA
applies to the A380, which could affect the cost of the projects.
* The airport has requested a Modification of Standards, to allow the
A380 to operate on a runway width of 150 feet.
* Airport officials did not identify funding sources for these projects
but indicated that funding would not come from the Airport Improvement
Program or passenger facility charges.
Table 8: Los Angeles International Airport's Estimated A380-Related
Costs as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $3,120.0;
Total estimated costs: $3,120.0.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $3,120.0.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $9,099.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $9,099.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $34,999.0;
Total estimated costs: $34,999.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $44,098.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $383.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $3,351.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $3,734.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $7,474.0;
Total estimated costs: $7,474.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $11,208.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $290.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $6,900.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $7,190.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $20,200.0;
Total estimated costs: $20,200.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $27,390.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $9,772.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $10,251.0;
Cost of planned projects: $65,793.0;
Total estimated costs: $85,816.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of table]
Los Angeles airport officials provided the following information
regarding A380-related infrastructure project costs:
* As of March 1, 2006, several air carriers identified this airport for
A380 service beginning in early 2007. Airport officials said that this
airport would be the first in the U.S. to begin A380 service, and that
it had to be ready to maintain its competitive position with other
airports.
* Airport estimates assumed that construction was needed to strengthen
and widen taxiway intersections, bridges and tunnels to comply with
Engineering Brief 63 requirements. Taxiway construction began in 2005
to widen and strengthen intersections where the A380 could turn.
Additional taxiway and runway work to strengthen bridges and tunnels
was also planned. Airport estimates also included construction on four
terminal gates and four remote gates. Terminal construction for the
gate areas is expected to be complete in 2006. The costs do not include
the relocation of a 200-foot-wide runway 55 feet further away from
another runway that officials said was to reduce runway incursions
rather than to accommodate the A380.
* FAA approved Modifications of Standards that would allow the airport
to operate the A380 on taxiways that met Engineering Brief 63. An
existing runway is 200 feet wide and will be moved and built to comply
with Design Group VI standards.
* About half of the construction would be paid for with Airport
Improvement Program funds, passenger facility charges, and airport
revenue. Funding for about 46 percent of costs was not identified.
Table 9: Louisville International Airport's Estimated A380-Related
Costs as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $11,000.0;
Total estimated costs: $11,000.0.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $11,000.0.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $15,000.0;
Total estimated costs: $15,000.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $15,000.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: $26,000.0;
Total estimated costs: $26,000.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of table]
Louisville airport officials provided the following information
regarding A380-related infrastructure project costs:
* Airport officials expect A380 freight service sometime in 2009. UPS,
which has contracted for 10 A380s, has announced plans to use
Louisville for their A380 operations. No passenger carriers have
identified this airport for A380 service, as of March 1, 2006.
* Airport officials' cost estimate assumed that runway construction
will be needed to widen the pavement on one runway to 200 feet and
expand shoulders to comply with Design Group VI standards. In addition,
the estimate assumes that the airport builds a new taxiway parallel to
the A380 runway. This taxiway would be 100 feet wide and have 550 feet
of separation from the A380 runway. Airport officials noted that these
plans and estimates could change based on pending results of an
operational planning study of the airfield. Construction of the
parallel taxiway could be underway as early as the fall of 2006;
however, the proposed runway widening project would come after A380
certification (expected in late 2006), providing the airport with the
opportunity to change projects' priority to comply with whatever runway
and taxiway standards FAA applies to the A380.
* Louisville has not requested any Modifications of Standards for A380
operations, as of March 1, 2006.
* Airport officials said that construction would be funded by Airport
Improvement Program funds (95 percent) and airport revenues (5
percent). It should be noted that Louisville was identified as a medium-
hub airport for federal fiscal year 2005, and was downgraded to a small-
hub airport for federal fiscal year 2006. Current plans anticipate a
95/5 share on Airport Improvement Program funds, but it is possible for
Louisville to return to a 75/25 rate in future years.
Table 10: Memphis International Airport's Estimated A380-Related Costs
as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $24,000.0;
Total estimated costs: $24,000.0.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $24,000.0.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $9,965.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $9,965.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $8,180.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $8,180.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $6,000.0;
Total estimated costs: $6,000.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $24,145.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $18,145.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: $30,000.0;
Total estimated costs: $48,145.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of table]
Memphis airport officials provided the following information regarding
A380-related infrastructure projects:
* Airport officials expect the airport to serve as a cargo A380 flight
destination for Federal Express beginning in 2008. Federal Express,
which is headquartered in Memphis, has purchased 10 A380F freight
aircraft and expects to use the Memphis airport for A380 service.
* Memphis plans to widen runway shoulders and modify lighting and
markers on two runways for A380 service to meet Engineering Brief 65
requirements. Construction is expected to be accomplished in 2007.
Taxiway improvements include widening certain taxiway shoulders to meet
Engineering Brief 63 requirements. Other costs cited by Memphis airport
officials include the difference between what it would have cost to
build a 75-foot-wide taxiway and the 100-foot-wide taxiways that were
built. Construction began in 2000 and will be competed in 2007. These
costs do not include Federal Express costs for construction of cargo
areas and aprons.
* Airport officials requested five Modifications of Standards and FAA
approved four. The modification that was not approved requested
approval to operate the A380 on their existing 150-foot-wide runways.
As a result, their estimate includes costs associated with meeting the
Engineering Brief 65 requirements.
* The airport plans to fund about 75 percent of its construction
projects through Airport Improvement Program funds and 25 percent
through airport bonds.
Table 11: Memphis International Airport's Estimated A380-Related Costs
as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $33,511.0;
Total estimated costs: $33,511.0.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $33,511.0.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $13,812.0;
Total estimated costs: $13,812.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $13,812.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $11,502.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $11,502.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $4,000.0;
Total estimated costs: $4,000.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $15,502.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $34,641.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $34,641.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $34,641.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $34,641.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $11,502.0;
Cost of planned projects: $51,323.0;
Total estimated costs: $97,466.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of table]
Miami airport officials provided the following information regarding
A380-related infrastructure projects:
* Airport officials expect to receive A380 passenger flights initially
from three air carriers from 2008 through 2010.
* Miami airport officials' estimate included plans to widen runway
pavement and shoulders and modify lighting, signage, and markers on two
runways to meet Engineering Brief 65 requirements for the A380.
Officials assumed that they would need to make taxiway improvements by
adding shoulder pavement, and modifying signage, lighting, and
markings. The estimate also assumed modifications would be made for
A380 parking at three terminal gates and two hard-stand parking
positions. Construction is expected to begin after A380 certification
later this year and, as a result, airport officials noted that the
airport may change projects to comply with whatever runway and taxiway
standards FAA applies to the A380. According to airport officials,
Engineering Brief 63 and 65 have been approved by the FAA on an interim
5-year (evaluation) basis. However, they said that implementing
Engineering Brief 65 and Engineering Brief 63 (and their associated
high costs) is an unwarranted risk due to the interim nature of the
approval and the low level of expected A380 operations at the airport.
* Airport officials have requested 32 Modifications of Standards of
which FAA has approved 26. Those projects not approved involved runway
pavement and shoulder width, runway blast-pad width, and taxiway-to-
vehicle service road separation.
* The airport estimated that it would pay about 75 percent of its
construction projects from Airport Improvement Program funds, 12.5
percent from airport revenue, and 12.5 percent from Florida Department
of Transportation matching funds.
Table 12: New York John F. Kennedy International Airport's Estimated
A380-Related Costs as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $19,600.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $19,600.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $28,340.0;
Total estimated costs: $28,340.0.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $47,940.0.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $3,800.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $3,800.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $72,200.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $72,200.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $16,800.0;
Total estimated costs: $16,800.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $92,800.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $10,300.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $10,300.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $10,300.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $23,400.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $82,500.0;
Cost of planned projects: $45,140.0;
Total estimated costs: $151,040.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of table]
New York airport officials provided the following information regarding
A380-related infrastructure project costs:
* Airport officials expect A380 service to begin in early 2007 because
this airport has more foreign-carrier traffic than domestic. To
maintain their market position, officials said that they had to prepare
for the A380 and other large aircraft. Six carriers that purchased the
A380 could begin service at the airport.
* The cost estimates were based on the assumption that major
reconstruction was necessary for runways, taxiways, and some gate
projects. Some of the runway projects were completed in 2002, but other
work is scheduled to continue until 2013. One of the ongoing projects
is widening a 150-foot runway to 200 feet. It is scheduled for
completion in 2008. One of the planned projects is to widen another 150-
foot runway to 200 feet. This project is part of a 2012 rehabilitation
project. Another major ongoing project is to increase separation on a
heavily used taxiway that circles the terminals. In the gate area,
changes include an apron extension, jetways, and fuel hydrant projects.
* FAA approved a Modification of Standards for taxiways meeting
Engineering Brief 63 requirements.
* Most of the construction funds (86 percent) came from passenger
facility charges. The remainder, about 13 percent, came from Airport
Improvement Program grants.
Table 13: Ontario International Airport's (Ontario, California)
Estimated A380-Related Costs as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $3,600;
Cost of ongoing projects: $3,816.6;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $7,416.6.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $7,416.6.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $3,600.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $3,816.6;
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $7,416.6.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of table]
Ontario airport officials provided the following information regarding
A380-related infrastructure projects:
* Airport officials expect A380 freight service to begin in 2009 or
later. UPS, which has contracted for 10 A380F aircraft, uses this
airport for many of its flights to Asia. In addition, officials expect
that there may be an A380 alternate for the Los Angeles Airport, if an
A380 were unable to land there.
* In estimating costs, airport officials assumed that the A380 flights
would use a runway that is currently being reconstructed. When
construction is complete later in 2006, this runway will be 150 feet
wide with 65-foot-wide structural shoulders that will comply with
Engineering Brief 65. However, because the runway reconstruction was
necessary to continue using it for any flights, the estimated costs
include only the incremental costs of runway construction specifically
for the A380. For example, construction of fillets and a fast-exit
taxiway are included in the runway costs. The airport did not include
the cost of additional aircraft rescue and fire-fighting equipment that
the airport may need to purchase to better respond to incidents
involving the A380. The estimate also does not include the costs that
UPS will incur for a taxiway extension and apron for a new UPS
facility.
* The airport requested Modifications of Standards from Design Group VI
standards for runways and taxiways, seeking FAA approval to use a
runway built to Engineering Brief 65 and use of existing taxiways.
* Airport officials identified funding sources as 75 percent from the
Airport Improvement Program with the matching 25 percent from sources
other than passenger facility charges, airport revenue, or bonds.
Table 14: Orlando International Airport's Estimated A380-Related Costs
as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $15,832.0;
Total estimated costs: $15,832.0.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $15,832.0.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $6,700.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $6,700.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $40,600.0;
Total estimated costs: $40,600.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $47,300.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $3,000.0;
Total estimated costs: $3,000.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $3,000.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $6,700.0;
Cost of planned projects: $59,432.0;
Total estimated costs: $66,132.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of table]
Orlando airport officials provided the following information regarding
A380-related infrastructure projects:
* Virgin Atlantic Airlines has indicated they plan to introduce service
at Orlando in 2009; however, no firm date has been set. Airport
officials plan to be ready to accommodate the A380 by completing work
that will accommodate the A380 on the West Airfield by 2008. They noted
that because the airport is the fourth busiest origin and destination
hub in the U.S.--and one of only four airports on the East Coast
designated to receive the A380--it is an attractive destination for
international A380 traffic.
* Orlando's total estimate is based on long-term facilities needed to
accommodate the A380. However, only first-phase work will be done to
the West Airfield because runways and some taxiways already meet FAA
Design Group VI standards. The cost of phase one development is about
$35.3 million. Phase Two work to the East Airfield will be developed as
demand increases and after FAA makes a final decision on interim
standards included in Engineering Briefs 63 and 65. The estimated cost
of Phase Two is $30.6 million. West Airfield development includes
widening runway and taxiway shoulders; adding fillets; and modifying
lighting, signage, and markers. The cost estimate also included A380
parking at two terminal gates. They estimated that Phase One would be
completed in the 2007 time period, and the Phase Two projects are
expected to be underway by 2015.
* FAA has approved the two Modifications of Standards requested by the
Orlando airport.
* Airport officials did not provide specific funding sources for
construction projects but these would include Airport Improvement
Program grants, passenger facility charges, and state grants.
Table 15: Philadelphia International Airport's Estimated A380-Related
Costs as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $2,991.2;
Total estimated costs: $2,991.2.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $2,991.2.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $4,859.9;
Total estimated costs: $4,859.9.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $4,859.9.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $770.5;
Total estimated costs: $770.5.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $770.5.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $3,529.4;
Total estimated costs: $3,529.4.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $3,529.4.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: $12,150.9;
Total estimated costs: $12,150.9.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of table]
Philadelphia airport officials provided the following information
regarding A380-related infrastructure project costs:
* As of March 1, 2006, no air carriers had identified Philadelphia
International Airport for A380 service. However, airport officials are
planning for potential future cargo demand. In addition, the airport
may serve as an alternate airport for A380 passenger aircraft and could
have the potential to serve international passenger traffic.
* The estimate assumes that the airport would widen shoulders and blast
pads on one existing 200-foot-wide runway to comply with Design Group
VI standards. In addition, the estimate provides for construction to
taxiways that the A380 would use to comply with Design Group VI
requirements. Airport officials also assumed that they would improve
two existing gates and add boarding bridges to service the A380's upper
deck and improve passenger hold areas, baggage processing, and
ticketing to handle two A380s at once. Airport officials noted that the
timing of these projects is currently uncertain. The airport is now
focused on expanding airfield capacity for smaller planes. The A380
projects would not begin until the current building program is
complete. For example, the planned taxiway projects are estimated to
begin in 2011.
* Philadelphia has not requested a Modification of Standards for its
A380 plans, as of March 1, 2006.
* Airport officials said that construction would be funded by a
combination of Airport Improvement Program funds (48.5 percent),
passenger facility charges (35.4 percent), bonds (8.1 percent), and
other grants (8.1 percent).
Table 16: San Francisco International Airport's Estimated A380-Related
Costs as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $3,500.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $3,500.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $2,000.0;
Total estimated costs: $2,000.0.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $5,500.0.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $850.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $850.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $3,200.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $3,200.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $4,000.0;
Total estimated costs: $4,000.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $8,050.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $6,250.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $6,250.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $1,100.0;
Total estimated costs: $1,100.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $7,350.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: $500.00;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $500.00.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $500.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $4,350.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $9,950.0;
Cost of planned projects: $7,100.0;
Total estimated costs: $21,400.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of table]
San Francisco airport officials provided the following information
regarding A380-related infrastructure project costs:
* San Francisco airport officials expect A380 service in early 2007. As
of March 1, 2006, airport officials had identified six air carriers
that might operate A380 aircraft at this airport. The airport has four
runways that are 200 feet wide but only two can be used for A380
departures. The third can be used for landings. Airport officials said
they had to make changes to accept the A380 or they would have lost
traffic to other airports.
* The airport assumed A380 service would begin soon after the aircraft
was certified and has modified the shoulders, lighting, and markings on
two of its four 200-foot-wide runways to Design Group VI for A380
service, completing construction on the first runway in 2003 and the
second in 2004. Changes in shoulders, lighting, and markings are also
planned for a third Design Group VI runway, which is planned to be
completed in 2008. Taxiway construction, consisting of widening
shoulders and moving lights, was completed in 2004 and 2005 in
compliance with Engineering Brief 63. Ongoing taxiway projects will be
completed in 2006 and 2007. Two gates will be modified in 2006 to
provide one upper and one lower jet bridge. A third jet bridge for one
of the gates could be added.
* FAA approved a Modification of Standards for the A380 to operate on
taxiways that comply with Engineering Brief 63 requirements.
* Runway, taxiway, and gate construction has been--and is planned to
be--paid for from Airport Improvement Program funds with airport
revenue used for the matching share.
Table 17: Tampa International Airport's Estimated A380-Related Costs as
of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $100.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $100.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $2,200.0;
Total estimated costs: $2,200.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $2,300.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $100.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: $2,200.0;
Total estimated costs: $2,300.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of table]
Tampa airport officials provided the following information regarding
A380-related infrastructure project costs:
* Airport officials do not expect scheduled A380 service in the near
term at Tampa, but expect their airport will serve as an alternate
airport for A380s flying to Miami and Orlando.
* Tampa's estimate assumed that construction will not be necessary on
the existing 150-foot-wide runways or 75-foot-wide taxiways. The cost
for serving A380s consists of special fuel pits required for the
aircraft and two upper-deck boarding bridges planned for a potential
future North Terminal. In addition, at the current terminal, the
airport plans to use three existing gates that can now serve A380s with
dual lower-deck boarding bridges.
* Airport officials expect to apply for a Modification of Standards to
serve as an alternate A380 airport.
* Airport officials said the recently-built A380 fuel pit at Airside C
Terminal was funded by passenger facility charges. Airport officials
did not provide data on how A380 projects would be funded at the
potential future North Terminal.
Table 18: Washington Dulles International Airport's Estimated A380-
Related Costs as of March 1, 2006:
(Dollars in thousands).
Project Type: Completed runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $500.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $500.0.
Project Type: Ongoing runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $1,595.0;
Total estimated costs: $1,595.0.
Project Type: Total runway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $2,095.0.
Project Type: Completed taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $3,206.0;
Total estimated costs: $3,206.0.
Project Type: Total taxiway projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $3,206.0.
Project Type: Completed gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $5,600.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $5,600.0.
Project Type: Planned gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total gate projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $5,600.0.
Project Type: Completed terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total terminal projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Completed support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Ongoing support projects;
Cost of completed projects: $0.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $0.0;
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Planned support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: $0.0;
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total support projects;
Cost of completed projects: [Empty];
Cost of ongoing projects: [Empty];
Cost of planned projects: [Empty];
Total estimated costs: $0.0.
Project Type: Total airport;
Cost of completed projects: $500.0;
Cost of ongoing projects: $5,600.0;
Cost of planned projects: $4,801.0;
Total estimated costs: $10,901.0.
Source: GAO analysis of costs reported by the airport.
[End of table]
Washington Dulles airport officials provided the following information
regarding A380-related infrastructure project costs:
* Washington Dulles airport officials expect to receive A380 passenger
flights initially from three air carriers from 2007 through 2009. They
identified a possible fourth passenger airline and potential cargo
flights that could also service the airport in the future.
* After contracting an airfield study for the A380, airport officials
have elected to use one of three scenarios that would involve making
some changes in runways, taxiways, and gates. The airport's estimate
assumed that it would need to modify lighting and signage on one
runway. The estimates do not include all costs necessary to bring the
runways to Engineering Brief 65 or Design Group VI standards. Airport
officials noted that if FAA does not approve their approach and
requires them to meet the standards of Engineering Brief 65, costs
could rise. The estimate also assumed that the airport would need to
make minor modifications to taxiways' shoulders and lighting, which are
expected to be completed in 2006. Further, the estimate assumed that
they would make changes for A380 parking at two terminal gates.
* Washington Dulles airport has not submitted any requests for
Modification of Standards for A380 operations as of March 1, 2006.
However, airport officials plan to submit a request for Modification of
Standards to FAA in the near future.
* All construction would be funded through airport bonds.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Status of Modifications of Standards Requested by Airports
to Accommodate the A380:
Table 19: Status of A380-Related Modifications of Standards Requests
(as of March 1, 2006):
Airports: Anchorage;
Request description: Airports: 1. Requested approval to operate an A380
on Taxiway R. The taxiway does not meet Design Group VI taxiway object-
free area of 193 feet between taxiway connectors Q and T. The current
separation equals 174 feet;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* FAA recommended future investigation of relocating the vehicle
service road located in the 174-foot section to a 193-foot distance;
* A reconstructed Taxiway R must be built to Design Group VI standards;
* Imposed a maximum height restriction of 14 feet on vehicles using the
vehicle service road along Taxiway R.
Request description: 2. Requested approval for an A380 runway operating
plan regarding Runway 14/32 centerline to Parallel Taxiway Y centerline
separation for A380 taxiing when any aircraft is on approach;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions: * Must post
taxiway signage to indicate restricted taxiing section;
* The runway and taxiway bridges and culverts on the designated A380
route must support A380 weight loads;
* Construction of new runway or parallel taxiways must be built to
Design Group VI standards;
Imposed taxiing restrictions.
Airports: Dallas/Fort Worth;
Request description: 1. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 200-
foot-wide Runway 18L/36R. The runway does not meet Design Group VI
shoulder widths of 40 feet on each side. Proposed using the existing 25-
foot shoulders;
FAA decision: Disapproved: FAA Design Group VI standards require 40-
foot shoulders on each side of the runway.
Request description: 2. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 100-
foot-wide Taxiway F. The taxiway does not meet Design Group VI shoulder
widths of 40 feet on each side. Proposed using existing 25- foot
shoulders;
FAA decision: Disapproved: FAA Design Group VI standards require 40-
foot shoulders on each side of the taxiway.
Request description: 3. Requested approval to operate an A380 on Runway
18L/36R using the existing runway blast pads on the runway ends;
FAA decision: Disapproved: FAA Design Group VI standards require a 400-
foot length and a 280-foot width.
Airports: Denver;
Request description: 1. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
existing 75-foot-wide Taxiways AN, B4, and F. The taxiways do not meet
Design Group VI overall taxiway pavement width of 180 feet. Proposed
modifying tangent sections of the 35-foot-wide shoulders according to
Engineering Brief 63;
FAA decision: Pending.
Request description: 2. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
Taxiway AN. The taxiway does not meet Design Group VI taxiway
centerline to fixed or moveable object separation distance of 193 feet.
Proposed using the taxiway with a 167-foot separation;
FAA decision: Pending.
Request description: 3. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
Taxiway B4. The taxiway does not meet Design Group VI taxiway
centerline to fixed or moveable object separation distance of 193 feet.
Proposed using the taxiway with a 165-foot separation;
FAA decision: Pending.
Request description: 4. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
Taxiway BS. The taxiway does not meet Design Group VI taxiway
centerline to taxiway centerline separation of 324 feet. Proposed using
the taxiway with a 267-foot separation while under temporary operating
restrictions;
FAA decision: Pending.
Airports: Indianapolis;
Request description: 1. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 150-
foot-wide Runways 5L/23R and 5R/23L that do not meet Design Group VI
overall runway and shoulder width of 280 feet;
FAA decision: Pending.
Airports: John F. Kennedy (NY);
Request description: 1. Requested approval to operate an A380 on a 75-
foot-wide taxiway. The taxiway does not meet Design Group VI overall
taxiway pavement width of 180 feet. Proposed using the taxiway with
expanded shoulders;
FAA decision: Approved on interim basis under the condition that
modifications are made to adhere to guidance of Engineering Brief 63.
Request description: 2. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
Parallel Taxiways A and B, and P and Q. The taxiways do not meet Design
Group VI taxiway centerline to taxiway centerline separation of 324
feet. Proposed using the parallel taxiways with 284- foot separations;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* FAA required Taxiway A to be moved 16 feet towards parallel Taxiway
B;
* Taxiway edge delineators reduced to 75 feet;
* Must meet taxiway centerline lighting spacing requirement;
* Must post signage for hold position for A380 bridge crossing and for
possible jet blast from A380 on bridges;
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* A380 taxiing prohibited on Taxiways B and Q;
* Simultaneous taxiing operations restricted on parallel taxiways with
A380 and other aircraft and must maintain a 47- foot wingtip
separation;
* No simultaneous aircraft operations on bridges when an A380 crosses
either bridge;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
Request description: 3. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
Taxiway A. The taxiway does not meet Design Group VI taxiway centerline
to fixed or moveable object separation distance of 193 feet. Proposed
using taxiways with 146-foot separations;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* FAA recommended investigating the possibility of relocating the
restricted vehicle service road away from Taxiway A;
* FAA required Taxiway A to be moved 16 feet towards parallel Taxiway
B;
* Must meet taxiway centerline lighting spacing requirement;
* Taxiway edge delineators reduced to 75 feet;
* Must post signage of possible jet blast from an A380 on bridges;
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Taxiway Q closed for all A380 operations;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour;
* Imposed a maximum height restriction of 14 feet on vehicles using the
restricted vehicle service road.
Request description: 4. Requested approval for an A380 runway operating
plan regarding the runway centerline to parallel taxiway centerline
separation for A380 taxiing when any aircraft is on approach;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Must post taxiway signage to indicate restricted taxiing section;
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions.
Request description: 5. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 150-
foot-wide Runway 4L/22R that does not meet Design Group VI overall
runway and shoulder width of 280 feet;
FAA decision: Pending.
Airports: Los Angeles;
Request description: 1. Requested approval to operate an A380 on a
taxiway that does not meet Design Group VI taxiway centerline to fixed
or moveable object separation distance of 193 feet. Proposed using the
taxiway with a 146.5-foot separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* FAA recommended future investigation of relocating or narrowing
vehicle service road;
* Required modification of several taxiways;
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Allowed 146.5-foot separation from vehicle service road;
* Required a 167-foot minimum separation from buildings on A380 taxiing
routes;
* Imposed a maximum height restriction of 14 feet on vehicles using the
vehicle service road;
* A380 operations prohibited on Taxiway Q and highly restricted on
Taxilane L;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour;
* Recommended change in proposed A380 taxiing routes that cross active
runways to reduce runway incursions;
* Must ensure hold lines to designated arrival and departure runways in
place.
Request description: 2. Requested approval for an A380 operating plan
regarding the parallel taxiway centerline to taxiway centerline
separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions with taxiing A380 and other aircraft;
* A380 taxiing prohibited on Taxiway Q.
Request description: 3. Requested approval to operate an A380 on a 75-
foot-wide taxiway that does not meet Design Group VI overall taxiway
pavement width of 180 feet;
FAA decision: Approved on interim basis under the condition that
modifications adhere to guidance of Engineering Brief 63.
Request description: 4. Requested approval for an A380 runway operating
plan regarding the runway centerline to parallel taxiway centerline
separation for A380 taxiing when any aircraft is on approach;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Runways 7L/25R and 6R/24L would not be used for A380 operations;
* Must post taxiway signage to indicate restricted taxiing section;
* Runway and taxiway bridges and culverts on designated A380 route must
support A380 weight loads;
* Construction of new runway/parallel taxiways must be built to Design
Group VI standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions.
Request description: 5. Requested approval to operate an A380 on a 150-
foot-wide runway that does not meet Design Group VI runway width of 200
feet;
FAA decision: Approved on interim basis under the condition that
modifications adhere to guidance of Engineering Brief 65.
Airports: Memphis;
Request description: 1. Requested approval to operate an A380 on a 75-
foot-wide taxiway. The taxiway does not meet Design Group VI overall
taxiway pavement width of 180 feet. Proposed expanding the shoulders;
FAA decision: Approved on interim basis under the condition that
modifications adhere to guidance of Engineering Brief 63.
Request description: 2. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
Taxiway A. The taxiway does not meet Design Group VI taxiway object
free area of 193 feet due to the adjacent vehicle service road located
163 feet from it;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* FAA recommended future investigation of relocating or narrowing
vehicle service road;
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Allowed 163- foot separation from vehicle service road;
* Required a 167-foot minimum separation from buildings on A380 taxiing
routes;
* All other A380 taxiing routes must maintain Design Group VI
separation;
* Imposed a maximum height restriction of 14 feet on vehicles using the
vehicle service road;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
Request description: 3. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
taxiway sections that do not meet Design Group VI taxiway edge safety
margin;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* FAA required implementation of A380 Inspection and Maintenance Plan
for those taxiway sections;
* Use of dual taxiway centerline markings not approved;
* Construction of new taxiways for Design Group VI aircraft operations
must be built to Design Group VI standards.
Request description: 4. Requested approval for A380 runway operating
plan regarding the runway centerline to parallel taxiway centerline
separation for A380 taxiing when any aircraft is on approach;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Parallel Runway 18R/36L would not be used for A380 operations;
* Must post taxiway signage to indicate restricted taxiing section;
* Runway and taxiway bridges and culverts on designated A380 route must
support A380F weight loads;
* Construction of new runway and parallel taxiways must be built to
Design Group VI standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions.
Request description: 5. Requested approval to operate an A380 on a 150-
foot-wide runway. The runway does not meet Design Group VI runway width
of 200 feet. Proposed using the runway with adaptations;
FAA decision: Disapproved: FAA Design Group VI standards require 40-
foot shoulders on each side of the runway and a 280-foot width;
* Modifications must adhere to guidance under Engineering Brief 65.
Airports: Miami;
Request description: 1. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 150-
foot-wide Runway 9/27 that does not meet Design Group VI runway width
of 200 feet;
FAA decision: Disapproved: FAA Design Group VI standards require 40-
foot shoulders on each side of the runway;
* Modifications must adhere to guidance under Engineering Brief 65.
Request description: 2. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 200-
foot-wide Runway 9/27. The runway does not meet Design Group VI
shoulder width of 40 feet on each side. Proposed using the existing 25-
foot shoulders;
FAA decision: Disapproved: FAA Design Group VI standards require 40-
foot shoulders on each side of the runway;
* Modifications must adhere to guidance under Engineering Brief 65.
Request description: 3. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 200-
foot-wide Runway 8R/26L. The runway does not meet Design Group VI
shoulder width of 40 feet on each side. Proposed using the existing 35-
foot shoulders;
FAA decision: Disapproved: FAA Design Group VI standards require 40-
foot shoulders on each side of the runway;
* Modifications must adhere to guidance under Engineering Brief 65.
Request description: 4. Requested approval to operate an A380 using
existing 250-foot-wide Runway 9/27 blast pads on one of the runway
ends;
FAA decision: Disapproved: FAA Design Group VI standards require a 400-
foot length and a 280-foot width.
Request description: 5. Requested approval to operate an A380 using
existing 270-foot-wide Runway 8R/26L blast pads on one of the runway
ends;
FAA decision: Disapproved: FAA Design Group VI standards require a 400-
foot length and a 280-foot width.
Request description: 6. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 75-
foot-wide Taxiway S that does not meet Design Group VI overall taxiway
pavement width of 180 feet;
FAA decision: Approved on interim basis under the condition to adhere
to guidance of Engineering Brief 63;
* Any underground structures and utilities, taxiway culverts, and
taxiway bridges must support A380 weight loads.
Request description: 7. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 75-
foot-wide Taxiway P that does not meet Design Group VI overall taxiway
pavement width of 180 feet;
FAA decision: Approved on interim basis under the condition to adhere
to guidance of Engineering Brief 63;
* Any underground structures and utilities, taxiway culverts, and
taxiway bridges must support A380 weight loads;
* The service road tunnel under the taxiway must also support A380
weight loads or be rerouted to other taxiways.
Request description: 8. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 75-
foot-wide Taxiway N that does not meet Design Group VI overall taxiway
pavement width of 180 feet;
FAA decision: Approved on interim basis under the condition to adhere
to guidance of Engineering Brief 63;
* Any underground structures and utilities, taxiway culverts, and
taxiway bridges must support A380 weight loads.
Request description: 9. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 75-
foot-wide Taxiway Z that does not meet Design Group VI overall taxiway
pavement width of 180 feet;
FAA decision: Approved on interim basis under the condition to adhere
to guidance of Engineering Brief 63;
* Any underground structures and utilities, taxiway culverts, and
taxiway bridges must support A380 weight loads.
Request description: 10. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 75-
foot-wide Taxiway JJ that does not meet Design Group VI overall taxiway
pavement width of 180 feet;
FAA decision: Approved on interim basis under the condition to adhere
to guidance of Engineering Brief 63;
* Any underground structures and utilities, taxiway culverts, and
taxiway bridges must support A380 weight loads.
Request description: 11. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 75-
foot-wide Taxiway K that does not meet Design Group VI overall taxiway
pavement width of 180 feet;
FAA decision: Approved on interim basis under the condition to adhere
to guidance of Engineering Brief 63;
* Any underground structures and utilities, taxiway culverts, and
taxiway bridges must support A380 weight loads.
Request description: 12. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
existing taxiway connectors and fillets on Taxiway S that do not meet
Design Group VI safety margin of 20 feet;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* If repeated excursions occur on existing fillets, fillets must be
retrofitted to Design Group VI standards and any damaged taxiway
shoulders corrected after each excursion;
* Reconstruction of new taxiway connectors must be built to Design
Group VI standards;
* Must inform air traffic control of substandard connectors and A380
pilots to apply oversteer;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
Request description: 13. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
existing taxiway connectors and fillets on Taxiways S and T that do not
meet Design Group VI safety margin of 20 feet;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* If repeated excursions occur on existing fillets, fillets must be
retrofitted to Design Group VI standards and any damaged taxiway
shoulders corrected;
* Taxiway safety edge margins must be increased;
* Reconstruction of new taxiway connectors must be built to Design
Group VI standards;
* Must inform air traffic control of substandard connectors and A380
pilots to apply oversteer;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
Request description: 14. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
existing taxiway connectors and fillets on Taxiway N that do not meet
Design Group VI safety margin of 20 feet;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* If repeated excursions occur on existing fillets, fillets must be
retrofitted to Design Group VI standards and any damaged taxiway
shoulders corrected;
* Reconstruction of new taxiway connectors must be built to Design
Group VI standards;
* Must inform air traffic control of substandard connectors and A380
pilots to apply oversteer;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour;
* Taxiway safety edge margins must be increased.
Request description: 15. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
existing taxiway connectors and fillets on Taxiways Y and Z that do not
meet Design Group VI safety margin of 20 feet;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* If repeated excursions occur on existing fillets, fillets must be
retrofitted to Design Group VI standards and any damaged taxiway
shoulders corrected;
* Reconstruction of new taxiway connectors must be built to Design
Group VI standards;
* Must inform air traffic control of substandard connectors and A380
pilots to apply oversteer;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
Request description: 16. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
existing taxiway connectors and fillets on Taxiway K7 that do not meet
Design Group VI safety margin of 20 feet;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* If repeated excursions occur on existing fillets, fillets must be
retrofitted to Design Group VI standards and any damaged taxiway
shoulders corrected;
* Taxiway safety edge margins must be increased;
* Reconstruction of new taxiway connectors must be built to Design
Group VI standards;
* Must inform air traffic control of substandard connectors and A380
pilots to apply oversteer;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
Request description: 17. Requested approval for an A380 runway
operating plan regarding Runway 9/27 centerline to parallel Taxiway Q
centerline separation for A380 taxiing when any aircraft is on
approach;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Must post taxiway signage to indicate restricted taxiing section;
* Runway and taxiway bridges and culverts on designated A380 route must
support A380 weight loads;
* Construction of new runway and parallel taxiways must be built to
Design Group VI standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions.
Request description: 18. Requested approval for an A380 runway
operating plan regarding Runway 9/27 centerline to parallel Taxiway T
centerline separation for A380 taxiing when any aircraft is on
approach;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Must post taxiway signage to indicate restricted taxiing section;
* Runway and taxiway bridges and culverts on designated A380 route must
support A380 weight loads;
* Construction of new runway and parallel taxiways must be built to
Design Group VI standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions;
* Must implement special hold line procedure for A380;
* Restricted use on Taxiway T for Design Group V aircraft while A380
uses Runway 9/27.
Request description: 19. Requested approval for an A380 runway
operating plan regarding Runway 8R/26L centerline to parallel Taxiway M
centerline separation for A380 taxiing when any aircraft is on
approach;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Must post taxiway signage to indicate restricted taxiing section;
* Runway and taxiway bridges and culverts on designated A380 route must
support A380 weight loads;
* Construction of new runway and parallel taxiways must be built to
Design Group VI standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions.
Request description: 20. Requested approval for A380 runway operating
plan regarding Runway 8R/26L centerline to parallel Taxiway L
centerline separation for A380 taxiing when any aircraft is on
approach;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Must post taxiway signage to indicate restricted taxiing section;
* Runway and taxiway bridges and culverts on designated A380 route must
support A380 weight loads;
* Construction of new runway/ parallel taxiways must be built to Design
Group VI standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions.
Request description: 21. Requested approval for A380 runway operating
plan regarding Runway 8L/26R centerline to parallel Taxiway K
centerline separation for A380 taxiing when any aircraft is on
approach;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Must post taxiway signage to indicate restricted taxiing section;
* Runway and taxiway bridges and culverts on designated A380 route must
support A380 weight loads;
* Construction of new runway/ parallel taxiways must be built to Design
Group VI standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions;
* Must implement special hold line procedure for A380.
Request description: 22. Requested approval for an A380 operating plan
regarding parallel Taxiway Q centerline to Taxiway P centerline
separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions with taxiing A380 and other aircraft to
maintain existing 237-foot separation;
* A380 taxiing limited to Taxiway P and prohibited on Taxiway Q;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
Request description: 23. Requested approval for A380 operating plan
regarding parallel Taxiway S centerline to Taxiway T centerline
separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions with taxiing A380 and other aircraft to
maintain existing 300-foot separation;
* A380 taxiing limited to Taxiway S and prohibited on Taxiway T;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
Request description: 24. Requested approval for an A380 operating plan
regarding parallel Taxiway Q centerline to Taxiway P centerline
separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions with taxiing A380 and other aircraft to
maintain existing 300-foot separation;
* A380 taxiing limited to Taxiway P and prohibited on Taxiway Q;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
Request description: 25. Requested approval for an A380 operating plan
regarding parallel Taxiway M centerline to Taxiway N centerline
separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions with taxiing A380 and other aircraft to
maintain existing 300-foot separation;
* A380 taxiing limited to Taxiway N and prohibited on Taxiway M;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
Request description: 26. Requested approval for an A380 operating plan
regarding parallel Taxiway N centerline to Taxilane MD11 centerline
separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions with taxiing A380 and other aircraft to
maintain existing 245-foot separation;
* A380 taxiing limited to Taxiway N and prohibited on Taxiway MD11;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
Request description: 27. Requested approval for an A380 operating plan
regarding parallel Taxiway Y centerline to Taxiway HH centerline
separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions with taxiing A380 and other aircraft to
maintain existing 300-foot separation;
* A380 taxiing limited to Taxiway Y and prohibited on Taxiway HH;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
Request description: 28. Requested approval for an A380 operating plan
regarding parallel Taxiway Y centerline to Taxiway W centerline
separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions with taxiing A380 and other aircraft to
maintain existing 300-foot separation;
* A380 taxiing limited to Taxiway Y and prohibited on Taxiway W;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
Request description: 29. Requested approval for an A380 operating plan
regarding parallel Taxiway JJ centerline to Taxiway HH centerline
separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions with taxiing A380 and other aircraft to
maintain existing 300-foot separation;
* A380 taxiing limited to Taxiway JJ and prohibited on Taxiway HH;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour;
* Required a 167-foot minimum separation from building area to Taxiway
JJ.
Request description: 30. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
Taxiway S. The taxiway does not meet Design Group VI taxiway centerline
to fixed or moveable object separation distance of 193 feet. Proposed
using the taxiway with a 170-foot separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* FAA recommended future investigation of relocating vehicle service
road;
* Reconstruction of Taxiway S must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Allowed 170-foot separation from vehicle service road;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour;
* Imposed a maximum height restriction of 14 feet on vehicles using the
vehicle service road.
Request description: 31. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
Taxiway P. The taxiway does not meet Design Group VI taxiway centerline
to fixed or moveable object separation distance of 193 feet. Proposed
using the taxiway with a 137-foot separation;
FAA decision: Disapproved.
Request description: 32. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
Taxiway K. The taxiway does not meet Design Group VI taxiway centerline
to fixed or moveable object separation distance of 193 feet. Proposed
using the taxiway with a 160-foot separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* FAA recommended future investigation of relocating the vehicle
service road;
* Reconstruction of Taxiway K must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Allowed 160-foot separation from vehicle service road;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour;
* Imposed a maximum height restriction of 14 feet on vehicles using the
vehicle service road.
Airports: Ontario;
Request description: 1. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
Taxiways N and S. The taxiways do not meet Design Group VI taxiway
centerline to fixed or moveable object separation distance of 193 feet.
Proposed using the taxiways with 160-foot separation;
FAA decision: Pending.
Request description: 2. Requested approval for an A380 runway operating
plan regarding Runway 8L/26R centerline to Parallel Taxiway N
centerline separation and Runway 8R/26L centerline to Parallel Taxiway
S centerline separation;
FAA decision: Pending.
Request description: 3. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 150-
foot-wide Runway 8L/26R with modified 65-foot shoulders that would meet
Design Group VI overall runway pavement width of 280 feet;
FAA decision: Pending.
Request description: 4. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 150-
foot-wide Runway 8R/26L with 50-foot shoulders that does not meet
Design Group VI overall runway pavement width of 280 feet;
FAA decision: Pending.
Request description: 5. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 75-
foot-wide Taxiways N, S, W, B, U, R, and D with 52.5-foot shoulders
that would meet Design Group VI overall taxiway pavement width of 180
feet;
FAA decision: Pending.
Airports: Orlando;
Request description: 1. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
Parallel Taxiways E and F. The taxiways do not meet Design Group VI
taxiway centerline to taxiway centerline separation of 324 feet.
Proposed using the taxiways with a 300-foot separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* FAA required ramp taxiways and taxilanes at Airside Terminal Four and
at future South Terminal must be in accordance to Design Group VI
standards;
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Taxiing speed restricted on A380 when any aircraft smaller than an
A380 is taxiing on a parallel taxiway;
* A380 taxiing limited to Taxiway F and not on Taxiway E;
* Air traffic control must implement A380 operational plan to limit
A380 to those runways and taxiways.
Request description: 2. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 75-
foot-wide Taxiways B, B1, B10, and C. The taxiways do not meet Design
Group VI total taxiway pavement widths of 180 feet. Proposed expanding
the shoulders on the taxiways;
FAA decision: Approved on interim basis under the condition to adhere
to guidance of Engineering Brief 63;
* Taxiway F bridge must support A380 weight loads;
* Taxiway fillet designs must be in accordance with Design Group VI
standards;
* Any underground structures and utilities, taxiway culverts, and
taxiway bridges must support A380 weight loads;
* Taxiways E, J, Y, and Z and shoulders must be reconstructed to Design
Group VI standards.
Airports: San Francisco;
Request description: 1. Requested approval for an A380 runway operating
plan regarding the runway centerline to parallel taxiway centerline
separation for A380 taxiing when any aircraft is on approach;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Runways 1L/19R and 10R/28L would not be used for A380 operations;
* Must post taxiway signage to indicate restricted taxiing section;
* Construction of new runway/parallel taxiways must be built to Design
Group VI standards;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions.
Request description: 2. Requested approval to operate an A380 on 75-
foot-wide taxiways that do not meet Design Group VI overall taxiway
pavement width of 180 feet;
FAA decision: Approved on interim basis under the condition that
modifications adhere to guidance of Engineering Brief 63.
Request description: 3. Requested approval for an A380 operating plan
regarding the parallel taxiway centerline to taxiway centerline
separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* Required Taxiway A to be moved 13.5 feet and relocate the vehicle
service road 10 feet towards the boarding area;
* Required Taxiway M to be moved 42.5 feet and relocate the vehicle
service road 54.5 feet towards the Remote Aircraft Parking area;
* Imposed taxiing restrictions with taxiing A380 and other aircraft;
* A380 taxiing prohibited on Taxiway A;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour.
Request description: 4. Requested approval to operate an A380 on
taxiway that does not meet Design Group VI taxiway centerline to fixed
or moveable object separation distance of 193 feet. Proposed using the
taxiway with a 146.5-foot separation;
FAA decision: Approved based on the following conditions:
* Allowed 146.5-foot separation from vehicle service road;
* FAA recommended future investigation of relocating vehicle service
road;
* Construction of new taxiways must be built to Design Group VI
standards;
* A380 taxiing speed restricted to a maximum of 15 miles per hour;
* Imposed a maximum height restriction of 14 feet on vehicles using the
vehicle service road;
* Must ensure hold lines to designated arrival and departure runways
are in place;
* Required a section of the vehicle service road next to Taxiway C
moved 11.5 feet to achieve 146.5-foot separation;
* Imposed a 400-foot clearance on vehicles using vehicle service road
during A380 taxiing;
* Required vehicle service road to be realigned 60.5 feet to maintain
the 146.5-foot separation.
Source: GAO summary of information provided by airports and FAA.
Note: FAA decided to remove the 15-mile-per-hour taxiing speed
restriction for the A380 that was imposed under the conditions of
Engineering Brief 63. The decision will be effective in May 2006.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments by Airbus:
Airbus:
Dan Cohen-Nir:
Programs Director:
Safety and Technical Affairs:
Via Email:
April 25, 2006:
Mr. Gerald Dillingham, PhD:
Physical Infrastructure Issues, Director:
Government Accountability Office:
4411 G Street, N.W., Room 2T23B:
Washington, DC 20548:
Cc: Mr. Glen Trochelman:
Assistant Director:
Government Accountability Office:
200 W. Adams Street, Suite 700:
Chicago, Illinois 60606:
Dear Dr. Dillingham,
Airbus truly appreciates the opportunity offered by the Government
Accountability Office to review, and submit comments on, the Draft
Report titled `Infrastructure Changes at U.S. Airports to Accommodate
the A380'.
General Comments:
Airbus commends the GAO for its effort in providing a comprehensive
assessment of the infrastructural changes that US airports have
undertaken, or may undertake, to accommodate the A380.
Since the start of the GAO study, The Boeing Company has launched an
aircraft to compete with the A380 - the Boeing 747-8, which has
dimensions that should require the same airfield compatibility
standards as the A380. Consequently, modifications necessary for the
A380 also should be deemed necessary for B747-8 service.
Figure:
[See PDF for Image]
A380:
Dimensions Wingspan: 261.7 ft Length: 239.3 ft Height: 79.6 ft Seats:
555-853 Maximum take-off weight: 1,235,000 pounds:
B747-8:
Dimensions Wingspan: 224.75 ft Length: 243.5 ft Height: 63.5 ft Seats:
450-660 Maximum take-off weight: 960,000 pounds:
[End of Figure]
Market-Driven Investments:
Airbus concurs with the GAO's judgment that the infrastructure changes
are not imposed on US airports but are market-driven. Airports across
the United States have chosen to make those changes in order to remain
competitive in the airport services marketplace. It is expected that
the A380 will generate a substantial increase in airport revenues for
the airports it will serve. It should be recalled that the
modifications required of airports worldwide to accommodate the Boeing
747 when it was first introduced to service were done at substantial
expense. The B747 was much larger in wingspan, length, weight and
seating capacity compared to the next largest airplane - the Boeing
707, than is the A380 when compared to the 747-400ER. Yet, the airports
chose to make those changes for competitive reasons. This proved to be
a wise investment for these airports.
Airbus acknowledges the GAO's efforts to update its February 2002
report, in regard to the measurable regulatory changes that have
happened since. Those changes in the form of revised FAA guidance have
resulted in a dramatic decrease in the global infrastructural cost
figures from 2002 to 2006.
Airbus would like to recall that, in commenting on the 2002
information, it had indicated the costs associated to the introduction
of the A380 would be significantly lower than the $2.1 billion reported
in the February 2002 GAO report titled Unresolved Issues Make It
Difficult to Determine the Cost to Serve New Large Aircraft. Airbus
cost estimates were of $520 million for those 14 airports surveyed in
2002.
Perhaps the most significant reason for the difference in expected
costs was Airbus's confidence in its ability to design an aircraft
compatible with existing airports. Airbus had been working with
airports on the design of the to-come A380 for several years prior to
the launch of the airplane in 2000, in order to minimize the impact on
the airport environment. Also, we were confident in the FAA's ability
to evaluate the benefits from the A380 design and develop up-to-date,
safe and more cost-effective guidance. This confidence was justified
as, as the GAO is reporting, the FAA has produced since two engineering
briefs and, to date, approved 47 modifications to design standards in
11 airports.
The resolution of the runway width issue is underway. Airbus is
confident that the US certification and operational approval of the
A380 on 150-ft wide runways ultimately will allow US airports to accept
A380 operations on 150-ft wide runways, at a lesser investment cost
than what would have been required for full compliance to Design Group
(DG)-VI standards or conformance to FAA's Engineering Brief (EB) 65.
With respect to DG-VI runway width standard, it is important to
remember that these standards were first developed more than twenty
years before the A380 entry into service. There have been many
technological improvements during those intervening years.
It is nevertheless at this point the principal source of uncertainty in
the cost evaluation of infrastructural changes by US airports. It
therefore induces a very large variability in the reported runway costs
depending on the airport strategy.
Contributing as well to some of the uncertainty over costs is that
every airport in the study appears to have used its own and differing
methodologies for estimating costs and reporting statistics.
Specific comments:
The following comments are submitted for your consideration and are
either based upon detailed liaison with individual airports or upon
knowledge of their construction planning and schedule.
Those comments are provided after the airport names ranked in
alphabetical order.
Alliance Fort Worth International Airport AFW):
To date, no carrier has identified AFW for A380 service. Airbus assumes
that most of the reported costs are associated to full compliance to DG-
VI and that additional costs associated to the primary runway
lengthening were dismissed, since clearly not specific to the A380.
As noted earlier in the general comments section, it is likely the
runway widening costs will dramatically decrease once the FAA will
develop definitive runway standards for the A380.
Airbus has no comments on the taxiway costs associated to compliance to
E1363.
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (ANC):
As noted earlier, the report should clearly point out that the
airport's estimates are based upon the assumption that construction or
reconstruction projects are planned to comply with DG-VI standards.
In particular, the runway costs estimates are based upon full
compliance to DG-VI standards of one existing runway. Compliance to
EB65 or final runway standards resulting from the A380 certification
and operational approval should reduce significantly runway costs.
The completed taxiway projects include the construction in 2004 of
taxiway Yankee, for which the accounted cost should be that of the
incremental expense from DG-V to DG-VI standards. The taxiway cost
estimates also include full compliance to DG-VI;
conformance to EB63 would provide a less expensive solution.
The costs associated to the two remote parking positions for overnight
parking seem higher than projected. Our best estimate is the costs
specific to the A380 are closer to $8 million.
Airbus has no particular comments on the costs associated to the
Aircraft Fire Fighting and Rescue.
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL):
To date, no carrier has identified ATL for A380 service. It appears
that the estimated costs for the two parallel runway and associated
taxiways result from full compliance to DG-VI. Compliance to EB65 and
to EB63 should reduce significantly the runway and taxiway construction
costs, in the region of $45 million. Compliance to EB63 and to the
guidance resulting from the A380 certification and operational approval
should further reduce infrastructural costs.
Airbus has no particular comments on the projected costs associated to
the terminal gate improvements.
Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW):
The breakdown of infrastructural cost appear reasonable to us.
The report should clearly point out that the airport's construction or
reconstruction projects, which are completed or planned today, will
comply fully with runway and taxiway DG-VI standards.
Denver International Airport (DIA):
The report should clearly point out that the airport's runway and
taxiway completed project costs correspond to the increments induced by
the full compliance to DG-VI.
Planned taxiway projects may result in lesser costs if the airport is
granted approval from FAA based on existing modifications of standards.
Airbus has no particular comments on the projected costs associated to
the gate and terminal projects.
Washington Dulles International airport (IAD):
The best estimates for the airfield modifications to comply with EB65
are $5.925 million. Conformance to future guidance resulting from the
A380 certification and operational approval on 150-ft wide runways
should further reduce infrastructural costs at a level close to $3.8
million, if runway shoulder widening were required.
For conformance of taxiway to E1363, the costs of $3.206 million appear
reasonable to us.
Airbus has no particular comments on the $5.6 million cost estimates
for gate and concourse modifications.
Indianapolis International Airport IND):
Airbus understands that the runway and taxiway cost estimates include
compliance to EB65 and EB63. The costs reflected appear reasonable to
us. Compliance to EB63 or to the runway guidance resulting from the
A380 certification and operational approval should further reduce
infrastructural costs.
New York John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK):
The cost estimates are based upon the assumption that major runway
reconstruction was required to accommodate the A380.
The overall figure $47.940 million for runway costs appear much higher
than Airbus estimates of $7.6 million for several reasons.
The airport has indicated at multiple occasions that its long-term
objective was to operate on four DG-VI compliant runways, not for the
accommodation of the new larger aircraft but for operational purposes,
more precisely for easier snow removal operations during the winter
season.
Additionally, in the case of runway 4R-22L that was rehabilitated and
widened in 2003, $12 million were invested for an engineered materials
arresting systems (EMAS), which is justified by safety concerns and is
unrelated to the introduction of the A380.
The rehabilitation of three remaining runways starting in 2008 will
take place after future guidance resulting from the A380 certification
and operational approval on 150-ft wide runways is expected to be
available. The current pavement characteristics of the three runways
may result in virtually no incremental costs to accommodate the A380.
For all of the above, one can legitimately challenge any costs attached
to the A380 when reviewing the incremental runway widening costs.
Airbus has no particular comments on the taxiway and gate project cost
estimate provided.
Airbus best estimate for the A380 projects at JFK is around $I 1 I
million.
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX):
Airbus has no particular comments on the planned runway and taxiway
costs totaling $ 3.7 million, associated to the Sepulveda Boulevard
Tunnel bridge project. The report should point out clearly that the
costs associated to the relocation of the southernmost runway are not
included.
The report should more explicitly indicate that taxiway costs are in
large part attributable to improvements of the taxiway intersections
and fillets. Those improvements were already required for the entry
into service of new generation longer airplanes such as the Airbus's
A340-600 or Boeing's 777-300ER prior to the introduction of the A380.
Both the A340-600 and the 777-300ER are more critical than the Boeing's
747-400 that had been used as the critical design aircraft.
The projected terminal improvements at the Tom Bradley international
Terminal include improvements that are not generated by the
introduction of the A380 but form part of the concomitant modernization
program in the terminal interior. The report should clearly
differentiate those costs from the A380 entry into service.
Airbus has no comments on the projected costs associated to the gate
projects.
Orlando International Airport (MCO):
The overall cost estimate of $66 million, which include west and east
airfield projects, appears much higher than projected for the A380
operations to be considered in the 2006-2010 timeframe.
Airbus best estimate for the west airfield projects is around $25.5
million.
Shoulders and blast pads of one of the two west airfield parallel
runways will be upgraded to DG-VI standards. Airbus best estimate for
the cost associated is $3.5 million. The second runway is already
compliant with DG-VI standards.
Airbus best estimate is in the region of $22 million for conformance to
EB63 or DG-VI of the existing taxiway infrastructure (bridge,
intersections, shoulders) on the west airfield.
Beyond 2010, the airport may consider east airfield runway and taxiway
system improvements. Airbus assumes that the $12.3 million reported
correspond to full compliance to DG-VI. Conformance to EB65 or to the
runway guidance resulting from the A380 certification and operational
approval should further reduce infrastructural costs, in the region of
$5 million for the less expensive option. Airbus has no particular
comments on the $18.3 million taxiway cost estimates provided.
Airbus has no particular comments on the terminal cost estimates
provided.
Memphis International Airport (MEM):
The estimated costs for the two parallel runways result from
conformance to EB65; for completed taxiways to DG-VI (incremental costs
from DG-V) and for on-going or planned taxiways to EB63. Conformance to
future guidance resulting from the A380 certification and operational
approval on 150-ft wide runways should further reduce infrastructural
costs.
Miami International Airport (MIA):
The overall cost estimate of $97.466 million appears much higher than
projected for the A380 operations.
First, the completed Support Project (i.e. midfield holding bay) is
related to growth and airfield congestion and has limited correlation
to the accommodation of the A380. Clearly, the $34.641 million figure
is not justified by the needs for the A380.
Second, it is assumed that EB65 shoulder strength requirements are
applicable to an existing 200-ft wide runway. This is not according to
the FAA guidance, which rather considers shoulder width requirements.
This only would lower construction costs significantly.
Third, conformance to the runway guidance resulting from the A380
certification and operational approval should further reduce
infrastructural costs on the existing 150-ft runway.
Airbus best estimate for the runway projects is around $10 million.
Airbus has no particular comments on the taxiway (compliance to E1363)
and gate cost estimates provided.
Airbus best estimate for all projects is around $40 million.
Ontario International Airport ONT):
Airbus understands that the runway cost estimates include only
incremental expenses incurred for compliance with E1365. The costs
reflected appear reasonable to us. Compliance to EB63 and to future
guidance resulting from the A380 certification and operational approval
on 150-ft wide runways should further reduce infrastructural costs.
Chicago O'Hare International Airport f ORD):
The short-term plan to accommodate the A380 may include widening the
runway shoulders of runway 14R-32L to comply with DG-V1 standards and
taxiway improvements (EB63) as well fillet widening and signage,
lighting and pavement markings improvements.
Airbus estimate for those improvements is in the region of $20 million.
Alternatively, in view of a multi-billion O'Hare Modernization Plan
(OMP) that has been recently approved and that calls for two new DG-VI
runways and several DG-VI taxiways partially available in 2009-2010 and
completed in 2013, the airport may elect to develop an interim
operational plan with specific procedures applicable in the existing
airfield configuration. This alternative will virtually incur no
incremental cost.
Airbus has no particular comments on the $44.7 million cost estimate
for the incremental costs of the DG-VI runway and taxiway system
devised in the OMP. Airbus would like to observe that incremental costs
represent a very small fraction of the OMP estimated cost.
Philadelphia International Airport (PHL):
To date, no carrier has identified PHL for A380 service. Some A380
carriers have identified PHL as a potential alternate airport for
diversion purposes. As a result, airfield modifications should be non-
existent and gate improvements reduced to a minimum.
The report should clearly point out that the airport's construction or
reconstruction projects cost estimates are based upon compliance with
DG-VI standards. Compliance to EB63 and to the runway guidance
resulting from the A380 certification and operational approval should
further reduce infrastructural costs.
Airbus understands that $4.2 million are associated to future direct
upper deck access and terminal improvements of two gates at existing
terminals. In all likelihood, this service will not be provided in the
2006-2010 timeframe considered in this report.
Those costs appear reasonable to us.
Louisville International airport (SDF):
The report should clearly point out that the airport's taxiway project
include a $15 million new taxiway built not only for the A380 but also
for airfield expansion included in the airport's master plan. Only the
incremental portion resulting from compliance with current DG-VI
standards in terms of taxiway width and upcoming DG-VI standards on
runway-to-parallel taxiway separation should be accounted for.
The airport estimates include an $11 million runway improvement project
to comply with DG-VI standards. Compliance to EB65 or conformance to
the runway guidance resulting from the A380 certification and
operational approval should further reduce infrastructural costs.
San Francisco International Airport (SFO):
The breakdown of infrastructural cost appear reasonable to us. Airbus
overall cost estimate is around $20.3 million.
The report should clearly point out that the airport's construction or
reconstruction projects, which are completed or planned today, will
comply with runway DG-VI standards and E1363.
Tampa International Airport (TPA):
To date, no carrier has identified TPA for A380 service. Some A380
carriers have identified TPA as a potential alternate airport for
diversion purposes. As a result, airfield modifications should be non-
existent and gate improvements reduced to a minimum.
Airbus understands that $2.2 million out of the $2.3 million reported
is associated to direct upper deck access to a gate in a potential new
terminal. In all likelihood, this service will not be provided in the
2006-2010 timeframe considered in this report. As a result, only the
remaining $100,000 invested in the current terminal should be accounted
for.
Summary comments:
The list of 18 airports considered by the GAO reflects well the likely
and potential US destination airports that are expected to accommodate
the A380 (as well as, presumably, the 13747-8) in the next 5 years.
Some airports that are only intended as alternates have been also
evaluated.
After reviewing the 18 airports' cost estimate, Airbus has identified
several projects that are not related to the A380 and should be
dismissed, as well as some discrepancies in the interpretation of
applicable FAA guidance.
As a result, Airbus believes that there are significant savings in
excess of $200 million that can be found in the cost estimates provided
by ATL, MIA, MCO, and JFK notably.
When comparing against the $927 million calculated by the GAO, Airbus
estimates that a more reasonable figure is in the region of $720
million.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our views and to submit our
comments and, as in the past, are ready to assist you at any
opportunity in the important endeavor of your study.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Dan Cohen-Nir:
Programs Director:
Airbus North America Holdings Inc.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact: Gerald Dillingham, Ph.D., (202) 512-2834:
Staff Acknowledgments: In addition to the person named above, Glen
Trochelman, Assistant Director; Carolyn Boyce, Richard Calhoon, Nikki
Clowers, Vashun Cole, Colin Fallon, and Frank Taliaferro made key
contributions to this report.
Footnotes:
[1] Airbus is incorporated as a simplified joint stock company or
S.A.S. (Société par Actions Simplifiée).
[2] The International Lease Finance Corporation, a U.S. company,
ordered five A380 passenger and five A380F freight aircraft and plans
to lease these aircraft to air carriers across the world. No U.S.
customers have been announced.
[3] GAO, Airport Infrastructure: Unresolved Issues Make It Difficult to
Determine the Cost to Serve New Large Aircraft, GAO-02-251 (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 4, 2002).
[4] A Modification of Standard is any deviation from the established
FAA standards to accommodate a unique condition that must be reviewed
and approved by FAA.
[5] Airport Improvement Program funding is a federal grant-in-aid
program that represents a major source of funding for airport
development and planning.
[6] Passenger facility charges are fees of up to $4.50 for every
enplaned passenger at commercial airports, which fund airport projects
that enhance safety, security, capacity, reduce noise, or increase air
carrier competition.
[7] GAO, Airport Infrastructure: Unresolved Issues Make It Difficult to
Determine the Cost to Service New Large Aircraft, GAO-02-251
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
