Commercial Aviation
Potential Safety and Capacity Issues Associated with the Introduction of the New A380 Aircraft
Gao ID: GAO-07-483 April 20, 2007
Airbus S.A.S. (Airbus), a European aircraft manufacturer, is introducing a new aircraft designated as the A380, which is expected to enter service in late 2007. The A380 will be the largest passenger aircraft in the world, with a wingspan of about 262 feet, a tail fin reaching 80 feet high, and a maximum takeoff weight of 1.2 million pounds. The A380 has a double deck and could seat up to 853 passengers. GAO was asked to examine the impact of the A380 on U.S. airports. In May 2006, GAO issued a report that estimated the costs of infrastructure changes at U.S. airports to accommodate the A380. This report discusses (1) the safety issues associated with introducing the A380 at U.S. airports, (2) the potential impact of A380 operations on the capacity of U.S. airports, and (3) how selected foreign airports are preparing to accommodate the A380. To address these issues, GAO reviewed studies on operational and safety issues related to the A380 and conducted site visits to the 18 U.S. airports and 11 Asian, Canadian, and European airports preparing to receive the A380. GAO provided the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airbus a copy of the draft report for review. Both generally agreed with the report's findings. FAA and Airbus also provided technical clarifications, which were incorporated as appropriate.
The A380 will be the first of a new category of large passenger aircraft introduced into the national airspace system in the coming years. The size of the A380 poses some potential safety challenges for U.S. airports. As a result, airports expecting A380 service may need to modify their infrastructure or impose operating restrictions, such as restrictions on runway use, on the A380 and other aircraft to ensure an acceptable level of safety. In addition, increased separation between the A380 and other aircraft during landing and departure is also required because research data indicate that the air turbulence created by the A380's wake is stronger than the largest aircraft in use today. The A380 also poses challenges for fire and rescue officials due to its larger size, upper deck, fuel capacity, and the number of passengers. FAA, Airbus, airports, and other organizations have taken several steps to mitigate these safety challenges. For example, the A380 is equipped with some safety enhancements, such as materials designed to reduce flammability and an external camera taxiing system to enhance pilot vision on the ground. The impact of A380 operations on capacity is uncertain. The A380 was designed, in part, to help alleviate capacity constraints faced by many large airports in the United States and around the world by accommodating more passengers and freight on each flight than any aircraft currently in use. However, potential operating restrictions and the increased separation requirements imposed to ensure the safety of the A380 and other aircraft at airports and during flight could reduce the number of flights that airports can accommodate. The extent to which possible operating restrictions, increased separation, and gate utilization impact capacity would depend on the time of day, the number of A380 operations, and the volume of overall airport traffic. Selected foreign airports that GAO visited have taken different approaches than U.S. airports in preparing for the introduction of the A380. These differences reflect the expected level of A380 traffic at the airports--and in some cases, the anticipated economic benefits of the A380 flights. The different approaches include adopting alternative airport design standards, making significant investment in existing infrastructure, and designing airports that allow for new large aircraft. By implementing these approaches, officials from the foreign airports that GAO visited do not anticipate that the introduction of the A380 will result in delays or disruptions at their airports, despite higher levels of expected A380 traffic compared to most U.S. airports.
GAO-07-483, Commercial Aviation: Potential Safety and Capacity Issues Associated with the Introduction of the New A380 Aircraft
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-483
entitled 'Commercial Aviation: Potential Safety and Capacity Issues
Associated with the Introduction of the New A380 Aircraft' which was
released on April 27, 2007.
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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
April 2007:
Commercial Aviation:
Potential Safety and Capacity Issues Associated with the Introduction
of the New A380 Aircraft:
GAO-07-483:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-483, a report to Congressional Requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
Airbus S.A.S. (Airbus), a European aircraft manufacturer, is
introducing a new aircraft designated as the A380, which is expected to
enter service in late 2007. The A380 will be the largest passenger
aircraft in the world, with a wingspan of about 262 feet, a tail fin
reaching 80 feet high, and a maximum takeoff weight of 1.2 million
pounds. The A380 has a double deck and could seat up to 853 passengers.
GAO was asked to examine the impact of the A380 on U.S. airports. In
May 2006, GAO issued a report that estimated the costs of
infrastructure changes at U.S. airports to accommodate the A380. This
report discusses (1) the safety issues associated with introducing the
A380 at U.S. airports, (2) the potential impact of A380 operations on
the capacity of U.S. airports, and (3) how selected foreign airports
are preparing to accommodate the A380. To address these issues, GAO
reviewed studies on operational and safety issues related to the A380
and conducted site visits to the 18 U.S. airports and 11 Asian,
Canadian, and European airports preparing to receive the A380.
GAO provided the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airbus a
copy of the draft report for review. Both generally agreed with the
report‘s findings. FAA and Airbus also provided technical
clarifications, which were incorporated as appropriate.
What GAO Found:
The A380 will be the first of a new category of large passenger
aircraft introduced into the national airspace system in the coming
years. The size of the A380 poses some potential safety challenges for
U.S. airports. As a result, airports expecting A380 service may need to
modify their infrastructure or impose operating restrictions, such as
restrictions on runway use, on the A380 and other aircraft to ensure an
acceptable level of safety. In addition, increased separation between
the A380 and other aircraft during landing and departure is also
required because research data indicate that the air turbulence created
by the A380‘s wake is stronger than the largest aircraft in use today.
The A380 also poses challenges for fire and rescue officials due to its
larger size, upper deck, fuel capacity, and the number of passengers.
FAA, Airbus, airports, and other organizations have taken several steps
to mitigate these safety challenges. For example, the A380 is equipped
with some safety enhancements, such as materials designed to reduce
flammability and an external camera taxiing system to enhance pilot
vision on the ground.
The impact of A380 operations on capacity is uncertain. The A380 was
designed, in part, to help alleviate capacity constraints faced by many
large airports in the United States and around the world by
accommodating more passengers and freight on each flight than any
aircraft currently in use. However, potential operating restrictions
and the increased separation requirements imposed to ensure the safety
of the A380 and other aircraft at airports and during flight could
reduce the number of flights that airports can accommodate. The extent
to which possible operating restrictions, increased separation, and
gate utilization impact capacity would depend on the time of day, the
number of A380 operations, and the volume of overall airport traffic.
Selected foreign airports that GAO visited have taken different
approaches than U.S. airports in preparing for the introduction of the
A380. These differences reflect the expected level of A380 traffic at
the airports”and in some cases, the anticipated economic benefits of
the A380 flights. The different approaches include adopting alternative
airport design standards, making significant investment in existing
infrastructure, and designing airports that allow for new large
aircraft. By implementing these approaches, officials from the foreign
airports that GAO visited do not anticipate that the introduction of
the A380 will result in delays or disruptions at their airports,
despite higher levels of expected A380 traffic compared to most U.S.
airports.
Figure: Inaugural Airbus A380 Visit to Singapore Changi Airport:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: Courtesy of Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore.
[End of figure]
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-483].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Gerald L. Dillingham at
(202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
A380 Poses a Number of Potential Safety Challenges at Airports:
A380's Impact on Capacity at U.S. Airports Is Uncertain:
Foreign Airports Have Taken Different Approaches to Prepare for the
A380:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries:
Appendix III: Comments by Airbus:
Tables:
Table 1: FAA Airplane Design Groups:
Table 2: Aviation Experts Interviewed by GAO:
Table 3: United States Airports Visited by GAO:
Table 4: Asian, Canadian, and European Airports Visited by GAO:
Table 5 Bangkok Suvarnabhumi International Airport:
Table 6: Beijing Capital International Airport:
Table 7: Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport:
Table 8: Hong Kong International Airport:
Table 9: Singapore Changi International Airport:
Table 10: Tokyo Narita International Airport:
Table 11: Montréal Trudeau International Airport:
Table 12: Toronto Pearson International Airport:
Table 13: Amsterdam Schiphol International Airport:
Table 14: London Heathrow International Airport:
Table 15: Paris Charles de Gaulle International Airport:
Figures:
Figure 1: Inaugural Airbus A380 Visit to Singapore Changi Airport:
Figure 2: Comparison of the Boeing 747-400, Airbus A380, and Boeing 747-
8:
Figure 3: Illustration of the Effects of Wake Turbulence:
Figure 4: Illustration of On-approach Landing Separation Distances for
Aircraft Trailing an A380 and Heavy Aircraft:
Figure 5: Fire Fighting Vehicle with Penetrating Nozzle:
Figure 6: The Taxilane Object Free Area Requirement for the A380:
Figure 7: Baiyun International Airport, Guangzhou, China:
Abbreviations:
AACG: A380 Airports Compatibility Group:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
EASA: European Aviation Safety Agency:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organization:
NAS: National Academy of Sciences:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
April 20, 2007:
The Honorable John L. Mica:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Thomas E. Petri:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Aviation:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
Airbus S.A.S. (Airbus), a European aircraft manufacturer, is
introducing a new large aircraft designated as the A380. When the A380
enters service--which is currently expected in late 2007--it will be
the largest passenger aircraft in the world, with a wingspan of about
262 feet, a tail fin reaching 80 feet high, and a maximum takeoff
weight of 1.2 million pounds.[Footnote 1] The A380 has a double deck
and could seat up to 853 passengers, depending on the cabin
configuration.[Footnote 2] In comparison, the largest passenger
aircraft currently in operation, the Boeing 747-400, can seat up to 660
passengers. While the A380 will be the first of this new category of
large passenger aircraft, it will not be the last. For instance, Boeing
received orders in December 2006 for its 747-8 passenger aircraft,
which will be in the same category as the A380, and is expected to
enter service in late 2010.[Footnote 3]
Figure 1: Inaugural Airbus A380 Visit to Singapore Changi Airport:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Courtesy of Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore.
[End of figure]
As of March 2007, Airbus has orders from 14 customers for 156 A380
passenger aircraft.[Footnote 4] Air carriers plan to operate the A380
at select airports throughout the world, including certain U.S.
airports. As a result, the A380 must comply with standards set by
individual countries from around the world. The International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) promulgates international standards and
recommended practices, among other things, in an effort to harmonize
global aviation standards. In the United States, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is responsible for regulating the safety of civil
aviation and also establishes the standards and recommendations for the
design and development of civil airports.
You asked us to assess the impact of the Airbus A380 on U.S. airports.
In May 2006, we issued a report that estimated the costs of
infrastructure changes that U.S. airports plan to make to accommodate
the A380.[Footnote 5] This report discusses (1) the safety issues
associated with the introduction of the A380 at U.S. airports, (2) the
potential impact of A380 operations on the capacity of U.S. airports,
and (3) how selected foreign airports are preparing to accommodate the
A380. To address these issues, we reviewed FAA and ICAO guidance and
standards. We also reviewed studies on operational issues related to
the A380 and on aircraft fire and rescue equipment and tactics, A380
emergency evacuations, pavement strength issues for the A380's weight,
and other safety-related issues. We also analyzed capacity impact
studies for some U.S. airports that anticipate receiving the new
aircraft. We interviewed FAA, ICAO, Airbus, and aviation trade
association officials. In addition, we conducted semi-structured
interviews with 17 aviation experts, identified by the National Academy
of Sciences, to obtain their views on the impact of the A380 on airport
operations and capacity, and potential safety issues.[Footnote 6] We
conducted site visits to the 18 U.S. airports that are making
infrastructure improvements to accommodate the A380 and 11 Asian,
Canadian, and European airports that will be receiving the A380. During
these site visits, we interviewed airport officials, including airport
management, air traffic controllers, and fire and rescue personnel, and
toured the airport facilities. This study built upon the work performed
for the May 2006 report and therefore we performed our work from May
2005 to March 2007 in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Additional details on our scope and methodology can be found
in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
The A380 will be the first of a new category of large passenger
aircraft introduced in the coming years. The size of these aircraft
poses a number of potential safety challenges for U.S. airports. Most
U.S. airports were not designed to receive aircraft the size of the
A380 and therefore the width of their runways and taxiways do not meet
FAA safety standards for such aircraft. As a result, airports expecting
A380 service may need to modify their infrastructure or impose
operating restrictions, such as restrictions on runway or taxiway use,
on the A380 and other aircraft to maintain an acceptable level of
safety. Increased separation between the A380 and other aircraft during
landing and departure is also required because research indicated that
the air turbulence created by the A380's wake is stronger than the
largest aircraft in use today. The A380 is equipped with some safety
enhancements, such as internal and exterior materials designed to
reduce flammability. However, it will still pose challenges for fire
and rescue officials due to its large size, upper deck, fuel capacity,
and number of passengers. Some fire and rescue officials at the
airports we visited were confident in their ability to respond to an
A380 incident. However, several of them identified additional
equipment, personnel, or training needs that would improve their
ability to respond to emergencies involving large aircraft, such as the
A380. Similar concerns were raised for the Boeing 747 aircraft when it
was introduced to the market, and these potential safety challenges
would likely be present for other similarly-sized aircraft introduced
in the future. FAA, ICAO, Airbus, and airports have taken several steps
to mitigate these safety challenges.
The impact of A380 operations on capacity is uncertain and depends on
multiple factors. Airport capacity is generally measured by the maximum
number of takeoffs and landings. The A380 was designed, in part, to
help alleviate capacity constraints faced by many large airports in the
United States and around the world as passenger and cargo air traffic
continues to increase. According to Airbus, the A380 will accomplish
this by accommodating about 35 percent more passengers and 50 percent
more cargo volume on the freighter aircraft per flight than aircraft
currently in use. Thus, the A380 could reduce the number of flights
required to carry the same number of passengers or the same amount of
freight. However, potential operating restrictions and the increased
separation requirements imposed to ensure the safety of the A380 and
other aircraft at airports and during flight could reduce the number of
flights that airports can accommodate. Furthermore, gate availability,
restricted use of gates adjacent to A380 gates, and potential
congestion issues could reduce gate utilization and flexibility at some
airports--which could also lead to fewer flights at an airport. The
extent to which possible operating restrictions, increased separation,
and gate utilization impact airport capacity would depend on the time
of day, the number of A380 operations, and the volume of overall
airport traffic. Many airport officials and aviation experts stated
that as long as the number of A380 flights per day remains low, the
impact of the A380 on airport capacity should not be significant, but
would likely increase as the number of A380 flights increases.
Selected foreign airports we visited have taken different approaches
than U.S. airports in preparing for the introduction of the A380. These
differences reflect the age of the airports, the expected level of A380
traffic at the airports, and the anticipated economic benefits of the
A380 flights. Foreign approaches include adopting alternative airport
design standards to accommodate new large aircraft, making significant
investments in existing infrastructure, and designing airports that
allow for new large aircraft. For example, airport officials at London
Heathrow airport indicated that their investment to accommodate the
A380 was about $885 million, which is a little less than the combined
investment of all 18 of the U.S. airports expecting to receive the
A380. The different levels of investment made by U.S. and foreign
airports reflect the varying levels of expected A380 traffic--that is,
most of the foreign airports we visited expect higher levels of A380
traffic compared to U.S. airports. As a result, foreign airports, in
particular European airports, are investing more in terminal and gate
improvements to accommodate the A380 than U.S. airports. Another
foreign approach is designing airports that allow for new large
aircraft. For example, seven of the eight Asian and Canadian airports
we visited were designed for future expansion or were built to allow
new large aircraft, such as the A380. As a result, these airports will
not have to impose operating restrictions on the A380 to the extent of
U.S. airports. In general, by implementing these different approaches,
officials from the foreign airports we visited do not anticipate that
the introduction of the A380 will result in delays or disruptions at
their airports, despite the expected high level of A380 traffic.
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation
and Airbus North America Holdings, Inc. (Airbus) for review and
comment. FAA officials generally agreed with the report's findings.
Airbus generally agreed that GAO correctly identified potential safety
and capacity issues for the introduction of the A380 into service.
However, regarding our discussion on capacity issues, Airbus expressed
concern that we overemphasized the operational constraints imposed on
or by the A380 and should include information on passenger throughput,
noting that we use only one definition of capacity. Therefore, we
provided more balance regarding the potential benefits that new large
aircraft, such as the A380, could provide to help alleviate capacity
constrained U.S. airports and additional information on the A380's
potential impact on passenger throughput on the basis of Airbus'
comments. FAA and Airbus also provided technical clarifications, which
were incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
FAA, airports, and aircraft manufacturers have worked to meet the
demands of continued growth in passenger and cargo traffic in different
ways. FAA has worked to improve the capacity and efficiency of the
national airspace system to accommodate a greater number and variety of
aircraft by, for example, improving air traffic management systems and
implementing domestic reduced vertical separation minimums.[Footnote 7]
FAA is also currently working on the transformation of the nation's
current air traffic control system to the next generation air
transportation system--a system intended to accommodate the expected
growth in air traffic.[Footnote 8] However, the full implementation of
the next generation air transportation system is years away. To
accommodate increased traffic, airports have expanded the number of
available runways and gates to service additional aircraft and in some
cases new airports have been built. However, airports cannot always
accommodate increased air traffic by expanding their infrastructure for
a variety of reasons, including the lack of physical space to build
additional runways or terminals. Aircraft manufacturers have developed
larger and more efficient aircraft to meet growing passenger and
freight demand. For example, Boeing introduced the first wide-body
aircraft in 1969, the 747-100, which significantly changed the aviation
market and was much larger than currently operated aircraft. According
to Airbus, the 747-100 had roughly two and a half times more seating
capacity than the largest aircraft operating at the time.[Footnote 9]
Since then, other wide-bodied aircraft have been introduced to
accommodate the increasing emphasis and demand placed on international
service.
The Airbus A380 represents another generational change in aircraft size
and seating capacity. Specifically, the A380 is much larger than other
aircraft, with a wingspan of about 262 feet, a tail fin reaching almost
80 feet high, a maximum takeoff weight in excess of 1.2 million pounds,
and seating between 555 and 853 passengers. In comparison, the largest
commercial aircraft in use today, the Boeing 747-400, has a wingspan of
211 feet, a tail fin about 64 feet high, a maximum takeoff weight of
875,000 pounds, and can seat between 416 and 660 passengers.[Footnote
10]
Although the A380 will be the first in the new category of large
passenger aircraft, it will likely not be the last. In December 2006,
Boeing announced that it received orders for its 747-8 passenger
aircraft. The Boeing 747-8 is anticipated to have a wingspan of about
225 feet, a tail fin about 64 feet high, a maximum takeoff weight of
about 970,000 pounds, and typically seats 467 passengers in a 3-class
configuration. These dimensions place this aircraft in the same
category as the A380. (Figure 2 shows the dimensions of the Boeing 747-
400, Airbus A380, and Boeing 747-8 aircraft.) Airbus anticipates there
will be a continued demand for larger aircraft that can connect busy
and congested hubs in the future. According to its analysis, Airbus
estimated that new large passenger and freight aircraft would make up
about 10 percent of the overall fleet from 2004 to 2023. In contrast,
Boeing, while conceding the demand for a small number of very large
aircraft, projects a greater demand for smaller-sized aircraft, such as
the Boeing 787, which can provide point-to-point service, especially in
long distance markets.[Footnote 11]
Figure 2: Comparison of the Boeing 747-400, Airbus A380, and Boeing 747-
8:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
The air carriers that have ordered the A380 plan to operate at airports
throughout the world, including certain U.S. airports. As a result, the
A380 must comply with aviation standards set by individual countries
from around the world. ICAO is the international body that seeks to
harmonize global aviation standards so that worldwide civil aviation
can benefit from a seamless air transportation network. Its members or
contracting states, including the United States, are not legally bound
to act in accordance with the ICAO standards and recommended
practices.[Footnote 12] Rather, contracting states decide whether to
transform the standards and recommended practices into national laws or
regulations. In some cases, contracting states deviate from the ICAO
standards and recommended practices, or do not implement them at
all.[Footnote 13] Although ICAO has no enforcement powers and only
establishes standards and recommended practices, air carriers that use
airports that do not comply with them may be subject to increased
insurance costs. The A380 falls under ICAO's design standards for the
largest aircraft (Code F), which require at least 60-meter-wide runways
(about 200 feet) and 25-meter-wide taxiways (about 82 feet). In
addition, ICAO has also established varying in-flight, landing, and
takeoff separation standards for the different classes of aircraft.
In the United States, FAA, an agency of the Department of
Transportation (DOT), is responsible for regulating the safety of civil
aviation and also establishes the standards and recommendations for the
design and development of civil airports. FAA's role as a regulator is
to foster aviation safety by overseeing manufacturers and operators to
enforce full compliance with safety requirements. To this end, FAA must
certify any new aircraft design before that aircraft can be registered
in the U.S. for operations by domestic airlines. This design
certification is the foundation for many other FAA approvals, including
operational approvals. When domestic aircraft manufacturers request
approval of a new aircraft design, FAA uses the type certification
process to ensure that the design complies with applicable requirements
or airworthiness standards. Type validation is the type certification
process that FAA uses for foreign or imported products, such as the
A380, to ensure that the design complies with applicable FAA standards.
The A380 was validated by FAA and issued a type certificate in December
2006. Also, in March 2007, Airbus completed a series of airline route
proving and airport compatibility flights, which were designed to
demonstrate the A380's ability to operate at airports around the world.
As part of these flights, the A380 visited four U.S. airports,
including New York John F. Kennedy, Chicago O'Hare, Los Angeles, and
Washington Dulles International Airports.
FAA also establishes standards and recommendations for airport planning
and design. Due to the size of the A380, it is subject to the FAA's
design standards for the largest aircraft (Airplane Design Group VI
standards). To be in compliance with these design standards, airports
are required to have 200-foot-wide runways, 100-foot-wide taxiways, and
appropriate separation distances.[Footnote 14] Table 1 shows the wing
span criteria for the airplane design groups and examples of aircraft
that fall into each category. These design standards group aircraft by
wingspan and set ranges for which the aircraft that fall within each
group could operate without limitations. According to FAA standards,
the A380 could operate at U.S. airports built to Design Group VI
standards without the imposition of operating restrictions to the
airport or aircraft. However, most U.S. airports that anticipate
receiving A380 service are not built to Design Group VI standards. When
airports do not or cannot meet the required FAA design standards to
accommodate certain aircraft, airport officials can apply for
Modifications to Standards through FAA. This would allow certain
aircraft to be operated at airports under certain conditions as long as
the airport can provide an acceptable level of safety comparable to
that of an airport meeting Design Group VI standards. The use of
Modifications to Standards is a process to provide U.S. airports
flexibility when the required design group standards cannot be met to
accommodate certain operations, as long as an acceptable level of
safety can be maintained.
Table 1: FAA Airplane Design Groups:
Design group: I;
Wingspan: < 49 feet;
Examples of aircraft type: Cessna 152-210, Beechcraft A36.
Design group: II;
Wingspan: 49 - 79 feet;
Examples of aircraft type: Saab 2000, EMB-120, Saab 340, Canadair RJ-
100.
Design group: III;
Wingspan: 79 - 118 feet;
Examples of aircraft type: Boeing 737, MD-80, Airbus A320.
Design group: IV;
Wingspan: 118 - 171 feet;
Examples of aircraft type: Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Airbus A300.
Design group: V;
Wingspan: 171 - 214 feet;
Examples of aircraft type: Boeing 747-400, Boeing 777, MD-11, Airbus
A340.
Design group: VI;
Wingspan: 214 - 262 feet;
Examples of aircraft type: Airbus A380 (in production), Boeing 747-8
(planned).
Source: FAA.
[End of table]
After reviewing the design specifications of the A380, FAA issued
interim guidance in 2003 that allows the A380 to operate at airports
with runways and taxiways that do not fully meet Design Group VI
standards.[Footnote 15] In order to avoid costly or impractical changes
to upgrade runways and taxiway systems to Design Group VI and be
approved for A380 operations under the interim guidance, FAA must
approve an airport's request for Modifications to Standards when the
standards are not met. These modifications may include A380-specific
operational restrictions or special operating procedures to ensure that
existing non-standard infrastructure is providing an acceptable level
of safety.
A380 Poses a Number of Potential Safety Challenges at Airports:
The A380 will be the first of a new category of large passenger
aircraft introduced into the national airspace system in the coming
years. The size of the aircraft poses a number of potential safety
challenges for airports. Most U.S. airports were not designed to
receive aircraft the size of the A380 and therefore, the width of their
runways and taxiways do not meet FAA safety standards. As a result,
airports expecting A380 service need to modify their infrastructure or
impose operating restrictions on the A380 and other aircraft to assure
that safety is maintained. In addition, research data suggests that the
wake turbulence created by the A380 is stronger than any aircraft in
use today and would require greater separation from other aircraft
during landing and takeoff. Although the A380 is equipped with some
safety enhancements, such as new internal and exterior materials
designed to reduce flammability and an external taxiing camera system
to enhance pilot vision on the ground, the A380 poses safety challenges
for fire and rescue officials due to its larger size, upper deck, fuel
capacity, and the number of passengers. The fire and rescue officials
at the airports we visited were confident in their ability to respond
to an A380 incident, but almost all of them identified some equipment,
personnel, or training needs that would improve their ability to
respond to emergencies involving the A380. Similar concerns were raised
for the Boeing 747 aircraft when it was introduced to the market, and
these potential safety challenges would likely be present for other
similarly-sized aircraft introduced in the future. FAA, ICAO, Airbus,
and airports have taken a number of steps to mitigate potential safety
challenges posed by the A380.
A380 Offers Some Safety Enhancements But Its Size Presents Potential
Safety Challenges for Airports:
The A380 offers air carriers and airports several safety enhancements
over existing aircraft. For example, it has a cockpit with the latest
advanced displays and avionics, and is equipped with an external
taxiing camera system to assist flight crews in keeping the aircraft in
the center of taxiways when moving on the airfield.[Footnote 16] The
cockpit was also designed to be much lower to the ground than other
large aircraft to provide the flight crew better visibility. Other
technical advances include the aircraft's new external and internal
materials that are designed to reduce flammability. A new material
called Glare that is highly resistant to fatigue, is used in the
external panels for the upper fuselage and provides a longer period of
time preventing fire from penetrating into the passenger cabin--about
15 minutes compared to about a minute for standard aircraft aluminum.
In addition, thermal acoustic insulation blankets, designed to extend
the time before an external fire penetrates the fuselage, will be used
inside the A380.[Footnote 17] Combined, these materials could provide
additional time for evacuation by delaying the entry of fire into the
cabin. The interior materials used in the A380 will also have decreased
flammability properties and the aircraft will be equipped with enhanced
fire and smoke detection systems.
However, the size of the A380 also presents several potential safety
challenges. These challenges include accommodating the A380 at airports
that were not designed for aircraft as large as the A380, ensuring that
the air turbulence caused by the A380 does not impact the flight of
other aircraft, evacuating large numbers of passengers from the A380,
and ensuring that airports have the necessary fire and rescue
capabilities available.[Footnote 18] These issues would likely be
present for other similarly-sized aircraft that may be introduced in
the future. FAA, ICAO, Airbus, and airports have taken several steps to
mitigate these challenges.
U.S. Airports Typically Not Designed to Handle A380-sized Aircraft:
The size of the A380 presents a safety challenge because most U.S.
airports were not built to accommodate such large aircraft. FAA's
design standards are intended to ensure the safety of the aircraft and
passengers at the airport. For example, FAA's Design Group VI
standards, which are applicable for the largest aircraft, including the
A380, require that airports have 200-foot-wide runways. According to
FAA officials, this standard helps ensure that pilots can safely
operate large aircraft like the A380. Although the design standards do
not govern aircraft operations, aircraft operators must seek FAA's
approval for certain aircraft to use facilities and infrastructure that
do not meet standards and demonstrate to FAA that an acceptable level
of safety is maintained.[Footnote 19] A few airports, such as Dallas-
Fort Worth, Denver, and Washington Dulles International Airports, meet
some design standards for A380-sized aircraft; however, no U.S. airport
is completely built to those standards.
To address this issue, airports have made or are making infrastructure
changes to safely accommodate the A380. In May 2006, we reported that
18 U.S. airports were making preparations to receive the A380 and
estimated that it would cost about $927 million to upgrade their
infrastructure.[Footnote 20] About 83 percent of the costs reported by
airports were identified for runway or taxiway projects. Most projects
widened existing runways or taxiways and, in some cases, relocated
taxiways to increase separation. The remaining costs were for changes
at gates, terminals, or support services. Although these changes to
airport infrastructure were driven by the introduction of the A380,
they will also benefit current aircraft and other new large aircraft
that may be introduced in the future. Further, officials at some
airports told us that the economic benefits from having A380 service at
their airport will outweigh the costs associated with the
infrastructure changes needed to accommodate the aircraft.
To safely accommodate the A380, many of the U.S. airports we visited
that expect to receive this aircraft have requested Modifications to
Standards from FAA.[Footnote 21] The use of Modifications to Standards
is an established process to provide U.S. airports flexibility when the
required design group standards cannot be met to accommodate certain
operations as long as an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.
For example, if the separation between a runway and a taxiway at an
airport is less than the established standards, a Modification to
Standards can be granted by FAA for not meeting the current standards
when federal funds are being used for a planned improvement to that
runway or taxiway and FAA determines that it is operationally safe.
According to FAA, the use of Modifications to Standards at airports
does not compromise safety. This process has been used by U.S. airports
that do not fully meet the design standards for certain sized aircraft.
However, FAA officials said the Modification to Standards process being
applied to the A380 is seldom used because this process generally is
not used to limit operations of a particular aircraft at an
airport.[Footnote 22]
Of the 18 U.S. airports we visited, 11 have applied for Modifications
to Standards that would allow them to operate the A380. Of the
remaining seven airports, officials indicated they were unsure if such
modifications will be needed and will decide whether to request
Modifications to Standards after FAA decides whether an A380 can safely
operate on a 150-foot-wide runway or whether a 200-foot-wide runway
will be required. According to FAA officials, a decision on runway
width is expected in late summer of 2007.[Footnote 23]
Finally, the airports also anticipate implementing some type of
operating restrictions in order to safely accommodate the A380.
Specifically, all 18 U.S. airports we visited anticipated imposing some
type of operating restrictions on the A380 or on other aircraft that
operate around the A380. The anticipated operating restrictions would
generally affect runway and taxiway use. For example, officials at San
Francisco Airport plan to restrict the movement of certain aircraft
from using sections of parallel taxiways when an A380 is taxiing to and
from the terminal because the taxiways are not far enough apart to meet
the standards for taxiway separation required to safely operate the
A380. FAA officials noted, however, that FAA is still conducting an
operational evaluation for the A380, and therefore has not determined
what, if any, operational restrictions for the A380 will be required.
Thus, airports' planned operating restrictions are subject to change
when FAA completes its operational evaluation, which is expected this
summer. FAA officials said that, FAA will perform an operational
evaluation similar to the evaluation used for the A380 for the Boeing
747-8 and other large aircraft when they enter service.
A380 Produces Greater Wake Turbulence Than Other Aircraft:
The wake turbulence of the A380 and other large aircraft can create
safety issues if appropriate wake turbulence separations are not
applied. Wake turbulence is created behind aircraft and the strength of
the turbulence is dependent on the wingspan, the weight of the
aircraft, and its speed. In general, the bigger the aircraft, the
greater the wake created. Wake turbulence can affect following aircraft
during landing, takeoff, and in-flight. Figure 3 illustrates how wake
turbulence is created by an aircraft and the direction it travels. FAA
and ICAO have adopted standards for keeping aircraft separated from
each other during landing, takeoff, and in-flight to avoid the adverse
effects of wake turbulence.
Figure 3: Illustration of the Effects of Wake Turbulence:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO representation of FAA information.
Note: Flight tests have shown that the wake vortices from larger
aircraft extend downward at a rate of several hundred feet per minute,
slowing in descent and diminishing in strength with time and distance.
[End of figure]
ICAO and FAA have studied whether the A380 needs greater separation
than current standards require and determined that the A380 produces
stronger wake turbulence than any aircraft in use today. On the basis
of this data, ICAO issued new guidance on the separation required
between the A380 and other aircraft during landing, takeoff, and in-
flight in October 2006. ICAO officials acknowledged that the guidance
could be more conservative than the final standards, noting that the
initial flight separation standard for the Boeing 747-400 aircraft was
also set conservatively, but later reduced. The separations for the
A380 could be changed in the future on the basis of operational
experience of the aircraft. However, while this guidance is in effect,
there will be somewhat longer intervals for departures following an
A380 than currently exist and greater distances between aircraft
following an A380 during landings. Figure 4 illustrates the interim
flight separation standards for the A380 compared to other heavy
category aircraft, such as the Boeing 747-400 aircraft.[Footnote 24]
Figure 4: Illustration of On-approach Landing Separation Distances for
Aircraft Trailing an A380 and Heavy Aircraft:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO representation of ICAO information.
Note: Heavy, medium, and light are aircraft categories used by air
traffic officials when applying wake turbulence separations. The heavy
category represents aircraft that weigh more than 299,800 pounds
(136,000 kilograms); medium for aircraft that weigh more than 15,430
pounds (7,000 kilograms) but less than or equal to 299,800 pounds; and
light for aircraft that weigh less than or equal to 15,430 pounds.
One nautical mile is equal to 1.15 miles.
[End of figure]
Greater Number of Passengers to Evacuate from A380 Compared to Other
Aircraft:
Another potential safety challenge is the large number of passengers to
evacuate from an A380 during an emergency. The A380's maximum seating
configuration can accommodate up to 853 passengers--193 more than
carried by the maximum seating configuration of the Boeing 747-400. To
obtain type certification, aircraft manufacturers must demonstrate that
the aircraft can be evacuated within 90 seconds.[Footnote 25] In March
2006, Airbus conducted the emergency evacuation demonstration for the
A380. During the demonstration, 853 passengers and 20 crew members were
successfully evacuated from the aircraft within 78 seconds. Airbus
officials credited the design of the A380 for the successful evacuation
demonstration.
A related concern of FAA officials, airport fire and rescue officials,
and some experts with whom we spoke is how to handle the large numbers
of people around the aircraft after evacuation is complete. In
particular, some fire and rescue officials were concerned about their
ability to control the crowd and how to treat injured people on-site
prior to being moved to nearby hospitals. To address these concerns,
airport fire and rescue officials are reexamining their equipment needs
and emergency plans for treating a greater number of passengers. FAA
guidance states that an airport's emergency plans should, to the extent
practical, provide for medical services, including transportation and
medical assistance, for the maximum number of people that can be
carried on the largest aircraft that an airport reasonably can be
expected to serve.[Footnote 26] However, in most cases, airport fire
and rescue officials said that they plan for reasonable worst-case
scenarios in which about 50 percent of the passengers can be treated
for injuries on the largest aircraft operated at the airport.
Size of A380 Could also Pose Airport Fire and Rescue Challenges:
The advent of the A380 also may introduce a number of new fire and
rescue safety issues for airports. For example:
* The A380 can hold almost 82,000 gallons of fuel, compared to about
57,300 gallons carried by the Boeing 747-400. While an A380 or a 747-
400 may not be fueled to maximum capacity, the proportional increase in
fuel that could be on the A380 compared to that of a 747-400 means that
fire fighters will need additional water and extinguishing agent to
contain and extinguish a fire. Although the A380 will have Glare
material, designed to increase the amount of time it takes before a
fire can enter the cabin, it will not be installed on the underside of
the aircraft where a fire caused by leaking fuel is most likely to
occur, according to a FAA official. Thus, assuring that airports have
sufficient extinguishing agent is important.
* Airports may not have the necessary equipment to access the upper
deck of the A380 for fire fighting or evacuation purposes. Most fire
and rescue officials at the airports we visited indicated that they do
not have the equipment to access the upper deck of the A380 for fire
fighting or evacuation purposes. Although the height to the upper deck
door of the A380 is essentially the same as that of the 747, according
to a FAA official, the need to invest in such equipment now becomes
more critical for the A380 because more passengers are seated on the
upper deck of the A380.
* The A380 was designed with 16 evacuation slides and the longest
slide, on the upper deck, will extend out about 50 feet from the
aircraft. This increased number of slides could improve passenger
evacuation, but according to some fire and rescue officials we
interviewed, the number and position of the A380's slides could also
impede the fire and rescue vehicles' access to the aircraft and making
it more difficult to suppress the fire.
Several airport fire and rescue officials with whom we spoke were
confident they could respond to an A380 incident with their current
resources. However, most stated that they were evaluating personnel,
equipment, and training needs to ensure that the airport was adequately
prepared for the A380. Fire and rescue officials from several airports
stated that the introduction of A380-sized aircraft will only increase
their needs for additional personnel and equipment. For example,
officials from some airports told us that they are planning to add a
vehicle with a penetrating nozzle with a higher reach that can inject
fire extinguishing agent into the upper deck of the A380. Figure 5
shows a fire fighting vehicle with a penetrating nozzle fully extended
and elevated to its maximum height of 50 feet.
Figure 5: Fire Fighting Vehicle with Penetrating Nozzle:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FAA and GAO.
[End of figure]
To help address these safety concerns, FAA has begun evaluating the
need to update its airport fire and rescue safety guidance for new
large aircraft, such as the A380. Officials from FAA's Technical Center
said that the guidance needs to be updated to reflect the A380's
vertical height, high numbers of passengers, second passenger deck, and
increased fuel loads.[Footnote 27] FAA is also researching the need to
increase the amount of water and extinguishing agent needed to respond
to an A380 incident. In addition, FAA is studying the quantity of fire-
suppressing agents needed to combat fires on new large aircraft and
double-deck aircraft--taking into account the vertical dimension of the
A380. However, FAA officials noted that most of the airports expecting
to receive A380 flights currently exceed the vehicle and extinguishing
agent requirements applicable to the aircraft and therefore would
likely already meet new standards. FAA researchers are also helping to
develop a penetrating nozzle on a 65-foot boom that would provide
greater extension and a higher reach to inject fire extinguishing agent
into the upper deck of the A380.
A380's Impact on Capacity at U.S. Airports Is Uncertain:
The impact of the A380 on the capacity of U.S. airports is uncertain
and would depend on multiple factors. Airport capacity is generally
measured by the maximum number of takeoffs and landings that can occur
within a given period of time. The A380 could increase passenger
capacity at airports because it can carry more passengers than current
aircraft and fewer flights could be used to accommodate air traffic
growth. However, potential operating restrictions and the increased
flight separation requirements could adversely impact capacity by
limiting the number of flights that airports can handle. Further, the
effects of gate restrictions, such as the number of gates available for
A380 use and restricted use of gates adjacent to the A380, and terminal
congestion from the increased number of passengers will need to be
evaluated and could cause delays to the A380 and other aircraft. The
extent of disruptions and delays caused by possible operating
restrictions, increased separation requirements, and gate restrictions
would depend on the time of day, the number of A380 operations, and the
volume of overall traffic. Many airport officials stated that as long
as the number of A380 operations per day remains low, the impact of the
A380 on airport capacity--even with operating restrictions, increased
separation requirements, and gate restrictions--should not be
significant; however, as the number of A380 operations increases, the
potential for an adverse impact also grows.
A380 Designed to Provide Some Capacity Benefits:
The A380 was created, in part, to help alleviate airport capacity
constraints caused by the continued growth in passenger and cargo air
traffic. Air traffic in the U.S. increased by 35 percent from 1991 to
2001. Despite the low passenger travel following the events of
September 11, 2001, FAA forecasts this growth to continue--estimating
that air traffic will triple over the next 20 years. The current and
projected growth in air traffic will also include new classes of
aircraft, such as the A380. This greater diversity of aircraft--in
terms of size, speed, and operating requirements--will add to the
demands placed on the national airspace system and airports.
Historically, airlines have addressed increased passenger demand by
simply adding more flights and airports by expanding infrastructure.
However, these are not viable options when airport runway
infrastructure cannot be expanded and the volume of landings and
departures at an airport exceeds the limits to operate efficiently. For
example, in August 2006, FAA proposed a rule to limit the number of
flights at New York's LaGuardia Airport to reduce the level of
congestion and delays. To offset the limit on flights, the rule
encourages the use of larger aircraft at the airport to accommodate
increased passenger demand. By using larger aircraft, the airport could
accommodate more passengers with fewer or with the existing number of
daily flights. Similarly, London's Heathrow airport plans to increase
its passenger capacity without increasing the number of daily flights
by expecting as many as one of every 10 flights to be an A380 by 2020.
According to Airbus, the A380 will help alleviate capacity constraints
by accommodating more passengers and freight on each flight than any
other aircraft in use today. Airbus officials estimate that the A380
can carry at least 35 percent more passengers and the A380 freighter
will carry 50 percent more cargo volume per flight than other aircraft
currently in use. In addition, the A380 can fly up to 8,000 nautical
miles non-stop, enabling airlines to carry more passengers for greater
distances than the current largest aircraft. Thus, the A380 could
transport more people or freight greater distances with the same
number--and possibly fewer--aircraft than are used currently. At
congested airports, when A380 aircraft are used, airlines could meet
anticipated growth in air travel without having to schedule additional
flights.
In addition to alleviating capacity constraints, Airbus and airport
officials told us that the potentially greater number of passengers on
each A380 compared to currently used aircraft could translate into
economic benefits for the airports and local communities that would
receive them. Specifically, airport expansion to accommodate
anticipated growth in air travel, including the larger volume of
passengers that the A380 could bring to an airport, could contribute to
an area's economic growth.[Footnote 28] According to Airbus and some
airport officials, if airports received more passengers, airports will
benefit from greater parking revenues, passenger facility charges,
retail and restaurant sales, and other services. In addition, if A380
service increases the number of passengers flowing in and out of the
airport, that increase could translate into more job opportunities at
the airport and in the community. Studies have indicated that economic
benefits can accrue to local economies as a result of activity at
airports through expansion projects, directly and indirectly, in terms
of additional jobs or increased salaries and wages. Therefore, the
economic impact of A380 service on local communities near airports
could be substantial, but it is not certain because the degree to which
passenger volume would increase is uncertain. Furthermore, any economic
benefits realized by airports and local communities as a result of
airport improvements to enhance capacity, including accommodating A380
service, may represent transfers of economic activity from one airport
or community to another.[Footnote 29]
Airports' Planned Operating Restrictions, Increased Flight Separation
Requirements, and Gate Limitations Could Offset Some Capacity Benefits:
Airports' planned operating restrictions and separation requirements
resulting from A380 ground and flight operations, as well as the
reduction in gate utilization and flexibility could offset some of the
capacity gains anticipated as a result of the aircraft at U.S.
airports.[Footnote 30] Potential operating restrictions and the
increased separation requirements imposed to ensure the safety of the
A380 and other aircraft at airports and during flight could result in a
reduction in the number of flights that airports can accommodate.
Furthermore, gate availability, restricted use of gates adjacent to
A380 gates, and potential congestion issues could reduce gate
utilization and flexibility at some airports--which could also lead to
fewer flights at an airport. According to most of the airport officials
and experts we interviewed, the extent to which operating restrictions,
increased separation requirements, and gate utilization would impact
capacity would depend on the volume of A380 traffic, the time of day,
and the volume of overall air traffic.
Operating Restrictions on the A380 at U.S. Airports Could Adversely
Impact Capacity:
Most U.S. airports we visited that expect to receive the A380 are not
designed for aircraft of this size and, therefore may need to implement
operating restrictions to safely accommodate the A380. These
restrictions can come in many forms--from restricting the A380 to
certain runways and taxiways to stopping the movement of other aircraft
when the A380 is in close proximity. In addition some airports have
designated specific routes for the A380 to use when landing and
taxiing. These specific routes are needed because the wingspan of the
A380 prevents the aircraft from passing various objects on the
airfield, such as buildings, without violating the spacing requirements
established by FAA. Therefore, airports expecting large aircraft
service like the A380 will have to evaluate taxi routes to ensure
required distances from other objects are maintained--which is a normal
procedure for airports that receive larger aircraft.
The effect of these operating restrictions have not been determined,
but a potential impact is that airports may not be able to handle as
many landings and departures in a given time period. For example, at
one airport, airport officials said landings and departures could not
be performed on one runway while an A380 is taxiing to or from the
runway for about two miles on the adjacent taxiway. According to the
air traffic controllers, this would disallow use of that runway for
about three minutes. Even delays of a few minutes at an airport could
increase the operating costs of air carriers. For example, FAA
officials from FAA's Technical Center estimated that one minute of
delay would cost an air carrier at San Francisco airport about $57, or
about $3,400 per hour. Similarly, the A380 may need to follow a
designated route to and from the runway--and not necessarily the most
efficient route--potentially delaying other aircraft that may need to
wait for the A380 to complete its maneuvers. As a result, fewer
aircraft could be able to access runways to land and depart in a given
period. Most experts and air traffic controllers said the cumulative
effect of these restrictions could reduce the number of flights at a
busy airport because delays exacerbate airport congestion and make the
job of managing air traffic more difficult. In the long-term, airports
could work with airlines to schedule A380 aircraft during off-peak
times to lessen this effect. However, airlines may be reluctant to
schedule these flights during off-peak hours because it might be
contrary to their international flight time slots to which A380s will
likely be largely used. Regardless, even if schedules were adjusted to
account for the operating restrictions, the additional time associated
with the restrictions could result in the airport being unable to
accommodate as many flights as it could if not for the A380 operating
at the airport.
According to many airport officials and aviation experts with whom we
spoke, the extent of disruptions and delays caused by the operating
restrictions would depend on the time of day, the number of A380
operations, and the volume of overall traffic. Many airport officials
and experts we interviewed stated that as long as the number of A380
flights per day remains low, the impact of the operating restrictions
should not be significant; however, as the number of A380 flights
increases, the potential impact would also grow.
Separation Requirements for A380 Could Adversely Impact Airspace and
Airport Capacity:
The increased separation requirements for the A380 could adversely
impact airspace and airport capacity. Under ICAO's current guidance,
separation distances are based on the size of the aircraft following an
A380, with lighter aircraft requiring a greater separation. To
illustrate the increased separation requirements for the A380 on
approach for landing, there must be a 6 nautical-mile separation
between a heavy category aircraft, such as a 747-400, trailing an A380.
In comparison, a heavy aircraft trailing another heavy aircraft needs
to be separated by 4 nautical miles. The cumulative effect of this
extra separation could adversely impact airspace capacity by reducing
the number of flights that could be accommodated in the airspace during
a given time frame, according to most of the experts we interviewed. In
addition, the additional separation between the A380 and other aircraft
during takeoff and landing can reduce the number of arrivals and
departures at an airport, which could also negatively impact airport
capacity. Airbus officials, however, noted that such reductions in the
number of arrivals and departures will be countered by the potential
increase in the number of passengers per A380 flight--that is, the
number of airplane operations may decrease, but the number of
passengers arriving and departing from the airport may increase.
Most of the experts we interviewed generally agreed that the increased
flight separations required for the A380 could have a significant
impact on airport capacity, but noted the magnitude of the impact would
depend on timing of flights and volume of A380 traffic. Most airport
officials at the airports we visited indicated that they expected few
A380 flights and therefore, did not anticipate that the additional
separation or ground traffic issues would have a significant impact.
FAA's analysis of capacity at a few airports expecting to receive the
A380 supports these views[Footnote 31]. For example, using ICAO's
current separation standards--which increase separation by the size of
the aircraft following an A380--FAA projected that A380 operations at
the San Francisco airport in 2015 would add no increase in delays given
the few A380s expected. However, given the larger number of expected
A380s at New York's JFK airport, A380 operations would increase the
total annual delay about 2 percent in 2015 over the expected total
annual delay without A380 service. In addition, FAA projected that as
the number of A380 flights increase by 2025, an increase of about 1
percent in the total annual delay can be expected at San Francisco
airport and almost 2 percent at New York's JFK airport over the
expected hours of total annual delay without A380 service. The
projected cost to airlines in 2025 for A380-related delays at San
Francisco airport would be $11.6 million and $59.2 million at JFK
airport[Footnote 32]. According to Airbus officials, however, the
analysis does not reflect potential cost savings to airlines due to the
reduction in the number of arrivals and departures and as previously
noted the potential increase in the number of passengers per A380
flight. Without an integrated analysis that includes passenger
throughput, we are unable to determine the net effect.
A380 Could also Create Gate and Terminal Disruptions:
The size of the A380 may also impact gate utilization in several ways.
First, the A380 will need to use gates with at least two passenger
loading bridges. The A380--similar to the 747-400--will be limited to
using specific gates because not all gates have two bridges. Similarly,
many terminal areas at U.S. airports where traffic bottlenecks and
congestion are common will not have the necessary clearances for an
A380 to operate on taxilanes between or beside other aircraft (see fig.
6). Thus, the A380 will be limited to certain gates. Second, the size
of the A380 could restrict the size of the aircraft at the adjacent
gate, or close the gate entirely. Third, loading and unloading
passengers and baggage on an A380 could take longer because of the
increased number of passengers on the aircraft. As a result, the A380
could tie up a gate longer than other aircraft, reducing the number of
aircraft that could be served by the gate in a given period. According
to most of the experts with whom we spoke said these gate issues can
reduce flexibility in airport operations and lead to delays. However,
Airbus officials noted that the interior cabin design of the A380 and
the use of two bridges should allow turnaround times of about 90
minutes--which is similar to the turnaround time of the 747-400.
Figure 6: The Taxilane Object Free Area Requirement for the A380:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAP representation of FAA information.
[End of figure]
The increased passenger load carried by an A380 could strain current
airport terminal facilities and operations, such as check-in, baggage
claim, and customs and immigration services. For example, most experts
we interviewed said that a surge in passengers created by an A380 going
through airport check-in procedures could not only delay the A380
passengers but also passengers of other flights. In addition, the
amount of baggage from an A380 flight to load or unload could lead to
delays for passengers and other aircraft waiting at the gate. One
expert noted that the delays caused by the new security procedures
introduced in the summer of 2006--which resulted in an increase in
checked baggage for a period of time--illustrates how surges in the
amount of baggage loaded and unloaded can lead to delays and
congestion. However, airport officials generally had no concerns with
the A380's impact on airport terminal facilities and operations.
Additionally, a few experts told us that the A380's incremental
increase in passengers and baggage over that of a 747-400 would have
little impact on terminal operations, especially at airports that will
only receive a few A380 flights per day.
As mentioned earlier, the next generation air transportation system is
being designed to accommodate as much as 3 times the current air
traffic, including the introduction of new large aircraft such as the
A380. The planning underway involves so-called "curb-to-curb"
initiatives that are designed, in part, to address the potential
capacity and gate disruption issues discussed above. Since the planning
and implementation phases of the next generation system remain in the
early stages, however, it is currently unclear the extent to which the
initiatives will effectively mitigate those potential issues.
Foreign Airports Have Taken Different Approaches to Prepare for the
A380:
Selected foreign airports we visited have taken different approaches to
prepare for the introduction of the A380. These differences reflect the
age and the expected level of A380 traffic at the airports--and, in
some cases, the anticipated economic benefits of the A380 flights. The
different approaches include adopting alternative airport design
standards to accommodate new large aircraft, making significant
investment in existing infrastructure, and designing airports that
allow for new large aircraft. By implementing these approaches,
officials from the foreign airports we visited do not anticipate that
the introduction of the A380 will result in delays or disruptions at
their airports, despite higher levels of expected A380 traffic compared
to most U.S. airports because these airports will not have to impose
operating restrictions on the A380 to the extent of U.S. airports.
Adopting Alternative Standards to Accommodate New Large Aircraft:
The A380 Airport Compatibility Group (AACG), which includes four
European aviation authorities, agreed to adopt adaptations of the ICAO
standards for A380 operations at existing airports that do not
currently meet the requirements.[Footnote 33] For example, ICAO
standards require runway width to be no less than 60 meters (about 200
feet) and taxiway width 25 meters (about 82 feet), but the AACG decided
widths of 45 meters (about 150 feet) for runways and 23 meters (about
75 feet) for taxiways would be adequate to safely operate the aircraft.
Officials of European civil aviation authorities said the AACG decision
was based on runway-to-taxiway centerline deviation studies that have
found that large aircraft do not deviate significantly from the
centerline. In addition, the AACG decision was influenced by the
anticipation that the A380 would be certified by the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) to operate on 45-meter runways--which occurred in
December 2006.[Footnote 34] In contrast, the FAA type certificate does
not include approval to operate on 150-foot-wide runways and
evaluations of these operations have not been completed. According to
FAA, the decision about runway width is an operational concern, rather
than a certification issue. FAA is currently evaluating the use of
narrower runways (less than 200 feet).[Footnote 35] FAA expects to
complete its evaluations and issue a decision in summer 2007.
Making Significant Investment in Infrastructure Changes:
Like most U.S. airports, the older foreign airports we visited were not
designed to accommodate aircraft as large as the A380. However, unlike
the U.S. airports, these foreign airports made significant investments
in infrastructure changes and improvements in anticipation of future
growth and the need to modernize, which included accommodating new
large aircraft such as the A380.[Footnote 36] For example:
* Airport officials at London Heathrow airport indicated about $885
million would be related to accommodating the A380. Heathrow's
investments related to the A380 included widening and strengthening its
two runway's shoulders and upgrading runway lighting, demolition and
redevelopment of a portion of an existing terminal to add four A380
gates and allow more space for the aircraft, and development of a new
terminal to provide five A380 gates by 2008 and 14 by 2011.
* At the Paris Charles de Gaulle airport, about $132 million is being
spent to prepare for the A380. The investment includes widening and
strengthening two runways at the airport and building a new satellite
terminal complex specifically to accommodate the A380. Initially, nine
gates with upper deck access and two remote parking positions are
available, but airport officials expect the number of A380 gates to
increase to about 30 by 2018.
* At the Beijing Capital airport, A380-related improvements have been
included in the $3 billion renovation projects--particularly to prepare
for the 2008 Olympic Games--that include building a new terminal to
handle the anticipated increase in future demand, a new 3,800-meter-
long, 60-meter-wide runway to accommodate the A380, new facilities and
cargo areas, and additional landing areas.
* At the Amsterdam Schiphol airport, a new 60-meter-wide, 3,800-meter-
long runway and associated taxiways were built that meet international
standards, and the terminal was expanded at a cost of over $440 million
and $213 million, respectively, to expand capacity and maintain its
competitive position as an international hub. The new, longer runway
and terminal expansion projects were initiated to enhance overall
capacity of the airport and to accommodate new large aircraft, such as
the A380. The terminal will have four gates ready for the A380 in 2007.
In contrast, all the 18 U.S. airports expecting to receive the A380
plan to invest about $927 million in total on A380 infrastructure
changes--which is only slightly more than the investments being made at
Heathrow. The most a single U.S. airport is investing in infrastructure
changes to accommodate the A380 is $151 million. The level of planned
investments reflects the expected level of A380 traffic. Specifically,
the foreign airports we visited are expecting more A380 traffic, in
part, because they will serve as hub airports for international travel
or serve as hubs for airlines that have purchased the A380. For
example, JFK expects about 16 A380 arrivals and departures per day in
2015--possibly the most daily A380 flights at any U.S. airport.
However, Heathrow airport officials expect that by 2020, one of every
10 aircraft arriving and departing will be an A380, or about 130
arrivals and departures per day. Similarly, officials at the Paris
Charles de Gaulle airport estimate that at least 10 percent of all
passengers arriving at the airport will be aboard an A380 by 2020.
In addition to the level of investment, U.S. and foreign airports
differ in the type of investments. Foreign airports, in particular
European airports, are investing more in terminal and gate improvements
to accommodate the A380 than U.S. airports. For example, London
Heathrow, Paris Charles de Gaulle, and Amsterdam Schiphol airports have
undertaken major terminal and gate improvement projects to accommodate
the A380. In contrast, the majority of investments reported by U.S.
airports (83 percent) were for runway and taxiway projects to
accommodate the A380.[Footnote 37] This difference likely reflects that
all Asian airports meet ICAO standards, including runway and taxiway
width, for new large aircraft, such as the A380, and that the AACG
determined that European airports could use more narrow runway and
taxiway widths for the A380, which negated the need to widen the
runways or taxiways.
Designing Airports That Allow for New Large Aircraft:
Seven of the eight Asian and Canadian airports we visited were designed
for future expansion or were built to allow new large aircraft, such as
the A380.[Footnote 38] Five airports--Singapore Changi, Hong Kong,
Tokyo Narita, Montréal Trudeau, and Toronto Pearson--were not designed
specifically for the A380, but rather were built to accommodate the
arrival of new large aircraft in the future and either complied with or
needed only minimal modifications to comply with international
standards applicable to new large aircraft. For example, at the
Singapore Changi and Toronto Pearson airports, the runways were wide
enough to accommodate the A380, but the shoulders needed to be modified
to comply with ICAO requirements. Taken as a whole, these airports will
not have to impose operating restrictions on the A380 except for a few
instances, but not to the extent as U.S. airports.
Two Asian airports in Bangkok, Thailand and Guangzhou, China, were
built in compliance with the international standards for new large
aircraft.[Footnote 39] According to airport officials, these two
airports were built because of the economic activity they were expected
to generate for their region and their countries. Moreover, these
officials stated that to remain competitive, the airports had to be
able to receive new large aircraft, and in particular the A380 because
it represents the next generation of aircraft. Because these two Asian
airports in Bangkok and Guangzhou were built to comply with
international standards for new large aircraft, they will not need to
restrict A380 operations or the movement of other aircraft as they move
around the airfields to and from terminals. Figure 7 shows a picture of
the Baiyun International Airport in Guangzhou, China.
Figure 7: Baiyun International Airport, Guangzhou, China:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Baiyun Airport Authority.
[End of figure]
In comparison, most of the 18 U.S. airports expecting to receive the
A380 and the three European airports we visited were not built to
comply with international standards for new large aircraft, such as the
A380. As a result, officials from the U.S. airports told us that they
anticipated imposing operating restrictions on the A380 or aircraft
operating in proximity to the A380 to ensure safety. As discussed
previously, European airports have adopted alternative standards and
only one of these airports we visited plans to impose some operating
restrictions.
Concluding Observations:
Many large airports in the U.S. and around the world are facing
capacity constraints as passenger and cargo traffic continues to grow.
The A380 was designed, in part, to help alleviate these capacity
constraints. However, the impact of its arrival on airport capacity in
the United States is uncertain. The exact impact will likely vary by
geographic regions of the U.S. and will depend on a range of factors,
including the volume of A380 traffic, timing of these aircrafts'
operations, and the operating restrictions imposed on the aircraft and
those aircraft operating around it. Although many U.S. airports are
facing capacity constraints, the decisions by airport officials to make
the necessary infrastructure changes to accommodate the aircraft were
not solely driven by potential capacity gains. Rather, officials at
some airports told us that they want to receive the A380 to help their
airport's competitive position. They are expecting that the economic
benefits from having A380 service at their airport will outweigh the
costs associated with the infrastructure changes needed to accommodate
the aircraft.
While the impact of operating restrictions on airport capacity is not
clear, FAA and industry experts generally agreed that the A380 will add
another element of complexity to airport operations and airspace
management. This could limit A380 operations to designated gates,
taxiways, or runways at many airports. This will reduce air traffic
controllers' flexibility in making routing decisions for the A380 and
other aircraft. Further exacerbating this situation is the current and
projected growth in air traffic as well as the rollout of new classes
of aircraft that could have their own operating and infrastructure
requirements. Optimizing the use of airspace and airport facilities to
the growth in air traffic and new classes of aircraft, including the
A380, will be challenging.
To address some of these challenges, airports expecting to receive the
A380 are making infrastructure changes to accommodate it that involve
retrofitting or expanding existing infrastructure, such as runways and
taxiways. As we have previously reported, the airports estimated that
these changes will be costly and were driven by the introduction of the
A380, but they will also benefit current aircraft and other new large
aircraft that may be introduced in the future. If recent history is a
guide, the evolution of aircraft will not stop with the A380 as evident
with Boeing's decision to go forward with its own new large aircraft,
the 747-8. Thus, to help mitigate future difficulties, federal
policymakers, airport officials, and other stakeholders are considering
the introduction of the A380 and other new classes of aircraft as they
move forward with airport development throughout the nation as well as
the development of the next generation air transportation system.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation
for review and comment. FAA officials generally agreed with the
report's findings. FAA officials also provided technical clarifications
via e-mail, which were incorporated as appropriate.
In addition, we provided a draft of this report to Airbus North America
Holdings, Inc. (Airbus) for review and comment. Airbus provided written
comments, which are reprinted in appendix III. In its letter, Airbus
states that we correctly identified potential safety and capacity
issues associated with the introduction of the A380. However, regarding
our discussion on capacity issues, Airbus expresses concern that we
overemphasized the operational constraints imposed on or by the A380.
We interviewed a range of aviation experts and examined a variety of
studies and analyses to understand any potential impact, both positive
and negative, the A380 could have on capacity. Although the report does
describe the potential operational constraints associated with the
introduction of the A380, we believe the report provides a balanced
discussion regarding the potential benefits that new large aircraft,
such as the A380, could provide to help alleviate capacity constrained
U.S. airports as well as the potential capacity reduction due to
operating restrictions, increased separation, and gate utilization
issues associated with A380 operations. Airbus also suggests that our
capacity discussion should include information on passenger throughput,
noting that we use one definition of capacity--that is, the maximum
number of aircraft takeoffs and landings (aircraft movements) that can
occur during a given period. We acknowledge that we defined capacity by
aircraft movements and agree that passenger throughput is another
measure of capacity. We chose to use aircraft movements as the
definition of capacity for this report because FAA uses the maximum
number of aircraft movements to express airport capacity. The report
includes information on the potential impact of the A380 on passenger
throughput--specifically, that the A380 could accommodate more
passengers and freight on each flight than any other aircraft in use
today. However, we added additional information on the A380's potential
impact on passenger throughput on the basis of Airbus' comments. Airbus
also provided technical comments, which were incorporated, as
appropriate.
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 to appropriate
congressional committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and
representatives of Airbus. We will also make copies available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at 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. Individuals making key contributions to
this report were Nikki Clowers, Assistant Director; Vashun Cole; and
Frank Taliaferro.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We were asked to review and identify the impact of the Airbus A380 on
U.S. airports. In May 2006, we issued a report that estimated the costs
of infrastructure changes that U.S. airports plan to make to
accommodate the A380.[Footnote 40] This report discusses (1) the safety
issues associated with the introduction of the A380, and how U.S.
airports are addressing them, (2) the potential impact of A380
operations on the capacity of U.S. airports, and (3) how selected
foreign airports are addressing these safety and capacity issues.
To address these issues, we reviewed published studies on operational
issues related to the A380 and on aircraft fire and rescue equipment
and tactics, A380 emergency evacuations, pavement strength issues for
the A380's weight, and other safety-related issues. We also reviewed
FAA's design standards and attended FAA briefings on its type
validation and type certification processes. For our May 2006 report,
we analyzed the A380-related requests for Modifications to Standards
made by the U.S. airports we visited 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 to Standards would have on airports' infrastructure. For
this report, we discussed with FAA officials the safety considerations
of Modification to Standards, but did not analyze the extent that
Modifications to Standards are used at all U.S. airports. We also
examined FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center's (Technical Center)
analysis of the impact of new large aircraft operations at Memphis
International, New York John F. Kennedy International, and San
Francisco International Airports. We analyzed the Technical Center's
methodology in preparing these analyses and the results of these
analyses and met with FAA officials to discuss the analyses. We
determined that the Technical Center's analyses were sufficiently
reliable for our purposes. We also examined the International Civil
Aviation Organization's (ICAO) guidance and standards for airport
design and aircraft separation.
We interviewed officials from FAA and representatives from ICAO,
Airbus, and aviation trade association to discuss safety and capacity
issues associated with the arrival of the A380. In addition, we
conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 aviation experts to obtain
their views on the impact of the A380 on airport operations and
capacity and potential safety issues. We contracted with the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to identify individuals who are experts in
the fields of safety, capacity, infrastructure, and certification. We
developed an interview guide that asked for the expert's views on a
series of questions on safety and capacity issues related to the
introduction of the A380 and pre-tested this guide with two experts to
ensure that the questions sufficiently addressed the issues and were
not biased, misleading, or confusing. We incorporated feedback from our
pretests into the interview guide, and then used the guide for our
interviews. After conducting the interviews, we analyzed the experts'
responses to our questions to identify major themes. The aviation
experts we interviewed were not selected randomly and their views and
opinions cannot be generalized to the larger population of experts and
aviation officials. See table 2 for the aviation experts we
interviewed.
Table 2: Aviation Experts Interviewed by GAO:
Expert: Kristin Allen;
Title and affiliated organization: Facilities, Operations and
Maintenance Manager, San Francisco International Airport.
Expert: Randy Babbitt;
Title and affiliated organization: Chairman and CEO, Eclat Consulting.
Expert: Kevin Bleach;
Title and affiliated organization: Manager of Aviation Technical
Services, Port Authority New York and New Jersey.
Expert: Tony Broderick;
Title and affiliated organization: Consultant, Airbus North America
Holdings, Inc.
Expert: Dan Cohen-Nir;
Title and affiliated organization: Programs Director, Airbus North
America Holdings, Inc.
Expert: Frank Frisbie;
Title and affiliated organization: Vice President, Apptis.
Expert: George Greene;
Title and affiliated organization: Chief Scientific and Technical
Advisor for Wake Turbulence, NASA.
Expert: John Hansman;
Title and affiliated organization: Professor, MIT.
Expert: John Hayhurst;
Title and affiliated organization: Vice President (retired), Boeing Air
Traffic Management.
Expert: Steve Lang;
Title and affiliated organization: Manager of Planning, Control, and
Integration, Air Traffic Services, FAA.
Expert: Dick McAdoo;
Title and affiliated organization: Atlantic Southeast Airlines
(retired).
Expert: Tom McSweeny;
Title and affiliated organization: Director, International Safety and
Regulatory Affairs, Boeing Commercial Airplanes.
Expert: Amedeo Odoni;
Title and affiliated organization: Professor, MIT.
Expert: Clint Oster;
Title and affiliated organization: Professor, Indiana University.
Expert: Marc Schoen;
Title and affiliated organization: Manager, Airport Technology, Boeing
Commercial Airplanes.
Expert: John Sullivan;
Title and affiliated organization: Professor, Purdue University.
Expert: Ray Valeika;
Title and affiliated organization: Senior Vice President, Delta
Airlines (retired).
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We conducted site visits to the 18 U.S. airports that are making
infrastructure improvements to accommodate the A380. (Table 3 shows the
U.S. airports that we visited.) We conducted these site visits from
September 2005 to February 2006. During these site visits, we
interviewed airport officials, including airport management, air
traffic controllers, and fire and rescue personnel, and toured the
airport facilities to identify safety and capacity challenges
associated with the arrival of the A380 at their airport and efforts
they were undertaking to mitigate these challenges. To ensure the
accuracy of information summarized in the report, we verified the
information we collected with officials from the 18 airports in the
fall of 2006.
Table 3: United States Airports Visited by GAO:
Airport name: Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport;
Location: Anchorage, Alaska.
Airport name: Fort Worth Alliance Airport;
Location: Fort Worth, Texas.
Airport name: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport;
Location: Atlanta, Georgia.
Airport name: Chicago O'Hare International Airport;
Location: Chicago, Illinois.
Airport name: Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport;
Location: Fort Worth, Texas.
Airport name: Denver International Airport;
Location: Denver, Colorado.
Airport name: Indianapolis International Airport;
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana.
Airport name: Los Angeles International Airport;
Location: Los Angeles, California.
Airport name: Louisville International Airport;
Location: Louisville, Kentucky.
Airport name: Memphis International Airport;
Location: Memphis, Tennessee.
Airport name: Miami International Airport;
Location: Miami, Florida.
Airport name: New York John F. Kennedy International Airport; Location:
New York, New York.
Airport name: Ontario International Airport;
Location: Ontario, California.
Airport name: Orlando International Airport;
Location: Orlando, Florida.
Airport name: Philadelphia International Airport;
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Airport name: San Francisco International Airport;
Location: San Francisco, California.
Airport name: Tampa International Airport;
Location: Tampa, Florida.
Airport name: Washington Dulles International Airport;
Location: Dulles, Virginia.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We also conducted site visits to 11 Asian, Canadian, and European
airports that will be receiving the A380. (Table 4 shows the foreign
airports we visited.) We conducted these site visits from February 2006
to November 2006. We selected these high-capacity airports based on the
expected level of A380 operations or the presence of airlines that have
ordered the A380 aircraft and intend on using these airports as a hub
for their operations. During these site visits, we interviewed airport
officials, including airport management, air traffic controllers, and
fire and rescue personnel, and toured the airport facilities to
identify the safety and capacity challenges associated with the arrival
of the A380 and the efforts being undertaken to mitigate these
challenges. We summarized the information obtained for this report and
sought verification from the 11 airports in the winter of 2006.
Table 4: Asian, Canadian, and European Airports Visited by GAO:
Asian airports.
Airport name: Suvarnabhumi Airport;
Location: Bangkok, Thailand.
Airport name: Capital Airport;
Location: Beijing, China.
Airport name: Baiyun Airport;
Location: Guangzhou, China.
Airport name: Hong Kong Airport;
Location: Hong Kong, China.
Airport name: Narita Airport;
Location: Tokyo, Japan.
Airport name: Changi Airport;
Location: Singapore.
Canadian airports.
Airport name: Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport;
Location: Montréal, Québec.
Airport name: Toronto Pearson International Airport;
Location: Toronto, Ontario.
European airports.
Airport name: Amsterdam Schiphol Airport;
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Airport name: London Heathrow Airport;
Location: Middlesex, United Kingdom.
Airport name: Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport;
Location: Paris, France.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We performed our work from May 2005 to March 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries:
To determine how foreign airports were addressing the potential safety
and capacity issues associated with the introduction of the A380, we
visited 11 foreign airports. The following are summaries of the
information airports' provided on operations and their A380 plans.
Asian Airports:
Bangkok Suvarnabhumi International Airport, currently the operating hub
for Thai Airways, opened in 2006 and was built as an ICAO Code F
airport that could handle 45 million passengers and three million tons
of cargo per year at a cost of about $3.9 billion.[Footnote 41] The
airport is one of the largest in Asia, with a terminal slightly larger
than that of Hong Kong airport. The final phase of construction,
expected to begin in about 2015, will add a fourth runway and another
terminal to increase the capacity to 100 million passengers per year. A
maintenance facility has also been built at the airport that can house
up to three A380s in one hangar at the same time. Officials of the Thai
Department of Civil Aviation do not expect that the A380 would cause
delays at their airport. A380 flight operations will begin with Qantas
and United Arab Emirates airlines service in early 2008. Thai Airways
ordered six A380 aircraft and will begin service in 2009 or 2010 after
it takes its first delivery from Airbus. Table 5 provides A380-related
issues at Suvarnabhumi airport.
Table 5: Bangkok Suvarnabhumi International Airport:
Airport facilities: Expected start of A380 service (month/year): Early
2008.
Airport facilities: Number of A380 landings and departures each day
(initial year and 5th year of service): Initially: Anticipates 12 per
day.
Airport facilities: 5th year: 12 per day (possibly more); [Empty].
Airport facilities: Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport (year of
arrival): Singapore Airlines, Air France, and Qantas (2008), Emirates
and Lufthansa (2008 or 2009), and Thai Airways (2009 or 2010).
Airport facilities: Expected level of A380 passenger and cargo
operations: Passenger: Not available.
Airport facilities: Cargo: Not available; [Empty].
Airport facilities: Airfield design standards (runway and taxiway width
and separations): Airfield is ICAO Code F compliant.
Airport facilities: Airport baggage claim, terminal seating, and
customs and immigration spatial concerns: None. Passenger waiting rooms
could become crowded and baggage facilities in the new airport were
built to receive new large aircraft such as the A380.
Airport facilities: Terminal gates A380-ready: Five A380 gates with one
upper and two lower boarding bridges.
Airport facilities: Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: None.
Airport facilities: Operating restrictions used for the A380: None.
Airport facilities: Possible impact of A380 operations on ground
operations (special designated routing issues): None.
Airport facilities: Potential effect of ground operational restrictions
on capacity (airport assessment): None.
Airport facilities: Current Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)
capability (in terms of equipment, personnel, and training): Meets ICAO
ARFF requirements for A380-sized aircraft.
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from Suvarnabhumi airport
officials.
[End of table]
Beijing Capital International Airport has been upgraded with several
renovations since it opened in 1958, and in 2005 it handled about 41
million passengers and about 782,000 tons of cargo. Airport officials
said that in anticipation of the increasing aviation demands due to the
economic development of the Beijing area as well as the 2008 Beijing
Olympic Games, Beijing Capital airport officials have begun a $3
billion airport expansion plan to double the existing capacity. When
completed, the airport will be able to handle 60 million passengers,
1.8 million tons of cargo, and about 500,000 flights per year. A380-
related improvements have been incorporated in the renovation projects,
which include building a new terminal to handle the anticipated
increase in future demand, a new 3,800-meter-long, 60-meter-wide runway
to accommodate the A380, new facilities and cargo areas, and additional
landing areas. In addition, major terminal and gate improvement
projects have been undertaken to accommodate the A380. China Southern
Airlines is the only Chinese A380 customer. However, in addition to
China Southern Airlines, Air France, and Lufthansa Airlines have
expressed their intent to operate the A380 at the Beijing airport.
Table 6 provides A380-related issues at Beijing airport.
Table 6: Beijing Capital International Airport:
Airport facilities: Expected start of A380 service
(month/year):Uncertain.
Airport facilities: Number of A380 landings and departures each day
(initial year and 5th year of service): Initially: Not available; 5th
year: Not available.
Airport facilities: Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport (year of
arrival): China Southern Airlines, Air France, and Lufthansa Airlines.
Airport facilities: Expected level of A380 passenger and cargo
operations: Passenger: Not available; Cargo: Not available.
Airport facilities: Airfield design standards (runway and taxiway width
and separations): Improvements are being made to some areas of the
airfield to comply with ICAO Code F standards; however, no plans to
restructure the entire airport to meet Code F requirements.
Airport facilities: Airport baggage claim, terminal seating, and
customs and immigration spatial concerns: None. Passenger waiting rooms
and baggage facilities expanded to enhance new large aircraft
operations.
Airport facilities: Terminal gates A380-ready: Once modifications are
completed in the existing terminal areas, both existing terminals and a
new terminal can have a total of 12 A380 gates if necessary.
Airport facilities: Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: None.
Airport facilities: Operating restrictions used for the A380: None.
Airport facilities: Possible impact of A380 operations on ground
operations (special designated routing issues): None.
Airport facilities: Potential effect of ground operational restrictions
on capacity (airport assessment): ICAO separations standards for the
A380 due to wake turbulence could slow landing and departures and
reduce the number of flights allowed to land and depart during peak
hours.
Airport facilities: Current Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)
capability (in terms of equipment, personnel, and training): Plans to
upgrade capability to meet ICAO ARFF requirements for A380-sized
aircraft.
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from Beijing airport
officials.
[End of table]
Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport, currently the operating hub for
China Southern airlines, opened in 2004. It cost roughly $2.39 billion,
is one of the three large hub airports on the Chinese mainland, and is
the busiest airport in south China. In 2005, the airport handled 23.5
million passengers and 750,000 tons of cargo. The airport was the first
in China designed and built with the hub concept and a capacity to
accommodate a projected annual growth of 27 million passengers and 1.4
million tons of cargo through 2010. China Southern Airlines is the only
Chinese A380 customer and has already considered replacing an existing
nonstop route from Guangzhou to Los Angeles using an A380. The airport
has one runway and will have one gate ready for the A380 in 2008 and
plans to add additional A380 gates as needed in future planned
concourses. Airport officials said A380-related improvements exist in a
$2.22 billion expansion plan that includes the construction of an
additional runway, terminal, and cargo facilities. The facilities will
be increased as the expansion plans are completed with a capacity to
accommodate 80 million passengers and 2.5 million tons of cargo
annually. Table 7 provides A380-related issues at Baiyun airport.
Table 7: Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport:
Airport facilities: Expected start of A380 service (month/year): Fall
2008.
Airport facilities: Number of A380 landings and departures each day
(initial year and 5th year of service): Initially: Not available; 5th
year: Not available.
Airport facilities: Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport (year of
arrival): China Southern Airlines (2008).
Airport facilities: Expected level of A380 passenger and cargo
operations: Passenger: Not available; Cargo: Not available.
Airport facilities: Airfield design standards (runway and taxiway width
and separations): The airfield is partially ICAO Code F compliant.
Airport facilities: Airport baggage claim, terminal seating, and
customs and immigration spatial concerns: None. Passenger waiting rooms
and baggage facilities were designed to accommodate A380 passenger
loads.
Airport facilities: Terminal gates A380-ready: One A380-capable gate
that will be available and equipped with two passenger boarding
bridges, another gate will be used to handle an A380 flight, and plan
to add two A380 gates equipped with three passenger boarding bridges.
Airport facilities: Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: None.
Airport facilities: Operating restrictions used for the A380: The West
Runway was built to ICAO Code E standards and will not be used for A380
operations.
Airport facilities: Possible impact of A380 operations on ground
operations (special designated routing issues): None.
Airport facilities: Potential effect of ground operational restrictions
on capacity (airport assessment): None.
Airport facilities: Current Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)
capability (in terms of equipment, personnel, and training): Meets ICAO
ARFF requirements for A380-sized aircraft.
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from Baiyun airport
officials.
[End of table]
Hong Kong International Airport is the busiest airport for freight (by
weight) in the world, handling about 3.6 million tons of freight in
2006. The airport also handled about 44.5 million passengers in 2006.
The airport was built on a landfill in the Hong Kong bay and began
operations in 1998. The airport has additional expansion plans to
increase passenger capacity to 80 million per year by 2025. However, in
order to achieve that capacity the airport authority is planning to
conduct engineering and environmental feasibility studies on the
construction of a third runway for the airport. The airport authority
had spent approximately $15 million in airport enhancement works for
the operation of A380 passenger flights and was certified as an ICAO
Code F airport in July 2006. The airport is an operating hub for DHL
freight, and FedEx and UPS also operate at the airport. No airline
based in Hong Kong has purchased the A380, but airport officials expect
to accommodate foreign carriers' A380 flights. The airport serves about
80 foreign airlines and about 70 percent of the flights to Hong Kong
are wide-body jets. Singapore Airlines will likely be the first to
bring an A380 into Hong Kong. Table 8 provides A380-related issues at
Hong Kong airport.
Table 8: Hong Kong International Airport:
Airport facilities: Expected start of A380 service (month/year): Early
to mid 2008.
Airport facilities: Number of A380 landings and departures each day
(initial year and 5th year of service): Initially: Anticipates four
flights per day; 5th year: 10 flights per day (possibly more).
Airport facilities: Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport (year of
arrival): Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa, Qantas Airlines, United Arab
Emirates, Virgin Atlantic and Air France.
Airport facilities: Expected level of A380 passenger and cargo
operations: Passenger: Not available; Cargo: Not available.
Airport facilities: Airfield design standards (runway and taxiway width
and separations): Airfield is generally ICAO Code F compliant.
Airport facilities: Airport baggage claim, terminal seating, and
customs and immigration spatial concerns: None. Passenger waiting rooms
and baggage facilities can accommodate the A380 and other new large
aircraft.
Airport facilities: Terminal gates A380-ready: Two A380 gates (each
with one upper and one lower deck bridge) with the ability to expand up
to a total of five A380 gates.
Airport facilities: Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: No
deviations from ICAO Code F standards for the operation of A380.
Airport facilities: Operating restrictions used for the A380: Stop-
hold positions have been placed further back from runway centerline.
Airport facilities: Possible impact of A380 operations on ground
operations (special designated routing issues): No significant delay on
operations on the taxiways and apron is expected.
Airport facilities: Potential effect of ground operational restrictions
on capacity (airport assessment): ICAO separation from the A380 due to
wake turbulence would reduce the arrival and departure rates.
Airport facilities: Current Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)
capability (in terms of equipment, personnel, and training): Meets ICAO
ARFF requirements for A380-sized aircraft.
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from Hong Kong airport
officials.
[End of table]
Singapore Changi International Airport has undergone several expansions
since the airport opened in 1981. In 2006, the airport handled over 35
million passengers and almost two million tons of cargo. Changi airport
is the operating hub for Singapore Airlines, which is the launch
customer for the Airbus A380. Singapore Airlines will begin receiving
its A380 deliveries in the fall of 2007 and plans to begin flight
operations in January 2008 with flights to London Heathrow and San
Francisco airports. Lufthansa, Qantas, Korean Air, and Virgin Atlantic
airlines could begin flights to Singapore by 2010. The airport
authority has spent about $43 million on improvements such as widening
runway shoulders, and runway-taxiway and taxiway-taxiway intersections,
installing upper deck loading bridges, and expanding the seating areas
to handle A380 passenger loads. The airport has two parallel runways
and will have 11 gates ready for the A380 in 2007--a total of 19 gates
will be available in 2008. Changi airport will also have a maintenance
facility with hangars that can fully enclose two A380 aircraft and a
third A380 compatible hangar under construction. In 2008, a new
terminal (Terminal 3) will open for operations and will enable the
airport to accommodate 64 million passengers per year and add 8 more
gates for the A380. Table 9 provides A380-related issues at Changi
airport.
Table 9: Singapore Changi International Airport:
Airport facilities: Expected start of A380 service (month/year):
Uncertain.
Airport facilities: Number of A380 landings and departures each day
(initial year and 5th year of service): Initially: Uncertain; 5th year:
Uncertain.
Airport facilities: Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport (year of
arrival): Singapore Airlines (2007), Emirates and Qantas Airlines.
Airport facilities: Expected level of A380 passenger and cargo
operations: Passenger: Not available; Cargo: Not available.
Airport facilities: Airfield design standards (runway and taxiway width
and separations): Airfield is ICAO Code F compliant.
Airport facilities: Airport baggage claim, terminal seating, and
customs and immigration spatial concerns: None. Passenger waiting rooms
and baggage facilities expanded in Terminals 1 and 2, and Terminal 3
will open in 2008 based on new large aircraft operations.
Airport facilities: Terminal gates A380-ready: All 19 gates that are
A380-ready will have one upper and two lower bridges.
Airport facilities: Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: None.
Airport facilities: Operating restrictions used for the A380: None.
Airport facilities: Possible impact of A380 operations on ground
operations (special designated routing issues): None.
Airport facilities: Potential effect of ground operational restrictions
on capacity (airport assessment): ICAO separation standards from the
A380 due to wake turbulence could slow landing and departures and
reduce the number of flights allowed to land and depart during peak
hours.
Airport facilities: Current Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)
capability (in terms of equipment, personnel, and training): Meets ICAO
ARFF requirements for A380-sized aircraft.
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from Changi airport
officials.
[End of table]
Tokyo Narita International Airport, which opened in 1978, handles the
majority of international passenger traffic in Japan and in 2005
handled over 31 million passengers and more than 2.3 million tons of
cargo. In terms of the number of international passengers, it is ranked
eighth in the world and second highest in the world in terms of the
volume of international cargo. To date, six airlines--Lufthansa, Air
France, Qantas, Virgin Atlantic, Singapore Airlines, and Korean
Airlines--have announced plans to operate A380s at the airport. No
Japanese air carrier has any immediate plans to purchase the A380. The
airport has one runway and will have ten gates ready for the A380.
Airport officials said existing facilities are used to accommodating
very large passenger loads arriving at the same time on a daily basis.
In fact, large aircraft, such as the 747-200, 747-400, and 777-200,
currently make up about 75 percent of the traffic at Narita airport.
The officials said the nominal increase in passenger loads on A380
flights will not have a significant impact on the efficiency of the
airport's internal operations. Table 10 provides A380-related issues at
Narita airport.
Table 10: Tokyo Narita International Airport:
Airport facilities: Expected start of A380 service (month/year): First
half 2008.
Airport facilities: Number of A380 landings and departures each day
(initial year and 5th year of service): Initially: Not available; 5th
year: Not available.
Airport facilities: Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport (year of
arrival): Singapore Airlines, Korean Airlines, Lufthansa, Air France,
Virgin Atlantic Airways and Qantas Airways.
Airport facilities: Expected level of A380 passenger and cargo
operations: Passenger: Not available; Cargo: Not available.
Airport facilities: Airfield design standards (runway and taxiway width
and separations): Airfield is ICAO Code F compliant.
Airport facilities: Airport baggage claim, terminal seating, and
customs and immigration spatial concerns: Minimal. Plan to use adjacent
seating areas near A380 gates to handle the increase in passenger loads
for the A380 flights, and baggage claim facilities will be reviewed for
possible expansion.
Airport facilities: Terminal gates A380-ready: Ten gates will be
capable of accommodating the A380 initially with one upper deck and one
lower deck boarding bridges.
Airport facilities: Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: None.
Airport facilities: Operating restrictions used for the A380: Runway B
will be used for A380 operations. Taxiway separation issues exist and
will require restrictions to prohibit two A380 operating on the
parallel taxiways.
Airport facilities: Possible impact of A380 operations on ground
operations (special designated routing issues): None.
Airport facilities: Potential effect of ground operational restrictions
on capacity (airport assessment): None.
Airport facilities: Current Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)
capability (in terms of equipment, personnel, and training): The
airport has the resources to meet ICAO ARFF requirements for A380-sized
aircraft.
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from Narita airport
officials.
[End of table]
Canadian Airports:
Montréal Trudeau International Airport, first opened in 1941, is the
third busiest airport in Canada in terms of passenger traffic (after
Toronto Pearson and Vancouver airports) and served about 11 million
passengers in 2005. The airport is undergoing a major $716 million
expansion and modernization plan designed to double terminal capacity
to handle 25 million passengers per year and enhance the level of
passenger service. The first A380 arrival is expected during the summer
of 2009 with an Air France flight on its daily Paris to Montréal route.
Montréal Trudeau, which serves as the main operating hub for Air
France, is expected to be the only airport in Canada with a daily A380
flight. Airport officials said that no major investments were needed
because runway width and clearances between runways and taxiways comply
with ICAO Code F requirements. The airport has three runways and one
gate that will be available to accommodate the A380 in 2007. The
runways are 62 meters wide, but vary in length and have non-paved,
grass shoulders. Airport officials stated that two of the runways do
not meet the necessary length requirement for A380 departures, but
could be occasionally used for landings. Table 11 provides A380-related
issues at Trudeau airport.
Table 11: Montréal Trudeau International Airport:
Airport facilities: Expected start of A380 service (month/year): Summer
2009.
Airport facilities: Number of A380 landings and departures each day
(initial year and 5th year of service): Initially: Two daily (summer
only); 5th year: Not available.
Airport facilities: Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport (year of
arrival): Air France.
Airport facilities: Expected level of A380 passenger and cargo
operations: Passenger: Not available; Cargo: Not available.
Airport facilities: Airfield design standards (runway and taxiway width
and separations): Airfield is ICAO Code F compliant.
Airport facilities: Airport baggage claim, terminal seating, and
customs and immigration spatial concerns: None. Plan to use the seating
area of the adjacent gate to the A380 gate to handle the increase in
passenger load for A380 flights.
Airport facilities: Terminal gates A380-ready: One gate is available
that can accommodate the A380 and will use one upper and one main deck
boarding bridge.
Airport facilities: Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: Non-paved
runway and taxiway shoulders and taxiway widths of 23 meters compliant
with ICAO Code E standards.
Airport facilities: Operating restrictions used for the A380: Runway
10/28 must be inoperable until the A380 taxis from Runway 6L/24R to
terminal area. Runways 6R/24L and 10/28 could be used for A380 landings
but not for departures unless weight restrictions were imposed.
Airport facilities: Possible impact of A380 operations on ground
operations (special designated routing issues): None.
Airport facilities: Potential effect of ground operational restrictions
on capacity (airport assessment): None. Will schedule A380 flights
during non-peak hours.
Airport facilities: Current Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)
capability (in terms of equipment, personnel, and training): Due to
limited expected traffic, the airport does not meet ICAO ARFF
requirements for A380-sized aircraft.
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from Trudeau airport
officials.
[End of table]
Toronto Pearson International Airport, first opened in 1939, is
Canada's busiest airport and handled almost 30 million passengers,
410,000 tons of cargo, and about 410,000 flights in 2005. Four carriers
operate at Pearson that has purchased the A380, but none have indicated
intent to operate their A380s at the airport. The airport is nearing
completion of a $3.7 billion Airport Development Program to address
improvements in groundside, terminal and airside infrastructure.
Airport officials said the investments in airport infrastructure were
meant to replace and expand their capacity to receive more passengers
and freight and were not directed exclusively to accommodating the A380
because they did not expect many A380s at the airport. However, about
$37.3 million of the improvement costs can be attributed directly to
accommodating the A380 and future new large aircraft for airfield and
terminal modifications. The airport currently has two runways and will
have four gates ready for the A380 in 2007. The runways are 60 meters
wide, but have non-paved, grass shoulders that may have to be paved to
protect against jet blast. Airport officials stated they took A380
needs into account when designing the new Terminal 1, which opened in
April 2004. Table 12 provides A380-related issues at Pearson airport.
Table 12: Toronto Pearson International Airport:
Airport facilities: Expected start of A380 service (month/year):
Unknown.
Airport facilities: Number of A380 landings and departures each day
(initial year and 5th year of service): Initially: Not available; 5th
year: Not available.
Airport facilities: Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport (year of
arrival): None.
Airport facilities: Expected level of A380 passenger and cargo
operations: Passenger: Not available; Cargo: Not available.
Airport facilities: Airfield design standards (runway and taxiway width
and separations): Airfield is ICAO Code F compliant.
Airport facilities: Airport baggage claim, terminal seating, and
customs and immigration spatial concerns: None.
Airport facilities: Terminal gates A380-ready: Four A380 gates are
available with one upper and one lower deck boarding bridge.
Airport facilities: Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: None.
Airport facilities: Operating restrictions used for the A380: None
anticipated, but will use procedural restrictions for the A380 when it
is on the runways or taxiways if needed.
Airport facilities: Possible impact of A380 operations on ground
operations (special designated routing issues): None.
Airport facilities: Potential effect of ground operational restrictions
on capacity (airport assessment): ICAO separation standards could slow
landings and departures and reduce the total number of flights during
peak hours. Airport officials noted that they would not allow A380
flights to adversely impact capacity.
Airport facilities: Current Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)
capability (in terms of equipment, personnel, and training): The
airport has the resources to meet ICAO ARFF requirements for A380-sized
aircraft.
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from Pearson airport
officials.
[End of table]
European Airports:
Amsterdam Schiphol Airport is one of four major European hubs for
passenger and freight air traffic. It is the third busiest European
airport for cargo traffic with over 1.4 million tons transported and
fourth in passenger traffic with over 44 million passengers in 2005--
much of which is due to the trans-shipment of cargo and connecting
passenger traffic. The airport will not be a hub for A380 traffic but
will accommodate significant A380 passenger transfers to other planes
bound to other destinations. A380 flight operations could begin in
February 2008 with flights from Malaysian Airlines. Schiphol began
planning for airport improvements related to new large aircraft in
1996. The new Code F runway and associated taxiways cost over $440
million and the expansion of the terminal cost over $213 million. The
airport has one runway that is compliant with ICAO Code F but will also
use the other four 45-meter runways and associated 23-meter taxiways in
accord with a European agreement that Code E infrastructure could be
used for the A380. Airport officials said A380s will be operated on the
runways and taxiways not designed to Code F standards under waivers
approved by the Netherlands Civil Aviation Authority. The airport will
also have two gates ready for the A380 in 2007 and another two after
2008. Schiphol officials indicated that they would not need many
additional A380 gates in the future when A380 flights increase because
large aircraft gate occupancy and turnaround time present no issues.
Table 13 provides A380-related issues at Schiphol airport.
Table 13: Amsterdam Schiphol International Airport:
Airport facilities: Expected start of A380 service (month/year): Summer
schedule 2008.
Airport facilities: Number of A380 landings and departures each day
(initial year and 5th year of service): Initially: Anticipates four per
day; 5th year: Anticipates 10 per day.
Airport facilities: Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport (year of
arrival): Malaysian Airlines (2008).
Airport facilities: Expected level of A380 passenger and cargo
operations: Passenger: 2008 (two daily landings and departures) and
2015 (8-10 daily landings and departures); Cargo: Not available.
Airport facilities: Airfield design standards (runway and taxiway width
and separations): Airfield is ICAO Code E compliant.
Airport facilities: Airport baggage claim, terminal seating, and
customs and immigration spatial concerns: None. No concerns with
seating and customs, but baggage systems were expanded.
Airport facilities: Terminal gates A380-ready: Two gates will be ready
for the A380 in 2007 with two boarding bridges.
Airport facilities: Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: Noncompliant
runways and taxiways will be operated under waivers.
Airport facilities: Operating restrictions used for the A380: Use of
one taxiway bridge may be limited.
Airport facilities: Possible impact of A380 operations on ground
operations (special designated routing issues): All standard taxi
routes are compliant with A380 operations.
Airport facilities: Potential effect of ground operational restrictions
on capacity (airport assessment): ICAO separation standards could slow
landings and departures and reduce the total number of flights during
peak hours.
Airport facilities: Current Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)
capability (in terms of equipment, personnel, and training): Capability
meets ICAO ARFF requirements for A380-sized aircraft.
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from Schiphol airport
officials.
[End of table]
London Heathrow International Airport is the world's busiest airport in
terms of international flights. The airport is an important hub with
the largest number of passengers of any European airport in 2005--
almost 68 million--and handled about 1.4 million tons of cargo. The
airport has reached its capacity for flights but would like to increase
passenger capacity to 90 million by 2020 and 95 million by 2030. The
first A380 flight will likely be Singapore Airlines in early 2008.
Airport officials said they made significant investments of about $885
million in airport improvements to expand their capacity to receive
more passengers. Most of the spending was used to build new terminals
and gates to accommodate the A380, but also included widening and
strengthening its two runway's shoulders and upgrading runway lighting,
and improvements to existing terminals to provide A380 gates. The
airport will use two 50-meter-wide, parallel runways that are not Code
F compliant for width and will use a waiver approved by the United
Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority. The airport will have 12 gates ready
for the A380 by 2008, but Heathrow officials anticipate that they will
need about 35 A380 gates by 2015. In addition, they eventually expect
that one of every ten aircraft arriving and departing (130 arrivals and
departures) will be an A380 by 2020. Table 14 provides A380-related
issues at Heathrow airport.
Table 14: London Heathrow International Airport:
Airport facilities: Expected start of A380 service (month/year):
February 2008.
Airport facilities: Number of A380 landings and departures each day
(initial year and 5th year of service): Initially: Anticipates 16 per
day; 5th year: Anticipates 30 per day.
Airport facilities: Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport (year of
arrival): Singapore Airlines (2008), Emirates (2008), Qantas Airlines
(2008), United Arab Emirates (2008), Malaysia Airlines(2009) Thai
Airways.
Airport facilities: Expected level of A380 passenger and cargo
operations: Passenger: Not available; Cargo: Not available.
Airport facilities: Airfield design standards (runway and taxiway width
and separations): Airfield is ICAO Code E compliant.
Airport facilities: Airport baggage claim, terminal seating, and
customs and immigration spatial concerns: None. Terminal seating was
expanded, and new baggage systems were installed to accommodate new
large aircraft operations.
Airport facilities: Terminal gates A380-ready: 12 A380 gates will be
available in 2008 with one lower and one upper boarding bridges.
Airport facilities: Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: Runway width
and taxiway-to-object free zone separations are noncompliant.
Airport facilities: Operating restrictions used for the A380: A380
routes defined and runway holds reconfigured to provide ICAO Code F
compliant routes.
Airport facilities: Possible impact of A380 operations on ground
operations (special designated routing issues): No additional impact
anticipated above what could be expected from existing B747 traffic.
Airport facilities: Potential effect of ground operational restrictions
on capacity (airport assessment): ICAO separation standards could slow
landings and departures and reduce the total number of flights during
peak hours.
Airport facilities: Current Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)
capability (in terms of equipment, personnel, and training): Meets ICAO
ARFF requirements for A380-sized aircraft.
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from Heathrow airport
officials.
[End of table]
Paris Charles de Gaulle International Airport handled about 53.7
million passengers and over two million tons of cargo in 2005. The
initial A380 flights from France to North America will be to the New
York JFK and Montréal Trudeau airports beginning in 2009. United Arab
Emirates, Singapore, and China Southern airlines could begin flights to
Paris in 2008 and 2009, and will be an A380 operating hub for KLM-Air
France. Over $132 million has been invested for infrastructure upgrades
to accommodate the A380, such as widening taxiway bridges to allow A380
access to all terminals. The investment also included widening and
strengthening two runways at the airport and building a new satellite
terminal complex specifically for A380s. The airport has four runways
that will be used for A380 operations. Two of the runways are 60 meters
wide and comply with ICAO Code F width, but their 2,700-meter-lengths
will likely be too short for departures. The two 4,200-meter-long, 45-
meter-wide runways can be used for departures and landings but will
have to be operated under waivers approved by the French Civil Aviation
Authority. Nine gates will be ready for the A380 in 2008 and will be
increased up to 30 by 2018. Airport officials estimated that at least
10 percent of all passengers arriving at the airport will be aboard an
A380 by 2020. Table 15 provides A380-related issues at Charles de
Gaulle airport.
Table 15: Paris Charles de Gaulle International Airport:
Airport facilities:: Expected start of A380 service (month/year):
Summer 2008.
Airport facilities:: Number of A380 landings and departures each day
(initial year and 5th year of service): Initially: Anticipates eight
per day; 5th year: Not available.
Airport facilities:: Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport (year
of arrival): Emirates (2008), Singapore Airlines (2009), China Southern
(2009), Air France (2009), Korean Air (2010), Thai Airways (2010),
Malaysian Airlines (after 2010).
Airport facilities:: Expected level of A380 passenger and cargo
operations: Passenger: Not available; Cargo: Not available.
Airport facilities:: Airfield design standards (runway and taxiway
width and separations): Airfield is ICAO Code E compliant.
Airport facilities:: Airport baggage claim, terminal seating, and
customs and immigration spatial concerns: None. Passenger waiting rooms
and baggage facilities will be crowded, but sufficient.
Airport facilities:: Terminal gates A380-ready: Nine gates will be
ready for the A380 in 2008 with most having two boarding bridges, but
some will have three boarding bridges.
Airport facilities:: Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: Runway and
taxiway width, obstacle free zones and stop-hold positions on taxiways
leading to runways are less than ICAO standards.
Airport facilities:: Operating restrictions used for the A380: The A380
will be restricted to using two taxiing routes from each terminal to
each runway.
Airport facilities:: Possible impact of A380 operations on ground
operations (special designated routing issues): None.
Airport facilities:: Potential effect of ground operational
restrictions on capacity (airport assessment): ICAO separation
standards could slow landings and departures and reduce the total
number of flights during peak hours.
Airport facilities:: Current Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)
capability (in terms of equipment, personnel, and training): Meets ICAO
ARFF requirements for A380-sized aircraft.
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from Charles de Gaulle
airport officials.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments by Airbus:
Airbus:
Dan Cohen-Nir:
Programs Director:
Safety and Technical Affairs:
Via Email:
April 11, 2007:
Dr. Gerald Dillingham:
Director of Civil Aviation Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W., Room 2T23B:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Dr. Dillingham:
Airbus truly appreciates the opportunity offered by the Government
Accountability Office to review, and submit comments on, the Draft
Report titled "Potential Safety and Capacity Issues Associated with the
Introduction of the New A380 Aircraft."
Airbus further commends the GAO for its continued effort in providing a
comprehensive assessment of the opportunities and challenges that the
U.S. airport system will have, or face, with the introduction of the
A380.
As mentioned in the GAO report, The Boeing Company has launched an
aircraft to compete with the A380 - the airplane design group VI Boeing
747-8, which has dimensions and characteristics that should require the
same assessment as the A380: runway and taxiway widths; airfield
horizontal separations; gate availability and compatibility; increased
number of passengers over the current larger aircraft; aircraft rescue
and fire fighting categorization and requirements; wake vortex
characterization and classification. Consequently, most of the
operational and safety-related items discussed in the report are
relevant for the 747-8 as well, in particular at U.S. airports that
will have 747-8 flights before A380s.
From the inception of the A380, Airbus designers understood the many
challenges they would face designing the largest commercial aircraft
ever, under great scrutiny of the regulatory authorities in particular
and of the aviation industry in general.
The A380 has undergone an unprecedented two-year-long and five-
continent-wide testing program from the arid Middle Eastern deserts to
the frigid Canadian Northern Territories - while crossing the poles
several times. At the time this letter is written, the 5-strong family
of flight test aircraft has logged more than 3,339 flying hours and
2,307 take-offs since April 27, 2005. And most importantly, FAA and
EASA have certified the A380 type design on December 12, 2006.
The A380 is meeting, or exceeding, its commitments. It is a testament
not only to Airbus designers but also to Airbus aerospace partners
around the globe, including the American aerospace industry.
The reaction of airport authorities, airlines, regulators, and
political leaders from the U.S. and international cities that have
witnessed the A380 at their airports has been extremely positive and
has validated the notion that the A380 represents the most socially
responsible solution to the increase in air travel.
Specific Comments:
Safety:
Above all, the A380 is the first fly-by-wire new larger aircraft and
uses the latest technology to enhance flight safety. The A380 flight
control system largely benefits from the in-service experience
accumulated on the A320 and A340 fly-by-wire aircraft, together with
the introduction of new technologies that improve safety and
reliability both in the air and on the ground.
Airbus commends the GAO report for acknowledging some specific safety
enhancements introduced on the A380 such as the External & TAxiing
Camera System (ETACS) and exterior/interior material used to reduce
flammability.
With respect to the cabin rescue, regardless of the airport equipment
available, the A380 provides a further line of defense against pre-or
post-crash fire with its next generation cabin evacuation slides.
Unlike current larger aircraft, the slides are equipped with two re-
entry lines, which provide direct access for fire fighters or emergency
responders into both main deck and upper deck.
As already mentioned, the FAA has certified the A380 type design, which
means that the aircraft complies with applicable certification
requirements.
The GAO report states that the wake of the A380 creates safety issues.
However, those potential issues have been identified and already
addressed. The wake vortex separation standards that ICAO has developed
and promulgated in November 2006 are providing the same level - or an
increased level - of safety, compared to separation standards for other
large aircraft flying today.
The A380 is the first (and, so far, the only) commercial aircraft that
has undergone a comprehensive wake vortex characterization program
before its entry into service. As indicated in the GAO report, current
separation guidance could be more conservative than the final standards
and later reduced on the basis of tests, analyses and operational
experience with the aircraft. There is precedent for such a reduction
on the Boeing 747 in the years after entry into service.
The impact of wake vortices generated by commercial aircraft is an
industry issue that goes well beyond the A380 and consequently the
scope of the report. It is worthwhile mentioning nevertheless that the
need for wake vortex characterization of all future commercial aircraft
(747-8; 787; A350 XWB) and the possible reclassification of existing
aircraft in new wake vortex categories may be two of the most wide-
ranging outcomes of the A380 wake vortex assessment campaign.
Airport Compatibility:
The A380 is the first new large aircraft that has been designed to be
compatible with existing airports, as the result of a 16-year long
dialogue with regulators, customer airlines, airport operators, pilot
and trade associations and ground handlers. Such airport compatibility,
in fact, was a design criterion for the aircraft from the very
beginning.
The long-standing partnerships have brought to fruition EASA approval
of A380 operations on existing airports with 150-ft wide runways and 75-
ft wide taxiways. A similar process with FAA is well underway for a
successful conclusion during the summer of 2007, which should allow in-
service A380 operations on 150-ft runways in the United States.
At the time of this letter, the A380 has visited more than 45 airports
worldwide, including six in North America, covering most early A380
destination airports. The A380 has shown exemplary airport
compatibility (producing less noise and emissions and requiring less
runway for take-off and landings than the 747-400; creating no
infrastructural damage or deterioration; fitting into terminal gates
using available ground support equipment).
In two independently-run airport compatibility check and airline route
proving campaigns, Airbus in cooperation with two customer airlines has
brought the A380 most recently to the United States, testing and
validating the aircraft compatibility with the U.S. airspace and
airport systems.
Under the most realistic operational conditions, two A380 aircraft have
been operated into four major U.S. gateways: New York Kennedy
International Airport (JFK), Chicago O'Hare International Airport
(ORD), Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) and Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX). With FAA's permission for those visits,
the A380 mostly operated to and from existing 150-ft wide runways and
75-ft wide taxiways. In the case of ORD, IAD and LAX, and to a lesser
extent JFK, the aircraft was being operated using the same
infrastructure and existing ground support equipment as a 747-400 would
have.
By all accounts, the A380 visits were extremely successful, with
operations proceeding smoothly and uneventfully.
These visits have demonstrated clearly that the aircraft is capable of
being operated safely, efficiently and without any significant adverse
impact on U.S. airports.
Gate availability and productivity:
The discussion about the effect of the A380 introduction on gate
efficiency has to be enunciated in broader terms than just the
geometrical and numerical effects of a wider wingspan and of an
increased number of passengers.
Several U.S. and international airports serve current larger aircraft
flights that accommodate more than 450 passengers and operate contact
gates with dual loading bridges. In addition, the physical
characteristics of existing large aircraft (Boeing 747-400 and 777-
300ER, Airbus A340-600) and Boeing's new larger aircraft already create
or will create gate-availability challenges at U.S. airports, none of
which is unique to the A380.
While some airports may be confronted with the downsizing of adjacent
gates and increased passenger processing times, most airports have
already prepared an appropriate number of A380 contact gates and have
worked with customer airlines to optimize passenger flow processes.
As noted in the GAO report, the A380 new cabin architecture (wider
front and aft stairs; main deck front doors' location which reduces
bottlenecks in the cabin) and optimized servicing concept (upper deck
catering) will offer the opportunity for airlines to service the
aircraft with a 90-minute turn-around time and, therefore,
significantly improve gate productivity. Stated in another way, while
carrying 35% more passengers, the A380 turn around time is 13% or 12
minutes shorter than the 747-400's.
Airbus turn-around time assumptions have been validated recently.
During a demonstration in Frankfurt, Germany in March 2007, one
customer airline serviced an A380 flight arriving from Asia and then
heading to the United States (approximately 500 passengers, baggage and
cargo on both arriving and departing flights) with a turn-around time
of 95 minutes, which included the mandatory cabin security inspection.
Capacity discussion:
The GAO report uses one definition for airport capacity: that is, the
maximum number of aircraft take-offs and landings (movements) that can
occur within a given period of time. However, any discussion of airport
capacity must include an analysis of the passenger throughput, not
merely airport number of movements. Indeed, airlines are ultimately in
the business of moving people and goods between airports. All experts
agree that international air travel is expected to grow in such way
that the number of international passengers will triple over the next
20-25 years. This growth would take place with or without the A380 and
will require that U.S. airports invest to handle the increase in
passengers and cargo. The introduction of the A380 will help reduce or
indeed offset the increased number of aircraft operations required to
carry the 200 percent increase in passengers from one airport
destination to another.
With regard to capacity, the GAO identifies operating restrictions on
the ground as potentially impacting capacity. As aforementioned, the
A380 operational restrictions on the ground that may impact airport
capacities are minimized by the design and performance of the aircraft.
As to capacity issues related to wake turbulence, the GAO report
referenced an FAA study on the potential delays, induced by the
currently-imposed A380 wake vortex longitudinal separation increases,
at U.S. airports by 2015 and 2025 and provided quantitative data for
SFO and JFK airports.
The assumptions of the study were not fully available to Airbus at the
time of this letter. Nevertheless, it is Airbus' understanding that
both airports have considered the amount of delays exclusively
attributed to the A380 acceptable and manageable. These two
airports[Footnote 42/43] enthusiastically embrace the entry into
service of the A380. Once again, the potential delays induced by the
current wake vortex separations have to be balanced by the fact that
the A380 helps reduce or offset the increased number of aircraft
operations.
Finally, as the GAO and Airbus have stated, current wake vortex
separations could be more conservative than the final standards and
later reduced on the basis of tests, analyses and operational
experience with the aircraft. It could dramatically reduce or even
eliminate the amount of delays potentially experienced at SFO and JFK.
Foreign Airports:
Airbus broadly concurs with the GAO findings. The foreign airports,
which have been visited, have been indeed more proactive on average in
terms of long-term capital investments required to accommodate the
A380. It is mostly explained by a more intense competitive environment
as well as by a different approach to cope with a larger number of A380
flights in the early years of operations. Thus, there is no doubt that
foreign airports will benefit from the A380, rather than being impacted
by it.
Concluding Statement:
International air travel is expected to experience a two-to three-fold
increase worldwide in the early part of the 21st Century. In developed
nations like the United States, building additional airports, or even
individual runways and terminals, is often not a practical solution.
With those sorts of infrastructure limitations, the primary ways to
increase passenger throughput are by increased efficiencies of movement
(in the air and on the ground) or through increased passenger and cargo-
carrying capabilities of the aircraft themselves.
The A380, with its step increase in passenger (and cargo) capacity, was
designed to be just such a safe, efficient, environmentally-friendly
solution to that problem.
The GAO correctly identified "potential" safety and capacity issues
surrounding the introduction of the A380 into service. The report is
largely a very positive analysis of how and why the A380 does NOT
introduce any significant safety or capacity issues. No airliner has
been designed with more regard for safety than the A380 and it has
benefited from the tremendous strides made in aviation safety over the
past several decades - from advanced flight control systems, to modern
materials with flame-retardant properties, to state-of-the-art
emergency evacuation slides, and many, many more.
On the capacity side, there seems to have been an overemphasis on the
operational constraints imposed on or by the A380. Although there is
tacit acknowledgement in the report of the passenger throughput
increases the A380 brings with its higher seating capacity, there seems
to have been much more exhaustive work done on the potential delays
that could accrue from currently-imposed increases in separation.
Furthermore, again, the airport operational constraints of large
aircraft are not and will not in the future be unique to the A380.
These analyses are based on myriad assumptions that are affected by
multiple variables that can only be approximated for the year 2025, for
example, and overlook the benefits the A380 will bring to the capacity
constraints being faced by the world's largest airports. And yet, the
analyses have shown results that interested airport officials have
deemed acceptable and manageable.
Airbus suggests that any capacity discussion must include an analysis
of the capacity of the aircraft projected, as well as the reduction in
aircraft movements made possible by the introduction of the A380 and
other large aircraft.
Airbus appreciates the opportunity to provide views and to submit
comments and, as in the past, is ready to assist you and the GAO at any
opportunity in the important endeavor of this study.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Dan Cohen-Nir:
Programs Director:
Airbus North America Holdings Inc.
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] The freight version of the aircraft, the A380F, has been delayed
and the first delivery is to be determined.
[2] The A380 has a typical seating capacity for 555 passengers, but is
certified for a maximum of 853 passengers. According to Airbus, the
seating capacity for the A380s currently on order range from about 480
to 650.
[3] The freight version of the 747-8 is expected to be delivered in the
third quarter of 2009; the passenger version of the 747-8 is scheduled
for delivery beginning in 2010.
[4] Fourteen customers have firm orders for 156 A380 passenger
aircraft. No U.S. air carrier has ordered the A380 aircraft. However,
International Lease Finance Corporation, a U.S. company, ordered 10
A380 passenger aircraft and plans to lease these aircraft to air
carriers across the world.
[5] GAO, Commercial Aviation: Costs and Major Factors Influencing
Infrastructure Changes at U.S. Airports to Accommodate the New A380
Aircraft, GAO-06-571 (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2006).
[6] The aviation experts we interviewed were not selected randomly.
Therefore, their views and opinions cannot be generalized to the larger
population of experts and aviation officials.
[7] Domestic reduced vertical separation minimums permit air traffic
controllers to reduce minimum vertical separation from 2,000 feet to
1,000 feet at altitudes between 29,000 and 41,000 feet for aircraft
that are equipped with dual altimeter systems and autopilots.
Theoretically, by reducing the vertical separation minimums, the
airspace system could accommodate more aircraft at any given time.
[8] For more information about the next generation air transportation
system, see GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: Preliminary
Analysis of Progress and Challenges Associated with the Transformation
of the National Airspace System, GAO-06-915T (Washington, D.C.: July
25, 2006).
[9] In 1970, the increase in maximum passenger capacity from the Boeing
707-320B (189 passengers) to the Boeing 747-100 (452 passengers) was
about 139 percent.
[10] The 747-400 typically seats 416 passengers in a 3-class cabin
configuration but certified to seat a maximum of 660 passengers. In
addition, a newer version of the Boeing 747-400 aircraft was approved
with a maximum takeoff weight of 910,000 pounds through a design
change.
[11] The 787-8 Dreamliner will carry 210 to 250 passengers on routes of
7,650 to 8,200 nautical miles; the 787-9 Dreamliner will carry 250 to
290 passengers on routes of 8,000 to 8,500 nautical miles; and the 787-
3 Dreamliner will accommodate 290 to 330 passengers and optimized for
routes of 2,500 to 3,050 nautical miles.
[12] ICAO has a sovereign body, consisting of 189 contracting states
(members). Each contracting state is entitled to one vote, and
decisions are determined by a majority of the votes cast.
[13] Contracting states are obligated to notify ICAO of differences if
they choose not to implement the ICAO standards.
[14] FAA Advisory Circular, Airport Design 150/5300-13. According to
FAA, these design standards are required for new federally-funded
construction or reconstruction projects at U.S. airports.
[15] Engineering Brief 65 allows A380 operations on existing 150-foot-
wide runways at airports by converting them to 200-foot-wide runways by
adding 25 feet of pavement on each side at a lesser strength than
required under Design Group VI standards and widening runway shoulders.
Engineering Brief 63A allows the A380 aircraft to operate at airports
with 75-foot-wide taxiways, if shoulders are widened and operating
restrictions may need to be imposed.
[16] Airbus refers to this camera system as the "external and taxiing
camera system" or ETACS.
[17] Thermal acoustic insulation is a fiberglass-type material used
throughout the fuselage of commercial aircraft for reducing cabin noise
from external sources and for maintaining comfortable cabin
temperatures. FAA will begin requiring this improved insulation on all
newly produced aircraft beginning in September 2009.
[18] Aircraft create turbulence that forms behind them as they pass
through the air.
[19] To illustrate, FAA officials said that some Design Group VI
category aircraft, such as the freighter Antanov 225 and military C-5A
aircraft, operate on some 150-foot-wide runways in the U.S. today.
However, airports that occasionally accommodate these aircraft and are
not compliant with Design Group VI standards must request procedural
waivers from FAA. FAA is still in the process of conducting an
operational evaluation for the A380, expected to be completed by June
2007, and has not determined all operational restrictions.
[20] GAO, Commercial Aviation: Costs and Major Factors Influencing
Infrastructure Changes at U.S. Airports to Accommodate the New A380
Aircraft, GAO-06-571 (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2006).
[21] Modification to Standards means any change to FAA standards, other
than dimensional standards for runway safety areas, applicable to an
airport design, construction, or equipment procurement project that
results in lower costs, greater efficiency, or is necessary to
accommodate an unusual local condition on a specific project, when
adopted on a case-by-case basis.
[22] FAA officials said the Modification to Standards process is not
generally used to govern operations of a particular aircraft at an
airport. Rather, the process is generally used for the justification of
an investment of federal funds in construction projects for facilities
that do not fully meet design standards for an aircraft design group
and not necessarily issued for a particular aircraft.
[23] As discussed later in the report, the European regulatory
counterpart to FAA has certified the A380 to operate on 150-foot-wide
(45 meters) runways.
[24] "Heavy" is an aircraft category used by air traffic officials when
applying wake turbulence separations. The heavy category represents
aircraft that weigh more than 299,800 pounds (136,000 kilograms).
[25] 14 CFR Sec. 25.803.
[26] FAA Advisory Circular, Airport Emergency Plan 150/5200-31A.
[27] FAA performs firefighting research at the FAA William J. Hughes
Technical Center (Technical Center) to improve the effectiveness or
better use current firefighting equipment to provide an increase in
passenger survivability under the extreme conditions of a post-crash
fire.
[28] Simply providing more seats on an aircraft does not necessarily
equate to more passengers being carried. However, if more passengers
travel on the routes that A380s will be used than can be accommodated
with current capacity, or if the introduction of the A380 leads to
lower airfares, then airports receiving A380 service might also see an
increase in the number of passengers.
[29] Economic transfers can represent real benefits for airports making
the improvements, but from a national perspective they may not
represent net benefits because some economic activity may be simply
transferred from other airports.
[30] Any restrictions and requirements that limit potential capacity
gains will also limit the economic benefits to the airports and local
communities.
[31] This analysis was conducted at FAA's Technical Center, which
performs capacity studies for airports. These studies consider a
variety of factors, such as the actual traffic at the airport,
airlines' projections of future flights, and airport improvements such
as new runways.
[32] The studies evaluated the potential impact of new large aircraft
at San Francisco and New York JFK airports in 2006, 2015, and 2025 with
and without the introduction of the A380, and projected that A380
traffic would increase delays by 2025. The assumptions used in the
capacity studies included the anticipation that necessary
infrastructure improvements would be in place by 2006, air traffic
demand including fleet mix are established before and after the
introduction of the A380, and operational procedure restrictions needed
were identified. In addition, the anticipated A380 flights used for the
two airports were nine daily flights in 2015 and 16 in 2025 for San
Francisco; and 14 daily flights in 2015 and 52 in 2025 for JFK.
[33] The A380 Airport Compatibility Group (AACG) is an informal group,
consisting of a number of European aviation authorities (France,
Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands), airport and industry
representatives. It was formed to agree to and promote a common
position among the group members regarding the application of ICAO
requirements, with respect to the A380 for infrastructure and
operations at existing major European airports that currently do not
meet the requirements. Australia has also adopted the AACG standards.
[34] EASA, the European regulatory counterpart to FAA, develops common
safety and environmental standards for European Member States in civil
aviation. It monitors the implementation of standards in the Member
States and provides the necessary technical expertise, training and
research.
[35] If Airbus successfully completes its flight demonstration, the
A380 will receive FAA Flight Standards approval to operate on 150-foot-
wide runways (45 meters). If Airbus does not successfully demonstrate
the A380's capability, FAA will require that airports expecting to
receive the A380 meet the Design Group VI standard of 200-foot-wide
runways and 100-foot-wide taxiways. If an airport does not meet the
taxiway standard, airport officials can apply for Modifications to
Standards through FAA. For FAA to approve a modification, the airport
must demonstrate that they can provide an acceptable level of safety to
the standard on a case-by-case basis.
[36] See appendix II for summaries of the foreign airports' A380 plans
and operations.
[37] For more information on the costs of infrastructure changes at
U.S. airports to accommodate the A380, see GAO, Commercial Aviation:
Costs and Major Factors Influencing Infrastructure Changes at U.S.
Airports to Accommodate the New A380 Aircraft, GAO-06-571 (Washington,
D.C.: May 19, 2006).
[38] The seven airports include Guangzhou Baiyun, Singapore Changi,
Hong Kong, Tokyo Narita, Bangkok Suvarnabhumi, Toronto Pearson, and
Montréal Trudeau. The remaining airport, Beijing Capital, was not built
to accommodate the future arrival of new large aircraft and required
significant improvements to the airfield to comply with the required
standards, such as reconstructing one of its runways to accommodate the
A380.
[39] The Bangkok Suvarnabhumi airport is the only airport that fully
complies with the required international standards for new large
aircraft. The Guangzhou Baiyun airport is fully compliant with the
requirements for one side of the airfield that will be used for A380
operations, while the other noncompliant side will not be used for the
A380.
[40] GAO, Commercial Aviation: Costs and Major Factors Influencing
Infrastructure Changes at U.S. Airports to Accommodate the New A380
Aircraft, GAO-06-571 (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2006).
[41] ICAO Code F is the international acceptable standards for aircraft
with wingspans over 214 feet such as the Airbus A380 and the proposed
Boeing 747-8.
[42] "The arrival of the A380 is as important to JFK International
Airport as the Boeing 747 was when it was introduced." Bill DeCota,
Aviation Director, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
[43] "We planned for the future by designing the new International
Terminal to accommodate the New Large Aircraft, such as the A380." John
L. Martin, Director, San Francisco International Airport.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: