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: