United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

COMMERCIAL 

AVIATION 

Potential Safety and 

Capacity Issues 

Associated with the 

Introduction of the 

New A380 Aircraft 

April 2007 

 

GAO-07-483 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 2007

COMMERCIAL AVIATION 

Potential Safety and Capacity Issues 

Associated with the Introduction of the 

New A380 Aircraft 

Highlights of GAO-07-483, a report to 

congressional requesters 

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. 

Inaugural Airbus A380 Visit to Singapore Changi Airport 

Source: Courtesy of Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. 

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. 

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. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

A380 Poses a Number of Potential Safety Challenges at Airports 11 

A380’s Impact on Capacity at U.S. Airports Is Uncertain 21 

Foreign Airports Have Taken Different Approaches to Prepare for 

the A380 28 

Concluding Observations 33 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 34 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36 

Appendix II Foreign Airport Summaries 40 

Appendix III Comments by Airbus 62 

Tables 

Table 1: FAA Airplane Design Groups 10 

Table 2: Aviation Experts Interviewed by GAO 37 

Table 3: United States Airports Visited by GAO 38 

Table 4: Asian, Canadian, and European Airports Visited by GAO 39 

Table 5 Bangkok Suvarnabhumi International Airport 40 

Table 6: Beijing Capital International Airport 42 

Table 7: Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport 44 

Table 8: Hong Kong International Airport 46 

Table 9: Singapore Changi International Airport 48 

Table 10: Tokyo Narita International Airport 50 

Table 11: Montréal Trudeau International Airport 52 

Table 12: Toronto Pearson International Airport 54 

Table 13: Amsterdam Schiphol International Airport 56 

Table 14: London Heathrow International Airport 58 

Table 15: Paris Charles de Gaulle International Airport 60 

Figures 

Figure 1: Inaugural Airbus A380 Visit to Singapore Changi Airport 2 

Page i GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Figure 2: Comparison of the Boeing 747-400, Airbus A380, and

Boeing 747-8 8 

Figure 3: Illustration of the Effects of Wake Turbulence 15 

Figure 4: Illustration of On-approach Landing Separation Distances 

for Aircraft Trailing an A380 and Heavy Aircraft 17 

Figure 5: Fire Fighting Vehicle with Penetrating Nozzle 20 

Figure 6: The Taxilane Object Free Area Requirement for the A380 27 

Figure 7: Baiyun International Airport, Guangzhou, China 32 

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 

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. However, 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. 

Page ii GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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 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 

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.1

 The 

A380 has a double deck and could seat up to 853 passengers, depending on

the cabin configuration.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.

3

 

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.1

 The 

A380 has a double deck and could seat up to 853 passengers, depending on

the cabin configuration.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.

3

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. 

Page 1 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Figure 1: Inaugural Airbus A380 Visit to Singapore Changi Airport 

Source: Courtesy of Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. 

As of March 2007, Airbus has orders from 14 customers for 156 A380 

passenger aircraft.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 

 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. 

Page 2 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
changes that U.S. airports plan to make to accommodate the A380.5

 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 semistructured 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.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. 

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 

Results in Brief 

 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. 

Page 3 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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 

Page 4 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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. 

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 

Background 

Page 5 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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.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.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.9

 Since then, other widebodied 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 

 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.

Page 6 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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.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.11

 10The 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. 

11The 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.

Page 7 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Figure 2: Comparison of the Boeing 747-400, Airbus A380, and Boeing 747-8 

BOEING 747-400 (currently in operation): BOEING 747- AIRBUS A380 (in production): 8 (planned):

Wingspan: 

Length:

Height:

Max takeoff weight:

Number of seats:

Max fuel capacity:

261.7 feet

239.3 feet

79.6 feet

1.235 million pounds

555–853

81,890 gallons

Wingspan: 

Length:

Height:

Max takeoff weight:

Number of seats:

Max fuel capacity:

224.6 feet

250.7 feet

64.2 feet

.970 million pounds

467

64,225 gallons

Wingspan: 

Length:

Height:

Max takeoff weight:

Number of seats:

Max fuel capacity:

211.4 feet

231.8 feet

63.7 feet

.875 million pounds

416–660

57,285 gallons

Source: GAO.

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.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.13 Although ICAO has no 

enforcement powers and only establishes standards and recommended 

 12ICAO 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. 

13Contracting states are obligated to notify ICAO of differences if they choose not to 

implement the ICAO standards. 

Page 8 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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.14 Table 1 shows the wing span criteria for the 

airplane design groups and examples of aircraft that fall into each 

 14FAA 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.

Page 9 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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 Wingspan Examples of aircraft type

I < 49 feet Cessna 152-210, Beechcraft A36 

II 49 – 79 feet Saab 2000, EMB-120, Saab 340, Canadair RJ-100 

III 79 – 118 feet Boeing 737, MD-80, Airbus A320 

IV 118 – 171 feet Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Airbus A300 

V 171 – 214 feet Boeing 747-400, Boeing 777, MD-11, Airbus A340 

VI 214 – 262 feet Airbus A380 (in production), Boeing 747-8 (planned)

Source: FAA. 

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.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 

 15Engineering 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. 

Page 10 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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. 

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. 

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.

16 The cockpit was also designed to 

be much lower to the ground than other large aircraft to provide the flight 

A380 Poses a Number 

of Potential Safety 

Challenges at Airports 

A380 Offers Some Safety 

Enhancements But Its Size 

Presents Potential Safety 

Challenges for Airports 

 16Airbus refers to this camera system as the “external and taxiing camera system” or

ETACS. 

Page 11 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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 

A380.17 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.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. 

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 

U.S. Airports Typically Not 

Designed to Handle A380-sized 

Aircraft 

 17Thermal 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. 

18Aircraft create turbulence that forms behind them as they pass through the air. 

Page 12 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
that an acceptable level of safety is maintained.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.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.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

 19To 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. 

20GAO, 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). 

21Modification 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. 

Page 13 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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.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 2007.23

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 

 22FAA 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. 

23As discussed later in the report, the European regulatory counterpart to FAA has certified

the A380 to operate on 150-foot-wide (45 meters) runways. 

Page 14 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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. 

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 inflight. 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 inflight to avoid the adverse effects of wake turbulence. 

A380 Produces Greater Wake 

Turbulence Than Other Aircraft 

Figure 3: Illustration of the Effects of Wake Turbulence 

500-900 feet

wingtip vortices

Source: GAO representation of FAA information.

Page 15 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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. 

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.24

 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). 

Page 16 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Figure 4: Illustration of On-approach Landing Separation Distances for Aircraft Trailing an A380 and Heavy Aircraft 

A380 vs. Heavy Aircraft

A380 to A380

4 nm

A380 to Heavy

6 nm

Heavy to Heavy

4 nm

A380 to Medium

8 nm

Heavy to Medium

5 nm

A380 to Light

10 nm

Heavy to Light

6 nm

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Nautical miles

Source: GAO representation of ICAO information.

A380

Heavy

Medium

Light

Heavy to A380

4 nm

Page 17 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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. 

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.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. 

Greater Number of Passengers 

to Evacuate from A380 

Compared to Other Aircraft 

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.26 However, in most cases, 

airport fire and rescue officials said that they plan for reasonable worstcase scenarios in which about 50 percent of the passengers can be treated

for injuries on the largest aircraft operated at the airport. 

The advent of the A380 also may introduce a number of new fire and 

rescue safety issues for airports. For example: 

Size of A380 Could also Pose 

Airport Fire and Rescue 

Challenges 

 2514 CFR Sec. 25.803. 

26FAA Advisory Circular, Airport Emergency Plan 150/5200-31A. 

Page 18 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
• 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. 

Page 19 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Figure 5: Fire Fighting Vehicle with Penetrating Nozzle

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.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

 27FAA 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. 

Page 20 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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. 

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. 

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. 

A380’s Impact on 

Capacity at U.S.

Airports Is Uncertain 

A380 Designed to Provide 

Some Capacity Benefits 

Page 21 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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.28 According 

to Airbus and some airport officials, if airports received more passengers, 

 28Simply 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. 

Page 22 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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.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.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. 

 29Economic 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. 

30Any restrictions and requirements that limit potential capacity gains will also limit the 

economic benefits to the airports and local communities. 

Page 23 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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. 

Operating Restrictions on 

the A380 at U.S. Airports 

Could Adversely Impact 

Capacity 

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.

Page 24 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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. 

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. 

Separation Requirements for 

A380 Could Adversely Impact 

Airspace and Airport Capacity 

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.31 For 

 31This 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. 

Page 25 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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.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. 

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 

A380 Could also Create Gate 

and Terminal Disruptions 

 32The 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. 

Page 26 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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 

334 feet

Taxilane object free area

36 feet 36 feet

Design

clearance

Design

clearance

Source: GAO representation of FAA information.

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 

Page 27 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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. 

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. 

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.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 

Foreign Airports Have 

Taken Different 

Approaches to 

Prepare for the A380 

Adopting Alternative 

Standards to 

Accommodate New Large 

Aircraft 

 33The 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. 

Page 28 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to operate on 45-meter 

runways—which occurred in December 2006.34 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).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.

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 

 34EASA, 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. 

35If 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.

36See appendix II for summaries of the foreign airports’ A380 plans and operations. 

Page 29 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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

Page 30 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
majority of investments reported by U.S. airports (83 percent) were for 

runway and taxiway projects to accommodate the A380.37 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. 

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

A380.38 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.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 

Designing Airports That 

Allow for New Large 

Aircraft 

 37For 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). 

38The 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. 

39The 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.

Page 31 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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

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. 

Source: Baiyun Airport Authority.

Page 32 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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. 

Concluding 

Observations 

Page 33 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 34 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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, 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 35 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

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 

A380.1

 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 semistructured interviews with 17 aviation experts to obtain their views on the 

 1

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). 

Page 36 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

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 Title and affiliated organization

Kristin Allen Facilities, Operations and Maintenance Manager, San Francisco 

International Airport 

Randy Babbitt Chairman and CEO, Eclat Consulting 

Kevin Bleach Manager of Aviation Technical Services, Port Authority New York 

and New Jersey

Tony Broderick Consultant, Airbus North America Holdings, Inc. 

Dan Cohen-Nir Programs Director, Airbus North America Holdings, Inc. 

Frank Frisbie Vice President, Apptis 

George Greene Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor for Wake Turbulence,

NASA 

John Hansman Professor, MIT 

John Hayhurst Vice President (retired), Boeing Air Traffic Management 

Steve Lang Manager of Planning, Control, and Integration, Air Traffic 

Services, FAA 

Dick McAdoo Atlantic Southeast Airlines (retired) 

Tom McSweeny Director, International Safety and Regulatory Affairs, Boeing

Commercial Airplanes 

Amedeo Odoni Professor, MIT 

Clint Oster Professor, Indiana University

Marc Schoen Manager, Airport Technology, Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

John Sullivan Professor, Purdue University

Ray Valeika Senior Vice President, Delta Airlines (retired)

Source: GAO.

Page 37 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

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 Location 

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport Anchorage, Alaska 

Fort Worth Alliance Airport Fort Worth, Texas 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport Atlanta, Georgia 

Chicago O’Hare International Airport Chicago, Illinois 

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Fort Worth, Texas 

Denver International Airport Denver, Colorado 

Indianapolis International Airport Indianapolis, Indiana 

Los Angeles International Airport Los Angeles, California 

Louisville International Airport Louisville, Kentucky 

Memphis International Airport Memphis, Tennessee 

Miami International Airport Miami, Florida

New York John F. Kennedy International Airport New York, New York 

Ontario International Airport Ontario, California 

Orlando International Airport Orlando, Florida 

Philadelphia International Airport Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

San Francisco International Airport San Francisco, California 

Tampa International Airport Tampa, Florida

Washington Dulles International Airport Dulles, Virginia

Source: GAO.

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. 

Page 38 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

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 

Airport name Location 

Asian airports 

Suvarnabhumi Airport Bangkok, Thailand 

Capital Airport Beijing, China 

Baiyun Airport Guangzhou, China 

Hong Kong Airport Hong Kong, China 

Narita Airport Tokyo, Japan 

Changi Airport Singapore 

Canadian airports

Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport Montréal, Québec 

Toronto Pearson International Airport Toronto, Ontario 

European airports 

Amsterdam Schiphol Airport Amsterdam, Netherlands 

London Heathrow Airport Middlesex, United Kingdom 

Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport Paris, France 

Source: GAO.

We performed our work from May 2005 to March 2007 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 39 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

Page 40 GAO-07-483

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. 

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.1

 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 

Asian Airports 

Airport facilities 

Expected start of A380 service

(month/year): 

Early 2008. 

Number of A380 landings and departures 

each day (initial year and 5th year of 

service): 

Initially: Anticipates 12 per day. 

5th year: 12 per day (possibly more). 

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). 

Expected level of A380 passenger and 

cargo operations: 

Passenger: Not available. 

Cargo: Not available. 

Airfield design standards (runway and 

taxiway width and separations): 

Airfield is ICAO Code F compliant. 

 1

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. 

New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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. 

Terminal gates A380-ready: Five A380 gates with one upper and two 

lower boarding bridges. 

Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: None. 

Operating restrictions used for the A380: None.

Possible impact of A380 operations on

ground operations (special designated 

routing issues):

None. 

Potential effect of ground operational 

restrictions on capacity (airport 

assessment): 

None. 

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. 

Page 41 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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. 

Number of A380 landings and departures 

each day (initial year and 5th year of 

service): 

Initially: Not available. 

5th year: Not available. 

Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport 

(year of arrival): 

China Southern Airlines, Air France, and 

Lufthansa Airlines. 

Expected level of A380 passenger and 

cargo operations: 

Passenger: Not available. 

Cargo: Not available. 

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 baggage claim, terminal seating, 

and customs and immigration spatial 

concerns: 

None. Passenger waiting rooms and 

baggage facilities expanded to enhance 

new large aircraft operations. 

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. 

Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: None. 

Page 42 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

Airport facilities 

Operating restrictions used for the A380: None.

Possible impact of A380 operations on

ground operations (special designated 

routing issues):

None. 

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. 

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. 

Page 43 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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. 

Number of A380 landings and departures 

each day (initial year and 5th year of 

service): 

Initially: Not available. 

5th year: Not available. 

Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport 

(year of arrival): 

China Southern Airlines (2008). 

Expected level of A380 passenger and 

cargo operations: 

Passenger: Not available. 

Cargo: Not available. 

Airfield design standards (runway and 

taxiway width and separations): 

The airfield is partially ICAO Code F

compliant. 

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. 

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. 

Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: None. 

Page 44 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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. 

Possible impact of A380 operations on

ground operations (special designated 

routing issues):

None. 

Potential effect of ground operational 

restrictions on capacity (airport 

assessment): 

None. 

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. 

Page 45 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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. 

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).

Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport 

(year of arrival): 

Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa, Qantas 

Airlines, United Arab Emirates, Virgin 

Atlantic and Air France. 

Expected level of A380 passenger and 

cargo operations: 

Passenger: Not available. 

Cargo: Not available. 

Airfield design standards (runway and 

taxiway width and separations): 

Airfield is generally ICAO Code F

compliant. 

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. 

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. 

Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: No deviations from ICAO Code F standards 

for the operation of A380. 

Page 46 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

Airport facilities 

Operating restrictions used for the A380: Stop-hold positions have been placed

further back from runway centerline. 

Possible impact of A380 operations on

ground operations (special designated 

routing issues):

No significant delay on operations on the 

taxiways and apron is expected. 

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. 

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. 

Page 47 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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 taxiwaytaxiway 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. 

Number of A380 landings and departures 

each day (initial year and 5th year of 

service): 

Initially: Uncertain. 

5th year: Uncertain. 

Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport 

(year of arrival): 

Singapore Airlines (2007), Emirates and 

Qantas Airlines. 

Expected level of A380 passenger and 

cargo operations: 

Passenger: Not available. 

Cargo: Not available. 

Airfield design standards (runway and 

taxiway width and separations): 

Airfield is ICAO Code F compliant. 

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. 

Terminal gates A380-ready: All 19 gates that are A380-ready will have 

one upper and two lower bridges. 

Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: None. 

Operating restrictions used for the A380: None.

Page 48 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

Airport facilities 

Possible impact of A380 operations on

ground operations (special designated 

routing issues):

None. 

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. 

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. 

Page 49 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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. 

Number of A380 landings and departures 

each day (initial year and 5th year of 

service): 

Initially: Not available. 

5th year: Not available. 

Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport 

(year of arrival): 

Singapore Airlines, Korean Airlines, 

Lufthansa, Air France, Virgin Atlantic 

Airways and Qantas Airways. 

Expected level of A380 passenger and 

cargo operations: 

Passenger: Not available. 

Cargo: Not available. 

Airfield design standards (runway and 

taxiway width and separations): 

Airfield is ICAO Code F compliant. 

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. 

Terminal gates A380-ready: Ten gates will be capable of 

accommodating the A380 initially with one 

upper deck and one lower deck boarding 

bridges. 

Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: None. 

Page 50 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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. 

Possible impact of A380 operations on

ground operations (special designated 

routing issues):

None. 

Potential effect of ground operational 

restrictions on capacity (airport 

assessment): 

None. 

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. 

Page 51 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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 

Canadian Airports 

Airport facilities 

Expected start of A380 service

(month/year): 

Summer 2009.

Number of A380 landings and departures 

each day (initial year and 5th year of 

service): 

Initially: Two daily (summer only). 

5th year: Not available. 

Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport 

(year of arrival): 

Air France. 

Expected level of A380 passenger and 

cargo operations: 

Passenger: Not available. 

Cargo: Not available. 

Airfield design standards (runway and 

taxiway width and separations): 

Airfield is ICAO Code F compliant. 

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. 

Terminal gates A380-ready: One gate is available that can

accommodate the A380 and will use one 

upper and one main deck boarding bridge. 

Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: Non-paved runway and taxiway shoulders 

and taxiway widths of 23 meters compliant 

with ICAO Code E standards.

Page 52 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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. 

Possible impact of A380 operations on

ground operations (special designated 

routing issues):

None. 

Potential effect of ground operational 

restrictions on capacity (airport 

assessment): 

None. Will schedule A380 flights during 

non-peak hours. 

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. 

Page 53 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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. 

Number of A380 landings and departures 

each day (initial year and 5th year of 

service): 

Initially: Not available. 

5th year: Not available. 

Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport 

(year of arrival): 

None. 

Expected level of A380 passenger and 

cargo operations: 

Passenger: Not available. 

Cargo: Not available. 

Airfield design standards (runway and 

taxiway width and separations): 

Airfield is ICAO Code F compliant. 

Airport baggage claim, terminal seating, 

and customs and immigration spatial 

concerns: 

None. 

Terminal gates A380-ready: Four A380 gates are available with one 

upper and one lower deck boarding bridge. 

Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: None. 

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. 

Page 54 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

Airport facilities 

Possible impact of A380 operations on

ground operations (special designated 

routing issues):

None. 

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. 

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. 

Page 55 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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 

European Airports 

Airport facilities 

Expected start of A380 service

(month/year): 

Summer schedule 2008. 

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. 

Carriers expected to bring A380 to airport 

(year of arrival): 

Malaysian Airlines (2008). 

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. 

Airfield design standards (runway and 

taxiway width and separations): 

Airfield is ICAO Code E compliant. 

Airport baggage claim, terminal seating, 

and customs and immigration spatial 

concerns: 

None. No concerns with seating and 

customs, but baggage systems were 

expanded. 

Terminal gates A380-ready: Two gates will be ready for the A380 in

2007 with two boarding bridges. 

Page 56 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

Airport facilities 

Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: Noncompliant runways and taxiways will be 

operated under waivers. 

Operating restrictions used for the A380: Use of one taxiway bridge may be limited. 

Possible impact of A380 operations on

ground operations (special designated 

routing issues):

All standard taxi routes are compliant with 

A380 operations. 

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. 

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. 

Page 57 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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

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. 

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. 

Expected level of A380 passenger and 

cargo operations: 

Passenger: Not available. 

Cargo: Not available. 

Airfield design standards (runway and 

taxiway width and separations): 

Airfield is ICAO Code E compliant. 

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. 

Terminal gates A380-ready: 12 A380 gates will be available in 2008 with 

one lower and one upper boarding bridges. 

Page 58 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

Airport facilities 

Deviations from ICAO Code F standards: Runway width and taxiway-to-object free 

zone separations are noncompliant. 

Operating restrictions used for the A380: A380 routes defined and runway holds 

reconfigured to provide ICAO Code F

compliant routes. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Page 59 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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-meterwide 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

Number of A380 landings and departures 

each day (initial year and 5th year of 

service): 

Initially: Anticipates eight per day. 

5th year: Not available. 

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). 

Expected level of A380 passenger and 

cargo operations: 

Passenger: Not available. 

Cargo: Not available. 

Airfield design standards (runway and 

taxiway width and separations): 

Airfield is ICAO Code E compliant. 

Airport baggage claim, terminal seating, 

and customs and immigration spatial 

concerns: 

None. Passenger waiting rooms and 

baggage facilities will be crowded, but 

sufficient. 

Page 60 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix II: Foreign Airport Summaries 

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. 

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. 

Operating restrictions used for the A380: The A380 will be restricted to using two 

taxiing routes from each terminal to each 

runway. 

Possible impact of A380 operations on

ground operations (special designated 

routing issues):

None. 

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. 

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. 

Page 61 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix III: Comments by Airbus Appendix III: Comments by Airbus 

Page 62 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix III: Comments by Airbus 

Page 63 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix III: Comments by Airbus 

Page 64 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix III: Comments by Airbus 

Page 65 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix III: Comments by Airbus 

Page 66 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
Appendix III: Comments by Airbus 

(540129) Page 67 GAO-07-483 New Large Aircraft
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. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

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 

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 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER