Ok first. If you're going to tell me that the FAA went right ahead and said "well, this plane is SO huge that we need to make a new special callsign for it" I say no way. I understand where the heavy comes from, I understand that this plane definitely needs to be flying with a weight tag on it. But if you want to sit here and tell me that Airbus had nothing to do with the phraseology?
I completely understand delays, I understand why the FAA would do it, I understand why Airbus wouldn't do it. But it seems to me being that there was no data in the US for this aircraft that they would have just tagged it with a heavy. Not super. Of course this plane will create substantial wake turbulence. Of course they're going to give it unnecessary spacing initially until data can be retrieved. But what would make them say that a 777 would give off more wake turbulence than a 747, or vice versa. SO why did none of those develop a "special" callsign? Considering that some variations of the 777 have a larger wingspan than the 747 and that the wing on the triple 7 was a much "better" design why would the FAA not have said... let's tag THIS plane with a super? In my head its simply based on hype. The A380 is in the public eye MUCH more than ANY aircraft in recent memory with the exception of the 747. The trouble is most of this is bad publicity. Airbus is losing their CEO's, Airbus is going bankrupt, French governmnet steps in to help Airbus... blah blah blah blah.
Im not saying it doesn't require more spacing. Im saying that a 777 and a 747 might require different spacing as well, yet no one decided that a new "super" callsign was needed there.
To the point of money. Im DEFINITELY not meaning to suggest that the A380 won't fly and itself be profitable. Not by any stretch. Because your so right. This plane along with a number of other ER's and LR's are going to be flying those routes from sydney to LAX and such. What I am saying is that I don't expect the airplane to be profitable for Airbus... I would argue for maybe even as much as 10 years AFTER the first one hits an airline. This is simply because so much has gone wrong with the plane. People will attribute this to swimming in uncharted waters but I call shenannigans. Plain and simple, Airbus did a horrible job with this plane. All the way around. They were lucky that it got to fly the other week in the US. (meaning I thought it was going to take them another year to sort it out). But having one plane that sort of works well enough to fly reporters on it is a far cry from having a fleet ready to deliver.
Next, as far as airlines making money with it. I still say no way. I think airlines are run HORRIBLY inefficient and for an airline to consider purchasing this aircraft over say... a 747-800 (is boeing still building this?), or the 777 would be crazy. Those platforms are tried and true. They are from a company that has firm ground in the market and therefor seem a wiser choice.
Quickly regarding the NOTAM. The NOTAM would stand regardless of the callsign. Just as the NOTAM for following heavy aircraft is in there. Im not saying that this spacing isn't required. Just as it is very likely that a 747 needs more spacing than a 757,767 or 777. I agree wholeheartedly that the A380 does and WILL generate more wake turbulence than anything out there. Im simply inquiring as to why they decided not to use Heavy? Again, the ONLY reason I can see for this is for controllers to know not to use the 4,5,6nmi scale and switch to the 6,7,8nmi scale. But controllers will know aircraft type, and just as they would decide to space a 737 6nm behind a fat dumb and happy 747 I would have to assume they would know to change the spacing for the A380 without knowing its super.
PS- I tried separating my comments with afroman