Jamesbuk From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6420 times:
Probably because on the pax version, they'd be a galley there, plus a few bogs. So there wouldnt be any pax that far forward. Cargo dont need a galley, well not as big as the pax version, so they can push this all further forward.
Rgds --James--
You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, RR: 73 Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6334 times:
That would be an emergency exit/slide for the crew. Freighters usually they have some bunks and J class seats, and a small galley.
Often see a number of people in that area, especially when transporting horses.
Most cargo airlines are not allowed to carry passengers on freighters, so horse trainers etc are actually listed as crew for those flights, hence the accommodation provided.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Speedmarque From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 678 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6323 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 3): That would be an emergency exit/slide for the crew. Freighters usually they have some bunks and J class seats, and a small galley.
Often see a number of people in that area, especially when transporting horses.
Most cargo airlines are not allowed to carry passengers on freighters, so horse trainers etc are actually listed as crew for those flights, hence the accommodation provided.
Thanks but that was not what I was asking. Have a read of my post again.
Not sure why, but that image doesn't exactly seem current.
Its interesting to note the location of the staircase on the PAX version. It seems like it would chew up valuable cargo space on the freighter. I wonder how access to the crew seats, galley, etc. will be provided on the Freighter. It seems a waste of space to have a staircase to the upperdeck. Is it necessary for other reasons?
Speedmarque From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 678 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5835 times:
Just for info I know VS wanted (and had seating plans) that included the staircase at doors 2. Airbus denied this option though as too costly to produce just for one carrier.
I think if you look at side-by-side images of the PAX and freighter versions, you will note that the upper deck door is moved forward on the freighter. It appears to me that the space is utilized up to the same position forward in both variants. It may be possible that they can go a little further forward if the air conditioning equipment size can be reduced. But I doubt by that much because headroom starts to diminish it seems.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5775 times:
It's because there's no stair case, and because the freighter front section need not be passenger friendly in the same way. It can have lower ceilings, no overhead bins, etc.
The upstairs door position on the A380pax is also influenced by the doors below, as you need to be able to get jetways to all three, and to have all three slides come out without interfering with each other. In the F version, these aren't considerations.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5209 times:
After looking at the Airbus documentation, the UPS rendering is wrong anyway.
The plane has a real door on both sides on the main deck. There is also a real door at the back on the left.
On the upper deck there are two emergency doors similar to overwing exits.
Quoting Leezyjet (Reply 13): It is remarks like that that have driven alot of previous knowledgeable industry professionals away from this website.
It's not his fault people were answering the wrong question. I say that because I found his question quite clear...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2025 posts, RR: 56 Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4706 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10): The upstairs door position on the A380pax is also influenced by the doors below, as you need to be able to get jetways to all three, and to have all three slides come out without interfering with each other.
The large amount of windowless space in the A388 pax 'forehead' arises because door 6 is not installed on that variant. Door 6 will appear in the A389 stretch (should market demand warrant, void where prohibited )
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4010 times:
So 3 jetway A380 gates need to be able to have the upper jetway position behind jetway 2 -OR- between jetway 1 and 2? How does that work? Or are they going still go to what will be door 7?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Speedmarque From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 678 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2751 times:
Quoting Leezyjet (Reply 13): It is remarks like that that have driven alot of previous knowledgeable industry professionals away from this website.
Who opened your box Leezy? My question was clear and my response to Zeke perfectly polite.
Just goes to show what a strange website this is................Leezy you used to stick up for me when I was a different username. I have changed job and company now. Is there a VS/BA chip on your shoulder??
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2025 posts, RR: 56 Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1621 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16): So 3 jetway A380 gates need to be able to have the upper jetway position behind jetway 2 -OR- between jetway 1 and 2? How does that work? Or are they going still go to what will be door 7?
I think the A388 would be doors 1, 2 and 7 (since there is no door 6), and the A389 doors 1, 2 and 6. The second and third jetways can presumably reach either deck. I strongly doubt this has been overlooked in the design of the jetways, since they were developed in consultation with Airbus.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1550 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 18): The second and third jetways can presumably reach either deck.
That makes sense. I didn't mean to imply it was overlooked by anyone, just wondering how it would be accomplished.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 678 posts, 
From Germany, joined Sep 2005, 262 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 123 posts, 
From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, 
The large amount of windowless space in the A388 pax 'forehead' arises because door 6 is not installed on that variant. Door 6 will appear in the A389 stretch (should market demand warrant, void where prohibited 
Printer friendly format 
