Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JAL Getting Rid Of 2nd Floor Pax Seats On B744?  
User currently offlineKtachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 16567 times:

First of all, since this is my first thread of 2009, I would like to wish all my fellow a.netters a
happy 2009!!! I hope the economy and the airline industry improve this year......

However my first thread of this year starts off with dark rumours.

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20090108-00000171-jij-biz

The translation for the article is as follows. JAL experiencing significant reduction in passenger volume are currently in talks with getting rid of some of their seats from their B747 fleet (considering that the B747-300 classics will only stay for a little more, I have put the B744 fleet in the title). This is a measure to maintain its current international/domestic route structure while cutting back on its costs. If this measure becomes reality, it will be the first of such kind in Japan. These measures will potentially include a limit on seats on certain sectors, or closing the entire 2nd floor of the B744 and reducing the number of available seats on each flight.

The following measures don't really make sense to me however. Are they going to close off the entire second floor and make the 2nd floor a crew rest area like Iran Air does with its B747 fleet or close down the entire 2nd floor only to the pilots? I am sure this will reduce the number of Cabin Attendants needed on each flight as it will take around 80 pax away on int'l routes with an all economy configuration on the 2nd floor, but what is the sole purpose to this?

It will be extremely sad to see if it ever happened as I always loved to sit on the 2nd floor of the B744. It always made you feel that you were a few metres closer to the sky than those on the 2nd floor and it really made you feel like you were in your own secluded cabin.

There is another article displayed in this week's aviation magazine in Japan [Airline] talking about how JL is closing down its Moses Lake training camp in Washington state. This is extremely sad to see since they have kept the camp operational for so long. Also due to the fact that Moses Lake is a B747 camp, does this hint that JL will no longer order new B747 in the future (B747-8)?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © K.L.Yim
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tsuyoshi Hayasaki - Aeroentusiasta




Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31132 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 16559 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well if they close the upper deck that saves on crew costs as well as catering since you don't need to load the upper deck galley.

User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8437 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 16488 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ktachiya (Thread starter):
There is another article displayed in this week's aviation magazine in Japan [Airline] talking about how JL is closing down its Moses Lake training camp in Washington state. This is extremely sad to see since they have kept the camp operational for so long. Also due to the fact that Moses Lake is a B747 camp, does this hint that JL will no longer order new B747 in the future (B747-8)?

Given JAL's 77W fleet and its now operating the routes to teh USA and Europe, I doubt JAL will see another new 747.


User currently offlineVeeseeten From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 16220 times:

Would this mean removing the seats in order to save a bit of weight also? I understand the fact that it would save on crew and catering costs, but at the same time, why would you want to fly that extra weight, without selling the space?

User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 15997 times:

Well, they could make a decent sized rest area up there, crew lounge? pachinko lounge?  Smile

Although maybe someone can clarify this, wouldn't a full upper deck section be reasonable to cover the additional cost of carrying those passengers?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31132 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 15814 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jbernie (Reply 4):
Although maybe someone can clarify this, wouldn't a full upper deck section be reasonable to cover the additional cost of carrying those passengers?

Yes it would, but the gist I was getting from the report was that JL is seeing consistent loads so low that they can accommodate them all on the main deck.


User currently offlineCessna172RG From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 15676 times:

I have a question about this:

Is this for the 747-400s on international routes, or does this apply to the 400Ds, too? Considering how full and short those domestic hops are (and if you buy them at the right time, cheaper than the Shinkansen) I wouldn't shut down the upper deck on the 400Ds.



Save the whales...for dinner!!!
User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 15491 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Yes it would, but the gist I was getting from the report was that JL is seeing consistent loads so low that they can accommodate them all on the main deck.

Thanks!, Though I would assume maybe they will keep the option available to put the seats back if they need them for the occasional large tour group booking etc?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31132 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15263 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jbernie (Reply 7):
Thanks!, Though I would assume maybe they will keep the option available to put the seats back if they need them for the occasional large tour group booking etc?

The seats would remain on the Upper Deck, it is just that JL would not allow any assignments to those seats and would rope-off the stairs to the Upper Deck to keep passengers out. So they would be there, just empty.

If a flight was booked beyond the main deck capacity, then of course JL would start opening up seat assignments on the upper deck and selling those seats to customers.


User currently offlineAnonms From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 620 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 14080 times:



Quoting Jbernie (Reply 4):
pachinko lounge?  

Possible additional revenue stream?  Wink



This is my signature.
User currently offlineGT4EZY From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 1794 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 13707 times:

I am not certain but would crew still be required to man the doors on the upper deck?


Proud to fly from Manchester!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31132 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 13653 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting GT4EZY (Reply 10):
I am not certain but would crew still be required to man the doors on the upper deck?

Aren't those doors primarily intended only for the evacuation of passengers seated on that deck? If so, I would think they would not need to be if no passengers were seated in that cabin since the Captain and First Officer have their own escape systems in the cockpit itself (even if far less elegant).


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12794 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
The seats would remain on the Upper Deck, it is just that JL would not allow any assignments to those seats and would rope-off the stairs to the Upper Deck to keep passengers out. So they would be there, just empty.

If your not going to use the seats it makes more sense to remove them and save the weight.


User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9189 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12577 times:

I doubt this is true. It's a complete waste.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 2):
Given JAL's 77W fleet and its now operating the routes to teh USA and Europe, I doubt JAL will see another new 747.

Never say never. I am quite sure we will see the B 747-8 and/or the A 380 eventually when the economy picks up.


User currently offlineRam025 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12387 times:

So without the extra passengers, would the crew that mans it, be positioned somewhere else on the plane if there are any jumpseats open or be put on other flights?

Quoting United Airline (Reply 13):
Never say never. I am quite sure we will see the B 747-8 and/or the A 380 eventually when the economy picks up.

Actually I doubt that they will buy the B747-8 or the A380 in quite some time. The 747-8 is still shrouded in myth and I don't recall any Boeing sales presentations indicating any recent developments in the 747-8 project. Currently JAL seems to have good luck with the B777 aircraft family both on Domestic and International flights, so why buy the A380 when you are trying to cut capacity and make JAL leaner. Plus with a common international fleet, they are able to have a higher utilization and change planes easier and quicker.



Follow the PAPI in
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31132 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12201 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting 474218 (Reply 12):
If your not going to use the seats it makes more sense to remove them and save the weight.

I expect it's a major pain in the ass to remove them, not to mention you then limit yourself to how many seats you can sell since it's not something you can add back on at the gate during a turn.  Wink


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 989 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 11968 times:



Quoting Ram025 (Reply 14):
The 747-8 is still shrouded in myth and I don't recall any Boeing sales presentations indicating any recent developments in the 747-8 project.

There's an active topic about the 747-8 status right now. In a word this is nonsense. It's delayed yes, but hardly "shrouded in myth."

Quoting Ktachiya (Thread starter):
These measures will potentially include a limit on seats on certain sectors, or closing the entire 2nd floor of the B744 and reducing the number of available seats on each flight.

The following measures don't really make sense to me however.

In college, I know the stadium staff would block-off the upper decks of the basketball stadium for non-conference games that wouldn't draw big crowds. It meant less area to clean between games for the staff. Stitch mentioned catering, but there are also lavs to clean, trash to collect, etc.

If loads are down, temporarily roping off the upper deck and concentrating passengers to a main cabin section is just a smart operational policy. Hardly a big deal, IMO.


User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2973 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11906 times:

This is about dumb an idea that comes around. JL should just ground the 744 fleet altogether.
Probably the news guy didn't get the facts right.
Perhaps JL was alluding to the fact that the 744s will have lower seat density as the new business class seats take up more floor space.
Also on some int'l 744s the economy section is on the upper deck.


User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9189 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11892 times:

Hopefully traffic will pick up again and eventually JAL will need the B 747-8 and/or A 380.

When it comes to B 747-400 replacement I am sure some airlines will order the B 747-8


User currently offlineRam025 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11542 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16):
There's an active topic about the 747-8 status right now. In a word this is nonsense. It's delayed yes, but hardly "shrouded in myth."

It might have been an overkill, but I was trying to portray the lack of a strong passenger, not freighter project. Right now Boeing is trying to put all of their resources in the 787 project including most of their sales force. The 747-800 will probably come in the distant future. Eventhough their projected delivery time is in the 1st-3rd Quarter of 2010.

[Edited 2009-01-08 19:58:10]

[Edited 2009-01-08 19:58:54]


Follow the PAPI in
User currently offlineReality From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11320 times:



Quoting Carpethead (Reply 17):
This is about dumb an idea that comes around.



Quoting Carpethead (Reply 17):
Probably the news guy didn't get the facts right.

Yes, I agree. There is something wrong with this story. None of this makes sense. Does anybody know what the facts are?


User currently offlineKtachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11284 times:



Quoting Cessna172RG (Reply 6):
Is this for the 747-400s on international routes, or does this apply to the 400Ds, too?

This goes for both domestic and international according to the article.

As Carpethead says, this really does not make sense and I dearly hope its the writer who doesn't know whats going on. Some -400's have C class seats while others have Y. If you won't remove them, is there really any purpose in blocking them off to sales?



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlineRam025 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 11246 times:

Could they be getting rid of a couple rows and charging more for the legroom, kind of like an Economy Plus. That would make better sense than getting rid of revenue.


Follow the PAPI in
User currently offlinePlanenutzTB From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 256 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10965 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Well, they could make a decent sized rest area up there, crew lounge? pachinko lounge?

How about a karaoke bar?



I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.
User currently offlineN104UA From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 919 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10676 times:



Quoting Ram025 (Reply 14):
So without the extra passengers, would the crew that mans it, be positioned somewhere else on the plane if there are any jumpseats open or be put on other flights?

Well they would not need the crew that are in jumpseats on the Upper Deck since those F/A usually only work the upper deck



"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama
25 Ktachiya : On an all Y configuration, the second floor seats 80 pax. I think that would get rid of 2 Cabin Attendants right?
26 Centrair : Interesting. Flying Pachinko parlor. That would bring in a strange clientele. 40-50 year old men who spend much of their time either at work or wasti
27 Naritaflyer : Ktachiya's translation is on the money. If there is somthing wrong it is from the journalist's source or the journalist's interpretation of what's th
28 Ktachiya : Thank you very much!!! Yes well if its for safety measures to close down the 2nd floor and cut down the number of cabin attendants needed on the 2nd
29 JAL : When the economy picks up again, JAL might consider some 747-8 but I expect to see the 777 and 787 become the main long-haul aircraft for JAL.
30 ItalianFlyer : Hmm...please enlighten me here. In the USA and Canada the # of F/As is determined by seats and exits, is the staffing formula different in Japan?? Fo
31 Ktachiya : I thought I read on an article that there was a minor difference. I think in the U.S, one CA to 50 pax was the ratio? In Japan, I think that number w
32 Hiflyer : Removing the seats would require a whole new workup for engineering and weights....not that viable if closing off the upper deck is a temporary soluti
33 KaiGywer : Actually they need less F/As with the upper deck shut down as it's truly a segregated cabin. This happened to me when I was lucky enough to get to fly
34 United Airline : I suppose the B 747-8 will replace the B 747-400 on a one to one basis. The rest being replaced by B 777/787s
35 Lightsaber : Eventually. But I expect JAL to be cautious and initially expand with 77W's or 787's. It does not make sense to operate 744's for long with the upper
36 Tonystan : I think they just mean that they intend to do what BA does the odd time....have "zone closures" meaning that they simply do not book passengers into t
37 N104UA : I believe if they completely close the upper deck the seats are then non-existent and so they are not counted for terms of staffing
38 474218 : [ But airlines in there "right mind" will remove in flight magazines to save weight, but would not remove an unused seats? How does that make sense? I
39 AirlineBrat : Yeah but turbulence may add a bit of a handicap. Or maybe you would call it Extreme Pachinko at that point.
40 Ikramerica : But where would customers exchange their cheep prizes for money? (that's still the racket, right?) Do they have to jump over to another aircraft?
41 Ktachiya : Sorry, I meant to say, only on Japan Airlines itself. Thus, you could say that SFO shrunk as well because JAL downsized the aircraft from a B747-400
42 Tonystan : Yes but think of the cost of having them removed and then replaced if they only intend on doing the occassional zone closure or only on certain days.
43 Ha763 : Actually, it is 60 for the 747-300, 66 for the 747-400, and 86 for the 747-400D. I thought 1 f/a was stationed in the galley along with the 2 going a
44 Airbuseric : 1)If there is no demand by passenger amount on these flights, you can close the Upperdeck cabin for seating. All pax will be seated on the maindeck ca
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Delta Getting Rid Of Eyebrows On 737 Fleet? posted Sun Jun 17 2007 09:10:24 by AlitaliaMD11
Southwest Getting Rid Of Rear Facing Seats posted Thu Aug 3 2000 23:06:21 by United 707
Alaska Getting Rid Of SNA-OAK? posted Sat Jan 12 2008 13:08:15 by Socalatc
Getting Rid Of Change Fees: Effects? posted Fri Dec 14 2007 12:17:58 by Zrs70
Rollout Of AF's New Premium Seats On 772ERs posted Thu Apr 5 2007 03:42:28 by Cleared2Land4
Is LH Getting Rid Of Their A300's? posted Sat May 13 2006 12:42:14 by SKA380
Regionals Getting Rid Of Crj's posted Fri Nov 4 2005 03:51:14 by Soaringadi
Aeroflot Getting Rid Of TU 134s posted Sat Oct 1 2005 00:43:19 by Kevin
HRL And LRD Getting Rid Of Cargo Before Emily posted Tue Jul 19 2005 19:41:36 by Skywatch
What Prevents CO From Getting Rid Of Their 735s? posted Sun Mar 13 2005 23:53:45 by Cory6188