Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Wasted Space?  
User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 4811 times:

Fantastic aircraft that it is I have been wondering about the amount of empty space on the aircraft.

The entrance lobby is great and sets the tone but I was wondering about the area on the upper deck around the stairs.

Could airlines put J class seats in there? The argument goes that J class pax don't care much for window views hence VS have their J class pointing away from the windows. It would actually make for a cosy cabin and earn more revenue.

At the moment it is used for bench type seats or the 'art gallery' on AF.

What are the issues for not using that space more efficiently?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nitin Sarin - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stefan Sonnenberg



20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4775 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Babybus (Thread starter):
What are the issues for not using that space more efficiently?

They currently don't need to thanks to the economics of the plane.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4731 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Quoting Babybus (Thread starter):
What are the issues for not using that space more efficiently?

They currently don't need to thanks to the economics of the plane.

From the parts I have seen, a lot of the extra space seems on QF to go into the business area. A casual look at that area does suggest it is a bit wasteful - but not entirely sure how you could use it better. Probably not a popular suggestion!

Y is a bit more spacious and the extra seat width seems to be what allows me to get my shanks at an angle, thus preventing the dreaded knee capping.

For QF, Premium Y in the A380 is preferable to similar in the 747, in part due to it being on the upper deck.


User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1667 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4651 times:

IIRC EK uses that space for the shower room.

Maybe some other carriers can put a few massage chairs there, or a game room 



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineCrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1907 posts, RR: 42
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4641 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting Babybus (Thread starter):

What are the issues for not using that space more efficiently?

From what I understood around the time the beast first flew, is that because there are no windows, they are not allowed to seat passengers here. So unless you put in a shower room like EK or something fancy, it pretty much is a waste of space if you ask me.

Rgds Martijn



Nothing's worse then flying the same registration twice, except flying it 4 times..
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4595 times:

It is because of the lack of emergency exit in front of those seats.

User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4592 times:

FAR's now require new designs to have an evacuation route ahead and behind the seat. Putting seats in the area the OP suggests would violate the regulation because the only route would be behind the seat, even though it is next to stairs. The "bench" style seats, art galleries, showers, etc. are not used for taxi, takeoff and landing.

BTW, the 748 was certified in its current exit configuration because it was grandfathered under the original 747 design.


User currently offlinehal9213 From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4168 times:

There is plenty of stuff on an airplane requiring space but not being seats, like toilets and galleys. Even if it were allowed to place seats in that area, and if airlines cut all the fancy showers and galleries, they would still place galleys, toilets, storages, crew rests or whatever in there, but not seats, due to the specialised shape of the areas.

User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3988 times:

Quoting Babybus (Thread starter):
I was wondering about the area on the upper deck around the stairs.

That space is reserved for door six, to be used for the A389



User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3966 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8):
That space is reserved for door six, to be used for the A389.

Would they need a "Door 6"? The stairs would still be at the head of the main deck as an evacuation route for the cabin forward of Door U1L/U1R.

[Edited 2011-10-14 14:09:03]

User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3861 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Would they need a "Door 6"? The stairs would still be at the head of the main deck as an evacuation route for the cabin forward of Door U1L/U1R.

Most of the stretch for the A389, possibly more than shown in my diagram, will be in section 13. You've effectively got an 18-abreast fuselage plug full of economy seats (in a high-density configuration, which must be designed for) that will put more evacuation traffic on door 1 than it can handle. Hence the new door 6, which was originally in the A388 design but was dropped for weight reasons. The door spacing on the A388 is a bit funky and uneven, but when you add the fuselage plugs for the A389 it all starts to make sense.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17173 posts, RR: 66
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3839 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 10):
The door spacing on the A388 is a bit funky and uneven, but when you add the fuselage plugs for the A389 it all starts to make sense.

I think the long distance between the upper deck doors is because the slides need to clear the wing.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3822 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 11):
I think the long distance between the upper deck doors is because the slides need to clear the wing.

What's unusual is the very short distance between doors forward and aft of the wing on the A388. If you do the 85-meter A389, my point was that the door spacing becomes remarkably even:



User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17173 posts, RR: 66
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3800 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 12):
What's unusual is the very short distance between doors forward and aft of the wing on the A388. If you do the 85-meter A389, my point was that the door spacing becomes remarkably even:

You are correct, but I don't think that the reason for the spacing. The wing is simply in the way of the slides. The over wing doors and the upper deck doors make the slide arrangement very complex. Much easier to have the doors where there is no wing.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3797 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting bohica (Reply 6):
FAR's now require new designs to have an evacuation route ahead and behind the seat.

When did that requirement begin? I always think about that when I'm seated in the aft seats of the CRJ-200.



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5815 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3722 times:

Quoting bohica (Reply 6):
FAR's now require new designs to have an evacuation route ahead and behind the seat.

And how many individual A380s are certified & operated to the FARs?
Does EASA have the same requirements? Which would be a lot more relevant.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17173 posts, RR: 66
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3682 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 15):
Quoting bohica (Reply 6):
FAR's now require new designs to have an evacuation route ahead and behind the seat.

And how many individual A380s are certified & operated to the FARs?

Does that really matter? If Airbus has any hope, no matter how faint, of selling to the US market, they can't ignore FAA requirements.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5815 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3308 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 16):
Does that really matter? If Airbus has any hope, no matter how faint, of selling to the US market, they can't ignore FAA requirements.

True, but does it make sense to spend the money now, (I assume there is some money involved in ANY certification issue) if EASA does not require it, when ANY USA based order seems very far off? Especially if its something that seems as if it can be solved during cabin fit out.

My point was that the FARs are irrelevant to ANY current operator, UNLESS EASA has the same requirement, which they may or may not, hence that question.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3139 times:

It also begs the question why other airlines apart from Emirates haven't turned that area into luxury bathrooms.

Apart from Emirates the other airlines haven't cleverly used that space. It would be better used as crew bunks or a passenger bar.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2896 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Babybus (Reply 18):
It also begs the question why other airlines apart from Emirates haven't turned that area into luxury bathrooms.

All that water for the showers does cut into the revenue payload a bit. It's also been a maintenance issue at times (leaks).



Quoting Babybus (Reply 18):
Apart from Emirates the other airlines haven't cleverly used that space. It would be better used as crew bunks or a passenger bar.

Lounges and bars don't seem to be a big draw for premium cabin passengers. Maybe put the cheap seats in the front part of the upper deck and let them have a lounge / bar...   


User currently offlinehal9213 From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2146 times:

Quoting Babybus (Reply 18):
It also begs the question why other airlines apart from Emirates haven't turned that area into luxury bathrooms.

LH has a luxury bath there. It just doesnt have a shower.
And for all others, I guess luxury restroom is a premium for first class, which -for many other operators- is on the main deck.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A380 Wasted Space?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
A380 Pursers "Office" posted Sun Aug 21 2011 18:32:42 by kazim786
Why Do Airbus Test A380 Unpainted Before Delivery posted Thu Aug 4 2011 15:57:30 by 747400sp
A380 Radar Separation As Succeeding A/C posted Thu Jul 14 2011 10:37:08 by Dreamflight767
Korean Air A380 First Class "Gadget"? posted Mon Jun 27 2011 20:47:11 by ColAvionLover
Cargo Bay Dimensions of 777/747/A380? posted Wed Jun 22 2011 20:19:56 by g38
A380:Different Laws? posted Sun Jun 19 2011 07:25:20 by Chamonix
A380 Landing Speed posted Mon May 30 2011 19:42:21 by voiceofgoa
A380 2 Engine Reverse Thrust posted Sat May 21 2011 21:13:32 by ColAvionLover
Weight & Balance Software For A380 posted Fri May 20 2011 00:50:06 by blueflyer
A380 Bag And Cargo Numbers. posted Sat Apr 30 2011 14:04:57 by contrails15

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format