Babybus From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3512 posts, RR: 6 Posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4275 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?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26718 posts, RR: 83 Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4239 times:
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.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4195 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.
CrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1618 posts, RR: 42 Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4105 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.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2480 posts, RR: 35 Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4059 times:
It is because of the lack of emergency exit in front of those seats.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
bohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2410 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4056 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.
hal9213 From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3632 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.
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2025 posts, RR: 56 Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3452 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
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26718 posts, RR: 83 Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3430 times:
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.
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2025 posts, RR: 56 Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3325 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.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15871 posts, RR: 66 Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3303 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2025 posts, RR: 56 Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3286 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:
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15871 posts, RR: 66 Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3264 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3261 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD 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.
gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2772 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.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26718 posts, RR: 83 Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2360 times:
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...
hal9213 From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1610 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3512 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26718 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1380 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15871 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
