British Airways Cabins

[ViscountFan]

Most of my flying over the years has been restricted to within Europe, and more recently via a number of different charter carriers.

A trip to the USA and back on a BA 747 surprised me in that there were no individual air vents for each seat. In the steerage cabin I was in this resulted in at least 2 passengers needing assistance from cabin staff who provided face masks to assist with breathing while awaiting take-off clearance from LHR, delayed by American Homeland Security.

Is the absence of individual air vents some sort of BA cost cutting measure?

[Rainboe]

You're talking nonsense. Two passengers required breathing assistance on the ground? In an aeroplane with excellent airflow from the aircon packs? The 747s have such good ventilation in normal operation individual louvres aren't needed. I suspect you had an APU unserviceable so fresh airflow was limited, in which case even individual airvents wouldn't have helped. You could have framed the question better than to make an unfounded accusation against the good name of a company when quite possibly other factors that you knew nothing about were affecting the operation.

[Slavedriver]

Is the absence of individual air vents some sort of BA cost cutting measure?


No,,,,,Next!

[Hawk]

Welcome to PPRuNe Viscount. Not an unusual question. I've heard passengers say they become quite anxious if they don't have control of their "airflow thingie". :\

[UFGBOY]

Down to airlines own specifications with Boeing

Air Europe 757/737 all delivered without air vents -

Some BA 757 ex Caledonian/Air Europe so without as well..

[Globaliser]

Is the absence of individual air vents some sort of BA cost cutting measure?Not a cost-cutting measure as such, although I'm sure that it saved some money. IIRC, individual air vents were an option on the 747-400, and in common with many other 744 customers, BA did not choose them.

[PAXboy]

I have seen that both Airbus and Boeing demonstrate to their customers that the airflow in the cabins these days is highly sophisticated and that individual louvres are a 'nice to have'. In that regard, it saves money for the purchase and weight (= money) for every single flight.

If the day was hot and there were still multiple doors open for the loading of food carts and so on, then the APU might very well not be able to keep up with the temperature curve. If a pax was of a nervous disposition, the flight is delayed, the temp is hot, many folks still moving around them, staff being busy, then they might well feel that it is all too much. Unfortunate but the cabin crew appear to have responded well to their needs.

[flybywire]

You're talking nonsense. Two passengers required breathing assistance on the ground? In an aeroplane with excellent airflow from the aircon packs? The 747s have such good ventilation in normal operation individual louvres aren't needed. I suspect you had an APU unserviceable so fresh airflow was limited, in which case even individual airvents wouldn't have helped. You could have framed the question better than to make an unfounded accusation against the good name of a company when quite possibly other factors that you knew nothing about were affecting the operation.

Can I also add, it's so unlike BA's procedures to take off with 2 sick passengers. While on the ground, if there had been a medical problem like that, it should have been sorted before taking off, asking the help of Medlink and/or having paramedics check the ppl over before eventually taking off. I cannot count the times I had a similar medical problem on the ground, and no way we would have taken off for a 8hr+ flight without being sure what the problem was with those passengers.

I would say that the 747 Viscountfan was talking about probably had APU problems, and that those two people who required 02 on the ground, if at all true, either had a hangover or probably were suffering cigarette withrawal symptoms....:hmm:

FBW

[the_fish@blueyonder.]

I've been on 2 BA 757's this year, in January from LHR-EDI I was sat in the rear of the cabin, which had personal air vents.

More recently on a flight from BUD-LHR, we were sat in the first part of the economy cabin, there were no airvents for us.

[spiney]

I think I might notice if the plane didn't have seats.... but the presence or absence of AIR VENTS!!!.... "May I take your Anorak Sir?"

[Globaliser]

I think I might notice if the plane didn't have seats.... but the presence or absence of AIR VENTS!!!.... "May I take your Anorak Sir?"There is nothing anoraky about having trotted at some pace through the terminal to reach your gate on time, sitting down in a hot aircraft, and looking up to see whether there's a gasper than you can turn on to cool yourself down with. It's a very practical thing, when it's there.

[sevenforeseven]

BA do not have the punka louvers on the B747-400 the same reason they "plugged" the overwing emergency exit doors on the B747-200, to save money. Passenger saftey and comfort compromised, you decide.

[silverelise]

IMO a lot of the modern cabins (eg. 777) with the angled hatbins to "open up" the cabin and make it look more spacious mean that the passenger on the aisle seat when 3 abreast (and to some extent the center passenger) don't have anything immediately above their heads to put an air vent in anyway. I guess in the event of a decompression the masks will drop down over the window passenger and the other two have to reach over to get them.

[grimmrad]

BA do not have the punka louvers on the B747-400 the same reason they "plugged" the overwing emergency exit doors on the B747-200, to save money. Passenger saftey and comfort compromised, you decide.

What do you mean, "plugged"? Like in removed, sealed shut, closed down...? Isn't there a provision that the plane has to be evacuated within 90 sec? Can an airline just choose to make emergency exits unavailable? If so another good reason to avoid LHR...
I know in LH they are there (I like to sit there inspite of the toilets as I am pretty tall), last time I flew BA 747 I was lucky enough to have a seat upstairs :-)

[Globaliser]

What do you mean, "plugged"? Like in removed, sealed shut, closed down...? Isn't there a provision that the plane has to be evacuated within 90 sec? Can an airline just choose to make emergency exits unavailable?This ended up being an issue specific to the 747-200.

The overwing exit doors on the main deck (doors 3) were sealed on these aircraft. The door fittings (eg slide packs) were removed. Extra seat rows were then placed in the areas which would otherwise be left clear in front of the doors.

There certainly is a provision that the aircraft has to be capable of being evacuated within 90 seconds, using only half of the available exits. But the 747-200 safety level for evacuations was so good that it met the standard even with these doors sealed shut. The evacuation capability that they represented was in excess of what the regulations required. So, contrary to sevenforeseven's insinuation, there was no breach of safety standards.

BA was the first airline to do this. But a number of other 747-200 operators also followed suit. Their regulators were all fully aware of this development, but it was perfectly legal.

Nevertheless, the regulators obviously did not like this. So they introduced a new rule for future airliner certification that imposed an additional requirement that there be no more than a certain linear distance between adjacent emergency exits on the same side of the aircraft. Aircraft certificated since then have had to comply with this.

The 747-400 has never had these doors sealed (but I'm not sure whether it was because of the new rule or because they are needed to satisfy the 90 second requirement).

And when the A340-600 was being certificated, it would have met the 90 second requirement without overwing exits - but that would have fallen foul of the new rule. Airbus asked for a waiver, but was refused. So they had to add the overwing exits to the aircraft, reportedly at a weight penalty of 1 or 2 tonnes, on top of the reduced seating capacity.

[flybywire]

IMO a lot of the modern cabins (eg. 777) with the angled hatbins to "open up" the cabin and make it look more spacious mean that the passenger on the aisle seat when 3 abreast (and to some extent the center passenger) don't have anything immediately above their heads to put an air vent in anyway.

Half truth. The PSU on bigger aircraft is only much higher than on a narrow-body aircraft so most carriers don't bother to put individual air vents because
a)the ventilation system of these aircraft should very sophisticated and efficient and
b)passengers would have to get up to reach the vent. Same reason why on wide-body aircraft you have the call bell button and the light switch in your armrest and not in the PSU (Passenger Service Unit).

When, for the particuar position of a seat on some aircraft (I am thinking of seats next to an emergency exit for example) there's no overhead locker immediately above a row, the O2 masks are located in a compartment inside the ceiling and, being so high, the masks have a "streamer" attached to them, a red flag that says "Pull", which helps releasing the masks and initiate the flow of oxygen.

I guess in the event of a decompression the masks will drop down over the window passenger and the other two have to reach over to get them.

Wrong, the PSU still has an individual light per seat installed, a loudspeaker and oxygen masks, one per seat if not more, nothing drops down from above the window :O In the event of a decompression passengers would see the masks right in front of them (The famous rubber jungle!!!!)

Hope this clarifies things a bit :ok:

FBW

[grimmrad]

This ended up being an issue specific to the 747-200.

There certainly is a provision that the aircraft has to be capable of being evacuated within 90 seconds, using only half of the available exits. But the 747-200 safety level for evacuations was so good that it met the standard even with these doors sealed shut. The evacuation capability that they represented was in excess of what the regulations required. So, contrary to sevenforeseven's insinuation, there was no breach of safety standards.
BA was the first airline to do this.


Thanks for the clarification, I flew usually on 744s (as Pax that is)

[silverelise]

Hope this clarifies things a bit :ok:
FBW
Certainly does, thanks for taking the time :)

[flybywire]

Certainly does, thanks for taking the time :)

No problem at all, always a pleasure to help, if I can ;)

[SXB]

Getting back to the original post I can't believe that a BA747 would have taken off with two passengers who required a degree of help with their breathing.

[flybywire]

Getting back to the original post I can't believe that a BA747 would have taken off with two passengers who required a degree of help with their breathing.

Exactly my point SXB, our procedures are very clear about this! I wouldn't have done it on a short haul flight, imagine on a long one! There must be much more to this matter than this, I am absolutely sure.