Below Deck Passengers
Thread Starter
Below Deck Passengers
I hope that that this is the correct forum (or should it be the spectator's balcony)?
Certain aircraft have a lot of belly hold cargo capacity - I believe that the 777-300 can carry 44 LD3 containers, or 30+ tonnes of cargo and baggage, obviously depending upon density. This is great on many routes but it may not be possible to utilise all of the space either because of lack of demand for cargo or because of weight limitations on longer routes where the block time can exceed 16hrs.
My question is could you use this belly hold space for passengers? Below deck galleys were common in L1011s and I believe existed in DC10s, but I am not aware of passengers travelling below the main cabin since the days of the B377 Stratocruiser. I would envisage using the front hold as a large first class lounge thus releasing the space currently utilised by first class (or business on certain airlines). Would this be legal? Would passengers have to return to the main deck for take off and landing? Does it make commercial sense?
I'd be interested in people's thoughts.
Certain aircraft have a lot of belly hold cargo capacity - I believe that the 777-300 can carry 44 LD3 containers, or 30+ tonnes of cargo and baggage, obviously depending upon density. This is great on many routes but it may not be possible to utilise all of the space either because of lack of demand for cargo or because of weight limitations on longer routes where the block time can exceed 16hrs.
My question is could you use this belly hold space for passengers? Below deck galleys were common in L1011s and I believe existed in DC10s, but I am not aware of passengers travelling below the main cabin since the days of the B377 Stratocruiser. I would envisage using the front hold as a large first class lounge thus releasing the space currently utilised by first class (or business on certain airlines). Would this be legal? Would passengers have to return to the main deck for take off and landing? Does it make commercial sense?
I'd be interested in people's thoughts.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly tongue in cheek, but considering the pax-occupied tail-boom as being the main deck (unlike the 747, the same level as the pilots), then the Blackburn Beverley regularly carried a full load of passengers on its lower deck, complete with windows and exits!
The telling part of your proposal is "Would passengers have to return to the main deck for take off and landing?" To exactly where on the main deck? All those empty seats? In which case, why did we have all those seats installed on the lower deck?
Also I imagine evacuation requirements would be a big no-no. Without major - and I mean huge - modifications, I think we're really talking about an entirely new design here, to include doors/emergency exits. That's not to mention cabin windows, which some fussy pax (me for instance!) will always choose.
Just my tuppence-worth.
The telling part of your proposal is "Would passengers have to return to the main deck for take off and landing?" To exactly where on the main deck? All those empty seats? In which case, why did we have all those seats installed on the lower deck?
Also I imagine evacuation requirements would be a big no-no. Without major - and I mean huge - modifications, I think we're really talking about an entirely new design here, to include doors/emergency exits. That's not to mention cabin windows, which some fussy pax (me for instance!) will always choose.
Just my tuppence-worth.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Thailand
Age: 75
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that many aircraft have crew rest modules in the lower cargo holds, I do not see why you could not have pax sleeper modules for use during cruise. The t/o and landing seat on the main deck could be a small economy style.
