PBL,
I incline not to dismiss questions about what would have happened at a terminal so fatalistically as you.
Such a fire on an apron is an incredibly unusual and rare event. You can research all you like about what would happen should it occur at a jetty- what are you going to do with the information? There are already terminal fire and evacuation procedures. The jetty might be a problem- airport authorities have seen fit to lock the apron exit gangways with coded security locks. But what exactly is the problem? And your proposed ideas to do something about it? Ban jetties? Park aeroplanes only away from terminals? But you have lounges and gates and jetties in terminals because they are by the aeroplanes.
Last year a thread got seriously hung up over an inane point- the passenger bridge at Gatwick could take 747s under it, but if they had a noseleg collapse when the fin of a 747 was under it, it would smash into the bridge Some people couldn't mysteriously accept this- I never understood why. Likewise, I went to the movies last night (Bourne- brilliant). I accepted the cinema fire procedures were adequate and entrusted myself to their care. Fire, at any time, is a risk in our lives- one has to be fatalistic about it. Can you point me in the history of aviation to any undue dangers caused by aeroplanes parked at terminals spontaneously igniting? It's not exactly a frequent occurence, so wouldn't our attention be better placed elsewhere?