Not to evacuate? Stupid question from non-pilot.
Wow, quite a statement. So it would seem ALL fires equals evacuate, according to unequivocal expert RoyHudd.
As a pilot (and, for Roy's sake, a captain on this very aircraft type) I WOULD question the need to evacuate, versus 'rapidly disembark'. The fire is offset to the side of the aircraft, not directly underneath and even if it was the aircraft is not going to suddenly explode as in some Hollywood movie. The conveyor belt is at the bulk cargo door and away from anything that's easily ignited. The passengers have a pretty decent cocoon of metal etc to protect them and they're not going to be baked alive, even if their forward progress was not as rapid as would be desired. The jetty was attached and the passengers were already disembarking, so it's quite a reasonable question to ask if a rapid disembarkation would have been a viable option i.e. there's no need to guess how long it's going to be before a jetty is attached to the aircraft etc.
Note, please, that I am NOT questioning this captain's decision to evacuate; he made that based on the information he had and it's absolutely A correct one as far as I'm concerned. I would pat him on the back, say 'well done' and buy him a glass of his favourite liquid refreshment. I am merely replying with a differing viewpoint because my gob was fairly smacked by Roy's quite unreasonable and disparaging reply to a quite reasonable question, which DOES have more options than fire = evacuate.