Originally Posted by
Lordflasheart
CV880 - Aaaaah the old-style Cathay management was “all heart” wasn’t it. I suppose you got someone to make your tea too ? Bunks indeed ! There weren’t any bunks on G-KILO because there were never enough chaps in the crew to use them (legally that is, even if there had been)
If you had bunks in VR-HVY, what really long sectors did it fly ? It must have been an interesting trade-off between fuel and freight, unless it was really high-value.
It reminds me that later on, we were forbidden by the FOD to use the on-flight-deck bunks on the 747 Classic pax a/c unless it was an augmented crew (more than three) Even though the F/E could wake the sleeper without leaving his seat. It further reminds me that a little while later BA placed a second order for 747-400s and paid for the crew loo and bunks to be removed – “400-lite” I think. Really useful, like buying 777s without proper crew rest, while another Brit LH airline recently bought A330s without crew rest too.
For sometime after selling the 707 Freighters, BA paid JAL to do its cargo work with (I think) DC-8 freighters on the trans-ANC route. JAL had bought a fuel mine in Alaska and it was claimed that it was cheaper to pay JAL to do the our freighting. IIRC that caused my old mate Capt Noisy to utter some public apoplexy in the firelighter.
LFH
...............
You are getting your stories mixed up. In a flash of brilliance one FOD decided to remove the crew loo on all -400s so allowing for two more club seats on the upper deck. This lead to howls of outrage from the crews, it was a frequent occurrence for enormous rows between crew, who were waiting to use the loo after rest before resuming duty to land the aircraft, and queuing pax who were waiting for their morning ablutions and who weren't pleased to have a crew member sneak in before them. No matter how hard you tried there were many who couldn't be placated and filed complaints not to mention Air Safety Reports complaining about not being able to get to the controls in sufficient time before arrival. The next FOD came a couple of years later and was persuaded to reverse the decision and, lo and behold, it was found that many of the previously removed toilets had been junked thereby costing a small fortune to replace the loos. Another great commercial decision.
ALL BA -400s were delivered with bunks. They did order and receive 4 -400 Lites. The only noticeable difference was the absence of the fuel tank in the tail thus depriving the machine of 10k kgs of juice. Memory fails as to whether there were different operating weights but I suppose it was quite likely as without tail fuel the C of G would have been restricted. Interestingly those 4 aircraft have now been converted to "high J" configuration thereby signalling that they will be staying into the next decade. The other 14 selected are more-or-less the last to be delivered. These aircraft did have their toilets removed and then reinstated but they had bunks like all others. I believe the lack of flexibility was the reason for not ordering more, the tail tank was used on long range ops. I doubt it is used nowadays as there are no long range ops left on the fleet.