I've always wondered why airlines don't have stacked bunks on longhaul routes, as an option, rather like the couchettes that you get on trains but closer together, for space economy, not comfort. Without analysing it, I would have thought that you would get more people lying flat onto a given space than seated, even in densely configured economy class.

There is wasted space above seated passengers' heads, and if the 'bunk' were closer to the cabin floor, you could get two or three levels of bunks.

The trade off would be that although they would be small and narrow bunks, not even big enough for any airborne hanky-panky, some passengers might prefer lying down. I appreciate that it might not suit everyone, there would be limited possibilities for IFE, eating and drinking but I think it could work.

Emergency evacuation might be a barrier to this.

Seats in baggage hold
 

There's a number of reasons:
1. Too low. Most people could not walk upright and would have to croutch.
2. No lavs or other amenities
2. No escape paths/exits
3. Compartment is not certified for passengers

And finally, cargo space is nearly as valuable as passenger space. If they put passengers in the lower cargo hold there would be no place to put passenger baggage and no place to put revenue cargo.

Stacked bunks
 

First of all , there ARE stacked bunks in the overhead areas of large transcontinental aircraft. But for crew only. see link below.

The Part of the Plane You Never Get to See: What Do Cabin Crews' Chillaxation Spots Look Like? - Core77

But these bunk areas (like the lavatories) are NOT certified for occupancy during takeoff, landing, and taxi. Crew members must be in crew jump seats during those phases of flight. Neither the crew seats nor the crew bunks are certified for passengers, only trained crew members may occupy them.

I just want to see what happens when they get returned after their leases expire...I'm sure Airbus will re-engine this one...unless EK tells them no-thanks for some unknown reason...

Lower Cargo Hold Seating
 

Worldways of Canada bought two ex-PSA L-1011 and had them converted for charter work at Eastern's Contract Maintenance Service in Miami. They had forward cargo-hold seating and a stair to the main deck. Worldways did not want to sell those seat. They would be unoccupied during takeoff and landing so we were able to remove some 1,200 lbs of heavy belly plating installed to protect lower deck passengers in the event of a belly landing. There were a couple of windows I dimly remember. Due to hull curvature the pax looked through almost a tunnel to see through them.
There's a big weight penalty for seating passengers near the outside belly skin.
Never did hear how Worldways faired operating those two Tristar aircraft. They would certainly have been a lot harder to maintain than their DC-8.

Ken - I wonder why bunks are not certified for take off and landing.
IIRC seats are required to withstand 9 Gs in forward deceleration, 2 Gs upward, 1.5 Gs sideward and 4.5 Gs downward.
I would have the forces in a crash would be much more palatable for a prone body, than an upright one; but am no expert.
I too have wondered why stacked bunks aren't used in long haul aircraft. maximising dead space in the crown of the fuselage.
I'd much rather have the chance to stretch out and sleep.
Movies can still be watched prone.
Might be a bit of a headache for the flight attendants to serve meals though!

Tartare
For the 747-8, the crown area aft of the upper deck 'hump' has been provisioned to allow sleeper units (this required the relocation of some ducting and equipment). To the best of my knowledge, none of the airlines that have purchased the passenger version of the 747-8 have plans to take advantage of this, however at least one VIP operator has installed sleeper units in that crown area.
The sleeper units in the 747-8 (and the similar crew rest areas on various aircraft including the 747-8) are not allowed to be used for takeoff/landing due to the lack of evacuation provisions.
The 747-8 still has one ace in the hole - the Freighter. While airfreight remains soft, if/when it recovers if you want something that can carry more than ~100 tons, the 747 is the only game in town (the 747-8F is good for ~140 tons).

A prone body strapped into a bed would slide out from under the seat belt.
Even if one could properly restrain a body in the bed, there are no escape paths in the bunk area(s), so emergency evac would be problematic at best.
And no food or drink is allowed in the crew bunk areas so I'm assuming that would be true of passenger bunks as well.

Today's episode!

Rolls-Royce And Airbus Near Accord Over A380neo | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week

I wouild not be so sure about that. The first 200 or so of any production run pay for the development, tooling, and other sunk costs. The manufacturer does not start making a profit until after the first 200 or so aircraft are built and delivered. Both Airbus and Boeing like to have at least a few years of profitable production in any model before they throw a lot of development money into that model, and a re-engine campaign is EXPENSIVE. A380 production has not yet reached profitability and they've sold zero A380s this year. Airbus has enough orders to keep the line going for another three years or so, and without additional orders, they'll only make a profit the last year of production. Throwing billions into a re-engine program before the airplane has made a significant profit would not be a good business move. On top of that, only ONE airline has even expressed an interest in a re-engined A380. Making that huge invenstment for only one customer would be mighty risky. Remember, the "bean counter" was talking to investors and potential investors. Such investors would be very skittish about investing in Airbus if Airbus decided to throw large sums of money into what appears to be a money losing program. On the other hand, Airbus might be able to get various governments to pay for such an investment, like they got government to invest in the A380 development in the first place. Governments are well known for doing things that make little or no business sense.

Like Concord, A380 may turn out to be a fantastic engineering accomplishment that sadly does not have a viable market.

It is surely premature to post the obsequies for the A380. At worst, it was a little early, just as the 747 was early in its day.
Indeed, the 747 production collapsed from around 100/yr to about 20/yr, so the A380 has been managed much more prudently than its predecessor. Will the program make a decent profit? Not in the near future, but until the Chinese ramp up their 'C380' equivalent version, this is a uniquely capable aircraft that is attuned to a world of low cost travelers using a constrained airport infrastructure.
The A380 has another 20+ years of production life ahead of it, with no near term competitor.

There will be no 388 NEO or 389. Hubs have simply not grown enough.

Nor will they, IMO.

I don't understand this fixation here and on other forums with this "hub operation only" mindset.
All of the arguments against the A380 seem to revolve around revenue to be made or lost on these hub vs point to point services.
This is forgetting the thinking at the time aircraft like the A380 were first conceived; governments are going to start pushing airlines into operating fewer services carrying the same number of passengers. As the environment becomes a bigger factor in politics, particularly in Europe, I think there will be a lot of pressure to reduce flight frequencies and that can be done only by employing larger aircraft.
Looking at departures from Heathrow today show something like 2,700 seats going to Amsterdam on 20 flights. using 5 or 6 A380 on this route would please the environmental lobby no end.
Departures to Frankfurt show similar numbers so using A380s on both these routes would mean something like 10 movements per day between them, compared to the current 36.
Flights to New York by BA alone today will have something like 2900 seats on 11 flights. That could be reduced to 7 A380 flights.
And so it goes on.
I am not arguing pro or con here but I can see governments being pushed into limiting movement numbers and the A380 (or something similar) would be an ideal aircraft for this role.

.......... if the operators can fill them profitably. If not, would said governments subsidise the losses in order to show that they value their environmental protection strategies?

Do you think that regimes such as the UAE care about the environment? You only have to look at DXB to answer that question.

We are currently working on access issues due to the wake spacing...that should help.

Ever flown on one?
 

An opinion from down under, where you need at least a 7 hour flight to get to a transit port (SIN or similar), ALL of my associates prefer to fly the A380. No exceptions.

It ain't dead yet, not by a long way, and I suspect EK realises that too. Pity the rest does not.

This is why I don't understand why the A380 has struggled. There is constant griping about lack of slots at main hubs (esp LHR), yet operators seem unwilling / unable to take basic decisions like this. Surely one airline does not need a service every 90 minutes to maintain market share? Frequency is important on short hops - especially on other modes where spur of the momoent decisions can be made - but not on trans-Atlantic and other long haul corridors.

Yes - but nobody else. On short business routes (LHR-AMS or FRA are prime examples here), frequency and convenience trump everything. Do you really think people will want to spend 1 hour boarding for a 45 min flight? Don't think so.

On long haul the situation is different.

PS: quite a few high-density routes ex London will probably become partly obsolete soon anyway, once the new Eurostar trains are introduced (the ones that can travel through to AMS and FRA). Much like London-Paris today. The train is simply quicker.

747 production peaked at 90 the first full year of production. Clearly, there was a lot of pent up demand. After that 747 annual production has averaged well under half that and often one fourth that rate. It took over three decades to deliver 1,200 747s and Boeing had that market niche all to itself. Despite that history, Airbus predicted they would deliver 1,200 A380s in just one decade despite its market niche being smaller. What you describe as superior "management" of the A380 program was simple market forces. A380 production rate has been very low because sales have been very slow.

172Driver It won't come down to what the public want. It will be down to what the governments such as the EU decree. It will be interesting to see what the take up will be like with an extended Eurotunnel service.

Capetonian: As I said above, it will come down to decree. And we all know the EU trumps national governments.
Anyway, if the airlines can operate 20 flights profitably then why can they not profitably carry the same number of passengers in fewer aircraft?

I have to say, I am not one of the tree hugging/yoghurt knitting sect. I am merely commenting on what seems to me to be logical.