Airbus plans beds in passenger plane cargo holds

[Alanwsg]

There was a thread about this a couple of weeks back but it's closed.
This article appeared in the register today ...

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/11/airbus_plans_beds_in_passenger_plane_cargo_berths/

[funfly]

So, get everyone into bed in the terminal and load them ‘en bloc’ into the cargo bay with a fork lift. sounds good to me, go to sleep in London, wake up in Singapore.

[oldchina]

I vaguely remember Airbus studying such an idea in the 1990s.

funfly is right to point out that the sleeping part would be great. The other parts of the experience less so. The economics only add up if the sleeper passengers are allocated a miserable economy seat for takeoff and landing. Add to that the climbing or crawling to get into the bunk doesn't square with most premium pax ideas of luxury. And since they wouldn't want to climb up to use the economy lavs in their jimjams, downstairs facilities would be needed. The list goes on. "Return to your allocated seats and fasten your seatbelts" ??

I don't blame Airbus, they have a knack of using outside partners to float ideas at very little cost.

[roybert]

So as I understood it the airlines started charging for checked baggage because it was taking away from the high paying priority cargo that is carried on the scheduled passenger runs. Now your suggesting that the Airlines are going to give up this gravy train by putting beds in the cargo hold.


Dream On

[beardy]

Add to that the climbing or crawling to get into the bunk doesn't square with most premium pax ideas of luxury. And since they wouldn't want to climb up to use the economy lavs in their jimjams, downstairs facilities would be needed.

Airbus do have a module for downstairs toilets in the A330 that can also give access to the hold.

[Evanelpus]

There was a thread about this a couple of weeks back but it's closed.
This article appeared in the register today ...

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/11/airbus_plans_beds_in_passenger_plane_cargo_berths/

I'm guessing the date of the article should say 1st April....:ugh:

[PAXboy]

As always, the designer can design anything their marketing people think will get attention. What airlines buy is all that matters. Off the top of my head I recall 'announcements' of Casinos, various prayer rooms, shower rooms, gymnasium and more. Remember the lounge upstairs on the 747-100?

This is just an exercise in publicity, the same as when MoL talked about standing up seating.

[ExXB]

Yet the upstairs lounge existed. I enjoyed a lovely PA F meal there, in the company of a bevy of Seattle travel agents.

IIRC correctly PSA had a downstairs lounge in their Tristars. The aircraft needed strengthening but as they were used on ultra short haul routes the extra weight didn’t matter.

Cargo, then safety, then practicality will stop this idea from ever getting off the ground.

[The Sleeping Pax]

Sounds very good to me.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[PAXboy]

The upstairs lounge did indeed exist - but not for long! I had a couple of trips on the fist VS 741 from Gatters and enjoyed the lounge but money wins every time.

I once thought of starting a thread about all the 'brilliant' new seating arrangements and luxuries that the designers said were now possible. They sink without trace because no one wants to pay for them or, be squashed in any tighter space.

[ZFT]

The upstairs lounge did indeed exist - but not for long! I had a couple of trips on the fist VS 741 from Gatters and enjoyed the lounge but money wins every time.

I once thought of starting a thread about all the 'brilliant' new seating arrangements and luxuries that the designers said were now possible. They sink without trace because no one wants to pay for them or, be squashed in any tighter space.

The lounges existed on SAAs 742s for quite some time. Swivel chairs and all. Was a perfect way to travel and did so many times in the 70s.

[PAXboy]

Ah. I did not use SAA much, despite regularly going to ZA and never in First with them. Last long haul trip with them was (quick check) 1987 in C.

[tdracer]

Boeing had an option to put sleeping berths in the upper deck (aft of the hump) on the 747-8 (basically involved moving around some ECS and other equipment to open up the necessary area). The idea was the passenger would have a 'normal' business/first class seat on the upper deck, then could move to their sleeping berth as they wished during cruise (not to be occupied during TO/Landing). Unlike the Airbus proposal it wouldn't have taken away any currently usable space (although obviously extra cost/weight).
None of the commercial operators wanted it, although did end up on at least one VIP 747-8.
Given freight is often more profitable than SLF, I don't see this going anywhere either.

[RAT 5]

Remember the lounge upstairs on the 747-100?

If I remember correctly the 'upstairs' area was designed as the crew rest area. Before service entry airlines thought a cocktail lounge for the posh would be more appropriate and the flight crew unions acquiesced: I don't remember the details. When the hump extended some bright spark thought to add more business class seats. A/C range increased and FTL's increased in line with performance. Funny thing that, but some unions had enough clout to bring in crew bunks etc., even for cabin crew. The non-union airlines suffered.
Would that the original concept had survived. The downward path of the past 4 decades is littered with such tales, starting with Nav's, FE's etc.

[ExXB]

747-100s had only one small emergency exit up there. This limited capacity of bubble to a max of 16. -200s/SPs had two large exits which increased capacity. -300s/400s stretched the bubble and capacity increased again.

RAT 5, I think that when the 200s were introduced business class, as we know it, was still quite a few years away.

Can you remind me of which airlines used the bubble for crew-rest? IIRC the original operaters all began with a lounge up there, including the piano!

[PAXboy]

When I took my first VS Upper, in Oct 1986 from LGW in a 741 - it had the lounge. The seats were, of course, old style Club but the adverts were for 'two seats' as you could sit upstairs. I cannot recall if the bar was already in place. Long before the days of camera phones! Although cell phones had started in the UK in Jan 1985.

[RAT 5]

Can you remind me of which airlines used the bubble for crew-rest? IIRC the original operaters all began with a lounge up there, including the piano!

None, and that's my point. Boeing designed it as the crew rest area, but the bean counters got there first and flight crews acquiesced. No doubt some $ were involved and the slippery slope became more slippery and steeper.
B747 replaced B707 & VC10. It had a longer range and thus it was deemed, by the designer, humanely appropriate to have an en-route crew rest area. Very progressive.
Reflect back on how the FE was 'bought' out of the flight deck.

Regarding accommodation in cargo holds; is it not the case that 'crew rest pods' for cabin crew on some carriers are in the rear hold, or at least under the cabin floor?

[Peter47]

Not pax, but I think that I remember seeing a crew rest module being loaded into the hold of a Lufty airbus at FRA. Presumably they they could load & unload them as required.

[PAXboy]

I'd say other reasons why this idea won't work (pax below decks) is the cost of staffing and cleaning. CC during flights to check and serve, extra time to check and clean after each sector, more laundry - can they charge enough? But the safety issue and the need for pax operable emergency exits to be placed in the hold - will stop this.

The emergence of Suites in all the top carriers have bypassed this idea and some carriers are reducing the number of F seats anyway.

[bafanguy]

The DC-3 had sleeper accommodations. Not a new concept. Most pax would likely welcome Airbus' concept on a very long flight:

https://www.google.com/search?q=dc3+sleeper+cabin&client=firefox-b-1&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=mTmkTLQ-K1CjGM%253A%252CGS6RSOLO-mCRyM%252C_&usg=__YSEro7BCzT3zHOE9XWUtJWGYC3A%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDtui2lrjaAhWFZd8KHXJdBcAQ9QEILTAC#imgrc=4GztwLXd DLG1wM:

[RAT 5]

Most pax would likely welcome Airbus' concept on a very long flight:

But on the twin deck A380 why to have cocktails & dinner downstairs, then retire upstairs to bed. Prices might get a bit steep.

[Tray Surfer]

Not pax, but I think that I remember seeing a crew rest module being loaded into the hold of a Lufty airbus at FRA. Presumably they they could load & unload them as required.

You are correct. Airbus has a modular removable crew module that connects on to the lower deck galley annex.

And, on the subject as a whole... Pax are welcome to them. I have spent far too many hours or my life in upper and lower crew rest areas... They are claustrophobic, too hot/cold, dry and uncomfortable. No matter how they dress them up, they will still be all of those things.

Stupid idea.

[Paul Wilson]

I would suppose that the routes it would make more sense on are the ultra long haul ones. On these weight is a huge factor and therefore cargo capacity limited, but you are carrying around a bunch of unused volume.

I could see a 3 class configuration, with some sort of suites for first class, a business class product much like today with nice food and bar etc. and economy class with bed access sold separately for say $500-$1000. You'd have to be careful not to make it too attractive or risk robbing sales from business.

Essentially the bed class would be the replacement for premium economy. You would not have a PE seat.

The airline would also be able to flex up and down the "PE/bed class" seats just by loading another pod of beds if sales in PE were looking good.

I would say that any route under 8 hours (ideally 12+) would not make sense, due to general faffing about, and the need for 5+hours in the bed to be actually useful.