Airbus plans beds in passenger plane cargo holds
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus plans beds in passenger plane cargo holds
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/2018/0..._cargo_berths/
This article appeared in the register today ...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0..._cargo_berths/
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Canada
Age: 65
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo
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
Dream On
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.
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/2018/0..._cargo_berths/
This article appeared in the register today ...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0..._cargo_berths/
Paxing All Over The World
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.
This is just an exercise in publicity, the same as when MoL talked about standing up seating.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Paxing All Over The World
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.
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.
N4790P
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.
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.
Paxing All Over The World
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Paxing All Over The World
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
Paxing All Over The World
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.
The emergence of Suites in all the top carriers have bypassed this idea and some carriers are reducing the number of F seats anyway.
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+...GztwLXdDLG1wM:
https://www.google.com/search?q=dc3+...GztwLXdDLG1wM: