BA 747 Emergency Exits - 8 not 10
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you have eyes in your head. What you titled this thread with was a statement (that is incorrect). The multiple question marks achieved little to dispel the impression. It looks worse now. So are you now quite satisfied that BA has no 747s without a full compliment of emergency exits? If so, this thread is beyond its sell-by date, so why not delete your original posting?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am, I believe, entitled to post what I wish, and not what you wish. I do it with respect to others, and with courtesy.
You, on the other hand, are breaking the rules of membership by your writings and discourtesy - nay rudeness - towards me.
TP
You, on the other hand, are breaking the rules of membership by your writings and discourtesy - nay rudeness - towards me.
TP
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well what if I started a thread "The Phoenix Rises- low IQ???" You may well not have a low IQ, but I would have stated a fact followed by question marks- how would you like it? You could have titled it "BA747- How many exits?" and got an answer. It seems bizarre to me to state a false fact as a way of asking a question. If I was a Moderator, I would remove the whole thread because of your idiotic assertion.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't be so silly. The heading is entirely justifiable. It doesnt say, or imply, that there are 8, or 10, exits. Hardly a statement.
And after all, BA did operate 747's for a number of years with 2 exits closed off. It would seem to me that your energy is mis-directed. I wasn't the one that ran a fleet of aircraft with 20% fewer exits than most other airlines around the world. That really is not my fault.
As far as I am concerned, please feel free to write what you like. I couldn't care less. You are painting a picture of yourself very, very clearly, and I am happy to remain a level-headed gentleman.
TP
And after all, BA did operate 747's for a number of years with 2 exits closed off. It would seem to me that your energy is mis-directed. I wasn't the one that ran a fleet of aircraft with 20% fewer exits than most other airlines around the world. That really is not my fault.
As far as I am concerned, please feel free to write what you like. I couldn't care less. You are painting a picture of yourself very, very clearly, and I am happy to remain a level-headed gentleman.
TP
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calm down, children!
BA could, and did, legally de-activate the No. 3 door emergency exits on their 747-200s because their maximum passenger capacity allowed them to do so. While I don't know what the seating capacity on those aircraft was, it was considerably less than that of some of their competitors, who could therefore not reduce the exits. As an example, some of Virgin's high-density-fit Classics (used for Orlando and Caribbean flights) were capable of carrying 500 or so passengers; no way could they have lost those exits.
As I remember, BA's decision to reduce the number of exits did cause some controversy at the time, but, as others have shown, it was declared legal and acceptable by the CAA at the time. There were, of course, both weight and staffing advantages.
Most operators retained the 10 lower-deck exits. I'm only aware of BA having de-activated any, though I may be wrong. There are, of course, many Classic 747s still in service around the world, but BA's last 9 were withdrawn between September 2001 and Jan 2002, as far as I can remember.
BA could, and did, legally de-activate the No. 3 door emergency exits on their 747-200s because their maximum passenger capacity allowed them to do so. While I don't know what the seating capacity on those aircraft was, it was considerably less than that of some of their competitors, who could therefore not reduce the exits. As an example, some of Virgin's high-density-fit Classics (used for Orlando and Caribbean flights) were capable of carrying 500 or so passengers; no way could they have lost those exits.
As I remember, BA's decision to reduce the number of exits did cause some controversy at the time, but, as others have shown, it was declared legal and acceptable by the CAA at the time. There were, of course, both weight and staffing advantages.
Most operators retained the 10 lower-deck exits. I'm only aware of BA having de-activated any, though I may be wrong. There are, of course, many Classic 747s still in service around the world, but BA's last 9 were withdrawn between September 2001 and Jan 2002, as far as I can remember.
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just returned home after a long couple of days to find no less than 12 e-mails and or private messages on this subject. I have reviewed the thread in its entirety and cannot really see the problem.
The complaints broadly fall into two categories one concerns the grammatical composition of the thread title. This is a questions forum for professional pilots. Those of you who have been around here long enough will know that I have no hesitation in moving threads that are not questions or indeed that are not questions best answered by professional pilots. This thread seems best answered by such folk and notwithstanding the lack of a question mark it clearly is a question and as such it stands.
The other complaint is best summarised as who is being rude to who. Most of the time you will only find ladies and gentlemen in the questions forum. Sometimes comments will be posted that may be perceived as rude but generally they convey an emotion and although the wider excesses that may be tolerated elsewhere are not to be found here, there must exist an acceptable degree of latitude for the forum to function. Again I cannot see any real violation of site rules and the posts all stand.
I will continue to monitor the thread, however I would remind all posters that they can always edit there own posts and are invited do so if they wish.
The complaints broadly fall into two categories one concerns the grammatical composition of the thread title. This is a questions forum for professional pilots. Those of you who have been around here long enough will know that I have no hesitation in moving threads that are not questions or indeed that are not questions best answered by professional pilots. This thread seems best answered by such folk and notwithstanding the lack of a question mark it clearly is a question and as such it stands.
The other complaint is best summarised as who is being rude to who. Most of the time you will only find ladies and gentlemen in the questions forum. Sometimes comments will be posted that may be perceived as rude but generally they convey an emotion and although the wider excesses that may be tolerated elsewhere are not to be found here, there must exist an acceptable degree of latitude for the forum to function. Again I cannot see any real violation of site rules and the posts all stand.
I will continue to monitor the thread, however I would remind all posters that they can always edit there own posts and are invited do so if they wish.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA approval
Whatever and whoever have made the numerous comments regarding the 747's with 8 exits the exercise was entirely approved by the FAA and the CAA with evacuation times within those legally stated. It seems to be a deal of fuss about something historic.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Configuration
5 of the ex-BA 747-236s were acquired by EAAC in early 2002. 4 were in 440 seat 2-class configuration; 1 was in 376 seat 3-class configuration. The 440 seat configuration was the maximum permitted by the CAA due to the deactivation of the No. 3 doors.
EAAC are currently operating the 5 aircraft in the same configuration. The No. 3 doors have been reactivated to allow reconfiguration to a higher density (~472) seating when required. The higher density configuration will be used for the Hajj for example. A 440 seat configuration will be used for most charter operations ex-UK as it allows a more comfortable 31" minimum seat pitch.
EAAC are currently operating the 5 aircraft in the same configuration. The No. 3 doors have been reactivated to allow reconfiguration to a higher density (~472) seating when required. The higher density configuration will be used for the Hajj for example. A 440 seat configuration will be used for most charter operations ex-UK as it allows a more comfortable 31" minimum seat pitch.
