What about the double-deckers?

Dec 14th, 2000, 05:32 AM
Posts: n/a
What about the double-deckers?

From What's New: "Airbus will introduce a family of A3XX aircraft, each with twin aisles and 2 levels, providing more room than any previous aircraft. Passengership-style stairs lead between the levels. The cargo compartments can be used for shops, exercise areas and sleeping rooms."

Even though I know that 747s had two floors, and even though I know that beneath the passenger cabin there has always been a storage area, something about the idea of a flying double-decker bothers the heck out of me. It's evocative of the Hindenberg and plans for other super-sized airships. Does it bother anyone else, or do you look forward to flying on such a plane, on the assumption (not necessarily a good one) that the airlines will give us extra legroom?
Dec 14th, 2000, 06:13 AM
Posts: n/a
Unless the plane is going to be fabric covered and filled with hydrogen, I see little reason to worry.
Dec 14th, 2000, 06:26 AM
Hydro McHydorgen
Posts: n/a
My car is powered by hydrogen and I've never had a problem with it. Except to replace the spark plugs.
Dec 14th, 2000, 09:49 AM
Posts: n/a
Oh, come ON. Of course I didn't mean that it would blow up like the Hindenberg, although you have to admit jet-A can do a little damage. The image was more a matter of outfitting and cramming huge numbers of people into a plane as if it were a hotel or a casino. It's partly the cattle-car (pig-carrier) configuration and partly the idea of the complexity of design. The logistics involved in sudden turbulence, let alone ditching or a "survivable" crash, seem overwhelming. Then there are the trade-offs of weight to get that many people on board without needing longer runways (lighter-weight fuselage shells are the proposed solution).

And then there's the simple, social issue of the scene during boarding, dis-embarking, or circling -- sounds a little like standing in line for Wrigley Field on a Sat. afternoon.
Dec 14th, 2000, 02:01 PM
Posts: n/a
3XX's aren't as good as 4XX's, but if you blow them up with hydrogen, it's a great flamer. Better not be on the plane with me or I'll strangle you with my bare hands, got that?
Dec 15th, 2000, 06:31 AM
Real Fatty McFatty
Posts: n/a
That last post was not me. I am disgusted that a forum like this would allow someone to pretend to be someone they are not. DISGUSTED. With a capital T.
Dec 17th, 2000, 02:12 AM
Posts: n/a
Virgin Altantic have just brought 6 of them does that cheer you up!!!
Happy christmas
Dec 19th, 2000, 10:39 AM
fear this
Posts: n/a
Gasoline is more explosive than hydrogen, and we use it all the time without thinking about the dangers of it.
Dec 20th, 2000, 04:08 AM
Posts: n/a
As I tried to explain -- the issue isn't the explosiveness or explosions or anything like that (just joking about jet-A), although you are welcome to start some other thread about which fuel does what.

They've issued yet another set of press releases and video news releases about this behemoth, and it really does seem like they want you to think in terms of a hotel lobby or cruise ship. The comparison with the Hindenburg had to do with the size, bulk, and awkwardness of the craft. Have you ever sat anywhere with 550 people waiting for something? Can you imagine walking in the lobby of a Hyatt and having the Hyatt hit some clear-air turbulence? And while you can quote all kinds of statistics about how many more cars will crash than aircraft, history tells us that eventually one of these things probably will crash. Would you rather be on the upper or lower level when it does?
Dec 20th, 2000, 01:54 PM
Not to worry
Posts: n/a

Tomaso, apparently you are unaware of the work that goes in to producing a new type of aircraft. Boeing and Airbus spend years just designing the thing, then more years testing with simulations and mockups. This is before one single prototype is constructed. Then there is another year of flight testing. There in absolutely no way on Earth that the FAA would approve a passenger aircraft unless is was proven to be as safe as any other airplane. As for "one of these things probably will crash," my question is: Why do you say so? The fact is that over eighty percent of fatal airline crashes are due to pilot error. And here's another fact: if a person got on one a commercial flight at random every single day, he would have to live to be 26,500 years old to be involved in any type of aircraft accident--one not necessarily fatal.
Dec 21st, 2000, 04:21 AM
Posts: n/a
You stated that one of these things will probably crash. A car will probably crash today. Will you stay out of one?
Dec 21st, 2000, 05:14 AM
Posts: n/a
I'll certainly try to stay out of the car that crashes.

Moreover, I grieve for the people who are in that car, as I grieve for anyone who loses the odds in the aircrash roulette. But "Not to worry's" statistics are the most meaningful I've seen regarding plane crash probabilities -- I've always thought that comparing plane crashes to auto crashes was a bit of specious and skewed logic advanced by pilots who don't want you to remember that they pay many times more for their life insurance than we do for our car insurance.

No matter how many individual cars crash on our roads, the magnitude of a car crash and the responsibility of the driver are limited compared to the magnitude of losses in public-carrier vehicles and aircraft. There's a reason the newsmedia cover airline disasters, having to do with how many it affects and who might be responsible.

But again, for the record and for those who have an image of me as a nervous-nellie who won't set foot on any of those new-fangled flying machines, I fly all the time -- enough to have taken several trips on my frq. flyer miles. And it's in part for that very reason that I dread the scene on departure and arrival for anything that carries that many people -- it's bad enough when I have to fly on a 747, even with two doors available and 2 baggage carousels.

Anyway, please look at the last line in my initial post. I was hoping to get people's own response to the idea of flying in one of these things -- not a general referendum about my fear threshhold.

So, if you ever have the choice between flying on the 3XX vs. any large-body currently flying, will you choose the 3XX?
Dec 28th, 2000, 07:29 PM
ray seva
Posts: n/a
From what I've read...yeah, the new double-deckers will have gyms/shopping/showers/restaurants/other amenities. But do you think us "bottom-dwellers" back in coach will have access to all of this? Probably not. And can you imagine a busy Int'l airport such as JFK, SFO or LAX at peak hours with, say, 10 or so of these planes all landing/boarding at the same time? Me...I'll take a Boeing 777 any day. In fact, for any international travel, I'd rather go to a secondary airport (San Diego, Oakland, Orange County) and avoid those log-jammed double-decker zoo airports.
Dec 29th, 2000, 11:35 AM
Posts: n/a
The same sort of concerns were voiced when the 747 first came out, and people seem to get on/off those just fine. An Airbus A3XXX might even help DECREASE airport congestion if it replaces two (or even three!) smaller planes that would have landed within a short time period at different gates. Something tells me though, that those shops and exercise areas will not be accessible to me and my coach fare. Apparently Boeing did market research that indicated to them that a super-jumbo plane was not economically viable. They have stopped work on a competitor to the A3XXX, and instead are working on more extended-range and slightly higher-capacity versions of the 747. It will be interesting to see who is the winner in this high stakes game.
Dec 31st, 2000, 02:06 PM
Posts: n/a
Not only will people in coach not have access to the amenties, those amenities will undoubtedly disappear rather quickly, to be replaced by more rows of torture-seats so that coach-class revenue can subsidize the other two classes. For myself, I wonder if the airlines are willing to take on the legal liability of having those amenities on board -- since any time you aren't seated and belted, you are vulnerable to unpredicatable turbulence. I'd hate to be "shopping" when the plane drops 10,000 feet unexpectedly.
Related Topics
Original Poster
Last Post
Mexico & Central America
Jun 23rd, 2002 08:52 AM
United States
Feb 8th, 2002 08:20 AM
United States
Dec 17th, 2001 05:01 PM
United States
Sep 6th, 2001 08:26 PM
Just Curious
Nov 15th, 2000 04:57 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:08 PM.