TZUTC: -0700
MSGID: 214.aviation@1:218/700 2d5e1596
REPLY: 1:135/250@fidonet 68f7060c
PID: Synchronet 3.21a-Win32 master/b113dcfdb Oct 11 2025 MSC 1944
TID: SBBSecho 3.30-Win32 master/b113dcfdb Oct 11 2025 MSC 1944
BBSID: REALITY
CHRS: CP437 2
FORMAT: flowed
-=> Rug Rat wrote to All <=-

 RR>  On the subject of Combi...

 RR> Going in circles..   The primary reason was safety.  Even updated fire
 RR> supression on the main deck carying passengers carries it's own risks.
 RR> Since the main method of fire supression in to starve the fire of
 RR> oxygen.  What happens if you have a system dump in the portion of cabin
 RR> with passengers?  You either kill your self loading cargo, or in the
 RR> event of a an actual fire still have O2 being fed into the area (Mask
 RR> dump).


 That would be a selling point for some airlines.

"Our premium plus passengers enjoy our state of the art fire suppression
system. For our Premium Economy and Business Minus passengers, we offer
industry standard oxygen depletion systems for your safety."

"Ask your gate agent about upgrades..."






 RR> There was other criteria the airlines and manufactures felt too constly
 RR> to implement.  It usually always comes down to cost.  With the surge in
 RR> dedicated cargo company's there was no longer a need for combi's.  They
 RR> were a nice tool for airlines to adjust their loads during seasonal
 RR> passenger flux, but companies can do that by carrying cargo in the
 RR> holds anyway (Just limmited by size).

 RR> The main reason remains.  Airbus engineered themselves into a corner.
 RR> It's main purpose was a to develope a passenger aircraft, which they
 RR> did.  The 747 was designed with a future role as a cargo aircraft in
 RR> mind.  There is already a certified after market conversion process for
 RR> the 747, doing so with the A380 would be starting from scratch as far
 RR> as the conversion process goes.  As a business which road are you going
 RR> to take?  The cost effective one, or the one that makes you the first
 RR> to do so?

 RR> ** Yes I am aware of the fully staffed "Preighter" flights.  While it
 RR> seems like a waste of money, you are keeping your fleets active without
 RR> having to pay for the cost of storage prep, storage, then prepping them
 RR> to return to the line.  You are keeping your pilots in regs with flight
 RR> time, you are keeping your crew in regs with training and flight time,
 RR> and making money moving cargo, and with the vacines... a good public
 RR> image.  The regs for FA staffing comes from how the aircraft is
 RR> certified for evacuation, and the number of seats it is certified with.
 RR>  (Even in the case of Korean Air, which removed seats to be able to
 RR> strap packages to the floor, where some airlines just placed the
 RR> packages in the seats..).   You also have a crew with a new side hustle
 RR> of cargo loaders (I bet they were not paid extra for that!).  If it
 RR> didn't help the airlines bottoms line during the pandemic, you know
 RR> they would not have done so.

 RR> Rug Rat (Brent Hendricks)
 RR> Blog and Forums  - www.catracing.org
 RR> IMAGE BBS! 3.0   - bbs.catracing.org 6400
 RR> C-Net Amiga BBS  - bbs.catracing.org 6840
 RR> --- CNet/5
 RR>  * Origin: The Rat's Den BBS (1:135/250)
 
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
 * Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)
SEEN-BY: 10/0 1 103/705 105/81 106/201 124/5016 128/187 129/14 305
SEEN-BY: 153/7715 154/110 218/0 1 700 226/30 227/114 229/110 317 400
SEEN-BY: 229/426 428 470 664 700 705 291/111 292/854 320/219 322/757
SEEN-BY: 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280 712/848 902/26 5075/35
PATH: 218/700 229/426