Where would baggage be placed on a two story airplane?

[Giugiaro]

OK, first a disclaimer. The airplane in question is a French one and the "Other Transport" subforum seems to be specific for the UK. So I'm placing this thread over here.

Recently the YouTube channel Mustard posted a video documentary of the Airbus A300, and between the "predecessors" of that airplane was the Bréguet BR-124.



The particularity of this airplane is that it was a two story airplane that had no baggage hold, unlike the later A380 that basically is a three story airliner.

I wonder... We're would passengers take the heavier baggage on the BR-124? Prior, Bréguet also did a two story propeller airplane, the 763, so at least there was some experience on the concept.



Any idea if baggage size and number was heavily limited, or did it fly alongside its passengers in baggage racks in the middle of the aisle?
How would that be done on a modern jet airliner?
And could the proposal avoid the necessity for handling, since passengers would be carrying both light and heavy luggage with them at all time?

 

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I don't know anything about the BR-124 but I can pretty much guarantee that it will have had some kind of baggage hold somewhere! Probably in the nose or the tail (quite possibly both). Let's face it, air travel in those days was mainly for wealthy people, who aren't known for travelling light! And they are also not known for their love of carrying their own stuff, so I doubt that baggage went into the cabin with the passengers. In modern aircraft, even the double-decker ones, there is plenty of space for baggage and sometimes freight under the passenger cabin. There are several benefits to having the hold at the bottom running most of the length of the fuselage - it's no coincidence that most modern airliners are so similar in shape and layout that they are hard to tell apart. Sorry I can't be more specific - hope that helps a bit though.

 

[Giugiaro]

Thank you @TorqueOfTheDevil
I was thinking how Low Cost Airlines would look at an Airplane that didn't require baggage handling, for both cabin and hold, as these would be handled by the Passengers.

I do know that those Airlines would rather its passengers not carry any baggage, but for those who have to take it, at least the rates for baggage would be lower, as they would be mostly a moderating rate, not having to pay for outside services.

 

[edwin_m]

Presuming the BR-124 was pressurised, its fuselage would have been of circular or near-circular cross-section. The lower deck would therefore have been roughly a U-shape in section, so towards either side the floor would have been too high for seating. Perhaps the idea was to have a baggage shelf here below or between the windows, or a much larger space above them than the normal lockers? The one time I flew in the top deck of a 747 (BA Business Class circa 2000) there was a similar problem the other way up, with a gap between the seats and the windows because the curving ceiling prevented them going any closer. There was a bit of a shelf between the window seat and the window itself where hand baggage could be placed, but not during takeoff or landing.

There are several problems I could see with self-stowage of luggage from the point of view of a modern low-cost airline:

• If it's somewhere the passengers can get to then the luggage may be taking space that could be used more profitably for seating.
• Passengers stowing all their luggage and crew checking it is safe will take longer than the passengers boarding with just hand luggage while at the same time handlers are loading the checked luggage into the hold. During this time the plane is idle but still costing the operator money. Baggage handlers and their equipment are a worthwhile expense if they reduce turnaround times.
• Luggage stowed in this way would count as cabin baggage with all the security procedures and restrictions on contents that entails.
• Having everyone dragging their heavy bags up and down steps that are often slippery and wobbly risks slip and fall accidents. Accidents cause delays.

Perhaps some of these are reasons why the BR-124 seems never to have got off the drawing board.

 

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

There are several problems I could see with self-stowage of luggage from the point of view of a modern low-cost airline:

• If it's somewhere the passengers can get to then the luggage may be taking space that could be used more profitably for seating.
• Passengers stowing all their luggage and crew checking it is safe will take longer than the passengers boarding with just hand luggage while at the same time handlers are loading the checked luggage into the hold. During this time the plane is idle but still costing the operator money. Baggage handlers and their equipment are a worthwhile expense if they reduce turnaround times.
• Luggage stowed in this way would count as cabin baggage with all the security procedures and restrictions on contents that entails.
• Having everyone dragging their heavy bags up and down steps that are often slippery and wobbly risks slip and fall accidents. Accidents cause delays.

Perhaps some of these are reasons why the BR-124 seems never to have got off the drawing board.

All good points. Another one is that, in an emergency evacuation, some people would inevitably try to grab their bags on their way to the exits - it has happened already with hand luggage, with predictably serious consequences, and this problem would be exacerbated if even one prat tried to get a suitcase to the doors rather than just a small bag.

 

[Western Lord]

I appreciate that the OPs first language may not be English, but the word is "storey" not "story" and in any case that term is only used in relation to buildings. Aircraft, like ships (and buses), have decks.
I seem to recall that when the Ilyushin Il-86 (the first Soviet wide body) was on the drawing board the initial plan was to have lower deck airstairs so that passengers would board via the cargo hold, dump their baggage and then go upstairs to their seats. Needless to say it never happened!

 

[Catracho]

I seem to recall that when the Ilyushin Il-86 (the first Soviet wide body) was on the drawing board the initial plan was to have lower deck airstairs so that passengers would board via the cargo hold, dump their baggage and then go upstairs to their seats. Needless to say it never happened!

What do you mean it never happened? That is exactly how they build it.
https://transport-photo.com/photo/9833/Ilyushin-Il-86-Boarding.html

(from 11:20 to 11:40)

 

[Spamcan81]

OK, first a disclaimer. The airplane in question is a French one and the "Other Transport" subforum seems to be specific for the UK. So I'm placing this thread over here.

Recently the YouTube channel Mustard posted a video documentary of the Airbus A300, and between the "predecessors" of that airplane was the Bréguet BR-124.

View attachment 67306 View attachment 67307 View attachment 67308

The particularity of this airplane is that it was a two story airplane that had no baggage hold, unlike the later A380 that basically is a three story airliner.

I wonder... We're would passengers take the heavier baggage on the BR-124? Prior, Bréguet also did a two story propeller airplane, the 763, so at least there was some experience on the concept.

View attachment 67309

Any idea if baggage size and number was heavily limited, or did it fly alongside its passengers in baggage racks in the middle of the aisle?
How would that be done on a modern jet airliner?
And could the proposal avoid the necessity for handling, since passengers would be carrying both light and heavy luggage with them at all time?

I’m not sure the BR-124 was ever built.

 

[Giugiaro]

I’m not sure the BR-124 was ever built.

It wasn't. Or rather, it was made, along other planes, into the Airbus A300.