Talk:Double-deck aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Don't most airliners have passenger + cargo decks?

How do we distinguish between the usual cargo + passenger deck layout and whatever unusual layouts we're documenting here? (Technically this might make the A380 and such triple-deckers: cargo/passenger/passenger.)--Father Goose (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure. To be honest, I'm just winging it here, having split the text off from the Double decker page, and trying to add aircraft to the list. For the most part, the cargo/baggage compartments on most airliners are not full stand-up compartments, and really wouldn't qualify as "decks" in the full sense. I know some of the larger airliners have galleys and such below the main deck, and whule there was talk of a small passenger compartment on the MD-11, it was never done to my knowledge. A quick search on "double-deck aircraft" moslty turned up references to the A380. Perhaps someone has some print sources with more on the qualifications and history of the term and its usage. THe page is borderline OR as it is! - BillCJ (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Labeling

The picture of the JAL 747 is incorrectly listed as a 747-100 version with a stretched upper deck. It is actually either a 747-300 or-400. It is impossible to tell for sure since JAL has or had both versions, and the winglets or the tail number cannot be identified from the picture. In any case, it is NOT a -100 version. The original -100 versions of 747's had only 3 upper deck side windows on each side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.205.237 (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, it's definitely not a -100. I've rewritten the caption, and avoided mentioning which production variant it is.--Father Goose (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y3

Will it be possible to include the Y3 as it seats 370-500 passengers,which is the amount of passengers that double decker aircraft carry?LeUrsidae96 (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that aircraft hasn't been built yet, and we don't know what it would look like. So it wouldn't make sense to put it here. -Compdude123 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B377

I qualified the B377 with partially double decked. Some had a very small downstairs annex in line with the cargo space, which did not extend fully forrard. In the one I travelled on it was taken up with a small bar that passengers could vistit in flight but no seats. E x nihil ^(talk) 04:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]