Slashdot Mirror
Strict Order Boarding Would Get Planes in the Sky Faster
electrostatic writes "In a Nature.com oldie-but-goodie, a physicist says he has solved a problem that costs airlines millions every year: what is the quickest way to get passengers aboard an aircraft? Boarding is a serious issue for airlines, particularly those operating short flights that run several times a day, yet boarding times have steadily increased for decades. Back in 2005 Jason Steffen of the Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois said the method used by many airlines to this day is almost the worst. 'The best way to board, according to the researchers, would be a row-by-row, seat-by-seat, strict order. That would mean everyone lines up, row 25 first. I can't imagine fliers will go for that. Next best, they say, would be boarding all the window seats first, followed by those in the aisle. Obviously that's not practical, at least for couples or families traveling together.'"
I never even understood why you would want to board the plane first in first class. You lose your freedom of movement sooner, and once you are seated they go ahead and file everyone else right through the first class cabin.
True, but then you get the jealous stares of the pitiful people flying in cattle class while you are lounging in a spacious seat having a glass of wine.
It also established that you are very important by being served first. Otherwise you wouldn't shell out the cash for that first class seat.
My experience has been that rarely does first class hold things up; yes, we get seated first, but how often do you have someone in the aisle, taking off their jacket, their sweater, cell phone out to put in the jacket, put their bags above, dig out their laptop, then sit down?
When I have to fly what I actually paid for - coach - 90% of the delays are people not prepared. They stand in the aisle, digging through bags to get out MP3 players, or their laptop. They decide they want to take of their jacket once they're on the plane, rather than in the airport.
Too many who fly simply don't understand that it's a cooperative effort. Bag overhead, get in your seat, buckle up. Wait until you're up above 10,000 feet before you stand up to dig out your laptop or MP3 player (you can't run it until that point, anyway). Take your jacket off before you board the plane. If you have an aisle seat, wait until near the end of your section/group is called since you'll have to get up anyway to let the window seat in; if you're a window seat, queue up first in our group.
It's not surprising that first class usually contains heavy fliers, who understand these basic facts; it's usually the novice - or very infrequent - flier who is constantly being told to buckle up, put your bag under the seat in front of you or overhead (no you can't keep it on your lap), raise your seatback before we push back, no you cannot use the head as we're taxiing, turn off your cellphone NOW, etc.
Signed,
A "first class jerk"
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because they usually start serving the drinks in first class immediately after you sit down.
I'm pretty sure they are NOT the only profitable airline.
I'm not positive this is still true today, but for a few years it definitely was.
There's a reason all the other airlines were falling all over themselves to try to mimic Southwest for a while. E.g. United's Ted line was supposed to be their experiment in trying to copy Southwest, Delta's Song was theirs, and so on.
When you subtract out government subsidies (interest free loans and bailouts) yes, Southwest is just about the only profitable US airline. OK, probably some other airlines have managed to make more than they spent, but certainly not as much as they would have wanted to make, and certainly not as much as their investors would have expected to make in other industries. Not enough to call them "profitable". Southwest on the other hand has been in the black every year for 35 years.
Anyone can get an "A" ticket; you don't even have to pay extra. Just check in 24 hours (exactly) before your flight online. You usually get a pretty low number, too.
Seat 11E on Southwest 737-700 and 737-300 airplanes has a built-in space to the right. Seat 12F has tons of legroom, because there is no seat 11F. Seats 11A, 11B, and 11C have about 10 extra inches of legroom. Often people overlook these seats for some reason; I cannot contemplate why anyone flying alone would turn down a seat with extra room.
They call it an exit row. I call it "first class".
You should avoid the forward lavatory on Southwest, if you're a guy and he aft lavatory is open. The forward lavatory has the "Southwest 737 Forward Lavatory Seat Bug" - the toilet seat will not stay up because the curvature of the aircraft prevents it from tilting past straight up.
Did you ever stop to think that some people may have connecting flights? Ever flown through LAS or MDW on Southwest? Ever get delayed and have to run to make a tight connection?
Ahh, so you're that guy. I guess I don't really care. 80% of Southwest flights I'm on are 100% full, no seats free. Comfortable? Not exactly. Cost effective? Absolutely. You can't have $59 tickets from Denver to Oakland if you don't fill the planes.
1. You're talking about business class, not first class. First class is generally only offered on larger airplanes where you have a choice of turning left or right as you enter the cabin. In first class on those airplanes, you don't even see the economy passengers.
2. With a business class seat, you get on first to make sure you have first claim on the shared resources of the airplane, such as overhead bins and tiny little blankets. If you waited to get on until the economy people had all walked through, it's a sure bet they would have taken all that stuff before you ever saw it.
3. You also get off first, which means you get to the taxi stand / rental car place before the rest of the planeload, which means you get to the meeting first.
-Graham
At the same time, the hub system has advantages.
Suppose you have hubs in different areas of the country, as most airlines do. Anyone going from one "area" to another can be funneled through a series of hub-to-hub flights, which will nearly always be at full capacity, and then onto smaller planes for the shorter hops. There are other economies of scale in ground operations, as well.
If you just run a whole bunch of point-to-point flights, no one's on them. And you could have smaller hubs to mitigate the "storm in New York snarls all air traffic coast-to-coast", but then you divide the passengers into more pieces, and you're forced to run these intermediate flights less often or less full. The other option is to move back to a multi-stop model the way Southwest does, but for some reason people hate multi-stop flights more than they hate being funneled through their nearest airline hub.
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
"I took a two week vacation to Sydney (from LA) and brought along a backpack and a dufflebag. Worked out just fine."
You don't even need that much. I took a 3 week vacation through 4 countries with nothing but a carryon and a purse. It makes it so much easier, especially when you're trying to get through customs. No need to dress like a slob either, you just pack intelligently.
Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
I think he was referring to DFW's famous attribute: evenly distributing the gates throughout local zip codes. Arrived on A23 and departing on MM1478? Greyhound departs in 15 minutes.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?