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.'"

25 of 880 comments (clear)

  1. Re:They won't go for it? by hax0r_this · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. They should just have nice reserved seating in the waiting areas for first class passengers, then board from the back of the plane forward. Even if they don't do it perfectly, it could hardly be worse than making everyone wait for the person in front of them to finish stuffing crap in the overhead bins before even going back to their seat.

  2. I read this a week ago, and I think by zappepcs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that he is right. Of course the human effect in this loop will throw everything off schedule every time. This math answer to a psychology problem is interesting, but I think that if you avoid the space issues that make boarding a plane a lot like filling a cattle trailer it will all go better anyway. They tell you how to use the seat belts, the flotation devices, even the air cup thingies, and how to smile when you use all of them but they never tell you or show you how to fscking load your luggage in the over head bins. I've traveled quite a lot, and I ALWAYS see some diminutive person struggling, or the average joe trying to figure out how to get a hexagonal object in an square hole. People, in general, are not all cut out to do abstract puzzle solving in 3D domains under pressure. Some people are good at packing to move house, others are not. Same problems for both issues.

    What is needed is training. Show people how it is supposed to be done the easiest way and most of them will comply.

  3. Re:Not Faster by GoodbyeBlueSky1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly. This study is taking an assembly-line operations approach to a process involving humans, who might be late, have special needs (e.g. "I can't lift this 300-lb carry-on into the overhead, please help"), have incomplete paperwork; all kinds of variables are at play. The failures of such an approach should be self-evident in real-world scenarios.

    Also, what difference would this truly make? Airports already maximize the number of takeoffs from multiple gates. The plane has no choice but to take off at time X, regardless of how annoying the boarding process is. Any successful implementation of speeding up this process means that everybody waits on the plane longer versus in the seating area at the gate.

    Focus on the ridiculous security procedures, that's where I get pissed off when traveling.

    --
    why? forty-two.
  4. Overhead space by gruntled · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since all seating is assigned (some airlines notably excepted) the only reason to fight to get on before anybody else is to make sure you've got space in the overheard to store your bag. I was on one flight a couple of years ago where there literally wasn't space in the overhead to store my (relatively) small computer bag (I was seated in a row that had no under seat storage, so anything i had had to go in the overhead). One flight attendant was most insistent that my laptop would have to be gate checked; I protested and another passenger finally volunteered to have his (massive) bag in the overhead gate-checked; I bought him a drink.

    I think people would be more than willing to board by row, highest number first, if the airlines would just consistently enforce their rules about how much stuff you can carry aboard. In the winter, overhead space disappears instantly; people stow these huge coats up there along with their bags. And don't get me started about the jerks who throw their bags in the overhead at row 2 and then walk back through an empty plane to site in row 20. Half a dozen of these guys on the plane means everybody up front has to put their bags in the overhead towards the rear of the aircraft, then fight their way back up front through the embarking mob for seating, and THEN wait for everybody else to disembark to get to the rear of the aircraft to recover their bags....

  5. ban children by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I have a very simple proposal. start up an airline that bans children below age 10.

    99% of the time when i travel the fuckheads that hold everything up are the soccer moms and their 2 kids and a pram bullshit. and then once your up in the air the little cunts scream and carry on. just to top it off they only take infants because it's free, only it's not free everyone else is paying for it.

    the moment there is a no children airline, sign me up.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:ban children by batkiwi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those of us with kids are tired of tolerating people like you who think the world revolves around your ass.

    2. Re:ban children by BZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Society recognizes that the children involved will be paying for society's social security and medicare 30-40 years from now.

      Unless you plan to either have enough money to not use either of those programs or have your own kids (whom you'd have to have first) pay enough in taxes to support you in your old age, be glad others are having kids...

    3. Re:ban children by jmv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      just to top it off they only take infants because it's free

      You've obviously never travelled with an infant. Nobody in their right mind would want to travel with their infant unless absolutely necessary.

  6. Re:They won't go for it? by isaac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I never even understood why you would want to board the plane first in first class.


    The main reason is overhead bin space. Somehow, a fair segment of they flying public labors under the belief that it is correct and proper to stow their baggage in the first available overhead bin. Board late in first class (assuming an aircraft boarding through a door forward of that cabin) and you're likely to find a fraction of the overhead bin space occupied by F passenger bags, and the remainder occupied by coach passenger bags.

    The secondary reason is that notwithstanding a planeload of passengers filing past you, the F cabin is still a more pleasant place to be than the gate area.

    -Isaac
    --
    I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
  7. The answer is this... by Xenious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What would be faster is if everyone checked their $#@$@# luggage. People hauling their pull along bags down the aisle and then looking for overhead room and hoisting them up is a huge delay. Make them check them all and just bring a backpack or laptop bag on board, plus security checkpoints would go faster with less stuff to scan.

    --
    -Xen
  8. Passenger Revolt! by rueger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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. "

    I mean really, next thing you know someone would suggest that all fliers take off their shoes, turn over nail clippers, and not carry shampoo or extra lap-top batteries. People would never put up with stuff like that.

  9. Re:They won't go for it? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they should move first class to the back of the plane and then all the rich fucks might have to see how crappy the rest of the plan is.... I suspect the reason they're flying First Class is because they know exactly how crappy the rest of the plane is ...
    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  10. Re:Not Faster by $random_var · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also, what difference would this truly make? Airports already maximize the number of takeoffs from multiple gates. The plane has no choice but to take off at time X, regardless of how annoying the boarding process is. Any successful implementation of speeding up this process means that everybody waits on the plane longer versus in the seating area at the gate.


    What difference? Profits. Southwest is the only profitable US airline and has been for decades. One of the key differences is that Southwest optimizes the hell out of their turnaround procedures, and although they suck on many of the airline industry's traditional metrics (average used capacity per flight, for example) their planes spend a lot longer in the air because they spend a lot LESS time on the ground. Planes are not making money while they're on the ground waiting for people to be seated.

    Why should you care if the airlines are making a profit? The more lucrative the industry, the more companies enter the field, the more competition, and the better prices and service we get. Maybe not right away, but in the long run we do like the companies that provide services to us to minimize their costs.
  11. Re:Not Faster by Deanalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You do realize that if his row had already boarded, he could just simply walk on right? The only one made any later is him.

    Loading the front rows first is absolutely ridiculous. While rows 1-5 fumble around trying to cram their stuff in the overhead compartments, rows 6-10 just have to wait until they figure it out, then they get to fumble around with their overhead compartments while 11-15 are blocked. If you load from the back first, people can fumble with their luggage all at the same time, and no isles ever get blocked in the process. It's just common sense, and I am very glad that I am not the only one that is dumbfounded every time they see this. I do, however, think it's funny that someone managed to get this published in nature :-)

  12. Acutally it is a good idea. by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am surprised that you were modded down. I now have 2 children, but I still remember the days before. There were plenty of times that I wished for no kids or extremely heavy ppl around me. It was the later issue that lead me to fly Midwest airlines whenever possible. They were flying super 80's in 2x2 configs; not quite first class, but close enough for just a little bit more. In fact, I was surprised when frontier airlines chose to remove a row, rather than a column on their new aircrafts. They said that they wanted to fly 100% load factors. But it seems to me that a 3x3 or even better a widebody with a single column missing would easily encourage loads of Americans to fly them.

    But there is a good side to all that. If somebody starts an airline like that, it will keep ppl like you off of the flights that I am on with my children. BTW, that is not really a slam. So far, my kids have traveled great, but I have seen other kids not travel great and ppl just gripping left, right, and sideways about it. It gets old.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  13. Re:They won't go for it? by p0tat03 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm an occasional traveler - maybe 10 times a year. Still a lot more frequent than the general public I think, and I know my way around flying. I agree with you wholeheartedly, and would like to add that this isn't just a problem in the cabin, but also at check-in.

    Yes, you know the ones. The big family of 6 clearly taking the plane for the first time in their lives, who saunter up to the check-in counter, no ID in hand, no documents in hand, and then spend the next 10 minutes digging through luggage for the documents they should've known they'd need in the first place.

    Seriously people. Have your luggage in order, make sure it's not overweight AT HOME, have you boarding pass printed, and your drivers license/passport/what have you in-hand. I do, and I'm in and out of that check-in procedure in 30 seconds FLAT.

  14. No carry ons... by shmlco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ""I can't lift this 300-lb carry-on into the overhead..."

    Bingo. The problem is that people can't get on and sit down because half the plane is trying to find a place to stowe their carry-on bags.

    Which means that the solution, as I've often maintained, is to ban all carry-on luggage with the exception of purses and one briefcase or small backpack per person. Everything else goes through as checked backage. No garment bags. No wheelies. Nothing else.

    This also speeds up getting OFF the plane, as everyone isn't now trying to get their 300lb bags down, and also speeds up security as well, since there are fewer bags to scan and x-ray and manually search. It wasn't bad when just the stewies did it. Now 2/3rds of the plane is trying to "save time" as well, and it's just not working.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    1. Re:No carry ons... by ximenes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps if airlines weren't renowned for losing / mis-routing luggage, more people would check in bags than lug around carry-ons. Not to mention the hassle that can often be involved with claiming bags in general.

      A lack of confidence in the company or industry generally makes people take steps to avoid being personally effected, which in turn can make things worse in general.

    2. Re:No carry ons... by Maniakes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Banning carry-ons would speed up the process of actually getting on and off the plane, but I very much doubt it would significantly speed up the process of getting out of the airport after you get off. You get off the plane 5-10 minutes faster, go to baggage claim, and wait for your bag. How often to you get to baggage claim and find your bag already on the conveyer belt waiting for you? How much longer would you have to wait if there were another hundred checked bags per flight because of the elimination of overhead bins?

      --
      A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
    3. Re:No carry ons... by metlin · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Are you kidding me? You probably don't fly often enough.

      As someone who flies at least twice a week (and I am typing this from an airport at 5:30 AM, funnily enough), I would literally hate life if carry-ons were banned.

      As a frequent flyer and a business traveler, carry-ons are the saviors. You don't have to wait in life for checking in a bag, you walk through priority check-in and you don't wait for your luggage to reach you. And given how often I fly, the chances of my bags ending up elsewhere is significantly higher - I'd rather not take that chance (and yes, it's happened in the past, on more than one occasion).

      No garment bags. No wheelies. Nothing else.
      God, I'd hate you. Carrying around my laptop and a bunch of notes hurts my shoulders, and the only thing that makes it bearable is the fact that I can put it on top of my wheeled carry-on.

      Now, here's a better alternative -- permit carry-ons, but have the crew do a curb-side check-in of the bags (i.e. they take all the big bags from you before you board the plane).

      No carry-ons? That's a business travelers nightmare. I'd rather spend 1/2 hour extra than give up my carry-on.
  15. Re:this is happening by ptbarnett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real problem is people who board ahead of the current row that is boarding, like elite and first class passengers.

    I'm one of those elite passengers, for 9 years in a row. In my experience, we are not the problem. We know what will fit into the overhead bin and under the seat, know how to get carry-on's stowed quickly, and to step out of the aisle as soon as possible to allow people to get past -- because we have repeatedly had to stand and wait for someone that does otherwise. I get upgraded to first class occasionally, but otherwise I'm usually one of the first people into the plane after first class had boarded, and invariably I find all of them seated and the aisle is clear.

    My least favorite time to travel is near the holidays, because that's when you get the people that fly once or twice a year. They stand in the aisle while they take off their coat, try to stuff an oversize department store shopping bag into the overhead bin, and argue over who is going to sit next to the window. Or they insist that their 4-year old lead them down the aisle, who stops at every row to ask "is this it?", and bumps every person sitting in an aisle seat with his/her Barney backpack.

    I won't bother to describe the incredibly clueless people I see at the security checkpoint near the holidays (and no, I'm not talking about the TSA).

  16. Re:this is happening by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is now the way Southwest boards, and it's quick and rational (as is their "no assigned seating" plan, especially for their typical short flights).

    No it isn't. All SouthWest has is a way to keep the lines shorter. Once you get on the plane, you can sit wherever you like. Of course, if you don't get an "A" ticket, you can kiss your chance for a window seat goodbye. But you still end up with the dork who holds up the entire line of people boarding so that he can get a seat near the front while he takes off his jacket and digs in his carry-on bag for his MP3 player before putting it above.

    Me? I'm more of a "Coach-jerk". I check in everything I can. I board quickly, usually with an "A" ticket. I go for the window seat, my laptop goes on the floor in front of me, my jacket goes into the seat next to me. I pull my hat down, lean back, and start reading.

    Usually, I get the seat next to me empty, though if anybody asks, I'm nice about moving my jacket. Coach is so much nicer when you have a nice, empty seat next to you to park your crap!

    But when we get off, that's where everybody does the stupid - they all rush off the plane so that they can stand for 20 minutes at the baggage claim. Me? I wait until EVERYBODY is off the plane, reading my book or whatever. When *everybody* is OFF the plane and the stewardess is wondering what to say to me, that's when I get off. A nice, easy walk to the baggage claim, and I get there right as the bags first start popping out every time.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  17. That's not why people carry on. by raehl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are two big reasons to carry on luggage.

    One, it saves you 20-30 minutes of waiting around for your bags to get off the plane. (And in rare circumstances, it can save you an hour or more when, for example, your bags can't come off the plane because of lightning.)

    Two, and more important to business travelers, is it preserves flexibility. If you've carried on your luggage, and something odd happens to your flight, you can take your bag, get off, and get on another plane. If your bag has been checked, you then have to figure out how you're going to get your bags that are coming in on a different flight.

    1. Re:That's not why people carry on. by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There are two big reasons to carry on luggage.

      You forgot the third: A change of underwear and some basic toiletries, in case the rest of your luggage ends up in Novosibirsk, Siberia, instead of your intended destination, and you have to wait two days for it to get back to you.

  18. Re:dual boarding more efficient? by Builder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a good reason for wanting to get to my seat first - luggage. I always obey the carry-on luggage rules, but I often transport delicate and valuable stuff. As a result, I need my overhead space.

    Sadly, many people do NOT follow the rules, and unless I get onto the plane fast, I often have no overhead space to stow my gear, meaning that it's out of sight for most of the flight.

    This is why I always book seats at the back of the plane :D