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.'"

21 of 880 comments (clear)

  1. Not Faster by webmaster404 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It would be faster until some guy arrives 5 minutes later then everyone else and has to go through security and get on the plane, because of the order everyone would have to stop, let him through, reorganize and then go through. In an ideal situation it would be faster but chaos is quicker then order because order can never truly happen.

    --
    There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    1. 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.
    2. Re:Not Faster by JanneM · · Score: 5, Funny

      It would be faster until some guy arrives 5 minutes later then everyone else and has to go through security and get on the plane,... "Sorry Sir, your row already boarded. Please see our Courtesy Office over in Terminal Z about rebooking for a later flight. Quite serious, Sir. Yes Sir, same to you too. No Sir, I do believe that act is anatomically impossible. Sir, you are aware of course that as a human you are mostly water? Now, do you want us to press the point that you have knowingly passed through security while being a liquid container greater than 100ml? No, I did not think so, Sir. Terminal Z? Over there, to the left and doen the hall for oh, twenty minutes or so. Bye Sir."

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:Not Faster by clem · · Score: 5, Funny

      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. Of course this is a physicist we're talking about who designed the scheme. He's probably abstracted the passengers as perfect frictionless spheres.
      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    4. Re:Not Faster by dal20402 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      Most airlines at most airports (i.e. all airports but jammed nightmares such as LGA, JFK in the evening, or ORD) are not capacity limited. If they can turn around planes quicker, that means more legs per day throughout the system, which translates directly into money. For example, Southwest has been continuously refining its boarding process for quite some time to try to shave minutes off turn time. They are at 25 to 30 minutes at most airports; they would dearly love to get that down to 20.

      Even at capacity-limited airports, quicker turn times can get the plane out of the airport more quickly, saving time in the rest of the system. At delay-prone airports, quicker turns can help keep the system on schedule. One delayed major airport, such as EWR for Continental, can screw up an airline's entire network in a real hurry.

      In 1998, Boeing introduced the 757-300, a super-stretch variant of the narrowbody 757 we know and love from transcontinental U.S. flights. The plane has the lowest cost per passenger-mile of any large jet in existence. Nevertheless, it didn't sell well. At least some of the operators who rejected it did so because, as a narrowbody with ~45 rows of seats, its turn times were just too long to fit smoothly into a short-haul operation. Instead, because of the turn times, those airlines are operating either smaller 757-200s (UA, AA) or widebodies such as the 767-300 (DL) or Airbus A300 (AA, LH). That's how critical turn times are to airline ops.

    5. Re:Not Faster by eosp · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well if you smear butter on them, then most Americans will be close to frictionless spheres.

    6. Re:Not Faster by daVinci1980 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's too bad slashdot doesn't have a 'sad but true' moderation.

      --
      I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
  2. Heap? by paul248 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.

    1. Re:Heap? by Skreech · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is n the distance you're traveling? If so, I think I'll stick with n airlines rather than nlogn airlines.

      n^2 airlines is complete trash though.

  3. Not even close by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

    The fastest way to board is to have the seating area at the airport be a removable replica of the seating area inside the airplane. Then, when the plane arrives, the entire airplane opens up, the seating area (with passengers) is removed with a gigantic crane-like machine, and the new seating area (formerly known as the airport waiting area) is loaded in. The area formerly known as the airplane seating area is then put into place inside the airport, and becomes the new airport waiting area. Voila, the entire boarding process in 2 minutes.

    That's probably the fastest way without resorting to powerful vacuums, but probably not terribly practical. The most practical way would be to build the plane with sufficient space in the aisle to avoid the "fat guy with the large carry-on that clearly doesn't fit into the overhead bin holding everyone up" problem, but they'd never go for that.

    So, maybe a giant vacuum (for disembarking) combined with a giant cannon (for boarding) is the best way. We couldn't guarantee seat assignment this way, of course, but if we encased everyone in foam like the stuff in that car in Demolition Man, it should work with a minimum of injuries.

    The problem with these researchers is they aren't thinking outside the box enough.

  4. Re:They won't go for it? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Informative
    I fly at least once a week, often twice (last year I logged 86 flights). I fly first class - not because I pay for it, but because I am a member of several mileage plans, and get free upgrades 90% of the time.

    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!
  5. 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.

  6. 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."
  7. Re:They won't go for it? by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's because in first class you have a lot of stuff to get going. You have to get the complimentary champagne going, the foot massage, and select a random person from coach to be flogged for your amusement. If they waited until last to get seated, that'd take forever!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  8. Re:Overhead space by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Eh, you're exaggerating.

    There is something else working in your favor when it comes to checking bags: Money.

    I was once boarding a flight to New York when I was told, arbitrarily at the gate, that I would need to check my smallish bag because there was no more overhead cabin room. "B-but-!" I said. "I'm sorry sir, that's the way it is," they said, grabbing my bag and tying a tag around it. Away went my bag. "You can pick it up at your destination."

    What didn't really dawn on me until much later was, how could she possibly know what my destination even WAS? With the hub-and-spoke system airlines use in the U.S., it was foolish of her to assume that my destination was New York. So while American Airlines (yes, let me repeat, the airline in question was American Airlines) promptly delivered my bag to the terminal at JFK airport, I had to leg it to catch my connecting flight to Paris, then to Florence, and then by cab to a remote villa in Tuscany -- to which location American Airlines was then forced to deliver my bag, individually, by driver.

    Hey, Lady at the Terminal -- was it worth it? How was your performance report that month? And let's not forget that my bag was damaged when it arrived and my camera was missing, meaning I couldn't take any photos at the wedding I was attending ... nice one, American Airlines!

    Seriously ... many incidents like that, and terrorism or no terrorism, some flight attendants are going to exercise discretion when it comes to carry-on bags.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. Re:dual boarding more efficient? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Funny
    if you[sic] neighbor in line has a higher number you will let them go in front of you.

    That stewardess just re-invented the bubble sort!

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  13. 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.
  14. Sure there's a good system by p3d0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    There really is no good system. Sure there is. You just have to open the whole side of the plane and let everyone sit simultaneously, as shown in this photo.
    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....