Slashdot Mirror
Simple Geometry = More Seats In an Airline
New submitter innerpeace writes: New airline seat arrangement looks to increase passenger capacity. A patent application by Zodiac Seats France calls for a design that puts every other passenger in a row facing backward. That means that in a row of three fliers, the seat by the window and the seat by the aisle face toward the front of the plane while the middle seat faces toward the back. The design idea could fit up to 80 more passengers in a plane, depending on the current seat layout. Whatever downsides it has, if such a design is adopted, I hope it leads to a stronger adoption of a convention that those with window seats board first.
This looks like it would work fine if everyone knew each other - but would suck if you had an annoying seat mate. Who wants to be forced to look at them - or have them look at you?
This design violates current social norms for personal space. As such I dislike it.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Didn't slave ship makers have this all figured out two hundred years ago?
So when the guy in the middle leans back to sleep you get to look at him and hear his snoring EXTRA loud
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
...then you will be able to stack them also horizontally and squeeze even more cargo^H^H^H^H--- oh, I meant "people" --- into a cabin.
No way I'd want to fly in this Sardine-Style seating arrangement. No, No, NO.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Alternating orientation of the passengers, with no space for movement. I guess somebody with engineering degree has been paying attention to the cartoons section of The New Yorker/a>
Do you really want to spend multiple hours staring into the face of one or more strangers? It's bad enough on a short trolley ride.
I'd go for being stuffed in a tube and given a knockout drug over this design.
I do think being stuffed in a tube and given a knockout drug *should* be an option. 4 hour flights are unbareable.
The photo from the TFA suggests it will be very difficult for anyone else to get in/out with someone seated in aisle seat. Most airline rules and regulations put safety first. The most important requirement for seat design is that everyone can egress quickly in an emergency. That's the reason that you can't leave your tray tables down all the time or recline your seat on landing.
Ever see those double chairs designed for making out? That what this looks like.
#DeleteChrome
But there doesn't appear to be any way to have a tray or anything. What about people that work while flying (laptop)? Where are people going to put their drinks?
69696969 69696969 69696969 69696969
69696969 69696969 69696969 69696969
69696969 69696969 69696969 69696969
Would you like one next to the window?
this means not sharing arm rests with people.
What I'd like even more though would be if the entire passanger compartment were just removed and added to planes like modules.
What kills the whole experience is the rush onto the plane and the rush off it.
If people actually wait in the seat they're going to depart from rather than at the gate... it means you don't have that silly rush.
They have to do that because whenever the plane isn't in the air it costs the airline money. They want it in the air immediately. Okay, so why not have the passengers board a compartment and then have that instantly swapped with the existing compartment. Thus the compartment and fill slowly as people arrive at the gate and debarking might be a less annoying experience because you could potentially just open all the exits on the plane to let everyone bypass the various people that block the aisle because they can't figure out how to get baggage out of an overhead.
The idea isn't original. Other people have suggested it and of course the planes would have to be designed around the concept. But it would make loading and unloading the plane a matter of two minutes or something which is less time than it takes to refuel the plane.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Seriously, squeezing past people on flights or at the cinema is bad enough already, the pictures of this design look like they've literally not considered people who actually have legs at all getting into the two rows of seats nearest the window.
Do you really want to spend multiple hours staring into the face of one or more strangers? It's bad enough on a short trolley ride.
That's how long distance train travel worked for a century or so.
Of course the airlines will put the seats much closer. On the plus side we can get more legroom by interlacing our knees, on the downside we'll have to take turns holding each others meal trays.
Zodiac has been attacked by seating patents by their competitors. This is probably a defensive patent, something vague enough to discourage future lawsuits. I doubt they are intending to go and hexagonify all the seating, but it is pretty lol.
#1) This will make it that much more inconvenient for passengers closest to the window to get out when they need to use the bathroom.
#2) Forward-facing seats make more sense during takeoff, as the acceleration from the plane pushes passengers into their seats, but the seats keep them secure. Passengers facing the rear will find it a bit more uncomfortable holding themselves in the seat when basic physics is pushing them out of it. (Yes, I know airline attendants have rear-facing seats. A cousin of mine served as steward on an airline for some years and always complained about them.)
#3) Are airplanes engineered to handle the additional weight of 80 more passengers and their luggage?
The only reason we allow sitting so close right now is that we can pretend to ignore one another since we're all facing in the same general direction. Once we're forced to look at one another, we'll need more room. Plus, how will I manspread in this new arrangement?
You *obviously* don't have a family.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
With current layouts, baggage space is already tight.
I doubt that 80 more fliers hand baggage would fit on the overhead space. So it is not just seat space that needs to be considered.
I've been on many buses in the DC metro area that have rear facing seats on the buses with seats across from them. It's not really that big of a deal.
This is a wonderful idea, as long as: the people facing backward don't puke on takeoff; flight attendants don't mind breaking up the inevitable fistfights; and you remove the bathrooms so that there's no temptation for the 6'4" next to the window to want to pee mid-flight. Except for all the horrible downsides, I don't see any drawbacks.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
'Nuff said.
The article is misleading. Simply reversing the middle seats would not result in more space to add new seats.
The only way this would work is if this configuration somehow reduces the distance between adjacent rows.
So what is really going on here is a sneaky way of hiding the fact that leg room will be diminished.
It is about staying within safety guidelines mandating the speed of evacuation of aircraft. Beyond that it's about not violating social standards so much that too many fights break out (they're expensive). After that it's about stuffing the most people in with the final limit being not making too many of them so uncomfortable they are willing to pay more for a more expensive seat. There are finally concerns about the actual cost of manufacture of the seats. Southwest has had seats facing each other in exit rows for a long time.
No mention in the article or here how it would effect emergency evacuations? Seems it would be more hindering to get across from the window. Any commercial pilots here?
Only those in aisle would be able to get to the bathroom, everyone else would just have to wait for the end of the flight!
It isn't about getting more seats in a plane
Yeah. Yeah it is. This is why you have seating arrangements designed for the average hypermetabolic midget ectomorph who can exhale, suck it in and hold it for the duration of the flight.
And, if you happen to be a normal sized person or a non-ectomorph body type, or carrying any extra weight at all, said planes are sardine cans where you're expected to die of asphyxiation.
And that's BEFORE the person in front of you reclines their seat and crushes you.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I really want to start a company and get a patent on casket transport. The idea is we would all get into these caskets for transport and they'd then be stacked upon each other to maximize space efficiency why flying. Everybody could fly in comfort then. You'd just have to make sure you went to the bathroom before you got into your casket and be liquid and food deprived for the journey of the trip. And if this all sounds creepy to you we'll even have mild sedatives available.
Hey, if they really want to fit more people, why don't they...
- Shrink the already narrow widths of the seats to fit four on each side of the aisle. (Anyone slightly larger than average has to buy two seats.)
- Take out the seats and just make everyone stand.
- Replace the seats with shelves only about 1 foot apart that everyone has to slide into.
- Cram passengers into small boxes.
There are lots of very uncomfortable ways we can cram people into, next to smelly other passengers on the plane.
While I'm at it, I feel like ranting about how rude people are on planes. Small children don't bother me. That's not intentional or neglegent. The alternative is to drug toddlers, which I would never sanction. However, people do weird stuff:
- I've been next to people who smelled like they had done lawn work, not showered, and then got on the plane.
- I've been next to people who just could not sit still, so every time I would just doze off, they would wake me up.
- Some people insist on bringing strong-smelling food onto the plane and then eating it sloppily. Those smells can turn my stomach.
You know how broccoli, when cooked beyond a certain point emits hydrogen sulfide? One time, this one women brought on some food she'd gotten on the airport that apparently had breaded and deep-fried broccoli. For the first half hour, everyone near us in the back was trying to figure out how to get the bathroom door to close better. Until we realized that it was HER FOOD that smelled like farts. When we figured it out and people started looking at her, she was all indignant about it.
If you're going to join a large number of people in a confined space for four hours, could you please not be a self-centered asshole about it?
Well they could also have hammocks in the aisle way up near the ceiling.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Seriously whoever designed this should be fired and blacklisted from the industry. It should have only taken an average human being a few moments to see this and facepalm.
Can't sit backwards in cars. I could easily imagine getting motion sick and hurling over the stranger in my face.
I notice that you can't get out of 2/3 of those seats in each row without someone completely standing up, and then lifting their seat out of the way. Cute idea, but impractical.
Maybe just an issue with the picture of the design, but I don't quite understand how the window seat passenger is supposed to get into their seat without stepping on the middle seat.
Does seem to perhaps work better with the reality that many passengers are, uh, wider than the seat though.
...they're making the annual 30-hour drive from Arizona to Illinois (and another 30 hours back, of course) look better and better all the time.
Proof
How are seat configurations patentable anymore? Why hasn't someone generated every single configuration possible on a given plane and published it?
I don't give a shit. I can only fly these days by ingesting 15 mg valium while boarding and 5 mg every two hours until the flight is over.
The sad thing is that I used to like flying. They just kept squeezing us closer and closer until one day I had a panic attack at 30000 feet and that was the end of my ability to relax on a flight.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Basically, it sounds like you'll get to become a member of the Mile-High Club whether you want to or not.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Airlines can dream all they want about cramming passengers into planes for increased revenue but the limiting factor will always be evacuation times. Unless they can get everyone off the plane in the amount of time required by the FAA and other governing bodies, it won't be allowed. This was one of the key concerns with the A380 actually, they weren't sure they could meet the mandates and went through several drills/tests.
That's because sedation is dangerous. Most times you need an intensivist or anesthesiologist to do even moderate conscious sedation... At least a CRNA... And the risk of adverse events is never less than 1:100000. Just imagine if 1:100'000 passengers died.
Sedation in real life is not like in movies. Ask Michael Jackson.
Especially considering for all the bluster about how 'fat' America is, the rest of the world has nothing whatsoever to say to us on the matter.
I suppose we deserve it though, after all, we never miss the opportunity to link the French and white flags, the British and poor teeth, the Germans and Hitler... So game on, rest of the world.
British Air and Virgin Atlantic have been doing this for years in business class.
Yeah, I could travel like that too.
It's supposed to be under my seat in the event of a water landing...
They could do even better..
Flying backwards would just increase the nausea.
It has been shown that backwards-facing seats are safer in a crash. Link
What is one supposed to do when one has to sneeze, or take a piss?
Fight night at 30,000 feet
fights in 3, 11, and 32 rows....LIVE!
I would hate that arrangement.
If you can't fit comfortably between the arm rests take a Greyhound. Being squeezed between two sugar addicts is never a fun experience.
We're not happy 'til you're not happy.
Also, it's no good airplanes. Do you really want to be on the receiving end of an acute case of motion sickness?
> meal trays.
Sounds like you haven't flown in a while. I think it's been twenty years since I had a meal on a plane. I fly Seattle to Miami and back four times a year for work, and pretzels just don't do it.
How, with two stops, so you have three short regional legs?
I fly Los Angeles to New York every year or two, to Hawaii every three to five years, and these longer flights have meals. Even Los Angeles to Dallas or Chicago to New York have offered meals on one leg or the other. What has changed is that meals are no longer free and are often prepackaged sandwiches, wraps and fruit/cheese platters; not so much the reheated entree with veggies.
Short flights like Los Angeles to San Francisco, yeah, just snacks.
Fuel/Oil prices dropped, did the air fairs?
I observe ticket prices on a particular route overseas and five years ago, it was in the area of $ 700 - $ 800, if one was lucky, even lower by $ 100.
What I am seeing now is something like double of that, $ 1500 - $ 1800 and higher. All on Economy.
On the way from there - 5 years ago to now, what have I seen...
Food served to be disgusting, charges for luggage which was free before, Allowable luggage weight decreased and now the size of allowable cabin luggage is apparently adjusted down - one needs to buy another carry-on case.
Then we have the 2-class check-in sequence. Is it efficient to load the plane from front to back - sure no, back to front would be the choice where the passengers coming in first would not interfere with the one's already at their seat stowing their luggage into the upper bins.
Nothing like this happens - first the front of the plane is loaded - first class, then business class, then the largest volume, economy after that, also in reverse, lower number rows first, obstructing the flow of incoming people with higher rows.
There are some planes where the "better" people have their own entrance door at the front.
All in all, another dehumanizing experience for the majority of travelers and the underlying reason for this is????
Rear facing seats are probably safer in a crash why not just flip all the seats around.
Ok maybe I'm dense but how does this configuration allow more seats? This doesn't seem to reduce the pitch of the rows at all. How does rotating the middle seat allow more dense seating, unless you are reducing row pitch and cutting everybody's legroom, in which case you could just do that without rotating the middle seat? What am I missing here???
On existing airlines, why couldn't they have slightly larger/longer seats and charge say $15 more for them? It's either passenger level OR first class now, nothing in between.
In fact, they could also have slightly smaller seats for a $15 discount. Same total room in the end, just better allocation per body size.
Table-ized A.I.
A few years ago I sat facing backwards in one of those Southwest flights with two rows facing each other. It was terrible. Planes tilt nose up on takeoff, which meant that I was leaning forward, most uncomfortably. I figured I'd at least make it up on landing, but planes also tilt nose up on landing, which meant more discomfort. You'd have to give me a sizable discount to get me to fly backwards.
Why don't the airlines just sedate all the passengers and stack them like cord wood in a pressurized cargo container and be done with it?
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Trust me. If they thought they could get away with it, they would.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"Oh hi, random person of the opposite sex. You don't mind if my hand rests against your hip and frequently gravitates to your crotch while I sleep here, do you?"
I thought airline seats were already bad for violating personal space, but the way the picture shows it, this would expand new horizons of awkward.
It also would be hard to get out of the plane in an emergency if you're knocked out.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
You've touched on a big advantage of back-to-back seating: it will be impossible to recline because the back of the seat already touches the back of another seat. No more will you have to spend a flight looking at the top of the head of the ahole who reclined into your lap.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
OTOH, a cabin full of Nitrous Oxide - now that's an idea.....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Seriously. Look at the picture and tell me how the hell window seat guy is supposed to get to the toilet past snoring obese man and sour old crone 12 hours in to his 24 hour red-eye. Do they put some sort of ropes course on the ceiling for vertical access mid flight?
Second man gets seat. When first man can't stand, second man get seat and leg space. Punch line: First man in gulag, hahaha!
As a guy with very broad shoulders I say: Bring it on!
On planes I prefer aisle seats because that way I don't have to constrict myself in order not to disturb fellow passengers. For me one shoulder in the aisle is the way to travel. Every now and a trolley bangs into me. But so what.
Still I wonder how this is ever going to work gracefully.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Even a 1st year comp. sci. persons knows that it is fastest to load the plane with LIFO.
I estimate you could cut loading time down by 50% .. 75%, but no, the airlines are to stupid to figure this out and make loading time be exponentially long.
They could even sell it if they worded it properly:
"We have some good news. You no longer have to wait 20 minutes to board the plane. It will take around ~7 minutes! The downside is that 1st class will have to wait a little longer. All in all this means we can reach your destination about ~10 minutes sooner."
I'd pay extra for that spot.
Every time I see some of these crazy machinations to try to jam more and more people into less and less space, I can't help but think of this diagram:
Description of a Slave Ship
The economic motives are even similar, more bodies per craft = more profit.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
It looks like from the picture that the extra compacity comes from having the seats taper Ie the seats next to you "overlap" what would normally be your leg room. This isn't using geometry to save space, well it is but in the weakest sense. It is assuming people will be okay having their legs together for an entire flight. They do realize guys have balls that need some space right?
Whatever downsides it has, if such a design is adopted, I hope it leads to a stronger adoption of a convention that those with window seats board first.
Someone did studies on this and found that window seats first isn't significantly better than the current system. The most efficient method they found was to board odd rows first, then evens (or vice versa), the theory being that it gave people enough elbow room to get their luggage into the overheads without interfering with each other.
Maybe next time I head to the US I'll go by boat.
This is simple interlacing and is exactly how one optimises the number of sardines in a tin. People will not like being treated as cargo, no matter that they are. Besides it's harder to ignore the obnoxious person facing you that the one sitting next to you.
You've touched on a big advantage of back-to-back seating: it will be impossible to recline
Big advantage? Hell no.... reclining is the only comfort/relief you get from being crammed into these tight quarters. Always recline first thing, and stay reclined every moment except during takeoff/landing.
And don't spend your dollars to fly on any plane that doesn't have reclining seats.
FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FARS, 14 CFR)
FARs > Part 121 > Section 391 - Flight attendants
(a) Each certificate holder shall provide at least the following flight attendants on each passenger- carrying airplane used:
(1) For airplanes having a maximum payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds and having a seating capacity of more than 9 but less than 51 passengers -- one flight attendant.
(2) For airplanes having a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less and having a seating capacity of more than 19 but less than 51 passengers -- one flight attendant.
(3) For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 50 but less than 101 passengers -- two flight attendants.
(4) For airplanes having a seating capacity of more than 100 passengers -- two flight attendants plus one additional flight attendant for each unit (or part of a unit) of 50 passenger seats above a seating capacity of 100 passengers.
(b) If, in conducting the emergency evacuation demonstration required under 121.291 (a) or (b), the certificate holder used more flight attendants than is required under paragraph (a) of this section for the maximum seating capacity of the airplane used in the demonstration, he may not, thereafter, take off that airplane --
(1) In its maximum seating capacity configuration with fewer flight attendants than the number used during the emergency evacuation demonstration; or
(2) In any reduced seating capacity configuration with fewer flight attendants than the number required by paragraph (a) of this section for that seating capacity plus the number of flight attendants used during the emergency evacuation demonstration that were in excess of those required under paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The number of flight attendants approved under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications.
(d) During takeoff and landing, flight attendants required by this section shall be located as near as practicable to required floor level exists and shall be uniformly distributed throughout the airplane in order to provide the most effective egress of passengers in event of an emergency evacuation. During taxi, flight attendants required by this section must remain at their duty stations with safety belts and shoulder harnesses fastened except to perform duties related to the safety of the airplane and its occupants.
[Doc. No. 2033, 30 FR 3206, Mar. 9, 1965, as amended by Amdt. 121-30, 32 FR 13268, Sept. 20, 1967; Amdt. 121- 46, 34 FR 5545, Mar. 22, 1969; Amdt. 121-84, 37 FR 3975, Feb. 24, 1972; Amdt. 121-88, 37 FR 5606, Mar. 17, 1972; Amdt. 121-159, 45 FR 41593, June 19, 1980; Amdt. 121-176, 46 FR 61454, Dec. 17, 1981; Amdt. 121-180, 47 FR 56463, Dec. 16, 1982; Amdt. 121-251, 60 FR 65933, Dec. 20, 1995]
Imagine someone who walks with a cane trying to get out of the window seat in an emergency. Or even get in and out of it at all. Or what happens when the window seat person has to go to the bathroom?
I think this might be a good seating plan for getting more troops into less space in a military transport aircraft. But for civilian airliners? I just can't imagine that it would work.
Don't make me laugh.
make 1st cheeked bag free and boarding time will go down.
Apparently this sardine packaging idea only works without arm rests. At least that is what the picture shows.
if they could solve for the privacy and don't-want-to-stare-at-your-face issues, this is actually a great idea.. Shoulder widths are the limiting factor in current airplane seat designs and by staggering shoulder positions, instead of lining them up like in current configurations, this design could make sense.
You could pack more people in while giving each person *more* individual space.
Many business class seat configurations already take this into account.
The seats are part of the problem, not the solution. I say ditch the seats and make everyone stand, like on the subway/tube.
Our endless drive to efficient packing of sardines in a can may just increased risks and impacts.
Here's a "solution" - not a very good one I have to admit :)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
"Whatever downsides it has, if such a design is adopted, ..."
Well, if such a design is adopted, all long haul flights would fly with empty economy sections if all people would be normal, which they are not. There are always enough people to accept everything like sheep, and the flights would go on.
But, I have a better idea. Make everyone take sleeping pills before boarding, then put handcuffs on them and hang them up on meathooks. Bet you could fit 3-4x people.
As things are going these days, demand for cruise ship tickets might just see a steady increase.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Many Americans require two seats, and judging from the pictures, that configuration of seats simply cannot accommodate that, meaning that a large amount of fliers in the U.S can not travel on those planes. It may lower the airlines' income, it may even out given the greater total of seats, it may cause lawsuits on discrimination, and more. I think this will work well in the world, for airlines like Ryan Air that pack people in like sardines, but it simply cannot work over in the U.S.
And if the person behind you is on the last row (i.e. the one that usually doesn't allow for reclining), fuck them, right? And if the person behind you wants to be able to eat or use their tray for something at all, fuck them, right?
I'd gladly pay MORE to fly on a plane that DOESN'T have reclining seats. If nothing else, just for the advantage of not having to travel with self-centered people that don't understand that everyone else around them is in the same situation and that it would be good for everyone if there is some minimal level of mutual respect of people's spaces.
Let me guess, you're also one of those type of people that, when feeling space-constrained, have the need to kick (or push with your knees) the front person's seat.
Because fuck everyone else, right?
who are just an arm's length away? Touch knees with them? No privacy at all? No chance to recline your seat? Seems psychologically unwise unless all facing seats are for couples.
You get what you pay for. I do the Japan-UK route regularly and will pay a little bit more (about â50 on average) to fly with JAL or ANA instead of British Airways or one of the other European carriers. For that I get to fly a more direct route and take hours off the journey, and get a wider seat with 10cm extra leg room.
A lot of business class users fly on those two airlines because they seats that allow their staff to work and arrive reasonably healthy without paying for business class seats. Of course, Japanese companies actually care about the welfare of their staff, not just saving â50 on a flight...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I have a new resolution for this challenge. I lean forward, put my arms on the top of the chair in front and go to sleep with my head on my arms.
I mean, it's in my space, clearly it's there for my use..
...by British Airways (BA).
BA's business class uses (heavily patented) ying-yang seating in order to cram in extra passengers - it has 8 abreast in its 777s, for example (2-4-2), whereas most competitors have 6 abreast (2-2-2) or even 4 abreast (1-2-1). As a result BA is doing very well for itself in terms of profits!
.... Is about the exact same that is used to more effectively transport as many slaves as possible in a trade ship. Since we are already slaves of the industry.... it is kinda fitting!
rather finally give us planes that have arrays of sleeping compartments like in fifth element! One stash to the left, one to the right of the isle, job done.
You'll be paying a lot more for that ticket, because no one else will want to fly with you.
You think the chair in front of you is in your space... how cute. Let me know how well you sleep when I raise my seat back and quickly recline it again into your head.
Your space is behind you, recline into it.
Was thinking the same. So who owns the patent for that?
You'd fit more people in if you banned anyone who's fat from travelling.
No, really. I have been for years in the aircraft business, and it is perfectly clear that in case of crash, rear-facing is much much better.
None of the study considered the present swap patent though, and for a global swap generally the conclusion would be, 'rear-facing passengers won't appreciate during takeoff and landing, so let another company propose this first'.
That's probably what'll happen here too, in spite of the better compaction. But maybe they'll prepare a low-grade compact class at the back of the plane.
Which is, btw, the place of choice to survive a crash -another clear output of all real-size crash-tests done these last 10 years (yes there have been a couple of them)
Herve S.
Airplanes already don't have enough room in the overhead bins for bags; passengers sometimes end up having to check bags they intended to carry on because no room is left. Cramming in more passengers will make the problem worse. This seating arrangement is also likely to have little room under the seats for bags.
"this means not sharing arm rests with people."
Because NO ONE will have arm rests. There ain't no steenking arm rests for anyone! How .. interesting.
And stepping across one or two seats to reach the outward seats will be unpleasant, especially if you're a woman with a tight skirt.
Nope, this idea really really sucks.
Even a 1st year comp. sci. persons knows that it is fastest to load the plane with LIFO.
The problem is a first year comp sci person doesn't get that people aren't rational and reasonable.
Last In, First Out (yes it helps to explain acronyms) requires all passengers to co-operate and understand what's going on as well as not trying to abuse the system for their own game. The problem is people in large groups can meet none of these criteria, which is why we end up with the current barely controlled cat herding that are current boarding procedures.
People aren't reasonable or even good at following instructions and this is for ordinary, polite individuals. Beyond them you've got the arseholes who think the world owes them and would happily push in and abuse the boarding system with no regard for others.
LIFO's big problem is that it only takes one person to break the entire system. One person to board out of sequence, one person to hold up the line talking on the phone, one person to waste time storing their stupidly oversized carry on.
Airline planners and operations managers are a hell of a lot smarter than your first year comp sci student. They've thought of this and found that it was unworkable, it would make boarding worse than it currently is because no-one would understand it and even if they did they would ignore it.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
So I take it that the a manger was playing tetris as was like, you know what? If we arrange the seats in 4 squares we can maximize the space and eliminate crowd id we form unbroken rows!
Mutated by Scientists.
Why does it posit keeping people semi-vertical? I'm sure we could be better-packed as logs. And stripping to put on bunnysuits, rather than a 3-D scan.
Even a 1st year comp. sci. persons knows that it is fastest to load the plane with LIFO.
So it encourages everyone to turn up late?
I estimate you could cut loading time down by 50% .. 75%, but no, the airlines are to stupid to figure this out
Either that or they know things you don't
All in all this means we can reach your destination about ~10 minutes sooner."
You don't get anywhere sooner because your departure time, travel time, arrival time, customs processing, and bag pickup are still all constant. All you've done is introduce complexity that will fail as soon as the first person shows up late.
I really don't see how they could patent something this obvious. In fact, I read the headline, and exactly that came to my mind.
I didn't quite realise this was a very bad idea until I read the comments ;).
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
Yes, but the one being discussed here is not really back-to-back. The *middle* seat faces backwards, windows and aisle seat face towards the front.
So everyone looks at the top of the head of the ahole who reclined into your lap, and also exchange sympathetic looks with other people in similar predicament.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.