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.

25 of 394 comments (clear)

  1. So will stacking us vertically by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It isn't about getting more seats in a plane, it's about doing so without making people uncomfortable.

    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
    1. Re:So will stacking us vertically by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But do you dislike it enough to pony up for business/first class tickets? No? Then suffer, cattle.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:So will stacking us vertically by JMJimmy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It isn't about getting more seats in a plane, it's about doing so without making people uncomfortable.

      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.

      Seriously. I can fit hundreds more in a plane if I put everyone laying down grouped by height/weight. How do they expect people to get in and out? Worst of all, can you imagine the creepy guys staring at the women in front of them all flight long? I'm a man and it creeps me out.

      The one thing I don't get is that flights are constantly over weight, or at least that's their excuse for jacking up baggage fees, so how do they expect to handle the extra weight from 80 more people?

    3. Re:So will stacking us vertically by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The one thing I don't get is that flights are constantly over weight, or at least that's their excuse for jacking up baggage fees, so how do they expect to handle the extra weight from 80 more people?

      Where did you get that idea from? They jack up baggage fes because they can, no other reason.

      Planes can also take more or less freight -- but freight doesn't pay a much as passengers, so they would prefer to make up the weight with passengers rather than freight.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:So will stacking us vertically by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Come on. Modern air travel via coach is just about perfect.

      For one-armed, one-legged people. Who have the patience of a saint with screaming babies. And the immune system of a god. And have deluded themselves that the TSA actually does something useful. And can go long intervals without actual food.

      Perfect, like I said.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    5. Re:So will stacking us vertically by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But do you dislike it enough to pony up for business/first class tickets?

      That is not the only alternative design. This above/below pod design fits in more seats while actually increasing personal space. Even economy seats would fully recline.

    6. Re:So will stacking us vertically by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Interesting

      airbus will beat them all with this patent: http://geekologie.com/2014/07/...

      sex train ftw!

    7. Re: So will stacking us vertically by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unfortunately, we will have to chain passengers to the oars. We regret any inconvenience.

    8. Re:So will stacking us vertically by cahuenga · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh it's not so bad. Was once on a flight in Guatemala with one backward facing row.... staring at a mother breastfeeding her baby in turbulence all the way to Costa Rica. I'll never forget that flight.

    9. Re:So will stacking us vertically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Only missing thing is pedals so passengers can generate energy for the aircraft..

    10. Re:So will stacking us vertically by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      If something mixes centimetres and inches, it's probably Canadian.

    11. Re:So will stacking us vertically by OneArmedMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      For one-armed, one-legged people.

      Works OK for me. Not sure about everyone else tho.

    12. Re:So will stacking us vertically by perotbot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the cattling of economy class, the security theater, the inconvenience of the current airport experience has gotten me to the point that if a destination is less than 10 hrs by car, I'll drive rather than fly. Between the delays of getting to the airports 90 to 120 minutes prior to the flight, the inevitable delays, it just makes more sense to drive it rather than fly for me

      --
      ~corporate tool, but employed~
    13. Re:So will stacking us vertically by lokedhs · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Or, you could travel with an airline which don't suck. Ever wondered why the best US airline on the top 100 airlines list is Delta at number 45?

      Try flying proper airlines and you'll see the difference.

    14. Re:So will stacking us vertically by JMJimmy · · Score: 3, Informative

      And why aren't there baby seats - it can't be safe to be on the lap in the event of a crash... it's like they want babies to die.

  2. prior art by snsh · · Score: 3, Funny

    Didn't slave ship makers have this all figured out two hundred years ago?

  3. I'm all for it by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:I'm all for it by ericloewe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You clearly have no idea about airplane structural engineering, or you wouldn't even consider what you just suggested. The only realistic solution would require a massive weight increase and the added failure scenarios, which need to be carefully examined and worked around.
      Furthermore, refueling an airplane does not take less than two minutes. That's the time you need just to plug in the fuel line.

      Not to mention the absurd ground complexity. Airports would need several cabins per flight per aircraft model, plus room to store them, plus machinery to handle them...

      Never, ever going to work.

  4. Three thoughts... by Pollux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    #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?

    1. Re:Three thoughts... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Rear facing seats make more sense in a crash situation (most crashes that are survivable happen in a nose-is-forward configuration). The entire seat supports the body in the rapid deceleration of a crash instead of just the seat belt. IIRC, some military transports are rigged that way. So you trade off a bit more discomfort on the very common scenario of the plane taking off with the possibility of better surviving a very rare crash situation.

      Decisions, decisions.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  5. It isn't about comfort by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. No, it *IS* about getting more seats in a plane. by Chas · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!!!
  7. Re:Bathroom by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, the backwards and the window people would be able to easily insert a catheter to each other, another advantage of that seating.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  8. Re: I'd go for being stuffed in a tube by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Funny

    If not, he can ask Bill Cosby for advice.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  9. Bring it on! by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 3, Informative

    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)