Slashdot Mirror


Colombian Airline Wants To Make Passengers Stand (yahoo.com)

An anonymous reader writes Budget airline VivaColombia is considering plans to remove all seats from its planes and make passengers stand. They hope the move will drive down fares by allowing them to squeeze more passengers into each flight, opening up air travel to working class Colombians and budget holidaymakers. The no-frills carrier announced last week that it is adding 50 new Airbus 320s to its fleet to capitalise on the country's growing tourist market. The new planes will have more seats and lower running costs with the first one going into service at the start of 2018. VivaColombia's founder and CEO William Shaw told the Miami Herald the airline was looking into vertical travel options. He said: "There are people out there right now researching whether you can fly standing up -- we're very interested in anything that makes travel less expensive." He added: "Who cares if you don't have an inflight entertainment system for a one-hour flight? Who cares that there aren't marble floors... or that you don't get free peanuts?"

145 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. That's nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Its Indian competitor is going to allow people to stand on TOP of the planes, just like on the trains!

    1. Re:That's nothing! by Moheeheeko · · Score: 2

      That or just strap them to the wings.

    2. Re:That's nothing! by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yip, third-world travel can make even our chintziest services seem good in comparison.

      Many conservatives point out that even our very poorest often have it better than many in the 3rd world. But, why aim our economic system so low? Don't we want to get better over time instead of back-slide into 3rd-world-ism? Or do they find something sacred about profits?

    3. Re: That's nothing! by saloomy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But there is something sacred abour profits. Profit breeds competition, and focuses our potential into action. American capitalism built the modern world. Everything from the steel of skyscrapers to the airplane to the medical marvels we have are vastly developed and produced in capitalistic environments where the focused have the freedom and capability to do something that improves our way of life in return for the profits of their labor. What's wrong with that?

      In America, you have as the French would say: "a career open to the talents". If you have the talent, you can work in the field you are most qualified for. Earning yourself the best benefit, and your goal is to provide the best value in return. Profits allow us to decide how next to invest returns, and continue growth. There has been no greater engine for the improvement in our lives that capitalistic profit-seeking; so yes, profit is sacred.

    4. Re:That's nothing! by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's really going to piss passengers off is the 5 chicken limit.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:That's nothing! by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Nah, just make the passengers lie down in multilevel bunk beds on wheels in advance in the airport to save on boarding time and roll them into the plane. The multiple levels of the bunk beds would typically have a foot between them.

      Ask me, I drive a live chicken delivery truck for a living.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    6. Re:That's nothing! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The Americans are way ahead of you. A bug deflector costs extra.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:That's nothing! by PPH · · Score: 1

      even our very poorest often have it better than many in the 3rd world

      This is a Columbian airline that is considering this.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re: That's nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ladies and gentleman: American Exceptionalism on display. Meanwhile, back in reality land, the standard of living, standard of eduction, standard of health and standard of infrastructure has hit second tier in a steady downwards trajectory compared with the true first tier countries in Europe and Asia. This is self evident to anyone traveling to the EU or East Asia today, the US is second tier.

      American Capitalism was good at building stuff, but you might note that the new sky-scrappers are being built in a Chinese city, not in NYC anymore. And the largest airplane is a European A380, not a Boeing Jumbo jet assembled in Everett, WA. And the best application of medical marvels happens in South Korean with socialized medicine, not America with capitalist medicine.

      America needs to pull back on the dive into capitalistic oligarchies and kleptocracy and realize that people live in a society, not an economy.

    9. Re: That's nothing! by Serge_Tomiko · · Score: 1

      You know, there were once a people who believed this and enthralled this ideal in their religion. They are known by most as the Carthaginians. The Roman enmity towards these people is not so easily understood today. They always loathed them for their worship of profit over all else. As in the US, this trickled down into every aspect of life. Their disgusting artwork today looks like it belongs in the Museum of Modern Art or at Art Basel. They didn't simply enslave people, they operated strip mines all over the region and enslaved anyone they could and worked them to death. They abhored any work or sacrifice themselves, and believed as you do that profit is the prime motivator of life. So they didn't bother with any conception of virtue, especially the self-sacrificing kind necessary for military service. They just hired mercenaries.

      Oh, and yes, it's true, the Carthaginians did in fact sacrifice their babies.

      In time, they were utterly destroyed. Their short sighted focus on profit means we barely remember them as anything other than their war with Rome. We don't even remember why the war was fought, but they left nothing behind worth discussing, except crap art.

      Keep on worshipping that golden calf. In time, justice will smite you.

    10. Re: That's nothing! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Profit doesn't always breed competition. The barrier to entry might be high, meaning that only a few companies can actually participate in the market even if they get good profits. In addition, a monopoly in the market might result in high prices and the monopoly company squashing any would-be competitors before they pose a risk.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    11. Re:That's nothing! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "Many conservatives point out that even our very poorest often have it better than many in the 3rd world."

      But they do not point that out as a goal, but first to set the comparison correctly, IE what is described as being poor in America, with few exceptions*, not nearly as bad as it is proclaimed to be, and second, that despite assistance, the poor persist. That I have no glib answer for.

      * - notice many stories of the poor in Appalachia? Not many, for that is true poverty, and none seem very motivated to address it. And, more importantly, they generally know the government has rarely made their lives better.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    12. Re: That's nothing! by forty-2 · · Score: 1

      I'll have you know that the Chinese are still building plenty of skyscrapers in NYC. saudi, Russian and Chinese oligarchs have to stash their cash somewhere...

      --
      never drink kool-aid from a big vat
    13. Re: That's nothing! by ThePyro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Capitalism means competition. Sometimes the best way to compete is to develop a better product. Great!

      But we've learned a lot of other ways to compete, and unfortunately these other methods are often more effective. We hire lobbyists to change the laws in our favor. We hoard patents so that nobody else may compete. We use teams of lawyers to overwhelm competitors with litigation. We leverage monopolies to gouge consumers. We pollute the environment because cleanup costs are socialized and we get to keep the profit. We reduce quality or safety because we can retire with big fat profit sharing bonuses long before damage to the company's image catches up with us.

      None of these behaviors improve our collective standard of living, but these things happen on a daily basis because the system incentivizes them. Don't be afraid to question the system. It's not perfect.

    14. Re: That's nothing! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      You realize there are these things called monopolies, right?

      Even Adam Smith warned about them, even if all we ever hear him quoted for is the "Invisible Hand".

    15. Re: That's nothing! by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Capitalism means competition. Sometimes the best way to compete is to develop a better product. Great!

      But we've learned a lot of other ways to compete, and unfortunately these other methods are often more effective. We hire lobbyists to change the laws in our favor. We hoard patents so that nobody else may compete. We use teams of lawyers to overwhelm competitors with litigation. We leverage monopolies to gouge consumers. We pollute the environment because cleanup costs are socialized and we get to keep the profit. We reduce quality or safety because we can retire with big fat profit sharing bonuses long before damage to the company's image catches up with us.

      None of these behaviors improve our collective standard of living, but these things happen on a daily basis because the system incentivizes them. Don't be afraid to question the system. It's not perfect.

      Well said. Ideas are meant to be challenged. I feel that these days that they are not challenged and everything has turned into sacred cows. More than that, people are making a profit off of myopic short-sightedness.

    16. Re:That's nothing! by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 2

      Maybe if they voted in people who invest in government to make it better instead of ideology backed people who break govt on purpose then turn around and say "See! See, government doesn't work"

    17. Re: That's nothing! by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      I'll have you know that the Chinese are still building plenty of skyscrapers in NYC. saudi, Russian and Chinese oligarchs have to stash their cash somewhere...

      Yes but they're probably building them with South Korean steel, likewise any large new bridges that go up.

    18. Re: That's nothing! by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 2

      Our real estate developer in chief preferred to buy his steel and aluminum from China:

      http://www.newsweek.com/how-donald-trump-ditched-us-steel-workers-china-505717

    19. Re: That's nothing! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Profit breeds competition, and focuses our potential into action.

      But for the last few decades, it's been log-jamming at the top. If it's so important for competition, then spread it out so that the "motivation juice" is not just at the top.

    20. Re: That's nothing! by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Considering my great uncle, who was an elected road superintendent for a county in the Appalachian mountains routinely carried a gun with him in his marked work truck because people would take potshots at him, I would say a lot of people in Appalachia want nothing to do with the government anyway

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    21. Re: That's nothing! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      *whoosh*

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    22. Re: That's nothing! by lsllll · · Score: 1

      Capitalism means competition

      No, it doesn't! I like how you can just say something that seems intelligent and get a 5 insightful. Capitalism is the idea that rather than you working hard to earn a living, you should let your capital (your wealth) do the work for you. You invest your capital in operations with the sole purpose of increasing your capital.

      BTW: I agree with your the rest of your post.

      --
      Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
    23. Re: That's nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      to restate what you've written, a lot of capitalism is just the race to more efficiently externalize one's own costs onto others

    24. Re: That's nothing! by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Take the blue pill - move onto another response. For God's sake don't look any further at this article. Especially if you're a snowflake.
      Take the Red pill - read on for some reality.

      Let's discuss these.
      Hit second tier due to ACA and other lies we were told and many still believe.

      Larges airplane is a European A380 - Nope. Of course not. The A380 is just a modernized C-5 that America had back in the 1970s. Just look at the dimensions, they are all like 6" from each other. No achievement, just building on US technology, old technology at that. So they're just catching up. It's also not the largest airplane. An American airplane is of course - http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/31/... . So Europe is still decades behind the US, and they know it. Even so, the A380 has had a lot of problems with cracking and such. I wouldn't be surprised if they start coming apart in the air soon. The C-5's keep on going of course.

      No new sky scrapers in NYC? How about the one that just replaced the twin towers? They also have newer ones going up, so you're wrong on that too. I see construction cranes in many places as I fly over the city.

      Socialized medicine? England has that type of medicine and they'd rather allow their kids to die than send them to the US to save them - https://www.washingtonpost.com... . What a slap in the face to socialized medicine everywhere. They have to admit they aren't up to US standards and we see that all the time as we have Canadians coming into the US to get treatment that they can't get in Canada. At least no time soon. i wouldn't even think of going to Canada, Great Britain or France for surgery, or Korea. My chances are a lot better at my local county hospital.

      Socialized medicine in Korea? Looked it up. They have significant deficits and they don't even have illegal aliens and other free loaders like we have in the US to deal with. So why do we want socialized medicine again? If you want medical care, buy it. Not hard people.

      As for your society vs economy remark, you realize societies don't exist without an economy - right? Capitalism took the US to the moon, a fact that socialists can't dispute and they've never been able to do. We're coming up on 50 years now and they're still behind. I mention this because you can't dispute it, there is no getting around it, you have to admit it's true no matter how much you don't like it. Modern space programs from Japan, China and Europe that have been to the moon have found the landing sites and the foot steps are still there, so it did happen. Capitalism makes it so ANYONE can become rich. In socialism, only those in power can do that and they keep everyone else out. Often at gunpoint. They are not free.

      You want a capitalist society unless you're just useless. Go live in a socialist country for a year. Even a month. You'll quickly understand just how well you have it in the US. Things can be worse, a WHOLE lot worse.

    25. Re: That's nothing! by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Red pill indeed. What a pile of bollocks, lol.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    26. Re: That's nothing! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Doesn't America have lunatic asylums for idiots like the GP? Or are those the Canadian and Mexican borders I'm thinking of?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    27. Re: That's nothing! by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      I've lived in the U.S. and in a country with socialized medicine. The U.S. version is a pathetic joke by comparison.
      Of course, U.S. medicine is advanced, but only the rich can afford it. For everybody else, tough luck.

    28. Re: That's nothing! by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      I've lived in the U.S. and in a country with socialized medicine. The U.S. version is a pathetic joke by comparison.
      Of course, U.S. medicine is advanced, but only the rich can afford it. For everybody else, tough luck.

      Really? So all of those people coming to the US just have no idea what they are doing? All of those people that have absolute horror stories about their bout with socialized medicine are just... mistaken or something? I've talked to them, they are very passionate about it. They'll tell you that socialized medicine sucks. Just think big long waiting list. If you can't use your arm because of it for 5 years, they shrug their shoulders. Nothing to them. This is an actual example BTW of a guy that used to be a British subject. That's what they told him. 5 years. He came to the US and had it taken care of in less than a month.

      Sounds like you've bought into the socialist propaganda. It's not tough luck and if you really knew what you're talking about you'd know that. We don't turn anyone away. It's called emergency room medicine. All of those illegals that come here without insurance, that's what they get. It's actually the most expensive care out there.

      What we have now is a big lie. The so called 20-30 million that are "covered"? Yea, they're covered with a big old deductible. I'm talking like 7-12K deductible, so they can't go to a doctor because their out of pocket is so huge. I know people in this exact situation. If they didn't have the force fed insurance, they could see a doctor as they did for decades. Classic case of the government "helping" them.

      I'd better shut up... I'll tell people how I really feel and it would be a book.

      Suffice to say that you don't want socialized medicine. You don't want the government having control over it. You want people to do what they want to do without political oversight. If you want others to tell you what to do and take care of you, don't live in the US. You're in the wrong country. Go live in Cuba, Venezualla, one of those other countries. There's a lot of them.

    29. Re: That's nothing! by chriskovo · · Score: 1

      Ummm your an idiot. I live in NY and we have Sky Scrappers going up every where, in Manhattan and the other boroughs. Also the A380 is in trouble, nobody wants the jumbo planes anymore. They are barley breaking even on those. Boeing made an analysis s and they ran with the Dreamliner a smaller plane that is more fuel efficient. That's seems to be panning out better in the long run. Hell if you actually read the other articles on this site you would know this.

  2. Beating RyanAir to stand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Impressive.

  3. Take Off And Landing by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Take Off and Landing sound like adventures.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Take Off And Landing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "What could possibly go wrong"
      and
      "If there's blame, there's a claim"
      come to mind first of all

      Though this does sound like attention seeking via headlines to get some free publicity.

    2. Re:Take Off And Landing by ZecretZquirrel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Take Off and Landing sound like adventures.

      Probably not as compared to the adventure of being a working-class Columbian.

    3. Re:Take Off And Landing by dgaller · · Score: 2

      You just put hand-straps on the ceiling like a bus, it's the same idea.

    4. Re:Take Off And Landing by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Kind of like a Borg alcove.
      Securely fastened into a vertical sleeping chamber where the cabin crew's responsibility us to monitor bodily functions during stasis.

    5. Re: Take Off And Landing by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      Before every landing, the pilot calls out "Hold on tight to those things!"

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    6. Re:Take Off And Landing by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Seat Belt? That's for First Class only.
      I'm thinking a length of twine.

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    7. Re: Take Off And Landing by Sassinak · · Score: 1

      Still better than basic economy.

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
    8. Re:Take Off And Landing by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of that trash movie "Soul Plane".

      --
      sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    9. Re:Take Off And Landing by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The pic shows a bare aircraft, so the people at the ends of each section will be squished like bugs, dead, if any significant longitudinal Gs were experienced (such as in every single takeoff and landing). Significant lateral Gs, like from an uncoordinated turn, could similarly squish a crowd of people against the sides of a completely bare aircraft cabin.

      Trains and buses don't have big empty spaces like those, and they don't experience signficant Gs in any direction unless there's a crash.

      Straps in the roof and/or poles to hand onto, if everyone used them flawlessly, would prevent people from being squished against any walls but would not save people bouncing off the roof and floor if there were signficant vertical Gs, such as from turbulence.

      The closest people could come to safely standing in a plane would be to use the bicycle-like seats Ryanair proposed.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re: Take Off And Landing by infolation · · Score: 1

      And before every unscheduled landing there's a fight for the oxygen masks.

      The safety video is enacted by puppets.

    11. Re: Take Off And Landing by Dagmar+d'Surreal · · Score: 1

      Except there's a dramatic difference between a bus accident and a plane crash. One yields bodies, the other yields "buckets of assorted body parts".

    12. Re:Take Off And Landing by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      I don't see why, separating each passenger 'compartment' with a woven nylon straps, like what your folding lawn chairs use, secured to floor and ceiling would probably do the job without taking much space at all. Its elastic enough to prevent injury if you are rattled around inside it during turbulence or forced back against it during take off / landing, but stiff enough to keep people from banging into each other to hard.

      Not saying it would be pleasant but it would probably work and provide adequate safety.

       

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    13. Re:Take Off And Landing by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Yeah I guess stringing up everyone like spider prey with nylon webbing could work :-P

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    14. Re:Take Off And Landing by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      or turbulence that makes the plane drop faster than gravity. Hence the reason for the seat belts.

    15. Re: Take Off And Landing by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      95.7% of people in plane crashes survive, according to google.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    16. Re: Take Off And Landing by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      The Airbus aircraft that they are purchasing already use that. In the cargo bins. Should be easy to retrofit a couple of those in the passenger cabin

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  4. If you could get away with it... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I figure this probably breaks one or two little safety rules, though maybe if it's only on domestic flights they don't apply.

    I'm certain that if you could get away with it Try-onair would already be doing it.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:If you could get away with it... by Incadenza · · Score: 1

      I'm certain that if you could get away with it Try-onair would already be doing it.

      You are absolutely right. They asked permission to do this five years ago, but were denied. Though I suspect they just threw around the plan for free publicity.

  5. Lazy Westerners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually, I don't think this will be as big of a deal as you'd think, especially for the target demographics (working class folks). These flights are probably intra-national (i.e. Columbian city to another Columbian city) and not an 18 hour long haul across the Pacific.

    Anecdotally, I visited Taiwan a few years ago and bought a train ticket from the south to Taipei - about 4 or 5 hours. What I didn't realize was that it was standing room only as I was late in purchasing the ticket.

    At first, I was simply flabbergasted that standing on a train for 4 to 5 hours would be considered acceptable in a 1st would nation like Taiwan. It took me about an hour before I even stopped considering getting off at a stop and buying a real ticket later in the day.

    It did kind of suck, but I stuck it out and made it, though was somewhat tired and sore.

    On the other hand, it didn't look like it phased the locals one bit, and this included both younger and older folks.

    The problem with Westerners, and especially Americans, is that we are too fat, out of shape, and not used to any sort of discomfort.

    But then again, I suppose they all would have liked to sit and have access to a plug, too. It's just Taiwan is more crowded than the US.

    1. Re:Lazy Westerners by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1

      I don't think the worry is about the discomfort of standing for long periods of time, but from the motions of a plane in normal flight and shifting weight of passengers that affect a plane much more than it would a train. Bank hard enough and your passengers shift in one direction and the whole balance of the aircraft is thrown out of whack.

    2. Re:Lazy Westerners by Jamu · · Score: 1

      Standing (Airbus idea) seats seem like a much better idea than having passengers loose. There's also saddle seats (Aviointeriors), which I'd think would be a very good way to lose your customers to another airline. I assume a few Italians think otherwise.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    3. Re: Lazy Westerners by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I don't think passengers would stand freely like in a bar. I think they still would be strapped to some kind of railing they would lean on. I think on ahort flights (1-2h) this might be even better than sqeezed into a seat, especially for people with long legs. Imagine a seat where your legs are stretched downwards so you take up less horizontal space.

      You can just sit on your carry-on, as long as it is no wider than your shoulders.

    4. Re: Lazy Westerners by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I think they still would be strapped to some kind of...
      gurney?

      A lot of problems would be solved this way

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Lazy Westerners by ls671 · · Score: 1

      You must be new around here; creimer IS our Silicon Valley spokesman.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    6. Re: Lazy Westerners by WarJolt · · Score: 2

      Just use standing roller coaster seats. They are now more comfortable than modern airplane seats and you are more likely to withstand the G forces better in the event of a crash.

    7. Re:Lazy Westerners by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      your [load] shift in one direction and the whole balance of the aircraft is thrown out of whack.

      The word you're looking for is "trim". The trim of any mobile structure is something that needs to be considered under both intended and unintended conditions, whether that's an airplane in the air, a ship at sea (see for example, the Herald of Free Enterprise (~190 dead) or the Ocean Ranger (87 dead, IIRC), or a vehicle on the road (every driver who loses their license for driving with an insecure load).

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  6. I feel obligated to say this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    DO A BARREL ROLL!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Now we've got in-flight entertainment!

    1. Re:I feel obligated to say this... by caseih · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually a properly executed barrel roll would not even be felt by the passengers, standing or sitting. It's a constant G maneuver. Back in the day, a test pilot rolled a 707 airliner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... He was reprimanded, even though it was a completely safe maneuver, as the spectators and potential customers were a bit rattled (they were on the ground watching) by the event.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... shows Bob Hoover rolling an ordinary twin-engine prop plane while pouring a glass of iced tea.

    2. Re:I feel obligated to say this... by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Back before Cimber Sterling went bankrupt, the founder of Cimber, Jørgen Nielsen, did a barrel roll in an (sadly otherwise empty) ATR42-500. This was in 2008.

      He got told off by the Danish air authorities despite being a certified test pilot, because he had declared the flight to be a normal flight instead of a test flight.

      There's a picture in this article: http://politiken.dk/indland/ar...

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  7. I can see it now... by corychristison · · Score: 5, Funny

    Super Saver Econo $49.95* New York to Los Angeles
    * add a seat with luxurious safety belt for only $449.95

    Also, it will be much easier to drag people off flights when its overbooked, without all of those pesky seats and saftey belts in the way.

    1. Re:I can see it now... by dargaud · · Score: 1

      I post this every time there's some new airplane nightmare... Remember that it is from the 70s.... Quite prophetic.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    2. Re:I can see it now... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Without those seats and safety belts there's no such thing as being overbooked! Just cram them on like a Tokyo subway. It'll only help during turbulence.

  8. No seats on Airlines by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

    To this guy, having marble floors and having seats on a flight is the same level of unneeded opulence. Standing on a flight to pack a plane is ridiculous. Affordability should not mean making it a miserable experience. Why not start loading people into coffen size boxes and transport them in a cargo plane? If it's only an hour flight, who cares, right?

    1. Re:No seats on Airlines by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      People decide with their wallets.
      If people prefer seats over cheaper flights, they will see elsewhere. If they don't, it means they accept the idea.

    2. Re:No seats on Airlines by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's all about price.

      Think of it this way--the last time you booked a flight, what was foremost in your mind? Was it legroom? Was it the quality of the snacks? Was it the inflight entertainment system?

      Nope. It was "How much does this cost?" Price was the overriding factor. If Flight A was $40 cheaper than Flight B, you took Flight A. You bitched and moaned and complained about being stuck in like sardine, but you weren't going to pay the extra $40.

      There are a lot of people who feel that way, which is why websites like Expedia have a "sort by price" and don't have a "sort by legroom."

    3. Re:No seats on Airlines by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Why not start loading people into coffen size boxes...

      Would certainly save on funeral costs, but where do you bury the survivors?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:No seats on Airlines by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I go by price because I assume all airlines are going to be just as bad as each other. If there were a sort by legroom option, I'd probably at least look at it. If it cost a little more for more room, I'd take it. The problem is, price is all we have to go on.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    5. Re:No seats on Airlines by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Legroom was foremost on my mind, which is literally why I haven't flown since 2002 and have no intention to do so.

      The problem with airlines is they think that the race to the bottom just means whoever reaches the bottom first gets all the customers. It actually, in practice, means that people start avoiding their industry altogether because they can't get an acceptable product.

      In virtually every market, that's not what happens. There's an initial boost of sales, and then they taper off, and start to reduce across the market as a whole. People stop using your services unless there literally are no other options. A handful continue, because somehow the crap you're marketing still appeals to them, and as a result, because those people still praise your godawful services you think you're winning, and that you're just facing a tougher market. Whereas, infact, the market is "tough" because you no longer supply the product people want, and you've done everything possible to make people associate your services with misery and pain.

      I expect this airline to do it. And in doing so, they'll once more reduce the number of flyers.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:No seats on Airlines by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      It Jetstar was $40 cheaper than Air New Zealand, I choose Air New Zealand.

    7. Re:No seats on Airlines by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Actually, the last time I flew, the company I worked for paid for the tickets, so foremost in my mind was how much I hate flying.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    8. Re:No seats on Airlines by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      The fact that he thinks passenger jets have marble floors makes me think that he doesn't know a lot about commercial air flight

    9. Re:No seats on Airlines by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Check out United. They have a set of "Economy Plus" seats---no, not just the ones by the exit door--which you can get for an extra $40 or so. They have a bit more legroom, but the left/right distance in the same (you so you still fight over the armrest).

    10. Re: No seats on Airlines by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I know I sound like a United shill, but as I mentioned above, United has "Economy Plus" with more legroom. I booked a flight about a month ago and I'm still getting messages from United saying that for an extra $39.99, I can upgrade.

      I assume that means that the seats aren't full. Of course, it's United, so they may already be triple booked.

      If all of these people were interested in extra legroom, why are those seats with extra legroom still available?

    11. Re:No seats on Airlines by Superdarion · · Score: 1

      which is why websites like Expedia have a "sort by price" and don't have a "sort by legroom."

      Do they even have a "sort by legroom" button? I'm a big individual and would gladly favour airlines with more legroom (and shoulder room, for that matter), even if a bit more expensive, but as it stands there is no way of knowing (unless you're familiar with the air plane model, I suppose).

      Even when flying with the same airline (say, Norwegian airlines or Lufthansa, with which I have the most experience) you never know what kind of legroom you'll get. I've had Norwegian flights in which I could do yoga and flights in which my knees are deep in the back of the passenger in front of me. And this is even the same route!

      There are airlines, specially on transatlantic flights, that offer couch+ seats with extra legroom, but the prices are abusive. Pay an extra $250 in an $800 flight (both ways) for an extra 15 centimetres? Hardly an option.

    12. Re:No seats on Airlines by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah, yeah.

      "Dammit, I care about legroom and service and all those things!"
      "Okay, are you willing to pay more for your ticket?"
      "Well...how much more?"

      Yes, it's predominantly about price. You could fly first class everywhere, have plenty of legroom and great service.

      The legroom thing in particular is hard to shop for. What does 48 inches of legroom mean to a person? 54 inches? Obviously 54 is more than 48, but is 48 comfortable? If 48 is comfortable then that is acceptable, but no airline on Earth allows you a "test fitting" anywhere for you to understand what that means to you.

      Agreed. But look at "Economy Plus" seating on airlines. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm flying in mid-August and I still get messages from the airline telling me that for $40 more, I can upgrade to a seat with more legroom. I assume that they still have these seats open, which is why they're pushing it.

      So, yeah, everybody cares. But nobody is willing to pay more money for the extra space. "That extra 6 inches of legroom will cost me $40? Uh...no thank you."

    13. Re:No seats on Airlines by Obfiscator · · Score: 1

      I agree. Between this and the individual entertainment systems in the seat, I actually had a reasonable trans-Atlantic flight with United. And then I did the same flight on Delta, which didn't have the option, and was pretty uncomfortable with the inch of space between my knees and the seat in front of me.

      It's worth enough to me that I'll pay for the upgrade out of my own pocket even if work doesn't cover it.

      --
      "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
    14. Re:No seats on Airlines by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 1

      I don't bitch and moan because when booking a flight for work, I'm required to find the cheapest option (especially important since I work for the Government) and justify my choice if it's not the cheapest.

      Guess that's an inefficient government? The cheapest options are often expensive ones (no pun), because of the inconveniences and lost work time/productivity they entail. Having to document the obvoius is adding insult to injury.

      Another factor is, navigating the airline pricing is art. Travel planning is complex optimisation. Can't be formalised.

      --
      17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
    15. Re:No seats on Airlines by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 1

      KLM's Economy extra is a wonderful idea when one is in full controll of the purchase. Unfortunately it does not work with govt employers (virtually any govt!) that all set "economy only" rules. So I prefer - where reasonable - Air Canada, where every seat is like KLM's economy extra. Now, if only KLM figured out how to call that class plain economy on the receipt, it would have made it so much more attractive.

      --
      17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
  9. What's next? by kelanos · · Score: 1

    A Jewish-owned airline based in Portugal wants to make passengers lie prostrate stacked on top of eachother?

  10. Works for roller coasters by Nkwe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are stand up roller coasters which have safety / restraint systems designed to keep riders safe, even when upside down. So from the perspective of keeping passengers in place during flight, it is technically possible. Comfort is of course another matter. If you ever been on a stand up roller coaster, are male, and have had the lower restraint (bicycle seat) set too high, you would fear turbulence on a stand up plane.

    1. Re:Works for roller coasters by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      Yeah I was thinking they would need something like this. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

      One thought I had: when they change seat configurations to squeeze more passengers in, at worst some passengers will think "that's odd, I don't remember it being this cramped". However this change is much harder to ignore and I suspect/hope this airline's sales will suffer as a result.

    2. Re:Works for roller coasters by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      If you ever been on a stand up roller coaster, are male, and have had the lower restraint (bicycle seat) set too high, you would fear turbulence on a stand up plane.

      I recall going around a stand up roller coaster screaming.

      It had nothing to do with the excitement of the ride- fortunately, three children prove it didn't do any permanent damage.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Works for roller coasters by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      it is technically possible

      Of course it is. There's been a patent on it for years.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  11. no turbulence in Columbia? by mcarp · · Score: 2

    when there's enough turbulence that all of the falling down passengers roll to the back of the plane there wont be enough elevator to lift the tail == doesn't fly

    1. Re:no turbulence in Columbia? by godrik · · Score: 1

      It is not because you are standing that you are not strapped to something. If you are thinking like in a bus, then yes it is not going to work. But you could stand in front of a padding with straps to hold you in place.

      I think it is hard to stay standing up without moving for a long time. But that could work for some people.

    2. Re:no turbulence in Columbia? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Then the pilot can arc the plane over in to a dive before it stalls to move the passengers forward again.

  12. Center of mass by vyvepe · · Score: 1

    An air-plane needs its centre of mass at defined position (with some small error). The article claims the use of some kind of "vertical seats" to force passengers to stand at their specified position most of the time. It might work. We will see.

  13. Standing backrests, perhaps with choir seats? by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not saying I'd be interested in using such an airline, but it seems like it could work if they had standing "rests" that passengers could strap themselves to for safety. I mean, you couldn't have passengers being thrown about the plane in turbulent conditions, so they'd need to be secured in place, the way seat-belted passengers are. Also, to reduce the discomfort of actual standing, the backrests could include small, adjustable "choir seats", just a few inches deep, and adjusted to sit high enough that the passenger's legs are almost straight. The cabin would have to be tall enough to accommodate everyone standing, which might require removal of the overhead luggage compartments.

    For short flights, it could be safe enough, and not too uncomfortable, and would allow perhaps 75% more passengers on the plane, which would allow ticket prices to be reduced by about 60% -- a $100 flight for $40, for example. Lots of people would be willing to be less comfortable for an hour to save $60, even in wealthier nations.

    It could work, I think.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    1. Re:Standing backrests, perhaps with choir seats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I won't hold my breath on that passing the savings down to the customers part.

    2. Re:Standing backrests, perhaps with choir seats? by koick · · Score: 1

      Of course squeezing 75% more meatbags and their associated luggage on the plane adds a significant amount of added weight which equals more fuel spent which equals less savings passed back to the now uncomfortable customers.

    3. Re:Standing backrests, perhaps with choir seats? by Whooty+McWhooface · · Score: 1

      you couldn't have passengers being thrown about the plane in turbulent conditions, so they'd need to be secured in place,

      Easy, just staple them to the floor! Seat belts and such are just too darn expensive.

      Another new safety procedure: In the event of a crash, you will hear a countdown. When you get to zero, JUMP! Everyone knows you can survive the crash by jumping at the last second. (I read that somewhere)

      But seriously, by having no seats in the fuselage, all they have to do between flights is hose off blood from the floor.

    4. Re:Standing backrests, perhaps with choir seats? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I won't hold my breath on that passing the savings down to the customers part.

      The whole point of this would be to offer cheaper fares. And if fares weren't cheaper, people wouldn't take the airline that makes them stand. A little bit of caution is good, but cynicism quickly reaches ludicrous levels, as yours has.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  14. Turbulence should be fun by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    Instead of being strapped in your seat while the guy next you is bouncing off the ceiling, y'all can do the two step tango all throughout the fuselage.

  15. As long as it's safe and half the price by Hadlock · · Score: 2

    Assuming they sort out the safely issues (I mean we stand on busses and trains and subways moving 50mph... my commuter train regularly tops 70mph here in America) yest take off and landing would be a bit sketch if it's setup the way a subway is, but if you take the time and effort to look at the problem from a new way, maybe add some specialized equipment... maybe it still can't be done, but it's certainly worth looking in to.
     
    If it were safe and say, cost half as much, $150 round trip to Seattle from SF at the gate (not buying in advance) vs $350 or even $500 recently, heck yeah I would be willing to stand for two hours!
     
    The elderly and sick, pregnant mothers, and people in wheelchairs would still have priority seating access of course.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  16. take out the pilots' seats first by swschrad · · Score: 1

    and see how that goes.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  17. Re:Weight by Incadenza · · Score: 1

    MTOW is already affecting airlines that squeeze in too many seats. Norwegian had to cancel its summer route to Las Vegas because there were too many days over 104 degrees. Beyond that temperature they cannot get their insanely dense packed planes of the ground.

  18. It might actually be more comfortable for some by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

    No one kicking your seat back, no one reclining into your lap, no leg cramps, no potential blood clots from long term sitting. Assuming whatever protective harness they put you in isn't all that uncomfortable, I'd be willing to give it a try.

  19. What about lying? by Hentes · · Score: 1

    You occupy the same amount of space lying down, but it's a lot more comfortable. I'd actually like to travel on a plane that has bunkbeds on it.

    1. Re:What about lying? by PPH · · Score: 1

      It's been tried. The passengers didn't like it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:What about lying? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      I've thought that this would be an improvement for a while, especially when flying economy on a long international flight. You ought to be able to get the same density of people lying down as sitting, and I might be able to sleep on a flight for once.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    3. Re:What about lying? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      While I'm not opposed to the idea, it does come with challenges. For instance, the most likely first use for beds on flights would be on long-haul routes, but those are wide enough that keeping the side-by-side orientation we have now with chairs would mean that not everyone would have access to the aisle. So far as I know, trains and other transportation systems don't have to deal with that problem since they're narrow enough that everyone has aisle access. It may be as simple as re-orienting the beds so that people have their heads to the windows and feet to the aisle, but then where does the luggage go so that you can grab it quickly from the aisle? There's also the issue that a lot of people suffer from motion sickness when lying down in a moving vehicle, whereas they're just fine if they can keep their head elevated. While this could be alleviated by giving them room to sit up on their bed, you'd then be giving up many of the benefits of being able to stack people.

      Again, I'm not opposed to the idea of beds (not at all!), and I do think we can design our way out of most or all of the problems I just listed, but I suspect that something in between (i.e. an inclined chair) will be the route we eventually take.

  20. Heh by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    Different but kinda similar thing, I was saying post 9/11, TSA launch, recent Patriot Act passing fear mongering that given enough room, Airlines would start forcing passengers to get a change of clothes pre-flight, absolutely no carry on allowed, then get sedated, and then pille everyone up like luggage inside planes with the excuse of it being for the security of the flight or something.

    I guess this one is at least honest about the objective.

    People already get extremely packed inside public transportation anyways, so this should be fine, right? Well, that is until you consider how long it takes before and after flight, how you can't exit the plane if the situation becomes too uncomfortable, how you are not running along roads but rather climbing up and going down the skies inside a metal can, how turbulence can be far more dangerous with a pack of people standing up than sitting in a comfortable position, how the last thing you want inside a plane is people panicking and running around, how dangerous scenarios like depressurization, major turbulence, and other types of problems can become catastrophic extremely fast if you have people standing...

    It's quite obvious for people who fly frequently... those warning to sit down and fast the seatbelt are out of precaution, but they are there for a reason.

    I mean, let this pass and we'll see how it goes. But I'm not going inside one of those, like ever. And I wouldn't invest on the airline behind this. I guarantee you that after not long, the airline would be sued to oblivion.

  21. Re:I can see it now... Reductio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ad absurdum:

    "Fly TREBUCHET airways! So anyone can afford a Weekend Fling!

  22. I've been saying this for years by mrun4982 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and I used to be an airline pilot. I want the cheapest fare possible and have no problem whatsoever with standing for the entire flight. As for the safety aspect, that's easily solved with a backrest that you can strap yourself into. In fact, I think standing plus leaning up against a back rest is more comfortable than those crappy seats they fill the planes with now.

  23. What about the water landings? by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    You're gonna go all Sully on the Hudson without all of those flotation devices? C'mom, man.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  24. Never mind that... by YuppieScum · · Score: 5, Funny

    What about the first time they hit some turbulence?

    *DING* "Ladies and gentlemen, the Captain has just illuminated the 'Fasten Seatbelt' sign, so we'll all be safe while you bounce around the cabin like rubber balls..."

    *DING* "The cabin crew will be passing down the cabin shortly, offering a range of bandages, splints and blood replacement products at very competitive prices..."

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
    1. Re:Never mind that... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There is basically only one way to make that "safe", and that is to strap everyone to tiedown points. You're going to have to wear a harness, and the harness will have to be attached to the floor and ceiling, and probably also to your neighbor. Air Bondage!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Never mind that... by sheramil · · Score: 1

      What about the first time they hit some turbulence?

      In the event of turbulence, the pilot is instructed to dive sharply so that the passengers are in free-fall, and they can bounce around safely like in those space shuttle training flights.

      ... yeah, I wouldn't want to clean up after it, either.

    3. Re:Never mind that... by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

      Rollercoasters do this already.

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    4. Re:Never mind that... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Rollercoasters do this already.

      Rollercoasters solve this problem with heavy and bulky steel bars. The goal here is to save space, and weight.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. Re:Weight by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    "A typical seat in economy class now weighs 74 to 82 pounds."

    I'm also sure people wouldnt be hauling a ton of luggage around for a one hour flight, so I can't see this being an issue.

    Its a space issue if you need overhead storage. Something would have to change because there would not be enough headroom to stand. Even without overhead storage, I could stand up near a window with the existing floor placement, I would have to crouch.

  26. Impossible due to exit limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is an exit limit specified to each aircraft. If its an A320 than that number is 180. You cannot legally put more people in the airplane by making them stand.

    Furthermore, since we are dealing with Colombia, there are numerous high altitude airports, and a packed, standing room only airline may very well be beyond the aircraft performance limits.

    1. Re:Impossible due to exit limit by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The exit limit is defined by the certifications gained by the airframe from the aviation body responsible for regulating commercial aviation in that territory - most local bodies defer to the FAA and EASA but they aren't required to and can allow something like this in their own territory.

  27. Hang them by chthon · · Score: 1

    Hang them by their arm-pits!

  28. From the Ryan-Air advertising playbook by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    Claim you're eliminating co-pilots.
    Claim you're offering adult entertainment on flights.
    there was another.... hmmmm what was it?

    Oh that's right. Standing room only.

    A recipe to ensure your name stays in the headlines for loads of free advertising.

    1. Re:From the Ryan-Air advertising playbook by ArtFart · · Score: 1

      Co-pilots? Boeing is proposing for the next generation of planes to have -no- pilots. (Of course, their announcing this afforded them a modicum of publicity as well.)

    2. Re:From the Ryan-Air advertising playbook by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that on some flights they don't censor the movies as much, keeping in the nudity and sex scenes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:From the Ryan-Air advertising playbook by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Probably normal as soon as you leave the puritan ^H^H^H USA airspace.

    4. Re:From the Ryan-Air advertising playbook by illtud · · Score: 1

      Ding ding! Mod up - this is a tried and tested game.

    5. Re:From the Ryan-Air advertising playbook by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Viva Colombia was developed by Declan Ryan, one of the founders of Ryanair and has had a hand in developing many other low cost airlines. So it should be of little surprise that he's recycling the same tricks he used in Ryanair.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:From the Ryan-Air advertising playbook by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1
      Same shit different day. This airline, VivaColumbia, is partially owned by the RyanAir founders:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VivaColombia

      VivaColombia is a Colombian low-cost airline based in Medellín, Colombia.[2] VivaColombia is the first true low cost carrier in Colombia. It is partly owned by the founders of Europe's biggest low cost airline, Ryanair.

  29. Make travel less expensive by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Use more trains. That would reduce demand for flights. And any libertarian worth his salt will tell you that how supply and demand works.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. They came to this decision after ... by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

    Studying and rejecting United's proposed new seating method of knocking customers unconscious and stacking them eight deep.

  32. Didn't Easyjet or Ryanair suggest this earlier? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    People here are giving pretty reasonable posts, like you'd have to secure passengers, and so on, but I seem to recall that either Easyjet or Ryanair had some crazy CEO a few years ago who suggested this kind of thing and he was definitely not interested at all in securing passengers.

    After writing that, I just checked. Viva Colombia is owned by Ryanair. It all makes sense now. The idea got nowhere in Europe for safety reasons. Let's just say that Latin America in general has a much more, uh, "relaxed" attitude towards aviation safety than would work in the USA, Canada and the EU. I said in general so I'm not saying all Latin American airlines are like that.

  33. dammit greg by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    take your standing desk hippie ass and gtfo of airline business

  34. Who cares? by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    How about an hour of extreme torture. Who cares? It's just an hour with no lasting effects. Just stand there, for an hour, with nothing to look at, nothing to see, and only one thing to smell. Try standing in your living room for an hour. Lean up against a wall. For an hour. Don't sit. Don't pace. Don't step.

    And without peanuts? Are you high? Have we forgotten the purpose of the peanuts? It's the salt. Salt effectively pauses the digestive system, along with a few other biological systems. It's hundreds of people in one place for an hour.

    And I don't want to know what happens to standing people in the event of a crash. Or during turbulence. Or holding a baby. Or to your 3' tall daughter when a 300lbs man falls on top of her.

  35. Standing during take off and landing? by aglider · · Score: 1

    Provided that someone is willing to stand for a couple of ours, Do they think it will be safe?

    Ah, they can cram a few more persons if they ditch the toilet!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  36. MAKE Passengers Stand? by niaxilin · · Score: 1

    You mean "LET Passengers Stand", giving them an option to save lots of money. No one is going to force all plane passengers to stand, but this would finally give people the option.

    The Vienna Opera House doesn't MAKE people stand, but getting to see a professional opera for €20 is worth standing for three (3!) hours. It makes these tickets accessible to those on a budget. The standing section is always packed, literally.

    Speaking of accessible, I don't like the idea that medical conditions could force someone to pay more because they can't stand. Does this get addressed?

  37. o'really ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Carthaginians were technologically superior to the romans. The romans captured a carthaginian ship and copied it to build their own ships.
    They only won the wars by superior military resources.
    In your analogy the romans would be the Russians or the Chinese. I don't think you comprehend what you're advocating. Ahem, gulag, ahem cultural revolution a la Mao.

    If you want to oversimplify things and have it down to golden calf/money worshiping vs totalitarianism, by all means point me to the golden calf.
    I lived in totalitarianism, have you ?

    1. Re:o'really ? by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      In the end, they lost and their ideology died with them to be resurrected in the here and now.

  38. Saving money by Compuser · · Score: 1

    If the idea is to save costs, at all costs, then the first thing I would do is switch to a plane fleet with flying wing geometry and no passenger windows. Such planes could fit more people, they would have major fuel savings, and they would be far more compatible with standing room passenger compartments.

  39. Re:Turbulence. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Easy to solve the luggage problem. Don't allow carry-on bags.

    Perhaps they could have feet straps to hold everyone in place.

  40. Soviet Aeroflot did it best by haruchai · · Score: 1

    Nice firm wooden bench so you knew where your ass was when it came time to kiss it goodbye.
    And a couple things nearby to grip if turbulence got really bad.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  41. Vertical? by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    Stupid idea. People don't stay vertical by themselves for long.
    Horizontal is the way to go, quadruple bunk-beds is way better, I wouldn't mind lying down for a 1 hour flight, not even for a 24 hour one, better than economy any day.

  42. Cheap publicity by bib1620 · · Score: 1

    Yes, Ryan Air did propose much the same this a few years ago, then a couple of years later admitted they had no intention of going ahead with it and it was all to do with seeking publicity.

  43. gasp!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why not stack the people horizontally with oil on their bodies? Add some sardine perfume to the whole thing.

  44. Brilliant phrasing by martinX · · Score: 1

    No, they're not standing up. It's a "vertical travel option".

    --
    When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
  45. Good idea by Max_W · · Score: 1

    Actually I like the idea. This way I could come with a modern portable parachute say Air Pol SK-94 Emergency Parachute: http://www.afeonline.com/shop/...

    And I do not like those dorky seats anyway. I never watch movies on idiotic displays inbuilt in seats either. My smartphone has got much better display and headset. I just have to pay to transport those low-quality displays, and someone makes money on it.

  46. Predicted! by kamathln · · Score: 1

    This has been predicted by the Indian stand up comedian Johny Lever long back! I heard it in one of his stand ups in 2006. His prediction might have preceded it much further back.

  47. Time to amend the old rules by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    Architects should be forced to live in their own buildings, and airline executives should be forced to travel in their own economy class.

  48. Torture Shuttle by bdwoolman · · Score: 1
    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  49. Didn't this story come around about 3 years ago? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    But with a Chinese airline proposing it, instead of a Columbian one?

    And I'll bet that was a dupe.

    Sorry, but I've done the "pick the guy from 3 seats over out of my lap" trick after moderate turbulence once too often to find this even slightly amusing. And I've done the free-fall lifeboat trainer a couple of times (a.k.a the "orange Vomit Comet"). This will reduce costs until the first time they kill 75% of passengers in a landing that should have been "survivable" (10% or less mortality). Then the company will go bankrupt and the injured survivor and next-of-kin can go whistle for compensation.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"