The new SkyRider seat and its saddle-like design would allow airlines to space rows 23-inches apart, instead of the current 28-inch minimum. Of course, the airlines could pack even more passengers onto a plane if they just mulched us at the gate and injected our collected contents into the cabin like sausage inside a casing.
I don’t think idea will ever “fly” (pardon the pun). For one thing, the FAA mandates 28 inches so that people can, in theory, bend down and put their face in their knees in the event of an emergency landing. Also, I doubt those seats would meet current standards for survivability in the event of a hard landing. Once the seat bolts came loose, everyone would “pancake” together, and the entire passenger count would be squashed together in first class – not exactly the “upgrade” the passengers had in mind.
But I think the next proposal is going to take advantage of all the “unused” space overhead, and have passengers stacked vertically in bunks, taking a cue from the Japanese “capsule” hotel concept.
Japanese Capsule Hotels
If you aren’t claustrophobic, this might actually be a better situation than the current trend – unless you are exceptionally tall, you can stretch your legs out and perhaps sleep through the entire flight, with less noise and disruptions from other passengers. But I doubt the elderly or disabled would find it very enjoyable.
ready transporter beam
isn’t it goldy’s volley in the i-1098 editorial war with the blethens?
@1 I don’t know if that applies anymore–many, if not most, adults couldn’t get into the “kiss-your-ass-goodbye” position even at a seat pitch of 28 inches. The seat-pocket “safety information” card now generally shows two positions, the other being to simply lean your face against the seat back in front of you and cover the back of your head with your hands.
# 4: Yep, I know I couldn’t scrunch that low, no matter how much my life was in jeapordy. Not that the FAA has demanded any expansion in the pitch between the seats.
One thing we are seeing on a number of carriers, especially those in Asia, is seats which slide forward into a reclining position, instead of the seat-backs dropping backwards. It takes a couple more inches, but it removes the conflict between the passengers who want to recline, and those behind them.
As for Ryan Air, if they had their way they would be duct-taping passengers to the wings, and charging extra for goggles and oxygen.
The only solution is owning your own private jet. I want a G-5! Anyone want to help me with the payments?
roger:
I can get you a 747-400, real cheep, if you don’t mind the Japanese instructions on all the plaques and lables. But maintenance is your problem – it’s just about cycled out (for both airframe and landing gear). It was used for domestic short-hops within Japan, therefore it ran up a lot of cycles quickly. It’s got stem-to-stern economy class seats, but I’m sure we could take a few rows out without any problems!
Not only would this be terribly uncomfortable, particularly on long flights, but imagine the Wedgie Factor? I would actually go for the horizontally oriented capsule hotel approach. Though, I could imagine them only allotting 5 feet of length for everyone, regardless of their height and anyone over that would be SOL.
@ Nonsense. They’d have five-foot capsules, (over)sell them to everyone regardless of height, and then have a per-inch surcharge for every inch over 3′.
I’m surprised none of them have started installing pay toilets. Yet.
@ Nonsense. They’d have five-foot capsules, (over)sell them to everyone regardless of height, and then have a per-inch surcharge for every inch over 3′.
I’m surprised none of them have started installing pay toilets. Yet.
@9-10 Not sure why it double-posted; I only hit “post” once. And I was responding to @8.
See, just thinking about air travel gets me all flustered. I have to fly to Atlanta in a few days. If I had the time, I’d drive it.
As someone who will be flying with an 18 month old shortly, how the hell would you get a car seat in that thing?
PopSci had this last week and they said Ireland already is going with them. PopSci linked this daily mail story.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....board.html
@12
good point.
My office was commenting on how uncomfortable that skinny woman looked.
Can you imagine her in the second row seat?
Can you imagine a 350 pound senior tea bag member trying to fit into window saddle in the 2nd row?
Is there room for a barf bag?
It is plausible. The seats must withstand the 16G crash condition of course and the person must not smash their face into the seat in front of them. That can be done with air bags. AIr bags are in use in commercial planes right now protecting people from bulkheads and other hard objects.
I did neglect to mention one thing. The plane still has to be certified to evacuate within the appropriate amount of time. The seating density can affect this (too many seating relying on too few exits).
# 17: Good point about the evacuation scenario.
Ryan Air wants to use these seats in 737-800’s, which actually have a lot of exit choices (two exits up front, four over the wings, and I think one in the rear), which should be plenty for an aircraft carrying 100 to 180 passengers. But try putting these seats in larger airplanes? The A380 evacuations tests were somewhat controversial, quite a few people argued that the aircraft didn’t pass the test (EADS disagrees). What would happen if you add another 100+ passengers with this type of seating?
But don’t forget that for every passenger, you also have to take their luggage into account. Generally, a full passenger load is expected to require half of the lower deck cargo space to be devoted to passenger luggage. Increasing the passenger count increases the luggage count as well, which displaces paying freight in the belly of the aircraft. A 747 or A380 actually has less cargo space available than a 777, because the dual passenger decks take up more lower cargo deck space, and the higher passenger counts mean more luggage, and less room for freight. And dont’ forget that you have an incremental increase in fuel costs.
On long-haul flights, you also have to take the weight of the added passengers, luggage, and fuel into the mix in calculating take-off weight – to the point where you are bumping even more freight from the flight to achieve the right weight and balance. I’m really wondering if the marginal additional fare revenues are really worth the effort.
Geov @ 10: Ryan Air wants to install pay toilets, and encourage it’s passengers to “go before they fly”. The regulatory agencies haven’t exactly been very quick to embrace this argument, and Boeing isn’t supporting it either. Ryan Air needs Boeing’s support because the interior modification would need an additional type certificate issued by the FAA and European regulatory agencies, which couldn’t be obtained without Boeing’s cooperation.
Ryan Air also wants to eliminate the second officer (leaving only the pilot), and require passengers to load their own luggage into the cargo hold of the airplane.