Standing room only - On a plane? - Maybe

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Plane
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the concept of standing-room-only sections on airplanes, a proposal being considered by Airbus for Asian carriers. This idea aims to maximize passenger capacity by allowing individuals to stand against padded backboards secured with harnesses. While this concept is still in early stages and has not yet been adopted, airlines are already increasing passenger density by adding more seats in economy class using lighter materials for slimmer seatbacks, without improving legroom. Participants express skepticism about the practicality and comfort of standing during flights, especially for longer durations, with many preferring to drive for short trips rather than endure cramped conditions. The conversation also touches on humorous and exaggerated suggestions for further increasing passenger capacity, such as using "knock out drops" or jettisoning passengers at their destinations. Overall, there is a shared concern about the future of air travel comfort and efficiency as airlines explore ways to accommodate more passengers.
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
22,343
Reaction score
7,141
Standing room only - On a plane!? - Maybe

One Day, That Economy Ticket May Buy You a Place to Stand
NY Times, April 25, 2006, By CHRISTOPHER ELLIOTT
The airlines have come up with a new answer to an old question: How many passengers can be squeezed into economy class?

A lot more, it turns out, especially if an idea still in the early stage should catch on: standing-room-only "seats."

Airbus has been quietly pitching the standing-room-only option to Asian carriers, though none have agreed to it yet. Passengers in the standing section would be propped against a padded backboard, held in place with a harness, according to experts who have seen a proposal.

But even short of that option, carriers have been slipping another row or two of seats into coach by exploiting stronger, lighter materials developed by seat manufacturers that allow for slimmer seatbacks. The thinner seats theoretically could be used to give passengers more legroom but, in practice, the airlines have been keeping the amount of space between rows the same, to accommodate additional rows.
Did you feel a bit more crowded in the air the last time you flew? :rolleyes:

Just wait. :smile:

Sardines, we shall become. :biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why not give every passenger knock out drops, you could then load them
into a larger version of an ammo belt, loading/unloading the aircraft would
be much quicker, it would not need loos or onboard food or entertainment,
hey i think i will sugest it to them.
 
Geometrically speaking, you can squeeze as large a passenger density out of a "standing room only" section as you could with a "sleeping room only" section. I wouldn't mind having to board a short flight and climb into my bunk - even if it meant wearing two harnesses during take-off and landing !
 
Gokul43201 said:
Geometrically speaking, you can squeeze as large a passenger density out of a "standing room only" section as you could with a "sleeping room only" section. I wouldn't mind having to board a short flight and climb into my bunk - even if it meant wearing two harnesses during take-off and landing !
That would save on the knock out drops. Load everyone into the bunks, then turn down the oxygen. Then you could even do away with the restrooms and the galley.
 
wolram said:
Why not give every passenger knock out drops, you could then load them
into a larger version of an ammo belt, loading/unloading the aircraft would
be much quicker, it would not need loos or onboard food or entertainment,
hey i think i will sugest it to them.
:smile: RO/RO (Roll On/Roll Off).

Well in that case, the plane would not have to land. Just jettison the passenger(s) (with luggage) at their stop(s) and keep flying. Then they catch another flight back.

Short distance flight could be accomplished with heavy artillery.

I've seen some impressive railguns. Up to 3 km/s. Unfortunately it's high g's if the tube is short.
 
Some flights I take are only 30 minutes, and I wouldn't have a problem standing, if the price was right.
 
hypatia said:
Some flights I take are only 30 minutes, and I wouldn't have a problem standing, if the price was right.
Unless someone's paying for my flight and rental car, I'd rather drive 3 hrs than take a 30 min flight.
 
Gokul43201 said:
Unless someone's paying for my flight and rental car, I'd rather drive 3 hrs than take a 30 min flight.
I've driven 2 hours to take a 30 minute flight, then had the airline cancel the flight because there were too few passengers and then sitting for three hours waiting for another flight. It was a business flight.
 
Airbus flatly denied the claim.
 
  • #10
Evo said:
I've driven 2 hours to take a 30 minute flight, then had the airline cancel the flight because there were too few passengers and then sitting for three hours waiting for another flight. It was a business flight.
:smile: I've had trips like that, but the flights are usually more than 30 minutes. I'd rather drive - fast! :biggrin:

What I really dislike is flying one direction, then catch a plane which flies the route just flown. I only did that once. I have seen people do it for cheap tickets - e.g. Houston to Atlanta to Los Angeles or San Francisco - roundtrip no less.

Ivan Seeking said:
Airbus flatly denied the claim.
Sure they do! Faux pas denial! Somebody was probably joking, and someone else thought it was a serious consideration. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #11
I'm sure the industrial engineer-types would be all over this one. "Lets see how many people we can cram into a Boeing 737." It would definitely make air transportation more efficient, and cheaper for those who have to fly. That and short people would get discounted fares for taking up less room :-p.
 
  • #12
The price for your life/health insurence goes up if you buy a standing up on plane ticket.:biggrin:
How are you soppsed to stand for 3hr?
 
  • #13
Gokul43201 said:
Unless someone's paying for my flight and rental car, I'd rather drive 3 hrs than take a 30 min flight.
That's my view too, especially since it take an hour to get to the airport, so all told, it's faster to drive than take a flight if it's closer than 6 hours driving to my destination.

And for a longer flight, I'm definitely not doing standing room. I don't mind so much the idea of getting a bunk to lie down on though. Just leave enough room to prop my head up enough to read a book if I didn't feel like sleeping.
 
  • #14
This reminds me a little of the QUAC Scanner - Quadrature CT. It used a large gantry which scanned four people all at once; with all four stacked inside. Someone had made up a sales brochure that looked very professional; with X-Rays included.
 
  • #15
Gokul43201 said:
Unless someone's paying for my flight and rental car, I'd rather drive 3 hrs than take a 30 min flight.
The Denver to Colorado Springs flights are like that. It's a 60 minute scenic drive at most as compared to sitting around the airport for an hour waiting for a short hop to Colorado Springs. The air turbulence just off the front range almost makes the wait worth it, though - especially if you enjoy laughing at those prone to airsickness.

The LA to Santa Maria flights are even more like that. You have a great chance of having the Santa Maria airport closed due to fog, in which case, they drive you and the other passengers there in a van or bus. After doing that once, I started just renting a car in LA and driving up the coast myself - a very nice drive that would be worth it even if you could count on the Santa Maria airport staying open.
 

Similar threads

Are West Jet Airlines Flight Attendants the Funniest in the Industry?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Ten most overpaid jobs in America No scientists on the list
Replies
7
Views
31K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top