The thought experiment to play with is, swap out windows for computer displays, still with the air gap seen on some planes, but not for all windows and see what transpires.
The thought experiment to play with is, swap out windows for computer displays, still with the air gap seen on some planes, but not for all windows and see what transpires.
I could imagine seats facing "outwards", with a corridor along the windows. Kinda like a cinema but the screen is replaced by a row of windows. This way no one gets to "hog" the window seat (apart from the front row, and even then others can still see the windows on their walk along the corridors to the toilets etc). Bonus points for raised stadium-style seating with storage lockers under the rows at the back.
Also, the plane tilts by up to 20 degrees.
Acceleration was about 0.4 g with peak of 0.5 g. Second stage climb (5-10K) was 0.2g nose up. Rest of climb was 0.1g. Decel was 0.3-0.4 g also with a peak at 0.5 g.
On the big engine Lears, I’m quite sure the accel is higher than braking plus reversers. Airliners might also have higher accel rates on shorter runways as they often do power limited takeoffs on long runways in the interest of maintenance economy.
Related, we had a hold for weather at the destination, so I checked the pitch of the plane in the hold. It was 0.1 g nose up, which was quite noticeable when walking up the aisle to the restroom.
The same issue is for back facing seats on autonomous cars. I don't see it happening.
Problem solved.
-Airline execs once economy passengers get used to having no windows on one side.
(A broken window still lets you see outside)