Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoshTriplett | Hacker News Reader

Interesting. I never knew about this, and it certainly isn't true of Southwest today. These days they're the cattle-car of airlines, with their lack of assigned seating.

I found this bit particularly interesting, though:

> Today, the task of getting in and out of the gate in 10 minutes is impossible — but back then, says reporter Terry Maxon, the 10-Minute Turn saved the airline.

What makes it so impossible? Airport security has gotten far worse, but that's long before the gate. At the gate, what makes this less possible than it was back then?

View on HN

Probably that these days the company actually complies with safety regulations. Apparently back then the flight attendants were pulling luggage from bins right after the plane hit the ground. Passengers were lined up outside before the plane even hit the ground. The plane was pushing back and starting to taxi before passengers were even seated. I doubt any of this complies with safety regulations.

> Probably that these days the company actually complies with safety regulations.

Or maybe in those days these regulations did not exist?

> Passengers were lined up outside before the plane even hit the ground.

This sounds like an unpleasant experience, but I don't see how it's a safety violation. (It's certainly not at all uncommon when flying today to have the boarding lines at least partially formed before the arriving plane touches down.) What did sound unsafe to me was having passengers deplaning and boarding at the same time.

The flight line is not a safe place for civilians to stand while an airplane taxis in.

Sorry, I missed a key word:

> Passengers were lined up outside before the plane even hit the ground.

(emphasis mine). Someone else mentioned that 'modern-day' boarding is through a climate-controlled jet bridge; that's all I've known, so I didn't consider any other approach.

...which in turn leads to the question: what did the safety regulations succeed in doing, exactly, other than slowing down these boarding times?

Now it is entirely my personal guess, but back in the day you actually had legroom and seats that reclined on planes. Now that extra room has been taken up by more seats. It is my belief that this condition, could explain a large portion of the time increase. As more seats leads to the combination of more people needing to board the same size aircraft, them needing to squeeze into smaller spaces (get up after sitting if they sat down before someone to their inside), and less room per person for carry on luggage so they sometimes need to find a overhead bin not directly above their row.

As commentators have pointed out security at the gate probably has also increased time, I think number of seats per aircraft could also be a contributing factor.

The gate security slowdown is irrelevant because there is inevitably a backup at the door of the plane for all but the early boarders.

> with their lack of assigned seating.

I'm pretty sure unassigned seating has been proven to be the fastest way to load an aircraft in practice.

> what makes this less possible than it was back then?

I'm not sure, I'd guess there are controls in place now that were not in place then e.g. passenger manifest reconciliation for security, ID checks, etc.

Ryanair (European Southwest essentially) target 25 minutes. If there were a way to do if faster I think they'd have found it.

More like: if they haven't found it, it's not for a lack of trying.

> I'm pretty sure unassigned seating has been proven to be the fastest way to load an aircraft in practice.

I would disagree with this. My experience is of low-cost operators in Europe (Ryanair, Easyjet, Wizz etc.), and I believe their experiences have been the opposite. Whilst most of the carriers used to operate on an unassigned seating basis, with fees for reserved seating, now seating is 'randomly' assigned at online check-in (although if possible groups are sat together). You can still pay for reserved seating but the benefit is obviously a lot less now.

My anecdotal evidence is that this has massively quickened the boarding process. Before, there would be delays waiting for people to sort out their seating and luggage arrangements (families especially), now it is much less of an issue and turnaround times are quicker.

It's also possible that the massive increase in people taking only hand-luggage in recent years has been a factor, but I'm not sure.

I guess maybe the practical limits of traveler behavior trump the theoretical ideal? The mathematical solution to boarding passengers was examined a while back:

http://phys.org/news/2008-02-board-plane.html

> although if possible groups are sat together

At times they have taken this to a new low: upselling the benefit of sitting together. The seat assignment algorithm is probably optimizing profit, not retaining groups.

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2014/07/30/airlines-and-parent...

It gets far, far worse than that. I had an American Airlines flight which showed every seat except the "premium" paid ones as full. Since I highly value sitting next to my wife, I went ahead and coughed up the $20 necessary to buy two seats together.

The plane flew at about 20% capacity. That diagram showing all the seats except premium ones filled? Complete and utter bullshit. I got a refund in my email a couple days later; I can only assume due to my complaining to the flight attendant about the situation. And I haven't flown American since.

The various controlled studies I've seen, including the mythbusters report, all show unassigned seating to be fastest.

It's not clear from the link posted earlier[1] if mythbusters did a run of 10-100 seatings and calculated the average/median for each method - but it looks like they just did each once. If so I don't think a difference of +/-1 minute is significant. A difference of 100 in customer satisfaction probably is.

This is also culture dependent. Nobody boards planes like a group of Japanese. Be that salarymen or high-schoolers on a school trip.

The rest of the world might board in more reasonable time if they got help to stand in line by their seat numbers (better yet, print seatnumber and an integer on the ticket - have people line up at the gate prior to boarding in accordance to the integer).

Would work except for the Scandinavians that'd consider themselves exempt... ;-)

[1] http://mythbustersresults.com/airplane-boarding

IMHO the reason Southwest free-for-all boarding works is that people choose their seat and then stick with it.

On assigned seating flights, I've noticed plenty of people deliberately sitting in the wrong seat. They know their assigned seat is waiting for them so they might as well try to score a better one. In addition, there are the more reasonable people who find their seat then ask people to switch to be closer to friends etc. This all takes time.

Having to play the seat game is stressful (o hai nonchalant couple straddling the middle seat...), but certainly not as stressful as getting fondled by the blue shirted molesters or wondering if you'll get into an argument with a flight attendant who wants to gate check your electronics-laden carryon.

> have people line up at the gate prior to boarding in accordance to the integer

Whenever I've had to queue way in advance of boarding in order just not to be at the end of my line, I've wished for this sort of solution—but, every time, it seems to me that you'd just run into the trouble where the lower-numbered folks wouldn't all show up on time, and then you'd have to (1) find a way to insert them into the line, which seems like it would have to slow them down, or (2) put them at the back of the line, in which case the whole point of the numbering scheme would be lost and we'd be right back to lines forming long before they need to do so.

If one had to print tickets, that might be a problem. But with cellphones, you could just have everyone et their seating at the gate. And "dynamically" move people that are late, out of the way.

So, lets say a plane seat 100, 75 show up on time - seat them automatically when the show up at the gate according to preferences. Those that remain, get what remains when they arrive. Want your seat? Want to sit with your group? Be at the gate 10 minutes before boarding (or however long it takes people to line up).

Mythbusters had a go at testing plane boarding time and customer statisfaction: http://mythbustersresults.com/airplane-boarding

Yeah, they are entertaining, but their methods are pretty flawed. The episode with the snow plow http://mythbustersresults.com/episode56 was beyond flawed and actually gave a dangerous result.

The "unassigned seating" thing is a little amusing since IME SouthWest actually has like 7 levels of "special" (at least it feels like that) before general seating is allowed.

I probably wouldn't change it (the special priorities) given the choice, but it is mildly annoying when it feels like you're waiting in line for an extra 10 or 15 minutes because you're not pregnant, a veteran, a VIP, etc.

Southwest has 1 (one) pre boarding phase - the vast majority of passengers in that phase are physically handicapped and need extra time to board. I fly southwest frequently (a-list) and have never seen it any other way - you get a blue sleeve, you pre-board. If not, you get in line with your group.

If they occasionally let a veteran or pregnant woman in that line who cares?

Maybe it depends on airport. I've definitely never seen a "blue sleeve". And I've definitely heard veteran pre-board called out at Love Field.

Either way, like I said, I probably wouldn't change it. It has no real impact on where I sit. It's just the whole making a slow, inconvenient, annoying process just that much slower, more annoying.

I do know that families with small children often board between the A and B groups. Which is nice, because families often want or need to sit together, but it still makes having an A ticket special.

>Ryanair (European Southwest essentially)

I would say they're the European equivalent of Spirit Airlines, or rather Spirit Airlines is the American equivalent of Ryanair.

Southwest is head and shoulders above both those carriers as far as customer experience goes (Two free carry ons (1 overhead item and one personal item), two FREE checked bags, free peanuts/almonds).

>free peanuts/almonds

Is this really a selling point? A bag of $0.50 nuts to accompany a $500.00 ticket?

No, it's not a deal breaker, but it's something small that makes the customer feel valued/appreciated and not like a walking dollar sign whose presence is an annoyance to the flight crew.

And in an industry characterized by extremely low margins a $0.50 bag of peanuts per person is definitely significant money out of their pocket.

You should go look into how Ryanair works. They sell cheap tickets, and then nickel and dime you on everything else.

I think that people haven't yet really got out of the mindset where you couldn't bring your own food on planes. Now that you can, their providing food (or not) is much less of an issue, but it's still hard, for me, at least, to resist the frisson of thinking "free food!" (even if, as you say, I have already more than paid for it).

On Ryanair it would be.

The cheapest fare advertised on their homepage is £7.99, London Stansted to Strasbourg (15 August, debit card payment, carry-on luggage only).

A bag of nuts, according to the menu in their FAQ section, is €2.

Its value is a lot more than 50 cents when you've been hauling a baby through airports, sat on the tarmac because of weather, and didn't have time to grab a scrap of food yourself.

Ryanair have gotten a bit better, mainly due to the actual experience of buying tickets from them online recently becoming much less of a hassle than it used to be.

Still, there's no chance they'll go easier on carry-on and checked baggage: for them, that's about minimising fuel usage and maximising profit.

Pure guess: they were already driving the plane to the runway while people were still getting settled, and similarly they'd take people's luggage down while navigating to the airport. These days, I assume there are regulations that disallow anybody to move until the plane is at a full standstill.

I wonder why, though. Seems to me like an airplane on the ground is a lot safer to stand in than a fully packed bus in a busy city. Any ideas?

The scale difference in airplanes can be massive. see accidents like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yx7aNdGYZo

My first thought: you would not want luggage blocking aisles if there's an accident on the ground.

Also, aircraft (and trains) are held to a far greater safety standard. Yesterday's bus crash [1] is unlikely to have much investigation, never mind a change to driving practices, road engineering, law enforcement, or anything else.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/28/belgium-coach-c...

You have to wonder how such a crash can happen on clear, dry open roads in good weather. Buses never travel that fast, nor will they have reckless drivers. There's a slight irony in that the coach is made by Van Hool which is a Belgian company - and make very good coaches from what I know.

Belgium has a slightly mad thing that they allow buses full of people without seat belts / standing to travel at 50 mph along the motorways.

>> "Belgium has a slightly mad thing that they allow buses full of people without seat belts / standing to travel at 50 mph along the motorways."

I don't think that's specific to Belgium. Even when I was travelling to high school in the UK 8 years ago they would account for standing room when deciding how many buses were required. So you had a bus full of kids all seated and then standing from the front to the back without room to move and the bus going as fast as 60mph. I never really thought of the safety implications but looking back it seems very stupid.

Same as back in Hungary, travelling between my home town and university (2h bus ride), and often people were spilling over all the way to the lower steps inside of the door (that means carrying people almost at 2x seat capacity)... Just crazy...

> Seems to me like an airplane on the ground is a lot safer to stand in than a fully packed bus in a busy city. Any ideas?

A plane is designed to fly sitting passengers, a city bus is designed to drive standing passengers. A driving plane has very poor suspension - it's bumpy and the bumps are leveraged by the tall landing gears. Inside the plane, people won't just be standing, they will be unpacking the overhead lockers, handing around heavy luggage over people's heads. Busses don't have overhead storage for heavy items, probably for this exact reason.

When I was a kid, I don't remember anyone with anything but trivial carry-ons (purses, little bags, etc).

Now, there's this fight to see how much we can stuff we can cram in for free to avoid checked luggage charges. Everyone has a bag and another bag with a laptop or somesuch. Everyone is trying to fit the biggest bag they possibly can into the overhead. This all costs time.

The weird part is that Southwest accepts checked bags for free, but I still see people doing this. I imagine there's an element of habit here and also a, "Why wait for luggage, I'll just bring everything with me and then go straight to a cab." I know I've fallen for that temptation before, but only after having my luggage lost twice in one year. Now I'm one of those people who often stuffs the largest bag he can find onto the overhead. Losing luggage for just 1 or 2 days on a 3 or 4 day trip really sucks. Suddenly I have no clean clothes, whatever electronics I packed, etc.

I also never understood the fast boarding time gimmick. Sure, its nice, but I usually fly out of O'Hare or Midway, where there's always a long wait after boarding anyway as we wait for an available slot to take off. Usually 20-30 minutes from after doors are sealed. All that rushing was for nothing. I imagine things are better in airports outside of Chicago, NYC, LA, or Atlanta, but for me its a lot of silliness. Especially now that there's this early boarder fee which is just a reinvention of the assigned seating ticket, but crappier because now I'm paying my ticket AND that fee just so I don't sit in the middle seat.

Its kind of like prisoners' dilemma: if you don't play the luggage game, you just lose.

I tend to pack that way myself, but I also pack far less than I used to, especially for international trips. So I bring a rolling bag and a laptop bag, but the rolling bag is well within the carry-on size, and the laptop bag is only just big enough for my laptop, power supply, and a handful of essentials.

Besides the safety issues others have described, it also used to be possible to board new passengers from the back door while the previous passengers departed from the front. All it required was two sets of stairs to the tarmac.

Now that almost all planes board via climate-controlled jet bridges, I presume it's too expensive to use two of them at the same time.

Considering how miserable many flights are, lots of people would jump at the chance to get out the back door and get out of the plane faster.

I always wind up in the back of the plane, and I would give a lot to not have to stand in the aisle watching person after person in front take their sweet goddamn time- talking on the phone, unpacking their luggage, having an argument, or just daydreaming- as they block the entire disembarkment.

European airlines often board from both doors, though they wait until the incoming passengers have left.

This is more common with but not limited to budget airlines.

Example: https://goo.gl/maps/FvLVB — you can see there are no jet bridges at all at the budget-airline-only LTN.

Actually, having no assigned seats is the fastest way to board a plane.

https://www.math.duke.edu/news/awards/mcm2007bbe.pdf

I tried to engage Southwest about this algorithm and it (email) was like talking to a brick wall.

I too found that bit about how a 10-minute turn is now impossible to be pretty interesting. Which struggling airlines would now fail due to the (presumed) regulations which prevent a 10-minute turn? Which enterprises have failed in general due to those regulations? Has the cost in destroyed capital been made up for in lives and property saved?

I'm curious, because, 'don't move around while the plane is moving' sounds like a sensible regulation, but a world without Southwest Airlines would be worse. When is the benefit worth the cost?

It's not the specific "10-minute turn" that's the key, it's having a faster turn than the competition. The regulations affect everyone equally, and if Southwest has a 25-minute turn while other airlines can only manage a 35-minute turn that's still a win.

Also keep in mind that some airline regulations were much more strict in the 1970s - all routes and fares had to be approved in advance by the Civil Aeronautics Board and competition on price was nonexistent. Southwest was exempt from these regulations because they only operated within Texas.

> What makes it so impossible?

Southwest flies 737s, which hold around 100 people (says Wikipedia). I can't imagine getting 100 people off a plane and then another 100 back on, plus stowing/unstowing baggage, all in 10 minutes.

Maybe that's why Southwest offers free checked baggage, to reduce the time passengers spend handling carryons.

I fly Ryanair fairly frequently, their turnaround time from landing to takeoff can't be much more than 30 minutes.

And that was the original model and configuration which was released, since then we have seen variations of model and configuration with up to 215 seats on a 737 according to wikipedia.

Planes are bigger these days as well.

In addition to the safety concerns: Larger planes, and "larger" passengers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com