New airline seat arrangement looks to increase passenger capacity | Hacker News Reader

New airline seat arrangement looks to increase passenger capacity

latimes.com

22 pointsjv2222249 comments

Check out the diagrams which accompany the Verge's opinion, http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/9/8924271/only-heartless-crea...

"..a truly nightmarish idea that lives somewhere between Saw and The Twilight Zone ... someone (or a group of someones) had to first think of this idea, create the patent, get approval within the company, and then submit it for approval to an international organizational body on the off chance someone one day thought, "Sure, let's try this." Because true darkness lies within us all."

That looks uncomfortable. Also notice all the wasted space above waist level. Just to put prior art out there: Why not arrange seats like this? http://i.imgur.com/OyQT6xX.png. It doubles the capacity and the plane might fly upside down half of the time so each half of all passengers have some quality time.

You could also let people stand, as ryanair considered doing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8779388.stm

I'm surprised coffin seating wasn't considered before. Put everyone in a coffin with air supply, stack the airplane to capacity, you could fit a lot of people that way.

I would pay extra for a coffin on an air plane. Wouldn't be great for the claustrophobic, but the isolation and prone position would be great for sleeping.

This was explored in the 5th element... The only way it was feasible is they knocked everyone out with some future-tech sleeping gas.

Imagine having to get up to go to the bathroom from a coffin?

Huh, that's actually pretty clever, and would make conversations easier if you're flying with people you know, since you'd be looking at them.

The reason this saves significant amounts of space (which isn't explained adequately in the article) is that the shoulders are generally the widest part of a person, and if you configure the seats so that you don't have shoulder-to-shoulder contact down the entire row, you can fit three seats into a narrower space. It doesn't matter at all if my shoulder overlaps with the legs of the person next to me, because they aren't at the same height level, so our seats can be closer together.

Backwards-facing airplane seats are also safer, but aren't standard for other reasons: http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/are-aft-facing-airpl...

It's pretty clever, unless you realize the people we want to put in those seats are actual humans, who might not be thrilled to be packed like a sardine, staring into the eyes of a stranger for hours at a time.

People put up with a lot of things for a slightly cheaper air ticket.

this does solve fat person beside you problem

I was expecting a few inches shaved off the seat depth and came here to say 'every single time it's "most passengers won't notice a difference" and then fast forward 30 years and the cushions are 1.5" thick and everyone's basically standing up'

You would get better packing efficiency if the "chairs" were just straight boards you strapped people to and put them on shelves. You'd also have the advantage of the people in the top rows shielding the bottom people from radiation.

When traveling with at least one person you know though, this might be preferable.

There could be a group of seats in this new configuration and a group in the current standard (everyone forward configuration).

I've been on a fair number of train rides with group seating, and I've never experienced a problem with it. That's actually worse from your point of view because there's someone directly across from you, not just diagonally across. It's preferable if you're traveling with people you know, and if you don't know them, you simply look at whatever you're reading (or end up talking to them). People tend not to stare directly off into nothing for long periods of time when they're in cramped confines; they do something to occupy themselves, like read a book/magazine, or they close their eyes and rest.

In the typical groups seating on trains, you are however seated far enough apart that only rarely do you have to touch the feet of the other passengers. In the hexagonal seating you are spaced such that if you lean back, the natural resting place of your hands would be the wrists of the person opposite you.

That is a bit more personal.

The article mentions that the hexagonical packing had been suggested starting from 2007, and it is essentially used in practice[1], but not with quite the same emphasis on "packing" as the OP post.

They also promoters of the 2007-hexagon also mention the privacy issue as their main guess at why nobody has used their seating.

[1] http://www.smh.com.au/news/news/ba-adds-luxury-touch/2007/09...

If the shoulders are the problem (because they are the widest part of the body) why not putting every other row slightly ahead? Or slightly rotate the chairs from the side rows outward?

I'm 1m 96 (around 6'5"). In most planes, the only way to fit my legs is to spread them out to the sides, more or less like this woman: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/06/18/23/29C20B3D0000057...

This design seems to base all the space saving on the constraint that the passengers' legs must be straight, pointing ahead. I just wouldn't fit there.

6'7" here. The expression "comically unworkable" springs to mind.

Or put them on the gangway to be crushed by the card. Fantastic.

Yes it seems we are like the broader people now and have to pay more to travel convenient.

This is not a new idea - slave ships were already doing it in the 18th Century.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1670325/infographic-the-slave-sh...

Those diagrams are what united execs fantasize about.

I'd be interested in finding out how this affects the rate at which the plane can be emptied, and thus whether it would pass the safety tests.

Sounds like I'm in a minority, but as a broad-shouldered guy I would happily make the tradeoff of having someones face in my line of site for an extra four inches of shoulder room.

Half the time I get off a flight, I have a backache from being forced to lean either to the left or the right.

This assumes of course that they would keep other factors like overall leg room about the same.

Yes, good point - other related problems this removes:

'That guy' sitting next to you who spreads his elbow over the armrest and into your seat space.

'That other guy' who sleeps with his head sideways facing you and slowly falls towards you (I'm more tolerant of this guy because it's not an active decision to be inconsiderate :-)

However I'm sure this seating arrangement would introduce similar annoying, uncomfortable behaviours with the legs.

Assuming these seats don't recline, this looks like it would make laptop use quite a bit more practical. No more bumping shoulders or armrest hockey? Yes, please.

As if sitting next to strangers on a plane weren't already uncomfortable enough...

Why not just pack people into tiny shipping tubes?

This actually looks more comfortable to me. The biggest issue I run into is bumping knees because I'm in a middle seat with two other people 6'+. This completely solves that problem.

Now the fact that you're looking back at other people's faces like the worst elevator manners is a different kind of discomfort...

There's also nowhere to put your arms/elbows on that design. (Which is fine if you're a robot that doesn't lean or move.)

Having relatively wide shoulders, the "fight" for the arm rest was always one of the most annoying aspects of flying. This layout would get rid of all the shoulder and arm bumping, which would be welcome.

Right. So now everyone rests their arms on their neighbor's thighs? Look at that diagram again.

If you think fighting over armrests is bad, this is way, way, way, worse.

They also delineate where your personal space is so that people don't invade it.

Rectangular-shaped ones so more humans will fit into given space :)

This makes it almost impossible to exit from the window seat when the seats are filled.

The article mentions that the seats flip up when the passenger stands. (Note: this means they should never actually be in the position shown in the render).

Sure, but in a window seat with two Florida natives to your right it's still impossible to leave.

There are usually bags under seats.

I'd already consider it impossible to exit from the window seat when the seats are filled.

Any airline that had the audacity to implement that seating arrangement would be bankrupt in short order.

Yeah, tons of airlines are experiencing customer revolt due to poor service, overcrowding & exploitative fee schemes. /s

https://www.google.com/finance?q=rya

We said the same about Ryan air and Easyjet, and they're both still doing fine.

People will use it if it's cheap enough, and just put up with the user-hostility.

The biggest problem here is increasing the passenger density while not increasing the amount of cabin baggage storage. This is particularly a problem in the US where there seems to be basically zero enforcement of cabin baggage limits. When I flew coach, I would always try to get on first just so my perfectly reasonable backpack would be near me. Get on last and it might not make it on the plane at all.

I say "when I flew coach" because AFAIAC that phase of my life is over. I'll pay to fly in a premium cabin when I have to fly. I consider myself fortunate to have that option and a not unreasonable indulgence.

I actually have no problem with this seating per se because it fits into the overall model of passenger/price segmentation. I'm not sure how much of this will be aimed at the developed world since flying is already ridiculously cheap in terms of real income [1].

I mean I've flown from NYC to SF return for @260. A mere 25 years ago in Australia it was relatively common to take a 2-3 day train journey from Perth to Sydney because a domestic flight was too expensive for many.

There are some general trends in the airline industry. First, first class is rapidly disappearing (eg Qatar Airways doesn't even have a first class cabin on many of its planes anymore). The reason is that business class is basically what first class used to be. What's now premium economy isn't much worse than what business class was 20 years ago.

[1]: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how-airl...

What about safety? All this stuff the flight attendants get on with about making sure all "cabin baggage is safely stowed either in a bin or beneath the seats" is so you don't trip up on crap in an emergency. Well, I guess thats no longer an issue...

"crash position" just more awkward. about have a hard landing? just put your face in my lap.

also, folks with motion sickness would make these flights interesting.

from an efficiency perspective, this seems like a pretty sound design, though.

Don't worry, only the people facing forward need take a "crash position". If you face backward you can keep reading your magazine safe in the knowledge that any way it goes you'll probably be much better off than your neighbours.

I think as income inequality continues to sky rocket up, we'll see more examples of some people flying in "steerage" while some fly in reclining beds.

Inequality in flight is not the problem, it's just a symptom.

I have better idea. Make bed shelves and stack people into them.

Stuffing more herrings into jar principle will not work well when applied to humans.

Psychologically sitting face to face with a stranger for hours will make 50%+ passengers feel uncomfortable and irritated.

It will also be very awkward and strenuous physical exercise for middle and window seat passengers to get to the restroom.

This will cause more irritation to stewardesses, anger to passengers and lawsuits to airlines.

0/10

Main problem is that one has to get a unknown persons in ones face when getting in our out of the seat.

A Fairly loaded stance if you ask me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com