ManuCH From Switzerland, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 2977 posts, RR: 51 Posted (3 years 9 months 1 day ago) and read 14561 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Quote: A new aircraft design being developed in the UK where passengers are asked to sit facing each other in rows, could lead to cheaper travel, it is claimed.
Developers of the design, which is aimed at budget airline’s short haul flights, say it could lead to a 50 per cent increase in the number of passengers on board with a saving of up to a third per seat.
What do you think? This reminds me of the Ryanair marketing move of "standing seats". How does this help in any shape or form? Airplanes would have to be re-certified to carry more passengers. This means more emergency exits and more crew, and lengthy re-certifications procedures. Or am I missing something?
NorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2383 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 14507 times:
Interesting, reminds me of a city bus or a subway train. Those seats look awfully uncomfortable, but passengers will put themselves through all kinds of pain just to save $5 on a ticket.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21041 posts, RR: 60 Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 14494 times:
These college level design studies passed off as "news" and "products" are really annoying. Whether it's staggered seating, stacked seating, or designs like this, it's not practical and not gonna happen no matter who pays who to get it written up by the news outlets.
This design is not SAFE for air travel, so it won't happen. The neck injuries suffered by pax during hard braking alone would lead to lawsuits.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
WestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2114 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 14333 times:
Even leaving aside the safety aspects, how will this arrangement will give 50% more seating? A typical narrow-body today has six seats per window row (assuming seat pitch is close to window pitch). This interior seems to have planned for only four seats per window.
The reason why subway cars adopt bench seating along the windows is to accommodate strap-hangers (standees) during rush hour. The bench seating along sides does not provide more seating space.
The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
Tharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1792 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 14291 times:
Quoting WestWing (Reply 3): Even leaving aside the safety aspects, how will this arrangement will give 50% more seating? A typical narrow-body today has six seats per window row (assuming seat pitch is close to window pitch). This interior seems to have planned for only four seats per window.
The reason why subway cars adopt bench seating along the windows is to accommodate strap-hangers (standees) during rush hour. The bench seating along sides does not provide more seating space.
I had the same thoughts. A subway car of maximum capacity would have zero seats, with everybody standing. Obviously not a possibility in aircraft, due to safety concerns.
Rikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1470 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 14187 times:
Wow,
I didn't know Bombardier was going to dust off the old S330/S360 design! This layout look more like a paratrooper carrier than a regional aircraft... how much larger is the cargo hold for the lack of carry-on stowage?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26944 posts, RR: 83 Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 14042 times:
I agree it cannot happen due to personal safety issues. Moving to a five-point harness to restrain the upper torso would help, but it would add expense. And it would do nothing to prevent leg trauma.
And yes, you could just omit inflight services, but that is a decent revenue source for carriers. Plus there is the risk of tripping while transiting the cabin.
As to how it can allow more people to be fitted, consider a single row of 17" wide Economy seats with 34" pitch. That is six seats.
You could fit two 17" seats side by side in 34" so that would be two rows of four - eight seats. Now, mind you, that would not include armrest space so it's likely more like 40" for two rows of adjacent 17" seats.
Still, that would be 120" for 24 seats (three "adjacent" rows of eight with each row taking up 40") vs. 128" for 24 seats in four "conventional" rows of 6 with 32" pitch. Extended along the length of a plane, that extra space offered by "adjacent" seating would allow more rows/seats to be fitted.
Tharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1792 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 13951 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 7): but during inflight service difficult due to cart clearance with people's legs sticking out.
The designers may not have thought of much, but they did think of this. Read the article - they'd simply do away with cart service.
OK, I see your math (assuming you did the sums right). Is that tube even wide enough for 3x3 traditional seating? If not, then the number of extra seats would be even more significant.
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9242 posts, RR: 42 Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 13727 times:
According to the Design Q director (from the article)...
"It is taking the idea of traditional transport like a train or bus and asking: 'Why can't we do this on a plane'".
And we're taking the idea of looking at the regulations (and their reasons) before spending time and money on such a project and asking "Why didn't you do that?".
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2): These college level design studies passed off as "news" and "products" are really annoying.
Perhaps it was only a design excercise and the Telegraph has taken it out of context.
YOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4788 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 13635 times:
Quoting ManuCH (Thread starter): A new aircraft design being developed in the UK
a) never going to happen
b) come on Brits, stand up and resurrect your civil aerospace industry and not let shoddy industrial design students represent you.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16932 posts, RR: 57 Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 13555 times:
Quoting ManuCH (Thread starter):
What do you think? This reminds me of the Ryanair marketing move of "standing seats". How does this help in any shape or form? Airplanes would have to be re-certified to carry more passengers. This means more emergency exits and more crew, and lengthy re-certifications procedures. Or am I missing something?
This doesn't look like the interior of any mainline A/C. At best, it looks like an oddly-shaped RJ fuselage.
CALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2234 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 13060 times:
Has anyone looked at using regular seats turned 90 degrees. I'm using the Y cabin for a 738 from Boeing's tech sheet where they have 12F (36") and 148Y (32") . Two seats are removed at the exit windows.
If you take 17 inch width seats and place them with the backs at the windows, you can have seats running the entire length of the aircraft except where the two exits are. So that would be 45 seats backed up against each wall. A second row would be placed in front of the row on the wall with every fifth seat removed to provide a 17" aisle to get to the seats backed up against the windows. That would provide 38 seats in each of the middle facing rows. This assumes you need to be at least two seats from the aisle as with a 5-across widebody section.
By my calculations that would provide 32" pitch for the seats backed against the windows and a 20 inch aisle from where the normal back of the next seat would be.for the "middle facing rows". Vs. the 32" pitch regular scheme, which provides 148Y seats, this would provide 166Y seats.
Of course, this would provide no window seats and almost everyone on the window rows would be a middle seat. But, it would be more comfortable than standing.
JER757 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 350 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 17 hours ago) and read 12521 times:
The design is ridiculous... are there going to be any overhead lockers to store our bags in? They're needed as we're not allowed to check in luggage any more...
Quoting Rampart (Reply 12): Those are big windows! I thought the S360 was pressurized?
KL911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 4993 posts, RR: 13 Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 17 hours ago) and read 12084 times:
Quoting ManuCH (Thread starter): What do you think? This reminds me of the Ryanair marketing move of "standing seats". How does this help in any shape or form? Airplanes would have to be re-certified to carry more passengers. This means more emergency exits and more crew, and lengthy re-certifications procedures. Or am I missing something?
Can't we just all be happy that travelling every week around europe is getting affordable to all travellers out here that don't have the income that some trip report poster seem to have? We all love flying, and the cheaper the better..
I've been quit often on the German Highspeed train ICE, from Utrecht (NL) to Cologne (DE) and spend my time standing in the bar compartment, meeting very interesting persons. During the 3,5 hour ride I never had the feeling that i had to sit, and if I wanted I could. Why can a highspeed train traveling at 290km an hour allow standing, and planes not on short distance trips?
Mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9273 posts, RR: 13 Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 11814 times:
Quoting KL911 (Reply 20): I've been quit often on the German Highspeed train ICE, from Utrecht (NL) to Cologne (DE) and spend my time standing in the bar compartment, meeting very interesting persons. During the 3,5 hour ride I never had the feeling that i had to sit, and if I wanted I could. Why can a highspeed train traveling at 290km an hour allow standing, and planes not on short distance trips?
High speed rail, rarely runs into any turbulence . High speed rail can slow down gradually when coming into a station, whereas an a/c slows down, to be sure, on approach, but it slows much more abruptly when landing and then count the shock of the landing, itself. Nope, this idea will never make it, safetywise. Besides, it looks uncomfortable as hell.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
KL911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 4993 posts, RR: 13 Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 11494 times:
Quoting Mayor (Reply 22): High speed rail, rarely runs into any turbulence . High speed rail can slow down gradually when coming into a station, whereas an a/c slows down, to be sure, on approach, but it slows much more abruptly when landing and then count the shock of the landing, itself.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26944 posts, RR: 83 Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 11466 times:
Well most high-speed trains have seats that face forward and rearward, correct? This has been my experience with Eurostar, the TGV and the Shinkansen, amongst others.
25 Olympic472: This was discussed previously and I believe the thread has now been archived. It is still accessible for more comments: New Seating Concepts (by Glblt
26 FlyDeltaJets87: Sitting sideways is not THAT uncommon. Granted the rules are somewhat less strict for military but military aircraft often have sideways facing seats
27 Mastermis: The first think i checked on that Telegraph article was if it was posted on April 1st!
28 Jolau1701: Looks like an amusement park ride. Why not supply passengers with cheap office furniture if you're going in that direction?
29 Levent: Never mind the seating layout, what about using correct English to start with?
30 Asteriskceo: What airline would even think of buying this? Ikea Airways?
31 T8KE0FF: Oh god... Please no!! We have lost the glamour out of flying as it is, this is really taking it too far!
32 Ikramerica: Military is not relevant. Grunts have no choice, so can't vote with their wallet. And they generally can't sue over injuries.
33 OwlEye: I'll never fly such a "Wallmart Airways".
34 Bongodog1964: Different requirements totally: Military side on seating, is firstly designd to be easily stowable to allow cargo to be loaded, its little more than
35 David L: I'm just saying that without knowing the full context we might be getting the wrong impression. Of course, we might not.
36 Wexfordflyer: More than likely is. At the end of the day there are always going to be "new concepts" in aviation from FR's "standing seats" to this and many many m
37 DLDTW1962: I'm having a hard time getting use to seeing seats in Business class that you sit backwards in. Like the person sitting by the window is facing the ba
38 YULWinterSkies: And what is the risk of crash compared to jumping off the airplane with a parachute anyway? (esp. in a fight mission...)
39 Mayor: The risk of being hurt from jumping is probably less than being on board for the crash. The fight mission doesn't come into it as the risk of being h
41 BrouAviation: Indeed, I can't see the benefit of this either. No I can't. It creates a market which actually isn't there, the market of funtravellers. And when the
42 Bongodog1964: I'm sure if you try it, you will soon wonder what you were worrying about. Due to having no immediate reference points outside the aircraft, you don'
Sponsor Message: 
From Switzerland, joined exactly 8 years ago today! 
, 2977 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2383 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1470 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, 
Perhaps it was only a design excercise and the Telegraph has taken it out of context.
From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 4993 posts, 
. High speed rail can slow down gradually when coming into a station, whereas an a/c slows down, to be sure, on approach, but it slows much more abruptly when landing and then count the shock of the landing, itself. Nope, this idea will never make it, safetywise. Besides, it looks uncomfortable as hell.
Printer friendly format 
