Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Aircraft Design Puts Passengers Face-to-face  
User currently offlineManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 3010 posts, RR: 48
Posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 15762 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.

Source



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?


Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 15708 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.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 15695 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.
User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2129 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 15534 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.
User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 15492 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.


User currently offlineRikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1619 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 15388 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?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frans Zwart - DutchOps




AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 71
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 15289 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
This design is not SAFE for air travel, so it won't happen

First thing that anybody with half a brain thinks of. Why bother wasting time and effort looking at such a study?



One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30393 posts, RR: 84
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 15243 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

[Edited 2009-09-22 10:10:21]

User currently offlineTharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 15152 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.


User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10321 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 15101 times:

More seats, more bodies and much, much less comfort. It looks like an update of the troop seating on a C-130 or C-141.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 15032 times:



Quoting Myt332 (Reply 6):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
This design is not SAFE for air travel, so it won't happen

First thing that anybody with half a brain thinks of. Why bother wasting time and effort looking at such a study?

The FAA will frown on it before the prototype construction starts!



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9523 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 14928 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?".
 confused 

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
These college level design studies passed off as "news" and "products" are really annoying.

 checkmark  Perhaps it was only a design excercise and the Telegraph has taken it out of context.


User currently offlineRampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 14920 times:



Quoting Rikkus67 (Reply 5):
I didn't know Bombardier was going to dust off the old S330/S360 design!

Those are big windows! I thought the S360 was pressurized?

As for the "new aircraft design", I can't think of anything more uncomfortable. It looks more like bus stop seating, not even bus seating.

-Rampart


User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4860 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 14836 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.

YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19275 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 14756 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.

How is 4-abreast superior to 6-abreast?


User currently onlineJettaKnight From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 14678 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Still, that would be 120" for 24 seats (three "adjacent" rows of eight with each row taking up 40") vs. 128" for 24 seats



Quoting ManuCH (Thread starter):
it could lead to a 50 per cent increase in the number of passengers on board

Something isn't adding up.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 14565 times:



Quoting David L (Reply 11):
Perhaps it was only a design excercise and the Telegraph has taken it out of context.

But it's still a waste of time, even as a "design study" because it can't be used. Why not put those brains to better use?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2574 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14261 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.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3526 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 14256 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
Quoting David L (Reply 11):
Perhaps it was only a design excercise and the Telegraph has taken it out of context.

But it's still a waste of time, even as a "design study" because it can't be used. Why not put those brains to better use?

Perhaps these are brains that would be better employed stacking supermarket shelves !!!!


User currently offlineJER757 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 13722 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?

S360 was not pressurized.



Gale force fog... don't you love it?
User currently offlineKL911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5113 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13285 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?



Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5789 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13015 times:

Nice way to get free publicity for the design company, although I don' t think it shows off their work as well as other designs.

I like their other aircraft interior designs better.

http://www.designq.co.uk/index.php?o...content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=156



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10321 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 13015 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  Wink . 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
User currently offlineKL911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5113 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 12695 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.

I knew someone would say that. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_train_disaster

Highspeed is highspeed..... plane or train or car...always deadly.



Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30393 posts, RR: 84
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 12667 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 Post contains links 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
40 Asteriskceo : You've never flown WN, have you?
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'
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
THY Online Poll For New Aircraft Design posted Sat Apr 23 2005 11:34:47 by Robcol99
Any New Aircraft Design In 20 Years? posted Mon Nov 4 2002 21:17:48 by AirAfrique
New Aircraft Orders From AA Due To The TWA Deal. posted Sat Apr 21 2001 23:36:27 by Dutchjet
Emirates To Receive 4 New Aircraft In December posted Thu Dec 4 2008 10:05:00 by Haan
Garuda To Add 25 New Aircraft From 2009 posted Mon Apr 9 2007 06:53:04 by ThaiA345
BA To Order New Aircraft BY Year End. posted Thu Sep 28 2006 09:59:55 by WINGS
SWA To Receive New Aircraft posted Thu Aug 17 2006 03:42:59 by Flinhion757
Cityjet To Spend €173m On 23 New Aircraft posted Thu Jul 13 2006 11:05:52 by BDKLEZ
What Does It Cost To Certify A New Aircraft? posted Sun Mar 19 2006 02:38:41 by Art
PIA To Lease 10 New Aircraft posted Sun Mar 12 2006 10:28:52 by Cabso1