LOL, you won't even be able to assume the crash position to kiss your a** goodbye...

I see a number of issues with this thing:
No neck support, have fun on landings and takeoffs
Doesn't appear to be height adjustable.
Lack of space for egress, what happens during emergencies.
You can really stow your carry on under the seat anymore with something like this.
Is this thing going to be fixed to the ceiling too? Because I can definitely see it bowing forward and backward over time...

The difference between this Skyrider 3.0 and version 2.0 from last year is that there are no floor to ceiling poles required which probably makes it easier to get it certified although the manufacturer won't even think about trying to get it certified without an interested company.

With air transport being targeted as a source of pollution it would allow an airline running a 737-800 to claim they are less polluting e.g. fitting 195 or 198 passengers instead of 189 thus reducing the co2 emissions per seat by about 4% while increasing ancillary sales and more premium seats.

They've been plugging away at this since 2010. They'll eventually get the marketing message slick enough to encourage some customer to buy it.

lightsaber wrote:

From the OP link:
"If a European carrier commits to installing the seats on their aircraft then the company would apply to aviation authorities for proper certification, said Menoud."

If... A big if.
Certain aircraft would do well configured with these 'seats'. E.g, A319NEO or CS300 with modified exits. Both would hit evacuation limits before other issues.

Lightsaber

Have you read the article? They're not talking about filling a plane with these. The plan is to use this as another option. Save space so 1st class has more space. I don't agree with it.

LAXLHR wrote:

Years of back pain to save $20-25 LMAO! Good luck with that!.

Like I said, it depends on the height of the seat. You've never sat on a bar stool at a restaurant or pub for 45 minutes?

VSMUT wrote:

How often do you stand up in a bus for 1 hour?

You've obviously never taken the bus or subway in any major metropolitan city in rush hour. Commuters (myself included) regularly stand for a 30, 45, or 60-minute ride if you board anywhere other than the first stop, where all the seats fill up.


I love all the a.net pretentiousness on here. Just because *your* high maintenance tuchus wouldn't use one of these seats for an hour doesn't mean other people's won't. Y'all are probably the same bunch that bemoan the lack of First Class or Y+ on domestic flights but never actually pay for it.

If you are content with this then no one is stopping you. Just count me out.

A think that a lot of people feel the same.

UALFAson wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

How often do you stand up in a bus for 1 hour?

You've obviously never taken the bus or subway in any major metropolitan city in rush hour. Commuters (myself included) regularly stand for a 30, 45, or 60-minute ride if you board anywhere other than the first stop, where all the seats fill up.

I have. I take public transport every single day, all over the world. Still haven't been somewhere where I had to stand for more than 15 minutes.

We haven't even talked about the impracticality of having dedicated sub-1-hour aircraft. Small regional aircraft (that would normally be dedicated to this mission) don't have the headspace for this, and 737s and A320s are regularly used across the entire network. What about wheel chair passengers?

Better idea

Stack bunks on either side of the fuselage


Once pax have stowed their bags and safely strapped in their bunk they will each receive a powerful sedative


They will then sleep through the entire hellish journey that is travel in coach these days


A wake up stimulant shot will be administered after landing


Sign me up

How many passengers can be legally accomodated on a the 200 passenger variant of the 737-8 Max?

VSMUT wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

This could make air travel on short routes economical. For those 30min-1hour flights, basically, like a bus.

How often do you stand up in a bus for 1 hour?

And remember, a 1 hour flight can quickly turn into 3 hours in case of a delay, missed slot or long taxi times.

30-45 minutes not uncommon at all. And this is not standing. There is still support. I just think these are the type of ideas that will expand flying.

Aptivaboy wrote:

Don't give Spirit any ideas. Heck,

Don't worry about them; I'm sure they're already waaay ahead of us.

The calculus here is, consider a 737-MAX8 (assuming it ever flies with pax again ), max load is 200 pax. So you can't just cram more pax in because it won't meet evacuation requirements *and* you need an extra F/A as soon as you squeeze the 201st pax in. But what an airline could do is to put in a few rows of these and use the extra room to add an extra row or two of F/J. So that way they decrease their costs in the aft section and increase their revenue in the front section without going over any magic numbers.

UALFAson wrote:

Like I said, it depends on the height of the seat. You've never sat on a bar stool at a restaurant or pub for 45 minutes?

It's all fun and games until you have a 2.5 hour tarmac delay on departure and a 1.5 hour tarmac delay on arrival and now you have been in one of those "seats" for five hours on a one-hour flight.

BrooklyBOMgal wrote:

Looks like Sam Chui

Probably beacause it is? I can almost hear him saying: "WAAAAAAAOOOOOOOW!!!" in that adorable way he does.

Also side note: the fabric pattern looks like someone got a bit excited and stained it.

LAXLHR wrote:

UALFAson wrote:

c933103 wrote:

If it can indeed cut the travel cost by something like 30% including tax and airport fee then they would be a product that is attractive for flights length within the range of an hour or so.

I agree. If this meant an airline could offer like a $20 or $25 seat, I would totally do this for an hour or less.

One thing I can't tell from the picture is the height of the seat. It looks like he is squatting, which I agree would be incredibly uncomfortable. But if the seat were like a bar stool height and you could just brace your feet against the floor, again, I think young and healthy people would absolutely do that for a short time in exchange for a cheap price.

I just flew LGA-BOS last week and paid something like $150 one way for 37 minutes in the air. My work reimbursed me, but I wouldn't pay that as a leisure traveler on a random weekend getaway. I would easily drop $50 roundtrip for one of these stand-up seats, though, to visit friends, see a show, have dinner, etc.

Years of back pain to save $20-25 LMAO! Good luck with that!.

I'm sure the standard airline seat is already a factor in bad backs. Standing may help some people though the evidence is mixed on the benefits of sit/ stand workstations in the office which have recently become popular.

Apart from anything else, I'd be worried about lack of headroom as surely on narrowbodies your head would be touching the overhead bins?

And as for smaller props/RJs...

Noshow wrote:

I know about some serious airline's market research about standing seats: Real passengers would accept it. Especially two groups: No nonsense business men without bags and students on a budget. We just need the right seat. Problem is you lose the bins and aircraft might need to be reconfigured for re-sale or re-lease. That adds cost. It would be something for the back cabin of a 737 or A321.

You mean:

No nonsense "business" men without bags (who work for companies that force them to book the cheapest ticket available, regardless of any other factor)

Fortunately, I do not work for such a company and never will. I do feel bad for the (insert H1B farm consulting company name) employees who will end up on this monstrosity.

PerVG wrote:

The briefest "hop across europe" I have ever done was LIS-MAD, it's barely a 1 hour flight and there's just no way in hell I would do it in on of those contraptions. Let alone anything longer than that.
This is one of those things that needs to be kille
d by the regulators before it gains any traction, IMHO.

I'm not sure you could sell this seat on at literal bus anywhere in the world. I certainly wouldn't pay for it...can't imagine that the general public would do so.

AirbusA6 wrote:

Apart from anything else, I'd be worried about lack of headroom as surely on narrowbodies your head would be touching the overhead bins?

And as for smaller props/RJs...

There will be no overhead bins for this class (as you will get no luggage allowance, must pay to check the bags), so that won't be a problem.

BlueberryWheats wrote:

Does he realise people come in all shapes and sizes?

I'm 6ft5, I think I I'd still have to book extra legroom, my bent legs would still be digging into the "seat" in front. Whereas a dwarf would have dangling legs.

I agree with you. I am 6'5" as well. My overall impression is that it seems like this seat design would only work well for people who are about 5'4"-5'10". Anyone else is probably too tall or too short. I'm not even sure that my legs would fit in there at all.

Designers should be required to experience their own contraptions. Then we'll see if they like it so much...

This bus talk gives me nightmares of my 1.5 hour adventure on the ST 545 from Redmond to Seneca street. I was standing the whole time. It only happened once, but that long standing on a moving vehicle was awful. Remember, a 45 minute flight also means boarding 15 minutes prior to pushback, 10 minute push, Taxi and takeoff roll, 5 minutes from touchdown to gate, 5 minutes waiting for airplane to unload to your row. A 45 minute flight is at least 1:20 in that awkward position. Now if it’s higher like a bar stool and has some sort of foot support for passengers with shorter legs, it’d be less awful.

euroflyer wrote:

No airline will ever propose such product to is customers. And not even talking about certification of such seat... That's just bs

you are underestimating airlines. All it takes is for 1 airline to jump in. The rest will follow.

He's already invading someone's space with his foot.

Not sure this is physically possible in the US. Some of us wouldnt fit.

I would like to see how react our "mankind" during a heavy turbulance. May be designer should demonstrate this himself

If it is a height adjustable seat I think it could work on short haul. Otherwise blood clots in legs in a serious possibility.

I think for the long haul, stacked camp cots with 23" clearance may be a better option.

Back? This thing has me worried about my testicles.

Will the F/A hand out Preparation H ?

QXAS wrote:

This bus talk gives me nightmares of my 1.5 hour adventure on the ST 545 from Redmond to Seneca street. I was standing the whole time. It only happened once, but that long standing on a moving vehicle was awful. Remember, a 45 minute flight also means boarding 15 minutes prior to pushback, 10 minute push, Taxi and takeoff roll, 5 minutes from touchdown to gate, 5 minutes waiting for airplane to unload to your row. A 45 minute flight is at least 1:20 in that awkward position. Now if it’s higher like a bar stool and has some sort of foot support for passengers with shorter legs, it’d be less awful.

It was part of my daily commute to stand an hour on a combination of bus+metro. It's uncomfortable but not really nightmare level.

How much money can one save, during a short trip, when using these "stand up seats"?

The LCCs and ULCCs are so cheap today, that a discount of 30% sounds much but it means only very few $, € or £ absolute.

If you save 30% an a SQ DUS-SYD-DUS trip in J, 30% is a lot of money but if you save 30% on a Ryanair trip? $ 10?

As a current cabin crew, I am very disappointed to see that they are trying to squeeze even more pax on every plane, but they are not putting their minds at creating ways to effectively increase room for all these additional pax and their bags.

Air Canada will probably be the first in line. Followed by Air Caraibes and Frenchbee

KentB27 wrote:

BlueberryWheats wrote:

Does he realise people come in all shapes and sizes?

I'm 6ft5, I think I I'd still have to book extra legroom, my bent legs would still be digging into the "seat" in front. Whereas a dwarf would have dangling legs.

I agree with you. I am 6'5" as well. My overall impression is that it seems like this seat design would only work well for people who are about 5'4"-5'10". Anyone else is probably too tall or too short. I'm not even sure that my legs would fit in there at all.

Looking at it from a successful Stand-Up seat application, roller coasters, I see two problems with the proposed seat:

1- the seat will need to fit someone from say 48 to 80 inches and thus be adjustable. Kids under a certain height won't be able to be fly as well as very tall persons. The seat will need to be adjustable, leading to extra weight and maintenance, neglecting one of the main advantage.



This shows the Riddler's Revenge at Six Flags Magic Mountain and look at how complicated it is.

2- How do you restrain riders properly? A shoulder bar like on the photo above would not work as there would be no way for someone to escape the seat on their own in an emergency. A seatbelt? You'd risk slipping out and flying into the roof of the airplane in moments of rough turbulence.

As others have said, at some point, the designer needs to realize his idea doesn't work and move on to something else.

I would rather just the airplane have absolutely no seats in it at all and we get thrown around like rag dolls over this.

These seats come up in the media almost as often as "Pilot Lands Plane SIDEWAYS!" stories/videos do.

Well... I usually do not fly between the UK and Holland, France and Belgium. With something like this, my loyalty card with Sanef and Channel Tunnel will go sky high.

This idea does not save money for the passenger since airlines will not pass on the save to the final ticket price on a medium and long term (start selling them cheap and gradually increase price - just like with the no hold luggage fare).

It is pretty disgusting. Imagine landing on a cross wind / wind-shear environment or on adverse weather. And the delays?

I know a lot of a.neters hate it but it is time for some reversal on the deregulation on the airlines business. Not to the old levels but at some level where cramped seats/no hold luggage on Long Haul journeys, standing seats, etc. can be curbed.

Jomar777 wrote:

This idea does not save money for the passenger since airlines will not pass on the save to the final ticket price on a medium and long term (start selling them cheap and gradually increase price - just like with the no hold luggage fare).

Do you think Ryanair are no passing on the savings when people who are willing to abide by their sometimes arbitrary rules book the £9.99 and £14.99 flights out of the UK where there is an airport departure tax of £13?
Ryanair make roughly 8 euro per passenger flown. If that is not "passing on savings" then I don't know what is.

Looks perfectly fine to me. Probably allows for more movement that a current lightweight seat at 28".

flyingclrs727 wrote:

How many passengers can be legally accomodated on a the 200 passenger variant of the 737-8 Max?

Think on that question really hard.

MIflyer12 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

How many passengers can be legally accomodated on a the 200 passenger variant of the 737-8 Max?

Think on that question really hard.

Me, me, me! 167?

Virtual737 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

How many passengers can be legally accomodated on a the 200 passenger variant of the 737-8 Max?

Think on that question really hard.

Me, me, me! 167?

The 200 seat capacity was determined by adding more emergency exits to the 189 passenger limit 737-800 fuselage and cramming in 11 more slimline seats to get up to 200 seats which it the maximum allowed for 4 flight attendants. I was asking how many passengers could legally be carried in the Max 8 aircraft equipped with those exits but using these stand up seats. The answer would be more than 200, but how many more? It would require an additional flight attendant.

Reminds me of the restraints for a standup roller coaster. For those who aren't familiar, you sit on a saddle type device. The saddle absolutely CRUSHES "the boys" with each bump.
Things I immediately notice that make me think this will never fly:
• how do you reach your under-seat personal item in flight?
• different heights of people will require different heights of the saddle. Ever seat has to be able to adjust vertically, which this doesn't appear to do. Just isn't a practical solution AT ALL
• how does window person climb over middle or aisle person to go to bathroom? They are trapped
• accommodating tall people who will be standing means no overhead bins, no oxygen masks, no lights, no air.
• what about fatties? They're not gonna fit. They have to take the walk of shame when they don't fit the coaster seat. Not a matter of "an extension" here.
• where do you put your drink when they do beverage service?

overall this is a huge FAIL. completely stupid. next.

Why stop with these seats? Some airlines can go with this concept. The upside is you add more passengers and don't need more doors

His enthusiasm almost makes it look reasonable. It's not.

NoLifeLine wrote:

Here's what it might be like to travel on a stand-up aeroplane seat. Looks Like a medieval torture rack.

First things first: Gaetano Perugini, engineering adviser at Aviointeriors, is keen to stress that the concept's not about creating "cattle class" and cramming in as many passengers in as possible.

The Skyrider takes up way less space than the average economy seat -- just 23 inches -- so the idea is airlines could cram in their economy seats, and still allow other passengers to book other kinds of tickets on the same flight.

Even Perugini acknowledges it's not necessarily an enjoyable experience, but he reckons for short haul, say a brief hop across Europe, it might work.



Full article: https://www.nowscience.co.uk/single-post/2019/04/03/The-Future-of-Air-Travel-Could-Include-Ultra-Economy-Class-Seating

that seat is a solution looking for a Problem!! We don't have that problem unless an airline intends to sell a $23.00 ticket!

They already made it in Ryanair colors, no coincidence me thinks

Vegans will be so offended

Ebmek wrote:

I can hear the ULCCs salivating.

Not when they begin to fly with many of these back killer seats empty. Some people might suffer for an hour with these things if the price is right, but TATL? No way.

Not sure why people continue to pitch these ideas for airlines, because they aren't suitable for many reasons already discussed.

If anything, he should be pitching these "seats" to subways, city buses and trams where journeys may be about 10 or 15 minutes and these seats might be preferable to standing. These forms of transport dont typically need luggage space, or have minimum crew requirements or exits, or a need for tray tables etc.

It might work