Well, obviously they have always had windows and its nice for the pax to look outside etc. etc.

But looking at this picture of an AN74TK, the question is not as outlandish as one would think as such aircraft exist:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Jean-Luc ALTHERR


I was wondering how much complexity, costs, maintenance and risks windows add to constructing and operating an airliner.

We have seen airlines like Ryanair reducing complexity of the cabin and comfort more and more by doing away with windows blinds, reclining seat, seat pockets etc. etc. Not expecting that it would ever happen, but would ordering a pax aircraft without windows be a significant cost saving for an airline that more or less sees its pax as self-loading cattle ?

[Edited 2005-08-19 20:30:49]

Windows help fight air sickness.

i would not fly on a aircraft that did not have windows...shades,no recline and seat pockets are ok but have to have a window to look out. im sure fedex and ups would start up a operation if they thought that there was a demand for windowless flights

Quoting Vfw614 (Thread starter): Not expecting that it would ever happen, but would ordering a pax aircraft without windows be a significant cost saving for an airline that more or less sees its pax as self-loading cattle ?

PLEASE, dont put such comments like that on here. You never know, MOL might be reading this right now, and calling Boeing to ask, how much 100 B738 costs without windows.

  

Drew

It seems very claustrophobic without windows.... I think passengers would be much more agitated without windows. Also... I think safety would be compromised in the event of a catastrophic power failure/crash... no way to see and/or assess what's going on outside.

If I don't look out the window for a while on a flight I'm on, I start getting disoriented and queasy. All I have to do is look out the window to get my bearings... it could feel like we're dropping quickly or climbing..... look out the window and we're perfectly level... I'm sure I'm not the only one with that problem. It is also a good way to get kids to know geography by giving them a map and showing them the two cities your flying between...

I thought it was a safety issue. I thought the FA’s use the windows to observe what is going on, around the proximity of the aircraft during push-back from the gate. I remember hearing FA’s tell other pax to raise their window covers while the plane is pushing-back from the gate and once the plane was in the air then they could cover their windows.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 1): Windows help fight air sickness.

Windows cause air sickness.   

Hamzah

america airlines should consider this and any other carrier that operates their airframe fleet like cattle. Isn't the airbus 380 capable of having 500 passengers? I forgot the number, but I remember it was high.

Give me a B737 or a A319 anyday :P I like the planes smaller in seating arrangements!

Well, you could always have windows next to the F/A seats, at emergency exists etc.

As for the safety issue, most military transports are windowless and the military usually cares a lot about safety issues. I am sure they would not want soldiers staggering off the aircraft totally airsick because of a lack of windows.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Alan Campbell



View Large View Medium

Photo © Je89 W.



View Large View Medium

Photo © Lars Wahlstrom


[Edited 2005-08-19 20:55:49]

How would I be able to let fresh air in if I didn't have a window to roll down?

I know flight attendants are trained to assess outside conditions prior to evacuating a plane. The windows would certainly help in this situation.

I'm sure it's cheaper to not install windows, but I'm sure they are there for the same reasons subways have windows.

Oh for crying out loud, It is so you can see the demons crawling on the wings. There was a short documentary about it on a show once. It starred John Lithgow. He was showing how passengers get uptite when they see things crawling on the wings of the aircraft and start tearing the engines apart in mid flight.

 

I think its very important in event of the crash

I was on board AF358 and it was COMPLETELY DARK INSIDE. The emegency lights on the aisles didnt even go on. The only light that came in came from the windows... probably the windows saved our lives!

But looking at it closely some windows in business class were not lifted.

And the magic word is...claustrophobia.

Many people don't like the idea of being confined in a tube with no idea of what's happening outside. Same reason many people dislike travelling on underground trains.

Well, this all is true of course and I don't expect an explanation exactly as to "why" (maybe I should have phrased the title differently) .

I was wondering whether leaving windows would be such a major cost saver that someone would give the idea a second thought.

Ryanair's CEO MOL said a while ago that sometime in the future he would like to give away as many seats as possible for free by just making money from ancillary revenues, subsidies etc. So, if you get a seat for free, you might not be inclined to complain about a lack of windows - as much as your are not supposed to complain about a lack of recline, seat pockets, window blinds, food, newspapers, drinks nowadays because you only pay a few quid - and you can have it all by forking out more money and buying a ticket on a legacy carrier (well, if you are lucky...).

See above - it remains a fact that military transport aircraft do not have windows and the lack of outside orientation etc. does not seem to be a major concern (as for the safety issue, remember that some military aircraft even have rearward facing seats because these are much safer).

Seems to me, the trend is moving the other way towards bigger windows instead of no windows. Those are some beautiful looking windows on the B787 mockups. Should be a great view.

Military aircraft do not have windows, because the primary mission is cargo. When the US DoD needs to move troops , they also charter airliners from the civilian fleets.

Would anyone ride a bus or train without windows? Probably not.

Quoting Bluewave 707 (Reply 16): When the US DoD needs to move troops , they also charter airliners from the civilian fleets.

Yes, but I doubt it has something to do with the lack of windows on their own aircraft.....

Quoting Bluewave 707 (Reply 16): Military aircraft do not have windows, because the primary mission is cargo. When the US DoD needs to move troops , they also charter airliners from the civilian fleets.

Almost all Air Force cargo airplanes can and do carry passengers. I have flown as a passenger numerous times on a military cargo airplane, the Boeing C-97 Stratocrusier which my unit operated, and the only windows were in the emergency exits. I can tell you it fells weird, especially during approach and landing waiting for the airplane to touch down. At night even if you could see out of a distant emergency exit window you could not tell when the airplane was going to touch down on the runway.

Almost all military airplane passenger seats face aft for safety and the other weird feeling is sitting backwards. The C-97 with passenger seats could seat about 66 people in a 2+2 seating configuration. The C-97 had a lavatory and a galley with a refrigerator and oven for the passengers and crew. Even the C-5 carried passengers on the upper deck as well

The USAF VC-135’s that were used for VIP service, not the 707’s were just KC-135’s with the air refueling equipment removed and had a passenger interior, but they also had no windows except for the emergency exits and were known as “the tubes”. Because of this they were not very popular with the passengers.

Why do planes have windows?

Because people like to see outside. No better reason than that. Surely this question was not serious.

This Bristol 170 was able to carry up to 14 pax in addition to three cars. My understanding is that the pax compartment was in the rear and as it looks on this picture, the outside views from there were somewhat limited. Anyone every been inside a Bristol 170 ?


View Large View Medium

Photo © Alain Demonty

Quoting Flydubai (Reply 7): Windows cause air sickness.

You would be the exception that proves the rule then. Having something steady to focus on, say a cloud or the horizon or something, greatly reduces dizziness and nausea. Believe me. Haven't gotten airsick in a window seat in 11 years...

Cheers
Mats

I met a German bloke before who had a friend who was in North Korea, when the plane was landing in N. Korea all the pax had to put down their window shutters so they couldn't see outside, I don't know if this is fully true but I found it hard to believe.

Eddieho, you are the only one I know that was on that flight and you should count yourself very lucky.

Very good LongbowPilot, I haven't heard any stories of things on wings in years.

Grimey

Grimey,

It was The Twilight Zone the movie. I was attempting to be phesicious, guess i face planted.

Quoting KL808 (Reply 3): PLEASE, dont put such comments like that on here. You never know, MOL might be reading this right now, and calling Boeing to ask, how much 100 B738 costs without windows. Drew

I DEFINITELY second that!  
No windows..........
Well then, how do you wach the flaps?


Devon  

Instead of a windowless aircraft, how about a clear aircraft? Instead of aluminum use lexan or something clear and durable and build the fuselage and wings out of that. I guess you should make the lavs solid, no one really wants to see that...

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 20): Anyone every been inside a Bristol 170 ?

During my childhood I flew in the Bristol 170s of Silver City Airways between Lydd and LeTouguet (spelling?) in France and can remember that there were windows in the passenger section at the rear of the aircraft.

Here is a photograph of the aircraft operated on the route

View Large View Medium Photo © Phil Rix

View Large View Medium Photo © Phil Rix

On the second picture you will see the passenger door open. My recollection is that there was seating for about 12-16 passengers forward of this door and each row had a window. 3 cars were normally carried and these took up the front of the aircraft to just slightly behind the main wheels. However this was back in the early 1960s

  

[Edited 2005-08-20 01:16:56]

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 14): See above - it remains a fact that military transport aircraft do not have windows and the lack of outside orientation etc. does not seem to be a major concern (as for the safety issue, remember that some military aircraft even have rearward facing seats because these are much safer).

I might be missing something here. Why is this safer?

Quoting Grimey (Reply 22): I met a German bloke before who had a friend who was in North Korea, when the plane was landing in N. Korea all the pax had to put down their window shutters so they couldn't see outside, I don't know if this is fully true but I found it hard to believe.

I don't know if it is true either (never been, probably will never go), but I wouldn't put it past them. Any foreign national travelling to North Korea has to be with a government approved guide in government approved "tourist areas" at all times, and needs special permission to go ANYWHERE else in the country.

-IR

Quoting IRelayer (Reply 27): I might be missing something here. Why is this safer?

Because you can sustain the impact forces much better if you are pressed into the back of your seat instead of being held back just by a seatbelt around your waist.

A windowless commercial airliner would be a nonstarter. I doubt that any carrier (even Ryanair) would ever seriously consider it.

Few, if any of the flying public would travel in such a fashion for the reasons cited in the above posts. In addition, the anxiety levels (stemming from the lack of control anxieties, sublimated or no, that many passengers feel already when they fly on an airliner) would be magnified, and probably manifested by people who wouldn't ordinarily be concerned.

Being in a ground stop situation and sitting for hours on the ground, with no windows, or means of SOME frame of reference or ability to process what was going on? Some of the other folks alluded to it--whenever there is a bump or sound or abrupt sensation of motion, the normal psychological tendency is to look out the window, and look around for means, or frame of reference, to process the experience. Many people would panic in such situations, if they were denied those means of processing. In a holding pattern or being vectored around storms, with no clue as to what was going on outside other than what the crew advises?

Even the most steady people would, at best, find flights in such aircraft extremely unpleasant. Many others, especially those with claustrophobic tendencies, woud be climbing the walls. Can you imagine the increase in air rage incidents were there to be a widespread adoption of airlines of windowless aircraft?

I once took a seven plus hour flight, with the misfortune of being assigned a "window" seat whose "window" was just a blank wall. I had no choice, and I dealt with it, but do you think that I would WANT to repeat such an experience? NOOOOOO!!!!

And how would you, Airline A, market such an "innovation" when Airlines "B," "C," etc. are more than happy provide their passengers the "luxury" of windows? Would the spurning of windows save you enough, in long term costs, that you could offer fares so much lower than your competitors that people would opt for flights in your windowless planes as opposed to your rivals?

I assure you that most people would pay more just to fly with windows.

Quoting Smcmac32msn (Reply 5): If I don't look out the window for a while on a flight I'm on, I start getting disoriented and queasy.

Yea the thing is if you feel as if your moving but have nothing to relate to in a space its very easy to get dis-oriented. If you go to the very top of the CN tower in toronto and stay there for a while it gets a bit dizzy. The tower is swaying,but since that level is somewhere around 1200 feet above the ground,its impossible to know if you are actually moving.

Military planes do not have windows because there is less stress on the airframe then on ones with windows. dont forget that each window puts in the plane puts another hole in the skin, another place for the skin to fail. there are great stress concentrations around a hole, especially square holes, remember the comet. Since there are not as many "holes" in the skin, there is less wear and tear on the airframe, and thus it will last longer. Notice there are more KC135s still around then there are 707s. And more KC10s as opposed to DC-10s.

It is a matter of longevity of the airframe, not an issue of safety for pax.

People like my wife would never get on the plane without windows.
She is a bit clausterphobic.

PIA777

Yeah, lets take this to the extreme. Why do we even need cockpit windows? Just put a few video cameras all over the a/c and let the crew watch TV screens while they land and taxi etc. Im sure you could save a few thousand pounds.

Some military a/c do have backwards facing seats, and they say that's safer. I rode on a C-130, which had sideways facing seats, from California to the Philippines, about a 26 hour flight (definitely not non stop) with no windows, and no one got sick.

It's simple...the PAX planes have windows so that on long haul daylight flights if you are seated in a window seat you can annoy everyone else by leaving your shades up and ruining the magnificent view on the PTV's....except on Lufthansa where they don't have PTV's...  

Eddieho-- I was on board AF358...

Glad you made it out!


About the thread question though, yeah I guess it's just a major psychologically-reassuring and crowd control and I guess safety-related issue as well, having windows on an airliner. Not expensive at all to put in and maintain, given the many varied benefits provided to the customers.

because they are the original IFE.
all the rest is OVER RATED!
Tchau
DA-

Quoting CVG2LGA (Reply 36): because they are the original IFE. all the rest is OVER RATED!

What do you mean by the rest is overrated ? Please explain . :roll:

Quoting LongbowPilot (Reply 11): Oh for crying out loud, It is so you can see the demons crawling on the wings. There was a short documentary about it on a show once. It starred John Lithgow. He was showing how passengers get uptite when they see things crawling on the wings of the aircraft and start tearing the engines apart in mid flight.

John Lithgow?!! I thought it starred William Shatner.
But seriously, I agree. The windows help combat the closed in feeling, and it does help parents teach their children geography, particularly on a cross country flight.

Quoting Vfw614 (Thread starter): I was wondering how much complexity, costs, maintenance and risks windows add to constructing and operating an airliner.

Airplanes that carry people and have windows are a given thesedays. It would be nice from an engineering perspective to not have them, windows are a source for stress due to pressurization. All things equal, having no windows could bring down the pressurization altitude while maintaining the same factor of safety. It could...estimates are estimates.

That said, we are not trying to make people ride a virtural roller coaster without a screen to scream at and are expected to enjoy. I suppose people need a sense of situation awareness, windows allow us to establish a point of reference, even if it is dark outside. On the other hand, if people knew why there were little to any windows, they might be tolerant it for the relatively short time within their containment, i.e. future trans-atmospheric-liners.

Yes I would go nuts just closing my eyes on the way to the corner store; I know the route and the destination, I need to see. What other purpose are our eyes for?? We need variety! A plane with no windows, a seat in front of you, and a dude besides you can get boring.

No chance in hell would you get me on a windowless plane.

I dont like turbulance, or even the turnsd after take off, my head jsut goes really funny and dizzy. BUT if i can look out of a window, see the horizen, im fine. Take offs involve me chewing gum, and facing forward for the whole roll, well looking out till the lift off comes anyway. I dont know how many times i would have been sick if i had not been in a window seat, or at least been able to look out of onw

I never have seen any rule how many windows a plane needs to have in relation with the PAX seats. But I am quite sure, something like this exists, it simply seems normal that there are windows. Maybe MOL really calls Boeing and then we shall know.

Remember, for take off and landing the crew needs to make sure, that all window shades are open. This for the simple reason that in case of emergency, it can be verified if there is a fire or not. Sure, probably not all of them would be needed, as on most of the planes are seat rows without windows.

The AN74 certified under Russian rules, maybe they are different in this aspect.

Window size always is in relation of the aircrafts pressurization system. If I remember well, they need to be designed the was, that if one of them bursts at maximum altitude, the cabin altitude can be maintained at a level they go to survive, having the masks on, until the emergency descend to a lower level is completed. Remember about thos tiny small slots on the Concorde, or the Lear 55 and 60, both going higher than FL500, having windows nearly as small as postcards.

One of the largest window installed in an airframe is on the Gulfstreams. I was told by several engineers, this was only possible because it was based on an elderly certification, dating from days they had other regulations. So if Gulfstream one day comes up with a plane, having a different fuselage structure than the one used today, they might have smaller windows as well.

Quoting Eddieho (Reply 12): I think its very important in event of the crash

As a crash survivor, I will second Eddieho in this sentiment. I was on Indian Airlines flight IC605 that crashed short of the runway in Bangalore in 1990. For some reason, during that approach/crash, I had my window shade down. Therefore, when the plane hit the ground hard, bounced, hit an embankment, then slid to a stop, I had no visual refrence as to what was going on. Though my family and I made it out OK (we were in the rear wing exit row and the row behind), I think it would have been quite useful to know that the wing we jumped out onto wasn't on fire. Obviously, it wasn't, but I don't think I consciously knew that at the time. I mean, instinct really took over, but I got out of the cabin without knowing what I was going to have to face once outside.

~Vik

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 14): See above - it remains a fact that military transport aircraft do not have windows and the lack of outside orientation etc. does not seem to be a major concern

On the contrary... The Australian Army spent a considerable amount of money and effort developing Long Distance Personnel carriers(Ground Transport) one of the challenges was the large windows specified, Armoured rather than pressurised tho. The requirement was based on the troops being better oriented at the destination if they can see outside during the journey.

Quoting Liedetectors (Reply 31): Notice there are more KC135s still around then there are 707s. And more KC10s as opposed to DC-10s

Not a reasonable comparison.. If the KC135 or KC10 fleet flew the hours that their commercial cousins did they would have long been turned to shredded aluminium in the Arizona desert. Their longevity is due to the low utilisation rates rather than the lack of windows.

Regards

Chris

Greetings to all...

I have "enjoyed" many long flights on C-5s, KC-10s, C-130s, and KC-135s, going to and from TDYs and deployments. Having few or no windows onboard to look out of sucks like a vacuum cleaner. However, KC-10s and KC-135s do have one distinct advantage - the air refuelling compartment in back. Sometimes, passengers are allowed to watch refuelling operations via the observer windows on each side of the boom operator. One trip that stands out involved a KC-135 with a "comfort pallet" (airline seats, some with tables in between) installed. We have very few passengers OR cargo onboard (just fuel, ourselves, and our baggage), so us passengers could play cards, sleep on the floor or on the baggage pallet, stare out the side windows, stand in the cockpit and watch the view up front (permitted by the aircrew on this trip since there were so few of us), or watch the views from behind / below in back. This extra viewing options made up for the few side windows installed on the plane (especially since this trip lasted for 4 days). I definitely wouldn't have wanted to make the trip in a C-5!

Quoting Liedetectors (Reply 31): Notice there are more KC135s still around then there are 707s. And more KC10s as opposed to DC-10s

I can't argue with anything you had posted up until this point, but I must point out that the primary reason that there are so many KC-135s and KC-10s remaining is not simply because they don't have windows, but because the Air Force is trying to get their money's worth out of them by using them until they can't use them anymore - that, and also because we do not currently have in our possession any aircraft that could replace either of them - a problem airlines do not have to deal with. Being for-profit operations involving passengers, they are more interested in programs like fleet renewal than the Air Force is. Come to think of it, what about cargo airlines? Some seem to be interested in maintaining aircraft (DC-8s and etc) for longer periods of time before replacement because it makes financial sense to do so, and because there are no passengers on board to whinge about the (lack of) windows.

Oops - got way off topic. My bad...

Be well everybody!  

I think it's so people won't get motion-sickness. If you're in a boat at sea, and it's foggy and you can't see land (i.e. a fixed reference point), you can get sick. Same sort of principle, I would think.

Chris in NH

Wouldn't anyone want to look outside.
regds
MEL

Why do we have windows in our houses/apartments? It sure would make for stronger structures and be more energy efficient in winter if we didn't.

It's human nature...we want to look outside... 

FVR

As a very frequent flyer, even I got a little queasy during our approach and landing at AUD in a C17. It really sucks not knowing where an aircraft of that size is in reference to the ground.

Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 28): Because you can sustain the impact forces much better if you are pressed into the back of your seat instead of being held back just by a seatbelt around your waist.

Same reason that baby seats are put in cars backwards. The head has something to rest against so during impact with something the baby (or airline passengers) head doesn't whiplash forward and break the neck. You'd just be pushed against the back of the seat.