Will Pax Soon Be "Standing" On Ulcc Flights?

illinoisman · Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:34 am

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/10/travel...fb071114cabinplanestudy3pStoryLink

"The vertical passenger seat -- or "standing cabin" -- may be the next big cost-cutting move in aviation, according to a new report whose author says the concept could be here within five years.

"I stumbled across the idea when I was looking (into) ways to reduce the flight ticket price," Fairuz Romli, who authored the report published in the IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, tells CNN by email.

Romli, an aerospace engineering professor at the Universiti Putra Malaysia, says his motivation is to lower the cost of air travel to a level competitive with buses and trains.

Using the popular Boeing 737-300 as an example, his study calculates that a standing cabin would lead to a 21% increase in passenger capacity while dropping ticket prices by as much as 44%.

"I'm a frequent flier and most of the times during domestic flights, it feels like the flying time is very short that the aircraft is already descending for landing before you can unfasten your seatbelt after takeoff," he says."

Totally stupid idea, but I wouldn't put anything past F9, NK, and the rest. They just want our money, period. First they stopped feeding us and now they won't even give us a seat. Of course, for the equivalent of short duration flights, high-speed rail would be much, much more comfortable and convenient for passengers, and ticket prices might be cheaper too.

VCEflyboy · Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:39 am

Not in Europe! It is virtually impossible.
FR already tried to get those stand-up seats certified but failed.
They just dont comply with safety regulations.

TWA772LR · Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:05 am

This has been on here before. I don't think it will ever really happen.

atcsundevil · Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:10 am

They would still be limited to the max passengers allowed with the given exit doors. An all-standing room 737-800 might be able to fit 250 passengers, but it would still be limited to 186 based on the exits. These things could theoretically modified if a powerful customer like Ryanair were behind it, but things would need to be done within reason. I personally don't believe it will happen because there are just too many obstacles, not to mention a general aversion among most passengers. I think seats will simply get smaller with less legroom.

Francoflier · Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:17 am

Quoting IllinoisMan (Thread starter):
Totally stupid idea, but I wouldn't put anything past F9, NK, and the rest. They just want our money, period.

I don't want to reignite the same old A.net feud about low cost, but the only thing any business wants is money.

If they did manage to certify such a seat, people would book them, in full knowledge of what it entails. So why not do it? There is more than enough competition from other airlines for those who want to have a proper seat.

Quoting IllinoisMan (Thread starter):
First they stopped feeding us and now they won't even give us a seat.

That's because 'us' decided they did not necessarily need a meal or peanuts on a 2 hours flight and thought they should not pay for it.

Those who fly Lo-Co get exactly what they pay for. As long as they are fully aware of that before they buy the ticket and safety standards are strictly maintained, I don't see a problem.

My biggest gripe with lo-co is the way some treat their employees and how some try to skimp on training. But to be honest, most major ones are not actually bad employers, quite the contrary...

PlanesNTrains · Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:22 am

Quoting IllinoisMan (Thread starter):
Totally stupid idea, but I wouldn't put anything past F9, NK, and the rest. They just want our money, period. First they stopped feeding us and now they won't even give us a seat. Of course, for the equivalent of short duration flights, high-speed rail would be much, much more comfortable and convenient for passengers, and ticket prices might be cheaper too.

How did I know that you would find a way to weave F9 into this? lol What's funnier is that, if they did do it, you'd probably be posting about what a negative experience you had and that you'd never fly them again.

Amtrak doesn't feed me.
Greyhound doesn't feed me.
The shopping mall doesn't feed me.
When I have jury duty all day, for days on end, they don't feed me.
Why does an airline need to feed me?

If high speed rail is built, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, and it somehow can make money charging lower fares than a standing-room-only 737NG, then they deserve whatever they earn. I highly doubt they'd be charging all-inclusive rates that will be lower than an ULCC - that was the comparison you were making, right?

-Dave

ikramerica · Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:10 am

It's also discriminatory. Children, elderly and disabled can't use these seats. Will they have to pay more to sit down? Can't do it...

DexSwart · Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:21 am

Wasn't this a huge April Fools Day joke some years back? I read about it in Airliner Wold when I was 14 or something!

It can't happen, it won't happen.

Mr AirNZ · Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:28 am

When you figure out how to certify the human knee for a 16g impact, then we see passengers standing.

737tdi · Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:35 am

Oh wow, do I don't even believe it could happen I do believe it will happen. Maybe not in Europe or the US but I can see it happening in so called advanced nations like India, Saudi Arabia. Carrying people to "religious outings". They already carry pigs and goats and who knows what. IMO this has to stop but I am not the law. Sickening.

Thanks, I know I am wrong but they will try.

PHX787 · Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:27 am

Oh hell no. Never in my life.

The influx of LCCs at CVG is making me really concerned if I'll be able to get to my destination comfortably....and now, without back pain

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 1):
FR already tried to get those stand-up seats certified but failed.

Good! This is such a horrible idea.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):
It's also discriminatory. Children, elderly and disabled can't use these seats. Will they have to pay more to sit down? Can't do it...

Here's where the proposal will be killed by investors, probably.

mariner · Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:34 am

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 9):
Maybe not in Europe or the US but I can see it happening in so called advanced nations like India, Saudi Arabia. Carrying people to "religious outings". They already carry pigs and goats and who knows what.

I've flown quite a lot in India and Arabia - since the 1950's - and I've never seen pigs on a plane. Surely not in Saudi, where pigs are banned.

I saw a goat on a plane once, but that was a rescue mission. And I saw a couple of blokes on a stripped-to-the-metal DC-3 light a primus stove to make tea once, but that was long ago. It was good tea.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 10):
The influx of LCCs at CVG is making me really concerned if I'll be able to get to my destination comfortably....and now, without back pain

Oh, good grief. You don't like LCC's - don't fly 'em. There's no law that says you must.

It's called choice.

mariner

[Edited 2014-07-12 23:44:39]

bchandl · Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:49 am

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 6):

It's also discriminatory. Children, elderly and disabled can't use these seats. Will they have to pay more to sit down? Can't do it...

Yawn. It's not discrimination.

Buying a product that is unfit for your current life situation does not constitute discrimination, especially when there are products available that fit your needs.

Saying this is discrimination is the same as an extremely obese man walking into a Mini dealership and saying it's discriminatory that he can't fir his wide lard butt in a Mini Cooper.

Selling a product that is not reasonably useable by the whole global population is not discriminatory either.

That's like saying I am being discriminated against as a male, because I have no use for feminine hygeiene products.

To suggest it is discriminatory is ridiculous. Now if they completely eliminated flights with seats then I would agree with you.... But just Buy a ticket on a flight with seats, sit your butt down, shut up and like it. Not everything has to be politically correct to the point of complete insanity.

bchandl

PHX787 · Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:56 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 11):
Oh, good grief. You don't like LCC's - don't fly 'em. There's no law that says you must.

Well, getting to point a-b on legacies is becoming more of a hassle these days with cuts at CVG....it's almost becoming a necessity to fly LCCs.

bchandl · Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:04 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 13):
Well, getting to point a-b on legacies is becoming more of a hassle these days with cuts at CVG....it's almost becoming a necessity to fly LCCs.

What?

You where can you not get direct or with one stopover on a legacy carrier that you can get to direct or with a stop on a LCC at CVG or really any other airport?

I'm waiting. This is total nonsense.

At nearly every commercial airport in America a legacy will present you with a decent/acceptable itenary for your trip. Their coverage in terms of geography is fantastic. People don't chose LCCs for the schedules most often or because it is their only choice, they chose it for the dollars.

mariner · Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:05 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 13):
Well, getting to point a-b on legacies is becoming more of a hassle these days with cuts at CVG....it's almost becoming a necessity to fly LCCs.

Oh, come on - Frontier (without Apple) has exactly two two routes at CVG (although soon to be three). DEN is also flown by United and how often do you need to go to TTN?

Allegiant has four, all to beach destinations (and one of those is seasonal) and you can't connect to anywhere on Allegiant.

mariner

[Edited 2014-07-13 00:22:09]

delta88 · Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:14 pm

The Problem with standing seats, aside from the safety issue(lord knows id never wanna crash at a 150+MPH standing) but people with back issues wouldnt be able to do it, foot problems, knee issues...the list goes on an on. Yes the flights an 1-3 hours long, but theres no way id wanna stand for that long, i cant imagine how many people would panic taking off while in standing position. Id see this on maybe some form of amusement type flight(some rich guy wants to entertain people and say hey lets try it) but i dont see this happening mainstream. I mean come on, with ULCCS you have to bring your own form of enterainment, and i dont see that possible. IMHO, this is a good idea for those who own the airplanes, but a suckish idea for those who have to ride them -___- moving on

masseybrown · Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:19 pm

One unfortunate holiday eve, I had to stand on a DC-NY train for four hours. So I can imagine 'standing' on some relatively short haul flights.

Standing on a plane wouldn't be pleasant, but at some price it could happen.

imant · Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:46 pm

UK Authorities already stated out clear and loud: they would not allow planes in the country equipped with those seats... Not even only flying over UK territories...

I believe and hope those seats will never be used in EU... I would rather take the train or drive my own car than sitting on those horrible things...

lightsaber · Sun Jul 13, 2014 7:49 pm

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 1):
FR already tried to get those stand-up seats certified but failed.
They just dont comply with safety regulations.

That is the catch. Passengers must be kept safe in a 9G crash load. Could it be done standing? I won't claim to be an expert in such matters... but I will note I'm skeptical.

Quoting bchandl (Reply 12):
Saying this is discrimination is the same as an extremely obese man walking into a Mini dealership and saying it's discriminatory that he can't fir his wide lard butt in a Mini Cooper.

If safe, there will be a class of passengers who won't work. But they will have to provide for children and that would be a challenge.

Lightsaber

cedarjet · Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:14 pm

Quoting IllinoisMan (Thread starter):
They just want our money, period. First they stopped feeding us and now they won't even give us a seat.

No, it's the other way around - we're cheapskates and they are in the business of being responsive to public demand. If the public was interested in luxury, hell, in dignity, we'd all be flying around in large recliners. But no - when you don't get a meal, or decent customer service, and your knees are around your ears, it's your own fault. The public have spoken.

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 3):
They would still be limited to the max passengers allowed with the given exit doors.

Yes. This is the main obstacle.

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 9):
I can see it happening in so called advanced nations like India, Saudi Arabia. Carrying people to "religious outings". They already carry pigs and goats and who knows what. IMO this has to stop but I am not the law. Sickening.

What on earth are you talking about? Leave America for once and find out how the rest of the world lives. You might be surprised. You might even be envious. I have flown on passenger flights in very undeveloped places, like Somalia, Bangladesh, Nepal etc and it's just like everywhere else. If it differs with the US experience of air travel at all, the contrast is not flattering to the US, cos the passengers boarding a flight in (say) Hargeisa or Chittagong are not all dragging huge wheely suitcases as hand luggage, they've made an effort to look presentable and not like they should be in the gym or lying on the sofa at home, and as the beneficiaries of some portion control at the dinner table, they're not overweight and spilling into their neighbours' personal space. No farm animals.

Q · Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:19 pm

It is a NO-NO!!! All elderly people can't stand up all the time.

No way! It won't work it out at all!

Q

brilondon · Sun Jul 13, 2014 9:22 pm

Quoting Q (Reply 21):

It is a NO-NO!!! All elderly people can't stand up all the time.

No way! It won't work it out at all!

Needn't worry, it won't happen. Not safe and definatly not going to appease any consumer no matter how much you will save. Although I won't put it past MOL for trying it on his airline.

ikramerica · Sun Jul 13, 2014 9:53 pm

Quoting bchandl (Reply 12):

You spent a lot of wasted time arguing against something you don't fully understand.

You may not charge disabled, children or elderly MORE than others. Its illegal. So that means seats must be provided for these people. But if you deny access to these seats to others, then you are discriminating. Who will be the arbiter of who deserves to sit?

Its a sticky wicket legally, and one that simply won't fly, pun intended.

It isn't the same as a fat guy who can't fit in a mini. Or a tall person for that matter. In general they are not protected classes of people except in certain situations.

boysteve · Sun Jul 13, 2014 9:55 pm

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 1):
Not in Europe! It is virtually impossible.
FR already tried to get those stand-up seats certified but failed.

No they did not. They (well MoL) briefed the media that it was a possibility and they all ran the story so lots of free advertising for FR. It gets repeated every two or three years also. Basically we are 'being played' for even mentioning it on this website.

Quoting DexSwart (Reply 7):
Wasn't this a huge April Fools Day joke some years back? I read about it in Airliner Wold when I was 14 or something

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
btw no-one said that the seat was not safe in itself, it did not get that far! It's just that more emergency exits would have to be cut into FR's B738s to certify the extra pax you see. FR would not pay for this and so those with a brain knew it was just a story for the media.

747megatop · Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:00 pm

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 1):
They just dont comply with safety regulations.

Then the industry will just lobby and get the regulations changed or rewritten

.

prebennorholm · Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:19 am

Even if we assume this proposal to be serious....

There is no place on an airliner where people can stand, except in the aisle.

Even if you remove the overhead bins completely, so your winter jacket will go as checked baggage, then the circular pressurised hull prevents standing anywhere near the cabin wall. Window-"stands" will only be for children.

The current trend is deeper overhead bins to compensate bin volume for decreased seat pitch - Boeing just announced some new "Space Bins" on the 737, which further reduces the headroom when seated, (but accepts standard rollers resting on the edge).

To squeeze in more pax in a tube you need to find some un-utilized VOLUME, not just floor area. On a high density plane the only un-utilized volume is the aisle. Good luck having that certified for standing passengers.

FATFlyer · Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:25 am

Airbus seems to have the potential compromise for those who do not want to stand.

They have submitted a patent application for a "a new passenger seat that resembles a bicycle seat with a small backrest. It has no tray table, no headrest and very little legroom."
http://www.latimes.com/business/trav...e-airline-seat-20140711-story.html

The article link has an image to show the design.

Q · Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:31 am

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 27):

Thanks No-Frill Bike Airlines for sore my butt for 5 hours flight across country. I rode a bike for 1 hour it sore my butt. No way! LOL!

Q

greaser · Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:37 am

Quoting bchandl (Reply 12):
Yawn. It's not discrimination.

Buying a product that is unfit for your current life situation does not constitute discrimination, especially when there are products available that fit your needs

Sorry, the US law disagrees with you:

The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) effective 5 April 2000, prohibits discrimination against a passenger who is disabled or who has special needs in air travel and requires air carriers to accommodate the needs of these passengers.

14 CFR 382

"Individual with a disability means any individual who has a physical or mental impairment that, on a permanent or temporary basis, substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment."

Among the air carrier "shall not"s...

"(3) Exclude a qualified individual with a disability from or deny the person the benefit of any air transportation or related services that are available to other persons, even if there are separate or different services available for persons with a disability except when specifically permitted by another section of this part;"

Airline travel is becoming more of a necessity, much like trains were back in the day. People have disabilities, and they should be accommodated. The analogy of a mini is not only unfair, but incorrect. Airlines, while they may be private entities, serve a public purpose by providing essential travel. The US Government has recognized this as such.

georgiaame · Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:48 am

Quoting IllinoisMan (Thread starter):
They just want our money, period. First they stopped feeding us and now they won't even give us a seat

Uhm, excuse me, but of course they want your money! And YOU want to give it to them! And if you don;t, until the government calls it a "tax", no one can force you to buy a ticket against your will. So your problem with this silly idea boils down to _____________.

JetBuddy · Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:58 am

People say "I'ts never gonna happen!" to all sorts of things. Of course it's gonna happen, it's just a matter of when.

spacecadet · Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:23 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 5):
Amtrak doesn't feed me.

Amtrak has hot food available for coach class customers even on short trips. It's not free, but the problem people have with airline meals being cut isn't that they're no longer free, but that they're no longer even available. A block of cheese and a couple of packaged crackers is not a meal, and that's what most airlines will *sell* you for $5 or $10.

Just for the record, this is a typical Amtrak short-haul menu: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/70/163/N...theast-Regional-Cafe-Menu-2014.pdf

This is a typical long-haul menu, although keep in mind that short-haul passengers on these trains can also eat from this menu: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/382/373/...e-Limited-Dining-Car-Menu-0514.pdf

If the airlines even had microwaved burgers available for purchase, I think that'd go a long way towards quieting complaints about the lack of food.

ltbewr · Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:53 am

I am quite sure the EU would not allow them on some grounds of human cruelty, unsafe, would put too many union workers out of work. Besides, where would carry on go ? Oh, the airline would charge a lot more for that or a checked bag, negating much of the savings of these 'standing places'.

illinoisman · Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:13 am

Quoting francoflier (Reply 4):
If they did manage to certify such a seat, people would book them, in full knowledge of what it entails. So why not do it?

It would probably cost a couple million dollars to retro-fit the aircraft with these seats, but if customers don't buy the tickets or feel that they're bad deal the airline will lose their investment and it could be a catastrophic business decision.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 5):
If high speed rail is built, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, and it somehow can make money charging lower fares than a standing-room-only 737NG, then they deserve whatever they earn.

I understand that not all markets can support a high-speed rail system as they are often p2p. It makes sense for connections between cities not too far away with significant populations so there is plenty of traffic daily and and at regular intervals.

Quoting mariner (Reply 11):
Oh, good grief. You don't like LCC's - don't fly 'em. There's no law that says you must.

I fly frequently for work and prefer DL, but lately their fares have begun to reach the point that my employer is questioning the value. For example, I have to fly to TPA next week and the best available fare (for a reasonable arrival time) is about $1100 round trip. I've been ordered to cancel the DL flight and switch to WN for this trip, where there are plenty of fares around $400 round trip. Its a shame for business travelers because our company stopped paying for the business upgrades the last few years, and if most companies do the same I'm sure the airlines will rip out all those seats and put in the coach size.

Quoting delta88 (Reply 16):
The Problem with standing seats, aside from the safety issue(lord knows id never wanna crash at a 150+MPH standing) but people with back issues wouldnt be able to do it, foot problems, knee issues...the list goes on an on.

And let's not forget that a 21% increase in passengers = exponential luggage rates. It's not like these seats are going to magically increase cargo space.

PlanesNTrains · Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:05 am

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 32):

If the airlines even had microwaved burgers available for purchase, I think that'd go a long way towards quieting complaints about the lack of food.

Well, I've had some good BOB on Alaska Airlines. I guess some airlines are better than others in this regard. BTW, I've heard the Alaska burger is pretty good.

Unlike most Amtrak stations (or shelters.....or platforms....), most airports have a number of reasonable dining options to choose from prior to boarding. It's just not that difficult for the majority of adults to take a few moments and decide to do the BOB thing (if available) or grab something at the airport.

-Dave

aerokiwi · Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:00 am

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 3):
They would still be limited to the max passengers allowed with the given exit doors.

There, nailed it. That's it. Nothing more to discuss. End of story.

Interesting though that the researcher in the original post hasn't considered the value of time. Even with the hassle of airports and ground connections, a one hour flight is still about 6-7 hours drive on a very good road. Or, and let's face it, in some parts of the world a lot, LOT longer and a lot less safe.

You'd think if he was up to scratch academically, he'd be accounting for this. A lot of airlines probably are competitive, or even better value, than road transport once you take those extras into account.

[Edited 2014-07-14 01:03:04]

BasilFawlty · Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:19 pm

Quoting boysteve (Reply 24):
No they did not. They (well MoL) briefed the media that it was a possibility and they all ran the story so lots of free advertising for FR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmGRGv2jEkg MOL explaining standing on an aircraft in The Late Late Show two years ago, brilliant and hilarious interview.

JBAirwaysFan · Tue Jul 15, 2014 2:45 am

This won't go. Then you have different crew needs too. 1 flight attendant per 50 pax.

coolian2 · Tue Jul 15, 2014 3:29 am

Quoting IllinoisMan (Reply 34):

I fly frequently for work and prefer DL, but lately their fares have begun to reach the point that my employer is questioning the value. For example, I have to fly to TPA next week and the best available fare (for a reasonable arrival time) is about $1100 round trip. I've been ordered to cancel the DL flight and switch to WN for this trip, where there are plenty of fares around $400 round trip. Its a shame for business travelers because our company stopped paying for the business upgrades the last few years, and if most companies do the same I'm sure the airlines will rip out all those seats and put in the coach size.

That sounds like you should be taking issue with your employer, not the airlines?

brilondon · Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:16 pm

Quoting IllinoisMan (Reply 34):
I fly frequently for work and prefer DL, but lately their fares have begun to reach the point that my employer is questioning the value. For example, I have to fly to TPA next week and the best available fare (for a reasonable arrival time) is about $1100 round trip. I've been ordered to cancel the DL flight and switch to WN for this trip, where there are plenty of fares around $400 round trip. Its a shame for business travelers because our company stopped paying for the business upgrades the last few years, and if most companies do the same I'm sure the airlines will rip out all those seats and put in the coach size.

I would serious question your employer's view of optimal work conditions. Stuffing you on WN instead of putting you in a more productive environment on DL or any other good airline seems like they are more focused on saving money than making it. If you don't mind my asking, why do you put up with such a stupid employer? Are you not able to allocate your expenses towards the creation of business?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net