6 ms·

I like the idea of bunk beds. Instead of 3 people sitting next to each other let them lie above each other. Being able to sleep during long flights would make m

I like the idea of bunk beds. Instead of 3 people sitting next to each other let them lie above each other. Being able to sleep during long flights would make my life much better.

CodeCube 8y ago
Bunks, combined with being able to get up for brief visits to the head, and perhaps a small bar (for food, drinks, and coffee), would be a dream long distance commute for me.
alxhill 8y ago
I like this idea too. Sadly I doubt regulators would go for it without substantial modification - all lie-flat beds have to be in the upright position for take-off and landing at the moment, for example.
sandworm101 8y ago
Who gets top bunk? Seriously. How do all the old or disabled people climb up and down? How are people belted in? What does an evacuation look like. Lots of people have thought about this concept. It just isnt practical.
- jandrese 8y ago
  In my mental image of this layout the plane has 1/2 seats and 1/2 bunks. People who want to sit take a seat. People who want to lay down take a bunk. I always imagined it as open ended boxes so you have to climb in kind of awkwardly, but you don't have all of the seatbelt issues. I also imagined a little curtain you could close to block out the light if you want. Evacuation would be a problem though, especially for people crawling out of the bottom bunk. I've always assumed the evacuation problems were the reason this has never happened.
  - kalleboo 8y ago
    I've always imagined basically a flying capsule hotel https://www.google.com/search?q=capsule+hotel&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjng_LVq5bdAhXKbrwKHVuZDVUQ_AUICygC https://www.google.com/search?q=capsule+hotel&client=safari&...
- jakobegger 8y ago
  I've travelled on night trains in Europe a bunch of times in a 6 bed compartment, and the solution is pretty simple. When you book a ticket, you can choose your preferred bed (top / middle / bottom), and there's a checkbox you can tick if you absolutely need the bottom bed. Somehow it all works out. It's really neat, because if you're travelling in a group and don't want to go to bed right away you can fold the top beds up and use the bottom beds as comfy benches. The problem with putting the same thing on an airplane is that it needs a lot of space. Seats offer way more density than bunk beds.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    Trains generally dont deal with turbulance. We cant have a situation where a 10000' drop sees people flying around the cabin. And doors/bars on each bunk would be a safety nightmare.
    - TylerE 8y ago
      Actually, bunks with some sort of safety netting, and all the other surfaces padded may well be safer. My understand is that most injuries during turbulence are due to flying objects, not the actual motion.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Sounds like a Chinese hard sleeper train ticket. The top bunk is kind of claustrophobic, however, and everyone hangs out on the bottom bunk during the day.
SteveCoast 8y ago
I spent some time on this a while ago and it's not quite as simple as I'd hoped. People typically need to be facing/laying along the axis of flight for the seatbelt to work. If you're laying at 90 degrees and there's a big (de/a)cceleration and you have a belt across your waist, you get folded in half hanging off the bed. If you stack three people on top of each other then the you need egress (space one one or both sides of the beds) which takes up a bunch of space to get back/forward. Most seats have the aisle as egress but you need more mini-aisles for bunkbeds. You might want to divide it and say some people have egress forward and some backward to save the space... but if there's some kind of emergency you want people to be able to go whatever way they want. If you think about roughly the volume of 3x3 seats (9 pax) then roughly speaking you could have three sets of three bunkbeds. But the curvature of the airframe means you don't have the same height near the window you do in the middle of the plane, and you may take away cabin baggage space. One way to get around this is to make the lowest bunk very low, like an inch off the deck, but that would mean a smaller market as you have to have pax who can get down low or climb up to the top. All of this is assuming you're trying to go for the same kind of density of pax as a plane has today. If you just want two bunks and charge more, or you want to have a seat and a bunk (so you sleep only half the flight or something then someone else gets the bunk...) then the space requirements all change. You can also just have some bunks or just in the middle rows on a widebody and on the outside have seats. Lastly, my memory is the flight computers will try to direct smaller aircraft movements in the vertical axis / pitch angle. Again from memory, but people get really sick if they have a bunch of movement side to side or at some other funny angle their vestibular system isn't used to. And with bunkbeds you might not have a window to look out of for a frame of reference to help. This is another constraint on how you lay people out on the plane. It's all fixable kind-of but not just "put in a bunch of bunkbeds and make the same amount of money / same price per seat-mile". Someone with more knowledge can probably list all the reasons the FAA wouldn't allow it. I still want bunkbeds though.
- schoen 8y ago
  > People typically need to be facing/laying along the axis of flight for the seatbelt to work. If you're laying at 90 degrees and there's a big (de/a)cceleration and you have a belt across your waist, you get folded in half hanging off the bed. I thought airplane seatbelts during cruise were more about controlling vertical movement than horizontal movement. At least, the strongest sudden accelerations that I've experienced under those conditions, and the strongest ones that I've heard about, were vertical.
tim333 8y ago
I wonder why no one has tried that. I'm guessing there's some safety reg about being seated for landing which a bunk wouldn't satisfy?
Someone1234 8y ago
On Virgin Atlantic's flights they have a class called "Upper Class." It is essentially business class with some first class perks (like airport lounge access). Anyway, they have these unique seats that let you lay literally flat[0]. It is the only time I've ever slept on a flight, even most business class don't go flat they just tip back. So sign me on for bunk beds. [0] https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E87ARA/upper-class-on-a-virgin-atlantic-flight-seats-become-beds-or-can-be-E87ARA.jpg https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E87ARA/upper-class-on-a-virgin-atl...
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  I have looked at these longingly....
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    They're everything you imagine they are. Some other business class might give you more room or perks, but lay flat beds are extremely rare (only other example off the top of my head is the A380's private rooms).
    - bolasanibk 8y ago
      They are becoming more common. Check the table on this page for a list. https://www.seatguru.com/charts/longhaul_business_class.php https://www.seatguru.com/charts/longhaul_business_class.php
    - SteveCoast 8y ago
      Lay flat seems pretty common internationally, United Polaris for example...
    - eyd68 8y ago
      Lie flat beds in international, long-haul business class are common enough that I consider anything else Premium Eco. For example, Norwegian Premium is sold as Business Class (J), but I've been just as comfortable in British Premium Economy. They are priced about the same.
sunstone 8y ago
Back in the early 90's the Chinese railway system had some cars set up exactly like this. They were called "hard sleepers" and they had a vinyl cover over a bit of padding with a narrowish (i'm guessing) plywood base. They looked not promising but they were surprisingly comfortable for even two or three day rides. You could either sit or lie down on them. A modern airliner probably wouldn't go for plywood but if the safety aspects could be worked out the general design would be a big improvement for long haul flights.
- kart23 8y ago
  I don't think the FAA would allow it. Imagine turbulence and suddenly 20 people get thrown a few inches into the air and come crashing back down. Not safe at all, plus that would feel scary to passengers. You'd also need to find a way to secure them into their bunks to not get thrown to the sides.
Jazz4241 8y ago
Yeah, I agree with you!! I have trouble with 6 hours long flight where you can't sleep properly on those chairs depriving me of the sleep and thus making me feel sick!

I like the idea of bunk beds. Instead of 3 people sitting next to each other let them lie above each other. Being able to sleep during long flights would make my life much better.

CodeCube 8y ago

Bunks, combined with being able to get up for brief visits to the head, and perhaps a small bar (for food, drinks, and coffee), would be a dream long distance commute for me.

alxhill 8y ago

I like this idea too. Sadly I doubt regulators would go for it without substantial modification - all lie-flat beds have to be in the upright position for take-off and landing at the moment, for example.

sandworm101 8y ago

Who gets top bunk? Seriously. How do all the old or disabled people climb up and down? How are people belted in? What does an evacuation look like. Lots of people have thought about this concept. It just isnt practical.

jandrese 8y ago
In my mental image of this layout the plane has 1/2 seats and 1/2 bunks. People who want to sit take a seat. People who want to lay down take a bunk. I always imagined it as open ended boxes so you have to climb in kind of awkwardly, but you don't have all of the seatbelt issues. I also imagined a little curtain you could close to block out the light if you want. Evacuation would be a problem though, especially for people crawling out of the bottom bunk. I've always assumed the evacuation problems were the reason this has never happened.
- kalleboo 8y ago
  I've always imagined basically a flying capsule hotel https://www.google.com/search?q=capsule+hotel&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjng_LVq5bdAhXKbrwKHVuZDVUQ_AUICygC https://www.google.com/search?q=capsule+hotel&client=safari&...
jakobegger 8y ago
I've travelled on night trains in Europe a bunch of times in a 6 bed compartment, and the solution is pretty simple. When you book a ticket, you can choose your preferred bed (top / middle / bottom), and there's a checkbox you can tick if you absolutely need the bottom bed. Somehow it all works out. It's really neat, because if you're travelling in a group and don't want to go to bed right away you can fold the top beds up and use the bottom beds as comfy benches. The problem with putting the same thing on an airplane is that it needs a lot of space. Seats offer way more density than bunk beds.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  Trains generally dont deal with turbulance. We cant have a situation where a 10000' drop sees people flying around the cabin. And doors/bars on each bunk would be a safety nightmare.
  - TylerE 8y ago
    Actually, bunks with some sort of safety netting, and all the other surfaces padded may well be safer. My understand is that most injuries during turbulence are due to flying objects, not the actual motion.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

Sounds like a Chinese hard sleeper train ticket. The top bunk is kind of claustrophobic, however, and everyone hangs out on the bottom bunk during the day.

SteveCoast 8y ago

I spent some time on this a while ago and it's not quite as simple as I'd hoped. People typically need to be facing/laying along the axis of flight for the seatbelt to work. If you're laying at 90 degrees and there's a big (de/a)cceleration and you have a belt across your waist, you get folded in half hanging off the bed. If you stack three people on top of each other then the you need egress (space one one or both sides of the beds) which takes up a bunch of space to get back/forward. Most seats have the aisle as egress but you need more mini-aisles for bunkbeds. You might want to divide it and say some people have egress forward and some backward to save the space... but if there's some kind of emergency you want people to be able to go whatever way they want. If you think about roughly the volume of 3x3 seats (9 pax) then roughly speaking you could have three sets of three bunkbeds. But the curvature of the airframe means you don't have the same height near the window you do in the middle of the plane, and you may take away cabin baggage space. One way to get around this is to make the lowest bunk very low, like an inch off the deck, but that would mean a smaller market as you have to have pax who can get down low or climb up to the top. All of this is assuming you're trying to go for the same kind of density of pax as a plane has today. If you just want two bunks and charge more, or you want to have a seat and a bunk (so you sleep only half the flight or something then someone else gets the bunk...) then the space requirements all change. You can also just have some bunks or just in the middle rows on a widebody and on the outside have seats. Lastly, my memory is the flight computers will try to direct smaller aircraft movements in the vertical axis / pitch angle. Again from memory, but people get really sick if they have a bunch of movement side to side or at some other funny angle their vestibular system isn't used to. And with bunkbeds you might not have a window to look out of for a frame of reference to help. This is another constraint on how you lay people out on the plane. It's all fixable kind-of but not just "put in a bunch of bunkbeds and make the same amount of money / same price per seat-mile". Someone with more knowledge can probably list all the reasons the FAA wouldn't allow it. I still want bunkbeds though.

schoen 8y ago
> People typically need to be facing/laying along the axis of flight for the seatbelt to work. If you're laying at 90 degrees and there's a big (de/a)cceleration and you have a belt across your waist, you get folded in half hanging off the bed. I thought airplane seatbelts during cruise were more about controlling vertical movement than horizontal movement. At least, the strongest sudden accelerations that I've experienced under those conditions, and the strongest ones that I've heard about, were vertical.

tim333 8y ago

I wonder why no one has tried that. I'm guessing there's some safety reg about being seated for landing which a bunk wouldn't satisfy?

Someone1234 8y ago

On Virgin Atlantic's flights they have a class called "Upper Class." It is essentially business class with some first class perks (like airport lounge access). Anyway, they have these unique seats that let you lay literally flat[0]. It is the only time I've ever slept on a flight, even most business class don't go flat they just tip back. So sign me on for bunk beds. [0] https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E87ARA/upper-class-on-a-virgin-atlantic-flight-seats-become-beds-or-can-be-E87ARA.jpg https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E87ARA/upper-class-on-a-virgin-atl...

maxxxxx 8y ago
I have looked at these longingly....
- Someone1234 8y ago
  They're everything you imagine they are. Some other business class might give you more room or perks, but lay flat beds are extremely rare (only other example off the top of my head is the A380's private rooms).
  - bolasanibk 8y ago
    They are becoming more common. Check the table on this page for a list. https://www.seatguru.com/charts/longhaul_business_class.php https://www.seatguru.com/charts/longhaul_business_class.php
  - SteveCoast 8y ago
    Lay flat seems pretty common internationally, United Polaris for example...
  - eyd68 8y ago
    Lie flat beds in international, long-haul business class are common enough that I consider anything else Premium Eco. For example, Norwegian Premium is sold as Business Class (J), but I've been just as comfortable in British Premium Economy. They are priced about the same.

sunstone 8y ago

Back in the early 90's the Chinese railway system had some cars set up exactly like this. They were called "hard sleepers" and they had a vinyl cover over a bit of padding with a narrowish (i'm guessing) plywood base. They looked not promising but they were surprisingly comfortable for even two or three day rides. You could either sit or lie down on them. A modern airliner probably wouldn't go for plywood but if the safety aspects could be worked out the general design would be a big improvement for long haul flights.

kart23 8y ago
I don't think the FAA would allow it. Imagine turbulence and suddenly 20 people get thrown a few inches into the air and come crashing back down. Not safe at all, plus that would feel scary to passengers. You'd also need to find a way to secure them into their bunks to not get thrown to the sides.

Jazz4241 8y ago

Yeah, I agree with you!! I have trouble with 6 hours long flight where you can't sleep properly on those chairs depriving me of the sleep and thus making me feel sick!