5 ms·

I know not to, and yet, knowing that, I probably would anyway. Sigh. Mostly because I don't feel like it would slow me down. Even though I know intellectually

• afthonos 8y ago
  The surface area increases with the square of linear dimensions. So increasing aisle space meaningfully would make planes significantly heavier—unless you’re suggesting making seats narrower to compensate.
  • ars 8y ago
    > The surface area increases with the square of linear dimensions That's for a ball. A cylinder does not increase that way. Plus you only need to increase the width, not the height. So the surface areas goes up as twice the linear dimension, which I don't think would be significantly heavier, just a bit incrementally heavier.
    • afthonos 8y ago
      Fair enough. I would say another likely issue is that of the highway problem: you make wider aisles—and now people think they can definitely take their stuff.
  • saagarjha 8y ago
    They are probably suggesting reducing the number of seats.
• soneil 8y ago
  I read that in surveying passengers who hadn't been in an emergency evacuation, about one third of people said they'd try to take at least one bag. In surveying passengers who had been involved in an emergency evacuation, about one half actually did. So you're not alone. What I did find interesting though, were the other side effects I hadn't considered. Time taken actually picking up your bag, most people will justify that away to themselves. Clogging up the aisle, most people seem to think that's something other people do. Time wasted arguing with the flight attendant when they try to persuade you that your bag could damage the slide? Where does the inevitable pile of bags go if the flight attendants start winning that argument? One report had that pile formed in front of a cockpit door. Another had that pile form in front of the off-side exit which should have been otherwise usable. (and only one of these points would be addressed by wider aisles!) I do find myself speculating whether the modern atmosphere of everyone knowing better than the experts compounds the issue.
• TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  Airlines are often only marginally profitable, which is why seat spacings are as tight as they are. The seating configuration is a combined effect of limited energy availability and economics. So yes - it does cost that much to increase space, and reducing passenger loads would lead to significant losses. By any reasonable metric, including passenger miles and total passenger numbers, accidents are incredibly rare compared to other transport modes. The way to deal with the problem is to make crashes and fires even less likely, not to expect untrained panicking passengers to deal rationally or intelligently with a situation they've never experienced.
• ptaipale 8y ago
  I think perhaps travelers need more training (at least the mental process of checking "what shall I do if we need to evacuate") and perhaps the luggage compartments need to be automatically locked when evacuating. It's hard to make people think the same way, though. Aisles aren't going to become much wider - it's always a compromise of convenience and safety in the extremely unlikely event of evacuation vs. cost and also the now ever-more prevalent concern about co2 emissions cause by reduced number of seats. Perhaps the first thing to do is have a LOUD intercom when evacuating: "do not take any luggage, just get out". This is already emphasized in the routine pre-flight security show, but people don't pay much attention.
  • TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > I think perhaps travelers need more training Perhaps they do need actual training? As in, you're not legally allowed to board a plane if you're under age X without supervision of a trained adult, and you're not allowed to board a plane at or above age X without a mandatory training. The mandatory training would be something like few hours at a training centre and included practical simulated emergencies in which you had to behave. Airlines could offload this onto government, ticket prices would remain the same (after a brief re-training period), and maybe - just maybe - it would cut down on the amount of stupidity and extremely selfish behavior you see some passengers engaging in on planes every day.
    • ptaipale 8y ago
      Well, yes, but then, it's always a trade-off. Evacuations are extremely rare. The cost of these trainings would likely prevent a lot more deaths somewhere else (e.g. in training car and heavy vehicle drivers and bicyclists, not to mention motorcyclists).
      • metabagel 8y ago
        Exactly. The preference should be to make reasonable trade-offs (i.e., go for the low-hanging fruit).