5 ms·

Why you’ll never fly in an airplane with those double-decker seats

13 points by LinuxBender 3y ago

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Lots of talk about weight and who's obese. Bottom line, you have to build the planes for the customers you have. Never mind blamethrowing.
- nickdothutton 3y ago
  I’m surprised that the price of an airline ticket has not tracked the increasing weight of the average passenger over the last 50 years or so, since I presume payload weight is a significant factor in fuel consumption. I wonder if the average passenger payload for an aircraft has actually increased or not? Is it that some passengers are much slimmer thereby negating the effect of the contingent that has gained weight. Do heavier people not travel as much as lighter people? I’m also old enough to remember this fatal crash, caused by exceeding TOW and botched maintenance.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Midwest_Flight_5481 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Midwest_Flight_5481
  - JimtheCoder 3y ago
    Maybe the increased weight of passengers has been offset by increased jet engine efficiency? Just a guess...I'm not sure if it's true...
  - CydeWeys 3y ago
    There are many other factors that go into the changing cost of a plane ticket over decades. It's not just average passenger weight!
  - Cerium 3y ago
    The difference is just not worth it on a per passenger basis. I looked into this to answer another passing curiosity some months ago. For a thousand mile flight the cost per pound is about $0.05. Source: Based on this forum thread [1] the marginal cost per pound to fuel efficiency is about "0.0155 gallons per pound per 1,000 statute miles". Over a 737's life it may fly about 50 million miles [2]. Combining facts one and two results in a fuel consumption per marginal pound of 775 gallons. Current jet fuel prices are about $3.40 per gal [3]. [1] https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/712294-anyone-kno https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/712294-anyone-kno... [2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2012/11/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2012/11/... [3] https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/ https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/
zeagle 3y ago
Good grief. Seems like a reasonable proposal for a 17th century slave ship but thats about it. The Ars comment about just horizontally stacking passengers is pretty apt.
Scoundreller 3y ago
Damn, I liked the Skyrider concept. Even for someone that sits at a desk all day, standing for a few hours wouldn't kill me, and I'd do it for the right amount of savings. Transit riders do the Skyrider thing on a moving vehicle regularly, but without the seatbelt, chair or backrest... > The same would be true with standing seats since they are spaced so closely together from front to back, and passengers’ heads would be much closer to the fuselage of a plane when using a standing seat. 3/4/5 pointed seatbelts for takeoff/landing would be the way to go here no? Flight attendants seats often have these. Planes can't decelerate that much in the sky.
- CydeWeys 3y ago
  Planes can experience shocking accelerations in the sky. People have died from head injuries sustained while being thrown around during extreme turbulence miles away from the nearest solid object.
  - Scoundreller 3y ago
    I don’t doubt it. My point being that I think, on average the skyrider seat with extra belt point(s) would be safer than a standard seat and 2pt belt. And even without the extra belt point, being closer to the thing in front that you hit might be safer than accelerating for longer into a further away thing. At least that’s how it works in reverse with headrests.
schwartzworld 3y ago
I'm 6'6". Planes have basically always been torture chambers, and it has gotten noticeably worse over the years. I'm tall enough to where the person in front of me is automatically unable to recline their seat because my femurs get in the way. People tend to react to the news that they can't recline in one or more of three ways: - Repeatedly and aggressively attempt to recline hoping that I will just stop being in the way. Quite painful for me. - Getting up and yelling at me - Waiting for me to go to the bathroom and then just leaning back anyway. There was a time you could get an exit row or bulkhead if a flight attendant took pity on you, but those days are gone. Those seats are considered "premium" and cost money. It's a tax on tall people. I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action suit by now. Just looking at those double decker seats makes my kneecaps hurt. I can't wait to have someone's ass in my face for an entire flight.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action suit by now. Height isn’t a protected characterisric in general, and being tall isn’t recognized as an ADA-covered disability, so what would the basis of a lawsuit be? Sure, its private discrimination, but on a completely legal basis.
  - schwartzworld 3y ago
    > being tall isn’t recognized as an ADA-covered disability There is no formal "whitelist" of "ADA-covered disabilities". https://askjan.org/topics/Americans-with-Disabilities-Act-Amendments-Act.cfm#impair https://askjan.org/topics/Americans-with-Disabilities-Act-Am... According to this, height is only not a factor if considered within the "normal" range. The fact that the distance between seats is slightly smaller than my femurs would seem to signify that the airline don't consider my height to be within the normal range, and I'm at the low-end of "really tall". If we can agree that being above a certain height could be considered an impairment according to the ADA under certain circumstances, then consider that the ADA protects someone who has a "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities". Besides the immediate physical discomfort, sitting in cramped spaces raises your risk of deep vein thrombosis while flying. Tall people are already more prone to DVT, and the spaces are even more cramped for us.
andreygrehov 3y ago
Are there any disadvantages to providing all seats with a comfort level close to business class and charging a flat rate of, say, $1k to everyone?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- massysett 3y ago
  Not everyone could afford the higher fares, so the airline could not operate those flights profitably.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  Yes. $1k more for everyone, which prices a lot of people out of vacations. Additionally it makes planes far less fuel efficient per person, for an industry heavily criticized for its environmental impact.
  - andreygrehov 3y ago
    Totally, but not all planes out there must be like that. Just a handful of flatrates would be enough to get them full on a permanent basis. I could be wrong though, but there must be a golden mean in which the flight is both profitable for a company and more-or-less affordable and comfortable for the customers.
aidenn0 3y ago
My sister is a musician, and when she flies, she buys a seat for her instrument. She says that the airline invariably tries to sell the seat her instrument is in and check the instrument[1]. She also gets bumped to a later flight regularly because bumping one person is cheaper for the airline than bumping two people. 1: At first she got kicked off of airplanes for refusing to gate-check her instrument, even when she had a ticket for it. Switching tactics to "Give me something in writing that it is insured by the airline for $XX XXX" and you can have it fixed that problem because she wasn't saying "no" anymore.
- expertentipp 3y ago
  Reading this comment I got flashback of "United break guitars" in my head.
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    Yeah, it's not just United either. Checking something that is both valuable and fragile is inadvisable. At least it was "only" a $3500 instrument in that case; my sister plays a Contrabassoon that is about 10x that price.
8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago
At this point I just want to be sedated and knocked out when I get on the plane and then you can arrange my body in whatever configuration you want

13 points by LinuxBender 3y ago

Lots of talk about weight and who's obese. Bottom line, you have to build the planes for the customers you have. Never mind blamethrowing.

nickdothutton 3y ago
I’m surprised that the price of an airline ticket has not tracked the increasing weight of the average passenger over the last 50 years or so, since I presume payload weight is a significant factor in fuel consumption. I wonder if the average passenger payload for an aircraft has actually increased or not? Is it that some passengers are much slimmer thereby negating the effect of the contingent that has gained weight. Do heavier people not travel as much as lighter people? I’m also old enough to remember this fatal crash, caused by exceeding TOW and botched maintenance.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Midwest_Flight_5481 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Midwest_Flight_5481
- JimtheCoder 3y ago
  Maybe the increased weight of passengers has been offset by increased jet engine efficiency? Just a guess...I'm not sure if it's true...
- CydeWeys 3y ago
  There are many other factors that go into the changing cost of a plane ticket over decades. It's not just average passenger weight!
- Cerium 3y ago
  The difference is just not worth it on a per passenger basis. I looked into this to answer another passing curiosity some months ago. For a thousand mile flight the cost per pound is about $0.05. Source: Based on this forum thread [1] the marginal cost per pound to fuel efficiency is about "0.0155 gallons per pound per 1,000 statute miles". Over a 737's life it may fly about 50 million miles [2]. Combining facts one and two results in a fuel consumption per marginal pound of 775 gallons. Current jet fuel prices are about $3.40 per gal [3]. [1] https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/712294-anyone-kno https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/712294-anyone-kno... [2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2012/11/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2012/11/... [3] https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/ https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/

zeagle 3y ago

Good grief. Seems like a reasonable proposal for a 17th century slave ship but thats about it. The Ars comment about just horizontally stacking passengers is pretty apt.

Scoundreller 3y ago

Damn, I liked the Skyrider concept. Even for someone that sits at a desk all day, standing for a few hours wouldn't kill me, and I'd do it for the right amount of savings. Transit riders do the Skyrider thing on a moving vehicle regularly, but without the seatbelt, chair or backrest... > The same would be true with standing seats since they are spaced so closely together from front to back, and passengers’ heads would be much closer to the fuselage of a plane when using a standing seat. 3/4/5 pointed seatbelts for takeoff/landing would be the way to go here no? Flight attendants seats often have these. Planes can't decelerate that much in the sky.

CydeWeys 3y ago
Planes can experience shocking accelerations in the sky. People have died from head injuries sustained while being thrown around during extreme turbulence miles away from the nearest solid object.
- Scoundreller 3y ago
  I don’t doubt it. My point being that I think, on average the skyrider seat with extra belt point(s) would be safer than a standard seat and 2pt belt. And even without the extra belt point, being closer to the thing in front that you hit might be safer than accelerating for longer into a further away thing. At least that’s how it works in reverse with headrests.

schwartzworld 3y ago

I'm 6'6". Planes have basically always been torture chambers, and it has gotten noticeably worse over the years. I'm tall enough to where the person in front of me is automatically unable to recline their seat because my femurs get in the way. People tend to react to the news that they can't recline in one or more of three ways: - Repeatedly and aggressively attempt to recline hoping that I will just stop being in the way. Quite painful for me. - Getting up and yelling at me - Waiting for me to go to the bathroom and then just leaning back anyway. There was a time you could get an exit row or bulkhead if a flight attendant took pity on you, but those days are gone. Those seats are considered "premium" and cost money. It's a tax on tall people. I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action suit by now. Just looking at those double decker seats makes my kneecaps hurt. I can't wait to have someone's ass in my face for an entire flight.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action suit by now. Height isn’t a protected characterisric in general, and being tall isn’t recognized as an ADA-covered disability, so what would the basis of a lawsuit be? Sure, its private discrimination, but on a completely legal basis.
- schwartzworld 3y ago
  > being tall isn’t recognized as an ADA-covered disability There is no formal "whitelist" of "ADA-covered disabilities". https://askjan.org/topics/Americans-with-Disabilities-Act-Amendments-Act.cfm#impair https://askjan.org/topics/Americans-with-Disabilities-Act-Am... According to this, height is only not a factor if considered within the "normal" range. The fact that the distance between seats is slightly smaller than my femurs would seem to signify that the airline don't consider my height to be within the normal range, and I'm at the low-end of "really tall". If we can agree that being above a certain height could be considered an impairment according to the ADA under certain circumstances, then consider that the ADA protects someone who has a "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities". Besides the immediate physical discomfort, sitting in cramped spaces raises your risk of deep vein thrombosis while flying. Tall people are already more prone to DVT, and the spaces are even more cramped for us.

andreygrehov 3y ago

Are there any disadvantages to providing all seats with a comfort level close to business class and charging a flat rate of, say, $1k to everyone?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
massysett 3y ago
Not everyone could afford the higher fares, so the airline could not operate those flights profitably.
constantcrying 3y ago
Yes. $1k more for everyone, which prices a lot of people out of vacations. Additionally it makes planes far less fuel efficient per person, for an industry heavily criticized for its environmental impact.
- andreygrehov 3y ago
  Totally, but not all planes out there must be like that. Just a handful of flatrates would be enough to get them full on a permanent basis. I could be wrong though, but there must be a golden mean in which the flight is both profitable for a company and more-or-less affordable and comfortable for the customers.

aidenn0 3y ago

My sister is a musician, and when she flies, she buys a seat for her instrument. She says that the airline invariably tries to sell the seat her instrument is in and check the instrument[1]. She also gets bumped to a later flight regularly because bumping one person is cheaper for the airline than bumping two people. 1: At first she got kicked off of airplanes for refusing to gate-check her instrument, even when she had a ticket for it. Switching tactics to "Give me something in writing that it is insured by the airline for $XX XXX" and you can have it fixed that problem because she wasn't saying "no" anymore.

expertentipp 3y ago
Reading this comment I got flashback of "United break guitars" in my head.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  Yeah, it's not just United either. Checking something that is both valuable and fragile is inadvisable. At least it was "only" a $3500 instrument in that case; my sister plays a Contrabassoon that is about 10x that price.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago

At this point I just want to be sedated and knocked out when I get on the plane and then you can arrange my body in whatever configuration you want