9 ms·

The way we board airplanes

89 points by sethbannon 13y ago

mongol 13y ago
I once had a colleague with the following idea:print the seat numbers and assign them as people queue to board the plane. In practise this would fill the plane from back to front
- esquivalience 13y ago
  Unfortunately the front seats are usually mist desirable. That system would incentivise people to the back of the queue - nobody would stand up first! Might be possible to undo this effect by filling up front-to-back - but that creates other practical problems.
- JoshTriplett 13y ago
  That requires that you have no assigned seating, which means passengers can't select a preferred seat (whether window/aisle or just "not that seat in front of the exit row that doesn't recline").
dm2 13y ago
The article ends by saying that most airlines don't do the optimal methods of boarding in order to encourage people to upgrade to priority/early boarding, and that it makes them more money that way. Wouldn't it make the airlines even more money to optimize boarding, which would enhance customer experience, which would increase the likelihood of them flying with you on future flights? I'm sure some accountant somewhere has numbers that say otherwise but it's difficult to accurately measure how that small of a chance could increase brand loyalty (a major factor in Southwest's success). In my opinion, other airlines should reconsider the decision to leave boarding unoptimized. Is that the wrong way to think about business decisions or should you always trust the predicted numbers no matter what?
- JacksonGariety 13y ago
  Probably not, I have a feeling 9/10 people just buy the cheapest tickets regardless of the airline. The other 10% go with Virgin or something with fun branding. Customer satisfaction is already in the negatives, they're being wise and playing their strong points: upgrades.
- cortesoft 13y ago
  Not only that, but if you board faster you can leave faster. Less time on the ground = more hours flying = more money.
- saryant 13y ago
  Most passengers choose by price only and the rest have frequent flyer status and board first anyways.
mynegation 13y ago
This had been known for a while. Yet there are different considerations besides fastest boarding time. First, people traveling together tend to sit next to each other, so ordering by "columns" instead of rows breaks them apart in the queue which may be either uncomfortable or downright infuriating if you travel with young kids. I can imagine that letting passengers take their seats at random results in pretty fragmented available seating so if you travel as a large group and want to seat together, this might be a problem too.
- furyofantares 13y ago
  I think you could still do columns -- just allow people to go out of order if they are going with someone that's going in order.
- jdcryans 13y ago
  > First, people traveling together tend to sit next to each other, so ordering by "columns" instead of rows breaks them apart in the queue You can order by column but still let families together, for example with United you can board with your group/family's lowest group number. This means a 1K with boarding group 1 can bring in his wife and kid (who are somewhere between 3 and 5 if they don't have status) on the plane all at the same time. This way you can fill up whole rows at once.
vim-guru 13y ago
I'm sure it could be improved further by a re-design of aircrafts. We could board a capsule beforehand or make the entire aircraft with falcon-walls. But the Steffen method sounds pretty good to :)
- umeshunni 13y ago
  I'm not sure a redesign of aircraft is necessary - simply allowing both back to front and front to back entry should make boarding times much faster. It will require that airports are redesigned to support this though.
Joeri 13y ago
The simplest way to avoid standing in line is to be fashionably late. You sit and read a book until everyone else has boarded, and only then do you go through. I'm always surprised how everyone rushes to stand in line the moment boarding starts. Rationally speaking they should wait until the last reasonable moment to board, because the seat in the terminal is more comfortable than the one in the airplane.
- dailyrorschach 13y ago
  This works great when you have checked luggage, or if you use a non roll aboard bag, which I’ve moved to doing. Otherwise, it’s a race to get available overhead space - in part because of increased checked bag fees, and airlines not enforcing proper sized carry-ons.
- sethbannon 13y ago
  The downside of this strategy is that you're often forced to check your carry on bag(s) if it's a full flight and all the overhead bins are full.
- daigoba66 13y ago
  I think this is due to the diminishing supply of overhead storage space, and the goal of not checking or being far from your stuff.
- mikestew 13y ago
  Though, as others have pointed out, carry-ons can put a damper on the idea, I tend to do this. Even before carry-ons became a consideration, I've been mystified by people that want to get on the plane first. Umm, more time in the aluminum tube in an uncomfortable seat? No thanks, I'll wait. I understand that it may not work for everyone, but I typically check everything but a laptop bag, and get on as late as I can. Grab a latte after getting off the plane, and stand by the luggage output for 15 minutes while sipping my delicious (okay, it's the airport: barely palatable) coffee beverage. Even today when you get booked flights with no carry-on room, the gate agent comes on the PA: "if you check your carry-on, we'll let you board first!" If I check my bag and don't have a carry-on anymore, and I have an assigned seat, how about I board dead last instead? Because I personally don't view being first on the plane as a reward.
guard-of-terra 13y ago
In Europe this doesn't happen (in my limited experience). People board in random order in which they lined up towards the gate or get off the airport bus. I think this is because americans can't ever let anybody loiter so they just have to push people into some order, even inferior one.
- t__r 13y ago
  I'm a frequent flyer, mostly within Europe, and this is true. The exception is boarding a bigger plane like the 747. But iirc the ordering is then more coarse grained (based on aisles instead of seats). And I guess I'm not the only European who immediately thinks of low fares, blue and yellow plastic, non-reclining seats and lottery ticket sales, when reading about that damned random method.
  - anonymousDan 13y ago
    At least they've finally switched to preassigned seating a la Easy jet though. Alleluia, it's so much more relaxing!
kd0amg 13y ago
We once did a transposed Steffen on a high school marching band trip. Crew said they'd never seen a plane fill that quickly. Unfortunately, this is harder to coordinate when the passengers aren't all members of an organization that practices standing in lines.
- cortesoft 13y ago
  I think this is really the biggest obstacle to any of these 'superior' methods; getting everyone to do it. For one thing, not everyone is ready to board when you first start boarding. People will show up at different times, after their own group was supposed to board. People won't line up in the right order, no matter how hard you try to enforce it.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    A very interesting question is how each of these methods degrades as more people get further out of place.
carlosdp 13y ago
Every airplane I've ever been on has boarded front to back (which I've always found non-sensical), but the article says most board back to front. Am I going crazy, or are Delta, US Airways, and American Airlines not in that "most US airlines"?
- m_mueller 13y ago
  I has the same experience when flying US Airways. Seeing this I just thought someone was extra incompetent, but reading the last sentence of the article it starts making sense - they want it to be inefficient so people pay extra.
  - monksy 13y ago
    They don't. They want to get the plane loaded and out of the way. The quicker they get the plane loaded and fully ready to go the quicker the FAs get paided. Less "wasted time." Quick boarding: This is a perk for those who fly quite a bit. [You can't make silver status, butt on the seat method, by just flying on 4 domestic flights a year]
- mchusma 13y ago
  In general, you are seeing the premium customers board first, who have seats in front.
- Plasmoid 13y ago
  It's a recent trend to board front-to-back. This way, the first class cabin/priority sections get first dibs on the overhead bins while the people in the cheap sets get play Tetris meets Sword of Damocles.
  - drblast 13y ago
    Nothing to add but the Tetris meets Sword of Damocles made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that.
- sjm-lbm 13y ago
  Almost all of my flying experience is on American, so I'm not sure how much this applies to the others, but I think all US majors technically board back to front. The problem is that there are so many ways so "cut" in line that (at least according to some airline industry friends of mine) it's fairly common for about 50% of the plane to board out of order. Off the top of my head, you can board earlier on AA if you: - fly on the airline a lot/have some sort of frequent flyer status - are in a premium cabin - have the AA credit card - pay $10 extra at checkin - are in the military - have a seat on a row with a bulkhead in front of it - are on an exit row - have children flying with you .. and, of course, I'm sure that list isn't exhaustive. By the time you factor all that in, I usually think it looks like boarding happens in a completely random order.
goshx 13y ago
This should take into consideration the time to organize the people before they enter the plane. I may have missed it, but I didn't see the research cover that. I bet the "most efficient" method pointed is one of the less efficient methods to organize people outside.
- polarix 13y ago
  Imagine trying to implement the Steffen proposal. Everyone has to be in exactly the right position in line for their seat. You'd essentially need to number the seats in the preflight lounge and loosely enforce seat numbers at that point.
  - plorg 13y ago
    I imagine this could also get very confusing when a number of passengers show up at the last minute.
scott_s 13y ago
You can't control how the airline orchestrates boarding, but you can control how you board. It's much less stressful to stay seated in the lounge while everyone waits in line, then jump up at the end. I understand the impulse to get on the plane, but it's irrational if you aren't using the overhead bins. (As a rule, I do not. I always check my bag plane-side.) Getting on the plane earlier won't get you to your destination faster. So, don't stress about it, sit down and relax. Although, my attitude could end up screwing up these optimized methods. But I don't think it hurts in the back-of-the-plane-first method.
- egonschiele 13y ago
  I do the same thing, and it is much less stressful. It doesn't make the process any faster though.
- blhack 13y ago
  I usually do this, but a couple of times I have been told that I have to gate check my carryon because of it. Still worth it to wait in the lounge and use the wifi instead of cramming into a tiny seat early.
- udfalkso 13y ago
  Same here. Def. the way to go. It's hard to wait long enough though. They start with "final, final, final boarding calls" prematurely and you still end up waiting in line for 5-10 minutes in the gateway even if you're the very last person to check in. I'd still prefer to stand for a few minutes than spend extra time crammed into that awful seat.
- abruzzi 13y ago
  On the flip side, since I always travel pretty light, I never check baggage (and I still have the smallest carry-ons...) and a little more stress at the beginning of the flight to ensure I get overhead bin space, means that at the end of the flight I can leave the plane and walk out the front door, rather than waiting 10-20 for the baggage to show up. If I need to bring enough stuff to require check baggage however, I am always the last to board the plane.
ShaneCurran 13y ago
There was a Mythbusters episode a while back testing different boarding methods. If I recall correctly, having a "free-for-all" seating arrangement was the fastest, although it received the lowest customer satisfaction score from customers. The most satisfactory method of boarding was "WILMA[1] with blocks" which involves having business board first, followed by a combination of back-to-front and WILMA boarding while each zone was boarded with the WILMA method, starting from the back. [1] Stands for "windows-middles-aisles". See http://take.ms/znON7 http://take.ms/znON7 for a definition.
- egonschiele 13y ago
  This information is already in the article.
caster_cp 13y ago
One factor that has to be taken into account is the "social" one, i.e. how can we enforce that the ultra-fast amazingly optimal sitting scheme will be used. Let's conduct a thought experiment. My grandma (that has difficulty hearing) is boarding a plane. Try explaining to her, in a sensible and efficient manner that only the people at the windows should get in first. Ok, maybe my grandma is an extreme example. But think of a first time flyer. Lots of people would be confused. Also, as already stated, people that travel together sit side by side. Are you going to split the young couple of newly weds during boarding? Is that really sensible? Or the mother and her five kids? The main takeaway that I get is that you should let people get in without any pre-ordering. Unless you can devise a socially acceptable way to enforce outside-in boarding, that is. I'm not. You see, the bottom line for me is that simulations are really valuable, but not taking into account the human factors involving the business, how the people actually consume your product, you can have great ideas that work on excel and flunk marvelously on the market.
- MAGZine 13y ago
  "Now boarding people requiring special assistance or those with priority seating" "now boarding seats A and F." "now boarding seats B and E"... Seems simple enough. Priority seating would just be a box that you check off, only available to people travelling in groups. Seat these people as far back and as close to a wall as possible.
  - goshx 13y ago
    Sounds simple, but I have yet to be on a flight where nobody misses the guidelines. There are always quite a few people "lost" and most of the time intentionally.
    - brownbat 13y ago
      Even if we just start with the assumption that n% of people will misunderstand, it still strikes me as unlikely that the best algorithm will be the current one. I think we have the next round of tests though. See how many people you need to randomly swap before Steffen is worse than back-to-front.
kumarski 13y ago
Boarding time isn't a bottleneck ergo it's not a problem. The real time suck when a plane is grounded is emptying the latrine, loading the water, refueling, doing engine checks. The lack of major airlines and the high entry costs in the space mean that it's unlikely you'll lose travelers over user experience. RyanAir is a prime example of this....just imho though.
- zw123456 13y ago
  Exactly, there is no incentive or profit for the airlines to speed the boarding process. In fact, it takes a fixed amount of time to turn around a plane so if you can make it seem like it is the passengers fault and not their, all the better. It might even be that it is to the benefit of the airlines for it to take longer.
turbulents 13y ago
I'm not seeing any Group 1 passengers arriving late and having to board with Group 3 or 4 and that happens on pretty much every flight I've been on. Maybe we're simulating a delayed flight then? But if the flight's already delayed, who even cares anymore.
a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
They just need to get rid of the overhead luggage compartments. Unchecked luggage is the entire boarding problem. It is also what holds up the security lines. Make checking luggage much faster/easier and at the destination get it out for pick up much faster than is done now. Dramatically shrink or remove the overhead bins. Boarding and security line problems solved.
- cortesoft 13y ago
  They would also have to stop charging for checked bags. No matter how efficient they get at checking bags, though, not having to do it will always be faster. I don't really see how much faster they can get in terms of unloading the bags... you will still have to wait for all the bags to come out on the conveyer belt, and whoever gets the last bag will have to wait quite a bit.
- lyndonh 13y ago
  This. This is what causes at least 50% of queues. Everyone can take 1 small bag. Nothing on wheels. If you can't lift it above your head it's too heavy. No exceptions. Overhead bins will be sufficient, no hunting around for a space, easier to get your bag at the end of a journey. On the other hand; I have taken a 35 liter backpack on many trips. No waiting at the carousel to get my suitcase; just walk straight out of the airport.
samhoggnz 13y ago
From my experience, the boarding problem is pretty specific to the US, where everyone seems to have carry on bags perfectly sized to fit the overhead compartments, of which there are not enough to satisfy everyone's need to not check in any baggage (and thus avoid check in charges) In my opinion the solution would probably be to discourage as much bulk in carry on, rather than herding cats at the gate.
- kylec 13y ago
  Completely agree. It makes no sense to me that you have to pay to check your luggage, while carry-ons are free. It definitely should be the other way around.
  - threedaymonk 13y ago
    Each checked item costs the airline: moving them around requires labour and equipment, and there are further expenses dealing with the inevitable proportion of lost, stolen, delayed or damaged bags. It probably shouldn't be surprising that they seek to pass that on.
xyzzy123 13y ago
I wonder if you could build a passenger pod which attaches to the airframe. The pods get swapped when the plane comes in to the terminal. The new pod would already be fully boarded, and deplaning people on the arriving pod would not hold everything up. I guess whether this would be worth it or not depends on whether the advantages of "0 boarding time" from the airline's point of view offset the cost of the infrastructure and extra weight required to support such a system. From a security point of view, you could keep the pod completely decoupled from the other parts of the aircraft (e.g. no cabin access, not "coupled into" control systems).
- judk 13y ago
  That sounds incredibly crash-prone. I prefer to fly in one-piece airplanes.
MarkTee 13y ago
I always have to laugh when, at the end of a flight, the majority of passengers jump up and elbow their way into the aisle, even though in many cases they'll be standing there for at least 5 minutes. While sitting in the aisle seat, I've had passengers that were sitting beside me fall into my lap as they try to jostle their way by, just to get a place in the (stationary) line. What's even funnier is when you see these people waiting around the baggage claim 10 minutes later. Crowd psychology is a funny thing.
- citric_acid 13y ago
  I elbow my way into the aisle because, like anyone over 6 feet, I don't fit comfortably into an airline seat and would dearly like to stand up. I would also like people to figure out how to get their bags out of the overhead and find their children before the aisle in front of them is clear, but I'll settle for being able to stretch.
  - MarkTee 13y ago
    As a fellow 6'+ person, one of the main reasons I stay seated is so that I don't have to stoop below the overhead bins and/or subject my face to the flurry of arms. :p
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      I thought I'd found the solution to the height + plane drama. I took a load of sleeping pills. Every time I woke up I took more. It got me from NZ to Europe feeling great, until the last 30 mins of the 30ish hour saga. I'd fallen asleep with crossed legs and my upper leg had cut return circulation off (I assume) and had gone red, swollen and painful. Somehow I limped off the plane. I think the strategy is great but DVT stockings are needed to prevent something like death occurring.
  - hackuser 13y ago
    I note that men over 6' like to talk about it.
- 13y ago
kirk21 13y ago
Easyjet is also quite efficient. You have 2 enterances (front and back). You are designated to a specific enterance (based on your seat number). This already reduces the problem.
yeukhon 13y ago
The article doesn't capture the fact that half of the time the boarding delay is caused by people looking for available space in the overhead bins. Even in the best workflow he demonstrated, there will still be people going back and forth to find a bin.
ibrad 13y ago
Although the boarding time is improved, there is overhead in the sorting algorithms. Try to run a bubble sort on a family and see how that goes. The time gained in the speed of sitting is lost in the sorting.
- aragot 13y ago
  The boarding time for an A380 is 45min to 1hr before departure. When you count how much money is being spent, they probably wouldn't mind printing sequence numbers on the boarding pass. The article doesn't state how much time would be saved for a big plane, though.
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
Sounds nice in theory, but it totally breaks down with airlines' policies of charging for checked luggage. Getting onboard first guarantees you a coveted overhead bin spot, aisle clogging be damned.
- anonymoushn 13y ago
  Do any airlines charge to check luggage once the overhead bins are full? I'm generally too lazy to board in the proper order, and I always get my would-have-been-a-carry-on checked for free.
  - hackuser 13y ago
    I take pleasure in the way this works out: 1. The airline tries to nickel-and-dime customers by charging for checked bags. 2. Their customers respond by carrying on bags. 3. The airline lacks capacity for the carry-ons 4. The customers end up with a freebie: Free checked bags at the gate (instead of waiting in line in the lobby).
dllthomas 13y ago
"those who pay extra are sitting on planes longer than necessary" Only if the passengers boarding is the thing that takes the longest (as opposed to refueling, inspections, loading luggage, getting clearance). This may very well be the case some or even all the time, but I don't know that it is.
rakoo 13y ago
That Steffen method looks much more theoretical than the other ones. The problem is you will have to line everyone perfectly at the boarding gate, and I believe this is pretty much impossible (everyone wants to get in first, they're barely ok with letting other people go in front of them because even if it's faster on the whole, it's slower for that person, which is all that matters). The outside-in should be implementable, but people who travel together want to stay together, so it's going against them. Back-to-front still seems like the easiest method for an un-ordered, mildly-cooperative group of agents.
sltkr 13y ago
> These methods are all unquestionably faster than the standard method, so would speed up the turnaround times, theoretically saving airlines money. That's assuming boarding is the bottleneck in the turnaround process. Is it?
Cbasedlifeform 13y ago
What's interesting to me (as a very frequent traveller) is that I have routinely seen completely full 747-size planes board in 10-15 minutes in Japan. This has much to do with the culture I suspect, plus smaller size humans, and less tendancy to take bigger bags. Still, it's impressive.
mikhailfranco 13y ago
It's all about the baggage policy, not the boarding policy.

89 points by sethbannon 13y ago

I once had a colleague with the following idea:print the seat numbers and assign them as people queue to board the plane. In practise this would fill the plane from back to front

esquivalience 13y ago
Unfortunately the front seats are usually mist desirable. That system would incentivise people to the back of the queue - nobody would stand up first! Might be possible to undo this effect by filling up front-to-back - but that creates other practical problems.
JoshTriplett 13y ago
That requires that you have no assigned seating, which means passengers can't select a preferred seat (whether window/aisle or just "not that seat in front of the exit row that doesn't recline").

dm2 13y ago

The article ends by saying that most airlines don't do the optimal methods of boarding in order to encourage people to upgrade to priority/early boarding, and that it makes them more money that way. Wouldn't it make the airlines even more money to optimize boarding, which would enhance customer experience, which would increase the likelihood of them flying with you on future flights? I'm sure some accountant somewhere has numbers that say otherwise but it's difficult to accurately measure how that small of a chance could increase brand loyalty (a major factor in Southwest's success). In my opinion, other airlines should reconsider the decision to leave boarding unoptimized. Is that the wrong way to think about business decisions or should you always trust the predicted numbers no matter what?

JacksonGariety 13y ago
Probably not, I have a feeling 9/10 people just buy the cheapest tickets regardless of the airline. The other 10% go with Virgin or something with fun branding. Customer satisfaction is already in the negatives, they're being wise and playing their strong points: upgrades.
cortesoft 13y ago
Not only that, but if you board faster you can leave faster. Less time on the ground = more hours flying = more money.
saryant 13y ago
Most passengers choose by price only and the rest have frequent flyer status and board first anyways.

mynegation 13y ago

This had been known for a while. Yet there are different considerations besides fastest boarding time. First, people traveling together tend to sit next to each other, so ordering by "columns" instead of rows breaks them apart in the queue which may be either uncomfortable or downright infuriating if you travel with young kids. I can imagine that letting passengers take their seats at random results in pretty fragmented available seating so if you travel as a large group and want to seat together, this might be a problem too.

furyofantares 13y ago
I think you could still do columns -- just allow people to go out of order if they are going with someone that's going in order.
jdcryans 13y ago
> First, people traveling together tend to sit next to each other, so ordering by "columns" instead of rows breaks them apart in the queue You can order by column but still let families together, for example with United you can board with your group/family's lowest group number. This means a 1K with boarding group 1 can bring in his wife and kid (who are somewhere between 3 and 5 if they don't have status) on the plane all at the same time. This way you can fill up whole rows at once.

vim-guru 13y ago

I'm sure it could be improved further by a re-design of aircrafts. We could board a capsule beforehand or make the entire aircraft with falcon-walls. But the Steffen method sounds pretty good to :)

umeshunni 13y ago
I'm not sure a redesign of aircraft is necessary - simply allowing both back to front and front to back entry should make boarding times much faster. It will require that airports are redesigned to support this though.

Joeri 13y ago

The simplest way to avoid standing in line is to be fashionably late. You sit and read a book until everyone else has boarded, and only then do you go through. I'm always surprised how everyone rushes to stand in line the moment boarding starts. Rationally speaking they should wait until the last reasonable moment to board, because the seat in the terminal is more comfortable than the one in the airplane.

dailyrorschach 13y ago
This works great when you have checked luggage, or if you use a non roll aboard bag, which I’ve moved to doing. Otherwise, it’s a race to get available overhead space - in part because of increased checked bag fees, and airlines not enforcing proper sized carry-ons.
sethbannon 13y ago
The downside of this strategy is that you're often forced to check your carry on bag(s) if it's a full flight and all the overhead bins are full.
daigoba66 13y ago
I think this is due to the diminishing supply of overhead storage space, and the goal of not checking or being far from your stuff.
mikestew 13y ago
Though, as others have pointed out, carry-ons can put a damper on the idea, I tend to do this. Even before carry-ons became a consideration, I've been mystified by people that want to get on the plane first. Umm, more time in the aluminum tube in an uncomfortable seat? No thanks, I'll wait. I understand that it may not work for everyone, but I typically check everything but a laptop bag, and get on as late as I can. Grab a latte after getting off the plane, and stand by the luggage output for 15 minutes while sipping my delicious (okay, it's the airport: barely palatable) coffee beverage. Even today when you get booked flights with no carry-on room, the gate agent comes on the PA: "if you check your carry-on, we'll let you board first!" If I check my bag and don't have a carry-on anymore, and I have an assigned seat, how about I board dead last instead? Because I personally don't view being first on the plane as a reward.

guard-of-terra 13y ago

In Europe this doesn't happen (in my limited experience). People board in random order in which they lined up towards the gate or get off the airport bus. I think this is because americans can't ever let anybody loiter so they just have to push people into some order, even inferior one.

t__r 13y ago
I'm a frequent flyer, mostly within Europe, and this is true. The exception is boarding a bigger plane like the 747. But iirc the ordering is then more coarse grained (based on aisles instead of seats). And I guess I'm not the only European who immediately thinks of low fares, blue and yellow plastic, non-reclining seats and lottery ticket sales, when reading about that damned random method.
- anonymousDan 13y ago
  At least they've finally switched to preassigned seating a la Easy jet though. Alleluia, it's so much more relaxing!

kd0amg 13y ago

We once did a transposed Steffen on a high school marching band trip. Crew said they'd never seen a plane fill that quickly. Unfortunately, this is harder to coordinate when the passengers aren't all members of an organization that practices standing in lines.

cortesoft 13y ago
I think this is really the biggest obstacle to any of these 'superior' methods; getting everyone to do it. For one thing, not everyone is ready to board when you first start boarding. People will show up at different times, after their own group was supposed to board. People won't line up in the right order, no matter how hard you try to enforce it.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  A very interesting question is how each of these methods degrades as more people get further out of place.

carlosdp 13y ago

Every airplane I've ever been on has boarded front to back (which I've always found non-sensical), but the article says most board back to front. Am I going crazy, or are Delta, US Airways, and American Airlines not in that "most US airlines"?

m_mueller 13y ago
I has the same experience when flying US Airways. Seeing this I just thought someone was extra incompetent, but reading the last sentence of the article it starts making sense - they want it to be inefficient so people pay extra.
- monksy 13y ago
  They don't. They want to get the plane loaded and out of the way. The quicker they get the plane loaded and fully ready to go the quicker the FAs get paided. Less "wasted time." Quick boarding: This is a perk for those who fly quite a bit. [You can't make silver status, butt on the seat method, by just flying on 4 domestic flights a year]
mchusma 13y ago
In general, you are seeing the premium customers board first, who have seats in front.
Plasmoid 13y ago
It's a recent trend to board front-to-back. This way, the first class cabin/priority sections get first dibs on the overhead bins while the people in the cheap sets get play Tetris meets Sword of Damocles.
- drblast 13y ago
  Nothing to add but the Tetris meets Sword of Damocles made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that.
sjm-lbm 13y ago
Almost all of my flying experience is on American, so I'm not sure how much this applies to the others, but I think all US majors technically board back to front. The problem is that there are so many ways so "cut" in line that (at least according to some airline industry friends of mine) it's fairly common for about 50% of the plane to board out of order. Off the top of my head, you can board earlier on AA if you: - fly on the airline a lot/have some sort of frequent flyer status - are in a premium cabin - have the AA credit card - pay $10 extra at checkin - are in the military - have a seat on a row with a bulkhead in front of it - are on an exit row - have children flying with you .. and, of course, I'm sure that list isn't exhaustive. By the time you factor all that in, I usually think it looks like boarding happens in a completely random order.

goshx 13y ago

This should take into consideration the time to organize the people before they enter the plane. I may have missed it, but I didn't see the research cover that. I bet the "most efficient" method pointed is one of the less efficient methods to organize people outside.

polarix 13y ago
Imagine trying to implement the Steffen proposal. Everyone has to be in exactly the right position in line for their seat. You'd essentially need to number the seats in the preflight lounge and loosely enforce seat numbers at that point.
- plorg 13y ago
  I imagine this could also get very confusing when a number of passengers show up at the last minute.

scott_s 13y ago

You can't control how the airline orchestrates boarding, but you can control how you board. It's much less stressful to stay seated in the lounge while everyone waits in line, then jump up at the end. I understand the impulse to get on the plane, but it's irrational if you aren't using the overhead bins. (As a rule, I do not. I always check my bag plane-side.) Getting on the plane earlier won't get you to your destination faster. So, don't stress about it, sit down and relax. Although, my attitude could end up screwing up these optimized methods. But I don't think it hurts in the back-of-the-plane-first method.

egonschiele 13y ago
I do the same thing, and it is much less stressful. It doesn't make the process any faster though.
blhack 13y ago
I usually do this, but a couple of times I have been told that I have to gate check my carryon because of it. Still worth it to wait in the lounge and use the wifi instead of cramming into a tiny seat early.
udfalkso 13y ago
Same here. Def. the way to go. It's hard to wait long enough though. They start with "final, final, final boarding calls" prematurely and you still end up waiting in line for 5-10 minutes in the gateway even if you're the very last person to check in. I'd still prefer to stand for a few minutes than spend extra time crammed into that awful seat.
abruzzi 13y ago
On the flip side, since I always travel pretty light, I never check baggage (and I still have the smallest carry-ons...) and a little more stress at the beginning of the flight to ensure I get overhead bin space, means that at the end of the flight I can leave the plane and walk out the front door, rather than waiting 10-20 for the baggage to show up. If I need to bring enough stuff to require check baggage however, I am always the last to board the plane.

ShaneCurran 13y ago

There was a Mythbusters episode a while back testing different boarding methods. If I recall correctly, having a "free-for-all" seating arrangement was the fastest, although it received the lowest customer satisfaction score from customers. The most satisfactory method of boarding was "WILMA[1] with blocks" which involves having business board first, followed by a combination of back-to-front and WILMA boarding while each zone was boarded with the WILMA method, starting from the back. [1] Stands for "windows-middles-aisles". See http://take.ms/znON7 http://take.ms/znON7 for a definition.

egonschiele 13y ago
This information is already in the article.

caster_cp 13y ago

One factor that has to be taken into account is the "social" one, i.e. how can we enforce that the ultra-fast amazingly optimal sitting scheme will be used. Let's conduct a thought experiment. My grandma (that has difficulty hearing) is boarding a plane. Try explaining to her, in a sensible and efficient manner that only the people at the windows should get in first. Ok, maybe my grandma is an extreme example. But think of a first time flyer. Lots of people would be confused. Also, as already stated, people that travel together sit side by side. Are you going to split the young couple of newly weds during boarding? Is that really sensible? Or the mother and her five kids? The main takeaway that I get is that you should let people get in without any pre-ordering. Unless you can devise a socially acceptable way to enforce outside-in boarding, that is. I'm not. You see, the bottom line for me is that simulations are really valuable, but not taking into account the human factors involving the business, how the people actually consume your product, you can have great ideas that work on excel and flunk marvelously on the market.

MAGZine 13y ago
"Now boarding people requiring special assistance or those with priority seating" "now boarding seats A and F." "now boarding seats B and E"... Seems simple enough. Priority seating would just be a box that you check off, only available to people travelling in groups. Seat these people as far back and as close to a wall as possible.
- goshx 13y ago
  Sounds simple, but I have yet to be on a flight where nobody misses the guidelines. There are always quite a few people "lost" and most of the time intentionally.
  - brownbat 13y ago
    Even if we just start with the assumption that n% of people will misunderstand, it still strikes me as unlikely that the best algorithm will be the current one. I think we have the next round of tests though. See how many people you need to randomly swap before Steffen is worse than back-to-front.

kumarski 13y ago

Boarding time isn't a bottleneck ergo it's not a problem. The real time suck when a plane is grounded is emptying the latrine, loading the water, refueling, doing engine checks. The lack of major airlines and the high entry costs in the space mean that it's unlikely you'll lose travelers over user experience. RyanAir is a prime example of this....just imho though.

zw123456 13y ago
Exactly, there is no incentive or profit for the airlines to speed the boarding process. In fact, it takes a fixed amount of time to turn around a plane so if you can make it seem like it is the passengers fault and not their, all the better. It might even be that it is to the benefit of the airlines for it to take longer.

turbulents 13y ago

I'm not seeing any Group 1 passengers arriving late and having to board with Group 3 or 4 and that happens on pretty much every flight I've been on. Maybe we're simulating a delayed flight then? But if the flight's already delayed, who even cares anymore.

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago

They just need to get rid of the overhead luggage compartments. Unchecked luggage is the entire boarding problem. It is also what holds up the security lines. Make checking luggage much faster/easier and at the destination get it out for pick up much faster than is done now. Dramatically shrink or remove the overhead bins. Boarding and security line problems solved.

cortesoft 13y ago
They would also have to stop charging for checked bags. No matter how efficient they get at checking bags, though, not having to do it will always be faster. I don't really see how much faster they can get in terms of unloading the bags... you will still have to wait for all the bags to come out on the conveyer belt, and whoever gets the last bag will have to wait quite a bit.
lyndonh 13y ago
This. This is what causes at least 50% of queues. Everyone can take 1 small bag. Nothing on wheels. If you can't lift it above your head it's too heavy. No exceptions. Overhead bins will be sufficient, no hunting around for a space, easier to get your bag at the end of a journey. On the other hand; I have taken a 35 liter backpack on many trips. No waiting at the carousel to get my suitcase; just walk straight out of the airport.

samhoggnz 13y ago

From my experience, the boarding problem is pretty specific to the US, where everyone seems to have carry on bags perfectly sized to fit the overhead compartments, of which there are not enough to satisfy everyone's need to not check in any baggage (and thus avoid check in charges) In my opinion the solution would probably be to discourage as much bulk in carry on, rather than herding cats at the gate.

kylec 13y ago
Completely agree. It makes no sense to me that you have to pay to check your luggage, while carry-ons are free. It definitely should be the other way around.
- threedaymonk 13y ago
  Each checked item costs the airline: moving them around requires labour and equipment, and there are further expenses dealing with the inevitable proportion of lost, stolen, delayed or damaged bags. It probably shouldn't be surprising that they seek to pass that on.

xyzzy123 13y ago

I wonder if you could build a passenger pod which attaches to the airframe. The pods get swapped when the plane comes in to the terminal. The new pod would already be fully boarded, and deplaning people on the arriving pod would not hold everything up. I guess whether this would be worth it or not depends on whether the advantages of "0 boarding time" from the airline's point of view offset the cost of the infrastructure and extra weight required to support such a system. From a security point of view, you could keep the pod completely decoupled from the other parts of the aircraft (e.g. no cabin access, not "coupled into" control systems).

judk 13y ago
That sounds incredibly crash-prone. I prefer to fly in one-piece airplanes.

MarkTee 13y ago

I always have to laugh when, at the end of a flight, the majority of passengers jump up and elbow their way into the aisle, even though in many cases they'll be standing there for at least 5 minutes. While sitting in the aisle seat, I've had passengers that were sitting beside me fall into my lap as they try to jostle their way by, just to get a place in the (stationary) line. What's even funnier is when you see these people waiting around the baggage claim 10 minutes later. Crowd psychology is a funny thing.

citric_acid 13y ago
I elbow my way into the aisle because, like anyone over 6 feet, I don't fit comfortably into an airline seat and would dearly like to stand up. I would also like people to figure out how to get their bags out of the overhead and find their children before the aisle in front of them is clear, but I'll settle for being able to stretch.
- MarkTee 13y ago
  As a fellow 6'+ person, one of the main reasons I stay seated is so that I don't have to stoop below the overhead bins and/or subject my face to the flurry of arms. :p
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    I thought I'd found the solution to the height + plane drama. I took a load of sleeping pills. Every time I woke up I took more. It got me from NZ to Europe feeling great, until the last 30 mins of the 30ish hour saga. I'd fallen asleep with crossed legs and my upper leg had cut return circulation off (I assume) and had gone red, swollen and painful. Somehow I limped off the plane. I think the strategy is great but DVT stockings are needed to prevent something like death occurring.
- hackuser 13y ago
  I note that men over 6' like to talk about it.
13y ago

kirk21 13y ago

Easyjet is also quite efficient. You have 2 enterances (front and back). You are designated to a specific enterance (based on your seat number). This already reduces the problem.

yeukhon 13y ago

The article doesn't capture the fact that half of the time the boarding delay is caused by people looking for available space in the overhead bins. Even in the best workflow he demonstrated, there will still be people going back and forth to find a bin.

ibrad 13y ago

Although the boarding time is improved, there is overhead in the sorting algorithms. Try to run a bubble sort on a family and see how that goes. The time gained in the speed of sitting is lost in the sorting.

aragot 13y ago
The boarding time for an A380 is 45min to 1hr before departure. When you count how much money is being spent, they probably wouldn't mind printing sequence numbers on the boarding pass. The article doesn't state how much time would be saved for a big plane, though.

aaronbrethorst 13y ago

Sounds nice in theory, but it totally breaks down with airlines' policies of charging for checked luggage. Getting onboard first guarantees you a coveted overhead bin spot, aisle clogging be damned.

anonymoushn 13y ago
Do any airlines charge to check luggage once the overhead bins are full? I'm generally too lazy to board in the proper order, and I always get my would-have-been-a-carry-on checked for free.
- hackuser 13y ago
  I take pleasure in the way this works out: 1. The airline tries to nickel-and-dime customers by charging for checked bags. 2. Their customers respond by carrying on bags. 3. The airline lacks capacity for the carry-ons 4. The customers end up with a freebie: Free checked bags at the gate (instead of waiting in line in the lobby).

dllthomas 13y ago

"those who pay extra are sitting on planes longer than necessary" Only if the passengers boarding is the thing that takes the longest (as opposed to refueling, inspections, loading luggage, getting clearance). This may very well be the case some or even all the time, but I don't know that it is.

rakoo 13y ago

That Steffen method looks much more theoretical than the other ones. The problem is you will have to line everyone perfectly at the boarding gate, and I believe this is pretty much impossible (everyone wants to get in first, they're barely ok with letting other people go in front of them because even if it's faster on the whole, it's slower for that person, which is all that matters). The outside-in should be implementable, but people who travel together want to stay together, so it's going against them. Back-to-front still seems like the easiest method for an un-ordered, mildly-cooperative group of agents.

sltkr 13y ago

> These methods are all unquestionably faster than the standard method, so would speed up the turnaround times, theoretically saving airlines money. That's assuming boarding is the bottleneck in the turnaround process. Is it?

Cbasedlifeform 13y ago

What's interesting to me (as a very frequent traveller) is that I have routinely seen completely full 747-size planes board in 10-15 minutes in Japan. This has much to do with the culture I suspect, plus smaller size humans, and less tendancy to take bigger bags. Still, it's impressive.

mikhailfranco 13y ago

It's all about the baggage policy, not the boarding policy.