Standing room on planes

अधिनायक

Would you stand on a short flight for a smaller fare?

Surely Michael O'Leary has this in mind.

honru

Really don't like the look of it. A "standing" seat? Gimme a break.

Stick to the conventions.

Ardent

Maybe I read that wrong but it seems that it's Airbus who's looking into installing these standing "seats"? Surely Airbus won't cover short journeys, i.e. you'll be standing for a long time, i.e. f*ck that!

therecklessone

Ardent wrote:

Maybe I read that wrong but it seems that it's Airbus who's looking into installing these standing "seats"? Surely Airbus won't cover short journeys, i.e. you'll be standing for a long time, i.e. f*ck that!

Airbus do short haul as well, Aer Lingus are an all Airbus fleet, what you think they fly to the UK in?

Ardent

therecklessone wrote:

Airbus do short haul as well, Aer Lingus are an all Airbus fleet, what you think they fly to the UK in?

Yeah I know that but I figured these are for the new Airbus 380 or whatever it's called.

ArphaRima

As with most things, people will buy their tickets online, not read the terms, and complain about their lack of free coffee and seat after the fact.
And then they'll do it again.
All the while bitching about the decent airlines extra ten euro to fly to the city you acutally want to go to.

Linoge

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

Would you stand on a short flight for a smaller fare?

Surely Michael O'Leary has this in mind.

I noticed you posted a pic rather than a link. Where did you find this?

Either you have been spoofed or you're trying to spoof us.......

Wishbone Ash

I think O'Leary would prefer train-type straps on the ceiling - more space then.

loyatemu

Linoge wrote:

I noticed you posted a pic rather than a link. Where did you find this?

Either you have been spoofed or you're trying to spoof us.......

its not a spoof - it was in the papers a couple of months ago (and no, not on April 1st)

think they were saying the aviation authorities would probably only allow standing on very short flights - eg island-hopping services

Ardent

Linoge wrote:

I noticed you posted a pic rather than a link. Where did you find this?

Either you have been spoofed or you're trying to spoof us.......

Google for "airbus +standing" gets you http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/267888_seats25.html

egan007

f®eak s&#169 wrote: »

Stick to the conventions.

Where would Ryanair be if they followed this advice?
Certainly not the market leader.

I can't see why anyone would have a problem with standing room - if you want a seat buy one

अधिनायक

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/24/business/seats.php

Airbus later denied they had been pitching this idea to Asian airlines. If people pay to stand on a two hour train journey, I don't see why they wouldn't pay to stand on a one hour flight.

markpb

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/24/business/seats.php

Airbus later denied they had been pitching this idea to Asian airlines. If people pay to stand on a two hour train journey, I don't see why they wouldn't pay to stand on a one hour flight.

I'd imagine safety would be a big issue. Planes, oddly enough, fly much faster than trains

Surviving an impact with water while standing would be, IMHO, much more dangerous than sitting. If you're sitting in the correct position, you can protect your head and let your seatbelt absorb the impact. If you're standing, your knees and ankles would hard to do the same.

Bluetonic

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

Would you stand on a short flight for a smaller fare?

Surely Michael O'Leary has this in mind.

I don't think these would result in a smaller fare. All that would happen would be that these 'seats' would be for the fare we are paying now for a regular seat, while a regular seat would be now a few bob more.

jhegarty

loyatemu wrote:

its not a spoof - it was in the papers a couple of months ago (and no, not on April 1st)

think they were saying the aviation authorities would probably only allow standing on very short flights - eg island-hopping services

yes , but they where only talking using it with third world airlines (not thats not a ryanair joke)...

Genghis

When it was reported a few months back, O'Leary was asked if this was something they were going to implement. He used the opportunity to remind the media that Ryanair had the youngest fleet in Europe and that they had fitted the best quality leather seats, so they would not be refitting.

Besides, you probably can't sell to someone standing up - where would they put their €4 coffee?

proteus

Genghis wrote:

Besides, you probably can't sell to someone standing up - where would they put their €4 coffee?

In the optional €8 beverage holder.:D

honru

egan007 wrote:

Where would Ryanair be if they followed this advice?
Certainly not the market leader.

Well I can give up leg room and a cup of coffee for lower fares, but this is taking the mickey.

egan007 wrote:

I can't see why anyone would have a problem with standing room - if you want a seat buy one

What would happen though is standing seats would gradually become the normal price we see today on low fares airlines, while seats would be sold as premium. That would suck.

BendiBus

There's a limit on how many people you can cram into an aircraft and this limit is set by the required emergency evacuation time. I suspect some of the LoCo's and charters are close to the limit anyway. Standing room won't improve things for them.

Mailman

They'll take windows out of planes first before they do this. Windows add weight, drag, complexity and eat in to cabin space.

If you took the windows out of a 737 or AB320 it'd be good enough to cross the Atlantic from British Isles.

ArphaRima

They will never take the windows out of an aircraft. It has been mooted before. Passengers simply dislike it. So do the crew. People do not like travelling in metal tubes. Even less metal tubes they cant see out of. Especially when they are inverted and on fire.
Quote me. It will never happen.

If you took the windows out of a 737 or AB320 it'd be good enough to cross the Atlantic from British Isles

Sure about this? I'm just interested, not arguing against. Can you quote a (reliable) source for me?

Besides the A320 family can already cross the Atlantic. Optional Auxiliary centre tanks, and reduced loads allow it to make the journey. It just isnt suited to it.

Mailman

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_30/b3793056.htm

With a flying wing design it might even become absolutely necessary.

seamus

How are you supposed to read your magazine standing up?

Capt'n Midnight

Ardent wrote:

Google for "airbus +standing" gets you http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/267888_seats25.html

from a seattle site... gotta be unbiased

Capt'n Midnight

Mailman wrote:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_30/b3793056.htm

With a flying wing design it might even become absolutely necessary.

Sonic Cruiser <yawn>
It's about 11% (1130 kph) faster than Boeings 707 prototype from back in 1954 (1000kph) ( mach .95 vs. .84 )
Half of the claimed time improvements are made by purchasing better slots and other effiencies by the airline.

BTW: the 737's that they still produce still use esentially the same fuselage sections as the 707's did nearly half a century ago.

One reason airliners use circular fuselage sections is that the pressure is the same in all directions. with a wide oval section and a pressurised cabin the floor and roof flex out more than the sides so reducing the fatigue life of the plane unless you are very careful. This means insurance companies might not be too happy with deviations from the flying tube + podded engines that's been the norm since before most of us were born.