Discussion in 'Travel' started by nachtnebel, Sep 5, 2012.
United is cramming more seats into their aircraft, making your flight all the more enjoyable.
It's not just United (#3), Southwest/AirTran (#1) is doing it, too
It won't be long before people will be shipped standing like Ryanair wanted to do a few years ago.
I don't mind the use of new technologies to make lighter seats, but I question whether it will save on fuel due to weight. You'll have more people in the plane, plus all of their carry-on and checked bags. I don't know how much the standard seats weigh, but unless the new ones are super light, I don't see the savings -- I only see the discomfort for passengers and the extra money for the airline.
Should I ever fly again, this is one of the few times my size works for me. I'm only five feet tall so I can fit almost anywhere. And I always have leg room.
Savings add up quickly when the jets have to haul it on every flight. Remember that you might only flight once ever on a particular airplane. Those seats get to fly 6-8 times a day, every day.
When NW quit serving meals in flight, they removed the ovens from the DC-9 galleys to save fuel. Similarly, the unused entertainment systems on their smaller Airbus planes were also removed.
The added row of seats and passengers might take more fuel per flight, but overall they can carry the same number of passengers with fewer flights. Plus when the planes are full (a common occurrence today), the airline will make a larger profit by being able to fill 6 more seats.
There's lots of stuff going on behind the scenes to improve fuel economy, from cutting weight to entirely new navigation/autopilot systems such as RNP (Required Navigation Performance) that will result in fully-automate flights once airborne and fuel-saving glide-in landings in place of the time-honored "dive and drive".
Soon they'll scrunch people into square cages so they can pack the plane.
The fact that people keep buying tickets despite the air travel race to the bottom is depressing. What is wrong with people that they will tolerate just about anything to fly somewhere?
This also raises the question of what is going on with maintenance. Eventually these shortcuts in pursuit of profit is going to end in a spectacular disaster.
Check this out: http://inhabitat.com/new-ultra-compact-airplane-seats-pack-in-the-passengers/airplaneseats-ed01/
Link shows pictures of these seats.
As budget airlines scramble for ways to squeeze more passengers into planes — some have proposed standing-room only tickets — an Italian design firm has what it thinks is a good compromise: a saddle-type seat that angles passengers’ legs beneath them so that rows can be 25 percent closer together. Does the budget seat offer a viable way for frequent fliers to reduce their carbon footprint?
You can guess how most people are responding to the so-called SkyRider seat, which will be formally launched at a trade show next week. Wired called the budget seating “cattle class” — a surly spin on Aviointeriors director Dominique Menoud’s allusion to cowboys’ long days in the saddle. He suggests that the seat could be comfortable for flights up to three hours long, however the seat only allows one position, so for flights longer than that it would undeniably be sheer torture.
But, all grumbling aside, flying is an extremely carbon-intensive endeavor — and one that many people who are otherwise green can’t avoid. Is it worth the sacrifice of sitting like sardines in a can to shrink your eco-impact — and save some cash — on shorter flights?
I actually look for cabins designs akin to the slave-trade ships of old.
Separate names with a comma.