Window seat, aisle or back-to-front?

[BORN4THESKYS]

Interesting, at least if I can sit with my back to my girlfriend I don't have to listen to her nag!! :)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1637270.ece

[Schnowzer]

The thought of smelly flip flops from you neighbour right under your nose is enough to make me take the train.:yuk:

[interpreter]

What a daft idea from someone trying to prove how clever they are. I suppose for a very short flight it might be OK but hey ho for the first vomit in turbulence. Imagine having to sit and watch someone puking into a paper bag. Great. Next thing they'll be turning the flight deck seats around so that one of the crew would survive an impact. I've never heard such rubbish.

[apaddyinuk]

To be honest the safety aspect in the article was rather downplayed compared to the benefits of squeezing a few extra seats in. If it really does offer benefits such as increased seat pitch, privacy screens and no fight over elbow space then I would be happy to see it installed however I really dont see it happening that way!

[J430]

I saw MYTHBUSTERS test this theory, and it proved no advantage. Poor old Buster coped a hiding that day!:} :ouch: :ouch:

J:ok:

[bear11]

I remember being on a Southwest flight in the US about 8 years ago, some of the seat rows were in that configuration - no big deal. I reckon a lot of people would put up with it on long haul as I am tired of people complaining to me that they have their knees up around their ears for hours in economy.

[Frangible]

You don't need loads of research to show it is safer to sit in a seat facing the rear. Is it better to have your whole bodyweight thrown against a seat and seatback rather than across one lap belt? Not a question that needs 12 engineers. The RAF did it post-war on the strength of their wartime experiences and there is no statistical evidence because there have not been any RAF personnel transports of this type to have crashed since 1945.
As for the flying projectiles, true. You couldn't have a significant number of rear-facing seats without doing something about the bins. Mind you, a few pax were killed at Kegworth by objects flying out of the bins and striking them in the back of the head (not a single one remained attached). Bins in general are unsatisfactory. They are not tested dynamically, and with RF seats you would have to find somewhere else to put the wheelie bag.
Anyway, as the article makes clear, this has been done solely to get more sardines into the can. Why don't they try out the slave-ship configuration?

[green granite]

Eerrrrrrr, trains have had this seating arrangement for years, some sort of statistic should be available as to the saftey aspect of rear facing seats from train crashes (but I can't find any). Also didn't the Trident (2?) have some seats in that configuration?

[Whitehatter]

There is a picture of this seating arrangement on Flight. Looks horrendous, they drone on about shoulder room being overlapped to fit in additional seats but seem to forget people also have elbows.

The only way it would work is if passengers were sat bolt upright and blindfolded. Expect to see them fitted on Ryanair within months :}

[Middle Seat]

The club seats on Southwest at the front of the cabin were always popular with families, and the ones at the exit row sucked. I'd rather look at the back of someone's head than their face, particularly given my ability to be seated next to unattractive people.

The Mythbuster episode here in the states that I saw on air carrier safety was to test the claim that one has a better chance of being killed in the brace position in an accident than sitting normally in your seat, and that the airlines adopt this practice to limit the payouts in the event of an accident. The latter part of the theory proved intriguing, but through their experiments they showed that the brace position was indeed safer. Interesting episode, but not nearly as funny as the one where they tested the theory that driving while talking on a cell phone was as big of an impairment as driving while just below the legal limits of intoxication. (They couldn't reach that limit, or legally, they would not be able to do the test).

[bar fly]

I'm sure they could configure the seats to only a part of the aircraft to start with (and maybe reduce the fares on those seats) that way pax would have the choice and would get the benefit of the money they would save the airline.

I'd give it a go.

[PaperTiger]

I remember being on a Southwest flight in the US about 8 years ago, some of the seat rows were in that configurationFront row in our de Havilland (aaah !) Dash-7s were rear-facing too.

That Southwest configuarion was only on the -200s. All gone now.

[Rush2112]

Captain Scarlet's SPV had rear facing seats, does that help anyone?

[zed3]

Rainboe.....would a dietgram help ? !!!!!!!!!

[CHIVILCOY]

Also didn't the Trident (2?) have some seats in that configuration?

I remember being on a BA flight from CDG-GLA once and the 2 emergency rows were face to face configuration, I think it was on a BAC 1-11.

[ohitsmonday]

Couple of points......:confused:
A little bit off topic, but in response to some of the posts;
Bulkheads - on my employers a/c (UK charter), depending on which a/c and location are not necessarily stressed, therefore potentionally offer no forward movement protection.
Brace position..
Being tall there is NO way on a (UK) charter aircraft I can adopt this position (my head stops at the seat infront headrest). On an airline with a bit more legroom (schedule - say 2" more?) I can 'brace', but surely the forward movement in an impact would break my neck?

Often thought about this during the safety demo...perhaps I should get a job that doesn't require flying?
Brgds
OH

[Gordon17]

Back in 1999 (I think) I flew from Palma to Stansted on a British World BAC
1-11 and had the misfortune to be allocated a rear facing seat. It was directly opposite the people facing forwards, either side of the central emergency exit, so that we were fighting for the space on the floor for our feet. Very uncomfortable, but fortunately only a short flight.

I can't remember if there was a forward facing safety demo for the backward facing passengers but I do remember that no mention was made of adopting a different brace position. As far as I could see we would have smashed our heads against each other in the event of an accident.

[pacer142]

Front row in our de Havilland (aaah !) Dash-7s were rear-facing too.

VLM had one or two Fokker 50s with that configuration at the very front, but these may have been removed as part of the fleet refurb that is going on at the moment.

[Ground Bound]

In the 80s several charter airlines crammed 119 seats on their BAC 111-500s with aft facing seats around the overwing exits. I once had the misfortune of travelling in these seats. I remember my knees brushing those of the passenger opposite; I am only 5'4!

I happened to be travelling with a companion so the eye contact issue was irrelevant; had I been travelling alone, as I frequently do, I would have have this arrangement most disconcerting

[An Artificial Member]

If its eventually proved that rear facing seat are safer, will this be adopted in the flight deck also ? whats good for the goose......

AM

[Monkeytoo]

Instead of trying to think up ways to cram yet more PAX into the available space why don't they take OUT a couple of rows of seats - give everyone a more comfortable space and divide the lost revenue between the remaining seats - on long haul I would fly with this airline!!!

[PAXboy]

Monkeytoo give everyone a more comfortable space and divide the lost revenue between the remaining seats - on long haul I would fly with this airline!!!
That was such a good idea that AA did it. There was a biiiiig advertising campaign about the extra 2 or 3 three inches leg room in Y.

As I understand it, about two years later they quietly started to reverse the process because they did NOT get zillions more folks buying their seats. They found that people ONLY want the lowest seat price. Then they moan about the seat pitch and swear never to fly with that carrier again. Next holiday/trip they look for whichever carrier has the cheapest seats ... :rolleyes:

[Monkeytoo]

..................well that would mean that we are our own worse enemys then :( - but I suppose it does come down to how much more expensive the tickets were!!

[chornedsnorkack]

In the 80s several charter airlines crammed 119 seats on their BAC 111-500s with aft facing seats around the overwing exits. I once had the misfortune of travelling in these seats. I remember my knees brushing those of the passenger opposite; I am only 5'4!

I happened to be travelling with a companion so the eye contact issue was irrelevant; had I been travelling alone, as I frequently do, I would have have this arrangement most disconcerting

I tend to think it is a good and sensible arrangement!

After all, what is better - have your knees pressed into the seatback the next passenger reclines into, or have your knees pressed into the knees of the next passenger? At least when you sit opposite, you can place your legs between the legs of the person opposite - you do not have that choice when it is the seatback that is pressed into your knees.

Also, what gives a wider path to emergency exit - the narrow space whence one set of legs have been removed, or wider space which had been enough for two people opposite?

If most seats are facing in one direction and only a few are opposing, then most people travelling alone can sit elsewhere and those who are with companions can choose to sit opposed at the exit rows.

[172driver]

That was such a good idea that AA did it. There was a biiiiig advertising campaign about the extra 2 or 3 three inches leg room in Y.

As I understand it, about two years later they quietly started to reverse the process because they did NOT get zillions more folks buying their seats. They found that people ONLY want the lowest seat price. Then they moan about the seat pitch and swear never to fly with that carrier again. Next holiday/trip they look for whichever carrier has the cheapest seats ...

PAXboy, the mistake AA made was to apply this to ALL Y seats instead of introducing a premium product like UA. This seems to work well, it certainly does for me.

[Ground Bound]

chornedkorksnak,

I would not want to rest my knees between that of another passenger - depending on their looks of course!

Joking aside, I do not believe this seating config gave any assistance in an emergency situation.

Bear in mind, the situation to which I refer occured before the BA accident at Manchester since when the seating arrangements around the exits has been revised to allow a faster egress in an unfortunate event.

The arguments about rear facing seats are numerous. Greater strength of the seats is required resulting in extra weight, something the airlines are keen to avoid. There is also the issue of falling debris from the overhead lockers and (so I have heard) debate over the issue of injuries sustainable by lateral forces on an aft facing passenger.

I am sure this debate will go on for years to come.