Airbus proposes standing-passenger configuration
 

From the New York Times, April 25 . . .

"The airlines have come up with a new answer to an old question: How many passengers can be squeezed into economy class?

A lot more, it turns out, especially if an idea still in the early stage should catch on: standing-room-only "seats."

Airbus has been quietly pitching the standing-room-only option to Asian carriers, though none have agreed to it yet. Passengers in the standing section would be propped against a padded backboard, held in place with a harness, according to experts who have seen a proposal."


http://shorterlink.com/?X1PV89

(registration required to read, I think)

hopefully this is 24 days late:)

There are bound to be some Standing Instructions somewhere for this.

Personally I would not take this sort of passenger treatment lying down.

Someone needs to stand up for passengers' rights.

Anyone else?

Is This the Future of Economy?
 

One Day, That Economy Ticket May Buy You a Place to Stand

Published: April 25, 2006

The airlines have come up with a new answer to an old question: How many passengers can be squeezed into economy class?

A lot more, it turns out, especially if an idea still in the early stage should catch on: standing-room-only "seats."

Airbus has been quietly pitching the standing-room-only option to Asian carriers, though none have agreed to it yet. Passengers in the standing section would be propped against a padded backboard, held in place with a harness, according to experts who have seen a proposal.

But even short of that option, carriers have been slipping another row or two of seats into coach by exploiting stronger, lighter materials developed by seat manufacturers that allow for slimmer seatbacks. The thinner seats theoretically could be used to give passengers more legroom but, in practice, the airlines have been keeping the amount of space between rows the same, to accommodate additional rows.

The result is an additional 6 seats on a typical Boeing 737, for a total of 156, and as many as 12 new seats on a Boeing 757, for a total of 200.

More...

Thousands of hammocks is the answer, much more comfortable. Get everyone swinging in unison and the aircraft will get a nice roll on.....

Whatever you do don't show this article to O'Leary!!! :p

Jeez, they've obviously never been on a UK charter B757. IIRC Britannia have 235 seats on a B757. Comfy! :eek:

Would have thought it was a bit limited since the number on board is limited by the number of useable exits anyway?

The Britannia 757 seats are, in ways, similar to the new thin seats of which you speak.

They have thinned out the section of seat back at knee height, removed the seat pocket and moved the tray stowage to the top of the seat back. This has the effect of giving more "knee-room" whilst maintaining both the Pitch and the total capacity of the aircraft.

Its a far cry from luxury I can assure you but its a step in the right direction and those of us with longer femurs get a little bit of a break.

A few years ago I jokingly suggested a "debout" class of passenger accomodation to a newsgroup. I'm appalled that it's really being considered.

I can't help thinking of one of the monologues of the great American comedian, Bob Newhart; he used to tell of this new airline, "the Grace L Ferguson Airline and Storm Door Company", which had a single DC1 flying to Hawaii; leaving that as it is ... one of the lines was about the difference between First and Coach; those in coach didn't have the hand straps overhead. I guess that'll be the differentiating factor.

Maybe it'll be a new way to deal with unruly passengers as well; ironically, the Chinese used to use what was called the "jet plane" position, where they'd stretched people's arms behind them; That'll teach them to complain!

Great. Just what we need....Standing room only...Maybe that's the answer for me since I'm 6'3" and at the very least, I'd be guaranteed the leg-room..
Better than sitting next to a 300 pounder with overlapping abdomen..

Regards
Jack

Add a WW2 option with gliders in tow! Save on landing fees! 2 destinations for the cost of one.

What you mean is - you're appalled that you did not Patent the idea. :eek:

I agree BOAC it's a slap in the face for pax and so much easier to do that when we are standing, as MoL won't even have to bend over. We can use the kind of harness they use on the Space Shuttle, then we don't even have to support ourselves. Of course, I can see that getting people to accept this will be back breaking. := Does that get us off to a standing start?

But let's look at another advantage ... the first introduction of inflight standing urinals. :E

World of Tweed
 

and a stiff back. Had an hour on one of those seats and never willingly again.

The "Asians" went one better some years ago in removing the bulkhead between the cabin and rear cargo hold to install two more rows of seats in several new aircraft. Not an approved mod certainly, but accepted.
How cheap do you want to go ?
As far as the thin seat is concerned, has it been tested or lumped into the original spec?

Thin seats: Recaro Makes them and I therefore assume they are a standard product and have been certified on the G-sled etc....

mmmh
 

no offence, but l`d be surprised if the flesh on an approved frame has been looked at. Maybe it doesn`t need to be, but does it bode well for accident survival?

Sorry guys, this is a hoax.

From Tuesday's Guardian Unlimited:

Update: The news blog finally made contacted with Airbus, which described the IHT article as a "fantastic story but not true".

The Airbus official went on to say: "It is not something that Airbus has been working on and if flies in the face of what we're doing with the A380, which is more room. We can assure you it is not an Airbus idea, we have not talked about it inside Airbus and our customers have not asked us about such an idea."

Airbus is now seeking a correction to the New York Times article carried by the IHT. Well, it seems there are limits to blue skies thinking.

Go to http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/arc...ll_it_fly.html for the full story

Sorry guys, this is a hoax.

From Tuesday's Guardian Unlimited:

Update: The news blog finally made contacted with Airbus, which described the IHT article as a "fantastic story but not true".

The Airbus official went on to say: "It is not something that Airbus has been working on and if flies in the face of what we're doing with the A380, which is more room. We can assure you it is not an Airbus idea, we have not talked about it inside Airbus and our customers have not asked us about such an idea."

Airbus is now seeking a correction to the New York Times article carried by the IHT. Well, it seems there are limits to blue skies thinking.

Go to http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/arc...ll_it_fly.html for the full story

Hehehe....But still hasnt stopped a light bulb flash over O'Learys head!