I'm not sure how looking at a screen that's showing you what you would have seen by looking out of the window, if there was one (i.e. what the camera is seeing) is going to give you more of a sensation of flight than an actual window.

Personally, I have no difficulty in realising that I'm flying when I look down and see the world moving past at 600 miles per hour.

Mikkie4
 

Mmmmm but I think you have probably just paid for the seat not the window, unless of course you are flying with dear Ryan...

I have had plenty of experience of computers, projectors and other electronics failing, but I have to encounter any window suddenly become opaque!

If a windowless plane DID have an electronic failure, something which seems relatively common on complex modern aircraft, the dark interior would be pretty unpleasant.

Copper is needed for wiring and due to demand around the world its cost is increasing dramatically, glass remains relatively cheap and plentiful.

How long would it be before many passengers started complaining about projected views of the outside and demand wall-to-wall movies? Then no-one would be able to see out.

Concorde designers looked at the problems 50 years ago and decided that windows were a good idea despite their problems, and I think they made the right decision!

Long before Concorde engineers, the Victorians who built the Central Line underground had the same dilemma. They thought that nobody would want to look outside of the tube train, because everything outside was black blank wall, and introduced the "padded cell" carriage without windows.

Punters hated them, and tube trains have had big windows ever since..

^ Good point! And before that we had the "Submarine Lock" on one canal in the west of England, where the barge went into a cylindrical steel drum, the doors were bolted and up or down it went, perhaps sometimes with people in too, not nice at all!

<anorak mode>
The "padded cells" were on the City and South London Railway, not the Central London Railway.
<anorak mode\>

<<Less well-informed anorak mode!>> Cheers for that, I was pretty sure they were not on the Central Line but thought they might have been on the Metropolitan Line!

Referring to an old book I have, and yes I am being very 'anoracky' you are probably referring to 'Padded Cells' which were used from 1890 on the City & South London line, now part of the southern end of the Northern line which was entirely underground. As you said, they were nor popular for not having proper windows.

An interesting comparison, because looking in the one in the museum, although there are no windows, the seats are a sight more "padded" and comfortable than nowadays (easily rectified on the second series built, by the way), and they expected that everyone would have an upholstered seat, even in peak hours, for their two pence fare (and that was the "old" pence as well) rather than swinging on a pole in close proximity to all those unwashed armpits........

Sort of similar to what aviation has done with cabin furnishings and seat spacing and comfort in recent times.

Specifics of the OPs question - open window would have been toward the north and away from the sun so I can understand the complaint. I have been on several flights, however, when the request to close blinds has been due to direct sun glaring into the faces of many passengers. It's not just having a sunlit cabin - its the direct sun glare on the side of passenger's face.

On a recent LHR-LAX flight with Air New Zealand I suffered the passenger from hell. Little brat in the row ahead without a word just leant over and closed my blind! This blind was right next to me, not even spanning little brats seat, I opened it again where upon Mother brat rounded on me as little brat didn't have enough darkness to watch her computer game.

If we'd have had a pleasant discussion about it first I'm sure we could have worked something out. Unfortunately civility seems to be a lost quality to most people and little brat missed some of the best views of Greenland, Canada and the Rockies that I've seen for some time.

My worst experience of this 'closed metal tube' problem was a lunch time flight with Delta LHR-DTW. Before we even pushed back at LHR, the Delta Police systematically went down the plane closing all of the blinds. A few protests ensured but Delta Police insisted it was a security requirement. Guess which US airline I never fly with now.

Generally I don't have many problems with the window blinds and it just seems to be the occasional paranoid crew or passenger who know their rights.

airsmiles
 

I thought it was a requirement to have the blinds open for take off. Maybe you did get a reprieve for the take off but I do get your frustration.

Delta although I think there are reasons to avoid all US carriers over the Pond.

I would have just opened it and see what happened next :) One has to obey lawful instructions of the cabin crew but not made up bollocks. It would have been a very brave cabin attendant that would request the Police to be summoned for that!

Meet the modern airline passenger:

Spent 32 hours on a dreamliner this week...

These windows will close out this conversation for ever once implemented across aircraft.

I saw some of the most beautiful views in bright sunshine without flinching as one can imagine.

Very interesting W.F. The built in sunshade feature works! What of the ability for the crew to remotely 'close' the windows?

The crew can dim all and did so to a level as if one were wearing blue glasses. You can choose one of 8 shades from black to open at any time. The blue look along with a sunset light glow in the cabin while flying over the andamans with sun setting on one side was a treat to believe. If an unreasonable person still chooses to go all bright then they need a tight spanking!

Unless you were supposed to be flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. There's more then one reason PAX might want to look outside from time to time.

Armstrong and Miller, brilliant!

Aye when it does fly lol