|
How to squeeze in more pax, make them stand
Ohh lovely, one can see these going down a treat at a certain Irish airline....
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/offbeat/new-stand-up-plane-seat-labelled-torture-chamber/ar-AADiKNk .. |
1st of April is over....
|
I’ve been Rouged! 😤
Having had the appalling misfortune to have to fly Air Canada Rouge (A319) last week, I just hope a DVT class action lawsuit sues these loco nightmares into the oblivion where they belong... The pitch was stated to be 29”. Like hell it was! Thank God the flight was only 1h 45m. As it was, I was unable to walk properly for half an hour after deplaning. What’s the betting that we see such inhumane conditions on the new A321XLRs before too long??? |
If you want to travel the world for the price of a city bus ticket ... Expect to travel with same level of comfort ...
|
Originally Posted by er340790
(Post 10501895)
The pitch was stated to be 29”. Like hell it was!
|
Even at 29 inches it's bloody tight! My "local" loco is Eurowings. They at least give you 30-32 inches. I have said many times before (and generally get shot down) that if it was internationally legislated that economy cannot be less than 32" it would raise fares a little yes, but no airline would be able to cram more seats in their aircraft as a means of increasing revenue. Wishful thinking? You bet! I just hope Eurowings don't join the 29 Club!
|
Similar has been touted before. Among other considerations, what is the effect on the body of a massive deceleration, either longitudinal or vertical?
|
Easy.
Brief MOL about the advantages of the gastric band operation and, I calculate, he could get 350 pax on an Airbus 319. |
+300 in the hold, 2 in the wheel wells and 1 in the stab. "Good morning Sir, you're sitting in the stabiliser seat, just need to check you're happy and physically capable of stopping the jackscrew in the event of MCAS activation"
|
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 10501859)
Ohh lovely, one can see these going down a treat at a certain Irish airline....
To be honest, when I first saw the thread title, my first thought that this was yet another O’Leary PR stunt like the £1 to use the toilet story. �� |
I first saw this touted as a Ryanair proposal about five years ago. Plausible, but may have been fake news.
The concept might well allow increased passenger loading but, I rather suspect, would be eliminating about 50% of your potential market: tall people, short people, old people, children, religious ladies, those with piles, etc, etc. About as practical as some of the Air NZ "concept" seating / stacking arrangements that have cropped up over the last few years. I'll believe it when I see exercise machines and bars installed (for more than a few weeks) on any commercial aircraft. |
Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes
(Post 10502122)
+300 in the hold, 2 in the wheel wells and 1 in the stab. "Good morning Sir, you're sitting in the stabiliser seat, just need to check you're happy and physically capable of stopping the jackscrew in the event of MCAS activation"
|
Originally Posted by er340790
(Post 10501895)
Having had the appalling misfortune to have to fly Air Canada Rouge (A319) last week, I just hope a DVT class action lawsuit sues these loco nightmares into the oblivion where they belong... The pitch was stated to be 29”. Like hell it was! Thank God the flight was only 1h 45m. As it was, I was unable to walk properly for half an hour after deplaning. What’s the betting that we see such inhumane conditions on the new A321XLRs before too long??? |
Slow news day at Le Bourget?
|
Originally Posted by Hotel Tango
(Post 10501963)
Even at 29 inches it's bloody tight! My "local" loco is Eurowings. They at least give you 30-32 inches. I have said many times before (and generally get shot down) that if it was internationally legislated that economy cannot be less than 32" it would raise fares a little yes, but no airline would be able to cram more seats in their aircraft as a means of increasing revenue. Wishful thinking? You bet! I just hope Eurowings don't join the 29 Club!
|
Sorry CargoOne, but I don't understand your point. Obviously, my point is that it would no longer be an 180Y seat A320.
|
In the bad old days, slave ships packed in as many people as possible. They did this not by having them stand - but by having them lie down, which enabled the decks to be closer together. While not advocating anything as drastic, it occurs to me that by adapting the Japanese pod hotel method, something close to business comfort could be attained for all pax on long range - and a second deck added without excessive height requirement. Lots of reasons against - boarding, evacuation, weight and pax acceptance included but it might be worth a designer’s pencil on a slow day... Fire away! B |
Priceless:oh:
Even the cargo holds can be used as double-deck. |
Originally Posted by Hotel Tango
(Post 10502489)
Sorry CargoOne, but I don't understand your point. Obviously, my point is that it would no longer be an 180Y seat A320.
|
That's interesting. Contradicts Seat Guru (who state that the minimum is 30") and my personal experiences with them (A320/A319). I have sat front (first 3 rows), middle (next 9 rows) and at the rear with them. If the rear rows are 28" and I didn't experience any discomfort, then I must have shrunk in the past years!
|
Hmm, looking at FAR Part 25.562, I wonder how compliance could be demonstrated with some of the requirements if the occupant's legs are supporting crash loads (my bold):
Sec. 25.562 [Emergency landing dynamic conditions.] [(a) The seat and restrain system in the airplane must be designed as prescribed in this section to protect each occupant during an emergency landing condition when-- (1) Proper use is made of seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses provided for in the design; and (2) The occupant is exposed to loads resulting from the conditions prescribed in this section. (b) Each seat type design approved for crew or passenger occupancy during takeoff and landing must successfully complete dynamic tests or be demonstrated by rational analysis based on dynamic tests of a similar type seat, in accordance with each of the following emergency landing conditions. The tests must be conducted with an occupant simulated by a 170-pound anthropomorphic test dummy, as defined by 49 CFR Part 572, Subpart B, or its equivalent, sitting in the normal upright position. (1) A change in downward vertical velocity of not less than 35 feet per second, with the airplane's longitudinal axis canted downward 30 degrees with respect to the horizontal plane and with the wings level. Peak floor deceleration must occur in not more than 0.08 seconds after impact and must reach a minimum of 14g. (2) A change in forward longitudinal velocity of not less than 44 feet per second, with the airplane's longitudinal axis horizontal and yawed 10 degrees either right or left, whichever would cause the greatest likelihood of the upper torso restraint system (where installed) moving off the occupant's shoulder, and with the wings level. Peak floor deceleration must occur in not more than 0.09 seconds after impact and must reach a minimum of 16g. Where floor rails or floor fittings are used to attach the seating devices to the test fixture, the rails or fittings must be misaligned with respect to the adjacent set of rails or fittings by at least 10 degrees vertically (i.e., out of parallel) with one rolled 10 degrees. (c) The following performance measures must not be exceeded during the dynamic tests conducted in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section: (1) Where upper torso straps are used for crewmembers, tension loads in individual straps must not exceed 1,750 pounds. If dual straps are used for restraining the upper torso, the total strap tension loads must not exceed 2,000 pounds. (2) The maximum compressive load measured between the pelvis and the lumbar column of the anthropomorphic dummy must not exceed 1,500 pounds. (3) The upper torso restraint straps (where installed) must remain on the occupant's shoulder during the impact. (4) The lap safety belt must remain on the occupant's pelvis during the impact. (5) Each occupant must be protected from serious head injury under the conditions prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section. Where head contact with seats or other structure can occur, protection must be provided so that the head impact does not exceed a Head Injury Criterion (HIC) of 1,000 units. The level of HIC is defined by the equation: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...ElemFormat=gif Where: t1 is the initial integration time, t2 is the final integration time, and a(t) is the total acceleration vs. time curve for the head strike, and where (t) is in seconds, and (a) is in units of gravity (g). (6) Where leg injuries may result from contact with seats or other structure, protection must be provided to prevent axially compressive loads exceeding 2,250 pounds in each femur. (7) The seat must remain attached at all points of attachment, although the structure may have yielded. (8) Seats must not yield under the tests specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section to the extent they would impede rapid evacuation of the airplane occupants.] |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:43. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.