SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the crisco-and-a-shoehorn-to-get-more-in dept.
One of the few comforts we economy class fliers have left is our right to strap on noise-canceling headphones, stare at the back of the seat in front of us, and pretend we're on a beach, or at home, or in a modest-sized jail cell—anywhere, really.
Now that right is at risk. Zodiac Seats France, an industry supplier, has patented a new seating configuration that rips out the (horrid) middle seat in favor of one that faces the rear. With "Economy Class Cabin Hexagon," you get more neighbors than ever before—and they are right in your face.
The goal of the design is "to increase cabin density while also creating seat units that increase the space available at the shoulder and arm area." To be fair, it seems to do that—because you're no longer facing the same direction as your immediate neighbor, you have more shoulder room. And if you're traveling with your kid or spouse, being face-to-face can be nice (we guess).
Why not move to standing-room only, with roller-coaster style restraints?
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Informative) by kaganar on Friday July 10 2015, @05:50PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pendorbound on Friday July 10 2015, @06:10PM
I don't mind facing other people on trains, but when your legs are overlapped with them, maybe not so much. You're not looking at them from across the (already narrow) space between the seats. You're looking at them from less than the length of your own thighs. We're talking breath smelling, nose hair counting kind of distance.
There are few people on the planet I really desire to be *that* close to for long... Make my coach class ticket *significantly* cheaper, and I'd consider it. If you're doing it & pocketing the extra profit, I'll find another way to get there...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @06:20PM
Yeah, it's not like the old British trains you see in Sherlock Holmes where there is almost enough room for a coffee table in the middle, on a typical American commuter there is so little room that your knees are nearly touching. It's no surprise that people scramble for the few single all facing the same direction seats and failing that settle for the bench where at worst you're just shoulder to shoulder. At least on the bench you can somewhat put you feet up on the guard rail.
(Score: 2) by slash2phar on Friday July 10 2015, @06:25PM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @06:47PM
In a train, if you don't like the people who sit next to you, you can get up and find a different seat. Often I have moved to quieter parts of the train to read a book in peace. People with children or ~people on the phone~ can make your commute hell.
Good luck finding a better seat if you're facing Boring McWon'tShutup
Also, don't think for a second that the cost savings for this mean cheaper flights.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @08:01PM
My father never called it "coach" -- he always called it "steerage".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steerage_%28deck%29 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday July 10 2015, @08:12PM
It's not so much facing other passengers, but from the illustrations it seems it will be impossible to adjust the seat back. And I see no improvement in upper body arm and shoulder space. If anything it's less. Plus it looks even harder for the middle seat passengers to get out to go to the loo. This might be ok on short commuter flights of less than 1.5 hours, but anything over that would be a nightmare. And being stuck on the tarmac by a snafu in traffic control or open arrival gates, if too long could result in injury to the flight crew and damage to the plane by enraged passengers.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Friday July 10 2015, @08:32PM
Seats shouldn't recline, as it is that space you get by reclining comes from the person behind you. The people in the front row benefit and the people in the back row can't do anything about it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by captain normal on Friday July 10 2015, @09:15PM
Nice bit of sarcasm there. For a moment there you actually had me thinking you might be an airline cabin designer. But we all know that over the last couple of years the airlines have saved billions on reduced fuel costs, but have they reduced fares? Or added flights? Or looked to make passengers more comfortable?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday July 10 2015, @05:54PM
I'm not convinced it complies with emergency evacuation rules...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Friday July 10 2015, @06:07PM
Was wondering the same thing.
The only criteria for seat density is an absurd seat width, AND the amount of time it takes a trained team to exit the cabin.
Its high time that congress start looking into this, and demanding more comfort in the seating and more room between rows and more width to the seats. Its tiime to forbid the manufacture or sale or flight of aircraft where the floor tracks allow squeezing rows too close. The FAA has been completely in the pocket of airlines and aircraft manufacturers for decades.
The DOJ is already involved in a price fixing [dallasnews.com] investigation.
Maybe they need to look into this as well. After all, there is no consumer choice when ALL airlines conspire to cram seats so close and point to "industry standards".
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday July 10 2015, @06:15PM
Make a bus-size prototype of your cabin interior, and offer a free ride plus meal to random people off the street (in a not-lawsuit-happy area), under the guise of "getting real customer feedback".
Then you get into a low-speed collision and see how long it takes unprepared and shaken people to bail out.
You can't legislate comfort in the US. You have to prove that the arrangement is dangerous.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Friday July 10 2015, @06:51PM
There is no reason you can't legislate comfort in the US, simply by defining it in terms of minimum standards and then enforcing them.
The auto industry made the same claims about not being able to legislate safety into cars, until congress went ahead and did exactly that.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday July 10 2015, @07:00PM
Safety has a clear cost, while comfort of someone who is merely cargo does not, as long as they don't get injured.
If you forced congressmen to fly coach instead of first/charter, them they'd find a compelling argument (actually, they'd vote themselves a law mandating they fly luxury charter). Until then, it's one more line in the "Big Gubmint Overreach" list.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday July 10 2015, @07:08PM
So your criteria is because there is no way to sue over discomfort, absolutely anything goes?
What a horribly broken foundation for the progress of civilization.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday July 10 2015, @07:21PM
"The market will choose" is the usual line when it comes to user comfort, often followed by "you are free to pay more for comfort, or use land/water transport"
Don't go mentioning that the offer side of the market got skewed by unwise mergers, restrictions on foreign competitors, take-off and landing slot restrictions, terror excuses, and overall congress bribery...
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Friday July 10 2015, @09:07PM
Except with exactly TWO manufacturers, and it seems all the airlines are colluding to keep prices high and planes full there is no market.
Hence my mention of the DOJ investigation, and regulatory capture above.
I doubt these new seats will appear on US planes anytime soon, because people will bitch, and switch to the last airline to adopt them. But that "last airline to adopt" theory hasn't prevented every aircarrier from squeezing knee room. Although the "standard" seat pitch has decreased almost industry-wide from 33-34 inches to more like 31 inches, http://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/05/airlines-with-the-biggest-economy-seats.html [cnbc.com]
This leads to thinks like the Knee Defender. http://www.gadgetduck.com/goods/kneedefender-how-to.html [gadgetduck.com] when it becomes clear that the space immediately behind a seat is sold both to the passenger in front and to the passenger in back. This is the kind of double dipping you can regulate with better seats.
Those 787 seat pictures with enough room to play a game of badminton in the isles? They don't exist. Boeing reported that not a single air carrier ordered that configuration. Not even for first class seats. A couple of sultans in some arab country bought them for private planes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday July 10 2015, @07:58PM
Prolonged discomfort = air rage = people hurt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @04:36PM
This is America! The invisible hand of the market will sort it out, just sit back and trust in capitalism! If those seats are truly uncomfortable, then nobody will pay to ride in them, and voila, the market brings comfort to planes! Here I thought you were a conservative, but you're suggesting regulation?! Saint Ronnie is spinning in his grave!
(Score: 2) by kbahey on Friday July 10 2015, @06:16PM
Yup, we are moving there. Then it is diapers and urethral catheters next ...
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning [2bits.com].
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Friday July 10 2015, @07:24PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @07:56PM
And the catheter will be your seat.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @08:57PM
Don't order the apple juice.
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Friday July 10 2015, @11:55PM
Not even really a new idea. [youtube.com]
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2) by el_oscuro on Friday July 10 2015, @11:59PM
And they are already doing the standing room [wired.com] thing too.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by randmcnatt on Friday July 10 2015, @06:18PM
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly: they were the first to land.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 10 2015, @06:24PM
CNBC of all outlets plays better with script blockers than WiReD. That's pretty sad.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Friday July 10 2015, @06:40PM
Sad, maybe, but not surprising: Nobody who is actually sufficiently interested in technology to know what NoScript is bothers to read WIRED.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 10 2015, @07:56PM
The physical magazine is no better - It was pretty good once upon a time, before half the magazine became overt ads and the other half became product placements disguised as articles. I received a gift subscription from a friend and after a few issues just ended up throwing them in the fucking trash if not using them for toilet reading material.
As for the site, it didn't even properly render after doing the recursive NoScript boogie three fucking times in a row.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @09:42PM
Not rendering properly is one thing, but not showing anything is another. For example, http://www.pcmag.com/ [pcmag.com] obviously loads all the page info and adds scroll bars, but with scripts disabled, it is just one solid white page. I used to check them daily, but now, eh.
(Score: 2) by randmcnatt on Saturday July 11 2015, @02:06AM
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly: they were the first to land.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @06:19PM
Anybody see LEGO movie? Don't show it to the aircraft cabin design teams!
(Spoiler: Double Decker Couch.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @06:40PM
(Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Friday July 10 2015, @06:52PM
Who wants to invest in my new intercity bus service? Here's the plan:
Okay, I know it's pretty much a pipe dream - but damn if I don't wish the companies that are already starting on these ideas wouldn't expand on them.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday July 10 2015, @08:04PM
Who wants to invest in my new intercity bus service? [...] Rental car (and possibly rental bike) locations nearby or possibly on-premise
I will not invest. If the intercity distance is small enough then it does not make sense to rent a car after so little travel - you'd be better off driving your own car. If the distance is large enough, you either carry a lot of cargo, or you fly. The niche for a bus business is very narrow, and can't even be sure who it serves. I have never used intercity buses.
And a rental bike at the destination... take that 1% of the whole population who might ever consider your service, and take another 1% of those - that will be your target audience for bike rentals. I know only one person - a UPS driver - who owns a bike. Everyone else among my acquaintances is too busy to depend on a toy for work. Recreational use of bicycles is higher, but that's not your scenario. Your scenario is more like "A young graduate is travelling to a job interview in a city 100 miles away" - and I wouldn't recommend him, in his business suit, to pedal even ten miles to the destination, across a city that he most likely does not know.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 10 2015, @09:46PM
I don't know about your full list, but Greyhound has new buses now that do have outlets, onboard wifi, and movies. Bus stations in many American cities are not in savory places, but they are centrally located. Usually that means they're connected to local mass transit. Riding a bus cross-country sucks, but regionally isn't bad. It is definitely a cost competitive option. You can take Chinatown buses from NYC to Boston or to DC for about $20. I prefer rail because you can walk around more and there's a dining car, but bus works too.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @12:06AM
How come those $20 busses advertise $1 on the outside of them? I know $1 is unrealistic, but what do they call the other $19 when you travel with them?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday July 10 2015, @09:50PM
I can't speak for the full-service rental car kinda thing, but much of what you can find on your list can be found on trains. And as an added bonus, train stations tend to be in the middle of cities rather than out in the boonies, so if where you are going is downtown you're often within a short walk or subway ride.
There are also, in some places, auto trains where you can park your car on the train, go wander around and relax while the train takes you where you're going, then drive your car off the train.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Saturday July 11 2015, @01:44PM
I know about trains. I'd love to take trains, and have in the past when I wasn't going too far. But I'm in the US, where we've only got Amtrak for intercity passenger service...and it covers disappointingly little of the country (especially away from the East Coast), is disappointingly pricy, takes a surprisingly and disappointingly long time, and has absolutely dismal on time performance on many routes. Which adds up to "well I avoid the TSA bullshit and get a wider seat but the trip is just as expensive and literally takes at least five times as long (if things are on schedule, which they usually aren't) so it's probably worth being uncomfortable for a few hours on a plane."
(And Amtrak's AutoTrain service only runs from Sanford, FL to Lorton, VA. They don't offer the service on any other routes, and they don't let you get your car off at any other stations besides the two end points.)
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 1) by toph on Saturday July 11 2015, @03:31PM
Same here in Canada. I'd love to ride the train more, but the only option is Via and there is simply no motivation here to improve speed and/or cost.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by KBentley57 on Friday July 10 2015, @07:03PM
I'll admit that I have no idea how the aerospace industry works at all. Not with the prices, not with the service, not with the demand, not anything. If someone could answer any of these questions, I would be grateful.
1) It appears that there is absolutely no correlation between flight distance, flight timing, and price. Here is an example: I was recently looking into flying from Birmingham, AL to Huntington, WV. (USA) . Now for those not living in my region, Birmingham has a population of about 1 million in the metro, and Huntington is a small regional airport, with a population of 100,000. The distance is right at 500 miles by car, so I would estimate 450 'as the crow flies'. The ticket cost from all major air lines was well over $500.00. Flying from Atlanta to New York, probably close to 1000 miles, maybe more, i haven't checked, would have only cost $99.00. I understand that between the two major airports more traffic flows, but even at that, it should cost 2x as much fuel per person. If what the airlines claim is true, that fuel prices dominate, then it doesn't make sense. To fly from Atlanta to Seattle was only a $150 round trip. The mileage there is on the order of 5000 or more. How can a flight cross country be had for a fraction of what would be a 3 hour flight tops?
2) I've only flown once, and I was expecting a completely different experience. I was on a good size Boeing, not the top but close to it. The first class seats were tiny. I don't see the cost/benefit analysis paying off there for consumers. The coach seats were tinier. I'm a healthy adult of BMI 23. I was a tight fit in the seats. I can't imagine the frustration with the 'larger' population ( both numbers and weight). It was hot, noisy, and compact. Forget getting up to use the restroom, forget having an armrest, forget having the knees open. I was happy to be able to experience it, as only a small percentage of all the humans who've ever lived have seen the ground from the skies, but it's not something I'll look forward to doing again, and will actively try to avoid it if possible.
2.5) For reference, I can drive the 500 mile trip for about ~ $150 in fuel. This is a single person. It's cheaper than flying, and in my opinion, a better experience. It probably saves time by the number of transfers and pickups, and I'll have my car to drive when I get there. Once you start adding the spouse and kids ( kids which I do not have yet), the price to fly skyrockets, whereas the marginal cost to driving is minimal, for up to 5 passengers. Unless flying between major airports, or on someone else's dime, I can't imagine why anyone would want to fly, barring what would be more than a 12 hour drive.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @07:29PM
What you pay for something is not what it costs.
Take for example 1 large drink from Mcdonalds. Lets say they charge 1 buck. Hey not bad. But they paid about 15-20 cents for the whole thing. The rest is profit.
I have found the smaller the airport the higher the prices. Even then you usually have to go thru some hub. So what may be a direct flight ends up being 2 as the airport you start at just has 0 flights that go to where you want.
Having recently flew myself I agree. Flying sucks. The have made a service where it feels like at every opportunity they want to extract a fiver out of you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @07:39PM
Or the standardized maintenence costs for operating the aircraft for the same amount of time.
All of that adds up rapidly, especially if your plane is always below 2/3 capacity.
It is why you tend to see extremely small prop driven aircraft for the smaller commuter routes. Less maintenence costs, light vehicle so better fuel economy when not fully loaded, etc.
There are other factors, since a fully loaded jet plane that can fly 40k+ feet gets a lot better equivalent fuel economy to one flying below 10k with much higher wind resistence and lower percentage passenger space when fully loaded.
(Score: 1) by KBentley57 on Friday July 10 2015, @07:41PM
I had mentioned fuel cost, maybe not explicitly. I guess I assumed that the fuel cost was directly proportional to the distance. It's part of why I was dismayed at the cost of longer trips, compared to those that were much shorter, yet costing much more.
(Score: 2, Informative) by tftp on Friday July 10 2015, @08:17PM
I had mentioned fuel cost, maybe not explicitly. [...] For reference, I can drive the 500 mile trip for about ~ $150 in fuel
That would be, assuming $3.60/gal, about 42 gallons to cover 500 miles. Are you driving an old delivery truck with those 11 mpg? A modern car that you either own or rent for the trip will give you about 40 mpg on a highway, and the cost of your trip would be only $45. That's about what I pay when I make similar trips. By the way, 500 miles will require at most 10 hours, assuming a mixture of interstate and state and county roads. If most of your trip is on decent roads (65 mph) then the trip will require 7.5 - 8 hours. It is perfectly doable for a single driver, even without lunch.
(Score: 1) by KBentley57 on Friday July 10 2015, @08:39PM
You're correct. I should have said that was $150 for the round trip. Sorry about that. It's even better now that the fuel prices have gone down. It's $2.50/ USGallon here at the moment, so the round trip price is ~ $100.00
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @08:41PM
A 737 gets about 90 mpg per seat.
(Score: 1) by KBentley57 on Friday July 10 2015, @08:51PM
I've seen that number too. I don't disagree that it's probably better for the environment, but when the same trip costs X vs 5X, which one would you choose?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by eharvill on Friday July 10 2015, @09:50PM
http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/01/investing/united-airlines-lawsuit-skiplagged/ [cnn.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by N3Roaster on Friday July 10 2015, @09:57PM
To answer a part of 2, hardly anybody pays for those first class seats. Quality of that class varies widely but the pricing is ridiculous. If the airline is lucky maybe one person goes for it. Instead, it's all free upgrades for people who fly a lot on that airline. In coach, a lot of planes these days have exactly two good seats. It's the window seat in the rear-most row of exit seating over the wing where there isn't a seat in the row in front of you. The seat is still narrow but the excessive leg room helps a lot and the seat doesn't cost any more than the others (and it's less than the "comfort" seating with some unnoticeable extra inches of leg room).
International flights are better and some of the foreign airlines don't seem to be in a rush to discover the minimum acceptable level of service. Emirates, for example, had a fairly large guy (big and tall, not obese, I met him on a trip to Dubai a few years ago) sit in the seats to test out their spacing.
Typica - Free software for coffee roasting professionals. [typica.us]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 10 2015, @10:06PM
Somebody more knowledgeable jump in here, but my recollection is that it comes down to volume and competition. Lots of people want to fly between NYC and LA, and so many airlines offer many flights on that route. Not so many people want to fly those regional routes, so the price rises accordingly. There are of course odd exceptions. For example if you wanted to fly from any place in the US to Bentonville, Arkansas you could easily get a flight, cheap, at nearly any time you want to go. Why? Because it's the headquarters for Walmart, which employs about half of rural America and has people flying in and out for indoctri...training all the time.
Many people have begun to do that same calculation ever since the TSA was formed and began stripping people naked and fondling grandma's genitals. Since that time we drive everywhere if it's within our region or to an adjacent region. Over two days' drive we would fly, but we've only done that once in the last 15 years. I've determined that should I need to travel to Asia or Europe or elsewhere again, I will either drive across the border to Canada and fly from there or contrive to take a ship. Of course that's beside the cost factor you're talking about, but for me the freedom and privacy factor is co-equal to cost.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @11:08PM
You will be diaspointed if you drive to Canada to take a plane, we have some TSA equivalent for most destination and the price are way higher, also we share information with the USA... A lot of Canadian drive to regional American airport to fly, Plattsburgh airport come to my mind.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday July 11 2015, @02:39AM
Airlines charge what people will pay, they work to maximise profit based on the availability of equipment, people, and slots to ensure every asset makes the most it can.
Forward/backward facing is not new though - I flew LHR to SIN yesterday in such an arrangement. I was facing my 3yo who sat next to his mother who was facing our 7mo in his car seat. Very relaxing flight, the kids slept most of the 13 hours, and we managed to get a good 6 hours too. Normally we fly at the front, but due to seat layout for the first long haul with the children, we decided to slum it in business.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 11 2015, @06:49AM
On first class, domestic first class is indeed only slightly nicer seats than coach, but international first class seats are much nicer: there's space to lie flat.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 10 2015, @09:15PM
Reminded me a little of this [tripod.com].
(Score: 2, Interesting) by pinchy on Friday July 10 2015, @10:53PM
I would much rather just lay horizontal the entire trip. My back starts hurting after a few hours unless I bring something for lumbar support.
I imagine you could actually pack a lot more people stacked horizontally then in a sitting position.
(Score: 2) by randmcnatt on Saturday July 11 2015, @02:24AM
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly: they were the first to land.