snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Business Bytes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 20 July 2015, 08:20 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,695
Default

I think the armrests were left off the drawing for clarity. But they can be part of the design as they are a claim on the patent.

If they left the seating at 3 abreast, I'd prefer this style of seat, even if I had the backwards middle. The biggest problem I have with aircraft is that my shoulders are wider than the standard seat, meaning that I have to hunch forward or lean to the side a bit to accommodate my seatmates. With this design, that would no longer be required.

ETA: Also, despite the claims of the article writer, seatback entertainment would be just as possible as on the traditional seating as you still have a seatback in front of you.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 20 July 2015, 08:39 PM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,906
New Zealand

Yeah, OK, I hadn't looked at the patent.

I don't think he's denying that entertainment would be possible, he's just saying it would be awkward with people facing you and possibly making eye contact.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 20 July 2015, 10:07 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,153
Default

So here's the other problem I just realized with this (one that might actually be a real problem instead of a physics derp): assuming they actually manage to fit more people into the same volume this way, where does everyone store their carry ons?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 20 July 2015, 11:03 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,441
Default

We could always go back to just putting luggage in the hold, where it's designed to be. OK, if you can fit everything into a small piece of hand luggage, it's a great way to travel, but I really don't understand why everything, even cases that would obviously have been checked in 10 years ago, now has to be hand luggage.

Apparently it's because the airline has to pay extra fees to baggage handlers otherwise, or something, so "economy" airlines don't want to take the costs on themselves and push them onto the customers, in the form of charging to check in a bag, thus encouraging everybody to take hand luggage only.

But while it's convenient to have hand luggage only if you can then get in and out of the plane quickly and not have to queue to check in or collect your bag, unless you're very good at travelling light it's more hassle to have your luggage with you in the airport, and the time saving is probably cancelled out by the extra time and nuisance for everybody to have bags checked at security and try to fit them in the overhead lockers and so on. These days I find it much more convenient and less trouble to actually check in my luggage, and only have an actual small carry-on bag with my books and whatever I usually carry around. I have to go to "proper" airlines to do that without a fee, but then adding the fee to the cheap airlines makes it the same price anyway.

It's basically the airline trying to push the cost and nuisance on to the customers and somehow sell it as a benefit.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 20 July 2015, 11:19 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,695
Default

Why wouldn't the carry-ons be stored under the seat that is in front of you like is done now? ("In front of you" being relative to the passenger.)

Regarding the fee for checking bags: IMO, it is based on the prevalence of internet comparison shopping for airfare. Airline A charges $150 with a $25 baggage fee and Airline B charges $170 with free checked baggage. Since the web sites list just the fare, enough people will chose Airline A that Airline B will lose business. So Arline B starts listing fares of $165 with a $25 baggage fee.

And as far as "proper" carriers go in the US, AFAIK, only Southwest Airlines does not charge for baggage. Does that have anything to do with the fact that Southwest Airlines does not appear on internet airline fare searches? Maybe...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 20 July 2015, 11:26 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 17,014
Airplane

Thank you for flying Sardine Airlines....
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 20 July 2015, 11:26 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Why wouldn't the carry-ons be stored under the seat that is in front of you like is done now? ("In front of you" being relative to the passenger.)
That works for small items, but what about larger bags that need to go in the overhead bin?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 20 July 2015, 11:31 PM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildaBeast View Post
If that's the case then it would never get approved by the FAA. IIRC no one can be more than three seats from an aisle.
The patent document mentions that, and says that the space between each row is wide enough that it counts as an aisle under current regulations.

I'm not sure that would fly, especially when the "aisle" only exists if the seats are empty and folded up.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 20 July 2015, 11:36 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post
We could always go back to just putting luggage in the hold, where it's designed to be.
When I first started flying, I checked everything I wouldn't need on the flight. Then my checked luggage was lost, multiple times. Once I flew from Detroit to Buffalo for the weekend and my bag went to LAX. It was inconvenient in my younger days, when the most critical things in the bag were underwear and toiletries. Now the most critical things are apt to be meds I need to take every day. They won't necessarily fit in the purse I carry, and I won't take the chance of not having them.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 20 July 2015, 11:39 PM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post

It's basically the airline trying to push the cost and nuisance on to the customers and somehow sell it as a benefit.
Any evidence that airlines profit more from their luggage policies of today over their luggage policies of ten year ago?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 20 July 2015, 11:41 PM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
And as far as "proper" carriers go in the US, AFAIK, only Southwest Airlines does not charge for baggage. Does that have anything to do with the fact that Southwest Airlines does not appear on internet airline fare searches? Maybe...
I've also heard that when domestic bag fees became the norm, they had such an antiquated computer system that they couldn't charge for the first two bags, so they had to turn it into an asset.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 20 July 2015, 11:47 PM
Onyx_TKD Onyx_TKD is offline
 
Join Date: 17 December 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
I think the armrests were left off the drawing for clarity. But they can be part of the design as they are a claim on the patent.

If they left the seating at 3 abreast, I'd prefer this style of seat, even if I had the backwards middle. The biggest problem I have with aircraft is that my shoulders are wider than the standard seat, meaning that I have to hunch forward or lean to the side a bit to accommodate my seatmates. With this design, that would no longer be required.

ETA: Also, despite the claims of the article writer, seatback entertainment would be just as possible as on the traditional seating as you still have a seatback in front of you.
I have to agree here. I really don't see what's so "evil" about this design. It doesn't seem like it would have any effect on the seat pitch, so people wouldn't be loosing legroom (if anything, they might need a larger seat pitch to ensure people can still get out of the rows). I get that some people have an aversion to facing away from the direction of travel, but it's already done without problems in other forms of transit, like trains, that stop and start more frequently and where people are more likely to be watching the landscape go by out the windows. It seems like it would be even less of an issue on a plane. Take-off might be a little less comfortable for the person facing backwards, but I'd think the reverse would be true for landing, so it seems like a toss-up. One legitimate issue would be how they'd handle large passengers who currently book two adjacent seats--if the whole plane was set up like this, it would be impossible to use two seats as one double-width seat.

On the other hand, it has the benefit of preventing shoulders being jammed together or needing to fight over the armrests. I'm not particularly broad-shouldered person, yet I often have issues finding a comfortable position for my arms and shoulders on a plane where they aren't stuck up against a broad-shouldered neighbor. It would also alleviate some of the crowding for large passengers who need the entire width of the seat, if they're sitting next to the neighbor's legs rather than sitting side-by-side--I'd be much more comfortable with only my knee crowded by my neighbor rather than my torso. For those flying together, it would also be convenient for conversation (and if people can handle sitting directly face-to-face with strangers on a bus or train, then I think they can handle the possibility of occasionally making eye contact with someone caddy-corner across the row, especially with the addition of a movie screen in front of their faces to focus on).
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 21 July 2015, 02:12 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 19,035
Glasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
That works for small items, but what about larger bags that need to go in the overhead bin?
This is a seat manufacturer, not an airplane manufacturer. There would still be overhead bins for people to overfill without following directions (wheels to the aisle, people).

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 21 July 2015, 02:46 PM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is online now
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,669
Default

Wait, what? So the handles are inaccessible and the dirtiest part is facing out?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 21 July 2015, 03:20 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker View Post
This is a seat manufacturer, not an airplane manufacturer. There would still be overhead bins for people to overfill without following directions (wheels to the aisle, people).

Seaboe
But the overhead bins are already stuffed to capacity on a normal flight. With extra seats, there'd be even less space per passenger.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 21 July 2015, 03:24 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,695
Default

You do what they do now. Check the baggage and throw it into the hold.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 21 July 2015, 04:20 PM
chillas's Avatar
chillas chillas is offline
 
Join Date: 09 September 2002
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 11,837
Airplane

Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 21 July 2015, 04:21 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,585
Default

That was my first thought. What is there to ruin? I haven't flown since 2009 and I hope to continue my streak.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 21 July 2015, 05:45 PM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 7,055
Default

Oh, you're giving the airlines way too much credit. They could stop serving alcohol, charge for the bathrooms, and make you check all electronics, for example.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 21 July 2015, 06:30 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is online now
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,914
Default

As much as people love to hate airlines, I really think in the slim chance this ever does come to fruition the only airlines would would be interested would be the super cheap ones like Ryanair and Spirit.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb! Mickey Blue Amusement Bark 5 06 September 2013 08:17 AM
How media ruin a perfectly good story about a lost dog Floater Social Studies 2 14 January 2013 03:36 PM
Hasbro Memo for G3 My Little Pony design TB Tabby Fauxtography 11 28 December 2011 06:20 AM
On the brink of ruin snopes Food 4 08 June 2011 01:39 PM
Lexus design change snopes Automobiles 2 28 December 2006 09:48 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.