the rich vs the poor in future air travel ...
with rising jet fuel prices, this is NOT a joke ...
(snip)"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. (snip)
With a typical configuration, the A380 will accommodate about 500 passengers. But with standing-room-only seats, the same plane could conceivably fit in 853 passengers, the maximum it would be permitted to carry.
"To call it a seat would be misleading," said Volker Mellert, a physics professor at Oldenburg University in Germany, who has done research on airline seat comfort and has seen the design"(snip)
Even as the airlines are slimming the seatbacks in coach, they are installing seats as thick and heavy as ever in first and business class — and going to great lengths to promote them. That is because each passenger in such a seat can generate several times the revenue of a coach traveler.
At the front of the cabin, the emphasis is on comfort and amenities like sophisticated entertainment systems. Some of the new seats even feature in-seat electronic massagers. And, of course, the airlines have installed lie-flat seats for their premium passengers on international routes. "(snip)
.... next to be discussed will probably be pricing coach airline tickets by the pound i.e. the basic ticket includes perhaps a 200 pound combined weight allotment for passenger plus their baggage, but with a progressive 'excess baggage" surcharge being tacked on depending on how much additional weight of passenger plus their baggage (thus aircraft fuel consumption cost) the aircraft must 'haul'.
~
Re: the rich vs the poor in future air travel ...
And....what is so wrong with options for consumers? Maybe, just maybe, a flying customer could make the individual choice to take the standing room placeholder with limited baggage in exchange for a lower priced ticket? And yes, the front of the plane gets all the attention, and they should. The front of the plane passengers (approximately 6% of the total flying public) represent like 60% of an airline's revenues - airlines should (and do) cater to them.
Ultimately, if consumers don't like it, airlines will stop the experiment - yet for a short flight - does it really matter - if the price difference compensates for the issues of comfort?
Regards,
Dan
Re: the rich vs the poor in future air travel ...
One reason that I've played devil's advocate on so many of these issues is that I've heard gloom-and-doom Malthusian-style predictions from every part of the political spectrum since I was aware of politics. The complete draining of oil reserves in 20 years and millions of cars rusting in driveways and off the sides of roads. Hyperinflation around the corner, and you would have to have gold or artwork to get groceries. Masses of people dying in the streets from pollution. The drowning of coastal cities by the year 2005 due to oceans rising. The complete meltdown of the U.S. auto industry. Global nuclear war, following the military conquest of the Middle East by the USSR (remember the USSR?).
All that is a part of what was told to me 25 or 35 years ago. Who knows, some of it may happen eventually, and when it does, it'll be like the revenge of the hypochondriac who finally dies of some damn thing, which proves that he was sick, after all.
In the meantime, excuse me while I keep tending to business, trying to be a good steward to my environment in my corner of the world, balancing the income and outgo as best I can, planning for the economic health of me and mine as best I can, and leave it to the geniuses of the world to keep on alerting us to the doomsday around the corner. I say that without irony. Most of these apocalyptic scenarios have been promoted by pretty sharp people.
To stay on topic, I just considered clicking on a round trip to NYC on my frequent-flier carrier of choice for less than $300, but I'm going to wait. I think it'll come down. We'll see how good of a prognosticator I am.
Re: the rich vs the poor in future air travel ...
Good Lord, Dan! I don't want to stand cramped Tokyo-style for 30 minutes- an hour. Can you imagine turbulence while standing and falling on your fellow passenger? What if it's a 250 lb passenger falling on you?! I don't think old people or kids could withstand that 30 minute coaster ride either.
Re: the rich vs the poor in future air travel ...
I looked this story up, and according to this article, Airbus says that the suggestion they proposed this whole "standing room" idea is baloney. The plane can in fact seat 853 passengers + crew in normal seats if you configured an entire plane for coach seating.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/25/news...ding/index.htm
[snip]
The paper said that the use of standing room would allow the new A380 double-decker jet that Airbus is in the process of introducing to hold up to 853 passengers, compared to about 500 passengers if they were given traditional seats. But Airbus' Kracht said that the A380 has been approved to hold 853 passengers and a crew of 20 all fully seated, albeit all in coach-class seating. The lower capacity is if the plane is divided into traditional three-class service with first- and business-class sections.
[/snip]
Re: the rich vs the poor in future air travel ...
From a public safety stand point it makes no sense.
One pocket of turbulance with a standing room option would mean million in law suits.
Re: the rich vs the poor in future air travel ...
I fear that my point may have missed.
I support a company's right to experiment and bring forth different options for consumers. Safety is a table stake for airlines meaning they have to have it or people opt out of flying them (assumig their is a choice) (think about the old Soviet Union - who ever volunteerd to fly Aeroflot if they could fly almost anyone else instead).
Business is about creating value for the consumer - and sometimes they (business) get it wrong and when they do the consumer revolts - innovations need to be considered - I would suspect that a standing room type flight would provide anchoring for those turbulance, etc. to provide a safe ride with as much comfort as possible considering a standing room option - but again, it will be the consumer that will be given the choice...to choose what they want and what they value.
I don't believe that I (or we - the collective we) should be allowed to dictate what the business chooses to do - we shouldn't restrict people's choices to that degree.
It is like the people that tilt against Wal Mart. Wal Mart provides great value to consumers who are free to choose to shop at Wal Mart or not. To the people that want to limit Wal Mart - I just want to ask what they have against helping the poor recieve better value for their money and why would they want the poor to pay more for the same goods.
Well I digress - it is all about the freedom to choose and the freedom to provide options to consumers that I support.
Regards,
Dan
Re: the rich vs the poor in future air travel ...
^^ true Dan ... IF shopping at WalMart or buying a standing room airline ticket are a matter of choice. However, when they become an economic necessity for a significant segment of the population because rising fuel prices / rising imported goods prices etc. have caused the price of shopping at Target or buying a sit-down airline ticket to skyrocket while the after tax incomes of a significant segment of the population have remained stagnant, then it isn't a matter of choice any longer ...