$6 Flights to Offer Standing Room Only

$6 Flights to Offer Standing Room Only

articles.moneycentral.msn.com

A European carrier will test dirt-cheap 'vertical seating.' One catch: You'll have to pay extra to use the toilet.
Posted by Kim Peterson on Thursday, July 1, 2010 3:15 PM
European airline Ryanair is determined to install stand-up airline seats -- even though regulators say the setup doesn't meet safety requirements.

The airline said it will start testing "vertical seating" next year, according to the Daily Mail. That's around the same time it will begin charging passengers one pound ($1.50 U.S.) to use the airplane lavatory

(visit the link for the full news article)





[edit on 2-7-2010 by manta78]

Well, I ask the same question as the last sentence in the article, which is would you stand to fly?

Will this idea be acceptable to airline authorities
worldwide if they have a form of restraint for passengers?

And are you willing to pay $1.50 for each lavatory useage?

I am intrigued my this idea, even though it appears to
be improbable at first glance. I do think however that
if the safety issue can be addressed, and accepted by authorities, that there will be a certain number of people who would take advantage of this deal, especially on short flights.

What do you think ATS...will it happen?





articles.moneycentral.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 2-7-2010 by manta78]

reply to post by manta78

Will this idea be acceptable to airline authorities
worldwide if they have a form of restraint for passengers?

No. It is not up to the airline authorites. For RyanAir, they are subject to the regulations under the auspices of the CAA. They, like the FAA in the States, are on the same page regarding safety standards...in fact, there is an overall international standard, as well...administered by the ICAO.

However, as seen with the egregious "nickel-and-dime" measures being imposed, of late, for what used to be complimentary services...

And are you willing to pay $1.50 for each lavatory useage?

Now, that is certainly within their rights, as a company, and I can foresee no safety implications...since there will always be a way for crew to defeat any "pay" requirement, in the event of a medical emergency of some sort.

From a customer relations and PR standpoint it looks like a very stupid move, though...and since the majority of RyanAir's flights are likely very short stage lengths, I envision no takers anyway, even IF they try to charge.

Now, again...if you're talking about the "standing only" flights?

... that there will be a certain number of people who would take advantage of this deal, especially on short flights.

Think about it...and take some research into the designs of passenger seating, today. The seats in airplanes (unlike in ground vehicles) must protect passengers from forces not only in the horizontal, but also in the vertical axis.

Modern seat framework structures are designed to 'crumple' to mitigate the G-loads in vertical impact force crashes, hopefully to provide a measure of survivability. The human body, whilst standing erect, is certainly not as well equipped...the leg bones, and hip joints come to mind as the most vulnerable, even with some sort of restraint...in fact the entire unit one is "strapped into" would have to resemble the designs of the seat frames, in their shock-absorbing qualities...this would seem to defeat the original purpose of the airline management (a bit of a loon, they are) by making the entire prospect much more complicated, for only a minor improvement in total passenger capacity.

BTW....speaking of pax capacity -- Limits are set by the number and size of the available exits, specific to each airplane design. Flight Attendant minimum complements are (in the U.S.) determined by a combination of either the number of people (one F/A for every 50, or any portion above 50) OR the number of exits, whichever is most restrictive. RyanAir, I believe, operates Boeing 737s exclusively, so if the complement rules in Great Britain are similar, then F/As would have to be staffed by capacity.

eg, 149 passengers = minimum three F/As, but 151 would mean minimum four required. This is based on capacity, also...not actual passenger count on any given flight.

PS...mythbusters once did a series of tests of airline seat sudden stops (crashes), both with dummies, and with human volunteers (!)..but can't find the clips online, as of yet.

Originally posted by manta78
What do you think ATS...will it happen?

I won't be surprised by the lavatory charge. But regarding the standing, I'm not sure. Can you imagine getting stuck out on the tarmac for 5 hours while your plane waits for a slot in the takeoff queue, all while standing? There was a recent thread about a Ryanair flight getting stuck on the tarmac like that for 6 hours, and they weren't even giving people water, someone had to call 911. Standing that long will only make it that much worse.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I wondered about that myself. So if you get tired of standing do you have to pay a regular fare on board to get a seat? And what if there are no seats available as the flight is sold out? You can't just sit down as the restraints they are proposing are for persons standing...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Your points are logical. Obviously Ryan Air must have thought of these potential type of problems before it went public with the ideas or..... maybe not?

[edit on 2-7-2010 by manta78]

This is typical of Ryanair, trying to cram as many people into a plane as possible, charge for everything (I am waiting for them to bill for the air you breath) and basically treat people like cattle.

It is only a matter of time before they try to stack people on shelves like the old slave ships...

This is an excellent idea. Some of you are not reading the article just responding to the headline. Vertical seating is basically a vertical board that has a slight kink in it that allows you to rest your arse on. imagine a N where the top right corner is stretched up until the \ part of the N is nearly horizontal but on a slightly upward angle. The passengers would not actually be seated but resting.

I think these would be great for short hop flights but not sure how they would work for say 2+ hours.

Found this "expose" on Ryanair as posted on youtube.com in 2006:

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 2-7-2010 by manta78]

reply to post by theregonnakillme


as long as it is adjustable ... imagine having the seat part digging into your back if your short or digging into your legs if your tall :S

For short flights id have no problem standing as long as there was enough support to be "at rest" and still had some sort of table to rest a book on. Leg room is a killer on those flights

~TR~

For me it just depends on how long the flight is. I would fly to Vegas or Sacramento or maybe even to Texas like that from here in SoCal. It seems like this would work best for short flights. I can't see this happening for transoceanic flights. That much standing would be uncomfortable. But I would be willing to make a 3hr flight like this. I would even be willing to fly cross-country with a layover. I say forget safety. If an airplane crashes I don't think whether your sitting or standing willmake that much of a difference in whether you live or die. Airplane travel is inherently dangerous. I hope they will start servicing Vegas/Los Angeles if they come to the US.

edit: never mind

[edit on 2-7-2010 by illusive man]

I believe their are some European carriers that already charge for Lavatory usage. As far as standing seats, I don't think a company would make such a announcement without having it cleared with the Safety Administrations first.

Do I agree with lavatory usage fees, No...but like some other member mentioned it is clearly within their right to do so. They are already charging for aisle and window seats on some US carriers. Next thing would be to charge you for ice cubes in your drink and those complimentary drinks. Then they can move onto charging you for reclining your seats.

Air Travel is a joke now, I am looking to travel by car or train as much as possible only choosing to travel by air if I absolutely need it.

There are several regulatory problems here.

The max load off passengers is determined by the Type certification of the aircrat

For example in Europe we can fly A320 aircraft with 180Y Configuration, but cannot fly the same in the USA, as the certification states no more than 179!!

So in order for the stand seating on 737 to work, it would have to be demonstrated that

1, The system can be incorporated without violating the Type certification. This would involve a length certification testing process by the Supplemental Type cert applicant.

Involving crash resistance, crash worthiness. impact of weight and balance and loading control. imagine all those extra bodies, all overweight as standard on RYR flights. There will not be enough room from the MEW to the MTOW for people fuel and baggage. unless the plan is to NOT carry baggage

then there are issues with evacuation and exit regulations. Will the total number of seats planned to be installed, mean that they have to add new exits!!. this regulation does exists, and is applied strictly especially in the US.

Then it has to be proven that ALL passengers, mix of male female young and old, able and disabled can evacuate with obstructions, and only using 50% of exits...... in less than 90 seconds.

The cost and safety implications of this and getting the system certified for installation on a commercial aircraft by the 737-800 is massive. and with the potential applicability in the industry the market is limited, and in my opinion the commercial risks by airlines in installing such a system would far outweigh the revenue benefit. as I believe that people just don't want to fly like this. and so, will not. Result airlines don't fly without passengers.

RYR can say what they want that they will push ahead with this. but if EASA says no. then NO it is. either that or have your AOC revoked.

Looks like the controlled coma`s and stasis pods of sci fi travel are just around the corner .

Unconscious customers are soooo much easier to deal with !

Standing on a flight?? No thanks! Not enough head room for me I would have to wear a helmet to protect against turbulent bumps.

Let's just strap some wings on this baby and call it good!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b77a0aacbbae.jpg[/atsimg]

I long for the old days when flying was actually fun and when I actually had leg room. Too bad the US never made the effort to build bullet train corridors. Our govt preferred to prop up Amtrak's coal fired steam engines for all of these years.

I think they are going about it in a...backwards...or WHATEVER you wanna call it-kind-of-way. What I`m trying to say is that they should be seating people HORIZONTALLY, in bunks. You could fit more people that way and they would be much more comfortable, most people would fall asleep so then they would have less people to "tend" to. You could have an optional privacy shield and each bunk would have enough space to crawl in and out and would have an exit at the foot with a ladder down so you can use the restroom. Elderly & disabled get the bottom bunks. Some regular seats for certain medical conditions. Make a tall plane & u can stack 3 or 4 people on top of eachother with 3 or 4 per row. It just seems like it would be better for regular or long flights. But the verticle idea even leaning your butt on something... I dont know cuz I dont fly but are flights really that short a lot of the time? And time on the tarmac, as mentioned, can be unpredictable. So, anything more than an hour and a haklf is too much for the average person, IMO. i just thought of another idea... DIAGONAL! The forces would oush you enough to feel like your laying down. They swing into position and are vertivcle when you strap in, and then it moves you like a carnivle ride so the next row can get strapped ion , so its similar to the horizontal idea in that there are multiple rows stacked, utilizing the space in a huge fuselage. And it could kind of rotate so that, while your on the bottom row, you can use the restroom or your section can be rotated down in case of emergecy. Then if ppl are strapped in like a roller coaster, no hijackers!


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I think that the times of Antonov An-2 are coming back
Cheap, reliable, take-off run: 170 m, landing run: 215 m, could be easily operated anywhere instead of city buses

en.wikipedia.org...

The An-2 indeed has no stall speed quoted in the operating handbook. Pilots of the An-2 say one can fly the aircraft in full control at 30 mph (as a contrast, a modern Cessna four-seater light aircraft has a stall speed of around 55 mph). This slow stall speed makes it possible for the aircraft to fly backwards (if the aircraft is pointed into a headwind of, say, 35 mph (56 km/h), it will travel backwards at 5 mph (8.0 km/h) whilst under full control). (This is, of course, also possible with almost any other real Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) aircraft).

A note from the pilot's handbook reads: "If the engine quits in instrument conditions (blind flying when you can't see the ground) or at night, the pilot should pull the control column full aft (it won't stall) and keep the wings level. The leading-edge slats will snap out at about 64 km/h (40 mph), and when the airplane slows to a forward speed of about 40 km/h (25 mph), the airplane will sink at about a parachute descent rate until the aircraft hits the ground."

However, in nearly all Western nations (the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, etc.) one may not use the An-2 commercially (despite its obvious potential as a bush plane and parachute aircraft). This is because the aircraft has not been certified by the relevant national aviation authorities, which limits its use. These restrictions vary by country, but all prevent the An-2 being used for any 'for profit' purpose, with the exception of the United States, where An-2s imported since 1993 are limited to flights within 300 miles (480 km) of their home airport, and may only land at that same airfield, but PZL-built An-2s are exempt from this restriction due to a bilateral agreement with Poland.

The PTB are TOTALLY SCARED of this kind of technology, and with a good reason. I'd start a revolution from this point

reply to post by manta78


Well there you go. Now we can get 600 or so on a flight. That's $3600 per flight times 20000 which makes 72 million bucks. We can deport all 12 million illegals for 72 million bucks. 500 flights a day, done in 40 days. I'll take it.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I would also think their insurance carrier might have a say in the safety aspects of a plane crashing while people are "standing in their seats"!

Like was mentioned before, airline seats are made to crumple to absorb the shock of a crash, what kind of safety is incorporated into these "standing seats" to alleviate some of the shock from a crash?

I'd be surprised if many airline insurance carriers would want to insure a flight while people sitting in "standing seats".

No insurance, no flying.

[edit on 7/2/2010 by Keyhole]