Would You Stand for This?

[GoodFella69]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_t6rV3U9ZEHM/TCztWCE4hwI/AAAAAAAA1vE/bACs-cH-oFc/s1600/StandingRoom.jpg

 

Europe's budget airliner Ryanair is swiftly moving forward with plans to "revolutionize" air travel by introducing flights where passengers stand up rather than sit down. Testing on their "vertical seating" plane layout starts in 2011. Ryanair says the standing room tickets will initially only be available on flights of less than one hour and fares would range between $10usd and $12usd. Would you be willing to fly like this (standing up the entire flight) if it was extra cheap?

 

Goodfella

[KMEM]

I don't enjoy riding the airlines now. What do they call this service, the concentration camp class?

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[GoodFella69]

I don't enjoy riding the airlines now. What do they call this service, the concentration camp class?

 

Lol. I hear you loud and clear, Captain. This would definitely be "two steps back" for commercial aviation.

[Guest Spanky]

I saw the picture and thought it was either an amusement park ride or some sort of prisoner transport system. Then for another second I thought - wait, doesn't this picture belong in the fetish forum?

 

Isn't Rynair the outfit that makes you pay to take a crap?

[Boston Guy]

I suspect there will be a reasonable market for this. Hell, some people stand for that long going home each day on the NY subway.

 

As a pilot, I'll be interested to see how the weight and balance issues work out. On the surface, it looks like one could get perhaps as many as 30% or 35% more passengers on board. I assume that they'll simply make up any weight difference by carrying less fuel, since the flights will be short. Perhaps KMEM will have some insight.

 

BG

 

ps: Would I stand for it? Not if there were other reasonable alternatives.

[NYTomcat]

10 or 15 bucks to fly an hour. Think about it.yeah ill head down to DC to have dinner with arvaguy and then home for drink s. All for the cost of a cab ride. Ok. Yeah it has an appeal

[Guest greatness]

oh my

 

You fly too. That's hot~~ Stand or sit I can't believe a plane ticket will be 10-15, how can they save money and fuel by making people stand up???? Any physicist here?

 

 

As a pilot, I'll be interested to see how the weight and balance issues work out.

[JT Brooklyn]

Sardine Can Theory

 

Hell No!

[TerryP]

This story has been making the news for at least a few months now. I don't get at all what the big deal is. Of course it saves them money - you only need about 50% of the space, so more people can fit on the plane. And if it's only for an hour, for a healthy person, that is not a concern. Some people have jobs that require them to stand for 4 hours or more at a time.

[Diverdan]

Hell no

 

I would never fly in a standing position. I first saw this proposed in Japan about four years ago, when one of the Japanese airlines was "testing the waters" for short flights and even some longer ones. Can you imagine with so many more people on a flight what it would be like in a crash? I hope the government steps in and prevents this from happening. Air travel is bad enough now, and I am flying between 100,000 and 150,000 miles in the air a year. Even FC now is about what coach was a few years ago. There is no end to what attempts can be made to make money.

[AdamSmith]

What do they call this service, the concentration camp class?

 

I thought the same thing.

 

[orbital sander]

This is for Ryan Air in the UK. I would not hold your breath waiting for this to get to the USA (that is if the FAA would ever allow it). Ryan Air is the leader in sardine class travel, they are still around, so I guess they are making money. Personally, I would not opt for this myself (unless there was not alternative), however, I am sure that there are many lower income people that would be able to fly who might not otherwise.

[Boomer]

Never!

[+ deej]

For a short flight I think I'd actually prefer the standing seats to being folded into one of those damn cramped coach seats they use today. At least your legs would be fully extended.

 

I wonder how they'll solve the carry-on problem, though. Planes already don't have enough overhead bin space and they'd be losing the "under the seat in front of you" space.

[Isis123]

I would not get too excited about this.

Ryanair are well known for their publicity but it should not be taken too seriously. In this case, the "announcement" (at least the second time they have made such a statement) just happened to come out at the same time as they upped their baggage fees for the summer period. In short, it is simply designed to get publicity and divert attention.

 

The European authorities have already said (several weeks ago) that it would take a long time for them to get close to approving these standing "seats". The idea that this could happen from 2011 is complete nonsense.

 

As for paying to use the toilet - it is just another Ryanair ruse and even the boss admitted after he raised it for the first time, that he was not very serious about it. Maybe at some time in the future but they do not even have a design that would work yet.

[KMEM]

I suspect there will be a reasonable market for this. Hell, some people stand for that long going home each day on the NY subway.

 

As a pilot, I'll be interested to see how the weight and balance issues work out. On the surface, it looks like one could get perhaps as many as 30% or 35% more passengers on board. I assume that they'll simply make up any weight difference by carrying less fuel, since the flights will be short. Perhaps KMEM will have some insight.

 

BG

 

ps: Would I stand for it? Not if there were other reasonable alternatives.

 

Shorter flights mean carrying less fuel AND passengers do not ordinarily make up a huge portion of the useable load. Most airlines fill up the available load capacity with freight, mail, etc. (Charging for checked baggage is an economic issue, not a weight issue.) Therefore, an airplane not going very far with "only" people for W&B is not much of a problem.

 

Personally, I don't believe you can cram enough people into an aircraft, standing or otherwise, to get the price down to $15 for a flight from LGA to DCA (and make money). Those kinds of fares have to be loss leaders.

 

Another FAR issue would be cabin attendants. There have to be enough, not to serve you your favorite beverage, but enough to evacuate the aircraft in an emergency. More crew, more pay, more cost to make the flight.

 

A good benefit would be to a tendency to eliminate thrombosis aka DVT.

 

Generally speaking, this whole thing seems to me a publicity stunt such as hiring a midget to play baseball in order to get a "walk".

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[Guest Sanjar]

I must laugh at the mechanism inspired by the mediaeval rack. But if serious is it adaptable for passengers of different tallness? Else the safety bar would hit the very short man in his teeth and the very tall man in his privates. And is it placed below the luggage bin the better to dash out the brain of the tall man during turbulence?

[Boston Guy]

Shorter flights mean carrying less fuel AND passengers do not ordinarily make up a huge portion of the useable load. Most airlines fill up the available load capacity with freight, mail, etc. (Charging for checked baggage is an economic issue, not a weight issue.) Therefore, an airplane not going very far with "only" people for W&B is not much of a problem.

 

I wondered about that as I was writing my post. Not ever having needed to do a W&B for an airliner, it was interesting hypothesizing about how passengers actually fit into the equation. I appreciate the information.

 

Personally, I don't believe you can cram enough people into an aircraft, standing or otherwise, to get the price down to $15 for a flight from LGA to DCA (and make money). Those kinds of fares have to be loss leaders.

 

I wonder if they are seeing a different percentage of the total revenue from the flight being derived from things like mail or freight. Also suppose, for example, that they could get 200 passengers on a 737-600. At $15 each for a one-hour flight, that would represent $3K in revenue. What's the hourly operating costs for that plane -- something in the neighborhood of $5K??? If freight, mail, etc. add any reasonable portion to the total revenue, they might be able to make things work out. And perhaps it would actually be a model that had something like business class plus a standing-room-only coach class, so they could continue to capture the business class fares?

 

Another FAR issue would be cabin attendants. There have to be enough, not to serve you your favorite beverage, but enough to evacuate the aircraft in an emergency. More crew, more pay, more cost to make the flight.

 

Oh, yeah, I think it would have to be a different model. But even adding a few more FAs would probably only add a few hundred dollars, at most, to the cost of operating a one-hour flight. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are other FAR issues that would come up, too.

 

A good benefit would be to a tendency to eliminate thrombosis aka DVT.

 

Generally speaking, this whole thing seems to me a publicity stunt such as hiring a midget to play baseball in order to get a "walk".

 

Best regards,

KMEM

 

 

BG

[KMEM]

BG-

 

I don't disagree with your suppositions. As a "silly" example, a 747-400ER which in a military emergency carried about 1,000 passengers for a short flight. This aircraft still could have put on 300,000 pounds of fuel and/or cargo assuming 200 pounds per passenger. Assuming 100,000 pounds of fuel for a 1-2 hour flight + reserves, that still left around 200,000 pounds for "stuff". I can't imagine putting more than 1,000 passengers in a 747-400, standing or otherwise. Still, not so sure there is money to be made doing all this, unless the "cargo" is extremely valuable.

 

Thanks for your post.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[Isis123]

Ryanair do not carry cargo.

For the moment, their "plan" is just a publicity stunt and should not be taken seriously.

[+ purplekow]

It looks to me more like you are leaning than standing. It really doesnt look that uncomfortable as long as there is enough personal space. NY to Boston or DC would be okay. Any further and I would still rather get my fat ass in those cramped seats.

[Steven_Draker]

You've got to love this ...

 

Ryanair is now charging passengers for lavatory use (for short flights that is) :o

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-29076-SF-World-Travel-Examiner~y2010m4d7-Ryanair-going-ahead-with-plans-to-charge-passengers-to-use-the-restroom

 

Cheers,

[Steven_Draker]

Ryanair safety card

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3308/3334911529_672cd5fd4f_o.jpg

[Boston Guy]

BG-

 

I don't disagree with your suppositions. As a "silly" example, a 747-400ER which in a military emergency carried about 1,000 passengers for a short flight. This aircraft still could have put on 300,000 pounds of fuel and/or cargo assuming 200 pounds per passenger. Assuming 100,000 pounds of fuel for a 1-2 hour flight + reserves, that still left around 200,000 pounds for "stuff". I can't imagine putting more than 1,000 passengers in a 747-400, standing or otherwise. Still, not so sure there is money to be made doing all this, unless the "cargo" is extremely valuable.

 

Thanks for your post.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

 

Thanks. I always enjoy hearing your perspective on these questions.

 

BG

[+ Charlie]

Having recently spent more than nine hours in an excruciatingly uncomfortable economy seat on an Alitalia 767, I would not mind at all standing for a one hour flight--if it really took only that long, and not a couple more hours loading, taxiing, waiting on the tarmac, unloading, etc. After all, I have watched longer operas in Standing Room at the Met.