Submitted 20 hours ago by Talonflame@lemmy.cafe to [deleted]
Asking because I’m a disabled person with severe POTS and my heart has been recorded stopping after 35 minutes of being forced to stand up, so I absolutely couldn’t do a more than 30 minute flight if this is going to be the case. Thanks
It’s not happening. The company had to make a statement after the dailymail posted it’s bullshit the other day. Daily Mail had to publish a follow-up about it:
No
Not an April Fools joke, this was reported in media I read too in the last few days, ie not on April 1, eg nau.ch/…/billig-airline-soll-bald-stehplatze-anbi…
It’s still bull. This has been resurfacing routinely for years.
The Daily Mail had to post a followup to their own bullshit, where the designers states plainly that these are prototypes and not being used anywhere any time soon.
Would inclusivity to people with disabilities/medical safety be included in those regulations?
Depends. Is forcing airlines to have real seats considered woke and DEI? ^/s^
You’re right, but for those of us in the US I wouldn’t count on them having to comply with any regulations, safety or otherwise for much longer. The deportation planes will almost certainly have no seats because the cruelty is (part of) the point.
They will absolutely be a thing. The airlines will be forced to have seating for the disabled, and you should understand that they will try to make that as uncomfortable as possible.
If they could stack passengers like firewood, they would.
They’ll have a single disabled seat per 300 seats or something. And there are many people who are not officially disabled who wouldn’t be able to stand that long.
They will probably have a harness that is available for a fee, and harness extenders.
No. Severe turbulence happens once in a while, and the people standing at that time can get really injured. That’s why they tell you to stay seated with your belt on unless you’re going to the bathroom.
The standing seats op is talking about passed safety test. They include back support and belts.
Only for travellers with the Mrs Grace L Ferguson Airline (and Storm Door Company)
Realistically, no. Unless the airline also slashes the ticket prices in half, its just going to make them less popular than regular airline seats.
And even if they did manage to cram 2x more seats, there isnt enough space in the overhead lockers for 2x the luggage, so it just won’t work.
I think the overhead compartments would also have to be shrunk to accommodate the taller “seats.”
Yeah, further compounding the problem. And if standard carry-on luggage’s dont fit anymore, it’ll force more luggage into the hold, which will also run out of space. Unless there is a new plane built around the standing concept, I just can’t see it ever happening.
In Europe on airlines like Ryanair, definitely. I don’t know if I see them taking off in the US.
Idk with the US safety standards being a lot worse than European countries I wouldn’t be shocked if it comes here first. Especially to an airline like spirit
I just dont think you have as many short haul flights in the US where this sort of thing would not be as big of a deal.
No, they are not.
litchralee@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
Setting aside whether such seats are actively hazardous to passengers for anything more than a short-haul flight – they almost certainly are – we can fairly easily rule out the possibility based solely on one of the more important airline test criteria: evacuation time.
For all commercial passenger airliners, the primary limiting factor for economy seating is how to get everyone out of the airplane in an emergency situation within the stipulated time, in ideal circumstances. In the USA, that time is 90 seconds, based on research that the inferno post-crash due to ruptured fuel tanks would only allow the plane to remain intact for about two minutes. Front that article, the largest passenger jet in the world – the Airbus A380 – could evacuate 873 people through 16 doors on two dual-aisle decks. A typical short-haul, single-aisle Boeing 737 has only six doors and carries a maximum of 230 passengers with the still-being-certified 737 MAX 10 variant.
The benefit of having more doors and more aisles must not be understated, but even then, another limiting factor is takeoff weight. Using the 737 MAX 10 as an example, the difference between its empty weight and takeoff weight is some 40,000 pounds. But 230 people already makes around 20,000 pounds, so the aircraft already cannot be fully loaded with its intended 44,000 pound fuel capacity. Packing more people into this aircraft would steal even more capacity and leaving the aircraft unable to support transcontinental USA flights.
But supposing that was overcome, and flights with so-called standing seats were only about 2 hours long or so, the problem would be with seat durability during a crash scenario. Jet airlines seats are designed to absorb energy, since excessive G-forces would kill a human, well before any fire might get to them. A seat which relies on legs for vertical support would be unable to adequately absorb downward forces from a hard touchdown, nor from forces from hitting an obstacle or being rammed from behind. These two directions are what humans are best able to cope with, and a standing seat steals these benefits away.
Thus, a seat that complies with energy absorption requirements would be at least as thick as existing seatbacks, and would probably be thicker or heavier, further reducing available payload.
The only conceivable revenue service would be one where economy class uses so-called standing seats, in order to free up room for business or first-class seats, staying within the existing seat limits for existing aircraft. However, the time to board such an aircraft would be noticeably slower than with a conventional seat aircraft, so at some point, such an airliner would need to consider whether a stopped aircraft loading passengers is better value than an aircraft which can be quickly turned around for another flight segment.
All of these factors point to a technical inability to squeeze more passengers into less space. And remember that there’s no free lunch: a “standing” passenger frees up space between rows, but requires more height at each seat. At least from my experience, one cannot stand up in a conventional seat, without hitting the ceiling. How would a typical 5 ft 9 in (175 cm) American be able to use a “standing” seat safely?
I personally discount the possibility of “standing” seats deployed on existing and proposed aircraft, so it would be at least 10-20 years before we even see such a thing for revenue passenger aircraft.
QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Fantastic explanation and critical thinking process. Well done.
towerful@programming.dev 14 hours ago
That’s a great rundown with decent logic & examples behind each point.
I think the biggest point is the takeoff weight.
If the impact/evac/safety aspects can be addressed, the only way I can see it working is to add a “cattle class” that’s like $10 cheaper than current economy and has something like 40 “seats”.
Then increase the price of what is currently economy class by $10-20.
You lose $400 because of the new cheaper class, but gain $1,200 to $2,400 by increasing the price of economy (considering a 160 seat plane, and convert 40 seats to standing). So, net gain $800-2000. Let’s you advertise new cheaper fares, and the price increase isn’t hugely egregious when the 40 seats sell out instantly.
I guess it doesn’t work on less busy flights if only the 40 cheap seats sell
lemmylommy@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Evacuation time is not a problem. They can just put a trap door under each „seat“.
Blumpkinhead@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Now you’re in the cargo hold with the bags. Now what?