It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Boeing Wants to Make Sure Your Comfy.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 04:03 AM
Heh, been flying a lot lately, on a local carrier.

They use the 737 aircraft. I don't think on of these would fit on there, considering I consider this a sardine plane, there isn't enough elbow room even for me to relax, let alone sleep.

Glad my flights are only 2 hours, roughly. Small price to pay for the good company I go visit two states over from me.

I'm just glad as long as it's a semi-smooth flight, and the plane makes it safely in one piece.

posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 04:09 AM
a reply to: Sammamishman
Just add 12 inches in front and 6 inches on the side of each seat and I think everyone would be pretty comfy. Seems like airplanes are built for the malnourished people from 100's of years ago and not modern well fed humans.

Not saying we are fat (which we are =) ) I am saying the statistics for human size used must be dated from a time before Walmart and McDonalds.

posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 04:51 AM

originally posted by: caterpillage
I guess I don't fly often enough, every time I do I'm too glued to the window looking at the view to even think about sleeping lol. I don't think I would ever get bored with that.

hmm guess you have never been on a long distance or night flight. i too love looking out the window (heck last flight i took over 100 pictures lol), but at night there is not much to look at. not to mention annoying stewardesses coming around and telling you, you have to shut the blind (especially when there is light out). but even though i do like looking out, on a 20+ hour flight it would be nice to be able to sleep. at least sleep helps dealing with the fact you haven't been able to have a butt for most of a day. i don't really see this enabling you to sleep though.

posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 04:51 AM
Cygnis uses JANET airlines to get to work at Area 51, you heard it here first

I think I'd have a panic attack sleeping with these contraptions, I'd permanently feel like I was being smothered. Give me a pillow to put against the seat in front and I'll be happy. And not dead

posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 07:38 AM
a reply to: crayzeed
I honestly dont think you thought that rant through did you?
I agree that the recline function is minimal and can encroach on those behind you but manufacturers are in a bind because that is what their customers (airlines) want.

As for the comments about seat width such as

Make the seats 24 inches minimum width. That will stop all you thin people bitching as a 24 inch seat width would be super luxery....
Yes and with it a super luxury price, space isn't free on an airliner. Plus whats with the thin people whinge?

Make the aisle width suitable so that IF your foot is outside your seat the trolley dollies are not constantly running over your foot
Yes the aisles are tight but you are supposed to use common sense and keep your foot away from the bar cart. Its a walkway not a lounge area, space isn't free on an 80 million dollar aircraft.

The ultimate one,stop bitching about fat people and luggage being heavy. The planes are designed and built with this weight factor in mind. The ONLY reason you don't like it is because the heavier the plane the more fuel you use, it has nothing to do with safety and all to do with your profits.

NO, how about obese people stop asking the majority of society to make concessions to them? Airline seats are generally designed to fit the 90% percentile human. Airlines have already been forced to increase their weight calculations in a number of countries due to spreading waistlines. Originally the average was 70kg's it is now 77kg's per pax, the same goes for the idiots who think carry on luggage means anything they can physically carry rather than engaging commonsense, not to mention common decency towards fellow travelers. Well of course the airline doesn't like increased weights, they change weight and balance calculations and increase fuel burn, which increases costs, which increases ticket prices, one of the things here you are "bitching" about ultimately. "Nothing to do with safety"? Really, are you stupid or trying to be provocative? Last year in this country we almost had a disaster because somebody failed to mention to the flight crew during briefing that the back half of the 737-800 they were flying was mostly school children who weighed an average of 25-30kg's less each than an adult so the aircraft's nose couldn't unstick till the very last minute on takeoff because the weight and balance calculations were wrong. THAT is the ultimate reason we need to know how much you and your extra baggage weigh and why weight increases are not a good thing for anyone.

As for the idea of increasing seat widths and "throw" (you meant seat pitch) to make somebody feel better about themselves being overweight well sure we can do that. And let me tell you what kind of impact that will have on your ticket prices. We will take the 737-800 as an example. My company has the majority of its 800's in a 2 class arrangement of 156 economy and 12 business. That's 26 rows of economy in a 3+3 with a 30" pitch and they are 17.2" wide. Business is 3 rows in 2+2, ignore the business class altogether in this. Using your numbers we end up with over 5 rows less and if you stay with the same width aisle you were complaining is too narrow, with a 24" width we end up with only a 2+2 arrangement. Running those numbers you go from 156 economy seats down to 84. That's at least 40% less which means your ticket price just jumped up by at least that much. Are you seriously proposing that most people would be happy with that kind of price rise? The seats may suck but people vote with their wallets and credit cards rather than worrying about comfort. That wont stop them from complaining about it but you cant have your cake and eat it too. As for your misguided end statement, as I hinted earlier the Boeing's and Airbus's of the world are giving their customers (airlines) what they want which is more seats. They in turn are driven by their customers (passengers) wants who put lowest possible cost above comfort. Did you realize that in many cases the per seat kilometer cost on popular routes is actually equal to or less than what it would cost you to drive your car the same journey? Airlines operate on paper thin margins so this isn't a case of BS as you believe.


edit on 8-4-2015 by thebozeian because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:13 PM
a reply to: thebozeianI don't think you realised my post was mostly sarcasm as there is a snowball in hells chance that Boeing would even think of any of my suggestions. In fact it was a proper BS answer to a proper BS suggestion that Boeing came out with.
I think you come out of the US as the Uk is somewhat different. I was once a frequent short haul flyer and let me tell you the BS that comes out of our carriers. For a start the majority of flights out of the Uk are economy and I don't know one airline that has a seat throw over 27 inches, they boast that they do but that's a lie.
As for the weight issue, over 10 years ago ALL carriers out of the UK gave everyone 30kgs hold luggage plus unweighed carry on for free with the ticket at minimal cost. Now most are down to 15kgs and some only 10kgs all of which you now have to pay for (that's why people are now going for only carry on only). Now most airlines are getting switched on to this trick and are starting to charge for carry on.
So in overall answer to your post, YES, it's ALL about profit so cut the Boeing BS that it's about our comfort.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in