Spring Airlines of China is making a request to regulators to permit the reconfiguration of its aircraft to include standing-room “seating.”

When I first saw this, I had to check the calendar to make sure it really was July 1, not April 1. But sure enough, it’s being picked up by news services and MSNBC.

The standing jet could accommodate 40% more passengers compared to a traditional plane. It could also help airlines cut 20% of their costs, while lowering airfares for consumers.

Mr Wuan added: “It’s just like bar stools. The safety belt is the most important thing. It will still be fastened around the waist.” The airline would need government backing to go ahead with the plans. But Spring Airlines president Wang Zhenghua said that he was confident because the idea had been suggested by China’s vice premier Zhang Dejiang.

“He suggested that, for a lower price, passengers should be able to get on a plane like catching a bus, with no seat, no luggage consignment, no food, no water, but very convenient,” said Mr Zhenghua.

History really DOES repeat itself. Back in 2006, sketches of an Airbus-designed standing configuration were floated in the New York Times. Airbus backpedaled when outrage erupted, but the idea clearly survived. And Airbus is being named again in this latest iteration:

[Mr. Zhenghua] added that the company had consulted with Airbus, the company which built most of its aeroplanes, and had been told the proposals were safe. “So once the government approves it formally, we’ll try it,” he added.

My only disappointment is that Ryanair isn’t the one proposing this.

Here’s a visual from the last time this concept was floated. It still reminds me of “The Silence of the Lambs,” and the means of transporting Hannibal Lecter; I still chuckle with smug self-satisfaction at my labeling of this idea as “Hannibal Class” back in 2006.

(Hat tip to Marilyn Terrell)

Related:
- Think air travel is like riding the bus? Think subway.
- Standing room only: real or not?
- Short hops — May 2, 2006 — Standing seats (again), miles for dry cleaning, and more
- Posts tagged “Standing Seats” | Upgrade: Travel Better
- Looking backward: Airlines considering alternating forward and rear-facing seats

A Cambridge, Massachusetts independent designer has come up with some interesting alternative designs for inflight economy seating. The key concept: making use of the empty space that’s currently headroom.

Emil Jacob’s website offers a range of patent-pending design options, from double-decker business class to tiered economy class designs. The Boston Globe recently profiled Jacob and his designs.

“I was looking up at all the height, and I thought it was absurd that people are suffering down here,” Jacob said. “Just a couple of steps away there is a lot of space and comfort.”
[...]
He eventually came up with the “step seat principle.” It involves elevating alternate rows of seats, from one to five steps above the cabin floor, to give passengers more room to lean back in economy class and enough space in business class to lie down, either by sliding their legs under the seat in front of them or stretching out in pods stacked on top of each other – no sweater on the floor required.

Maybe some images would help… Here are some sketches of the concept:

For a premium economy seat, this is pretty good. Hey, you get a bed! And it’s a little more defined than the Lufthansa bunk bed proto-design.

Another of Jacob’s designs is a bit simpler, but makes use of vertical separation to expand legroom while keeping density high. The trick: Inserting a seven-inch platform in alternating rows. Very clever:

Yes, these concepts aren’t perfect. I can imagine the steps causing problems for some passengers, either during boarding, or in an emergency. And some of the designs could lead to a seat shell coming quite close to your face. But I like the way Jacob is thinking.

Airlines, take notice.

Related:
- Three people, six arms, four armrests: Can they coexist?
- Looking backward: Airlines considering alternating forward and rear-facing seats
- Lufthansa considering bunk-bed style sleeper seating in economy class

(images via Boston Globe and Jacob Innovations)

Not all airline seats are created equal. For those who understand this simple but important point, SeatGuru has been an invaluable resource for years. Rarely do I choose a seat without consulting the Seatguru charts first.

But now, the competing site SeatExpert has gotten a makeover. Is it finally the worthy competitor it promised to be, or is the ‘guru still the king?

Both of these sites have changed owners in recent years. SeatGuru was bought by TripAdvisor (part of Expedia, Inc.), and SeatExpert was bought by Randy Petersen’s Frequent Flyer Services, the onetime parent of the Flyertalk message boards, and the publisher of various websites related to travel (such as BoardingArea.com, which syndicates Upgrade: Travel Better content).

So which site is the champ?

The assessment:
Both sites use a similar color-coding scheme for indicating seat quality, and both focus on seat pitch (distance between rows), with a secondary emphasis on proximity to toilets and galleys. SeatExpert cleverly figures out which aircraft configuration you’ll be flying, which is a nice feature. But while SeatExpert has offered some good improvements on the usability front, it still doesn’t have the breadth of information that SeatGuru does. Consult both. But if you choose only one, choose SeatGuru.

Depth and Breadth
For starters, the number of airlines covered is significantly different. SeatExpert lists aircraft from 57 different airlines. SeatGuru has 84 airlines in its database.

Within airlines, there’s some variation too. One site may list 5 aircraft for an airline, while another may list 8. Or the aircraft listed may be different: For example, SeatGuru and SeatExpert both list 6 seatmaps for Aeroflot, but SeatGuru lists two different Ilyushin IL 96-300’s, while SeatExpert doesn’t have any. Instead, SeatExpert maps a broader range of Boeing 767’s. If you’re not traveling domestically on one of the major US airlines, you’ll want to browse to both sites.

Display
I find SeatGuru’s visual design more elegant, overall. Not only is it relatively “clean,” and generally conveys information more effectively. For example, passengers who like window seats should check to see that they’re not sitting in a row with a misaligned window. SeatGuru typically marks those seats in yellow, with an explanation when you hover over with your mouse. On SeatExpert, misaligned windows are noted with a tiny, easy-to-miss red line on the fuselage. The seat itself might still be highlighted in bright green, indicating a good seat, though it could really stink. The warning about the window is visible when you hover over, but SeatExpert’s color coded warnings aren’t strong enough.

To be fair, SeatGuru has some inconsistencies as well. A seat that’s got a ton of legroom but that’s close to the galley might be green and yellow on one plane, but simply green on another.

While I prefer SeatGuru’s graphics overall, SeatExpert’s categories for critiquing seats are more in-depth. One seat could have seven or eight commentaries. I particularly like comments like, “You will be one of the last from this cabin off the plane and through immigration.” Another one for queasy fliers, is “Beware that the back of the plane has more sideways motion.”

For the most part, the information is comparable when comparing apples to apples. But there are almost always minor differences. Here’s a head-to-head analysis of the same seat (80A on a Qantas A380):

What SeatExpert lacks in depth, it attempts to make up for with a search engine. You enter the airline you’re flying, the route, and the date of departure, and it looks to see which equipment the airline is using on your route. This is very handy. You don’t need to figure out what model aircraft you’re on, which many travelers aren’t quick to notice. The search engine is not 100% correct, but it’s very close.

What’s missing?
One factor that’s missing from both sites — and which may be the Holy Grail of seat selection — is the comfort level of the seats themselves. I received an e-mail from a reader recently, which addressed this precise point:

…being a 6′4″ person I noticed that 32inch pitch on KLM is not the same as 32inch pitch on, say, United. One seat might feel comfy and roomy, while the other might feel horrible. Is there a site that rates seats using some measure of “comfort”? Should there be?

Yes, there should be. But there’s nothing really systematic out there like that. Yet. It would be tough to do, admittedly, and you’ll find comfort variation from plane to plane for the very same seat. But you can still generalize, based on seat design and features. Yes, there are the Skytrax seat ratings, but they focus primarily on seat pitch, rather than comfort. You can sift through review after review describing the comfort on an individual flight, but it’s not organized effectively.

So, at the end of the day, there’s an opportunity here for an entrepreneurial spirit to bring these valuable user-generated data sources together into a graphically-accessible format.

The bottom line:
When it comes to searching for a good seat, I’m still starting with SeatGuru because of their coverage of more airlines and cleaner interface. But if I don’t know the equipment the airline is using on my flight, or if SeatGuru doesn’t have the aircraft I need in its database, I’ll run it through SeatExpert. And I’ll keep hoping for one of these sites (or a third competitor) to add seat quality and comfort to the calculus someday soon.

Yesterday, United Airlines joined the majority of its peers and announced a new policy for passengers who can’t fit into a single seat. The irony of the fact that this news hit the wires on the same day I posted on the new “Slimline” seats is not lost on me. But in the end, the question remains: Why is this a controversy?

United’s policy doesn’t break any new ground for the industry. Southwest has had a policy like this for years: If you can’t fit into a single seat with the armrests down, you need to buy a second seat.

The only countervailing tendency is in Canada, where a one-person, one-fare rule was recently enforced by the courts.

These policies aren’t new at most other airlines, either. But they weren’t really well-publicized. SmarterTravel did the legwork a few months ago and ran a rundown. The still-active policies are reprinted below:

* American: Passengers over 250 pounds should recognize that there may be limitations to the service that the airline can provide. However, it does not require that you purchase an extra seat automatically.
* Midwest: Like Southwest, passengers are encouraged to know their needs in advance. If staff determine that two seats are required, the seat will be sold at the lowest possible fare, with a refund available if there is one or more open seats on the flight.
[...]
* Air France: Passengers with “high body mass” may receive a 25 percent discount on an extra seat, knowing that if they choose to not buy the seat, they may risk not being able to fly.
* JetBlue: You are required to buy a second seat, and there are no refunds.
* Delta: The airline “works to accommodate” passengers with special needs. Upon request and availability, it will try to make sure the next seat is unoccupied. However, if the plane is full, you will most likely be asked to leave the flight and buy a second seat on the next available flight. (You can actually count on this being a fairly typical practice on most airlines.)

United was doing three things when it announced the policy.
1) First, it got a policy, period. Previously, there was none.
2) Second, UA’s policy wisely follow’s Southwest’s standard: If the armrests don’t go all the way down, you’re infringing on your neighbor and need to buy another seat. This is far more sensible than simply calling an affected passenger “obese” or “overweight,” or applying an arbitrary or difficult to enforce cutoff like 250 lbs. or a “high body mass index.” Armrests are an easily-tested and functionally-relevant standard. Thumbs up.
3) Third, United made it a publicly-visible policy. The other airlines had policies (or at least consistent practices) in place, but didn’t have the courage to publish them on their websites or in their contract of carriage. Transparency is good.

The problem with transparency is that it opens the airline to criticism from those who find such policies objectionable. (As a passenger who fits between the armrests, and enjoys their use, I approve of the change. I realize that those whose bodies spill over the 17 or 18″ of seat width are not trying to impose on their neighbors. But face it, sometimes they do.)

Perhaps another airline will try a different tactic. Melissa Lafsky offers the following alternative:

…but what about the possibility of rewarding socially “good” behavior rather than punishing “bad”? There’s always offering skinny people ticket discounts, priority boarding, more preference on seat assignments—or even letting them sell part of their seat space to larger passengers.

I’m offering an inch of room for $100 per hour in-seat. Any takers? Cash only.

United Airlines will “test [their] U.S. domestic customers’ acceptance of a new economy-class seat” later this month, when a Boeing 757 gets outfitted with a new economy seat design. The plane, with “Slimline Seats” will go into service later this month.

Thanks to an e-mail forwarded to me by a reader of this site, we’ve got UA’s internal-company pitch of the new seats:

New features of the modified B757 include:

* four additional economy-class seats
* leather seat covers in both classes of service, United First and United Economy
* in-seat power available in both classes of service
* life vests installed for all passengers and crew members (given that the seat cushions are not floatable in the new design)
* brand-new seat cushions

The new, slimmer seats have 40 percent fewer parts, making them easier for Maintenance to service, and they are of a lighter weight. In addition, the passenger control units which are typically placed on the tops of the armrests are located on the sides of the seats for a smoother armrest surface.

Literature pockets on the new seats are located above the tray tables, opening up additional personal space surrounding the knees and legs. A smaller, mesh pocket is available lower down on the seat to hold incidentals such as PDAs or eyeglasses.

The test aircraft will enter modification at Timco in Greensboro, N.C., on April 18 and is scheduled to return to service this month. Testing will be conducted for 60 to 90 days to determine customer response.

The aircraft is flying as nose number 5493 today; it will be renumbered 5093 after the modification.

Squeezing four more seats into the 757? I’m trying to figure out how that will work on the seatmap.

Inseat power in both cabins is a good thing, as long as it doesn’t require en EmPower or other adapter.

Reconfiguration of the seatback pocket to provide more room at the knees sounds good, too.

The big risk? Butt and back support. These 757s fly cross-country, and a thinner seat means less padding. (The seat cushions are no longer a floatation device…) Materials science has admittedly come a long way since these planes were last outfitted, so the slimmer seat may be equal to the existing, well-worn seats. But passengers should hope for an upgrade, not a lateral.

And that’s where the phrasing of the announcement worries me. “Testing customers’ acceptance” of the new seats doesn’t sound like the kind of thing you say when there’s an improvement at hand.

Photos of the new seat below (admittedly small pics, but they’re all I can get at the moment.) I enjoy the way the seats are untethered from the confines of an aircraft cabin, and have a backdrop of staircases and shrubbery…

Reader, frequent commenter, and man of many strongly-held opinions, From the Mind of J, has had it with the disparity between arms and armrests on commercial airlines. He’s had it with sharing armrests, if by “sharing” we mean “giving up your portion of the armrests due to an especially aggressive seatmate.”

Help may be on the way… slowly. Airlines and seat manufacturers have been floating alternative designs that offer more armrest privacy, either with alternating rear-facing seats, or with staggered rows.

But those designs are radical reconfigurations of the existing airline architecture, instead of simpler add-ons to the existing space.

So J has come up with his own design that amends what we’re already used to, by adding on a double-decker armrest. As an added “bonus,” his design comes complete with a profanity-laden description.

Here’s the basic concept:

I’m reminded of the brilliant “Open Letter to the Infrequent Traveler” and its depictions of armrest wars, from the all-too-rarely-updated consultant-centric blog, “Getting Drunk in First Class.”

The challenge to J’s solution is arm height: You don’t want your arms resting too high, or too low, or else it’s just not comfortable. But at least you’d be in your own space.

Would this work? Would this be something you’d want to see in action? Vote!

(reading this via the feed?…click here to vote on the site.)

If there’s one airline that continually and consistently ticks off customers, filling my inbox with nearly-identical tales of piss-poor customer service, it’s Spirit. Whether it’s their “club,” their automatic opt-in for travel insurance, or their CEO’s screw-the-customer attitude, customers love to complain about Spirit.

Here’s another reason for them to complain. Reserving your seats in advance now costs you money, with prices varying according to location. It’s not just the front of the plane, or the exit rows, either:

Spirit Airlines now charges its passengers for online seat selection as part of a new policy that took effect May 30. Customers have to fork over $5 for a middle seat, $10 for an aisle, and $15 for a window.

Windows cost more than aisles??! Okay…

But $5 for a middle seat that’s pre-reserved? This might only make sense if you’re traveling with a partner who already paid the $10 or $15 for their seat. Otherwise, you might as well save your money, take your chances, and get seats assigned at check-in.

But if you’re flying on Spirit in the first place, knowing about how dismal their customer service is, taking risks must be right up your alley.

(image)

US Airways, dead-set on reminding Americans why they should dislike air travel with a passion, and insistent on making the movement from point A to point B just a smidge tackier, adopts Northwest’s 2006 “innovation” of charging a fee for aisle or window seats.

They’re even borrowing the name. Northwest called it “Coach Choice.” US Airways is calling it “Choice Seats”… in coach.

Sure, it’s not every aisle and every window, just the front rows. Sure, elite frequent flyers in the US Airways program get to reserve the seats for free. And sure, if the plane is full and there aren’t suckers willing to pay the extra fee ahead of time, anyone and everyone will get those seats anyway.

But let’s be clear: These aren’t perks. There’s no extra legroom. And these sure aren’t business or first class seats. They’re just regular seats.

For those who are shocked — shocked! — at this new policy, don’t forget that this isn’t a new idea. Sure, when Northwest did this two years ago I expressed my disdain. But that was two years ago. We’re all more jaded now, so I’ll just sigh in resignation.

The value of this program will honestly be minimal for most travelers. Sure, it’s nice to sit in front so you can get off the plane faster, but the front of US Airways economy is not a different seat, as it is on United, so you’re not getting much for your money. So instead of sitting in row 7, you can sit in row 14. Big deal.

The real losers here are other Star Alliance airlines’ elites, who might have gotten these seats for free earlier. But again, it’s not a free upgrade. It’s not a meaningful perk.

So if it’s a perk not worth caring about, why would it be a perk worth paying for?…

Simple. It’s not.

Related:
- Finding decent seats without paying the extra fee
- Northwest to elite members: Drop dead
- Yes sir, I’d just love to pay extra for an aisle seat with no extra legroom!

Upgraded: Evidence that airlines are unwilling to break the status quo
The Air Transport Association, fresh off its successful lawsuit that overturned the Passenger Bill of Rights in New York, is threatening to sue the Department of Transportation over the proposed introduction of congestion pricing at the busiest U.S. airports. The airlines will do what they can to stop the proposal, they say. So what’s the airlines’ solution to overbooked airports? Cue the crickets…

Upgraded: Olympic condoms
With the summer games coming up, Chinese hotels are stocking up on condoms. Yes, really. “The condoms shall not be used as evidence of prostitution and whoring.” Well thank goodness! But will they be found in the minibar?

Downgraded: Commemorative British Airways newsletters
Upgraded: FedEx
Five years, and billions of capital spent, and the Terminal 5 fiasco at London Heathrow continues to be a headache for all involved. Last week’s grand opening of the posh new terminal was marred by the now well-publicized luggage handling failure. 20,000 checked bags still need to be reunited with their owners, and British Airways is calling in the cavalry: FedEx. Another reason that BA has decided to scrap a commemorative in-house newsletter celebrating the terminal opening.

Upgraded: Single travelers in Delta coach
Downgraded: Ghetto upgraders
Delta is buying Thompson Solutions’ “Cozy Suites” for its widebody jets, to be installed in 2010. The seats are a little odd, with a staggered configuration with no two people sitting precisely next to each other. More armrest space is one perk with this approach. Good for solo travelers, bad for couples and families. But even worse for anyone hoping to get a “ghetto upgrade” — an entire row of seats to oneself, allowing you to lift the armrests and stretch across. It’s also somewhat reminiscent of the alternating forward-backward-forward seating that was floated just about a year ago. But it’s thinking differently, and I like that. (via Cranky)

Leave it to folks at the Fermilab, whose research typically involves high-speed particle acceleration, to rethink the ways in which commercial airlines board their jets. High speed particles… high speed boarding! Sure, why not.

Jason Steffen went on NPR last week to discuss his latest research, which had nothing to do with protons or electrons, except as they’re contained within the body of a rollaboard-toting passenger. Steffen argues that “lining up passengers whose seat assignments are two rows apart and boarding them from the back of the plane to the front — then repeating for the other rows — is the most efficient way of getting passengers onto a plane.”

The key is creating space in the aisle to allow passengers to stow away luggage in overheard bins.

Steffen’s study also yielded another potentially surprising finding: that boarding passengers randomly is significantly faster than the traditional method of simply boarding them from back to front.

So, if speed is the goal, airlines should either try alternate-row boarding, or just give up and kick it Ryanair style.

Those seeking to geek out on the full article can find it here.

Faster boarding makes airlines happy. After all, faster turnaround means planes spend less time on the ground, thereby ensuring better capital utilization. And as long as it doesn’t feel like you’re being herded in like cattle, faster boarding makes customers happy, too.

The alternating-rows concept makes a lot of sense. Then again, so did front-and-rear boarding, windows-first boarding, back-to-front boarding, open seating, and the “reverse pyramid.” So which airline will be the first to try alternating rows?

(image)