Read the forum code of contact
By: - 18th August 2005 at 16:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Eh????? :confused:
Could you expand on that a bit? I'm confused as to what you're actually asking here.
By: - 18th August 2005 at 17:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What?
Do you mean have aisles down the side of the aircraft and all seats in the middle? If so, then folk would have to squeeze by lots of other pax, just to get to an aisle.
Or, do you mean have all seats like a bench - running so your left shoulder would be facing the cockpit and your right soulder facing the tail. Effectively facing Starboard, then have an aisle behind that and then another row behind the aisle.
I'm still laughing and your original post :-)
dme
By: - 18th August 2005 at 17:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes you best try and explain it a bit better.
But if I'm guessing right, something along the lines of rows of seats along the aircraft rather than across it? Not sure how well that would work in an accident, plus I'd rather be facing the way I'm going :)
Or if you mean have the aisles out the outer side of the cabin and seats in the middle, may only add to the sardine can effect, I don't think anyone would like to be anymore than 2 seats from the aisle. No problem on smaller aircraft, but as you get bigger...
Maybe I've misunderstood totally though.
By: - 18th August 2005 at 17:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well it seem that the way we have it is best. Passengers are already ocnfused enough. Imaine explaining to them that they are going to be sitting sideway. Imagine being asked how many in a row is it? well madam on out A321 today well have about 30-40 across.
By: - 18th August 2005 at 18:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Personally I think we should get away with the expense of seats...
...just strap everyone onto the floor!
(anyone know Mr Ryanair's address, I think I could get a job creating new cost-cutting ideas! :D )
By: - 18th August 2005 at 19:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Having read and then re-read this a number of times, I think what our esteemed poster is trying to ask is -
usually in a standard punter configuration on the likes of a 737 or A320 family jet (the sort we all know and love), why are all the seats in rows across the whole aircraft? Why, when you sit in a window seat can you see another five seats right across the plane to the other window? I think the question is about why the seat rows on each side of the aisle aren't staggered, so that the three seats on the port side are in line with the seat backs of the row on the starboard side?
If that's not what it's about, I haven't got a feckin clue what it can be :confused: Oh, and I have no idea (other than it wouldn't make any sense to do it) what the answer to the question might actually be :eek:
By: - 18th August 2005 at 21:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There was an article somewhere, a company has developed seats that step back from each other, so the 3rd seat in is so many inches back from the first seat. A little hard to explain, i will try to find the company's website.
By: - 18th August 2005 at 21:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is just one answer as to why the airlines use the seat layout they use. It saves them space. It may not be much, but in an airliner any inch is worth gold.
If airlines got a lot of spare inches they can add a row of seats. If only a handfull of inches are gained some economy class seats can be changed to first class seats. Simple as that.
Just look at the graph I made. All layouts are for 42 seats. You can see the different space requirement.
Note the difference between the first one (plane layout) and the second one (train layout). The difference in space used comes from a slightly larger space used for feet. Reason is quite obvious, people do not mind it, a lot, to sit with their knees against another chair. People do mind to sit with their knees against another person, so to counter that more space is required. If you visit a train you will see the same principle at work.
The third layout looses a lot of space because of the triple aisle. The center aisles is used only "half" as there are only seats on one side. To add to the inefficiency more space is needed at the front of the cabin so people can actually enter the aisles.
Another potential problem with the third layout (one which I did NOT add in the picture and would this make the space usage even worse) is that the arm rests would probably need to be larger. In the event of a crash the forces on the arm rests will be very large. The arm rests used nowadays are unlikely to absorb those stresses and will need to be strengthened.
I hope this is what you meant.
If you do want to save space in an airliner you can perhaps do so by installing "cinema style" pop-up chairs. By installing those it may be possible to make the footspace a bit smaller.
In particular near emergency exits this could be usefull as they require a set amount of walking space. By putting the chairs in their upright position the emergency exit aisle immediately gets a one foot increase!
These chairs are already widely used by air forces the world over, so certification should not be a problem.
By: - 19th August 2005 at 08:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Having read and then re-read this a number of times, I think what our esteemed poster is trying to ask is -
usually in a standard punter configuration on the likes of a 737 or A320 family jet (the sort we all know and love), why are all the seats in rows across the whole aircraft? Why, when you sit in a window seat can you see another five seats right across the plane to the other window? I think the question is about why the seat rows on each side of the aisle aren't staggered, so that the three seats on the port side are in line with the seat backs of the row on the starboard side?
If that's not what it's about, I haven't got a feckin clue what it can be :confused: Oh, and I have no idea (other than it wouldn't make any sense to do it) what the answer to the question might actually be :eek:
Yes, that is right. Sorry if I could not get it as clear first time.
It would not lose much space overall to shift the whole seating on one side related to the other side. There are often partial rows in ends of aircraft anyway, because of things like galleys, lavatories, storage etc. placed asymmetrically.
So, the other posters say that the train-like, "club" seating takes up more space? People want more space between their knees and the knees of someone seated opposite than between their knees ant the seat back of next seat?
Perhaps, for privacy reasons. Obviously, the reasoning may change if you are travelling together - in a row, a person only has 2 neighbours in a middle seat, or 1 neighbour in a window or aisle seat.
Then again, not all prefer club seating, as mentioned above, and club seating has problems with seatback recline. (Plus, back-facing seats are less favoured.)
Can seat pans slide forward? It is a constant nuisance anyway to have a seat back of a stranger reclined into your legroom. If a seat could recline by sliding forward then the back could remain at about the same place when reclining. So, reclining only uses up your own legroom and does not affect the passenger behind (But it does still affect the passengers further from the aisle).
Is seating with moving seat pans much heavier or much less safe than the one with fixed seat pans? The ability to guarantee legroom irrespective of others reclining would be a big plus. And of course, the fixed back would also simplify sitting back-to-back in club seating.
Also, it would make sense to put club seating at the exits. You would immediately double the legroom available for exits - recline does not matter because seats before exits should not recline into exits anyway - you would get twice the number of exit row passengers at hand to handle the exit and for a good measure, you could have one or both the exit row seat pans fold up to get even wider exits.
By: - 19th August 2005 at 11:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If people are facing each other in seats then the person who has there back to the front of the aircraft is going to have a very hard time on take off to stop him going towards the back of the aircraft with only a waist seat belt to stop him. It works on trains and buses becaue they dont climb several thousand feet in a minute!
By: - 19th August 2005 at 12:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another thing that just popped in my mind.
Seats that face backwards are heavier then seats facing forwards. Don't ask me for specifics, but it has to do with the way they are attached to the floor.
These seats are available, the RAF use them on their transport fleet, but because of the added weight airlines do not like them. That's a pity as these seats are safer then forward facing seats, which is exactly the reason why the RAF use them.
By: - 22nd August 2005 at 10:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If people are facing each other in seats then the person who has there back to the front of the aircraft is going to have a very hard time on take off to stop him going towards the back of the aircraft with only a waist seat belt to stop him. It works on trains and buses becaue they dont climb several thousand feet in a minute!
But what about landing? What stops people from sliding forward during landing, unless they keep their seets reclined on landing?
By: - 22nd August 2005 at 12:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aren't you supposed to keep your seat-belt fastened during landing? :D
By: - 22nd August 2005 at 12:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aren't you supposed to keep your seat-belt fastened during landing? :D
Sure, but:
the person who has there back to the front of the aircraft is going to have a very hard time on take off to stop him going towards the back of the aircraft with only a waist seat belt to stop him. It works on trains and buses becaue they dont climb several thousand feet in a minute!
So, is a waist belt closed but seat back upright sufficient to stay in a seat that faces backward on takeoff, or in a seat facing forward on landing?
Or is it necessary to recline the seat back in a forward-facing seat on landing, so as not to topple into the forward seat back?
By: - 22nd August 2005 at 12:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If people are facing each other in seats then the person who has there back to the front of the aircraft is going to have a very hard time on take off to stop him going towards the back of the aircraft with only a waist seat belt to stop him. It works on trains and buses becaue they dont climb several thousand feet in a minute!
I once flew in a rear-facing seat in a Southwest Airlines 737-300 - for some reason , the penultimate row of seats faced backwards. You do tend to be pitched forwards on take-off , but only for a short time , and the seatbelt does hold you in. I had a window seat and , on rotation , you briefly get an interesting close-up view of the runway speeding past a few feet away before you start climbing.
By: - 22nd August 2005 at 19:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think they should be in circles, confuse evry body
Great topic
Posts: 1,101
By: chornedsnorkack - 18th August 2005 at 16:18
Can someone explain why aircraft seating rows normally go across the plane? Is it easier or safer to use an aisle if the seat across the aisle is located besides the seat on the other side, rather than between the seats on the other side of the aisle?