Airbus wants to patent the most uncomfortable plane seats ever

[MADem]

...Its cushions are shaped liked bicycle saddles, and when the seats aren't being used, they fold vertically to save space. Cutting down all that "bulk," as the patent application puts it, lets you do a lot more with the limited real estate on board.

This could potentially make air travel even more economical than it already is. If you're willing to put up with it — and most people would be, Airbus predicts, so long as the flights are short — it'd be far more efficient than the way we currently fly, loading huge metal-and-plastic contraptions onto planes just so they can cradle our fleshy rear ends.

But if you squint, the thing looks more like a medieval torture device than lounging equipment. Not to mention all the features you'd lose: Do people eat from their laps? Plug headphones into that pipe-shaped thing? Do the cushions float? And even with all the leg room it looks like you'd open up, reclining looks practically impossible.

Airbus openly acknowledges that packing more passengers on board is going to result in reduced comfort, and that the goal is basically to figure out how far they can go without inciting an airborne revolt....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/14/airbus-wants-to-patent-the-most-uncomfortable-plane-seats-ever/?tid=trending_strip_2

Where are the flippin' seat belts???

[Historic NY]

1. They don't look so safe do they...

its about packing as many people as it can into a sardine can.

[MADem]

5. Not my idea of a good time.

Hell, if they're gonna pack us in, I'd rather they put us in hammocks and stack us up that way--at least we could sleep!!!

[pinboy3niner]

7. That image is much like how Medevac planes transport patients

The military has to move a lot of patients through the medical evac chain back to the States. So patients are transported on cots or stretchers stacked two deep.

At least, I guess they're probably still doing it pretty much the same as they used to. I had an "upper" from Japan back to Travis AFB in CA.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Yes but most Medevac patients can't sit up in seats, so cots or stretchers are nesscessary,

The same can't be said for the general paying public.

I have no doubt that should a plane like this crash, the fatality and injury rate would be much higher, there is simply no padded protection whatsoever nor room to assume any decent crash position.

If these guys were toy salesmen, I imagine they would be marketing "Bags of Glass."

[MADem]

22. Actually those are British Navy hammocks--I picked that pic because they do a much better job

at making up their hammocks than USN ever did!

They're capable of stacking 'em three high these days--note in this pic that not all of the stretchers have boots in 'em--some have suitcases and assorted "stuff" ... but if they had to, it would look like junior enlisted berthing back in the old days of the Navy!

[dipsydoodle]

2. Reducing the front to back space the seat occupies

will automatically reduce overhead locker space too aside from reducing floor space to almost nil..

I'll vote for that. Those with too much cabin luggage are complete fucking nuisances

[MADem]

3. I can sleep sitting up. I can't sleep on a bicycle!

No AIRBUS for me!

[Historic NY]

6. They will be adding pedals next to save fuel...

its a plot.

[Brigid]

8. You win the thread.

[MADem]

14. OMG, you are hilarious!!! I agree, thread winner!!! nt

[customerserviceguy]

11. If they stopped charging for checked in luggage

You'd see a drop in cabin luggage. Think about it, when did the problem start getting bad? When baggage fees went into effect.

And these "seats" are complete nonsense. As far as I'm concerned, Airbus already has the worst airline seat.

[MADem]

15. I agree. I like the First Bag Free airlines.

I guess the FAA hasn't approved a "seat" that requires the customer to support themselves upright, so we're safe in the near term.

[pinboy3niner]

4. And the floggings will continue until passenger morale improves

Actually, it looks like Airbus is filing a whole slew of conceptual designs for patents, though few--if any--of them will ever see further development.

[MADem]

16. I sometimes wonder if it can get any worse! nt

[AngryAmish]

9. Steely Dan

[bettydavis]

10. as a DVT survivor I don't think this is funny...

coach travel is not just ridiculously uncomfortable it can kill you. 6 months of blood thinner and injections due to a blood clot and I KNOW it started with the bruises I had on my knees and sides from sitting in a cramped seat for an over 15 hr flight. People cannot travel this way. thank god I was in London and had access to the NhS. they gave me ALL of my meds for 6 months. and only after two weeks of treatment did they say "hey you're not a citizen we kinda have to charge you" the charge was $150. I was like GLADLY! My meds alone would have cost 4 times that for 3 months.

[MADem]

17. You wouldn't be in one of these for a 15 hour flight

The idea (and they haven't been approved by the FAA) is that they would be used for shorter flights. They've been flogging this idea for years. Most passengers give them the Big Eff Ewwwww when they're floated. I don't think people are thrilled about standing for ten minutes, never mind a half hour to an hour and a half.

Actually, you'd probably be better off in one of these than a regular seat in terms of preventing any kind of thrombosis. Your feet are on the floor, it's half way between standing and sitting, you can actually do a full 'stand' without feeling like you're going to fall back on your seat (because there IS no real seat--aaaggghhh!)--I'll wager there's a lot of toe tapping, shifting from one foot to the next, and getting up and going to the crapper just to get away from the seat!!!! Movement is the key to preventing those awful DVT things and I suspect anyone strapped into one of these would be very fidgety, indeed.

[MineralMan]

12. Most patents never see production. This is one of those.

Companies patent whatever they can, and you can bet that some elements of whatever is in this patent will be used to collect money from companies doing related things.

You'll never see this seating system in use on any commercial airliner.

Much ado about something that will never happen, IMO.

[MADem]

13. This isn't the first time I've seen this concept.

The problem is that the FAA hasn't approved them. Every passenger has to have a fully supporting berth/seat, and these things don't "fully" support. And of course, passengers HATE them.

An Italian company, Aviointeriors, has designed and patented what it calls a "stand-up" airline seat, and representatives from the company have told Travel Weekly that some airlines are interested in them. But don't panic at the media reports: You won't be using them anytime soon.

The spindly-looking seats, as you can see, do not force passengers to stand fully erect. Instead, they provide for a half-sitting, half-leaning carriage, although the feet must be on the floor for it to function as designed. The "pitch," or distance between the front of the seat and the back of the next row, is only 23 inches.

Aviointeriors proposes that airlines stuff as many "SkyRider" seats into cabins that maximum occupancy rules will allow, and charge a lower price for them than is charged for traditional seats.

...Could the FAA change its seating codes? Of course, but not without some uproar. In addition, packing more passengers onto airplanes could be deemed a safety risk, and at the very least most airlines would have to employ more flight attendants to supervise the safety of the additional people, and that costs money....

Here's another article, same topic, four years back: http://www.travelandleisure.com/travel-blog/carry-on/2010/9/10/stand-up-airplane-seats-in-the-news-again-will-likely-never-fly


I'd rather be put in the economy version of the "Air Lair" (they'd probably use stacked dog crates) than stand for the whole flight!

[pnwmom]

19. It would reduce leg room, not open it up. Those rows would be much closer together

than current rows. That's the whole point.

[MADem]

20. Yeah, but you aren't "sitting" with your knees out at ninety degrees--there is no "seat" taking up

all that "foot room"--you're essentially standing, with a bike seat to straddle and a back to lean up against. Even with the "footprint" of the seat cut by nearly half, you still have more "foot room." You'd also be putting pressure on your feet, which would lead to the shifting of weight I was talking about.

I'm not a fan of these things and I wouldn't line up to buy one, but you (by that I mean the "generic you&quot don't put a lot of weight on your feet when you're sitting in a regular seat, generally. Most of your weight is being supported by your behind and thighs--and that can "help" people get DVTs. These seats FORCE people to put weight on their feet and that is why the FAA hasn't approved them. The FAA says that a berth/seat must "support" the passenger, and these seats require that the passenger do some of the work supporting themselves.

[pnwmom]

21. Standing causes the blood to pool in your legs and that also increases DVTS.

What helps to avoid DVT's is being able to move around the cabin and, when sitting, to do certain foot and leg movements that would be impossible in these bike seats.

http://www.pdrhealth.com/diseases/blood-clots-deep-vein-thrombosis/treatment

Avoid prolonged sitting or standing in one position after being treated for DVT.

To reduce the risk of further episodes of DVT, avoid prolonged sitting or standing in one position. When you find yourself in an inactive or confined situation, flex your legs and feet periodically.

[MADem]

23. Anyone who could "sit" for a prolonged period of time strapped onto a bike seat would be a force

to reckon with, IMO. I'd be up and down and bouncing all over the place--it just wouldn't be comfortable for me. I wouldn't be in "one position" for more than minutes at a time.

The idea behind this concept, too, has no "prolonged" associated with it. They want to implement it for short flights only.

[pnwmom]

24. So planes on short routes never get delayed on the tarmac for hours? That's news to me. n/t

[MADem]

25. Well, the things haven't been approved by the FAA yet, and judging by the reception they're

getting it will be an uphill slog.

Actually, if planes are delayed for more than a specific period of time, the airlines have to let people get off if they want.

That said, these are not "substitutes" for coach seats. These are another class entirely--first, business, coach and ... serf, I suppose. The idea is to have a couple of rows of these to plus a plane up to max capacity. They look like a good option for young, thin people without a lot of disposable income.

[pnwmom]

26. The limit on the tarmac is 3 hours. I'd be ready for the loony bin by then, if I was

strapped into one of these bike seats.

The picture I saw had more than a couple of rows -- maybe 5. It was easy to imagine a whole plane filled up with these things.

Unfortunately, the young people who might be able to withstand these things aren't necessarily the poor people who might be desperate enough to accept one.

[pinboy3niner]

29. The FAA would likely reject the ones depicted for crashworthiness and survivability issues

Passenger seating is a safety issue that they take very seriously.

[MADem]

30. The RyanAir ones are even "better!" They have no seat!

They basically strap people to a bulkhead at a slight lean-back, so the people are standing between two armrests! There was a near-mutiny when they tried to roll out that proposal!

Mooooooo! Moooooo! Total cattle car!

[Live and Learn]

27. I'd pay about $1.50 to sit in one of those for a half-hour flight.

But I abhor flying these days anyway.

No way would I entertain the thought of sitting in those seats for over a half-hour. They would also have to guarantee that I wouldn't be stuck on the tarmac for over 5 minutes.

[Buns_of_Fire]

28. Why does this somehow remind me of Mr. Garrison's "IT" bike (from South Park)? nt