Why are they so miserable?
I found this interesting:
Brauer, a former Air Force officer and mechanical engineer, still has a lot to do with our in-flight comfort. He’s been researching it almost since he started at Boeing in 1979 and consults with airlines on how seat configurations balance comfort against the bottom line. His calculations largely led to the 777’s shift to three rows of three, from the “2-5-2” configuration, which allows everyone to have a free seat next to them when the plane is 67 percent full (versus 44 percent).
I’ve kvetched about this before, I’m sure [Googling…yup, here it is, in comments), but a big reason that I don’t like wide bodies is that the window/seat ratio is much lower on them, and I’m a window man. But at least with the 3-3-3, I can get a window and still have a decent chance of an empty seat next to me. That would almost never happen with a 2-5-2. I don’t know why this should have required a calculation, though. It seems pretty intuitively obvious that 3-3-3 is superior, just because a row of three seems preferable to a row of five. It puts everyone closer to an aisle, other than windowers.
Or does it? Maybe a calculation is required…
For each seat, the number of seats between that seat and the aisle can be considered its distance to the aisle.
For the 2-5-2 configuration, these distances are:
10 01210 01
and the sum of these is 8. For the 3-3-3 configuration:
210 010 012
the sum is 7, therefore the average distance to an aisle is indeed lower in a 3-3-3.
The deal is that while a 3-3-3 has a lower average distance to an aisle, the 2-5-2 has a higher probability of only having to jump over 1 person.
in the XX Aisles, you only have to go over one person to get up. In the XXXXX aisle, only the center person has to cross two people and, has twice the probability of one of the seats being empty. It may seem strange but if you have 88% load factor, you still only have one person to go over. An Example would be XXOXX or XOXXX for say a family unit travelling together.
There is also one big advantage to the 2-5-2 configuration that only a road warrior would know.
That big middle aisle lets you stretch across and sleep if it’s a red-eye flight. Having done a lot of long flights on 747’s, i got very used to sleeping in the back, in that 4 row middle section, or even on a DC-10 which had the 5 row middle section.
So I preferred the 2-5-2 configuration.
I have seen Aussies use the 2-5-2 configuration for that very purpose.
Though some of them used the floor, not the seats.
That’s Aussie for ya.
I think you need a calculation, Rand, assuming the question is what configuration puts more people more often on an aisle.
I think jack’s calculation is pointless, since I don’t think there’s much difference, comfort-wise, between being one seat away from an aisle and two. In neither case can you stretch your feet. In both cases you need to squeeze by people to get out, and your arms are constrained.
If people were assigned seats as individuals, and all at once, then in principle there’s little difference between them. At all loads up to 6 columns (2 window columns plus 2 columns for each aisle) everyone gets a window or aisle seat. After that, each additional person, in either configuration, does not.
However, people aren’t assigned that way, probably primarily because a lot of them travel in groups that want to sit together, perhaps also because seats are sold and perhaps resold in different ways, blah blah. Plus some people don’t actually like window seats. I think you’d need to probably do some complex data analysis of actual seat assignment patterns to figure out what happens in the mystery region between a pretty empty plane and a completely full plane. It doesn’t seem like a trivial calculation to me.
One thing that would probably help, if we weren’t in general a pretty antisocial culture, is facing some aisles towards each other, as you see on old-fashioned train compartments (and some trains). You very often get more legroom that way, since you and your across-compartment neighbor, even assuming you have one, and he has just as large legs as you, can usually figure out some pattern of interlacing that lets you both stretch out. Or you can take turns, et cetera.
But then you’re facing your fellow passengers for a few hours, leading to wandering eye syndrome as you avoid eye contact. Maybe a policy of seating men on one side and women on the other would alleviate that.
Oops, apparently I said “aisles” when I meant “rows.” Have some pairs of rows face each other, is what I meant. As a bonus, the seats facing towards the tail of the airplane are significantly safer in the event of an unfortunate event.
Some of Southwest’s older 737s have, or had, groups of facing seats. In my experience they are uncomfortable for average-sized men who sit opposite other men. They may be ideal for families with kids, but I suspect that too many other people found them uncomfortable.
Carl, when you wrote “aisles’ facing each other I had visions of military transports. Which frankly, I’m still more comfortable in.
Ed, for the 2 5 2 seating the total 01 01210 01 is six and not eight so for what it is worth it beats 3 3 3 for being close to an aisle.
Like Rand I prefer a window and I can’t figure a way to get more of these without going double deck.
People who sit on the aisle have a slight edge in survivability during an emergency over their window hogging counterparts — hope you enjoy the view.
WHile the configuration discussion is interesting it boils down to this…Airline seats are miserable based on who you are sitting next to and behind.
If the person in front of you respects your space and doesnt recline the seat and the person next to you leaves you alone, is under 250lbs and has a bladder larger than a thimble then nearly all flights are tolerable. If any of those elements are disturbed then the wheels come off the wagon.
It takes quite a bit to get me angry, but the person in front of me reclining their seat into my area brings me to an instant boil.
I’m a window guy, but not for sight-seeing. I sleep on airplanes. The moment they fire up those engines the preasurized cabin and vibrations put me to sleep. (Good thing I’m not a pilot) I lean against the bulkhead/window with my seat in its upright position and seatbelt snug and I sleep from takeoff to landing.
I have slept stretched out in the middle five on a 2-5-2 red-eye before. I was on a trans-con United flight out of Boston one night and the stewardess let me sleep though the landing. It is very unpleasant waking up knowing you are on an airplane and it just hit something (the runway).
I asked he why she didn’t wake me up and she said, “you had three sets of seatbelts wrapped around you, I figured you were safer than any of the rest of us.”
Mike: I am 6’1″ when a person in coach reclines their seat in front of me I can usually see right over the top of the seat to the top of their head. All I have to do is sneeze, once, hard enough to ruffle their hair. Then I apologize as sincerely as possible and they usually keep thier seat upright….
I have to add here that I recline my seat on every flight I take. It’s more comfortable. Of course, I don’t mind someone in front of my reclining either. We reclinists have learned to recline together.
Rather than stoke further the simmering feud between reclinists and the forces of evil, the anti-reclinists, it’s pretty obvious that this sort of petty conflict is precisely the consequence of packing people so closely together. I call it the caged rat syndrome. You also see it anywhere else people get crammed together for long periods of time, like sporting events, prisons, or car jams.
Thanks, Ralphe. I knew something was wrong with it as I posted it. I can do transform analysis in my head but fail at simple counting.
Was just thinking that the next time you cram into a airline seat just thank god your not sitting in a Soyuz for 2 days straight. Robust system and all, but practically eating your knees for hours on end doesn’t sound like fun.
Like Rand I prefer a window and I can’t figure a way to get more of these without going double deck.
I prefer a state room. The only way to get more of these is for disposable income to grow 10x or so. Eventually air travel will be almost as comfortable as staying in Motel 6.