I'm also convinced that we exit the plane in the worst way possible. We basically do it row-by-row: as the people in front of them leave, people in a row get up, get their bags, start walking down the line, and this cascades up the plane. The problem is that there is very little parallelism: while people in the next row to leave are getting their bags, no one is exiting the plane.
This is similar to a stall in a processor pipeline. We want to avoid stalls, which mean that we want people exiting the plane constantly. A column approach would work much better: people in the aisle get their bags before the doors open, and start leaving as soon as it does. As columns drain, the next column can get their bags and start to leave. This approach keeps people leaving constantly, while also keep the aisle constantly populated. Yes, the person in the last column in the back row still leaves last, but I claim they will leave sooner. (edit: Thinking about it more, I actually think the people in the last column in the front row leave last. If you're in the back row, second column, you can stand up as soon as the person in the first column in front of you has started walking out. After the first column to leave, people will exit in reverse order because the openings will appears back-to-front. Trying to maintain front-row "fairness" will just result in a period of time where no one is in the aisle.)
The reason we do the row-by-row method, I think, is that our sense of fairness is influenced by who we're looking at and proximity. We look forward, and we feel that the people closer to the door "should" leave first because they're closer, and we're looking at them, so we feel bad if we hold them up. But by doing the row-by-row method, we're holding up everyone behind us, but we don't look at them as much.
I don't know how to enforce a column-by-column exit. Airlines can enforce how we get on the plane because they control, person at a time, who enters the plane. How we exit the plane is more cultural, and while an airline could certainly try to ask people to exit this way, it's much harder to make it happen.
This sounds like it might be faster, and I might like it for solo business trips, but getting on/off with my family is not optional for me.
Assuming most multi-passenger groups feel similarly, and assuming solo business passengers represent only ~40% of the population, the impact of such a system (which would require substantially more passenger discipline/planning) would be pretty limited.
There's a documentary on Netflix, I think it's called "Speed" or something because it's about fast stuff, had an episode about doing Monte Carlo simulations of plane embark / disembark sequences that were optimal. They came up with optimal boarding processes but it required individual seat assignments which was a problem for kids (not to mention a ton of explaining). I forget if Southwest's semi-randomized approach was the next best, or boarding groups - I think it was randomized.
I've watched that video many times. I love the video (it's excellent and hilarious), but I should mention there's one aspect of it that rubs me the wrong way. The part he says back-to-front sucks and then shows a guy on the 3rd-to-last row trying to fit in his carry-on (around like 1:04) is a somewhat disingenuous representation of what people assume the optimal solution would be. You'd think they would put a last-row window-seater first, then second-to-last row, etc., not just randomly start at row 3 aisle -- nobody ever suggests that's optimal. That's a misrepresentative strawman of the algorithm people imagine, and it's hardly surprising that it sucks.
What's the problem with that part exactly? He's showing the method which most airlines use, which is boarding by boarding class, The algorithm that they use is not ordering person by person, there's going to be randomness with who gets into line first, which is what allows for the lack of optimality. The whole point is that the current approach doesn't allow ordering person by person.
Southwest would have been my guess for the worst. Generally I see them using a 3seat-aisle-3seat configuration. The plane always fills up window and aisle seats from front to back, then only once people have explored the whole plane do they resort to a middle seat between two strangers. Everyone is basically incentivized to act as greedily as possible so it takes longer than it needs to.
>act as greedily as possible so it takes longer than it needs to
These two things aren't connected (greed and time blocking alsie). the greedy answer is to get comfortable and settled in your bubble, fast.
I am a SW FF, most of the other people on my planes are, and we get it...we move and seat quickly to allow others in. I'm guessing far better average plane etiquette than most other US airline's FFs (though all FFs are likely above average).
This. I fly Southwest whenever possible; the loading process appears to be more efficient and is certainly less chaotic than other airlines. The flight attendants are consistently the friendliest I've encountered, too.
^ This. The most chaotic part of the whole process is finding your number in the line-up to scan your boarding pass. They also set your expectations on seat-finding as you board, so if the plane is half empty or full up, you'll be able to make a good seat choice.
While the other airlines are announcing the 15th class of partner airlines rewards members being able to board and everybody's standing around watching, Southwest is loading planes.
OMG yes...I flyed United occasionally when SW doesn't makes sense for the route. I was even status matched to "Premier Platinum" for a while. I was amazed that 1. I didn't get upgrades due to the remaining levels above me, and 2. Just how long boarding is and how many special groups. Can't see the business value there.
Southwest is AMAZINGLY efficient, and driven to streamline everything. This is the reason they transformed the whole industry by turning planes around in 15 minutes when their competitors were taking hours. If Southwest is doing it, it doesn't mean it's absolutely the most efficient way, but it's probably close, and you can bet they've seriously thought about alternatives.
Speaking of efficiency, Southwest in two airports now has managed to get a 17-minute late-check and an 18-minute late-check on the same plane that I also somehow miraculously got on (and was the last person if I remember correctly). Pure magic.
Not at current load ratios. Most flights are full. Good business environment and MAXes out of service are causing this. Your best bet might be the stranded 2-seat exit row on -800s.
But better to assume you'll have a middle seater. If you stay calm it will be okay.
I'm pretty sure the name was either "Speed" or "Fast" and that it was a 4-episode docuseries. This fits those characteristics but doesn't otherwise look familiar: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10287062/episodes?ref_=tt_ov_ep.... Also that says 2019, and I'm quite certain it was earlier than that. I can't find anything else either, though.
I'm pretty sure the name was either "Speed" or "Fast" and that it was a 4-episode docuseries. This fits those characteristics but doesn't otherwise look familiar: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10287062/episodes?ref_=tt_ov_ep.... Also that says 2019, and I'm quite certain it was earlier than that. I can't find anything else either, though.
Yeah, with this idea, people would just clog up right outside the airplane door waiting for their family. Anyone trying to get through would get some angry looks for daring to push through.
Assuming you can even split the family up. Plenty of people travel with younger kids (5 and under) and there's no way in hell that can be done safely without having the parents with them.
I have no issue with that personally but it's not always practical. eg:
- people with Window seats next to families
- occasions when younger kids have been sat for so long that they're now fidgety and causing a disturbance. With the best will in the world, sometimes physically restraining kids is just going to cause more issues then letting them disembark the plane
- if the family have large items in the overhead storage that needs removing so someone else can get their luggage. By the time you've juggled all that luggage around, the family might as well just join the queue of travellers waiting to exit
It was also mentioned that individuals should not be sat next to families but that doesn't always work when you're trying to fill capacity and/or let travellers pick their own seats (as many flight operators do).
Sadly what is academically optimum isn't always what's practical in the real world. If that were true, there would be a lot of efficiencies the human race could made from road travel to financial savings.
I'll add, as father of 1 year old who had been traveling a lot, sometimes you need to run for a connecting flight because the previous one is very late.
I usually board first with the family (required, I don't have enough hands to hold the baby and put luggages above, and my wife is not tall enough), but whenever possible I leave the plane last. It's relaxing, no one is chasing me, I can grab the bags slowly while preventing my baby from killing some one
When people feel fairness is violated (correct or not) they will often gum up the works in protest. As an example, watch what happens when car lanes merge early, or some drives up the shoulder. Others will position to stop that.
(Note I'm not saying anything about what people on either side of this conflict SHOULD be doing, just talking about how people react to perceived unfairness.)
> but getting on/off with my family is not optional for me.
For sure. But there is a solution to this. The solution is that you and your family should stay seated, and wait a bit, for people behind you to leave.
And then once there is a big enough empty space, THEN you and your family should start getting ready to leave.
> getting on/off with my family is not optional for me
If you’re getting off with your family you should just wait for everyone else to exit first anyway unless you have a connecting flight with no time margin or something. Families are super slow to deboard planes.
If your kids are young, you should probably be allowed to board first before other travelers.
A column by column rule wouldn’t apply to you either way.
But how does a "column by column rule" not apply to everyone. If I'm in a window seat and there is a parent and child in the aisle/middle seats, I have to wait until everyone gets off?
Column by column would never work. Most people like leaving together with their friends and loved ones who are sitting next to them, regardless if they are families with children.
In a column-by-column situation if you're in a window seat you would have to wait for the two columns before to deboard anyway. The problem would be if you are in a middle seat and the person next to you is waiting for his family in the line right before yours, but that's kind of a special case anyway.
Agree with glennpratt. When you have kids all you want (and the kids want) is to get off a long-haul flight. I have my kids clean-up, potty, etc. at about the 1hr 15min mark prior to landing. Trust me, we're packed and ready to get off the moment we're at the gate.
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, regardless of how provoked you were by another comment, or feel you were. It just makes things worse.
Very small kids have diapers. Planes have bathrooms.
> when did childless folks become such fragile babies?
Huh? I have a 10 month old and a 3 year old. I am offering advice based on my personal experience.
It’s a lot more pleasant for both us and everyone else if we wait for faster groups to clear out first. After sitting on a plane for 2–12 hours, waiting an extra 5 minutes is not a big deal.
> Very small kids have diapers. Planes have bathrooms.
I have a 5 and 9 year old and fly regularly. I don't know if you've considered the amount of time that can elapse from seat belt sign on for landing to deplaning. Nevermind a turbulent flight.
And trying to use the bathroom at the rear of a plane that just arrived isn't really going to smooth the deplaning process.
But like I said, my family is not slowing anyone down, we're usually faster because we're ready and the adults organized the kids while we waited for our turn.
Access to the plane bathrooms is barely sufficient for me. Too much of the flight you cant get up or vc ant get to them. I've had many a flight involve my own pee pee dance, I think it is fair to say I can be a problem for some families.
We debark trains a lot with my family, and I prefer waiting, but that extra minute can be a lot easier to handle waiting in line with a three year old than sitting down. Every situation is different with people, families are included in that.
When I travel with my toddler, I always wait to get off..well, he is wearing a diaper anyways. I assume when he is a bit older, we will get off much more quickly, but right now...it is just too much of a hassle to rush off the plane.
Or, as I have heard from multiple friends who have chosen not to or can't have children(due to ethical concerns or lack of money), they understand completely and expect that parents take responsibility for the commitments they made without pushing the problems onto everyone else.
Not to mention that having children sits at the very base of human existence. We built societies around the plain fact that children are necessary. Only those who believe that humanity should just go extinct can argue that having children is just a personal choice.
I'm not so sure about that. Two thoughts: The main reason me and my SO don't have kids is a deep concern about there not being any sure way to absolutely guarantee that a new person brought to this world will live a happy and fulfilling life and that the ethical thing to do is to when able (SO finishing education) adopt a child in need to improve their lives.
This of course means that I'm currently pretty sure that most _parents_ don't get it and that the commitment is lost on _them_.
But I'm also sure that they aren't doing anything wrong by having kids, it's just that it aligns with a value we share to not, ever, be a problem for other people. This trickles down into as fine-grain things as walking efficiently in public so that others aren't bothered and running into you and spending countless hours helping people out with without any reciprocation. So when you do encounter a whirlwind-family in public where the parents do not care about affecting others negatively it's unfortunately easy to become judgmental.
>it's just that it aligns with a value we share to not, ever, be a problem for other people
It’s a bit late for that; you’ve already gone through infanthood, toddlerhood, and childhood and benefitted from the patience and generosity of more strangers than you will ever know. Now you imply that perhaps parents and their children should try to not affect others negatively. I think by and large they do, but to the extent they do affect others this way, you owe some debt of patience, and are you so sure it’s paid off?
> It’s a bit late for that; you’ve already gone through infanthood, toddlerhood, and childhood and benefitted from the patience and generosity of more strangers than you will ever know. Now you imply that perhaps parents and their children should try to not affect others negatively. I think by and large they do, but to the extent they do affect others this way, you owe some debt of patience, and are you so sure it’s paid off?
That's the thing though. I don't think children are born with a debt to their parents or to society that they have to pay off. Now I don't go around complaining about people with kids, and just wanted to add that there are people who could have a general dislike for things being annoying or 'in the way' which could include children (or rather their parents, I don't think it's fair to put any responsibility on the children). I have a friend with with ASD that gets extremely upset with any disturbances, and who have posted more than a few rants about parents 'not controlling their kids' online, but in his case those posts are not unique to children, but without that context they read as if written by someone tho specifically dislikes kids.
I don't think children by and large have a negative effect on families and the individuals around them (if we are trusting parents, not happiness-studies) and they do have a beneficial effect on society (more people, more taxes, more welfare and happiness for the population), it's just that I don't want to create a person, that _I_ would owe a great life. The idea of viewing children as owing anything to their parents or to society before being able to make decisions for themselves as an 'ancestral sin' (original sin?) is something I feel very uncomfortable with.
Now, the thinking that the child who has no say about being brought into existence has a debt and saying it's a bit late to opt out implies that I (and other people) should have ended it in infancy to avoid this debt, and to gain the right to want things to not be annoying, but I am also pretty sure that it's a completely unreasonable expectation and doubtfully even a biologically possible decision. The consequences of that view seem awful both morally and ethically, thought I think few people spell them out.
But yeah, I don't dislike kids, but I understand someone going on a rant about them being annoying either because they don't know how hard it is or because they view themselves as not impacting others in the same way and wanting others to share their values. But I don't agree that it can be dismissed with a statement like this
> They just don’t get it. The totality of the commitment is lost on them.
> What’s new is that they also just don’t care.
Look, to some extent we’re all ASD. I hate crowds. I get exhausted being in places where people are having thousands of loud conversations.
I’ll complain that I hate people. But you know what? I’m the one with the problem. Not them. They have every right to be and do as they please. If I don’t like crowds, I can easily avoid them by doing my errands some other time.
Point is, we cannot have society change it self to accommodate every whim. Your friend is ASD, it sucks but that’s just the way his (our) life is.
Yes, but venting frustration does not mean that you are actually requesting a societal change, so you can't create arguments assuming everyone complaining really think things should be different. People have every right to voice frustrations.
But, people do not have every right to be and do as they please in public. We have norms and laws and they can change and do vary. There are a lot of limitations specifically on being loud.
> The main reason me and my SO don't have kids is a deep concern about there not being any sure way to absolutely guarantee that a new person brought to this world will live a happy and fulfilling life
There is almost NOTHING you can do with an absolute guarantee in this world: You can't even drive down the road with an absolute guarantee that you won't end up having a stroke and killing few people. IOW - this is the true scotsman equivalent of justification. The idea here is that smart, empathetic and introspective folks have children and in turn raise smart, empathetic and introspective kids, thereby tilting humanity towards enlightenment. I look at it as my part to move humanity forward (the other part being me doing my best to provide for them AND ensure my own life has meaning as well). IOW I don't buy this reason - it sounds like perfection blocking reality to me.
> and that the ethical thing to do is to when able (SO finishing education) adopt a child in need to improve their lives.
It is awesome that folks adopt: Those kids do need a home. It may even be an ethical thing to do. BUT that doesn't make having your own kid unethical. As I mentioned before, I do believe you have an ethical commitment to move humanity forward as well. Ending your own gene branch just because there are other branches you could take care of is not an alternative: It is more of an orthogonal thing. IOW foster as many kids as you can. I don't buy that it is a replacement to not have kids, especially considering the argument above. If you can't foster, you can always contribute as well to foster care systems in your country.
Especially please don't take HN discussion further into generic flamewar, i.e. replacing a smaller particular topic with a larger and even more flamey one. That always has bad effects.
> You just pointed out that an optimal solution will not work because of your situation and you just assume that the rest of us should have to accept that
Correct. People have children, this is functionally why society structures persist. It is entitlement, and deservedly so. Raising children is a hard task. We should make accommodations for those who choose to do so, and avoid arrogance or anger because we chose / could not have them ourselves.
Most people will agree that there's a collective obligation to safeguard children. Not so much for a collective obligation to go out of our way to make parenting more convenient for those who can afford to raise kids AND to purchase plane tickets for all of them. Particularly when, IME, the people most fervent about the well-being of their own children tend to care little about other's. I assume you're, say, an ardent supporter of equalizing school funding across your state, such that your kids would receive the same quality of education as those of poorer parents, yes? No? Telling.
I'm not sure why you presume that. While I'm on a flight, I do everything possible to prevent my baby from disrupting others flight.
However, some stuff flight companies do are incredibly helpful (e. G. Allow us to board first) and make everyone 's experience better.
Unfortunately it's either that, or have no kids, or never fly (for some people this means: never meet your family again). All things that are limiting for a human being that should get a decent quality of life (culture and such)
I would support equalization of funding subject to purchasing power parity.
That's a bit of a red herring to the conversation, and I'm a bit confused why that is the filter you choose to engage rather than policy for ensuring proper nutrition, UBI, or any other economic impact, or why my non-response intra-sentence to your comment online is a purity test for said support.
But taking a step back, even if parents are individually genetically biased towards their brood, that doesn't impact that part of a society's very essence and existence is to ensure children grow to adulthood. Eusociality and all that.
I don't think it's a red herring. It gets right to the heart of the very personal entitlement parents have, to the exclusion and detriment of people around them. I asked (rhetorically, admittedly) your stance on school funding equity because it's an issue where there can be no question that the status quo is something along the lines of, "Fuck you, getting mine, and also let me have some of yours," which is roughly analogous to what you've held is appropriate for the issue at hand.
We could make things better, and it would require maybe not having your kids in particular at the front of the line. That doesn't mean society is absolutely thwarting your endeavor to be a good parent; it's a recognition that while children are important, they are not the only, nor the altogether and at all times, primary concern of civilization. I mean, if you want to define human nature solely by the effort to advance one's progeny... I mean, even then, you have to admit that the well-being and conceens of the adults who support that effort are also important. Evolution is the process of surviving the day, serially.
Most people who choose to have children don't do so to enable society structures to persist though. I could argue that by not having kids I'm saving the planet from the effects of over population?
You could! And it is important to note that limited antinatalism is not unreasonable, so long as it is remembered that replacement rate!=overpopulation unless already above carrying capacity.
This is a classic example of we vs. them, I guess there will always be people with kids who think the same as you so it might not only be about perspective. My conclusion is that kids are their own beings and they are prone to behaviours that is not the norm in society, we all just have to adjust to that, you can't really reason with children.
I find that being sleepless and being hungery affects my mood a lot, I believe these are things that families can have a hard time regulating, so my bar for the expected behaviour from families is set a lot lower than for young adults. Just because I know they have a hard time.
Sure obnoxious people get families too so there is always a chance that they really are entitled.
> Why do those who do have/chose to have children always expect everyone else to bear their externalized burdens?
Because it is a cultural and societal phenomenon. In different cultures it might be different.
> That's quite entitled.
Sure, and on paper could swing the argument either way. But in practice arguing with the airline staff about not letting the families with young children board or disembark first, just doesn't work well and gets you a lot of dirty looks.
It’s not about entitlement, it’s about helping people who are less physically capable. Sometimes that will be due to age, sometimes due to disability, sometimes it will be because they’re carrying a toddler with them. But you can’t expect everyone to be rushing around like they’re in their childless 20s just because that’s the lifestyle you have chosen.
One day you will be older and a little less capable than you are today and I hope people don’t hesitate to offer you help and patience when you need it.
The question could also be asked for the contrary. It's more of a philosophical question, mostly diving into discussions for/against natalism in the end.
The backdrop is that raising kids is incredibly hard and the birth rate is below replacement and falling in the US because fewer people are willing or able to do it. Society should endeavor to make it easier for parents, at the expense of the childfree, if it cares about maintaining itself.
Only by ignoring this context could one conclude that deplaning efficiency for single people is the priority.
The main factor in reboarding slowness is not how tightly people pack into line, it's when one person gets into the aisle and
stops and blocks everyone
> getting on/off with my family is not optional for me.
Ryanair has now accustomed Europeans to travel separately from their family, so it wouldn't surprise me to see that requirement change if it drops the price.
Ryanair has pretty much given up enforcing seat allocations. Sure, your boarding pass might say one seat number, but it's pretty much a "sit in any free seat" policy. 90% of the time when i get on the plane someone else is in my seat, so I'm forced to sit in a random seat, giving someone else the exact same issue.
The staff know that getting everyone back into the correct seats will take a massive effort, so don't bother.
You tell the person to get out of the seat you paid for.
I strongly prefer aisle seats. I once had a girl ask me to switch seats with her so that she could sit next to her boyfriend. Since she had a middle seat, I politely declined, explaining that I would only switch with another aisle seat. She proceeded to throw a fit, calling me an asshole, etc, etc. I paid extra (how have we even come to this?) to be able to pick my seat, I'm not going to give it up for free.
At some point you will either have to escalate or give up. Some people won't be convinced, and can't be badgered into obeying you, and they know that you have no recourse at all as long as they remain seated and ignore you.
If the local authority (flight attendants) won't back you up, you are at the discretion of whoever is hogging your seat. Any display of power over the other usually amounts to potentially being able to resort to violence if necessary to back up your power. The person in the seat know full well that you cannot do that without being forced to leave the plane, so they have effectively nothing to fear from you.
> Ryanair has pretty much given up enforcing seat allocations.
Haven't been on a Ryanair flight for a while but this certainly didn't seem to be the case when I was flying with them regularly. Was this something that's changed very recently or maybe it's only certain routes this happens on?
Ryanair sadly don't do unaccompanied minors, but for an airline that does (and 5 seems to be the lower bound), and if flying with a partner, I've always wondered if the following would work:
Parent A flies without child on Day 1; Child is given to airline by Parent B on Day 2 and retrieved on the other end by Parent A. Parent B flies without child on Day 3.
I feel your pain. The last flight with my 2 year old daughter, she had to be physically held in her seat because she was too old to be allowed on our laps yet also too small for the seat belt to restrain her. The moment we let go of her she intentionally slid under the belt and out of the chair!
When my kids were that small we would travel with one of their car seats for the plane. The car seat is restrained by the plane’s seat belt and then your child is nestled snuggly in their own car seat.
The benefits are that your kid is then in an environment they are familiar with and they can’t just wiggle out. The downside is that you now have to lug around a car seat in the terminal. Ours got stuck in an X-ray machine once. That was fun.
I assume that’s still possible, it’s been a while since we had to travel like that.
I was on a flight a year or two ago where, upon landing, a woman turned her phone on and received a call informing her that her brother had passed away. She was understandably quite distraught as we taxied to the gate, and the lead flight attendant even made an announcement asking everyone to please remain seated so that she could exit the plane first.
...the lead flight attendant even made an announcement asking everyone to please remain seated so that she could exit the plane first.
Nobody listened.
I find myself with a case of both sider-ism on this. One the one hand (the hand that really should win out), we should all be able to act as decent empathetic people with the instruction following capabilities of a 7 year old when the situation dictates. But on the other hand, when you treat (and pack) your customers like a bunch of damn cattle, don't be surprised when they act like a bunch of damn cattle.
> But on the other hand, when you treat (and pack) your customers like a bunch of damn cattle, don't be surprised when they act like a bunch of damn cattle.
I never understood this. What exactly would you have airlines do? They don’t operate on massive margins. Ticket prices are the lowest or nearly the lowest they have ever been. You should blame the cheapness of the general populace for encouraging the squeezing of every last penny in ticket prices that results in the explosion of the 28” legroom budget airline market. You’re not entitled to air travel. Don’t like the (lack of) space? Pay for business or first class where the airline actually makes a profit. In the meantime, you better damn well listen to the flight crew’s instructions.
Sure, the legroom is considerably lacking in economy class. But aside from that (a small price to pay for a trip that would otherwise take days to months, no?) what makes you call being on a flight being like "damn cattle"?
>But on the other hand, when you treat (and pack) your customers like a bunch of damn cattle, don't be surprised when they act like a bunch of damn cattle.
I don't get the gripe with leg room, unless you are oddly shaped. I'm 6' and I don't care about leg room or leaning back, because in every flight you can just push your bag under your seat and stretch your legs fully under the seat ahead of you.
I find a 5 hour flight more comfortable than 3 hour sporting event on an aluminum bleacher.
Well, no wonder you don't get it, you have a pretty typical height. 10 or 15 cm make a huge difference in terms of seat legroom, especially taking into account that it's a well-known fact that tall people have a larger leg to torso ratio, i.e., most of the difference between an average and a tall individual is in leg length.
I'm 197 cm (between 6'5" and 6'6") and not only it's totally impossible for me to stretch my legs under the front seat, but in some airlines there is just no position for me in standard economy seats that won't physically hurt. When I fly for leisure, I pay to get more legroom, or just don't go. But since when I fly for work some silly regulations prevent me from paying for extra legroom, the first day after a longish flight I typically walk around limping.
I am 6'8" and had the same issue with my employer - as a cost-cutting measure it was decided that anybody but C-level would fly economy, period.
A quick visit to my doctor (who, I should add, is 6'6" or so and as such understands the issue) resulted in a letter stating that physical discomfort aside, there was a very real chance that I might develop health issues from spending a few hundred hours[0] a year in such a cramped position - deep vein thrombosis most notably.
Problem solved. No way they were going to risk acting against medical advice and later be confronted with it.
Short haul I couldn't care less where I sit, but if I am to stay in a seat for several hours, it had better be reasonably comfortable.
> in every flight you can just push your bag under your seat and stretch your legs fully under the seat ahead of you.
What flights are you taking? Usually knees are touching/almost touching the seat in front of you. There's absolutely no way to stretch your legs under that seat. You can only wiggle your legs sideways.
This in low cost carriers on Europe, so I know what I'm buying and like it this way. I wouldn't pay extra for legroom unless flight time starts creeping to four hours.
I fully agree that an airline seat is more comfortable than bleachers but how do you put your bag under your seat - there's almost always someone else's feet or bag there?
I found that for me it depends a lot on the tilt of the seats: when I flew Southwest, the seat was ramrod-straight, and I am not able to relax. On Asian carriers, seats are more comfortable, and I was even able to fall asleep. It didn't really depend on the seat pitch, so much as the seat angle.
I am 6'5" and I feel that if I can fly without complaining about leg room, all you oompa loompas should be able to as well. ;)
I really feel for the folks 6'7" and over tho. I have just about an inch of slack when I sit down on a Delta flight, so I imagine beyond that would be pretty uncomfortable. Also, I resolved not to fly on Air Asia any more because they seem to leave a lot less room even than our Western LCC flights.
Yeah, tall people complaining about anything is like Rich people complaining about stuff. You won the genetic lottery, just deal with a couple of minor yearly inconveniences when you can enjoy life's other benefits. (Better choice of partners, Higher Pay and Raises, Faster career growth)
To be fair, I've seen up to an entire plane cooperate for much less serious reasons than the one you mentioned. On budget airlines. In America.
IMO _how_ you treat the "cattle" (as a commenter in this thread referred) is the deciding factor. Some flight crews have a solid leader or two who can really command the respect/fear of the passengers' collective psyche. Like that strict but good teacher you may have had in middle school who ran a tight ship.
Some flight crews are meek and/or too drained give a flying f*.
A couple of times on Air Canada the attendants asked everybody to let those with close connections leave first, and people listened. I suppose there might have been a couple of jerks who ignored the announcement but nobody could tell.
I think that's the difference. Once one person behaves poorly, others interpret that as permission to also be a jerk so it's "fair".
It's not necessarily that they didn't care. When there is a natural action and people have a habit of taking it, then they may just forget the instruction and do what they have always done. Yes in 30s.
This is one of those stories that's seemingly low-stakes compared to everything going on in the world, but that I find unusually affecting. It's a perfect illustration in microcosm of how fundamentally despicable most people are.
Out of curiosity, what airports was the flight between?
Also, people like to sit next to people they know such as family. A column approach sounds more effective, but it would split up people traveling together.
Someone upthread had the very sensible suggestion that if you need to leave with other people in your row, you should wait until everyone else has left the plane.
Excluding children, for whom exceptions can be made, I'm not sure I understand why this is much of a problem. Does it really matter if you walk fifty feet without being next to your travel partner?
It might do, you are often not allowed to wait around as you walk from the plane to the terminal building and to passport control. You may be in different places in the queue. Now say one of you goes through to the first place you can wait, perhaps after passport control and before baggage collection. The other person doesn't turn up. You don't know why? Wait another 10 minute? Did they go through baggage area? Passport issues? Where do you meet now? You can't help them. Granted mobile phones, but not being split up is easier.
Now friends sometimes end up in different seats, and you can probably get away with waiting somewhere, maybe on the plane itself to meet up, but if everyone is in the same boat it might be chaos to do that, and there is more incentive for airport staff to stop you.
Well sure, I don't think anyone was suggesting that no waiting area is provided to meet back up til you hit the sidewalk. I thought it'd be clearly implied that there would be a spot to reunite after exiting the jetway
Even from a purely utilitarian perspective where efficiency is the only concern, if you force groups to separate then you are just going to clog up the jet bridge with people waiting for their loved ones to exit the plane. If there's no jet bridge and the passengers are getting on a bus to be taken to the terminal it would cause even more chaos.
I don’t quite understand the desire for friends or family traveling together to exit the airplane at the same time and hold up others as a result.
Airports have waiting areas between arrival gate and passport control, probably precisely to let passengers traveling together catch up with each other. Even the worst possible airport would have a bathroom, and toilet entrances are implicitly a waiting (queueing) areas.
Unfortunately, introducing any sort of rigid structure and order into airplane disembarkation process sounds like an impossible task.
Seems to me the real problem is people in the same row who don't board together, since frequently someone has to squeeze back into the isle and block things until their neighbor is seated. Airlines know who booked together, couldn't they optimize the boarding groups flight by flight? If some people booked together and sit together, give them all the earliest boarding group that any individual member would have had.
Very good point. And unlike boarding, trying to handle exceptions first or last doesn't really work because people are physically blocked from leaving their row. I've figured we'd never do this for cultural reasons, it's just something I ruminate over while traveling alone, staring at the empty aisle of a half-full plane.
You don't need to get off the plane 1-3 minutes earlier. In fact I doubt it would even add up to that. The spread between the first passengers off and the last, non doddling passenger is rarely that long.
Families, friends, couples are not going to go for your rule that one of them should get off first and the other should wait for the entire rest of column to leave.
How about just trying to be more patient? Find something to distract you and those 1 - 3 minutes will be over in a moment.
Those 1–3 minutes can make a difference in a small amount of cases, like tight time spaces in connecting flights.
My ideal plane de-boarding strategy would be to separate everyone in a few groups depending on priorities (people with connecting flights, people without stowed luggage, ...) and mostly make sure that the ones that have to go down earlier do it.
Agreed, but this is HN so of course we need to endlessly argue and overengineer things in order to arrive at the most theoretically optimal solution which completely ignores practical issues.
You are thinking of a single flight as disconnected from the entire ecosystem - in reality, the gate is occupied, the next flight can't board, cleanup can't take place and probably a half dozen other things I can't think up. And costs go up dramatically if things are already behind.
I'd say deplaning quickly is about as important as boarding.
No, you missed the point. Speeding up deplaning won’t help much because of all of the things happening below the passenger deck (unloading baggage, unloading packages, emptying sewage, etc.) and in the cockpit (debrief).
Getting passengers off quickly won’t help speed up the general post-flight process much. It’s very rare that the bottleneck is waiting for the cabin to be cleaned.
On a commuter flight with a 10-20 minute turn around time, deplaning speed is definitely relevant. Not many bags are being checked anyways, and the next set of passengers is already in line waiting to board.
On any flight > 1.5 hours or on a plane bigger than a 737, your point holds. On a 11 hour international flight via a 777, deplane speed is really unimportant at all.
Not really. Airlines can’t make the layovers tighter because the issue is variance in delays, not problems deplaning.
Also, the US airlines will not hold a flight due to a delayed inbound unless it’s got a shitload of the passengers. I’ve seen Delta depart on time and cause 10 passengers on a delayed flight to miss by only 15 minutes.
Thanks - you made my point more effectively - one slow deplaning flight could hold up flights for those passengers connecting and the results cascade. Most of those connecting flights are probably with the same airline.
Wont help who much? Maybe as you say throughput wouldn't increase because other things need to happen anyway. But passenger latency would improve and that's valuable.
It's not a significant problem for the airline. But for a passenger, staring at people wrangling their bags, blocking those already up with a clear aisle from them to the exit, it's frustrating.
> It's not a significant problem for the airline. But for a passenger, staring at people wrangling their bags, blocking those already up with a clear aisle from them to the exit, it's frustrating.
Sure, but to airlines, that's a revenue opportunity, not a problem.
I dunno, boarding could be much faster if they did window, middle, aisle instead of the random order they do now, and I don't see any airlines picking up that proverbial $20 bill
The whole aisle fills up pretty immediately upon the Fasten Seatbelt sign becoming unilluminated. As soon as this happens, there's no other option except the row-by-row method, like when a stoplight turns green on a bunch of waiting cars.
The seats at the front of the plane cost more money. The airlines want everyone who didn’t pay extra to suffer a little to encourage them to pay more next time.
I mean another take on this is that the airlines want the people who paid the extra money to get the benefits they paid for. Pisses me off to have paid for premium seating and then get caught in the general crush.
This sounds like some sort of patient wisdom until you realize that there's no actual upside to your seeming preference of doing things less efficiently. Appreciating the ability to fly across the world isn't exclusive of being able to improve the experience when there are easy ways to do so with few, if any, downsides.
By your logic, why not add an additional mandatory thirty minute waiting period to deplane? After all, it's amazing that we can fly.
> your seeming preference of doing things less efficiently
It's not a preference, it's a realization that this is a human problem and you're never going to get full compliance from a large group of people who all move at different speeds, have varying amounts of luggage, varyings levels of selfishness, and various other factors that affect deplaning speed.
This whole comment thread seems to be full of single tech bros that are mad they can't get off the plane faster, and are trying to design "solutions" and "algorithms" to make it faster, all while assuming every other passenger is also a single person who can deplane as fast as them.
> By your logic, why not add an additional mandatory thirty minute waiting period to deplane? After all, it's amazing that we can fly.
Because that's contrived and fucking stupid, whereas humans being slow and selfish in a cramped environment is a natural cause of delay.
Your logic is predicated on the assumption that we currently have optimal processes for boarding/deplaning (given human psychology). Anyone with a passing familiarity with the airline industry knows how ludicrous it is to make the assumption that everything is run optimally[1]. Your assumption is just as "fucking stupid" and only marginally less contrived than my (facetious) hypothetical.
> This whole comment thread seems to be full of single tech bros that are mad they can't get off the plane faster, and are trying to design "solutions" and "algorithms" to make it faster, all while assuming every other passenger is also a single person who can deplane as fast as them.
You've clearly only read a fraction of the comments if you think that no one's thinking about (eg) family boarding and deplaning. And "tech bro" is a pretty reliable tell for "I'm hopelessly out of depth when it comes to comprehending this conversation".
[1] This isn't quite a knock on airlines themselves; the economics of the industry leads to bizarre incentives.
I recently had to travel home last minute, this is a 9.400km trip, amazingly it took me less than 18 hours door-to-door, probably could've done it in less than 16 hours if I didn't leave to the airport so early. I could care less if getting off the plane took 5-10 minutes longer than it should.
I can get my stuff out of the overhead bin in about 1 second.
I have a better idea: people should have to go through qualification testing to see how fast they can grab their backpack out of the bin and start walking down the aisle. Fast people should get special dispensation, and slow people should be required to leave last. The problem is that too many people bumble around and take forever to do a very simple task.
On the contrary, a lot of people store stuff in the overhead bins that they will access during the flight, so sitting in the aisle is the best spot for them (if you're trying to minimize how many times the people in aisles have to put their tray table up and rotate their legs.
On flights more 2 hours (so 6/9/14 hour flights) I'll put on the provided slippers and store my shoes in the overhead bin so my feet have more room. I usually travel with a backpack and a satchel, but my sound cancelling headphones take up a lot of space in my satchel, so before landing I'll put them back in my backpack. I usually have to go to the bathroom anyways before landing, so it isn't an extra get-up-out-of-seat-and-into-aisle-operation.
Yesterday I saw someone get up to access the bin 4-5 times in a 14 hour span. They were conviniently short enough so that they didn't have to get out of their seat (just had to stand on it) to access the bin.
The only time I witnessed passengers staying sit was after an announcement that said: "we know by experience that our pilots are much better at flying than at driving, so for your own safety, please keep seated until the 'fasten seatbelts' lights are turned off."
There is no (legal) way to make the passengers disembark orderly...
> I'm also convinced that we exit the plane in the worst way possible. We basically do it row-by-row: as the people in front of them leave, people in a row get up, get their bags, start walking down the line, and this cascades up the plane.
This also has causes problems with weight balance - I've been on flights before where the attendants asked the back 10 rows to disembark first because otherwise the plane would nose up too much as the front lightened, and leave a gap between the door and the stairs.
I used to always fly southwest out of Burbank, and they exit from the front and back. I would always board late and go to the back, and be the first one out. I got pissed when they started telling people during boarding about how they exit at our destination, and more people sat in back.
Southwest still lets everyone choose their seat.... you get a place in line based on when you check in, and when you get on the plane you pick any seat.
The other common bottleneck with exiting is when you have to go back a few rows to get to where you had to stow your carry-on, because the plane was boarded from the front, and all of the overflow from the people who boarded ahead of you taking up the bins overhead of your seat.
I wonder if a mechanical solution could be used: fold away the arm rests and squash the seats together. 6 armrests folded away would make the isle twice as wide. This could make boarding and exiting more than twice as fast because you have double the capacity and people can overtake others stowing luggage.
Interesting engineering challenge to design those seats. Perhaps leave the armrests and use a wormwheel to make the seats narrower is easier to implement. Could be hilarious if engaged while people are sitting in them.
I think boarding was covered in Freakanomics. Column boarding is technically fastest, but too impractical to coordinate. Just letting everyone randomly line up and enter the plane turns out to be the most efficient practical method, but no airlines do that.
It's psuedo-random based on when you get your boarding pass (starting 24 hours). Essentially the quest for a non-middle seat conditional on distance to the front door.
Most Australian airlines just let people randomly board, apart from letting priority passengers (disabled, business class, gold and platinum frequent flyers) board first.
It does perplex me when I travel to other countries and experience complicated systems with boarding groups etc. that never seem any better than the random method!
I always do that, and do not really understand why it's not more common, even using a completely selfish and self-serving perspective.
That cramped aisle after everyone who could possibly get up did get up is damn uncomfortable, and those tiny seats get a lot roomier after my neighbors got up.
My working hypothesis is "irrational herd behavior".
I think when you’re getting on the plane, you’re forced to adhere to airline rules, si boarding groups can give them real control over the situation. When you leave, what is the airline going to do if you don’t listen? Kick you off the plane you just left?
You really can’t feasibly make people do this on the way out even if it would work.
Without commenting on the wisdom of the plan above: what in earth are you talking about? You don't just announce the equation and say good luck. You'd announce each row or range of rows in order, the same way you do for boarding (or in boarding's case, as encapsulated by boarding groups).
The real issue would be compliance, not comprehension.
> The real issue would be compliance, not comprehension.
That's why I'm saying "good luck"
Those "equations" don't account for human factors like families traveling together, elderly who need help getting their luggage down, or a sick passenger.
You can't just throw out some mathematical solution to the problem and consider it solved, so what on earth were _they_ talking about?
It does attempt to with the rows at a time feature, and if this is the known unloading procedure makes it much more likely for a family to actually book a row rather than seats in front and behind.
The obvious exception is to make the kids just move when the adults do (clustering on the largest unit of adults).
However this is more like a 'family exception' than a back of the napkin description of the algorithm.
You can’t have constant movement, it has to come in waves because no-one wants to get up out of their seat as giant carry-ons are unloaded from above.
My 2-bit idea is that we let passengers with no overhead luggage board and exit first. Let those who want to move at glacial speed do so, without slowing everyone else down.
As someone who hasn't checked a bag for a decade, this seems fair. I save a TON of time and hassle not checking luggage, and it seems only fair that those who do check luggage not be held up further by my choice.
Sure, but sitting on an airport floor (+ being able to go the bathroom, get water, wifi, etc) is better than half-standing in a cramped dry aircraft that you've spent the last X hours in.
The obvious issue is, people sitting in rows are often together and want to disembark together. Often they are elderly or children, and need to disembark with the others in their row.
This is where being a jerk would be beneficial for everyone. Simply put, the person at the front of the line should basically just ignore everyone and move forward. People aggressively jumping in gaps would even be OK because it would give people in the back time to grab their stuff and get organized.
Being polite is what ends up slowing everyone down. (the same is not true for boarding. Back to front outside columns to inside columns would be far faster)
If you only have a front door exit, then column-by-column would work for the first column, but then it would switch to row-by-row starting from the back, since the column moves forward, and that allows the last row people to join the end of the column first.
If you have front and back door exits, the same would happen, but row-by-row would start from the middle of the plane.
We do row-by-row because, generally, people with higher status and/or fares sit closer to the front -- and it feels more fair to let them off (and on) first, even if it costs minutes.
Huh? No, that makes no sense at all. The fares are exactly the same in the entire section of the cabin, and only differ by section (i.e., business class costs more than economy, "economy plus" costs more than economy, etc.). Planes don't have different costs by row within the same section.
We do row-by-row because we intuitively think that people closer to the exit should be able to get to the exit faster, even though this isn't really the case.
> Huh? No, that makes no sense at all. The fares are exactly the same in the entire section of the cabin, and only differ by section
Tickets in a cabin vary greatly in price on many airlines according to several independent variables including: seat location/quality; degrees of flexibility (changeable vs non); refundable vs not; hold baggage included vs not; singles vs returns; currency used (cash vs frequent flyer currency); earnings in frequent flyer scheme; point to point vs connecting; point of sale country; ... there are probably more.
Completely wrong. You're talking about the overall ticket price with addons; the things you refer to have nothing to do with seat location and quality. I already addressed this: first class, business class, economy plus, economy. Other than that, the prices are the same. There's no difference, WITHIN THE SAME SECTION, between two seats.
We do row by row because unless you litterally climb on top of those in rows further ahead than you (currently standing the isle and possibly getting their bagage) there is no other way out.
I’m pretty sure fares for each person fluctuate greatly depending on when they purchase and what terms they had and what discount or upgrades they have.
Based on your other responses, what you intended to convey and what many people are interpreting are two different things.
What everyone else is saying is that the person in seat 34F likely did not pay the same as the person in seat 35F (since they purchase at different times and the airline continuously changes prices), whereas what you are claiming is that 34F and 35F cost the same for the same person.
What I am claiming is that there's no difference in those two seats' prices at a given point in time. Yes, prices fluctuate, but that has nothing to do with the seats. When you purchase an economy ticket (assuming these two seats are both in regular economy), the prices for them is exactly the same at that moment in time. You're allowed to pick either one of them, and the price is the same. Wait a week, however, and the price will be different, but it'll still be the same for both seats.
I really don't understand why people on this forum don't understand this and why I have to spell it out in such explicit detail. It's self-evident.
Even worse, this means that, if the people in 34F and 35F purchased their tickets at different times, they could have paid different prices, but that doesn't tell us anything about which seat cost more. Either person could have paid more, depending on when they bought their ticket and how the airline adjusted pricing during that time. So, as I've been saying all along, there's no difference in value between those two seats, by virtue of their location on the plane.
The fares (on most airlines) are absolutely not the same throughout an entire section. They vary based on purchase time, seat "quality" (which includes location), extra features such as legroom & recline, spikes in demand, etc.
Sorry, that's complete BS. Maybe you haven't taken a plane in a long time, but fares are by section only. Then, on the website, you get to pick your seat, AFTER you've chosen the section and fare. The price doesn't change unless you move to a more expensive section (like "economy plus").
The legroom and recline is all the same within the same section, except for the exit rows.
As I said, the price you paid for your seat may and often will vary from that paid by the person next to you by factors including purchase time, seat "quality" (which includes location), extra features such as legroom & recline, spikes in demand, etc.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're trying to claim that two seats next to each other can be in different sections, that one is economy while the one right next to it is First Class, and that's total BS. Planes aren't organized that way. Go take a flight sometime.
No - I'm not claiming they are different sections. That would be stupid.
I'm stating the simple - and well-known - fact that the price paid by the person in 17C (aisle) can be quite different from that paid by the person in 17D (also aisle).
I flew over 150 legs last year. Premier status on three different airlines.
Please stop with the ad hominen attacks and learn something about this market.
My claim was correct. At any point in time, the fares ARE exactly the same. If you don't believe that, then you're a moron because you're flat out wrong. I can't put it any nicer than that. When you buy a ticket, the price for seats 37A and 38B are exactly the same. Full stop. Again, if you don't believe this, you're stupid.
Are tickets differently priced at different times? Yes. Any idiot knows this: the airlines change prices over time to extract more money from last-minute buyers. This isn't what I was talking about, and it's obvious that's not what I was talking about, so if that's the basis of your argument, then you're a pedantic asshole.
A much simpler solution is for aisle folks to help people in their row with bags while waiting. I'm obligated to do so with family, but it works other times too. Try it some time.
People don't have control over this. The overhead compartments near your seat are full and thus closed, so you must put them elsewhere. One person with two massive carry-ons can basically fill an entire compartment alone.
You sometimes have people who will put their bags in the first bin they find and then walk back a few rows. Then when deplaning they get out of their seat not having to rustle their bags in the crowd, they merely walk forward, grab their bag and keep going.
The last flight I took, the attendants kept the first 3 bins on both sides closed to allow late front people a place to put their bags. Still people kept opening the bins trying to put a bag in when it wasn't their section.
That's why the crew should be enforcing the bag limits. One person is only supposed to have 1 carry-on, and it's supposed to be a relatively small size.
Often the "personal item" is another suitcase. If given the position of power, I would decree that if your carry-on or personal item has wheels on it, it's not a carry on and must be checked.
This is similar to a stall in a processor pipeline. We want to avoid stalls, which mean that we want people exiting the plane constantly. A column approach would work much better: people in the aisle get their bags before the doors open, and start leaving as soon as it does. As columns drain, the next column can get their bags and start to leave. This approach keeps people leaving constantly, while also keep the aisle constantly populated. Yes, the person in the last column in the back row still leaves last, but I claim they will leave sooner. (edit: Thinking about it more, I actually think the people in the last column in the front row leave last. If you're in the back row, second column, you can stand up as soon as the person in the first column in front of you has started walking out. After the first column to leave, people will exit in reverse order because the openings will appears back-to-front. Trying to maintain front-row "fairness" will just result in a period of time where no one is in the aisle.)
The reason we do the row-by-row method, I think, is that our sense of fairness is influenced by who we're looking at and proximity. We look forward, and we feel that the people closer to the door "should" leave first because they're closer, and we're looking at them, so we feel bad if we hold them up. But by doing the row-by-row method, we're holding up everyone behind us, but we don't look at them as much.
I don't know how to enforce a column-by-column exit. Airlines can enforce how we get on the plane because they control, person at a time, who enters the plane. How we exit the plane is more cultural, and while an airline could certainly try to ask people to exit this way, it's much harder to make it happen.