Exclusive: Design Q reveals new high-density seating concept

I'm not sure if I'd do it. I need more info. Such as travel time/distance and cost.
The savings would have to be appealing to make up for lack of comfort, yet I don't think I would do it on a 3 hour flight either. Short flight saving me a significant amount of money seems like the only way I would do it. Although, my terms are completely subjective.

Ummm... In a military aircraft like C-5 Galaxy (which is freakin huge, by the way) the passengers are on the upper deck facing backwards, but the seats are like normal airliner seats but there's like 70 seats only. Passengers can't go into the cargo bay- it's too cold.

The C-17 has those side seat as does the C-130... but when they're carrying troops they add in troop carrying pallets to increase their capacity- and those look like airliner seats for the most part.

It's only when they're carrying airborne troops for a jump that you get a configuration that looks like the Design Q loadout. Each soldier is carrying 120 lbs+ plus of gear, so there not much room. That photo you have there would mostly only be used for jumps- and with all the gear they're carrying around it would be unbearably crowded.

Military configurations aren't exactly built for comfort. But as a soldier you don't have a choice, civilian passengers do...

Here are a couple of examples :
http://xbradtc.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/

http://www.tonyrogers.com/weapons/c17.htm

When you ride you need to face forward, the human body does not adgust to side ways or backwards motion that well on a long ride some one needs to do their home work.and then you want to people to look at each other for hours.maybe i mised the point

Design Q's scheme certainly gives 'window seat' a new meaning, with apparently no one having a direct view out.
If we do get around to standing seats (a nice oxymoron), you'll be the first to need to know how a 6ft body responds to a 14g vertical deceleration, never mind 16g longtitudinally... As someone who'd seen the cabin aftermath following an accident once told me: "I didn't realise your spine could go up through your head..."
You don't tell us, RG, what the regulators said in reply to your deep and penetrating question: "Is this safe?" I think we should be told.

Dave, Thanks. Nice to know someone reads my blog.

Mary, the biggest deterrent to airlines going to a "sidesaddle" seating arrangement is that passengers would not be used to it. That's the same reason why airlines don't go to rear facing seats, even though they are safer.

I hope the airlines in the US keep coming up with more harebrained, potential air rage ideas like this so that the notion of high speed rail begins to make more sense. One hour and 45 minutes of airborne hell ATL to ORD on a jammed airliner plus the extra time to undress for security, check-in, transit to/from the airport, paying for all the extra amenities and dealing with surly airline and TSA employees versus a leisurely 8-hour high speed transit by train downtown to downtown with the freedom to move around and relax enroute, will give new meaning to the old advertising that stated "Next time take the train." Bottom line: If America can use taxpayer $$$ to build an Interstate highway system, it can build high speed rail. Let's just do it.

I cannot be in a moving vehicle SIDEWAYS. I also need to be looking out a window in order to avoid getting motion sickness.

There is NO place on Earth I'd have to fly to THAT badly to endure this sort of degrading torture.

Humm... well, I don't know what to think about this one. Looks very "primitive" to me. Could be ok for a bus or a commuter train, but for a plane (and all that "security/safety things" around) it looks quite unappropriate. At then end, where goes the luggage? What about seat belts? What about those close proximity between passagers on back-to-back seats. It could be great for lovers but, well, I not sure I'm ok with having someone's hair on my shoulders... Once again, this is probably a great opportunity for (re)igniting the debate. I hardly believe it could lead to real applications though...

How will the steward(ess) get the trolley down the aisle(s)?

Seriously, there is much more work to be done on standardseat design that could increase capacity before going down this avenue. I expect Chinese airlines might be interested though!

If the discount is right, you be damn sure Ill be in this flight!! like it has been said, the military dont have time for extra commodities, for me, if they are available, fine, otherwise, how much will a flight to dubai will cost using this config? I want to book it right now!

Hey, I don't see the red/green jump lights, did they forget them? they should try this with an md-80. it is the only aircraft in use that has a rear exit that they can "db cooper" their way out of. Too bad 727's are out of the game. Oh, and they better not forget to dissable the cooper vane.

Flying backwards, sideways, who cares. I used to love what I called the 6 pack seats Southwest had on some of their aircraft 3 facing forward and 3 facing backwards at the bulkheads. I flew backwards many times in those seats and it never bothered me. It was rather fun being able to have your friends all together so you could talk, have a drink and relax. The only thing that is different is the takeoff. After that, it's sitting in your livingroom with a bunch of people.
And look, no overhead bins! No bonkin' my head as I try to sit down. I love it. Mary you would too being so tall and smokin' hot. It will give more room for your heat to dissipate.

My problem with the design is what's missing. What will prevent heads from knocking together, back to back? What keeps your head from hitting the side wall? What is the restraint system? Is there room for carry-ons or have friggin' #$%^& that blow up airplanes prevented that little convenience anyway?
Since the tubes people fly on is "usually" cylindrical, why not have the outer seats face the windows with their laps in front, and their torso and head in the more open space.

Gene - "When you ride you need to face forward, the human body does not adgust to side ways or backwards motion that well on a long ride some one needs to do their home work."

Actually you are wrong about this theory. The seats in the troop holding area on the C-5 are rear facing. I have flown on it many times on my way to and from Iraq (13+ hours). It had no negitive effect on myself or my Miltiary Working Dog. I personally feel it to be more comfortable on take-offs because I am not being forced back into my seat.

In my days in the US Army during Vietnam we were transported by C-141 Starlifters and used these sideways seating. These flights were never short and never comfortable, they were also just canvas straps. Our knees knocked together with the troops facing and it was hell when they would pass out lunch boxes. Being at the lower end, my box rarely got to me complete, always something missing. Today and if this comes down, I'm driving. When we were sent to Germany the canvas sideways seats were changed to more airline type passenger seats facing the rear of the plane (the loading ramp). We thought we were in upper class.

What a ridiculous concept. As a frequent air traveler I find schemes such as this incredibly insulting. I wouldn't ride in a seat like that if you sold it for $5. I wouldn't ride standing up if Ryanair paid ME to take their airline.

I very much agree with Marshall's comment regarding high speed rail. The U.S. should invest in a dedicated high speed rail network that will allow for 200+ mph trains between major metropolitan areas. The reason that airlines can get away with empty-headed ideas such as this is that they have a monopoly on high speed, long distance travel. So keep it up airlines, you're sowing the seeds of your own demise.

J.

As someone who hates flying in coach and absolutely will not sit in a middle seat, this actually doesn't look bad. My biggest issue (at ~237 pounds) is physical contact with the person in the adjoining seat, which I can't tolerate. So I will contort myself into whatever position it takes to make sure that doesn't happen, making for an uncomfortable flight, even with liberal doses of tranquilizers.

This proposed configuration eliminates the above problem, because you have to build extra shoulder room in to accommodate the opposite passengers' legs and feet. I don't mind flying sideways (some would) and I think this would speed up planing and deplaning. Because all seats would be essentially the same, it would be first-come, first-served boarding, but you would have to take the rearmost seat. The only drawback I see is safety in a mishap. In the relatively small percentage of airline crashes that are survivable at all, the current "brace position" and seat ahead would not be available or helpful. You would only bend over to kiss your a** goodbye.

Whatchama seeting??? Doesn't seem like I or most other people would want to sit in such a fashion. Maybe airlines should just knock you unconcious first and stack you like cord wood.

When I was in the USAF, I rode on C-141s and C-130's. Having side-facing seats would have been a luxury. Mostly, we had side-facing nylon webbed benches.

At least you wouldn't have to climb over people to get to the bathroom or sit next to the large person that should have bought 2 seats.

None of these airlines get to the root of the problem with these seating ideas. Air travel is not a buss-trip from the north side to downtown. And the problem that is driving the issue is that the public regards air travel as something "needed by the masses". It isn't. Stacking people like sardines into a confined space without even the option of giving the legs a stretch isn't efficient, it's inhuman. I am and have been a frequent traveler, and have many friends that are frequent travelers. We all agree in one thing. We'd be glad to pay an extra 30-50 bucks for an extra two inches of knee room, or an extra inch in seat width. When the airlines remember eventually that they exist to serve their customers, they'll make money.

How about stacking us like lumber...?

How can this be safe, or any more efficient. No seatbelts? No hand rails? Even a bus or subway has many handrails. What would happen during hard turbulance, or landing? And, where does the carry-on luggage go? Strewn about the floor? This does not work on so many levels, I find it humorous. They are joking, right? Oh, those brits! You got some of us on this one.

This will never "fly". 1, I'm not seeing where it increases capacity significantly so it will not make tickets cheaper. 2, people will not fly without carryon. 3, you cannot get down the aisle to a restroom or get a drink cart down the aisle through 50 pairs of legs.

Unbelievable! All the above comments about discomfort, carry one, and food service are correct. Of course if the game is to cut the cost (read: increase profits)then you can be sure the food service is coming to an end also. And what about the entertainment system? When I fly to Montreal it's only an hour flight, but I get to watch 1/2 a movie on the screen embedded in the seat in front of me on the way there and the other half on the way back. Kiss that goodbye! And what about those passengers who take the opportunity to sleep or those with bad backs. No, I'm sorry, I don't believe this is something that the majority of people will be interested in. Then again there are those who would accept it. Perhaps the airlines need to give a choice. "Will that be regular or sardine seating sir?"

If we are so ahead in discoveries, and in going in Shuttles to the Space Station, and staying there for long periods of time,. How come no airline can develop some kind of plane, that people will be more comfortable in overseas routes? it is very uncomfortable to be so many hours with so little space. I will not care if I have to fly backwards, to the side, or hanging from the ceiling, what I will appreciate is to have more leg space, and not to be rubbing elbows with some kind of freak.

I think, that the airlines, are only thinking in making some kind of money, and do not really care, what is happening inside that cabin. I don't think the Air Lines are putting enough efforts to make the lifes of the travelers easier. I am not a frequent flyer, but I really hate the discomfort of a crowed plane.

The second picture looks like the inside of a military transport with fancy seats.

I was a Flight Engineer for 24 years and sat sideways to the pilots.
Sitting sideways is no big deal for short hauls.
My question is why can’t I pay 50% more for my ticket and get 50% more room for my elbows?
Why does 1st class have to cost 500% more?
Boeing are you listening?

Why can't we hang upside down in a gravity chair?

This looks to me like wasted space. How can an airlilne make money this way?

I have flown on plenty of military planes and have never flon in airline seats- I have always flown in web jump seats and I have never jumped out of a plane. On some of my flights here have been some airline seats at the front- but those have always been reserved for the crew and VIPs. I find sitting in this configuration better as you are able to stretch out your legs and don't have anyone reclining into your lap. Overall you have much more room this way than you do in a typical airline configuration.

What part of "high-density" and "short haul" flights don't you folks understand? This has nothing to do with overseas flights. This is geared more towards REGIONAL flights. Pay attention to the article. If you're taking a trip from New York to Pittsburgh, or Charlotte, it's more than sensible for this type of config in something like a 737-200 or bigger. If this were the case, you can sign me up. I'll eat and pee when I land.

This is all a bunch of sh*t. It's all about the airline profits, nothing about the customers' comfort. This seems to be an idea of the yahoos that are too young to be making decisions like this, all in the name of innovation and thinking outside the box. All this is B.S. - And for all of you who have traveled in military aircraft: there is a big difference between young and healthy members of the military and the grandma and grandpa types that need a little bit more respect!
Now, put this in your G.D. Pipe, and smoke it!!!!

Wow. That is wrong. As if the current seat configuration doesn't already make you feel enough like cattle. That's disgusting. Blech.

Transport category aircraft passenger seats must be forward or rearward facing in accordance with 14 CFR 25.785h(5). This is due to the limited tolerance of the human spinal column to sideward forces, which they would be subject to in even minor runway events.

Military and many general aviation aircraft are not subject to this regulation.

Also, the "standing seating" is a hoax. It has been a hoax for years, and I suspect it will never die.

Please make some sort of effort to research your stories before simply regurgitating some attention-seeking crank's press release.

Flight Global's rep is really going downhill lately with some of the stupid stories they've jumped on. (Ex: COA1404 nosewheel cable foolishness.)

You do have people who actually understand aviation, right?

I have a better solution. You could fit twice the people if you just have them sit on your face. This would be great for airline profits because the highest bidders will get early picks who sits on their faces.

That seating arrangement would lock the specific planes into restricted routes; the airline couldn't call on them for longer routes on emergence of any unforeseen circumstance, as weather induced clagged-in hubs, full of the wrong equipment for the day's work. What influence would that have on all those saved costs?

I think that interior design looks like an school bus. It should be useful for very short flights, half hour at much.
The plane itself must to be redesigned again. Those pipes with fuel in the wings are no longer enough.

I guess no one cares about safety?????? It was proven back in the 1940's that rear facing seats are safer because the body can absorb more impact, however as even then the C.A.B. Now the FAA was in bed with the airlines, and knew passengers did not want to sit backward. Who cares about safety, right? Sitting sideways would not give a person much of a chance if any to survive a survivable accident.

Staring at a complete stranger for 4 hours straight? Well there is certainly nothing awkward about that.

I've spent 14 hours flying sidways from England to Las Vegas non-stop on a military KC-135. Business travelers are going to need some type of work space for a laptop. I think it is a gamble worth taking. People will hate it at first, but resistance is to change as inhaling is to exhaling. It always follows.

Americans are a scared people. That's why we have no more innovation in this country because everybody is scared and afraid of change. We're like a stale old piece of bread that nobody wants to eat anymore. All the innovation is coming from Asia and Europe.For example, the windmill, which are all over the skyline now - we didn't want to change, we wanted to keep coal. People are still scared of the windmills.

Who cares about the short haul? They need to do something about the 4-12 hour fllights. I work overseas and at vacation time, I don't want to go home. The seating is a nightmare and the staff on board is worse! Wouldnt it be nice if the airlines read these....

Of course, they could also have you carry your luggage with you right inside the plane, and then rent out the cargo space for air freight. Maybe to have some flat-space sleeping berths or jungle-jim bars overhead, and a few dozen more could be stowed, including pets and children. (grrr, whoop, bark, yeeeow) No need for all that wasted space between seats either. Can't wait to board, and eat my garlic & sardine sandwich (urrrp, pfffft, thwtttttss). Sounds like a really good idea. Give that 30-year old airline executive another billion-dollar bonus. Sounds like an Obama Czar in the making.

I flew C-130s and C-17 and those seats are unconfortable when flying sideways and is noth healthy for people with handicapped limitations and wht's the use of windows if nobody would be able to watch? Besides this configuration will enable potential terrorists to hijack the plane. What a fiasco.

April 1st already? Please... this will never fly (pun intended) crash dynamics will kill this in a New York second. Second this gives even LESS leg room than now, which is almost unreasonable at it is. In the 60's the Average height of men was 2 inches LESS than today... yet leg room is still getting smaller. Even less? I guess only short men and women will be able to fly in 20 years. If your over 6' good LUCK!!! and I am!

Nice concept, but I don't need an airplane any more. Obama promised that he going to carry me everywhere I need to go, and take your tax money to pay for it.

No storage compartments? No carryon? No installation for galley/food service? No restrooms? I don't think this is going to be a comfortable flight...

The military seats look way more comfy.

I like the open feel of this design. I usually get stuck sitting in the center of two large people, and the person by the window has to frequently use the loo. It's awkward for her and awkward for everyone to have to stand up to let the person out. With this open seating one could just stand up and head to the john.

To the people here trying to compare this arrangement to a military flight: I am a paying passenger,my family flying with me NOT a paratrooper who wants to jump out the side door over my destination. The C-130 seats are nylon webing which should be in no way compared to "Q". Everyone sits facing each other, in a row, with your knees in your face and your feet in someone elses face. Unless you are next to a beautiful babe, sleeping on someone elses shoulder does not do it for me.

You have got to be kidding me. Let just sacrifice safety for capacity!

Personally, I blame consumers for this or any other idea designed to increase cabin population density.

Everyone wants to buy the cheapest airfare, instead of purchasing airfare on a price/benefit ratio. You know, benefits like comfort or a bag of peanuts.

When you are unwilling to pay more money for more leg room, then you won't get it. All of the creature comforts will be allocated to the first class passengers willing and able to pay 5 to 8 times as much for a flight. It's a good deal for the airlines because it doesn't cost $700 additional dollars per passenger to provide a continental breakfast and 4 inches of leg and shoulder room.

Remember, all airlines take you from point A to point B. The question remains, what else do you get for your money?

As it stands, the owners of the airlines are laughing their a$$e$ off because we are actually willing to pay for torture.

There are a lot of people here complaining about it being "just about profits", but has it occurred to folks that without those profits, they might go out of business? I'm not saying that I don't try to get the exit row or that I don't complain about feeling like I'm trying to fit into a sardine can, but most airlines work on a tight margin. Maintaining an aircraft, fuel costs, and salaries are pricey. Our tickets while not cheap, are getting people from the west coast to the east coast in around 6.5 hours or so (non-stop) for as little as $300 per person. Cut them a little slack for wanting to be profitable as opposed to scraping by. As for the seating, the leg room looks like it would be nice, but I've got some broad shoulders that I think would be a problem in that kind of configuration.

I am floored. Why should an airline be in business if not to make money??? I hope everyone makes a lot of money on this idea. Why else would an airline be in "Business". That my complaining whining associates is FREE MARKET. If you don't like the product, don't buy it. I (as a tax paying citzen) don't owe you comfort in an airline or train. Work for what you want and do not fly on a plane that does not have the seating you like. I am disgusted with the whining people in this post. But, it is your right to whine and my right to say, get a grip and quit demanding we make you comfortable or happy or healthy!!! Bottom line if you like it fine if you don't like it fine. Don't ask me to work harder so you can be more comfortable. And do not ask the government to build a train on my back that that I won't use. Everyone uses or benfits from the interstate system, not so with high speed commuter trains.

Hahahaha! As long as I am in the front I don't care how you stack 'em. The reality is that the consumer has voted, and the airlines that are successful are the low-cost no-frills carriers. The people that are complaining about that trend are the well-heeled or business travellers who aren't wealthy enough to fly corporately and don't feel they are being coddled to enough.

All you have to do is look at who is making the money.

I like the idea of the staggered seats and the way they face is okay. Why not design the seats to swivel in some way, that way seats can face in a variety of 3 point positions (Forward, Sideways [either left or right depending on which way is center], or Backwards) on the side seats and then have the middle be like the picture, with maybe even some sort of "wall" down the center, thus a sort of "separated" cabin. You could then "charge" for seats based on swivel or non-swivel. Anything that can make the flying experience more comfortable (at least to the point of leg room) would be great.

British engineering hit its zenith about 1890. That peropd had form and function. Nowadays, well...Take the Harrier. Have to disassemble the whole aircraft to service then engine. Airbus A380...big slow terrorist target. No, this doesn't work at all. Violates international industry standards. But, then, most academians don't understand the concept of standards.

Nice try, but no go.

This looks like it had about as much planning and thought put into it as the Atlanta Olympics Logo.

Perhaps done on a cocktail napkin, the night before the deadline...at the "OMG we're gonna be sued if we don't come up with something!" discussions.

What about carry on bags. In case of any major turbulance, they would be flying objects! That's why they are so funny about them being in overhead bins or completely under the seats. Everyone has some kind of bag.

Once cruse speed is achieved there would be no difference on the body as far as sitting sideways. However, having sat in a C-130 many times configured in a similar manner to what they are suggesting, I can tell you it stinks. There is something about fighting for leg room and trying not to play footsy with the person sitting across the row that is not appealing on a commercial flight.

OK. To answer all these people that this configuration would make it a cakewalk to the bathroom. Wrong! Instead of only bothering a few people you would be bothering many more. Look at the photo closely and imagine people sitting in the seats. Most people would probably have their legs outstretched for comfort creating a huge block especially for the ones sitting near the front of the plane (considering the bathrooms are usually at the rear).

The way the seats are built there would be no reclining at all and as small as the seats are they don't look very strong. No seatbelts and headrests to help contain your body in case of a crash or severe turbulence. This design would totally make your body rely on itself to keep from being knocked about which causes spinal, neck, back, and other issues.

Trying to look outside the window or watching the screen like in the picture would be very awkward if not impossible; definitely neck stiffening.

People from different walks of life fly on the same plane. From everyday commuter, vacationer, tourist, etc. so what would work for one person, which I think this design is targeted at the very young with no physical problems commuters, would not work for someone that has a bad back. Current commercial seating design allows more comfort for people with compromised backs than the above design.

On the complaint about when facing forward on takeoff you get pushed back into your seat. Well what happens when your sitting sideways and you takeoff? Instead of being pushed back into the seat which will hold you instead you will be forced to the side with nothing to hold you except part of the back and the arm rest.

The only way airliners can truly pack-in low-paying flyers and make money is to, as one person said, knock us out, lay us flat, and pack us in like sardines. As for safety, especially in a crash, one must just understand that flying is risky, just like driving an automobile or riding a bicycle, and one must accept these risks to use that mode of transportation.

I see a great potential to look up the skirts on cute chicks!

First of all I fly as a passenger on commercial airlines, not military transports. When I buy a ticket on a plane: 1)I want to face forward not sideways, I don't want to look up and observe the person across from me staring at me for 2 hours picking his or her nose the whole time; 2) I want overhead storage for my carry on luggage; 3) I do not want cables above me, I am going to walk off the plane not jump out nor prepare to jump out of the aircraft; 4) I want to walk on carpet, not metal. I could come up with many more reasons, but we are talking commercial aircraft, not military aircaft for the transport of civilians.

Obviously this is a September "April Fools' joke".
Also, to those military types who wrote comments : In my day we didn't have seats, nor did we have those nice quite jet engines. The aeroplane held only two people in open cockpits and the passenger had to man the machine gun. Never mind the Fokkers who were trying to shot you down. You guys have/had it easy.

I am surprised they haven't used the "standing" design, like they do on rollercoasters. Think how many people you could get on planes with that configuration! Designers will do anything, like politicians, to get their name, or company name in print. Look at some of the outright laughable fashion designs.

so what would happen in a crash? your spine would snap like a twig on those cheap looking armrests that double as tables. and don't laugh at me for thinking that there would be a crash. you'll notice that hijacking has recently become more common with ships, planes are next

I really do not see huge savings of space in the desingq mock up. I guess that this type of layout will accommodate max. 20-30% more passengers than a traditional layout, and that probably won't be worth the effort, given that for this very basic accomodation the flying public will expect to pay considerably lower fares, and the new layout will entail a considerable loss of passengers towards companies offering a more classic cabin layout. Furthermore, with the reduced space for carry-on luggage more passengers will check luggage bringing higher handling costs. Even if it theoretically is possible to charge this to customers, higher costs will reduce the attractiveness of the model. Probaly, the whole thing will not be as economically attractive or even viable as that in a competitive market.

Did somebody HAVE to ask, "Can they make coach flying even MORE uncomfortable????"