

Airbus reveals aircraft of the future - Paulosborne
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/seethrough-plane-airbus-reveals-aircraft-of-the-future-20110614-1g15w.html

======
w1ntermute
> The aircraft's bone-like structure would allow for panoramic views.

Great, that's exactly what I need. People around me opening up their
"skylight" while I'm trying to get some shut-eye. It's bad enough when someone
opens the tiny windows we have right now. Makes it damn near impossible to
sleep without an eye mask, which are really uncomfortable (for me).

There are exactly 7 things that I want from a "futuristic" airplane:

1) Make it so my ears don't pop.

2) Get rid of the ridiculously loud engine drone.

3) Make the seats/legroom bigger.

4) Increase the air humidity so my throat and eyes don't dry out.

5) Free internet and power outlet in coach.

6) Make it OK to use wireless & electronic devices during all times of the
flight (even takeoff/landing).

7) Get rid of the damn windows, or at least make it possible for me to somehow
block all light from entering my vicinity.

But I'm sure as hell not holding my breath for any of those things, because
they're probably the last things on Airbus's mind.

~~~
StavrosK
> 1) Make it so my ears don't pop.

Learn to open your eustachian tube or yawn on demand at that problem goes
away! Unfortunately, I'm not sure this can be taught.

~~~
keyle
Yes but no... If you have a bad condition like me you can do everything yet it
will hurt like hell...

Two things work. Nose spray (unblocks nose and the whole canals). And sinutab
an hour before landing...

I'm no reseller of those I'm just sharing for the ones who've been in
horrendous pain like me...

~~~
StavrosK
What do you mean it will hurt like hell? If you open your eustachian tubes,
the pressure is equalized, so you don't feel any discomfort at all.

~~~
frobozz
If you suffer from sinus inflammation, either from an temporary infection or a
chronic condition, they do not open.

If you have problems in your ear, such as a perforated eardrum or an
inflammation; you may still be able to equalise pressure, but it can be
painful to do so.

Other genetic or congenital conditions exist that can prevent or hinder
pressure equalisation.

~~~
StavrosK
Ah, I see... Hmm, I imagine air travel would be quite painful in that case.
Why doesn't the cabin pressure perfectly equal ground pressure? Doesn't it
make sense that an airtight cabin will keep the pressure it's sealed at?

~~~
w1ntermute
It's not that easy. The pressure difference between the inside and outside
puts a great amount of strain on the fuselage. I think what they do is just
reduce the rate at which the pressure changes.

~~~
StavrosK
I see, thank you.

------
mturmon
This press release, rewritten as a news article, seems like it comes from a
parallel universe in which carriers are not trying to drive costs to zero.

I especially liked the comment from the VP that part of their plans for making
the plane environmentally sound starts with recyclable components. As if
recycling the plane is a major design consideration.

~~~
pedalpete
As a European company, I believe recycling has to be a major part of their
development efforts.

They could easily be caught up in EU laws and regulations regarding recycling.
Though the link below pertains to electronics, I believe there are similar
laws for automobiles, so they could just be thinking ahead.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electronic...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electronic_Equipment_Directive)

Further to that, recycling is good practice in something as resource intensive
as an airplane. Recycling bits from lots of different phones is, I suspect,
much more challenging than recycling large chunks from planes.

------
siculars
I almost spit my drink out while watching the video. This has so much
PR/Marketing written all over it it is hard to fathom anyone outside of those
departments have even seen those "concepts". Almost like some intern fresh out
of the European equivalent of RISD[0] sat down with some crayons and dreamt up
something derived from Star Trek and Star Wars simultaneously. My favorite
line:

"Gone are the regulated class divisions of First, Business and Economy,
replaced by personalised zones that offer flexible, tailored levels of
relaxation, interactivity and working spaces."

That, my friends, is probably the only thing that will happen by 2050. And the
odds on that are slim to none.

[0]<http://www.risd.edu/> (yes, go look at the image, 1/4, they have up right
now.)

------
tyler_ball
I hate this kind of 'design' and constantly wonder how these firms that make
these kinds of conceptual, artists' renderings stay in business.

It's totally searching for solutions to problems that don't exist, and even
worse, creating problems that don't exist now.

A transparent plane would be exciting for one flight, but think about what
most people do on planes, especially those that fly often. They sleep, catch
up on work, read, or watch the in-flight entertainment. These frequent flyers
make up the majority of an airline's business and these designs would only
complicate their lives.

If you asked any passenger what they would want to see improved, they would be
things like "more space", "wi-fi", "better seats" and "lower cost". All of
these designs probably act in opposition to these wishes.

Who want's virtual golf on a plane when that space could be used to widen the
space between seating?

~~~
fungi
its PR, airbus relies on large cash injections from the EU. this is to make
airbus look like a good corporate citizen and a good use of taxpayers money.

~~~
gaius
No more than Boeing relies on the US taxpayer. Most likely this was just done
because someone thought it would be cool.

~~~
fungi
Arguably Boeing relies much more on the US government in far more worrying
ways than corporate welfare <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFUFFzkCQXw>

------
melvinram
My favorite line: “Our research shows that passengers of 2050 will expect a
seamless travel experience while also caring for the environment,” Charles
Champion, Airbus Executive Vice President Engineering.

I wonder how they researched what passengers of 2050 expect. If they invented
time traveling, they should demo that instead.

Besides the fact that it's going to be a "reality" in 2050 which means it has
a high chance of never becoming a reality as discussed today, it's a pretty
cool concept video. I'm that guy who loves staring out the window every 10-20
mins or so. I'd enjoy it if it was used in production today. Not sure what the
state of the art will be in 40 years.

~~~
Terry_B
They interviewed 6 year olds clearly.

I love these "visions" that constantly get thrown about with no discussion as
to how or why the airlines would want this for their business.

------
puls
This is the airplane of 40 years in the future?

Compare this to the past 40 years: in 1970, we had... the Boeing 737 and 747.
They're still making them today.

Sure, there have been evolutionary enhancements. But that doesn't inspire a
lot of confidence for future revolutions.

~~~
corin_
Why should developments in any area ever move at the same speed all the time?
Think how long people travelled on horses and carts, and then how (relatively)
quickly cars appeared.

------
cycojesus
Wow, so much negativity in the comments! Who spat in your kool-aid today?...

Where's your innovating spirit, people?

Yes it's a PR thing, yes it's very likely off by more than a thin margin, yes
it's prospective because, guess what, 2050 is in the future. That doesn't mean
it's not interesting.

Just because it isn't a teenager in his californian basement "inventing" new
ways to ruin my twitter stream with childish gamification scheme doesn't make
it evil.

~~~
ysangkok
Maybe because people expect better from an aircraft maker. You'd think they'd
have some kind of realistic view on matters, but it looks like they hired a
sci-fi author to do their PR.

------
pinaceae
Things that I'd like to be solved:

1., Optimize the time spent checking in and out. So much time is wasted on the
ground, especially on shorter trips it sometimes feels longer than the actual
trip (luggage, security, etc.)

2., Flying long-haul in economy class just plainly sucks. Sitting all the
time, for 12 hours, is hell. Having no Wi-Fi, no power outlet and sometimes no
room to unfold a notebook (if the guy in front reclines his seat) is just bad.
Different seating arrangements are being tried out in business class
(diagonal, etc), but there is no innovation in coach. People bring these
u-shaped neck pillows to alleviate some of the pain, why is seat design so
bad?

3., Personalized transfer info while in flight. Why do I need to check after
landing if my gate has been changed? Better airlines display the info on
monitors, but it still isn't convenient. Transfer in bigger airports like
Frankfurt can lead to very long running exercises.

4., Turbulence. THE reason why ideas like bars, social areas will never work.
If you're not tied down, you might get seriously hurt. Plus, on trans-atlantic
flights your are forbidden to stand around in groups because of terror fears.
Flight = seat.

------
archangel_one
Yeah right. They had all manner of conceptual drawings for the A380 as well
with suspiciously spacious looking interiors as well. What we're actually
going to get from an aircraft of the future is something with more, smaller
seats.

------
ChuckMcM
I found it amusing. Perhaps the most amusing part was that they predict people
will actually be flying airplanes from point A to point B in 2050.

If you have 3D holographic like pods, you could skype that and not go
anywhere. So for business you need to travel, uh why? Can you slip into
AndroBot's latest offering and attend a concert on the other side of the globe
in 'person' where you have 'better than retina resolution' imagery and 'better
than aural recognition' audio and no jet lag and no need to remember to bring
your toothbrush?

No business travel btw means no airlines (well at least none of the current
airlines). If you really physically had to move your actual self from say San
Francisco to Tokyo wouldn't you just buy a space on a Virgin Galactic hopper,
go sub-orbital and be there in 45 minutes? You'll be 'online' the entire trip
so you don't need the transportation vendor to try to 'guess' what sort of
thing you would find entertaining.

Pleasure zeppelins? Sure I could see those, lazily drifting across the
recovered rain forests of south America, 'air cruising'.

But I think the days of 'airlines' carrying 'people' are numbered. Give
everyone their own personal 100gbit Intenet connection to the world and travel
loses a lot of its desirability.

Here's my prediction, in 2050 the only airplane you can fly in as a passenger
will be a Boeing 747 that is being run and maintained by an enthusiast society
which is preserving what it was like in the 'old' days. :-)

~~~
maigret
Not sure. Electronic communication keeps increasing, apparently making travel
always less needed, yet flight passenger numbers worldwide keep increasing.

Yes, the electronic experience will improve, but expect real world attractions
that will also improve in intensity. Think Burj Khaliva or Spaceship 2.

~~~
ChuckMcM
_"Not sure. Electronic communication keeps increasing, apparently making
travel always less needed, yet flight passenger numbers worldwide keep
increasing."_

TL;DR version: When telepresence is good enough, the airline passenger
business will become an unprofitable niche for specialty companies.

Well here is the reasoning I use, love to hear the counter argument.

The economics of the airline business are dominated by business travelers,
they value time over money but there is a ceiling on how much money they will
spend. [1]

The cost of air travel is going up for organic reasons (cost of fuel, airport
taxes, maintenance burdens) in the presence of a constant pressure on their
customers from the business space on margins. In the absence of legislation,
the cost of maintaining airport infrastructure for a region is born by the set
of people who use it.

The cost of network connectivity is going down, the ability to send more and
more data over the existing infrastructure is going up, and the 'experience'
of meeting online is going up as well.

I'm witness to the leading edge of the substitution where network connectivity
is trumping travel. I get lots of vendors trying to sell me stuff and more and
more of them want to 'skype in' and talk to me rather than come by the office.

If I project that out 40 years I imagine that 'network' experience should be
equivalent to "being there", and the cost of flying will be unbearable because
businesses which fly sales people around will be at a competitive
disadvantage.

So the intersection of these trends for business that can be conducted this
way will. I am further guessing that telepresence will nail a bunch of things
which now cannot be done like this, namely factory inspection and site
evaluations. I don't know if you're familiar with Trevor's vision here [2] but
I can tell you that shipping a dexterous telepresence robot to China to check
on quality control issues in the factory, especially if you can leave it there
for multiple re-use, will be much more efficient than 'going' there.

So this combination will, I suspect, "force" businesses out of using airlines.
For an airline to retain the business they would have to be 'better' somehow
than telepresence. The metrics I can come up with for 'better' are its
'faster', 'cheaper', and 'easier to do often.'

From that, if a majority of the business users that currently use airlines to
conduct business stop, then the airlines will lose the ability to charge them
premium prices against their time specific needs. If you re-factor the airline
business model to rely solely on tourist/casual travel you put them under
severe price pressure (flying is a commodity, and even more so if the
passengers are willing to schedule around the lowest possible price).

If we can agree that air travel prices will spiral upward due to the
combination of higher costs and fewer premium paying passengers, other modes
of travel which are currently uneconomical can become so. For example rail
service between relatively close (less than 500 miles or 800 km) destinations
can offer a superior experience because of reduced scheduling constraints and
the ability to dynamically adapt to demand. (easy to add a car to a train,
hard to add another 10 rows to an airplane).

Substitution would lead to fewer passengers which would lower aggregate
passenger revenue, and since costs are fixed regardless of passenger
occupancy, the tension between what you would have to charge to fly someone
profitably and the ability to sell that many seats reliably, will (I predict)
result in the collapse of what we're calling the 'airline' business in this
discussion.

Some demand could be picked up by the now growing telepresence robot market
(since it doesn't compete with airlines any more) and unlike the airline
business the cost of telepresence robots goes down the more you build rather
than up like it does for airlines.

 _"Yes, the electronic experience will improve, but expect real world
attractions that will also improve in intensity. Think Burj Khaliva or
Spaceship 2."_

At the risk of invoking the simulation argument, if you cannot tell, other
than perhaps by acceleration, that you aren't "there" how much more are you
willing to pay to actually be there? I won't argue with Spaceship 2, as
mention in the original post there will always be a need to get from point a
to point b at _any_ cost, which is something a slightly upgraded Spaceship 2
could do, but for the Burj Khaliva? If the difference in cost between having
your telepresence robot walk around and check it out vs actually going there
was one week of salary per person would you opt to go? how about two weeks
salary? Economics tells us there will be some demand but there may not be
enough to support a business. Here is a current (and local) example. Consider
the basic ingredients for cooking food. (We're talking flour, sugar, spice,
etc) These things have gone from having their own aisle in grocery markets to
being practically 'specialty' items. People still eat, but economics of
cooking your own food vs the convenience of pre-prepared food has reduced the
demand for the basics. I doubt they will ever go away completely but the
market becomes a specialty market supporting a very limited consumer base. Do
I think there would be enough 'reality' tourists who are willing to pay extra
to be there to support the infrastructure for flying people around from where
they might be to where they might go? No. The cost of maintaining airports,
schedules, planes, fuel, maintenance supplies, and crews across the entire
country is fixed.

There exists a point where keeping the infrastructure around doesn't make
sense for the use by potential customers. That is already true [3] in some
small airports that are kept alive by federal subsidies and fees on airline
passengers. As passenger levels decrease it will become harder and harder to
maintain support for those. Once its cheaper to just build a train which will
take you to the nearest city with an airport its game over for small town
airports.

The technology for telepresence gets 'good enough' when the ever rising costs
of air travel cross the threshold which makes the choice of flying untenable.
From that point airline passenger travel decreases until all but specialty
airlines have gone out of business. My guess is we'll see it happen before
2050 :-)

[1] [http://www.whu.edu/cms/fileadmin/redaktion/LS-
RegOek/Working...](http://www.whu.edu/cms/fileadmin/redaktion/LS-
RegOek/Working_Paper_Series/WP-10-01.pdf)

[2] <http://www.anybot.com/#front>

[3]
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1201266...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120126620)

------
meric
I had not really paid attention to it before, but this plane had no windows.
Instead, the walls, ceiling and floor had turned completely transparent. Or so
it seemed. I reached down and touched the floor and apparently it was some
kind of screen. The entire interior of the plane was covered with this screen
material, and it was displaying a view that made the plane appear transparent.
Overhead there was a brilliant blue sky with a few puffy clouds. Beside us in
the distance were other planes. Below was a remarkable city and we were flying
right over it.

<http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna.htm>, Chapter 6

------
r00fus
Anyone see that and wonder how those long international flights that track the
sun would allow passengers to sleep?

~~~
joahua
I thought this - then remembered the A380's lighting systems that (in theory)
help passengers get less jetlagged. Similar to F.lux [
<http://stereopsis.com/flux/> ] for display color temperature, just on a
bigger scale.

------
kahawe
Ahhh, see-through aluminum now where could they have possible come up with
that?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_materials#Met...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_materials#Metals_for_starship_construction)

And clearly, staring right into the blaring sun at around 9k ft up in the air
is going to make for an even greater and more satisfying travel experience!

You know what a truly wonderful vision for 2050 would be? Travel without
having to deal with the airlines and without being locked in a crampy seat the
size of sardine can and without having to wait through endless and pointless
lines of "security checks". I hate those security checks... if only someone
would come up with truly smart and efficient security procedures:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_International_Airpor...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_International_Airport#Security_procedures)

~~~
StavrosK
I thought of a portal system, similar to what's used in the game, only you'd
have a door frame installed in your house with a dial pad next to it. You'd
dial the person whose door you wanted to connect to, they'd authorize it
(perhaps after a small conversation) and the two door frames would create a
portal to each other's room, as if the rooms were connected.

This is nothing more than an interesting thought experiment, but I figured
that it would already make _all_ forms of transformation obsolete, except
perhaps for ones used for leisure. Everything would be much cheaper, as you
could basically just carry everything from production to distribution to
people's homes within a few seconds.

It would also probably make most forms of _communication_ obsolete, as you
could just walk into the next room and see your friends, and you could go out
in any place in the world, so it would also revolutionize travel.

Physical shops would be turned into their online equivalents, as locality
would no longer play any part in anything, but they would only exist for the
pleasure (and marketing) of physically shopping. Actually, I can't decide
whether online stores would perish instead...

Anyway, it's an interesting world to contemplate.

