

Reinventing the Airline Industry - foobar2k
http://www.judegomila.com/2013/02/reinventing-airline-industry-open-post.html

======
admford
Interesting article, but there are some flaws in the author's reasoning.

1\. Containerizing passenger space.

Not a good idea, it would require a massive re-engineering effort in the
structure of the cabin, since a whole tube is a much more reliable pressure
vessel rather than half of one with a 90 degree angle where the floor meets
the wall. You generate a ton of stress at those joints with pressurization
cycles. Hard angles were in part what doomed the first generation of De
Havilland Comets. You can possibly add a smaller, whole tube in the cabin
area, but then you get the space of a narrow body aircraft & increase weight.

Reinforcing the rest of the structure of the aircraft if you remove the cabin
area would also add in a ton of weight. We all know how a cylinder of paper
can support many times its weight in compression, cut a big hole in one side
and it will collapse. The survivors of Aloha Airlines Flight 243 didn't know
if the floor structure of the 737 alone would be strong enough to survive a
landing without having the plane break in two.

2\. Meshed chairs.

The FAA requires that all aircraft chairs withstand a 16G impact in order to
keep passengers safe. There's a reason why the seating is so heavy and bulky,
it's to keep us safe during an accident. The seat structure absorbs most of
the impact, so our spines and legs don't. Mesh chairs may be cool (both
figuratively and literally), but I doubt they'll hold up to 1.5 tons of impact
force (16 times the average weight of an American male, 191 lbs) without
tearing.

3\. Noise

The 787 is heading in partially the right direction to reduce cabin noise.
Other than the air rushing by the plane, most noise is from the air
conditioning units, and general vibration of the structure. Most planes use
bleed air from the turbofan to pressurize the cabin. Basically you take some
of the hot air from the compressor stage of the engine and send it through
different parts of the plane (to the wing leading edges for de-icing as an
example). A good part of this superheated air is sent to the airconditioning
units which work to cool it down and direct it into the cabin. The 787
eliminates bleed air completely, and uses other means (mainly electric
alternatives) for most systems. Additional insulation & physical isolation of
parts that can induce vibrations into the structure also help.

~~~
tass
Regarding containerizing passenger space:

Rather than having it as a container, what about an open space that is
inserted rather than becoming part of the external structure?

So, seating would be arranged on a completely open, flat structure; a long
version of this: [http://image.made-in-
china.com/2f0j00PeRaHYmFgBgL/Retractabl...](http://image.made-in-
china.com/2f0j00PeRaHYmFgBgL/Retractable-Tiered-Removable-Seating-KT-
SZH2-.jpg)

Then, this is inserted into an aeroplane, in a manner similar to what you see
here:
[http://www.abi.gr/system/assets/000/000/189/original_cargo_a...](http://www.abi.gr/system/assets/000/000/189/original_cargo_aircraft_2.jpg)

This means the seating platform doesn't need to be pressurized and the
required aircraft is already in production.

~~~
larrydag
I was thinking the exact same thing. I was envisioning a "pod" system that you
could have about 10 rows which could hold about 40 to 80 passengers each. Each
pod would be a cylinder that could be delivered to the aircraft on the tarmac
upon boarding. On disembarking they would be delivered to the jet bridge in a
sort of star arrangement where you could have 3 to 4 pods attached at any
given time.

This system would be interesting because you have effectively detached the
aircraft from the passengers. The airline need only deliver pods to airport
destinations. This would create an entirely new supply chain and offers more
flexibility in scheduling. Plus the added bonus of decreased boarding and
disembarking because all the aircraft needs to do is load pods.

I think there is a lot of merit to the containerization approach.

BUMP: Found this link on the subject [http://innopedia.wikidot.com/multi-
modal-passenger-container...](http://innopedia.wikidot.com/multi-modal-
passenger-containers)

~~~
admford
The problem with a pod system is weight and complexity. Generally speaking,
you'd need to create at least two pressure vessels (main cabin, and cockpit),
which would have to be joined by a hermetically sealed passage.

Between the inner pod, and the outer skin, you'd need to make sure that doors
would work in almost any condition. Sure, you can blow the bolts holding the
tail on and use parachutes to make the pod descend, though without the pilots
since they're in a separate pressure vessel. But what if there's a fire when
the plane is on the ground? Parachutes won't work in that situation, and
neither would ejection rockets (unless you want to crush the passenger's
spines by launching a multi-ton pod high enough for parachutes to deploy).

The main problem facing airlines is simple. How to pack in as many people as
possible onto a flight in order to cover it's costs (airport fees, fuel, food,
wages, etc.). More people who can cover the flight's costs means more profit
for the airline, or lower costs for the passengers.

The real question with the Pod idea is this. Either way people have to board
through a door and go to their seats, so that remains the same. But consider
this, would people have to board a pod immediately at the gate, or would they
wait in a lounge until the plane arrives? Because if they board the pod
immediately, it may save time, but passengers will be sitting in cramped
seats, with only airline food, and the limited toilet facilities available for
possibly HOURS (if the plane is delayed or the flight cancelled in the end.
Since these passengers are not physically ON the plane, the passengers' rights
would be questionable in these situations.

Technically you could also fill out a pod and have it wait in a holding area
on the airport tarmac while the plane arrives, freeing up gates for other
airlines. But this impacts the airport retail system (restaurants & stores),
which all pay rent to airports. If you eliminate passengers waiting in gates,
you eliminate the need for retail. You eliminate retail, you make it that
airports would increase fees for airline operations at the airport. And in the
end, it would impact ticket prices negatively.

------
michael_miller
The best way to reinvent the airline industry is to fly private. Think about
how terrible a bus is, and how most of us use cars because it's an immensely
better experience. Going from commercial -> private is a similarly massive
leap (I've never flown on a chartered private flight, but I am training for my
pilot's license). You go to the FBO (the equivalent of the commercial
terminal, but on the other side of the airport), sit down on a comfy couch,
watch some TV on a nice flatscreen, grab some free snacks and drinks, then
walk out onto the tarmac to your plane at your leisure. No backscatter
machines, no metal detectors, and CSRs who give a crap and want to help you
(since you're paying them!).

Of course, flying private is not viable for most people. I see the day
approaching where owning a plane will be on the same order of magnitude of
expense of owning a car. Two things make flying really expensive: fuel and
maintenance (you can buy a flyable used plane for ~$50k). Fuel is a fairly
intuitive expense: avgas runs about $6 / gallon in the northeast. Figure a
small piston plane (4 people) burns ~12 gallons / hour, and you're talking
~$72/hr to operate a plane in fuel alone (note: you're traveling about 150mph
in this piston plane, much slower than a jet). Maintenance is a huge issue as
well. Every so-many thousand(~2k for a piston) hours of flying, you have to
shell out a ton of money ($15k for a piston plane) to overhaul the engine(s).
This is in addition to standard annual and 100-hour inspections.

One thing is going to change both of those factors: better battery technology
is going to make electric planes viable. Energy cost goes down since energy
from the grid is way cheaper than that generated from the ICE. Maintenance is
hugely reduced as well. No oil changes. No engine overhauls (electric engines
last for ~10x as long as their ICE counterparts and are way cheaper).
Increased reliability (adding engines is a trivial cost and doesn't increase
weight significantly). Recapturing potential energy during descent. Reduced
drag (no nasty air inlets for that combustion reaction).

I don't think this change is going to happen overnight, but given the focus on
battery technology for EVs, I think the requisite batteries will become
available within 10 years (historically, battery density has doubled over
10y).

~~~
bryanlarsen
For many people, the bus/train is the better experience. It takes less time
during rush hour, and you can read/nap/work during the ride. I imagine that
private plane slots at an airport have a fairly limited availability, so if
they become popular you'll have congestion issues too.

~~~
netnichols
Indeed. In many parts of the world the normal intercity bus ride is a quite
pleasurable experience, significantly better in many ways than flying a budget
(or pretty much any) airline.

------
starpilot
Interesting wishlist, but that's all it is. What he doesn't list is the bump
in airfare he's willing to accept for all of the proposed changes. Active
noise cancellation and better screens don't come cheap, and most of the
compromises he cites were decided out of economy, not because aeronautical
engineers are thoughtless. It seems like the most practical thing for him to
do would be to pony up and pay for business class.

~~~
jostmey
Agreed. It is annoying when people come up with "radical" solutions to re-vamp
an industry simply by ignoring any and all technical constraints.

The situation is akin to the stereotypical boss who knows nothing about
computers throwing out silly ideas to his or her hired programmers.

~~~
sliverstorm
To frame it with something people are a little more familiar with-

 _"I'm going to revolutionize the automobile industry by offering a car that
gets 4x the fuel economy, by doubling the efficiency of the engine and cutting
chassis weight in half. The car will be zero emissions, get excellent safety
ratings, and offer best-in-class comfort.

Really, I don't understand why no one has thought of this before."_

------
maxcan
Pointless article written by someone seemingly without even a wikipedia-level
knowledge of the issues involved in what he's suggesting. Has no place on the
HN front page.

------
netnichols
"Remov[e] silly things like entertainment controls on your arm rest. These
frequently activate the screen when your trying to sleep. Bring it all to the
touch screen interface."

Nooooo! Good grief has he really never had someone repeatedly jabbing the
touch screen on the back of his seat? Granted that could be partially
mitigated with better touch screens, but some people still jab at iPads.

~~~
disbelief
Sill, the embedded arm rest controls must be the most frustrating and
antiquated "solution" to this problem. Put a touch pad on the armrest with a
retractable cover, or something — anything but the idiotic circa 80s atari
controller on the retractible vacuum cleaner cord!

------
jwr
Yet another article I won't read, because the site takes pains to break
zooming on iOS devices. No zooming, no reading.

I really can't understand why people do that. Is it arrogance ( _this_ is how
my site looks like, PERIOD!)?

------
aclimatt
Regarding a standardization process for electronics, that already exists.
Right now the FAA allows an airline to certify any piece of electronic
equipment (to my knowledge), _provided_ that every single version of the
device (think all iPhone models) is tested with every single plane they run.
With no passengers. Thus a carrier has to fly every plane they have with a
specific device on board just to certify it, which is cost prohibitive.

------
clintonc
The bit about taking the safety demonstration out of the cabin is not quite so
simple. The author suggests a sort of "driver's license" for planes, so that a
person only has to learn about the safety features and procedures once.
Unfortunately, there are many different planes out there, and the safety
features might be substantially different from one plane to another. (Is there
a slide? Is the seat cushion your flotation device, or is there something
under the seat? Is there an exit in the back?) One would need more
standardization among airplanes before one can do away with repeated safety
demonstrations entirely.

~~~
jsnell
I don't understand that complaint about the safety instructions being a "waste
of time and energy for the passenger". If you know the content, just do
something else. I pay even cursory attention to them maybe one flight out of
20.

~~~
tomjen3
I just get insulted that they think I don't know how to operate a belt buckle
or that I care about what can be used to float when I am dead because the
pilot smashed the plane into the atlantic.

Now if they told me how to operate the ejection seat or how to best overcome a
muslim hijacker...

------
jdavid
Another problem in the airline industry is pricing stability. current prices
have been climbing over the last few years and pricing has always been
confusing. I think there are several possible algorithm and economic models
that could be leveraged to solve pricing on the fuel side, and on the consumer
ticket side.

Stable prices means that consumers and airlines can both plan better.

For consumers, it means confidence in buying a ticket.

For airlines, it means predictable revenue, and costs, which should add to the
market cap of the companies.

~~~
CaptainZapp
What looks confusing has a lot of science and math backing it up. The
procedure is known as yield management
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_management#Airlines>) and the idea behind
it is selling as many seats on a plane as expensively as possible. Since
nothing is going stale quicker then unsold airline seat when the doors close
they rather sell you a seat for 200$ instead of asking 2K and having an unsold
seat.

In a nutshell: An airplane cabin is segmented into a number of classes. There
can be a dozen, or even more classes, even though you only see economy,
business and maybe first.

Each class gets allocated a number of seats and the actual booking class can
have more, or less restrictions attached to it (for example: refunding, or
changing the ticket, mandatory Saturday night stay, minimum duration of stay,
etc).

The more flexibility you require the more expensive the ticket becomes.

Even though it looks very confusing from a passenger perspective and prices
can fluctuate on an hourly basis, depending on the number of seats available
for a specific sub class, the concept makes a lot of sense from an airline's
perspective.

~~~
jdavid
This is kinda my point the pricing is based on old maximums. Today the pricing
could have a consumer centric model priced around arrival performance vs.
ticket refund-ability and other sub classes.

------
shn
Many good ideas. They need to be hold against regulations, and maybe even
regulations need to be hold against realities of today. Standardization is the
principal idea, and I think definitely help cutting the cost for manufacturers
and airlines and hopefully find its way into the ticket price.

A loaded cabin may also lead to better survival of passengers in case of a
eminent fatal crash. It can be ejected, or like mars rover landing it could
have inflated ballons and chute to reduce the impact.

------
TheAnimus
I'm not sure he takes in to account the best thing about SLF (Self Loading
Freight), which is the fact they are self loading. This leads to a great cost
reduction in many cases, but as always, its a few arseholes that go and ruin
it for the majority.

However, as has been suggested before, we could load the plane in a more
efficent manner: [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20859-test-shows-
most-...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20859-test-shows-most-
efficient-way-to-board-a-plane.html)

The other thing is he failed to take in to account SLFs are a bunch of
whinging little things, most mil transports use backwards facing seating, as
its much safer in certain disaster scenarios. Apparently, the airlines say,
SLF don't like it.

I wonder how many more would hate been in a box, shifted sideways, up and down
etc. Planes have a nice tendancy to only ever glide, in fact most airlines
have strick limits on the number of degrees of pitch/bank that a pilot can use
under normal circumstances.

------
auctiontheory
I applaud the effort to think vision-first - but practical reinvention also
needs to consider the provider's priorities and costs.

------
disbelief
Honestly, even with a more comfortable in-air experience and a streamlined
check-in and check-out process, the fact is that air travel will always
involve being crammed inside an airtight container with a few hundred other
people coping with boredom, cramped muscles, and screaming babies.

For me the best thing solution is to avoid it all.

I'm not saying "stop flying" I'm saying: knock me unconscious until I reach my
destination! Then I don't have to worry about the annoying passenger next to
me, the crappy food, the primitive climate control, the foggy, greasy screen
on the buggy entertainment system, the harassed and overworked flight
attendants, that smell coming out of the washroom, whether my overhead luggage
is getting crushed by the massive duty free bag someone jammed on top of it,
etc. etc. etc.

Bring on the hibernation chambers!

------
eddmc
Here is a more realistic attempt at improving the airplane experience for
economy class passengers:
[http://www.jamesdysonaward.org/Projects/Project.aspx?ID=2634...](http://www.jamesdysonaward.org/Projects/Project.aspx?ID=2634&RegionId=0&Winindex=0)

This is a design concept submitted to for the 2012 James Dyson Awards.
Unfortunately this design takes up more floorspace than the existing cabin
layout, so they would need to iterate on the design before an airline will
consider it.

~~~
Fundlab
That is awfully clumsy! The current layout of 'screens behind the seats' lauds
the aesthetic minimalism in a more profound way.

You did give me a good laugh by the way!

------
jamesseattle
The suggestion "Containerize the airline industry" is wrong on so many levels.
First of all every air port in the world would have to install new equipment.
That would take money and time. Secondly every airline would have to buy new
planes. Thirdly it ignores the reality that container ships are bot like
airplanes. Airplanes have ventilation, electronics and structural requirements
that ships don't have.

------
kristianp
What about the huge cost of keeping a fleet of planes modern? It must be
difficult to run an airline, with petrol prices varying and customers
expecting rock-bottom fares.

One thing that interests me is the idea that battery and capacitor technology
will improve enough that kerosene powered planes will become obsolete.

------
alenart
Disrupting the airline industry takes a lot of cash. It's going to take more
than some pie-in-the-sky cabin concept.

Let's get realistic about what the industry really needs in order to make
flying an enjoyable experience. It's no coincidence that the new American
Airlines logo looks like Greyhound's. =p

------
zurn
It would be very unwise to make flying more attractive as long as the planes
are injecting fossil CO2 straight into the upper atmosphere. This makes the
emissions 2-4x more potent greenhouse gases than CO2 emitted from the ground.

We should be in a hurry to implement disincentives for air travel.

~~~
culturestate
Disincentivizing air travel? Do we have a viable alternative to get me from
New York to London in less than 5 days?

~~~
zurn
There are more important things in the world than keeping your current ticket
price when flying from New York to London.

~~~
culturestate
I'm all for paying more in the interest of environmental protection, but
again: is there a viable alternative?

Is reversing the democratization of international travel, which I would argue
has been, proportionally, much more of a force for good economically and
socially than it has been an instrument of environmental destruction, really
the best answer we've got?

~~~
zurn
Seeing the world is well possible without airplanes if you take out the 5 day
trip length! Going for short trips every now and then is very wasteful.

But yes, cutting down on flying will have downsides. As will many other
compromises we must do to get CO2 down.

------
acd
I did a similar redesign with 3 row height bunks taking inspiration from
submarines allowing economy passangers to sleep comfortably during long haul
flights. The top two beds were foldable and the bottom row was used for
seating during landing and takeoff.

------
jdavid
I think Electrostatic engines will be a huge leap forward for jet engine
travel.

------
kokey
I think for some long haul flights it would be nice to have rows of, say, 3-4
seats that can fold down flat into the floor. Then you can lower 3-4 hammocks
hanging above each other in the same space.

------
nimmen
this all sounds nice and neat, but reality bites back. As per writers thoughts
on Virgin. "Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. is set to report an annual loss of
$201 million for the 2013 fiscal year and, in response, has imposed a salary
freeze for the entire fiscal year, which began March 1."

------
michaelochurch
Yeah, right. Airline executives actually _enjoy_ how much they suck at their
jobs. This is an industry known for volatile, extremely high prices except on,
perhaps, 3 routes and terrible service, and it _still_ needs to be bailed out,
like clockwork, every 5 years or so.

It's the worst in the U.S. We get the double joy of paying Virgin prices and
getting RyanAir service.

As soon as they started charging for fucking _checked baggage_ it was obvious
that, yep, these assholes just like seeing how shitty a job they can get away
with. Fuckers are trolling us, that's all. They're a real-world version of
this, from Louis CK (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_XiA4U_XsE#t=1m7s>).

The only thing that will "reinvent" this crap-ass industry is outright
obsolescence. I'd rather see work on maglev trains and in-ocean tunnels than
any faith put in these assholes.

~~~
prodigal_erik
I found <http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines> a pretty
compelling explanation about why airlines have to go to such extremes in price
discrimination as to be despised by customers, and yet continually go
bankrupt.

