Heck, I'm just impressed with it for acknowledging the family issue. Not sure why this is such a popular internet topic, but almost none of the treatments I've seen bother considering it.
Any method that starts separating a parent from their 7&9 year olds is a non starter. Even telling a married couple they can't stand in line together for 20 minutes is going to be unpopular and lead to people breaking the system.
The CGP Grey video is particularly visual and well-designed; and especially well described is everyone unboarding after each experiment, using the slowest method of all.
It’s: Everyone stands up, and unboarding row by row from the front. It’s polite, but it doesn’t parallelize taking the bags from the overheads, so each bag adds a delay for everyone.
I worked for several years in the 90's on United Airlines' computer reservation system, on the team that managed seat reservations. I proposed the window-middle-aisle scheme to a task force that wanted to improve boarding times, and they ran a pilot for a while, but never implemented it widely, probably because of how disruptive it was to groups and families.
Separately, I have done a lot of flying for business, and I've lost count of how many times I've seen people put their bags in an overhead compartment several rows in front of their assigned seat. The best way to speed up boarding would be to eliminate the overhead compartment entirely. But I don't expect that ever to happen.
> would be to eliminate the overhead compartment entirely.
I feel like the incentives are backwards, or not aligned. Airlines are starting to charge for checked baggage, when the overhead compartment is the more valuable asset.
They should charge for the overhead space, you get a tag that can be clearly seen from the aisle.
Checked baggage has a real cost in terms of fuel and aircraft performance. You carrying some means the company can not sell that same amount as cargo.
Carry-on has costs that fall mostly on the passengers as a collective. Even the stop time of the plane is shared with other procedures, and more often than not boarding is not the bottleneck.
This suggests airlines don't realize they are selling experiences to customers rather than just hauling potatoes around the country, otherwise they would understand that the passenger cares about when the flight leaves and when they must board it. They don't care if an hour is needed to service the plane between flights so than an hour spent boarding doesn't slow the fleet down, they care how long they need to stand in line.
So a clear win for the passenger is to be had that may not increase plane turnaround but still adds value to the flight experience.
This lack of consideration of the customer experience is why you feel like a potato being hauled around when you fly a plane in anything other than business class.
The first airline that figures out that the customer experience is part of what they are selling and thus should be optimized for is going to make a lot of money even as they manage to charge only a bit more than the average. People will line up to fly them for a more pleasant experience that doesn't require making the seats wider, the plane heavier, or carrying fewer passengers per flight.
> This suggests airlines don't realize they are selling experiences to customers rather than just hauling potatoes around the country
Are they? Time and time again low cost companies (what's a codename form the hauling potatoes ones) are successful, every place they offer their services.
You can easily be cost competitive merely by switching from having overhead be free and full pay for those with checkin baggage to lowering the cost of checkin and increasing cost of overhead.
This is a pure lateral move that can be cost neutral in terms of ticket prices, but would improve the customer experience.
Yeah, I’ve long thought they should charge more for the carryon (or at least for its overhead bin space) than for checked luggage. The latter is more inconvenient for the passenger and imposes fewer real costs on the trip (security screening, boarding/deplaning time).
> I proposed the window-middle-aisle scheme to a task force that wanted to improve boarding times, and they ran a pilot for a while, but never implemented it widely, probably because of how disruptive it was to groups and families.
I haven't booked tickets in large groups, but usually when I fly with family, we're all on the same record and in the same row, so we could get lumped into the same group and optimize our row individually.
It seems to me that the main speed up is people not having to get up to let people in. So they could let any group flying together with a window go at the same time.
Myth Busters did an episode about this. Basically they found that the optimal method mathematically did not get high satisfaction marks and the most satisfying method was definitely not the fastest. I guess we value fairness more than we value overall efficiency.
On the fairness aspect: one issue is checking in hand luggage and the perception that boarding first will increase the chances of avoiding that and the wait at the luggage belt after the flight.
There are several things to improve:
1. it would be good to inform about the need to check luggage before walking through the whole airport or at least giving that option, it’s very annoying to carry luggage around only for it to be checked in at the last moment.
2. incentives would be nice, eg if a flight is fully booked, why not add a small amount of extra weight if you volunteer to check in the hand luggage.
3. primarily check in those who also have checked in luggage. I’ve often been on flights where they check in the hand luggage of some people, then you end up waiting with many others who took the hand luggage on board and are waiting for checked luggage.
4. Let people upgrade for a small fee last minute, say 5-10$ to avoid checking in, but only as a last measure.
Once the luggage is dealt with I don’t see why anyone would care - I’d prefer boarding last in that case.
If you knew you’d be able to check your too big to carryon bag at the gate for free you would never pay the cost of checking it before security (unless it is too large to fit through the X-ray scanner at TSA).
You can solve that by not offering it as a default option, but rather only when the need arises.
Here's a case:
Say you have a flight booked at 125/120 seats, there's 80 spots overhead:
- expect 5 not to come (120 left)
- 25 have booked checked luggage, offer them to hand in their carry on (95 left)
- for the remaining 15 until enough people take the offer: offer a higher quota when they check in their hand luggage, e.g. 12kg instead of 8kgs as long as the luggage is the same size
- if anything remains only then use the old system
pretty sure this would be popular, it's less unfair/annoying and takes care of issues in advance at a fairly low cost (of the 15 getting extra weight, not all of these would actually pay for more luggage or even bring more, by not taking more or putting heavy items in jackets etc.)
This is something I find to be true a lot in many different places. Humans place outsized (IMO incorrect) value on things like fairness, perceived fairness, and sometimes even retribution/punishment, in cases where they really do no good at all.
Something we failed to shuck when we came down from the trees, I guess, to paraphrase Heinlein.
It's sort of crazy how often this comes back up again and again once you notice this. Behaviors while driving are another big one.
Here are two examples I have seen with driving that are completely bass ackwards but support your point. A motorcycle parks in a car spot in a busy parking lot that has no designated motorcycle parking spots. Car drivers get annoyed with the motorcycle (sometimes accosting the rider or leaving angry notes on the bike) for taking up a car spot. Those people that do this do not consider that the motorcyclist could have just used their car and taken up the exact same spot and they’d never know the alternative existed. But because it’s a bike they can’t get past how it’s unfair.
Another one is lane filtering (sometimes incorrectly known as lane splitting). I am not talking about zooming past everyone at double the speed but the practice of motorcycles riding between cars to the head of the column at stop lights and the practice of motorcycles riding between cars when the cars are moving slowly due to traffic. Legal lane splitting in states like CA limits your speed difference to 15 mph above the average speed of the cars and research unequivocally shows that this practice results in fewer accidents (bikes often times get rear ended at lights due to cars not seeing them so being between cars is a huge safety boost), and good for traffic (bikes not taking up a spot that a car could occupy). Yet people get supremely annoyed at this because they think the riders are somehow cheating.
Note that the Southwest Airlines method (no assigned seats) was fastest in the Mythbusters test. I’m surprised that it got such a low “satisfaction” rating, as it’s one of the main appealing factors for me to fly Southwest.
Maybe it’s just very polarizing, and SWA “gets away with it” because their market share roughly represents the percentage of travelers who like that method?
I fly Southwest quite a bit (well, did before covid...) because their routes and timing work well for me. But I absolutely despise their boarding system. Or, at least, I despise the lack of seat assignments. I care a lot about what seat I get (I travel quite a bit, and know what makes me most comfortable), and I hate feeling like I have to 1) get an early boarding number, 2) make sure I hover around the gate early so I don't miss my turn, and 3) hope there aren't a ton of through passengers in order to get a seat I like. Assigned seats obviously do not guarantee me my ideal seat, but at least I have a fighting chance (sometimes I will pay for an upgrade depending on what's available and whether I have status on that airline), and I don't have to stress about where I'm going to end up.
What matters more to me? Being comfortable for the 2-5 hours I'm in the air, or shaving 10 minutes off of the time it takes to get on and off of the plane? It's a no brainer.
I ABSOLUTELY realize that in the grand scheme of things, this is an incredibly minor issue. There are much bigger problems in the world. But if I'm going to be flying a lot, as I have during certain career phases, every little thing that makes it a little more comfortable or less stressful does make a difference. And for me, the Southwest seating/boarding system adds stress.
Correct. I have a hierarchy of priorities, and pretty much the top of the list is avoiding stops/layovers/plane changes. If Southwest has a nonstop flight and the others don't, I will fly them regardless. That's the case for several places I regularly need to go. There are almost no circumstances where I choose Southwest if the number of stops is the same, though.
As a business traveler who at least used to have status on an airline, I'm a big NOPE on unassigned seats. Would pretty much cause me to never fly an airline except under duress.
I recently had a flight that had some backwards seats. My seat was one. First class.
I had read for many years that this was the best for passengers but consumers wouldn't accept it. I had always thought that was a bad assumption probably based on some tiny focus group that nobody ever questioned, and look at that, I didn't have a problem with it.
When you're not crashing (most of the time) most people find it quite a bit less pleasant as it means you're facing down when the aircraft climbs and descends. I'd avoid it pretty strongly when booking seats.
I didn't find it less pleasant, I was glad they ignored the focus groups. I don't get the impression anyone knows how they'd actually feel, given how less common that seating arrangement is. I really enjoyed the angle out of the window.
> given how less common that seating arrangement is
It used to be much more common. They seem to have done away with it - I guess based on customer response not just randomly.
You can't now because it's mostly gone, but you used to be able to see when booking a seat that all the forward-facing ones were booked before anyone booked a single rearward-facing one.
And for example - United Polaris. Replaced a 50/50 forwards-backwards configuration they'd had standard for decades with the overlapping forward-only style almost everyone seems to use now.
I associate forward-backward with crusty old 747s and military transport and I think that's how much consumers see it as well - old-fashioned but practical if your passengers are cargo, and certainly not refined or modern.
The main thing I don't love about backwards seats in both planes and trains is it feels much more intimate/invasive with the (presumable) stranger on the other side. Even if in reality they are further away than they'd be if they were facing forward in a normal configuration, having to stare at them for the whole ride is weird. I remember one time in high school I went on a trip with a bunch of classmates and the plane had those seats (just one set if I remember correctly, but I am old...). It was great fun when you knew everyone.
High speed trains in Taiwan have rotating seats, so if your loved one sits in front of you they can rotate their row to face you. A similar setup in airplanes would solve the biggest impediment to implementing the optimal method, that "I'm not leaving my child!"
I can’t imagine the seat pitch in economy on any airliner is nearly large enough to permit rotation.
Removing even a single row of seats is probably worse for airline economics than the amount by which it would speed boarding or add flexibility. (US law also prohibits car seats from being installed in rear-facing seats in aircraft; that law I think is a slight detriment to safety, but it is the law.)
There is a design where the middle seat is further back than the aisle and window seats. It would help in a different way...it's easier to get in and out of the seats. There's even an option to slide the aisle seat in during boarding, though I'm somewhat skeptical about that.
I am picturing a seat where the seat itself is stationary but the back slides forward or back on a track. Tray tables could be the style that stow in the seat and flip up and over.
If you look at the side view of seated people, the incline of the upper body and the nesting of feet under legs of next row pax works against you for club seating (seating which faces each other) and works for you for all forward seating.
If you look at the sibling comment’s video, you can see that the pelvis of humans seated back-to-back is farther apart than what you can achieve in today’s all forward-facing seating.
People are willing to some extent to nest feet with people they know but probably don’t want to sit 90° upright for over an hour.
There is no way an aircraft seat that can rotate would get airline approval for economy class, and then you'd still have the problem of getting a seat not facing forward certified. Usually the only people in rearward facing seats are airline personnel so they can see the cabin and spot issues with the passengers.
Because it would mess up in flight service, would be a mess when it comes to having people get up and go to the loo, would be hard to keep an eye on during ascent/descent and so on, and besides it would only work for the outer seats of a row, and somehow the geometry of the inner seats would have to remain undisturbed (shared arm rests), and that's before we get to talk about the weight. It's a funny idea which works on trains because the rows are much narrower and the weight isn't a consideration, nor do trains typically have in transit meal service tray tables mounted in the backs of the seats before them.
There must be some reasons why no one does dual entrance boarding. Obviously there would be an additional cost for jetways that would work in that configuration. That might be why the only time I've seen boarding at both ends of a commercial flight was an Ethiopian Airlines flight in Tanzania with a stair car for each door. Even with everyone needing to climb up stairs, the boarding process using both doors was pretty quick.
It seems to be pretty common among European low-cost carriers. Not sure why it hasn’t taken off in the US, perhaps some reluctance to make passengers walk on the tarmac?
As another fellow HNer mentioned, two door boarding seems to be more common on Asian carriers. When I flew with Eva Air, there were two doors open on the aircraft for boarding. Although the front one is for Business class only.
Optimal boarding in 2020's seems like you use an app and based on a party's seating location, need for overhead bin, presence at the gate/readiness to board the AI buzzes certain groups into a higher priority lane.
I don't fly a lot but I've always had good success with the the method that involves not stowing a bag overhead, and I just sit and wait until the line goes away. No hassle, etc.
It absolutely bewilders me that people will queue for half an hour for no other reason than getting into their cramped, uncomfortable seat as quickly as possible
People will queue just because other people are queuing, to no concrete end, and we wonder why democracy keeps throwing up such bad eggs
Being at the front of the queue means you don’t have to make your way through a long series of other passengers who are busy putting their luggage into the overhead compartment and not able to get out of your way. Having to squeeze through that can feel more cramped and claustrophobic than the seat you finally arrive at.
Also, if you are at the back of the queue, there is occasionally a risk of there no longer being space in the overhead compartment for your stuff.
This is the reason. I go back and forth on if I prefer checking luggage or carry on. Which ever is my preference at the time has a huge impact on my boarding strategy.
If you board first, you're guaranteed overhead bin space, and you have 20-30 minutes to work before you have to put away your laptop for takeoff. If you're in first or business class, you're often offered a ground service (a complimentary drink), though I haven't seen this since COVID started a year ago.
I always feel like you're actually paying for first dibs on carry-on / overhead baggage positioning. Well, unless you're actually in business/first class.
My strategy is to always be last on the plane. More often than not they will run out of overhead space and gate check my bag for free. Then I don't have to worry about hauling my luggage through the plane. I agree most people want first dibs on overhead baggage bins, but what's the big deal? I never understood this.
I pack very light and I hate checking luggage. To me, it's nice to grab my little bag and immediately exit the airport rather than wait for my luggage. Spaces like airports with tons of people make me anxious and I optimize for getting out as quickly as possible. It's just nice not having a lot of possessions to worry about as well when traveling. Of course, this strategy doesn't work for every kind of trip.
Less time at the destination airport: you get to skip baggage claim, and the time at baggage claim waiting for the throwers to unload your luggage, drive it to baggage claim, and throw it on to the belt.
Additionally, less risk of loss, too: obviously not all bags make it.
The thing I like the most about checking my bag is not having to lug my stuff through the airport while waiting. The primary downside for me is having to wait at the baggage claim on the other side. Gate checking can be the worst of both worlds if it's the sort where I still have to go through baggage claim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHbLRjF0vo