AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH

[solarbird]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

Comments

[torquemada.livejournal.com]

Fuck, Airbus planes are cramped and uncomfortable enough already.

[sistawendy.livejournal.com]

When the executives at Airbus die, there will be no seats for them in hell.

[chirik.livejournal.com]

They're the ones coming out with the new superjumbo Airbus 380. Supposed to fit 800-some people.

In an all-coach configuration.

[torquemada.livejournal.com]

Jesus. Are they putting fold-out seats in stowage in case they don't fill up with luggage?

[chirik.livejournal.com]

Thankfully, they're not doing that. No, it's just bloody huge, including two full decks. Larger than almost everything else out there. Airbus 380 on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_380)

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I'm telling you, at some point they'll just be gassing us in the terminals and stacking us like cordwood, with revival of the survivors upon arrival at the destination.

[epawtows.livejournal.com]

I've seen prelim studies on the "stand people up" idea; but nobody's ever taken them seriously before.

There is a story going around the office, that JAL once asked Boeing for a dozen 747's with a bizzare set of "short range island hopping" modifications. This included putting seats in the belly (normally a cargo bay), putting on fixed landing gear, and putting seats in the gear wells (where the wheels normally retract into). They might even have wanted seats in the center wing area (normally a fuel tank).

They were turned down. Prime reasons were that it just didn't pay to do such major mods for only a dozen aircraft, and because it wasn't possible to make the belly surviveable in a crash landing (even fixed gear can be sheared off if it hits something, and airliners normally protect the passenger level by letting the cargo bay crush and absorb energy).

[sir-quirky-k.livejournal.com]

...is it so wrong that I'm slightly less-than-unhappy about this because more people on a given plane = fewer planes required = less CO2 emissions?

(Note: the writer of this comment is an environmentalist who has only flown twice in his life, and that against his will on a family holiday to Mallorca.)

[adularia.livejournal.com]

I haven't done the math to make the comparison, but the more people on the plane, the heavier the plane. The heavier the plane, the more jet fuel it will consume on a given flight. The airline might make a lot more MONEY with four times the people on any given flight, but at a serious fuel/emissions cost even if they cut the number of flights per day.

[epawtows.livejournal.com]

While putting more weight on a plane, or making a plane bigger, does use more fuel, it doesn't increase it enough to count as another aircraft.

I.E., a 200-passenger 757 will use less fuel on a cross-country flight than two 100-seat 737's.

[darkphoenixrisn.livejournal.com]

Oy vey. Flying coach is bad enough now.

[solarbird]

They might even have wanted seats in the center wing area (normally a fuel tank).
I had a weird nightmare where I was in exactly this plane you describe once. Seriously. About six months ago. Have you ever talked to me about this before? Because that's just strange.

[solarbird]

And my response to that plane is not just "no," but fuck no.

Could be worse..

[(Anonymous)]

They could've suggested putting a trailer hitch on it and a tow-behind glider...Scott

[epawtows.livejournal.com]

I don't recall...possibly.

[dpawtows.livejournal.com]

Think of it this way:
If you add one 200-lb person to an existing aircraft, then that's an extra 200lbs that have to be lifted into the sky. If you put this person onto another aircraft, then you have the same 200 lbs plus the new airframe to lift into the sky.
In general, one large vehicle is ususally more fuel-efficient than multiple small vehciles of the same total capacity. That's the principle behind supertankers and freight trains.