Ban overhead luggage and many issues go away...
Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds
431–440 of 512 posts
Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds
#432What's astounding is that so much effort goes into finding the best boarding strategy, while really what airplane companies should be doing is collect the hand luggage that is not going to be open during flight (90%+ of it), and pre-load it somewhere else.
Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds
#433Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fastest solution is having families with children exit last. If someone wants to exit together they can do so after everyone else is gone.
I have no issue with that personally but it's not always practical. eg: - people with Window seats next to families - occasions when younger kids have been sat for so long that they're now fidgety and causing a disturbance. With the best will in the world, sometimes physically restraining kids is just going to cause more issues then letting them disembark the plane - if the family have large items in the overhead sto…
I'll add, as father of 1 year old who had been traveling a lot, sometimes you need to run for a connecting flight because the previous one is very late.
I usually board first with the family (required, I don't have enough hands to hold the baby and put luggages above, and my wife is not tall enough), but whenever possible I leave the plane last. It's relaxing, no one is chasing me, I can grab the bags slowly while preventing my baby from killing some one
Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You just pointed out that an optimal solution will not work because of your situation and you just assume that the rest of us should have to accept that Correct. People have children, this is functionally why society structures persist. It is entitlement, and deservedly so. Raising children is a hard task. We should make accommodations for those who choose to do so, and avoid arrogance or anger because we chose / c…
Most people will agree that there's a collective obligation to safeguard children. Not so much for a collective obligation to go out of our way to make parenting more convenient for those who can afford to raise kids AND to purchase plane tickets for all of them. Particularly when, IME, the people most fervent about the well-being of their own children tend to care little about other's. I assume you're, say, an arden…
I'm not sure why you presume that. While I'm on a flight, I do everything possible to prevent my baby from disrupting others flight.
However, some stuff flight companies do are incredibly helpful (e. G. Allow us to board first) and make everyone 's experience better.
Unfortunately it's either that, or have no kids, or never fly (for some people this means: never meet your family again). All things that are limiting for a human being that should get a decent quality of life (culture and such)
Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds
#435The US airlines’ system of roughly allowing people to board in the order corresponding to how much they pay (with up to 9 distinct groups) looks a little silly now.
Which is a little weird, because those who pay more get to board earlier... but why would anyone want to board a plane earlier?
Personally I would like to board at the last possible time, but I not going to un-board until the busiest people have left the plane.
Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds
#436I'm also convinced that we exit the plane in the worst way possible. We basically do it row-by-row: as the people in front of them leave, people in a row get up, get their bags, start walking down the line, and this cascades up the plane. The problem is that there is very little parallelism: while people in the next row to leave are getting their bags, no one is exiting the plane. This is similar to a stall in a proc…
I wonder if a mechanical solution could be used: fold away the arm rests and squash the seats together. 6 armrests folded away would make the isle twice as wide. This could make boarding and exiting more than twice as fast because you have double the capacity and people can overtake others stowing luggage.
Interesting engineering challenge to design those seats. Perhaps leave the armrests and use a wormwheel to make the seats narrower is easier to implement. Could be hilarious if engaged while people are sitting in them.
Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you’re getting off with your family you should just wait for everyone else Uhh, no. First of all, we aren't slow, second kids have tiny bladders and third when did childless folks become such fragile babies?
There is a question that I think needs to be asked more often: Why do those who do have/chose to have children always expect everyone else to bear their externalized burdens? You just pointed out that an optimal solution will not work because of your situation and you just assume that the rest of us should have to accept that your choice to have children automatically grants you the right to impinge on the rest of us…
The backdrop is that raising kids is incredibly hard and the birth rate is below replacement and falling in the US because fewer people are willing or able to do it. Society should endeavor to make it easier for parents, at the expense of the childfree, if it cares about maintaining itself.
Only by ignoring this context could one conclude that deplaning efficiency for single people is the priority.
Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a question that I think needs to be asked more often: Why do those who do have/chose to have children always expect everyone else to bear their externalized burdens? You just pointed out that an optimal solution will not work because of your situation and you just assume that the rest of us should have to accept that your choice to have children automatically grants you the right to impinge on the rest of us…
> You just pointed out that an optimal solution will not work because of your situation and you just assume that the rest of us should have to accept that Correct. People have children, this is functionally why society structures persist. It is entitlement, and deservedly so. Raising children is a hard task. We should make accommodations for those who choose to do so, and avoid arrogance or anger because we chose / c…
Most people who choose to have children don't do so to enable society structures to persist though. I could argue that by not having kids I'm saving the planet from the effects of over population?
Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds
#439I'm also convinced that we exit the plane in the worst way possible. We basically do it row-by-row: as the people in front of them leave, people in a row get up, get their bags, start walking down the line, and this cascades up the plane. The problem is that there is very little parallelism: while people in the next row to leave are getting their bags, no one is exiting the plane. This is similar to a stall in a proc…
[deleted]
Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You just pointed out that an optimal solution will not work because of your situation and you just assume that the rest of us should have to accept that Correct. People have children, this is functionally why society structures persist. It is entitlement, and deservedly so. Raising children is a hard task. We should make accommodations for those who choose to do so, and avoid arrogance or anger because we chose / c…
Most people will agree that there's a collective obligation to safeguard children. Not so much for a collective obligation to go out of our way to make parenting more convenient for those who can afford to raise kids AND to purchase plane tickets for all of them. Particularly when, IME, the people most fervent about the well-being of their own children tend to care little about other's. I assume you're, say, an arden…
I would support equalization of funding subject to purchasing power parity.
That's a bit of a red herring to the conversation, and I'm a bit confused why that is the filter you choose to engage rather than policy for ensuring proper nutrition, UBI, or any other economic impact, or why my non-response intra-sentence to your comment online is a purity test for said support.
But taking a step back, even if parents are individually genetically biased towards their brood, that doesn't impact that part of a society's very essence and existence is to ensure children grow to adulthood. Eusociality and all that.