Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 512 posts

Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds

#441

Post by dazc »

bsanr2 wrote: post #394
tomrod wrote: post #383

Earlier 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…

'...AND to purchase plane tickets for all of them'

But not be willing to pay a few quid for all of them to sit together, yet expect other passengers to move in order for them to do so...

Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds

#443

Post by tomrod »

dazc wrote: post #438
tomrod wrote: post #383

Earlier 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 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?

You could! And it is important to note that limited antinatalism is not unreasonable, so long as it is remembered that replacement rate!=overpopulation unless already above carrying capacity.

Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds

#444

Post by stouset »

satyrnein wrote: post #437
twojacobtwo wrote: post #359

Earlier 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…

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.

We’re already way beyond our planet’s capabilities for providing for human life at first-world standards of living.

Maybe not encouraging more children isn’t a bad thing.

Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds

#445

Post by anoncake »

peteretep wrote: post #320
sjg007 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this is why your kid won't speak to you after age 18.

My parents used to stick me in Economy when they flew Business on long-haul from about 7 onward, and I still speak to _at least_ one of them.

It kinda makes sense, kids are smaller so they don't need as much space. We should sort passengers by size in general.

Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds

#446

Post by reaperducer »

wutbrodo wrote: post #336
JoshTriplett wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which they only do because free checked is going away. I pack everything in one piece of carry-on luggage, and I'd do that even if checked luggage were free (which it often is). It means I don't have to take extra time or wait in a line to check a bag at the source airport, I don't have to take time at baggage claim at the destination airport (just walk straight from the gate to ground transportation), and I don't…

Yup, I haven't checked a bag in a decade and have been consistently baffled by my friends that do; this decade was roughly my 20s, so it excludes a lot of the good reasons for checked bags like physical limitations or young children). Who wants to deal with checkin lines upon boarding (and get to the airport that much earlier), then get off of an international flight and wait an arbitrarily long time for your bags, w…

One reason, from my 20's, since you declared that parameter: The sort of clothing one wears to a cultural event doesn't fit in a carry-on. There's no way I was going to show up for an opera in Vienna or a symphony in Prague in jeans and a drip-dry t-shirt.

Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds

#447

Post by jsjohnst »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #370
billatq wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much this. When I’m flying business I actually would rather board at the end, but I also don’t want to check my bag because it’s a hassle to retrieve and the contents are thrown several meters. If I could guarantee there was space in the overhead for my bag or if it was loaded for me, I’d board last.

Business class overhead space is often reserved for business class, even on domestic flights. That space doesn't usually fill up completely, so you have a lot more leeway in boarding.

> That space doesn't usually fill up completely, so you have a lot more leeway in boarding.

Maybe the airlines I fly are just the worst examples, but I frequently fly business/first both domestic and international and the overheads are always full, usually due in part to passengers not in that cabin.

Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds

#448

Post by scep12 »

Drakar1903 wrote: post #419
asiachick wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to get off the plane 1-3 minutes earlier. In fact I doubt it would even add up to that. The spread between the first passengers off and the last, non doddling passenger is rarely that long. Families, friends, couples are not going to go for your rule that one of them should get off first and the other should wait for the entire rest of column to leave. How about just trying to be more patient? Find som…

Multiply that 3 minutes by however many passengers are on the plane and you're saving days of human existence.

There's much more lower-hanging fruit out there if your goal is reducing borderline unpleasant waiting experiences for humanity.

Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds

#449

Post by wutbrodo »

reaperducer wrote: post #446
wutbrodo wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, I haven't checked a bag in a decade and have been consistently baffled by my friends that do; this decade was roughly my 20s, so it excludes a lot of the good reasons for checked bags like physical limitations or young children). Who wants to deal with checkin lines upon boarding (and get to the airport that much earlier), then get off of an international flight and wait an arbitrarily long time for your bags, w…

One reason, from my 20's, since you declared that parameter: The sort of clothing one wears to a cultural event doesn't fit in a carry-on. There's no way I was going to show up for an opera in Vienna or a symphony in Prague in jeans and a drip-dry t-shirt.

This isn't true at all, in my experience. I've been on multi-leg trips that included weddings and formal events as well as beach time, which meant packing formal shoes and clothing (in a couple cases a full suit) along with enough t-shirts to deal with the humidity of a beach, shorts, flip-flops, trunks, etc. My 40L backpack has so far been accepted as carry-on in 15+ different countries, and I carry a small tote bag[1] for overflow/on-the-plane items (usually laptop+book, but occasionally shoes). Hell, right know I'm visiting some (lovably) stodgy family in the old country, which means I have to pack formal clothing for the inevitable trips to the country club and various events... And I spent a few days on the beach in Thailand right before this. I was able to do all of this while carrying half a dozen gifts that took up probably 30% of my bag.

Your comment just reinforces my bafflement and my impression that people subject themselves to checked baggage because they've simply never bothered to look into the alternative. I'm sure there are many people for whom checking a bag works out fine, but the bafflement comes from the many people (including some I know personally) who hate the hassle but haven't gotten around to trying carry-on-only travel.

[1] It's the New Yorker tote bag, in case anyone is familiar with the dimensions

Re: Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds

#450

Post by wutbrodo »

cortesoft wrote: post #338
wutbrodo wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who hasn't checked a bag for a decade, this seems fair. I save a TON of time and hassle not checking luggage, and it seems only fair that those who do check luggage not be held up further by my choice.

Except the people who checked luggage are going to end up waiting at the luggage pick up anyway.

Sure, but sitting on an airport floor (+ being able to go the bathroom, get water, wifi, etc) is better than half-standing in a cramped dry aircraft that you've spent the last X hours in.
Post reply on HN