Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study finds • Hacker News Board

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

#481

Post by dokem » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

tardo99 wrote: post #167

scott_s wrote: post #81

I'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…

What they should do is disallow anyone from opening the overhead bins until all the people who didn't insist on carrying on all their luggage exit.

I insist on carrying all my luggage with me because while you’re waiting at the luggage claim I’ve already left the airport.

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

#482

Post by ergothus » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #385

glennpratt wrote: post #302

Earlier 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?

> kids have tiny bladders Very small kids have diapers. Planes have bathrooms. > when did childless folks become such fragile babies? Huh? I have a 10 month old and a 3 year old. I am offering advice based on my personal experience. It’s a lot more pleasant for both us and everyone else if we wait for faster groups to clear out first. After sitting on a plane for 2–12 hours, waiting an extra 5 minutes is not a big de…

Access to the plane bathrooms is barely sufficient for me. Too much of the flight you cant get up or vc ant get to them. I've had many a flight involve my own pee pee dance, I think it is fair to say I can be a problem for some families.

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

#483

Post by JoshTriplett » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 6:08 PM UTC

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.

My carry-on is a garment bag, which carries quite a bit of formal and informal clothing.

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

#484

Post by SubuSS » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 6:16 PM UTC

simonskoog wrote: post #408

disbshdns wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not babies. They just don’t get it. The totality of the commitment is lost on them. What’s new is that they also just don’t care.

I'm not so sure about that. Two thoughts: The main reason me and my SO don't have kids is a deep concern about there not being any sure way to absolutely guarantee that a new person brought to this world will live a happy and fulfilling life and that the ethical thing to do is to when able (SO finishing education) adopt a child in need to improve their lives. This of course means that I'm currently pretty sure that m…

> The main reason me and my SO don't have kids is a deep concern about there not being any sure way to absolutely guarantee that a new person brought to this world will live a happy and fulfilling life

There is almost NOTHING you can do with an absolute guarantee in this world: You can't even drive down the road with an absolute guarantee that you won't end up having a stroke and killing few people. IOW - this is the true scotsman equivalent of justification. The idea here is that smart, empathetic and introspective folks have children and in turn raise smart, empathetic and introspective kids, thereby tilting humanity towards enlightenment. I look at it as my part to move humanity forward (the other part being me doing my best to provide for them AND ensure my own life has meaning as well). IOW I don't buy this reason - it sounds like perfection blocking reality to me.

> and that the ethical thing to do is to when able (SO finishing education) adopt a child in need to improve their lives.

It is awesome that folks adopt: Those kids do need a home. It may even be an ethical thing to do. BUT that doesn't make having your own kid unethical. As I mentioned before, I do believe you have an ethical commitment to move humanity forward as well. Ending your own gene branch just because there are other branches you could take care of is not an alternative: It is more of an orthogonal thing. IOW foster as many kids as you can. I don't buy that it is a replacement to not have kids, especially considering the argument above. If you can't foster, you can always contribute as well to foster care systems in your country.

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

#485

Post by wutbrodo » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

bschwindHN wrote: post #377

wutbrodo wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like some sort of patient wisdom until you realize that there's no actual upside to your seeming preference of doing things less efficiently. Appreciating the ability to fly across the world isn't exclusive of being able to improve the experience when there are easy ways to do so with few, if any, downsides. By your logic, why not add an additional mandatory thirty minute waiting period to deplane? After…

> your seeming preference of doing things less efficiently It's not a preference, it's a realization that this is a human problem and you're never going to get full compliance from a large group of people who all move at different speeds, have varying amounts of luggage, varyings levels of selfishness, and various other factors that affect deplaning speed. This whole comment thread seems to be full of single tech bro…

Your logic is predicated on the assumption that we currently have optimal processes for boarding/deplaning (given human psychology). Anyone with a passing familiarity with the airline industry knows how ludicrous it is to make the assumption that everything is run optimally[1]. Your assumption is just as "fucking stupid" and only marginally less contrived than my (facetious) hypothetical.

> This whole comment thread seems to be full of single tech bros that are mad they can't get off the plane faster, and are trying to design "solutions" and "algorithms" to make it faster, all while assuming every other passenger is also a single person who can deplane as fast as them.

You've clearly only read a fraction of the comments if you think that no one's thinking about (eg) family boarding and deplaning. And "tech bro" is a pretty reliable tell for "I'm hopelessly out of depth when it comes to comprehending this conversation".

[1] This isn't quite a knock on airlines themselves; the economics of the industry leads to bizarre incentives.

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

#486

Post by MauranKilom » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 7:35 PM UTC

senordevnyc wrote: post #456

sdoering wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly despise people like that. If you add up lost time for all other passengers and compare that to won time for her and her family (less time waiting at the baggage claim) this ends up massively weighted against her behavior. non the less her behavior is actually rational and optimal from a standpoint of game theory. At least under current conditions (bag size not checked and enforced up front). This is in my…

So you strongly despise someone for being a rational actor within a broken system?

Society doesn't operate only on rationality... https://xkcd.com/1499/

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

#487

Post by r00fus » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 7:36 PM UTC

sjg007 wrote: post #289

kortilla wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you missed the point. Speeding up deplaning won’t help much because of all of the things happening below the passenger deck (unloading baggage, unloading packages, emptying sewage, etc.) and in the cockpit (debrief). Getting passengers off quickly won’t help speed up the general post-flight process much. It’s very rare that the bottleneck is waiting for the cabin to be cleaned.

Some of the deplaners hold up the next flight they need to board. Airlines could optimize that.

Thanks - you made my point more effectively - one slow deplaning flight could hold up flights for those passengers connecting and the results cascade. Most of those connecting flights are probably with the same airline.

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

#488

Post by jsjohnst » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 8:36 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #476

jsjohnst wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What airlines do you fly? Delta is pretty aggressive about keeping economy baggage out of business even on domestics. I can’t imagine anyone even trying on an international. More to the point, I rarely have overhead problems on international flights (actually, I don’t think it has ever been a problem). Only domestic legs are problematic, mainly smaller 737s and 320s.

United predominantly.

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

#489

Post by lonelappde » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 10:15 PM UTC

kyllo wrote: post #230

This reminds me of the book The Goal by Eli Goldratt. It's fictional, but there's a story about a boy scout troop that goes on a hike, and there's an overweight kid named Herbie who hikes the slowest. The troop leader teaches everyone that the entire group as a whole will reach the top faster (and stay together) if they keep Herbie in the front. When you have a bottleneck step in your process, the whole end-to-end pr…

Did you work at Amazon? It's a cult classic hazing ritui there. Managers tell reports to read it and then joke about terrible a novel it wrapped around a few cute stories like that one and the paperclip passing game.

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

#490

Post by magduf » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 11:40 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #472

magduf wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, as I just wrote to the other responder, that has absolutely nothing to do with your seat location (within the same section). Seat 34F does not cost more than seat 35F.

Based on your other responses, what you intended to convey and what many people are interpreting are two different things. What everyone else is saying is that the person in seat 34F likely did not pay the same as the person in seat 35F (since they purchase at different times and the airline continuously changes prices), whereas what you are claiming is that 34F and 35F cost the same for the same person.

What I am claiming is that there's no difference in those two seats' prices at a given point in time. Yes, prices fluctuate, but that has nothing to do with the seats. When you purchase an economy ticket (assuming these two seats are both in regular economy), the prices for them is exactly the same at that moment in time. You're allowed to pick either one of them, and the price is the same. Wait a week, however, and the price will be different, but it'll still be the same for both seats.

I really don't understand why people on this forum don't understand this and why I have to spell it out in such explicit detail. It's self-evident.

Even worse, this means that, if the people in 34F and 35F purchased their tickets at different times, they could have paid different prices, but that doesn't tell us anything about which seat cost more. Either person could have paid more, depending on when they bought their ticket and how the airline adjusted pricing during that time. So, as I've been saying all along, there's no difference in value between those two seats, by virtue of their location on the plane.