Regarding a standardization process for electronics, that already exists. Right now the FAA allows an airline to certify any piece of electronic equipment (to my knowledge), provided that every single version of the device (think all iPhone models) is tested with every single plane they run. With no passengers. Thus a carrier has to fly every plane they have with a specific device on board just to certify it, which is cost prohibitive.
Reinventing the Airline Industry
11–20 of 59 posts
Re: Reinventing the Airline Industry
#12I did a similar redesign with 3 row height bunks taking inspiration from submarines allowing economy passangers to sleep comfortably during long haul flights. The top two beds were foldable and the bottom row was used for seating during landing and takeoff.
Re: Reinventing the Airline Industry
#13Interesting article, but there are some flaws in the author's reasoning. 1. Containerizing passenger space. Not a good idea, it would require a massive re-engineering effort in the structure of the cabin, since a whole tube is a much more reliable pressure vessel rather than half of one with a 90 degree angle where the floor meets the wall. You generate a ton of stress at those joints with pressurization cycles. Hard…
So some good design problems to tackle. 1. Can we make cylinders with lightweight materials with sockets to join to the main plane. It doesn't have to be container boxed shape to be containerized. 2. Can we make Aeron style chairs withstand 16G. A kelvar mesh might be able to hold this G force. I'm not suggesting strapping actual Aeron chairs in there. 3. Good data. Looking forward to testing out the acoustic enginee…
1. You can probably design a cross structure that would hold cabin cylinders as so:
O|O --- O|O
But it creates a problem. The surface area of an A380 is about 1009 mˆ2 (45 meters long, 7.14 wide). If we use four 727 (a narrow body airliner) as models for the cabin tubes. The surface area of one tube that size is 537.2 mˆ2 (45 meters long, 3.8 wide). Multiply the result by 4 tubes, you get 2149 mˆ2. That's an increase of 213% in surface area.
Given the structural reinforcements within the host aircraft, the need of aerodynamic surfaces to make sure four interlocking tubes don't create dangerous aerodynamic forces & stresses, and the fact that just for the outer covering, the weight of the tubes increases twofold over a standard A380. A minimum reduction in weight would have to be at least by 50%, if not more in order to be competitive. The 787, with a fully carbon fiber fuselage and other weight saving methods reduces weight by 20% at most over a comparative aluminum structure (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4...).
At this point, the use of separate cylinders to hold people and cargo is more or less moot since the weight reductions needed aren't currently possible (physically, or economically), even with the newest materials.
Re: Reinventing the Airline Industry
#14Interesting wishlist, but that's all it is. What he doesn't list is the bump in airfare he's willing to accept for all of the proposed changes. Active noise cancellation and better screens don't come cheap, and most of the compromises he cites were decided out of economy, not because aeronautical engineers are thoughtless. It seems like the most practical thing for him to do would be to pony up and pay for business class.
Re: Reinventing the Airline Industry
#15Interesting wishlist, but that's all it is. What he doesn't list is the bump in airfare he's willing to accept for all of the proposed changes. Active noise cancellation and better screens don't come cheap, and most of the compromises he cites were decided out of economy, not because aeronautical engineers are thoughtless. It seems like the most practical thing for him to do would be to pony up and pay for business c…
Agreed. It is annoying when people come up with "radical" solutions to re-vamp an industry simply by ignoring any and all technical constraints.
The situation is akin to the stereotypical boss who knows nothing about computers throwing out silly ideas to his or her hired programmers.
Re: Reinventing the Airline Industry
#16Interesting article, but there are some flaws in the author's reasoning. 1. Containerizing passenger space. Not a good idea, it would require a massive re-engineering effort in the structure of the cabin, since a whole tube is a much more reliable pressure vessel rather than half of one with a 90 degree angle where the floor meets the wall. You generate a ton of stress at those joints with pressurization cycles. Hard…
Regarding containerizing passenger space:
Rather than having it as a container, what about an open space that is inserted rather than becoming part of the external structure?
So, seating would be arranged on a completely open, flat structure; a long version of this: http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00PeRaHYmFgBgL/Retractabl...
Then, this is inserted into an aeroplane, in a manner similar to what you see here: http://www.abi.gr/system/assets/000/000/189/original_cargo_a...
This means the seating platform doesn't need to be pressurized and the required aircraft is already in production.
Re: Reinventing the Airline Industry
#17I applaud the effort to think vision-first - but practical reinvention also needs to consider the provider's priorities and costs.
Re: Reinventing the Airline Industry
#18The bit about taking the safety demonstration out of the cabin is not quite so simple. The author suggests a sort of "driver's license" for planes, so that a person only has to learn about the safety features and procedures once. Unfortunately, there are many different planes out there, and the safety features might be substantially different from one plane to another. (Is there a slide? Is the seat cushion your flot…
I don't understand that complaint about the safety instructions being a "waste of time and energy for the passenger". If you know the content, just do something else. I pay even cursory attention to them maybe one flight out of 20.
Re: Reinventing the Airline Industry
#19Another problem in the airline industry is pricing stability. current prices have been climbing over the last few years and pricing has always been confusing. I think there are several possible algorithm and economic models that could be leveraged to solve pricing on the fuel side, and on the consumer ticket side. Stable prices means that consumers and airlines can both plan better. For consumers, it means confidence…
A HUGE reason for that instability is most of your plane ticket pays for fuel. some airlines buy futures, some just stockpile fuel when it's cheap.
My father worked in fuel procurement for a few airlines. He hated fuel price instability as much as you hate air fare instability.
Re: Reinventing the Airline Industry
#20Interesting wishlist, but that's all it is. What he doesn't list is the bump in airfare he's willing to accept for all of the proposed changes. Active noise cancellation and better screens don't come cheap, and most of the compromises he cites were decided out of economy, not because aeronautical engineers are thoughtless. It seems like the most practical thing for him to do would be to pony up and pay for business c…
The engine noise serves well as "white noise" to attenuate the cramped nature of the cabin. I think active cancellation would make it feel yet more crowded, as the non-periodic sounds would stand forth more.
We're better served by noise cancelling head phones or ear plugs (the $0.50 solution).
A more important noise factor, in my opinion, is keeping all the yammerheads off their phones. Give them text messaging, if you have to, but no half hour endurance contests listening to half a conversation.