• Stamets@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    204
    ·
    1 year ago

    Everytime I see these I always take solace in one simple fact. This would never be able to pass any disability or accessibility act.

    • Dasnap@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      68
      ·
      1 year ago

      “We’ll just put the disabled passengers in the cargo hold. Problem solved.”

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Though tbf, with planes how often do emergencies fall between the “it’s dangerous to stay here” and “you can get off the plane safely if you’re quick” thresholds? I’d think that due to their nature, most situations will either be “no rush” or “not much we can do about it now”. Things like emergency exits seem more like safety theatre than anything else IMO.

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      They only put them down the center with regular seats along the windows.

      First class, second class, cargo class.

      • Stamets@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m gonna be real, I totally forgot that planes have middle lanes. Every plane that I’ve ever been on has been a relatively small in comparison. Some of them fucking frighteningly so. When my knees are touching the back of the pilot I’m usually having concerns other than the legroom.

      • Railing5132@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        These will not see the light of day until the industry coughs up enough money to buy off enough legislation oversight to make the FAA egress rules “agreeable”.

        • dingus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          DVT is an issue if you’re immobile for any decent length of time. Your position doesn’t really matter too much. That’s why they want you up and walking immediately as soon as possible after a surgery and why they will often put patients with an extended stay in the hospital on blood thinners.

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          True, though it would be horrifically uncomfortable to be forced to sit like that for 4 hours without the ability to shift positions.

          • DancingIsForbidden@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            True, though it would be horrifically uncomfortable to be forced to sit like that for 4 hours without the ability to shift positions. have your nose so close to somebody’s fart hole who just spent an hour at the airport’s cold stone creamery for an international flight.

            Is this what you meant?

  • thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t absolutely hate it, but I’m 6’3", so fully stretching my legs out on a plane is always just a pipe dream.

    I’m sure they’d make them fit only average size people, unfortunately.

  • macrocephalic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think they should just have rows of bunk beds. It’s much easier to stack something flat than people with their awkward bends at the hips and knees.

  • superfes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 year ago

    Window seat dude needs to take a piss, watch the fun …

    Also, why the fuck is she smiling?!

  • spittingimage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    One day they’ll invent super-economy class where you just get strapped to the wings and released over your destination. Parachutes will cost extra.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eh. Fewer passengers per plane is worse for the environment, and lying down is great for people with back problems. I can see the pluses.

    • Revonult@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      This design is similar but not the same as OG post. Although still shitty, its quite an improvement over the orgional.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The newer version from the link looks less bad than this picture, but still dystopian as fuck. We need to make airline travel cheaper somehow rather than having the airline industry come up with their own ideas to try and pack people in like cattle.

      • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cheaper? What kinda crack are you smoking? Shit is destroying the planet, it needs to be a LOT more expensive.

        • gohixo9650@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          what kind of crack are YOU smoking? So practically “banning” poor people for traveling anywhere further than 500km than their hometown is the solution? And allow rich people go on as usual?

          The not-wealthy will be the only ones affected by this. Business people were traveling since the birth of the aviation and will continue travelling. This will be just an increased cost in their cost planning.

          So if you’re rich you’re allowed to destroy the planet. If you’re poor stay at home, the planet is in danger.

        • HardlightCereal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You get points for being an environmentalist but lose points for accusing any differing opinion of being the result of drug use. That cliche is often used on autistic people to attack them for thinking differently. You should try making your point without cliches.

            • HardlightCereal@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, that’s usually how people use cliches. They hear something and think it sounds quippy in a rhetorical sense, even if it’s not what they mean. It’s a lazy way of participating in a conversation without actually putting forward any ideas of your own. It’s the death of sincerity.

            • HardlightCereal@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m autistic and I’ve literally been harassed by people who used that cliche. If I were virtue signalling I’d obviously say something people want to hear. Do you think that I thought that saying this would gain me praise?

                • HardlightCereal@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You think that admitting to having a autism or being honest about ableist experiences is something to look down on. You’re hateful towards autistic people.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree, but it’s mostly the Uber wealthy, not regular travelers. It’s bad, but it’s not that bad. Using a whole plane to carry one or two people is horrible though.

        • Furbag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Uh, you know, it is possible to care about two things at once. Wanting airline travel to be cheaper/more comfortable and also less environmentally unfriendly are not mutually exclusive positions.

          As others have pointed out, making it more expensive isn’t going to get rid of air travel, it’ll just be reserved for the ultra-wealthy who will not give a damn either way.

      • rchive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This extra passenger density would make it cheaper per person, right? More fuel efficient, too.

        • Furbag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Looking over my original post, perhaps my phrasing wasn’t clear. Yes, this is one way to decrease costs, but it comes at the expense of comfort. Airline companies are no stranger to this process, and have been rolling out new methods of packing as many passengers onto a plane as physically possible since the very first commercial airplanes took flight.

          Awkward and regressive ideas like this, where the airlines are contemplating stacking people in uncomfortable looking double-decker seating to save precious inches of space are only coming out now because no significant strides have been made in making air travel less expensive to operate as a whole. It is always going to be easier to shave off a few inches of legroom and pack in another row of seating in the next generation of jet airliner than it is to invent a new type of jet fuel that is cheaper and burns cleaner without sacrificing performance, or developing a new more efficient fuselage that can fly just as far as a conventional plane while carrying less fuel, etc.

          It would be nice to see air travel improve for a change, rather than continue to get worse and worse over time out of necessity.

      • jaywalker@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not sure if you’re just joking, but plenty of people survive plane crashes. Most crashes aren’t just a plane falling out of the sky at full speed. Survival rates are around 95%.

        • Mirshe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Generally speaking, plane crashes are like train crashes. Either most everyone survives, or most everyone dies pretty quickly, with very little in between.

    • nslatz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imagine this plane with a fire on board before takeoff and now the unfit overweight masses have to evacuate.

  • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, wait. This is actually not a bad idea.

    Look closely. First of all there’s a rigid barrier between the lower and upper seat. That means that fart gasses won’t get through, unlike current seats where farts just spread everywhere around a person, so only the upper seats will be affected.

    Second, the lady has her feet up, meaning she has enough leg room to do so. This is a big advantage because you can kick your feet up on your underseat baggage while you sleep or stretch your legs. It’s much better than the current layout where you can barely move at all.

    No offense, but I think anyone with a negative opinion of this layout is wrong.

    • DrMango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      The lady isn’t choosing to “have her feet up,” she is essentially sitting on the floor and forced into the L shape by the rigid structure around her. There’s still incredibly little range of motion just like a regular seat, except now with the added danger of a much more difficult emergency evacuation, especially for people with limited mobility.

    • NightAuthor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, I’m imagining that there isn’t a wall right in front of her face, as this angle suggests. But rather, there is a bit of a cavity tucked up under the top seat. Oh, yeah… found an image. It does still look a little claustrophobic in there.

    • PixxlMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I suspect the angle might make the space look smaller too, it’s possible that the wall actually extends a bit out without being solid inside

    • naticus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      My biggest problem with the space is that if I had to sit with my legs out like that, I’d eventually cramp up and inevitably bang my knees on the chair above.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      She’s also fully reclined her seat. So maybe if her seat was upright it would be easier for people to get in and out.

    • LifeOfChance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is marketing meaning if this ever actually came to market (and it won’t) they would immediately begin adjusting it to reclaim even more room causing cramping with each new redesign. People are very easily conditioned so years after this became a thing and multiple redesigns later people would only just be beginning to realize it has already happened and even then nothing would change because the general public won’t do anything while a select few will complain and make no impact.

  • janus2@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    at that point just give me general anaesthesia and put me in an airline shipping coffin so at least i don’t have to be conscious for the horror show