Boeing Flies Blended Wing Body Research Aircraft

"Phil" wrote

Imagine if an
airline started flying an airplane with twice as much legroom, more
aisles, and wider seats. Maybe even seats that really recline. And
at a lower cost. Let's say 5 or 10 percent lower. I bet they would
fill those planes on most flights. Wouldn't you be willing to pay
less to get more?

Nope.

While I realize space is cramped on airplanes, I find the space allotted
quite bearable.

I get on a airliner for one reason; to get where I want to go a long
distance away, quickly, and cheaply.

Cram me in, and let me spend the extra saved money, the way I want to, at
the other end.
--
Jim in NC

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:04:55 -0700, Phil wrote
in om:

It could be banked more slowly to mitigate that, especially if it had
fly-by-wire controls. And people experience those same feelings now
in turbulence anyway.

Exactly.

I suspect that if you were to offer people a
more roomy plane with a lower ticket price, you would get lots of
takers. I hate flying stuffed in like a sardine in a can. A blended
body aircraft could have more room for passengers. Imagine if an
airline started flying an airplane with twice as much legroom, more
aisles, and wider seats. Maybe even seats that really recline. And
at a lower cost. Let's say 5 or 10 percent lower. I bet they would
fill those planes on most flights. Wouldn't you be willing to pay
less to get more?

While I couldn't agree more about offensively cramped airline seating,
I can see how completive forces in the marketplace will force all air
carriers to increase seating density just as soon as the first
cut-rate operator equips his fleet with more seats to undercut his
competition. Cutting services, instead of increasing operating
efficiency, as a means of lowering costs is an easy method of
successfully increasing an enterprise's market share; consumers are
always looking for a 'deal.'

One of the 'features' of laissez-faire capitalism is its ability to
strip away non-essential amenities in the relentless quest to meet the
challenges mounted by competitors. Once the regular-rate, as opposed
to the cut-rate, airlines passenger volume is siphoned off by the
cheap-seats operators, it becomes impossible them to continue to offer
attractive frills and comforts like leg-room, blankets, meals, ...

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 00:39:08 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote in :


I get on a airliner for one reason; to get where I want to go a long
distance away, quickly, and cheaply.

Cram me in, and let me spend the extra saved money, the way I want to, at
the other end.

See what I mean?

When the military contracts with airlines to provide an aircraft to
shuttle between the US and Europe or US and Pacific (usually a 747)
they specify max passenger configuration. The airlines call this
maxpax, we refer to them as 'Cattlecars'. Hundreds of sweaty cranky
people, zero leg room, lousy food and never on time.

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:17:51 -0700, Hawkeye wrote
in . com:

When the military contracts with airlines to provide an aircraft to
shuttle between the US and Europe or US and Pacific (usually a 747)
they specify max passenger configuration. The airlines call this
maxpax, we refer to them as 'Cattlecars'. Hundreds of sweaty cranky
people, zero leg room, lousy food and never on time.

Such a configuration may be appropriate for military personnel,
especially in time of war, but such cruel and unusual treatment of
customers is deplorable, but necessary if airlines are to remain
solvent under laissez-faire capitalism, in my opinion.

On Aug 3, 5:32 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 00:39:08 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote in :



I get on a airliner for one reason; to get where I want to go a long
distance away, quickly, and cheaply.

Cram me in, and let me spend the extra saved money, the way I want to, at
the other end.

See what I mean?

I'm not convinced that the majority of people feel this way. When
aircraft seating has gotten so cramped that passengers are actually in
danger of getting blood clots in their legs (as some have), I think
the industry should seriously consider making improvements.

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 00:39:08 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote in :


I get on a airliner for one reason; to get where I want to go a long
distance away, quickly, and cheaply.

Cram me in, and let me spend the extra saved money, the way I want
to, at the other end.

See what I mean?

Not really, because Morgans' response was to Phil's question,

" Imagine if an
airline started flying an airplane with twice as much legroom, more
aisles, and wider seats. Maybe even seats that really recline. And
at a lower cost. Let's say 5 or 10 percent lower. I bet they would
fill those planes on most flights. Wouldn't you be willing to pay
less to get more?"

OTOH, your statement seems to be hinged on the assertion that,

"consumers are always looking for a 'deal.' ..."

So, I'm confused, unless you are suggesting that consumers prefer a *bad*
deal based on Morgans' preference alone. I suspect that most of us would
take the "pay less and get more" route, given a choice. ;-)

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:


A little reality check... Most likely, one would get to choose which dirty
camera lens to "best" view the scenery.

Neil
Another reality check. That is all fine and good...when and if the screens
are working. O_o
A third of my commercial ride time is without decent audio let alone video
entertainment that works.

I have learned to bring my own distractions.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200708/1