Beds in lieu of seats on airplanes?

[ScienceNostalgia101]

So a common criticism of air travel is that it's hard to sleep during it. One contributing factor to this is the seats. Indeed, people are stuffed like sardines into these planes, it's part of what makes air travel so efficient.

 

But if they had beds in lieu of seats, would it be physically possible to stack them in a manner that crams just as many passengers into just as small an amount of space, while allowing them the convenience of getting to sleep (or at least lie down) for the whole flight? How safely could bunk beds be stacked together while still allowing room for people to get out if they need to use the washroom or something like that?

[exchemist]

2 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

So a common criticism of air travel is that it's hard to sleep during it. One contributing factor to this is the seats. Indeed, people are stuffed like sardines into these planes, it's part of what makes air travel so efficient.

 

But if they had beds in lieu of seats, would it be physically possible to stack them in a manner that crams just as many passengers into just as small an amount of space, while allowing them the convenience of getting to sleep (or at least lie down) for the whole flight? How safely could bunk beds be stacked together while still allowing room for people to get out if they need to use the washroom or something like that?

There are beds in long haul business class on some airlines. I've slept in them (badly). But not bunks: you don't want people falling out if you get turbulence. 

[iNow]

Of course it's possible, but then the airlines (who run at razer thin margins already) would pull in far less revenue per flight. They could, but won't because the cost/benefit on this is not in the favor of their bottom line... If they could, they'd replace the 3-seats on each side stack with benches in hopes of cramming a 4th or 5th person into them on each side of the craft. They're not incentivized to make our own experience as travelers better by purchasing aircraft from Boeing and Airbus that allow fewer passengers

[ScienceNostalgia101]

Don't they in practice make more money from credit than from passengers anyway?

 

The same applies to cost efficiency as fuel efficiency... why isn't it at least as cost-efficient or more to have passengers lying down than to have them sitting up? Hell, if they could fall asleep on the flight there'd be less demand for in-flight food or beverages. (Or less use for them in the first place...)

 

As for falling out during turbulence... is there any way to strap yourself in that would spread out the pressure adequately that turbulence merely jolts you awake without actually injuring you, let alone throwing you out of the bunk? Or alternatively a way for the PA system to notify passengers of turbulence with adequate time to brace for it?

Edited February 24, 2022 by ScienceNostalgia101

[iNow]

1 hour ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

why isn't it at least as cost-efficient or more to have passengers lying down than to have them sitting up?

Beds take up more space than seats do. Fewer fit

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Beds take up more space than seats do. Fewer fit

Providing a seat for sitting for x hours has somewhat reasonable expectations. Just give us some hydration, snacks, reading material, video entertainment, window view, minimal privacy, access to the loo, and the vast majority of us are good. Providing a bed for sleeping for x hours is going to open the airlines up to much heavier expectations. We need plug-ins for medical devices like CPAP and more privacy, to start. I can only imagine what a large population is going to require from the airlines in order to fall asleep on the plane.

Also, this design still has to allow for evacuation per FAA guidelines. It might be tough clearing the whole plane quickly enough if folks start out lying down.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Don't they in practice make more money from credit than from passengers anyway?

 

The same applies to cost efficiency as fuel efficiency... why isn't it at least as cost-efficient or more to have passengers lying down than to have them sitting up? Hell, if they could fall asleep on the flight there'd be less demand for in-flight food or beverages. (Or less use for them in the first place...)

 

As for falling out during turbulence... is there any way to strap yourself in that would spread out the pressure adequately that turbulence merely jolts you awake without actually injuring you, let alone throwing you out of the bunk? Or alternatively a way for the PA system to notify passengers of turbulence with adequate time to brace for it?

You are advised to keep yourself loosely strapped even when in the bed. A PA warning is not adequate - you can get turbulence with no warning.

The way they handle the space is to have basically a seat that reclines flat. They arrange these in a sort of staggered arrangement that minimises the wasted space. But this is only feasible for a business class or 1st class seating arrangement of seats in pairs between each aisle. They can't do it for the 3 across arrangement, so far as I know.  But it's more than ten years since I last flew long haul on business so things may have changed.  

[swansont]

15 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

So a common criticism of air travel is that it's hard to sleep during it. One contributing factor to this is the seats. Indeed, people are stuffed like sardines into these planes, it's part of what makes air travel so efficient.

 

But if they had beds in lieu of seats, would it be physically possible to stack them in a manner that crams just as many passengers into just as small an amount of space, while allowing them the convenience of getting to sleep (or at least lie down) for the whole flight? How safely could bunk beds be stacked together while still allowing room for people to get out if they need to use the washroom or something like that?

What if you don’t want to sleep for the entire flight? How many people want to do this?

[exchemist]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

What if you don’t want to sleep for the entire flight? How many people want to do this?

As the bed is made from a fully reclined seat, you don't have to. You can un-recline it at your convenience. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

As the bed is made from a fully reclined seat, you don't have to. You can un-recline it at your convenience. 

That's how such systems are currently implemented, but the OP stated "beds in lieu of seats"

I think this is another example of solving but not really solving a problem, that doesn't exist in the first place.

Personally, the thing that keeps me awake on long red-eye flights is the someone from the flight crew getting on the intercom every 20 minutes to make an announcement. 

[exchemist]

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's how such systems are currently implemented, but the OP stated "beds in lieu of seats"

I think this is another example of solving but not really solving a problem, that doesn't exist in the first place.

Personally, the thing that keeps me awake on long red-eye flights is the someone from the flight crew getting on the intercom every 20 minutes to make an announcement. 

In my case I just sleep badly in a strange environment if it is not quiet - and planes never are, even if they lay off the announcements. In fact I am only now starting to get a good night's sleep on the overnight ferry from Portsmouth to St. Malo, now that the sound of the engines and the faint motion have become familiar. But not flying any more is one of the blessings of retirement, in my opinion. The whole experience is vile. But the seat-cum-bed did help a bit on the longest journeys.    

[ScienceNostalgia101]

For me it's partly because air travel is stressful that I wish I could just sleep through the flight. Theoretically I could do much of the same stuff I do at home; type on my laptop, play video games, etc... but for some reason it just isn't as enjoyable at cruising altitude, partly because I realize that is stuff I could do anytime. Theoretically I could make the most of my time in the sky by staring out the window at the scenery, but even when I do manage to get a window seat, with a viewing angle that doesn't make my neck sore (which quite frankly isn't often), the scenery sometimes feels repetitive when it's of nature, and like it goes by too fast for me to know for sure what I'm looking at when it's of civilization. (Especially when I'm fumbling with the binoculars because of said viewing angle.) Unless it's an especially familiar area, I sometimes feel like my time is better served just trying to sleep so I can make the most of my time on land instead.

 

I remember getting motion sickness on a smaller plane in a direct flight between small towns. For the return flight I asked around for how to avoid motion sickness, and when they said the motion sickness pills have drowsiness as a side effect, deep down I felt like it was music to my ears. I ate the motion sickness pills at the start of the flight, fell asleep partway through, and arrived at my destination feeling... still somewhat drowsy, but in a more relaxed, mellow way that's hard to describe, and most importantly not queasy.

 

. . .

 

Anyway, back on topic, I figure even if I didn't fall asleep on my flight anyway, I wouldn't mind gaming or watching movies on my cellphone (I usually transfer them to the cellphone from my computer before putting it in airplane mode) while lying down... or looking out the window while lying down, assuming there would be window bunks not unlike there are window seats now.

 

 

The evacuation-guidelines point seems the more interesting (and concerning) one. Bunk beds mean whoever has the top bunk (which, ironically, would have probably the best downward viewing angle for scenery assuming they are above the windows; guess passengers would book bunks based on what they prioritize) would probably have to be the last ones off, as the people at the bottom would only need to crawl out of bed rather than walking down the ladder. The time it takes the lower "floor" to evacuate would give the top "floor" time to wake up and figure out what's going on... now I'm wondering, would the time it takes the lower "floor" to evacuate be longer than however long it takes the equivalent percentage of passengers closest to the emergency exits to evacuate?