Tango

Southwest is going to be replacing all of their Lounge--rear facing seats with forward facing seats. The cost of maintaining, the extra weight of, lack of fold down tray, and some passengers not wanting to fly backwards are some of the reasons Southwest will be changing over to an all forward facing cabin.

It will take between 5-6 years to finish the job as Southwest repaints and updates all of its cabins.

I always enjoyed these seats and will miss them.

tvl4free

Bummer! I kind of like the things myself!

JRF

Yes, I also liked them as well, and I can't think of any other airlines that has seats facing in the oposite direction as they do.

I think it is safer sitting in them then the normal facing seats.

Although, I do like the exit rows with the new configurations, so it is give and take.

Paulo

Can someone please explain to me why these seats were heavier??

EPS

Yeah, they were great when you were flying with companions. Not so hot for solo travelers.

It's all moot since WN left SFO.

Nanook

I was in these once from San Jose to LAX and it being a Friday evening, everyone was in a jovial mood. We talked and laughed all the way to LA. One of the guys had extra drink coupons, so we all had a beer on him. They encourage conversation.

l etoile

While I don't fly Southwest much anymore, I am really sorry to see these go. They were fun and the above poster is correct that rear-facing seats are safer.

Passengers have been known to die from otherwise survivable accidents when due to extreme forward deceleration, passengers hit their heads on the seats in front of them and break their necks or crack their heads open. I believe US Air Force Military Airlift Command only has backward-facing seats and some have lobbied to have this happen on all passenger planes, but the airline industry argues passengers prefer to sit forward.

Too bad.

JRF

Trying to think back 3 weeks ago from when I sat on one, perhaps it is that they are a good 2 feet taller then the other seats. They rise up behind you almost all the way up the bulkhead. Could this be it?

If saving weight is an issue, stop people from bringing on carry on that does not fit in the size wize type container.

FlyAAway

Really?


The Military Airlift Command has become the Air Mobility Command. They are the military equivalent of Southwest; they will get you where you are going, but the pain associated with it is so intense that it makes nearly any other alternative more viable.

Political shortsightedness has caused my particular weapon system, the KC-10, to be assigned to this command. All of our seats face forward (as many as 75). Other aircraft have side-mounted seats facing neither forward or aft.

SAC (Strategic Air Command) will die when I do.

Friends don't let friends fly Southwest.

l etoile

Yeah. Here's a mishmash of supporting info:

In the Potomac crash, at least one person, Jose Tirado, died when he hit the seat in front of him. Others have been impaled on tray tables.

During 1989 British Midland crash at East Midlands Airport, of passengers whom survived all but 10 suffered head or face injuries, 47 had broken or dislocated arms
or shoulders, 38 suffered abdominal trauma and there were dozens of leg injuries. But the cabin crew, sitting in high-backed rear-facing seats, suffered few injuries.

The Royal Air Force adopted rear-facing seats in 1945, after tests showed they allowed passengers to withstand higher
impacts.

In 1958, a US Air Force study determined forward-facing passengers were seven times more likely to suffer injury than rear-facing passengers.

Finally, think of the brace position and what the purpose of that is.

My source for the Military Command stuff was John Nance. I see on their website that Lockheed advertises their C-141s as being able to accommodate XXX paratroopers in canvas side-facing seats or xxx troops in rear-facing airline seats. No forward-facing option.

Regarding why rear-facing seats weigh more, in a head-on collision, a rear-facing seat
absorbs more impact from the passenger and so needs to be more firmly attached to the floor, which in turn, has to be strengthened. Of course, this brings up a whole different seat safety problem ... they are currently built so flimsy that they tend to collapse on impact, causing yet more injuries.

The airlines have already decided for us, that we, the passengers, don't want rear-facing seats. Is that really the case and would you pay a little more for it?


[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 03-17-2001).]

FlyAAway

There is also "evidence" to support the fact that most folks would survive deceleration/impact, but would perish in the post crash fire/smoke/fumes.

IMHO, it is strictly an academic argument. If your day includes an aircraft crash, it probably also includes an appointment with your creator, regardless of which way your seat is facing.

Another hazard is the group of people who do not listen to the safety briefing. I have conducted aircraft evacuations where these people have asked if they could take their personal belongings. My briefings prominently state that during an emergency/evacuation, you will leave your belongings behind.

l etoile

There are lots of things that could be done to make flying somewhat safer, but as the likelihood of being in an airline crash - what's more a survivable crash - is so slim, it's highly unlikely I would ever pay a higher fare to fly an airline that installed more safety features on its aircraft. I will, however, pay lots more for cars with ABS, reinforced side door panels and oodles of air bags.

You're right that those who do manage to survive crashes usually do so because they were bright enough and aware enough to know what to do in the situation.

afang

I won't miss them at all, i get sick on them all the time. Though I really dont' fly WN, but it's a good move on WN's part.

------------------
Al

JS

Attn: Health Nazis. Your short-sighted "safety" concerns completely miss the point. If you look at some real-life information, you will discover two things:

1) Crashes are becoming more fatal, because more crashes are being prevented in the first place with pilot training and computer assistance. Rear-facing seats will not help in a fatal crash.

2) Runway incursions are becoming more frequent, which may reverse the trend in 1) (depending on how many crashing incursions are fatal). In any event, if another plane crashes into your plane, and you happen to survive, rear-facing seats again won't help.


Touting the safety of rear-facing seats instead of preventing the crash in the first place is the wrong way to approach the problem! Prevention, not crash-worthy airplanes, is the reason air travel is the safest way to travel today.

What I find interesting is that the opposite is applied to automobile safety. Crash-worthiness, rather than prevention, is emphasized. It should be no surprise that driving is much more dangerous than flying, even though cars have shoulder belts, air bags, and anti-lock brakes, and airplanes don't. Why? Because it's still possible to be killed or injured in a car crash with all those safety devices. But if the crash is prevented, injury or death is, by definition, an impossibility.

l etoile

Thanks for setting me straight JS. And here I always thought it was wiser to spend dollars on making crashes survivable rather than on preventing them. What a silly Nazi I am. Although I must say, I thought this was simply a discussion on which are safer - rear- or front-facing seats - not a broad discussion on ways to make flying safer.