|
I've often wondered the same thing as the OP. Tokyo has "pod" hotels, where you get a 6- or 7-foot space about 48 inches wide by 42 inches tall. You could shrink these numbers pretty dramatically and still leave passengers far better off than they are currently.
A plane outfitted with these would need to have a walk-up bar so people could get a bite to eat or a drink. I would love to fly lying down, and would not care how little space I got as long as I could lie down without being forced to touch anyone. |
Originally Posted by HomerJ
(Post 21857584)
....and they had sleeper buses with stacked bunks.
I actually thought it was a cool idea and they only ran them on overnight runs. I did get some sleep. I'd settle for the tiered sleeping bunks, except I can't see how the person in the top one would be able to get out for toilet breaks without disturbing the people below. My night flights are sometimes 14 hours long. Not getting out of the bunk would not be an option! |
Originally Posted by celle
(Post 21861855)
I'd settle for the tiered sleeping bunks, except I can't see how the person in the top one would be able to get out for toilet breaks without disturbing the people below. My night flights are sometimes 14 hours long. Not getting out of the bunk would not be an option!
If they would install these sleeping pods, they could install an airbag system, which puts you in a saving cocoon in case of an emergency landing. |
Originally Posted by Rebelyell
(Post 21861719)
I've often wondered the same thing as the OP. Tokyo has "pod" hotels, where you get a 6- or 7-foot space about 48 inches wide by 42 inches tall. You could shrink these numbers pretty dramatically and still leave passengers far better off than they are currently.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/First...78.S.196973554 What is the respective headroom? |
Ya...there is that....
Originally Posted by TMOliver
(Post 21860284)
My goodness! Between the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the DoT and the FAA, a/c bunks would have to be equipped with 5 point safety harnesses, and the 5th strap, the one in the middle between the legs would certainly affect males in sudden stops....
Like I said I think it was obvious to anyone traveling that a bus accident in the prone position like that could be disasterous, but honestly the option of sitting upright for a 10 hr. overnight or lying down, I'd take the comfy lying down position as a trade off for crash safety. |
Originally Posted by DenverBrian
(Post 21860323)
If true, then you can't just replace seats with flat bunks; you still have to have some kind of seat for these people to occupy at takeoff and landing.
|
What if the guy/girl above "wet the bed"?
|
Originally Posted by cs57
(Post 21866105)
What if the guy/girl above "wet the bed"?
|
I can tell you that this bunk concept in Y wont fly!!!
The rules on a quick evacuation is very strict. NZ is selling the Skycouch concept, which is a workable compromise. However, the idea of putting 3 or 4 lieflat beds (like on a night train or submarine) above each other, is not feasible (from a flight safety point of view). |
Originally Posted by warakorn
(Post 21867186)
I can tell you that this bunk concept in Y wont fly!!!
The rules on a quick evacuation is very strict. NZ is selling the Skycouch concept, which is a workable compromise. However, the idea of putting 3 or 4 lieflat beds (like on a night train or submarine) above each other, is not feasible (from a flight safety point of view). But essentially we know that the current system on a long-haul flight is uncomfortable beyond belief. We know that a sleeping pod would be heaven on earth. Even if it increases one's chance of dying by one in 10 million, it's a great trade-off. |
But essentially we know that the current system on a long-haul flight is uncomfortable beyond belief. We know that a sleeping pod would be heaven on earth. Even if it increases one's chance of dying by one in 10 million, it's a great trade-off. |
I don't think that regular airlines are interested in such a risky venture. They sell their narrow seats quite well.
Maybe it's something for a start up. The flying all full flat service starting with ultra long-haul. |
Originally Posted by OskiBear
(Post 21852707)
Lufthansa A340-600's have them downstairs in economy.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/miles...340-600-a.html |
Originally Posted by TMOliver
(Post 21857571)
Actually old enough to recall a distant time when several airlines offered "sleeper" service on transcontinental long hauls in the then standard DC-3s, the fares were hardly "Y", rigging and un-rigging berths, etc., was complicated, and the concept disappeared soon.
Nor could you call the berths on PanAm's big seaplanes "Economy" service. In adjusted dollars, they were far higher than today's Business and First Class fares. I'd be a fan of Y class bunks, even giving up some rollaboard space. I imagine using them even in daytime to stretch out, get a nap, sleep off a hangover, etc. I keep thinking of the sleeper compartments in trains, with bench seats that fold to create 3 bunks per side or similar. Maybe that's not the answer but I'm sure the technical details can be worked out, including any need to be seated for takeoff and landing, etc. It's just a matter of the economics and an airline wanting to take the risk. |
I've never experienced it, but my wife talks about the long-haul "Sleeper Buses" she rode in Asia in the mid-90s.
http://03339c2.netsolhost.com/WordPr...s-to-China.jpg (This is not her - Just a pic I googled up.) |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:33 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.