Bunk beds for eco class?
 

Is this the right place to suggest innovations to airlines? :rolleyes:

Mostly I fly economy, with some occasional upgrades to C.
I really don't need all the service, the only thing I am interested in is to be able to lie flat and stretch my legs.
One of the reasons why C is so much more expensive, is the space needed for the seats. Recently I flew A340-600 with the lavatories downstairs. In the same area is also space for some cosy air crew rest bunk beds.
Would it be feasible to offer some bunk beds for eco passengers on the lower deck for a little bit extra? Could be even purchased on the flight.
How does this sound? Feasible? Interested?

Interesting idea.

Since you are in the technology forum, I hoped to see a proposal based on a comparison of occupied volumes, seat vs bunk bed.

I estimate that bunk beds take a little bit more than Y seats. Given a seat pitch of 32-34 inches, the space of two seats in a column is just not enough for the length of a bed. With two levels of beds we would need a little bit more total space.
My assumption was that there is some spare space in the cargo area. This might be wrong.
Anyway, I miss innovation in the area of economy class comfort, C and Y are moving apart. Certainly there is something possible. Passeners could be "stacked" horizontally with some density, utilizing the cabin height. There could be common seating areas for the meals, allocated on reserved time slots.
Airbus, hire me, I will draft something nicely for the A380! ;)

Let's ask the folks in TravelBuzz.

One of the issues is that demand for bunks will be massively greater on overnight flights. If we imagine an airline which does routes which are predominantly east-west and back. Unless you can convert the configuration to no or few sleepers for the westbound, it's a non-starter. Alternatively we need a true RTW airline which could configure its eastbound fleet with bunks and its westbound fleet conventionally.

Oddly, SAA is one airline which operates a significant number of turns which are exclusively overnight. This could work for them, were they to want to be innovative.

Not a new topic.
Same suggestion from a couple of months ago.
And from 2006

Lufthansa made a concept like this ages ago but then didn't do anything about it. They suggested triple bunks, which I'd imagine wouldn't take up an awful lot more space than 3 seats, with a premium of £120 over normal seats.

I assume they dropped all plans related to this though (assuming they were even serious in the first place!).

It really makes no sense to have just one level of seats across a big plane that has a lot of volume. A 747 could have two to several levels of bunk beds depending on where you are (near the window or in the middle of the plane). It would be far more comfortable, west-bound or east-bound, to be able to lay down than sit in seats crammed in.

Thanks! The first referenced thread is quite interesting! It also seems that there is a demad for "no frills, just lie flat" option.

I also share concerns that people want to sit or have to sit during take offs and landings. On long haul flights we have to eat and a bed is not a good place for this.
Therefore bunk beds could be an addition in the cargo area for e.g. 30% of the Y seating capacity, instead of converting the normal seats. Has this been thought through? I guess evacuation time and space in the cargo area are issues, but otherwise it should be possible. I would immediately prefer the airline offering an "eco sleeper class"! :)

...not to mention the increased opportunity of joining the mile high club :D

Lots of issues to be worked out surely.... to make it viable for the airline it would have to be "get in your bed and stay there" pretty much.... not as if there would be a seat you could be in part of the time....

...the bunks would have to be , what, 3 decker? (To fit the same number in the same space) Getting in and out of the upper (and for some folks, the lower) bunks could be difficult.

Would the various authorities allow pax to be lying down for takeoff/turbulence etc? What sort of restraints would be required and so on...

Any reduction in pax load to fit these bunks would , fairly, lead to fare increases... as with the Y+ (Premium Economy) products that are around right now...

Would the people saying they want these bunks be prepared to pay for them, if capacity was actually reduced onboard as a result of their introduction?

A likely scenario IMO... unless we go for the pre 1820 Royal Navy arrangement of hammocks slung every 14"!!! :D

If I assume the standard seat width is 18", it's only possible when replacing 4 or 5 seats. So only middle sections could be converted into beds.

I don't see any problems in turbulences, if you are strapped in tight. But for take-off and landing, where you might have to get out of your seat fast, there needs to be a solution.

Although I like the fact of a flat bed in Y (and would consider long haul in there) this would come closer to cattle class.

Innovative idea's like this is what airlines need. With the overall experience in Y between operators becoming less different , features like this could really set you apart. In worse case, it's good marketing. Would be something I would expect Virgin to do.
NZ is offering a bed in Y (they turn 3 seats into a bed for 2 people). (has NZ implemented this yet? If so, why no trip report?)

Can someone enlighten me as to when an A340 has had toilets downstairs.

The Skycouch on NZ is 5' 1" long ..at best. So while it is no doubt more comfortable for 2 people than a single seat... to suggest it is a "bed" for 2 people is pushing it a bit. The price premium can be substantial too....

Lufthansa A340-600's have them downstairs in economy.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/miles...340-600-a.html

I would welcome bunks on any daytime flights. Nice to just kick back and relax. Good to know some planes already have them.. but I'm still unclear if you can buy airline tickets for these bunks.

I would definitely take a bunk bed on any flight over 4 hours. (east to west vs west to east matters not to me.)

I have no problems with the lie down and stay there requirement, and wouldn't mind the turbulence or being strapped down aspects.
^

In fact I'd give up the right to handheld luggage and check everything for a lie down option. There's lots of potential room up there.

Good idea to give up overhead compartments (at least of this size) and utilize the space better. I am ready for more restrictions on carry-on luggage in exchange for more comfortable seating / a bunk bed. I think there must be a seat for every passenger. Bed only is not an option. So we neeed convertibe seats, but this is basically C class and needs a lot of space, or a separate optional bunk bed area with very efficient use of the space. So far I thought it could be in the cargo area, see A340 lavatories and crew rest. But getting rid of the overhead compartments (in exchange for very small ones) might be another option. Just wonder how one could climb up there without disturbing the aisle seat passenger? Its also not suitable for elderly and handicapped passengers.

I wholehearted agree and really wish that bunk beds would come to economy class and I'm sure airlines have thought of this before and would love to implement this idea which would attract MANY more customers!

HOWEVER........

Bunk Beds in eco class will never happen unless the FAA change their safety regulation laws. Emergency landings, 90sec evacuation rules, etc yada yada yada.... Flying is safe enough these days anyhow, I would choose bunk beds over uncomfortable safe chairs any day! haha

Double and triple bunks are actually in use. Have you had the misfortune to travel in either of these:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Scand...D-82/0746187/L
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Germa...MRTT/1774100/L

Evacuation time cannot be a problem. Surely, if a crash landed and burning MD-80 can, in 90 seconds, evacuate 36 passengers none of whom can walk, then evacuating 36 passengers who all are healthy (and woken up by the crash) is easy?

The real estate is a problem. As you see, MD-80 fits 3 berths each side - total 6 berths abreast. A310 fits 3 tiers on berths in the middle, but for some reason only 2 tiers in sides. So total 10 berths abreast.
With about 2 m berth pitch, a 4 m section of cabin could fit 2 rows of berths - but that´s also the space for 5 rows of cattle seats.
On MD-80, that 4 m section would mean a choice of 25 cattle seats or 12 berths. On A310, the choice would be between 40 cattle seats or 20 berths.

So - the berths are nowhere near economy class. Rather they should be business class.

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 remember travelling in China in the 1990's....
 

....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 saw them in India beginning of this year. But only from outside...

+1

+1

The middle section of a widebody could be a good option; remove the overhead bins and replace the seats with triple-deckers. I would take it every time and gladly forego meals and carry-on space.

Here's my take on this concept
 

In a middle row of seats why can't you just alternate rows with one being a raised row of seats and the other being attached to the floor where airline seats normally are that may allow for angled flat seats every other row.

Just have a step up to the raised row that's hollow so the seats behind it could angle in.

I would assume on the raised row you would only need as much head clearance as in a car to be comfortable

They still have them! Really not a bad option for longer/overnight journeys. They have been phasing them out after some accidents which led to fatalities - so perhaps the bunk bed idea is significantly less safe after all.

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....

Ouch. :D But it does bring up the question of regs: IIRC, the FAA and other bodies required passengers to be "seated" for takeoff and landing. 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.

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.

I remember seeing those and, also, we have followed trucks, with people sleeping, slung in hammocks, swaying as the truck drove along.

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!

They could hand out diapers or bed-pans... ;)

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.

DC-3 lower berths are 35 inches wide, uppers 29 inches:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/First...78.S.196973554

What is the respective headroom?

Ya...there is that....
 

...the one I road on had lap-belts only.
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.

You could potentially use the bottom bed as three seats during takeoff/landing, with the top two bunks somehow folded up; they could then be lowered once the seatbelt sign was switched off.

What if the guy/girl above "wet the bed"?

How is this more of a concern than people peeing in the seat before you? :rolleyes:

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).

Rules can be changed. The airlines could use something similar to but smaller than the Japanese "pods." On a wide-body these could be placed feet towards the center aisle. In the event of a rough landing, I think it would be much safer to be in a pod with a padded wall than sitting in a seat.

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.