MRTC? You really think so?
 

Masters of Illusion Make Jet Cabins Seem Roomier

Designers Use Mirrors, Lighting to Make
Passengers Believe They Are Comfortable
By J. LYNN LUNSFORD and DANIEL MICHAELS
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


Most engineers at Boeing Co.'s commercial-airplanes unit create tangible items like wings and flight controls. Part of Klaus Brauer's job, by contrast, is to trick passengers into thinking they are comfortable -- even when they are crammed into a middle seat at the back of the plane.

Though Mr. Brauer also incorporates real amenities, like on-demand movies and first-class seats that turn into beds, he concentrates on what he calls "creating space from nothing," using a mixture of pleasing shapes and light to create optical illusions that make a plane seem larger than it is. "If we do our jobs, people don't realize what we have done. They just say they feel more comfortable," he says.


The kind of magic Mr. Brauer and others perform is especially important nowadays. Most airlines are in such dire financial straits that they can't afford to pour money into embellishing their planes. At the same time, more passengers are flying coach, putting pressure on airplane manufacturers and airlines to figure out low-cost ways to make the experience less trying.

It's no coincidence that passengers say Boeing's top-of-the-line 777 is one of the most comfortable planes in the sky. The jet's interior looks bigger than it really is, courtesy of gently arched ceiling panels that are lit to create the illusion that the ceiling over each aisle is much higher than it is.

To enhance the effect, designers reworked the overhead baggage bins so that they fold into the ceiling. This makes it possible for passengers, no matter where they sit, to look across the cabin and see the ceiling on the opposite side instead of having their gaze interrupted by bins that hang like ledges down the length of the cabin.

Since the beginning of air travel, comfort has been one of the most important weapons in airline competition. In the 1930s, lightweight wicker seats gave way to padded cushions. Airlines discovered that soothing colors like blue or gray reduced airsickness, particularly in the rear seats of planes like the Douglas DC-3, which tended to sway from side to side at the tail during turbulence. By the 1940s, the airlines and manufacturers had begun the practice of wooing premium passengers with amenities such as seats that could be made into beds.

"Every time we design a new airplane, we come up with ideas that make us slap ourselves on the forehead and ask, 'Why didn't we think of that before?' " Boeing's Mr. Brauer says. Based on the success of its 777 interior, the company has begun phasing in similar styling for the rest of its line, including the latest versions of the 747.



1. Side Luggage Bins: Retract into the ceiling to give passengers in window seats a clear line of sight to the ceiling instead of sitting under a ledge of baggage bins.

2. Raised Center Bins: Lift out of the way so passengers stuck in the middle section have the feeling of more room.

3. Ceilings: Are arched and lit indirectly so shadows form in the center of the arch, creating the illusion of taller ceilings.

4. Divide Panels: Break the line of sight on longer airplanes and reduce the "tunnel effect" of sitting in a long, thin tube.

5. Newly Designed Seats: Have higher frames that provide more legroom beneath seats without increasing space between rows.



Like Boeing, Airbus is working hard to make more of less. Alan Pardoe, director of product marketing for the A330/A340 family, says the European manufacturer has altered wall-panel placement to make its newer planes appear roomier. It has also sought to make the cabin as innocuous as possible through the deft use of colors, lighting and materials. "Nothing would make me happier than if the average passenger got off a plane after 12 to 18 hours and had no recollection of the cabin lining," says Mr. Pardoe.

Airbus says it uses the contours of the wall-panel lining to reflect light in a way that produces fewer shadows. Standard reading lights have been replaced with light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, which don't illuminate neighboring seats or the cabin. To make the coloring of cabin lighting less harsh and white, Airbus is using either paired fluorescent tubes -- a white one alongside a second coated in colored plastic -- or a fluorescent tube with colored LEDs. Optional computer-control systems also allow airlines to change lighting very subtly and gradually, avoiding jarring changes

Virgin Atlantic took delivery of the first A340-600 in July and has invested heavily in premium-cabin amenities. Wavy mirrors on bulkheads beneath overhead bins give the impression that the cabin continues farther than it does. The "No smoking/Fasten seatbelt" signs above each seat are executed in silvery metal, which Virgin designers say draws the eye forward and also makes it feel bigger.

Lighting under each seat also gives the illusion of greater space, a Virgin spokeswoman says. The airline also took out the central overhead luggage bin, which raises the ceiling significantly and further increases the sense of spaciousness.

Because jetliners tend to remain in service for up to 30 years, wholesale changes to interiors usually take seven years or longer to work their way throughout the fleet. In the meantime, the replacement of a single coach seat can cost about $1,500, while the replacement of a first-class seat with all its bells and whistles can cost a staggering $60,000.

Some frequent fliers, including Kevin Mitchell, the 6-foot-4-inch director of the Business Travelers Coalition, say most airlines could satisfy their customers by simply giving them a decent amount of legroom. "When you sit in first class, you get a wider seat and legroom because it's long been known that space is what really makes you comfortable," Mr. Mitchell says. He adds that only one carrier, AMR Corp.'s American Airlines, has come close to heeding that call.

Almost three years ago, the Fort Worth, Texas, airline added four inches of legroom to each row by removing two rows of seats from all of its coach sections and installing new seats with adjustable leather headrests. So far, competitors haven't matched it, although UAL Corp.'s United Airlines now offers similar leg space for a limited number of economy class seats on some planes.

Ironically, the most comfortable coach-class airline seats in existence aren't anywhere near an airplane. They are in a showroom in north Texas, bolted to a carpet-covered plywood platform.

The bottom cushion of these seats tilts backward when the recline button is pushed, cradling the passenger much like a nice office chair would. The designer, Weber Aircraft, a unit of Groupe Zodiac of France, says the seat is engineered so that the passenger feels the equivalent of seven inches of recline, even though the back moves only three inches. Another benefit is that since the bottom of the seat slides forward during the cradling recline, there is actually more legroom for the passenger seated behind.

Weber, one of the largest seat manufacturers in the world, designed the seat for a major airline that later postponed buying more than 75,000 of them after the industry went into its economic tailspin. "It's just sitting here waiting for somebody to come up with the money to put it into service," says Adri Ruiter, director of engineering for the Gainesville, Texas, company.

The article doesn't dispute the fact that MRTC exists. It acknowledges that AMR added four inches of legroom. I have flown both AA and other airlines many times in the past 3 years, and I can tell you firsthand that MRTC does, in fact, exist and is not an illusion.

As my old economics teacher at university might have said, "compare and contrast these two statements

Consistent article, heh?

And yes, it doesn't scoff at MRTC as the post heading would have you believe. And yes, I too notice those extra inches of legroom on AA - if it weren't for them I'd be with BA.

I flew an AA MD80 in seat 17B yesterday. I crossed my legs, read my Time magazine, and thoroughly enjoyed the 2.5-hour flight.

I agree. I think AAs MRTC is awesome. I was not commenting on the branded term MRTC, but a generic idea that other airlines could / would use. My mistake if the title was misleading

What MRTC means to me, as a not-very-tall guy, is that I can work on my laptop on the tray table while the seat in front of me is fully reclined. I can't do that on any other airline's economy seat. (Not being elite with UA and never having paid full fare for a seat on one of their planes, I can't comment on E+, but taking out one row of seats and giving the extra room to a few lucky souls isn't the same thing.)

The topic title, though not intended to be a slam at AA, is true. The article says:

(emphasis added)

This is not true. Some rows have four more inches of legroom. On UA, some rows have more legroom, and the additional space in Economy Plus is up to five inches. If you are in UA E+, you are better off than anywhere on AA. Yet the article made just a passing mention of UA, as if UA E+ is inferior to AA MRTC:

Take AA's MD-80 for example (a popular plane with AA). On AA's web site, MD-80 specs says coach legroom ranges from 33 to 35 inches. It is not 35 inches throughout. As a 6' 3" man, I can tell you there is a huge difference between 33" and 35".

On the MD-80, the 13 rows of seats ahead of the exit row (rows 7 to 19) have about 2.5 inches more legroom. Where there once was 14 rows, there are now 13. The old pitch was about 31", and 14/13*31 is 33.4.

A piddly amount of legroom and rock-hard "headrests" make for a very uncomfortable flight. I am more comfortable in US Airways coach than AA MRTC.


If you like AA MRTC and haven't flown UA E+, you have to try E+. You will be convinced of the superiority of E+ over MRTC.

[This message has been edited by JS (edited 11-25-2002).]

While E+ may be marginally better than MRTC comparing the two is like comparing apples and pears. MRTC is for everybody, UA E+ only for elites and full Y fare pax.

That's why the true frequent flyer looks for pitch measurements, not merely perception http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/smile.gif.

------------------
Saving the world, one clue at a time.

Flying on AA 737s, MD80s, and a 767-300 this past weekend, here's what I noticed. Please let me know if I'm correct.

737 - hands down, I though the 737 was the best with the most legroom and the most comfortable seat.

MD80 - very comfortable, MRTC was noticeable compared to other airlines I've flown recently.

767 - I thought that this was the most uncomforatble of the three. It seemed to have the least leg room, and the seat seemed to decline the least of the three.


Interestingly, however, according to SeatGuru my rankings should probably be opposite what they really are (especially considering seat width, which wasn't even a noticeable issue for me).

I'm Premier Exec and Platinum, and IMHO MRTC beats E+ hands-down. Even if E+ has one or two more inches in some seats, MRTC is still the best single thing an airline has done to win all of my business. Even better than comped statuses and piles of bonus miles.

For me, it boils down to this: MRTC makes it stress-free for me to book and fly AA. On UA, there are some problems that make it much more stressful to fly them:
- Not all aircraft have E+.
- Reservations agents don't really know what rows are E+: they simply guess. If you are in Row 12 or so, you don't know until you get onboard.
- Your non-elite companion can't sit in E+ unless he/she is ticketed on your PNR. (If you use discounts, vouchers, FF awards, etc.: you non-elite companion goes to the back of the bus.)
- Equipment change could turn E+ to E- very quickly.
- Better hope you are among the first few elites booking that flight, or you get to choose between E+ middle and E-.

Thank you, AA, for allowing me to focus on other things besides memorizing the cabin configurations of MD80s and 737s. Thank you, AA, for allowing me to sit next to the people I'm flying with - even when they bought their own ticket. Thank you, AA, for completing removing the seat assignment process from my list of travel stresses.

Exactly. I have no status with UA and little with AA (since I'm a CX Marco Polo member). Given the choice between AA and UA I'll always choose the AA MRTC.
I hope more carriers will follow AA.

The reason seat pitch is a bit inconsistent in AA's MRTC is quite simple: the cabin is constrained by the locations of partitions and exit doors. They have to have an integral number of rows in each section - no fractions. Sometimes this works about a bit more than average pitch, sometimes a bit less.

If (like UA) you take out one row of seats and spread its 31" over five or six remaining rows, this isn't a problem, as long as the furthest exit door forward in economy is at least that many rows back of the F partition.

That's exactly how UA does it, in most cases: E+ goes back to the first exit row in coach. Then it's E- beyond that.

(I fly mostly narrowbodies on UA. Widebodies may do things somewhat differently.)

MRTC - Absolutely!

I flew AA soon after they instituted MRTC and it was a splendid surprise as I headed into the coach section. It felt like Delta's FC. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttravel_forum/wink.gif