Why rows across cabin?
 

Can someone explain why aircraft seating rows normally go across the plane? Is it easier or safer to use an aisle if the seat across the aisle is located besides the seat on the other side, rather than between the seats on the other side of the aisle?

Maybe I need more coffee, but .....

:confused:

:confused: here, too

This sentence does not compute. :confused:

It would hinder evacuation in the event of a water landing if the airline were to position rows between the other side which are side-by-side with the ones they're in between.

OK, I think I get what the OP is asking. He wants to know why rows of seats are lined up all the way across the plane, so that each row is exactly on the same "line" as the row across the aisle.

I was on a Southwest 737 yesterday where the rows were not aligned. I found it a little odd.

Yep... that's my interpretation too. I am drinking coffee... but that is coincidental. We'll never know if it helped...

I too have been on configurations where they don't line up. I've always assumed they just go for the configuration where they can pack the most seats in which will often mean they line up, especially behind the curtain.

Er, would it?
In cramped economy cabin, seat pitch is around 75-80 cm. If you and the passenger across the aisle try to stand up simultaneously when the plane stops, you could get two people standing in 75-80 cm of aisle - but you would bump into each other between the seatbacks and armrest ends.

Unless the bulk-heads don't allign for each side of the plane or an airline will have variable pitches between different seats, the current seat allignments are probably the way to get the most seats in the cabin.

It has been a couple of years since I have flown Southwest, but don't they have some seats that actually face backwards (i.e. toward the row behind them?) If so, that may be one reason that their rows don't always line up.

Well, at the ends of cabin, there are often features like galleys, storage, toilets, crew jumpseats. If they are asymmetric, the space could be handled there.

Looking for the button to switch to the English version....

Are you suggesting that the aisle should be situated differently on aircraft? Where it is now provides the most headroom for people walking down the aisle. I know on a CRJ / ERJ I'm half ducking just to walk down the aisle as it is.

That's the way I've seen it, if there are closets, lavs, or galleys that offset the bulkhead from one side to the other, then the rows behind will be staggered also. Otherwise, staggering rows on each side just for the sake of staggering just wastes space.

WN got rid of the rear facing seats, I think it has been a couple of years now.

I did think of that, and I just assumed (OK, usually a bad thing to do. :eek: ) that the size of those things, like the galley, were designed to match up with the original seat pitch of the airplane. IOW, the galley would match to exactly twice the seat pitch for the plane. That way no wasted space.

But you are right in that even if they did do that for the original design, what happens if the airlines change the seat pitch?

It's under the space which is perpendicularly situated to the ones between the parallel area. Got it?



Oh... and um... I do believe that gets me to... Mornington Crescent!