On a recent NRT-DFW experience in J (sliding down as everyone else - inspired by the recent thread about 2 years of NGBC), I stared blankly at the cabin and started to notice how much wasted space there was in the cabin (think the third dimension).

The overhead bins in in F/J are rarely full (if they are, it's because of scrambing FAs trying to get Y PAX bags stowed at the last minute). This made me start thinking about the capsule hotels across Japan - image here.

So the question is, on certain flights ... would you give up the ability to socialize, work, etc. in order to get a lie flat experience and a quiet environment. Set aside the hygiene concerns and assume they can address that as well as FAA safety concerns.

As a fellow frequent AA PAX, would a coffin style traveling experience be acceptable to you.


I welcome your comments and feedback here.

This is not AA-specific and probably belongs in TravelBuzz. That's my feedback.

Cheers.

Hmm. I can see it now. The Flagship pods.

As stated previously - not AA specific, a general question for the membership. This thread is off to TravelBuzz for further general discussion.

I would pay a $200 premium for it. On longer, miserable flights, I have on several occasions fantasized about the ability to do it, even in the current bin implementation. Would it support my weight? Could my legs or torso fit being the support beam? How hard would it be to modify it to serve such a purpose?

I have also wondered about the feasibility of removing 3 rows of seats and installing horizontal pods in that area...say 4 deep to the ceiling. The airline trades 9 seats for 4...so the math would require a bit more than double fare. Add to that the amortized engineering and retrofit costs. Still worth it...maybe?

Dunno about double fare...but 200 bucks more? Sign me up!

The most sanitary way would be to make the capsules come with removable linings, and such capsules would probably work better on smaller aircraft like the 787 which still has long flight range because it means evacuation would be less of an issue.

In the event of a crash, being in capsules is probably safer than current seating arrangements because each capsule would effectively be a crash-cage to protect the passenger.

Finally, there's the hope of eventually taking a "flying wing" design currently used in the B-2 stealth bomber and making it a commercial aircraft. In a desigh of that type, you'd have a lot more surface and less volume - the reverse of current fuselage designs. That type of flat-aircraft would make capsules more efficient in terms of space usage.Actually, you'd want to design a whole new fuselage interior for this. Realistically, you can't stack capsules more than 2 high - too much climbing. But modern aircraft current has the passenger installed in the middle and cargo/electronics go in the bottom half.

With a capsule design, you'd make everything a 2-deck - like the A380. Each deck would have 2-high capsules and the fuselage would have its longest cross section in the vertical axis - not horizontal. That's better, aerodynamically.

Electronics can now be routed in the open space at the top and cargo capacity would be reduced.

Put in a cafeteria area and restrooms as usual. Passengers can get out of the pods and get food or use the restroom. You should be able to pack more passengers but less cargo.

There's a thread on the LH forum from a year or two ago, when they were looking into bunks in economy.

Yes. I have often thought about this and think it would be great on long haul flights.

Put the passengers in coffins, load them on pallets, roll them onto the plane. Sleep, watch TV, read, whatever. It would be quiet, private and comfortable. You'd go the bathroom like the astronauts do.

All the space would be filled. Very efficient, low carbon footprint, etc.

Each of these pods takes up 18 square feet; however, since they are stacked they really only take up 9 square feet. I'm guessing that the average coach seat takes up 5 square feet but am not sure.

The Japanese pods are one meter wide. The average airplane seat is 18 inces wide. So it might be possible to reduce the width of these pods to about two feet. If so you could replace coach seats with pods with little loss of passenger capacity.

In answer to the OP's questions, for any longer flight, including trans-cons, I would gladly fly in a pod.

Anybody got square footage figures for various airplanes?

If you're going 3-D you need to think in cubic footage for capacity, not square footage for area.

Not a chance! I'm claustraphobic and I'd never make it inside one of those. Complete and total panic attack. No thanks!!!

I've wondered on many a "sore fanny" int'l flight why nobody has thought of capsule/bunk seating. It would be worth a try.

Thanks for everyone's feedback - I love the banter on this. Clearly a lot of thought has been put into this. I will look into the LH thread to see if anything new pops up.

As I read this comment, it made me think about LH's A330 (or was it 340) that has the Y lavs on the lower cargo level. Clearly they went for more seats in Y and places a boat load of lavs down there. As they do with crew bunks up top (like some 747s), why not take a little space forward on a lower level for bunks - in order not to gamble the whole plane on it. If it sells, they could roll bigger dice.

Again, thanks for the banter. Gives me more to think about.

I'd do it as long as it can be electrically adjusted to a 'sit up a bit' position. I don't like lying flat for too long.