More efficient airplane boarding protocols

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Chen
Posts: 5456
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby Chen » Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:23 pm UTC

And all that said, the different methods didn't really change the time all that dramatically. Changing carry-on vs checked bag rules would probably be FAR more effective in reducing that time.

Realistically this would come at customer's cost in that they'd likely start charging for carry-ons. Realistically people should get a weight allowance and have to pay if it's over that, regardless of whether its carry on or checked luggage or, more controversially, the person themselves.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6408
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby ucim » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:25 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Realistically people should get a weight allowance and have to pay if it's over that,
Why weight? The delay is due to bulk, not weight, and the two are not well correlated (especially when one is encouraged to put the heaviest things in carryon so that one's luggage doesn't go over the limit). The break point is the overhead bin. Stuff that goes under the seat (and interferes with where the cramped passenger can put their feet) is easy, even if it weighs a ton.

And an unaddressed issue is passengers who, after reaching their seat, need to go to the bathroom, get water, or for any other reason need to buck the line. If we're charging fees to save a few minutes, maybe a $20 fine for turning around would be in order.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby Ranbot » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:13 pm UTC

Chen wrote:And all that said, the different methods didn't really change the time all that dramatically. Changing carry-on vs checked bag rules would probably be FAR more effective in reducing that time.

Realistically this would come at customer's cost in that they'd likely start charging for carry-ons...


Realistically, customers hate being charged for things they think should be or are accustomed to being free (rightly or wrongly) and may choose fly on another carrier.

Logic, mathematics, and engineering are wonderfully efficient, until you add an irrational human to the mix. :lol:

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8171
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby Zohar » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:27 pm UTC

There's nothing irrational about not wanting to pay for something you believe isn't right, and trying to find ways to avoid it.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Chen
Posts: 5456
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby Chen » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:30 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Chen wrote:Realistically people should get a weight allowance and have to pay if it's over that,
Why weight? The delay is due to bulk, not weight, and the two are not well correlated (especially when one is encouraged to put the heaviest things in carryon so that one's luggage doesn't go over the limit). The break point is the overhead bin. Stuff that goes under the seat (and interferes with where the cramped passenger can put their feet) is easy, even if it weighs a ton.

And an unaddressed issue is passengers who, after reaching their seat, need to go to the bathroom, get water, or for any other reason need to buck the line. If we're charging fees to save a few minutes, maybe a $20 fine for turning around would be in order.


That was more of an aside of overall airfair costs. It didn't really have to do with the delay factor directly. Right now cabin delays are longer because checked bags generally cost money and carry on don't. So people cram as much into carry on as possible which does increase the boarding time (because more people have more carry on).

My point about weight was that the overall cost structure for airfare should be based on weight carried since that's what drives the actual cost to the airline. They charge by bag instead both to make it easier on the customer (not having to precisely calculate weight of everything) but presumably also because they can less transparently get more money that way. Any bag I check below a certain weight costs the same. And then there's overages for overweight items.

Ranbot wrote:Realistically, customers hate being charged for things they think should be or are accustomed to being free (rightly or wrongly) and may choose fly on another carrier.

Logic, mathematics, and engineering are wonderfully efficient, until you add an irrational human to the mix. :lol:


Carriers are already starting to charge for carry on luggage. Just like certain carriers started with charging for checked luggage. It'll move to the point where there are no alternatives because they'll all be charging for carry on anyways.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby Ranbot » Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:09 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:There's nothing irrational about not wanting to pay for something you believe isn't right, and trying to find ways to avoid it.

It is irrational when people's beliefs make an entire system inefficient, slower, and more expensive for everyone involved (including the person trying to avoid paying for something).

If there's one take-away from this entire discussion is there absolutely are policies and procedures that can make airline travel better, faster, and cheaper for everyone, passengers and airlines, alike. But we can't implement those systems because they can't accommodate for the unexpected and irrational things people do and believe.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8171
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby Zohar » Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:20 pm UTC

How is someone wanting to find a cheaper flight going to make the system inefficient? I was remarking on your (rightful) assertion that people would look for cheaper alternatives. There's nothing irrational about that...
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby arbiteroftruth » Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:48 pm UTC

Ranbot wrote:Realistically, customers hate being charged for things they think should be or are accustomed to being free (rightly or wrongly) and may choose fly on another carrier.

Logic, mathematics, and engineering are wonderfully efficient, until you add an irrational human to the mix. :lol:


That's not so hard to address. Don't charge for carry-ons. Offer a discount to people willing to waive their carry-on privileges.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby Thesh » Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:44 pm UTC

Ditch the overhead bins entirely. If you want carry on, make sure it fits under the seat in front of you. In my experience, most of the time spent waiting is spent waiting on people dealing with the overhead bins.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6408
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby ucim » Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:48 pm UTC

Chen wrote:My point about weight was that the overall cost structure for airfare should be based on weight carried since that's what drives the actual cost to the airline.
I don't think that's true at all. It's a bit cheaper to fly an empty plane across the country, but not much. It's pretty much a fixed cost. Handling passengers and luggage is a cost; that's by the piece. Both weight and volume are hard limits, thus scarce, but volume is easier to charge for, and that's what airlines charge for in first class. Individual heavy bags increase the chance of injury (to handlers), but overall, it's the number of bags that is most responsible for handling issues, not the total weight.

Weight and balance are important to aircraft safety and control; this is evident in smaller airplanes because there's less flexibility in loading. But the law of large numbers favors airliners here.

Ranbot wrote:It is irrational when people's beliefs make an entire system inefficient, slower, and more expensive for everyone involved (including the person trying to avoid paying for something).
When I fly, I am not interested in contributing to the overall efficiency of the system. I'm interested in the result. For me. Even if it's more efficient to take the train, I'm willing to sacrifice that to go somewhere fast.

arbiteroftruth wrote:That's not so hard to address. Don't charge for carry-ons. Offer a discount to people willing to waive their carry-on privileges.
You do know that those are the same thing, don't you? Well, I suppose the difference is in the price that would be (legally) advertised, which would include the built-in charge for carry-ons.

Actually, JetBlue does something like this for checked luggage. There are three levels of fares, and they include (or don't include) bennies like free checked luggage. It's mostly a wash, except for the times when the misleading advertising traps you.

Thesh wrote:Ditch the overhead bins entirely. If you want carry on, make sure it fits under the seat in front of you. In my experience, most of the time spent waiting is spent waiting on people dealing with the overhead bins.
Except that overhead bins are extremely useful; far more so than the five minutes saved.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby arbiteroftruth » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:32 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
arbiteroftruth wrote:That's not so hard to address. Don't charge for carry-ons. Offer a discount to people willing to waive their carry-on privileges.
You do know that those are the same thing, don't you?


Of course. I was addressing the argument that irrational humans would rebel against being charged for carry-ons. You get around that by rephrasing the exact same deal in a manner that doesn't offend the irrational thought process. Suddenly you're not the airline charging an unfair fee; you're the airline offering a special discount!

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby bantler » Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:23 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Chen wrote:My point about weight was that the overall cost structure for airfare should be based on weight carried since that's what drives the actual cost to the airline.
I don't think that's true at all. It's a bit cheaper to fly an empty plane across the country, but not much. It's pretty much a fixed cost. ..


It takes roughly a gallon of jet fuel to move 100 pounds on a domestic flight (at an industry average price of $3.05 a gallon).
Weight-costs add up quickly and multiply out to millions $ per year.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby Thesh » Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:41 pm UTC

Technology: You sit down in the terminal, put your carry-on luggage into an overhead locker, and then the whole shebang is motorized and moves into the plane on its own. It doesn't matter where you sit, you can do it in the open where there's no congestion.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 833
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby DaBigCheez » Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:13 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Technology: You sit down in the terminal, put your carry-on luggage into an overhead locker, and then the whole shebang is motorized and moves into the plane on its own. It doesn't matter where you sit, you can do it in the open where there's no congestion.

So then to retrieve it, what, you have to essentially go through the baggage-claim-carousel process on board your flight, which many people opt to not check bags specifically to avoid?
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby Thesh » Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:05 am UTC

Presumably, it would open when you got off the plane.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11213
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:58 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Ditch the overhead bins entirely. If you want carry on, make sure it fits under the seat in front of you. In my experience, most of the time spent waiting is spent waiting on people dealing with the overhead bins.


This is probably true, but is not due inherently to the nature of overhead bins, but rather, people who bring large luggage, and overall too many carry-ons for the plane. If folks do two carry ons, plus exempt items like bulky coats and purses, the carry on room is quickly filled, and folks are left trying to wedge bags into areas that are clearly not big enough. Then, during flight, they shift, and people have to get their bag from that one spot they found ten seats against the flow of traffic afterward...

I think it's addressable without removing overhead bins. Perhaps each seat has a designated cubic volume of luggage. Brought more than that? Tough. Check it, or keep it on your lap.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6408
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby ucim » Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:45 am UTC

bantler wrote:It takes roughly a gallon of jet fuel to move 100 pounds on a domestic flight (at an industry average price of $3.05 a gallon).
Weight-costs add up quickly and multiply out to millions $ per year.
So, with those numbers, a 200 pound person with ninety pounds of luggage costs less than nine dollars. Pee change.

Thesh wrote:Presumably, it would open when you got off the plane.
The (other) point of carry-on luggage is having it available on the plane.

Tyndmyr wrote:Perhaps each seat has a designated cubic volume of luggage. Brought more than that? Tough. Check it, or keep it on your lap.
That's both inefficient and unsafe. Unused space from one passenger can reasonably be used by another. In general, nothing can be on people's laps during takeoff and landing - certainly not luggage.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

elasto
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby elasto » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:52 am UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Perhaps each seat has a designated cubic volume of luggage. Brought more than that? Tough. Check it, or keep it on your lap.
That's both inefficient and unsafe. Unused space from one passenger can reasonably be used by another. In general, nothing can be on people's laps during takeoff and landing - certainly not luggage.

I think the so-called no-frills airlines in the UK/Europe do do that though. Your handheld luggage has to be below certain dimensions or you are forced to check it.

No-frills airlines are both cheap and short-haul though, so such a restriction is generally less onerous than might be the case on a long-haul.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby bantler » Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:39 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
bantler wrote:It takes roughly a gallon of jet fuel to move 100 pounds on a domestic flight (at an industry average price of $3.05 a gallon).
Weight-costs add up quickly and multiply out to millions $ per year.
So, with those numbers, a 200 pound person with ninety pounds of luggage costs less than nine dollars. Pee change.


A single airline flies over 40 million customers a year. That's an ocean of urine.

User avatar
heuristically_alone
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
Location: 37.2368078 and -115.80341870000001

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby heuristically_alone » Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:46 pm UTC

DaBigCheez wrote:
Thesh wrote:Technology: You sit down in the terminal, put your carry-on luggage into an overhead locker, and then the whole shebang is motorized and moves into the plane on its own. It doesn't matter where you sit, you can do it in the open where there's no congestion.

So then to retrieve it, what, you have to essentially go through the baggage-claim-carousel process on board your flight, which many people opt to not check bags specifically to avoid?

I assumed most people try not to check bags because it costs money. If I could check bags for free, I'd have no problem waiting at the carousel.
Bow gifted by adnapemit.

You can learn to levitate with just a little help.

:idea: = Surprised Cyclops

Chen
Posts: 5456
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby Chen » Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:49 pm UTC

heuristically_alone wrote:I assumed most people try not to check bags because it costs money. If I could check bags for free, I'd have no problem waiting at the carousel.


There's the risk of losing it too. If I'm going on a trip and I only need what fits in a carry-on I will take it that way both to avoid needing to wait for checked bags AND to ensure it doesn't get lost.

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby SuicideJunkie » Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:43 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Technology: You sit down in the terminal, put your carry-on luggage into an overhead locker, and then the whole shebang is motorized and moves into the plane on its own. It doesn't matter where you sit, you can do it in the open where there's no congestion.

Just go one step further; sit down in the terminal, put your stuff away, and then the whole shebang, chair and all, gets rolled onto the plane.
If you can close the clear plastic pod walls, then you can also get a high velocity boarding process.

Triple and quad seat pods for the bigger planes will accommodate families and children with parents. Those needing assistance can get it before boarding.


Personally, I pack relatively light and keep all my stuff in one carry-on size bag. As a single self-contained travel bundle, I don't have to worry about things, just go straight through.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby bantler » Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:04 pm UTC

Just go one step further; sit down in your easy-chair and don your VR glasses.

drzeus
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:28 pm UTC

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby drzeus » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:36 pm UTC

heuristically_alone wrote:I assumed most people try not to check bags because it costs money. If I could check bags for free, I'd have no problem waiting at the carousel.

Everyone I know avoids checking bags because of the carousel wait. They are mainly business travellers, which may skew things. Personally there is value for me in anything which minimises time around flights.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:00 am UTC

I also avoid checking baggage because the bag check-in process takes time and means you have to get to the airport even earlier than you already should to account for security and such.
And on top of that, your checked bags are subject to the depredations of the baggage handlers and may be damaged, pilfered, outright stolen, or flown to Murmansk (unless that is your destination of course).
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11213
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:45 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Perhaps each seat has a designated cubic volume of luggage. Brought more than that? Tough. Check it, or keep it on your lap.
That's both inefficient and unsafe. Unused space from one passenger can reasonably be used by another. In general, nothing can be on people's laps during takeoff and landing - certainly not luggage.

Jose


A coat or some such can certainly be carried in a lap if need be. Thus the "or check it" option, for things that cannot reasonably be.

Yes, unused space from one passenger can be used by another, but that's where you get into "moving ten seats against the flow of disembarking traffic to get the luggage" which is obnoxious.

drzeus wrote:
heuristically_alone wrote:I assumed most people try not to check bags because it costs money. If I could check bags for free, I'd have no problem waiting at the carousel.

Everyone I know avoids checking bags because of the carousel wait. They are mainly business travellers, which may skew things. Personally there is value for me in anything which minimises time around flights.


Wait is an issue, loss is an issue. I've had a couple of lost bags, and the process is quite obnoxious. One of them was run over by some kind of vehicle, torn up, etc, and they insisted on "sending it out for repairs" rather than replacing it. It came back in pretty crap condition, but was ostensibly "fixed". Costing money is probably the grandaddy, though. It incentivizes people to push carry-ons to the absolute maximum.

Unfortunately, it is often the case that luggage-included fares are significantly more expensive. Depending on where and when, it may be $100+, which is obnoxious. Some bag checking fees can also be quite painful. Certainly far more than marginal fuel costs. When you factor in schedule constraints, you may not have options that are terribly reasonable in terms of comfort/cost tradeoffs, so you might end up in the low cost extreme, even if you'd rather be near the midpoint.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2936
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: More efficient airplane boarding protocols

Postby orthogon » Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:20 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Perhaps each seat has a designated cubic volume of luggage. Brought more than that? Tough. Check it, or keep it on your lap.
That's both inefficient and unsafe. Unused space from one passenger can reasonably be used by another. In general, nothing can be on people's laps during takeoff and landing - certainly not luggage.

I think the so-called no-frills airlines in the UK/Europe do do that though. Your handheld luggage has to be below certain dimensions or you are forced to check it.

No-frills airlines are both cheap and short-haul though, so such a restriction is generally less onerous than might be the case on a long-haul.

I'm pretty sure the size limits for carry-on luggage are internationally agreed and apply to all airlines. It's just that budget airlines tend to enforce the rules more stringently; after all they can often take the bag off you and levy a punitive charge for an extra item of checked baggage.

I strongly suspect that people are taking bigger carry-on bags since the limits were codified. Before, it was a question of not taking the piss, and different people had different shame thresholds. Now, you might as well bring a bag the maximum allowed size. As somebody speculated upthread, I don't think there's enough space for everyone to do that.

More strictly on-topic: I've flown a lot with Avianca over the last month. They have a system of boarding by group letter, but I wasn't convinced that anybody - passengers or staff - paid any attention to it. The announcement is hard to understand, people are tired and befuddled, and they can't really police it anyway. The line ends up out of order, but they can't tell whether that's because person A queued up before their group was announced or person B was slow in getting in the line.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests