[HN Gopher] Letting slower passengers board airplane first is fa...
___________________________________________________________________
Letting slower passengers board airplane first is faster, study
finds
Author : pseudolus
Score : 93 points
Date : 2020-01-15 20:13 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| chrisco255 wrote:
| It would be nice if they could also allow people to board and
| depart from the front and back doors of the plane. I've done this
| from the tarmac on a Frontier flight once in the South Terminal
| in Austin, and since you walk out on the tarmac old-school style,
| they have two ramps for onloading and offloading. Makes things
| much quicker. I don't know if the jet bridges could be extended
| to allow for front and back door access, but it would be awesome
| if it were possible.
| adwww wrote:
| Lots of European airports (including LHR) do this - air bridge
| to the front door and steps to the back door.
| oneepic wrote:
| Can't wait to get to the airport and hear them call for boarding:
|
| "At this time we'd like to welcome all our slower passengers to
| the boarding process. Again, our slow, lazy passengers are
| welcome to board the aircraft."
|
| <people board>
|
| "Group 1..."
|
| <etc>
| saagarjha wrote:
| I'd assume they'd sugarcoat it by saying "seniors, pregnant
| women, and those with disabilities" or similar instead.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Slow and lazy is not the same.
|
| I usually get in the plane with the last people, as I'm lazy to
| stand in line, but I'm doing the boarding itself fast, as I
| have done it many times in my life. I see other experienced
| travellers doing the same thing.
| behringer wrote:
| Another way to do it. Open the doors on the other side of the
| room. Wait until half the people are there. Quickly close the
| door and open another door to the plane.
| chrisgd wrote:
| I would think the only thing that really matters is time to stow
| carry one. Everyone has a carry on, then late groups are asked to
| check it but everyone wants to see with their own eyes that there
| is no space or people put their roller in flat, when it clearly
| states to turn it on its side in newer planes with drop down
| overhead space.
| mlthoughts2018 wrote:
| I want them to just tilt the jet bridge down at a 75 degree angle
| through a hole in the roof of the plane, and then similarly tilt
| the cabin down at a 75 degree angle through a hole in the
| terminal roof when you land.
| russdill wrote:
| There's a lot of focus on improving boarding times. But I haven't
| seen any attempts to improve deplaning. It's always via the
| slowest possible method.
| snarf21 wrote:
| Huh, I've always found deplaning fast _except_ in the case of
| the person who 's overhead is three rows back. There are ways
| to make it all faster but require some systemic changes to how
| we travel.
| paparush wrote:
| I've been on flights where the attendant comes on and says,
| "Ladies and gentlemen, several passengers have connecting
| flights that they are in danger of missing. When we reach the
| gate, please let these passengers to the front of the plane."
| As soon as we're at the gate and parked, the seatbelt light
| goes off and every-freaking-body stands up in the aisles.
| Animals.
| xmodem wrote:
| I wish airlines and airports would work at getting the
| checked bags off the damn plane faster. Whenever I check a
| bag I could have carried on, it feels like I'm being punished
| for it, as inevitably it comes out 1 minute after the
| every-30-minutes train departs.
| setr wrote:
| Every sales person I've met knows never to check-in
| luggage, because it can range anywhere from 15 min to hours
| before you get bag back. It's just totally unreliable. A
| distribution of course, probably hanging closer to 15-30
| min, but do enough flights and you'll always get bit by
| that tail..
| lostapathy wrote:
| Supposedly masking this is part of how some airports are
| designed. They make you walk farther than you'd strictly
| have to, so that there's more time for baggage to get to
| baggage claim while you're walking.
| munk-a wrote:
| I just wish they would reverse the trend of making checking
| luggage so damn expensive - once upon a time people most
| people didn't have wheely bags and it was much less
| unpleasant to board a plane.
|
| Now a-days a lot of travelers will try and cram their
| entire luggage into a single wheely bag that they struggle
| to lift into the overhead bin.
| StillBored wrote:
| Which slows down the boarding process, if anything they
| should be charging more for carry on board vs checked, it
| slows security too.
| munk-a wrote:
| And also theoretically lowers the efficacy of the
| security - the bags we carry onto planes go through
| relatively weak scanners compared to the crazy ones
| they've got for checked luggage - it's why sending most
| film through the carry on scanners isn't a problem, while
| the checked scanners will distort even quite insensitive
| mediums - it's best to try and get it searched by hand
| though, if it's important to you.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| > if anything they should be charging more for carry on
| board vs checked
|
| Ryanair does that now.
| ghaff wrote:
| I tend to side with the parent that it's more about the
| extra time than the extra money. Most of us who travel a
| lot get free checked bags with status on our preferred
| carrier or can usually expense the fee in any case. It's
| the waiting 30 minutes that's the issue. (Also reduced
| flexibility if travel goes sideways for some reason.)
| StillBored wrote:
| This is very airline/airport dependent. I used to marvel at
| how fast my bags arrived at ABIA. Then I stopped flying for
| a while and when I resumed it seems like my bags would take
| nearly an hour. At first I thought it was some kind of
| additional security/whatever, but then I noticed that
| Southwest passengers that were deplaning at the same time I
| was would have their bags at the claim by the time they got
| there, while I would end up waiting 30+ mins for bags from
| my AA flights.
|
| I started to pay more attention, and am 100% sure at least
| between AA and SW, it literally takes AA 4-5x longer at the
| same airport vs SW.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Fast turnarounds is actually a big part of Southwest's
| business model
| WaxProlix wrote:
| Alaska Airlines has a 20 minute guarantee for bags;
| essentially, they promise to have your bag out and on the
| carousel within 20 minutes of the plane making it to the
| terminal. In practice this means (at most airports) that
| your bags arrive within a few minutes of you deplaning,
| using the restroom, and making your way to the baggage
| claim.
|
| I've only been failed by them once, and they gave me a
| hundred bucks for the hassle ($50 per bag). Not a bad
| setup.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| I took a RyanAir flight a few months back, and while there were
| many things to justify their reputation for being super-budget,
| one thing I did like was that they did boarding from both sides
| of the plane - They had a ramp at the rear exit as well as the
| front. It was one of the most convenient deplaning experiences
| I've had.
| cfallin wrote:
| I've only encountered that once in the US but it was great as
| well -- Southwest at LGB (Long Beach, CA) had a separate set
| of air-stairs at the back door for boarding. I would guess
| it's not done more here because there are few airports that
| both board with stairs on the tarmac rather than a jetbridge,
| and also have non-regional (737+) jets where it would make
| sense.
| paparush wrote:
| You expect Americans to -gulp- climb stairs???
| dmurray wrote:
| They do that all the time and it's not for passenger
| convenience: it's to shave minutes off the turnaround time
| and get more flights per day. They also almost never use an
| airbridge even in airports where that is standard. That's
| both for speed (Ryanair's guys on the ground can get the ramp
| there faster than the airport employees who drive the
| airbridge) and for cost savings, since airports charge for
| that service.
| ehnto wrote:
| Honest question, are they skipping some other steps then? I
| wouldn't I expect deboarding and boarding to take longer
| than checks, fuel and cleaning.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| Cleaning happens between deboarding and boarding, not in
| parallel.
|
| Normally there are no particular checks that can't be
| done from the cockpit at turnaround.
|
| Refuelling takes less time than that typically.
| Macha wrote:
| Since a lot of Ryanair flights are relatively short hops,
| that would at least cut down on refueling time, if not
| just fuel every couple of legs if the economics work out.
|
| Cleaning is definitely sometimes abbreviated, I've been
| at the stand for a Ryanair flight in Leeds, seen the
| previous passengers get off, then they boarded us five
| minutes later (the inbound flight was late, so maybe not
| standard practice)
| adwww wrote:
| Boarding can't normally happen while the plane is being
| refuelled, which means passengers boarding the plane is the
| last thing that happens before the plane is ready to take off.
|
| That means the faster they can board passengers, the sooner the
| plane can get in the air.
|
| For deplaning it's not so urgent for the airlines to speed it
| up, as once the plane has been disenbarked there is still 40+
| minutes of refuelling, cleaning, unloading and reloading
| baggage, etc.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| > Boarding can't normally happen while the plane is being
| refuelled
|
| It is possible, but with more rules and restrictions.
|
| https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Refuelling_with_Passenge.
| ..
|
| https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/31197/is-it-
| nor...
| leetcrew wrote:
| I'm guessing this is because the airlines feel it's easier to
| enforce boarding procedures than deplaning. hardly anyone is
| going to charge the gate to board out of order, but once the
| plane has arrived at it's destination, people want to stand up
| and get off as soon as they get a chance.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _hardly anyone is going to charge the gate to board out of
| order_
|
| Really? I see this all the time.
|
| You can especially see it on airlines that have signs for
| group lines labeled 1-5 permanently displayed at the gate. As
| soon as the announcement goes out that the boarding process
| will begin shortly, a dozen people from Groups 4 and 5 will
| rush to their lines.
|
| I've never understood this. I just sit back and relax until
| the mayhem calms down and then I just stroll on at the back
| of my group.
|
| We all leave at the same time, so what's the rush? Then
| again, I don't ever travel with just a carry-on bag.
| leetcrew wrote:
| just my experience. I only fly Southwest, and as far as I
| can tell, people trying to board significantly out of order
| get scolded by the gate attendant and sent back to their
| place in line. swa is first-come first-served seating
| though, and they charge extra for low boarding pass
| numbers, so it might be a bigger deal to them.
| lostapathy wrote:
| Which airport? I've never seen a southwest gate attendant
| do this, or reject oversized carry on bags. It's really
| frustrating.
| grimjack00 wrote:
| > As soon as the announcement goes out that the boarding
| process will begin shortly, a dozen people from Groups 4
| and 5 will rush to their lines.
|
| If you're boarding in a late group, overhead space will
| likely be at a premium, so you want the best chance to
| claim that space and not have to gate check.
| munk-a wrote:
| I think there is also pressure from connecting flights, if
| the plane is running late it's not uncommon to see people
| with really close windows jump the line in terms of deplaning
| - sometimes with the assistance of the flight crew.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I wish that was formalized as well. If you have a 5 hour
| layover, or need to wait for checked bags anyway, and rush
| to deplane, you're just creating real problems for others
| with minimal benefit to yourself.
| munk-a wrote:
| Yea - I peppered that statement with conditionals because
| a lot of people don't tend to abide by that politeness -
| I only made a connecting flight (via a woman at the gate
| re-opening the causeway door) when my connection was cut
| down from 1:20 to 15 in JFK due to inclement weather
| once... And JFK is terrible.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > hardly anyone is going to charge the gate to board out of
| order
|
| I don't know if it's anticipatory anxiety or what, but I
| seemingly observe half the passengers stand and get in line
| at first call. And even queue up for the queued boarding
| calls.
|
| I always get on toward the end and never had an issue finding
| space, but I understand it's aircraft and airline dependent.
| StillBored wrote:
| With the American domestics, its because all the frequent
| flyers are flying with large carry-on's and large personal
| items. Combined with all the non-frequent flyers trying to
| avoid baggage fees by packing everything in a large carry
| on.
|
| If you don't get on fairly early after them, its likely you
| won't have a place to put your carry on, or it will end up
| being in the back of the plane/whatever forcing you to wait
| longer to get off.
| munk-a wrote:
| Boarding methods in use approach the absolute worst approaches
| to getting everyone in a seat with a continuous stream of
| passengers boarding - having literally no organization would
| actually result in faster boarding than the zone based
| approaches.
|
| As a result plane boarding gets a lot press I think, partially,
| just out of the hope that airlines stop acting so idiotically.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I always thought it would be best to let the window seats board
| first, ordered back to front to minimize waiting for stowing
| baggage, then middle seats back to front, then aisle seats back
| to front. Families traveling together would obviously complain,
| but it would probably get the plane boarded much faster overall.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| WestJet used to board window seats first (and those traveling
| with someone in a window seat). I always found that much faster
| than other airlines. Alas, they stopped the practice years ago.
| ken wrote:
| CGP Grey addresses this in the video (commented elsewhere
| here). This strategy minimizes the Seat Shuffle, but it turns
| out that isn't the major slowdown when boarding, so overall
| this is only slightly faster than boarding in random order.
| [deleted]
| etxm wrote:
| The MythBusters has an episode on plane boarding that was pretty
| interesting.
|
| Results: https://mythresults.com/airplane-boarding
| whiddershins wrote:
| You know what I think is weird about all this discussion?
|
| Boarding and deplaning really don't take that long, most of the
| time.
|
| Think 15 or 20 minutes max.
|
| It's one of those things where it feels incredibly long and
| arduous. It feels interminable. But that has something (IMO) more
| to do with the psychological experience of flying.
|
| The actual time cost is fairly small, especially compared to so
| many other wastes of your time when flying (getting to the
| airport on crowded roads, requirements to arrive early, arriving
| early because of fear of security taking a long time, getting
| through security, requirements to get to the gate early, sitting
| in the plane at the gate, sitting on the plane waiting to take
| off, sitting on the plane on the other end, possibly being on a
| shuttle bus connecting plane to gate, waiting for luggage,
| waiting for cab or shuttle or rental car ...) not to mention the
| time of the actual flight.
| virtuous_signal wrote:
| If you only look at the material side of what people are paying
| for: boarding a few minutes faster, deplaning a few minutes
| faster, comfier seats and better food, etc, then I completely
| agree that it doesn't make sense to pay an extra $1000 or so
| for a plane ticket. Here's what I think people _do_ pay
| ridiculous amounts of money for: status, and ensuring they do
| not have to interact with normals. Air travel used to be a
| luxury activity in itself, but prices today mean that you are
| basically stepping onto a dirty sky bus (more so for some
| airlines than others). This is of course a generalization, but
| rich people do not take buses.
|
| (This doesn't really apply to business travelers, as their
| companies need to pay for these upgrades to make the job travel
| less unattractive)
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| The reason this time is given so much attention isn't for the
| impression of the passengers, it's to minimize turnaround time
| to keep the aircraft making money.
| [deleted]
| Reedx wrote:
| CGP Grey has a great video examining different boarding methods
| and why some are slower or faster than others:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHbLRjF0vo
|
| Also noting that the way we deplane (front to back) is the
| slowest method, heh.
| mamon wrote:
| One thing airlines should pay closer attention to is
| amount/size of carry-on luggage to better match overhead bins
| capacities. I've seen people bringing clearly oversized roller
| bag, AND big laptop bag, AND big purse, and then spending a lot
| of time trying to place all of that in bins, or under
| preceeding seat, blocking the aisle while doing so.
|
| That's also the main reason why I try to board as fast as
| possible - to ensure that there's still space for my luggage.
| reaperducer wrote:
| I love CGP Grey's animations, and you can clearly tell this one
| involved a lot of work.
|
| The problem with his analyses is that they're frequently wrong
| because he look at problems in a very academic way and severely
| oversimplifies them.
|
| For example, his video about cars going through intersections
| makes perfect sense in a simulated world on a computer. But it
| falls down instantly in real life because it presumes that
| every car is identical, with the same mechanical
| characteristics, the same acceleration capability, the same
| connectivity (for the magic fictional traffic control signal),
| the same latency, they never break down, there are never any
| external factors at an intersection, and on and on and on.
|
| Similarly, his plane boarding simulation falls down as soon as
| someone shows up late, or in a wheelchair, or with a bum leg,
| drunk, a baby, luggage that the wheel has fallen off of, etc...
|
| He seems to live in a world where there is no difference
| between theory and reality. I still watch his videos, but I
| consume them as entertainment, not as documentaries.
| NoodleIncident wrote:
| I was under the impression that his conclusions come from the
| same sort of papers we're discussing in the OP, and that the
| animation is just a demonstration of the effect. Some real-
| life issues should be addressed in future studies, for sure;
| for airplanes, it's probably important to model "families"
| that sit, board, and deplane together. But just listing the
| variables not accounted for in the study or video isn't
| scientific criticism, you have to do your own work to
| actually demonstrate that it makes a difference.
| reaperducer wrote:
| You are correct. But his videos aren't presented as "this
| is possibly the best way, and it should be further
| investigated." They're presented as "This is the best way
| because I say so, even though I haven't done any testing
| but I'm a college professor and on YouTube so you should
| believe me."
| ntsplnkv2 wrote:
| > Similarly, his plane boarding simulation falls down as soon
| as someone shows up late, or in a wheelchair, or with a bum
| leg, drunk, a baby, luggage that the wheel has fallen off of,
| etc...
|
| All of these things occur in non-ideal boarding scenarios as
| well. I don't see how they affect his solution more so than
| what we currently have.
| cgriswald wrote:
| It's sort of like comparing two algorithms and using the
| one that has the simplest best case time complexity without
| considering the average case or that your particular real-
| world use might actually be a worst case.
| ntsplnkv2 wrote:
| But ultimately the same problems affect both algorithms
| in the same way. So the best case algorithm will be
| slower in the real world, but should still be faster than
| the other cases.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Only if all algorithms are affected the same way by the
| same external factors, which simply doesn't happen.
|
| It's like when a Toyota and a Freightliner crash into the
| same wall. They both crashed at the same speed, why is
| one damaged more than the other?
| virtuous_signal wrote:
| Great video. This is one of those phenomena, like how to fix
| traffic jams, that everyone has an opinion on because of
| firsthand experience, but few people know about the actual
| research on. Despite there being known fast methods, I think 2
| things stand in the way of implementing them:
|
| 1) Business and 1st class make a lot of money for airlines. Not
| letting them board first (although personally I've always
| wondered why this is desirable) would devalue their tickets and
| make less profit for the airline.
|
| 2) Airplanes have to undergo certain maintenance checks or
| procedures whenever they land. Those take some fixed amount of
| time. There is no incentive to speed up the boarding/deplaning
| process past that fixed amount of time, since it won't be the
| limiting factor.
| wtvanhest wrote:
| One option that isnt discussed is having the overhead bins be
| seperately ticketed and a box. So if you want a bin, you pay
| $40 and one gets asigned to you. It would streamline boarding
| because people would put their stuff in the bin and be done.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Until they don't, and then the air hostesses who are just
| trying to get everyone seated have to become policemen as
| well. They have enough to do.
| njarboe wrote:
| Not really any different than having assigned seats for
| people.
| novok wrote:
| Overhead bins tend to be under provisioned for the amount
| of passengers boarding.
| dunmalg wrote:
| >I've always wondered why this is desirable
|
| Others have noted other reasons, but I think the biggest
| reason is that 1st/business class seats are more comfortable
| than the crappy crowded boarding area. Economy seats, it's
| the other way around. And as an added bonus, on something
| like a 787 where the boarding doors are behind business
| class, boarding first means you're lounging around in the
| front of the plane being served drinks and addressed by name
| while behind you the rabble are are being herded like cattle
| into their tiny seats at the back.
|
| For 3x the price, 1st/business class want luxury, and sitting
| elbow to elbow with the riffraff in beat up terminal seating
| isn't that.
| barrkel wrote:
| To be clear, 1st class is about 10x to 35x more expensive
| than economy for a transatlantic flight (I wouldn't bother
| with upgrading on any flight I couldn't catch some sleep
| on).
|
| (BA: ~PS200 Economy for LHR-JFK, PS2300 to PS7300 depending
| on day 1st Class)
| United857 wrote:
| Business/1st class passengers (at least on international
| flights) almost always have access to lounges, rather than
| waiting in the gate area. As good as the plane seats are,
| I'd still rather spend as much lounge time as possible.
| Macha wrote:
| Boarding first on budget Airlines like Ryanair guarantees you
| a space in the overhead for your carry on, as opposed to it
| taking all your legroom or being forcibly checked in at the
| gate ("free of charge" as if it's a service).
|
| In some airports it also reduces total queueing time, though
| in others it just moves you from queuing at the boarding desk
| to queueing at a bus stop/stairwell/skybridge.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| >although personally I've always wondered why this is
| desirable
|
| Most people finding waiting to board unpleasant and want it
| over ASAP. For me personally, it is often less comfortable in
| the terminal for a number of reasons. The climate and noise
| is worse, I must keep an eye on luggage, and I have a mild
| anxiety about inexplicably losing my documentation or
| becoming too engrossed in whatever activity I am doing while
| I wait.
|
| Alternatively, I could be sitting, stretching, taking off my
| shoes, ordering a drink, and focusing my full attention
| work/entertainment/sleep for that 20 minutes.
| groby_b wrote:
| Boarding first is desirable because overhead bin space is v.
| limited. If you board last, it _will_ be gone.
| TomVDB wrote:
| _although personally I 've always wondered why this is
| desirable_
|
| The hustle and bustle at the gate stresses me out. (There's
| no good reason why and it shouldn't, but it does.) Once I'm
| sitting in my window seat, I close my eyes and relax.
| mehrdadn wrote:
| > personally I've always wondered why this is desirable
|
| Maybe peace of mind? One you're on the plane you know you're
| good to go. When you're in the terminal you have to keep
| diverting your attention to announcements, changes,
| distractions, etc.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _although personally I 've always wondered why this is
| desirable_
|
| When I was fat, I paid extra for first class tickets so that
| I wouldn't be the slob jerk who overflowed into my neighbor's
| coach class seat. Because of that, I had a lot of coach-
| mindset first-class seats.
|
| Boarding first in first class gives you an opportunity to get
| some work done, to relax a bit before the plane takes off,
| and almost always you get to have a drink and a snack before
| the plane leaves the ground. It gives you a chance to put
| your head on straight for the next leg of the journey, or
| catch up on stuff before the ascent.
|
| If you're a busy person (as I was back then), boarding first
| really makes a difference.
| ehnto wrote:
| How much longer do you get typically? I never have to wait
| that long to board as economy so I am curious if my economy
| boarding is atypical. I could totally see how an hour
| sitting in first class might be nicer than poking about a
| terminal. Is it ever that long?
| trillic wrote:
| It really depends on the size of the airplane. Just a
| couple weeks ago I was one of the first 10 people to
| board the plane and was in "Premium Economy" on a
| 777-300ER for a full flight from Eastern Europe to the
| Midwestern US. I'd guess I was on the plane for nearly an
| hour before we pushed back from the gate. But this is for
| a plane with 300 people that boarded through a single
| door.
| kshacker wrote:
| It is not a question of how long after business does
| economy board. It is a question of how much after economy
| starts will business board if order was reversed.
|
| I have done some business travel and some premium economy
| travel, and I have seen airlines take 40-60 minutes from
| "formal" boarding time to takeoff. When they require 60
| minutes, it usually is a big plane and the difference
| between business and economy could be 20 minutes easily
| (assuming the seating was reversed).
|
| I have wondered many a times if boarding last would not
| be better? But there is a joy to leaving the lounge and
| directly walking into the plane if you time it right.
| Otherwise you end up waiting for others to board first.
| Also, I could afford to be late and still get in, not so
| if my boarding group was the last.
|
| These are minor luxuries, but each has some value. In the
| bigger scheme of things, and given that it is hard to
| afford business travel all the time on personal dime, I
| would say it does not matter much :)
| dave5104 wrote:
| I've typically had 20-25 extra minutes before they
| finally close the door. It's enough to get a head start
| on a podcast or watch a short TV episode.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| There's nothing stopping you from watching that in the
| airport.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| It is still much more pleasant to do it sitting down with
| a drink, than breaking focus every 30 seconds to check
| your boarding status.
| pseudolus wrote:
| It would have been particularly interesting to see what would
| have happened had the study concluded the opposite: that letting
| slower passengers board first slows overall boarding. Which would
| have prevailed? Efficiency or the common decency inherent in
| allowing children and individuals with infirmities to board
| first?
| RangerScience wrote:
| > the common decency inherent in
|
| Is it tho? I don't find it intuitively obvious that this is the
| more-human-decency position. It's a feel-good button sure, to
| give priority to those with more needs. It's just not clear to
| me whether or not children and people with infirmities actually
| want / benefit from boarding first.
| majormajor wrote:
| I don't understand why boarding first is desirable, except for
| scarcity of overhead luggage space (heightened by checked bag
| fees and growing rollaboard bags) and those few first class
| folks getting a free drink while they wait.
|
| Fix the storage issue and I'd want to board last - don't extend
| my time in those seats!
| kelnos wrote:
| For me a part of it is indeed the overhead luggage space
| issue. But also I'd rather just be "on my way". If I'm
| sitting out at the gate, even if I'm reading something, I
| need to have part of my attention trained on the PA system,
| waiting for the boarding (or other) announcement. Once I'm on
| the plane and in my seat, I can read, put on headphones and
| watch something, whatever, without my attention divided,
| until we land.
|
| It helps that I don't find airplane seats all that
| uncomfortable, at least no more uncomfortable than the seats
| in most gate areas.
| shanxS wrote:
| This is standard task scheduling problem (see CLRS section
| 17.5) with added constraint of slowing down processing as
| number of tasks finishes. This added constraint is justified
| by the fact that as people board they won't stay put in their
| seats in aircraft, they move move around increasing the time
| to board for passengers who haven't boarded yet.
|
| This still remains a greedy problem and hence allowing slower
| passengers to board first will reduce overall time taken to
| board.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| And those boarding last roll their bags down a full plane
| banging into seated people along with jostling them around by
| using the headrests as railings.
|
| And it's all the airline's fault imo.
| mcmoose75 wrote:
| Overhead bin space is the big reason- give the somewhat (last
| 5 years-ish) changes to charging for the 1st checked bag,
| many who would have otherwise checked a bag are bringing on
| as carry-ons.
|
| Many flights I've been on in past several years have had a
| real shortage of bin space, meaning getting on board early to
| make sure you're not the odd man out IS important (waiting
| for baggage carousel can take an extra 45 minutes)
| MereInterest wrote:
| It wasn't that recent. I was flabbergasted by an
| advertisement in an airport in 2013, which was trying to
| entice people into a membership with "Free checked bag?
| Don't worry. You'll get used to it." Advertising as
| extravagant exactly what used to be standard with the
| ticket.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| > what used to be standard with the ticket
|
| Base tickets are cheaper now however.
| boutad wrote:
| Why is it better to board first? From my perspective,
| minimizing time spent in cramped air planes seats the better.
| munk-a wrote:
| Fun side effect - if this method was adopted people might slow
| themselves down in boarding to board earlier resulting in even
| less efficiency.
| scott_s wrote:
| I'm also convinced that we _exit_ the plane in the worst way
| possible. We basically do it row-by-row: as the people in front
| of them leave, people in a row get up, get their bags, start
| walking down the line, and this cascades up the plane. The
| problem is that there is very little parallelism: while people in
| the next row to leave are getting their bags, no one is exiting
| the plane.
|
| This is similar to a stall in a processor pipeline. We want to
| avoid stalls, which mean that we want people exiting the plane
| constantly. A _column_ approach would work much better: people in
| the aisle get their bags before the doors open, and start leaving
| as soon as it does. As columns drain, the next column can get
| their bags and start to leave. This approach keeps people leaving
| constantly, while also keep the aisle constantly populated. Yes,
| the person in the last column in the back row still leaves last,
| but I claim they will leave sooner. (edit: Thinking about it
| more, I actually think the people in the last column in the
| _front_ row leave last. If you 're in the back row, second
| column, you can stand up as soon as the person in the first
| column in front of you has started walking out. After the first
| column to leave, people will exit in reverse order because the
| openings will appears back-to-front. Trying to maintain front-row
| "fairness" will just result in a period of time where no one is
| in the aisle.)
|
| The reason we do the row-by-row method, I think, is that our
| sense of fairness is influenced by who we're looking at and
| proximity. We look forward, and we feel that the people closer to
| the door "should" leave first because they're closer, and we're
| looking at them, so we feel bad if we hold them up. But by doing
| the row-by-row method, we're holding up everyone _behind us_ ,
| but we don't look at them as much.
|
| I don't know how to enforce a column-by-column exit. Airlines can
| enforce how we get on the plane because they control, person at a
| time, who enters the plane. How we exit the plane is more
| cultural, and while an airline could certainly try to ask people
| to exit this way, it's much harder to make it happen.
| alharith wrote:
| One of the problems is people who put their carry on luggage 4
| or 5 rows down from their seat. This should just not be
| allowed, period.
| CJefferson wrote:
| The obvious issue is, people sitting in rows are often together
| and want to disembark together. Often they are elderly or
| children, and need to disembark with the others in their row.
| jaywalk wrote:
| I was on a flight a year or two ago where, upon landing, a
| woman turned her phone on and received a call informing her
| that her brother had passed away. She was understandably quite
| distraught as we taxied to the gate, and the lead flight
| attendant even made an announcement asking everyone to please
| remain seated so that she could exit the plane first.
|
| Nobody listened.
| eitland wrote:
| I witnessed what seemed like a severe case of hypoglycemia in
| a passenger a few rows from me while stuck in a plane.
|
| The idea that someone might die because people cannot just
| listen is somewhat scary.
| Symbiote wrote:
| I saw (just the seat in front) someone taken ill.
|
| The crew left the seatbelt sign on, and paramedics in
| uniform boarding meant everyone got the message.
| nradov wrote:
| People did die on Aeroflot Flight 1492 because they didn't
| listen to instructions to leave their luggage behind.
|
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2019/
| 0...
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| A couple of times on Air Canada the attendants asked
| everybody to let those with close connections leave first,
| and people listened. I suppose there might have been a couple
| of jerks who ignored the announcement but nobody could tell.
|
| I think that's the difference. Once one person behaves
| poorly, others interpret that as permission to also be a jerk
| so it's "fair".
| jbigelow76 wrote:
| _...the lead flight attendant even made an announcement
| asking everyone to please remain seated so that she could
| exit the plane first.
|
| Nobody listened._
|
| I find myself with a case of both sider-ism on this. One the
| one hand (the hand that really should win out), we should all
| be able to act as decent empathetic people with the
| instruction following capabilities of a 7 year old when the
| situation dictates. But on the other hand, when you treat
| (and pack) your customers like a bunch of damn cattle, don't
| be surprised when they act like a bunch of damn cattle.
| jlg23 wrote:
| The only time I witnessed passengers staying sit was after an
| announcement that said: "we know by experience that our pilots
| are much better at flying than at driving, so for your own
| safety, please keep seated until the 'fasten seatbelts' lights
| are turned off."
|
| There is no (legal) way to make the passengers disembark
| orderly...
| slowhand09 wrote:
| I think exiting should be "without bags in overheads - Now!"
| followed by front to rear general.
| maxerickson wrote:
| My experience has been that people exiting a plane could give a
| shit about fairness.
|
| It's a traffic jam where those closest to the door get there
| first, not anything ordered.
| tardo99 wrote:
| What they should do is disallow anyone from opening the
| overhead bins until all the people who didn't insist on
| carrying on all their luggage exit.
| efraim wrote:
| Also, people like to sit next to people they know such as
| family. A column approach sounds more effective, but it would
| split up people traveling together.
| scott_s wrote:
| Very good point. And unlike boarding, trying to handle
| exceptions first or last doesn't really work because people
| are physically blocked from leaving their row. I've figured
| we'd never do this for cultural reasons, it's just something
| I ruminate over while traveling alone, staring at the empty
| aisle of a half-full plane.
| thrower123 wrote:
| The other common bottleneck with exiting is when you have to go
| back a few rows to get to where you had to stow your carry-on,
| because the plane was boarded from the front, and all of the
| overflow from the people who boarded ahead of you taking up the
| bins overhead of your seat.
| pacetherace wrote:
| Deplaning is not a very significant problem because there are
| other things that are being taken care of while it is
| happening.
|
| However, you can't start boarding until a certain point and
| from there until the plane leaves the gate, a lot of resources
| are locked.
| r00fus wrote:
| You are thinking of a single flight as disconnected from the
| entire ecosystem - in reality, the gate is occupied, the next
| flight can't board, cleanup can't take place and probably a
| half dozen other things I can't think up. And costs go up
| dramatically if things are already behind.
|
| I'd say deplaning quickly is about as important as boarding.
| scott_s wrote:
| It's not a significant problem _for the airline_. But for a
| passenger, staring at people wrangling their bags, blocking
| those already up with a clear aisle from them to the exit, it
| 's frustrating.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > It's not a significant problem for the airline. But for a
| passenger, staring at people wrangling their bags, blocking
| those already up with a clear aisle from them to the exit,
| it's frustrating.
|
| Sure, but to airlines, that's a revenue opportunity, not a
| problem.
| r00fus wrote:
| If deplaning could be 5% faster without any impact to
| other factors, it'd be done immediately by all airlines.
|
| Just consider the knock-on effects in terms of flight on-
| time % for subsequent legs on a multi-leg flight.
| frankus wrote:
| Idle thought I had a while back: Let people who don't have
| anything in the overhead bins get off first.
| tardo99 wrote:
| Yes. To implement this you simply lock the overheads while in
| final descent, which makes sense anyway for safety reasons.
| cogman10 wrote:
| People without stuff should sit next to the aisle. (and get
| on last)
| cogman10 wrote:
| This is where being a jerk would be beneficial for everyone.
| Simply put, the person at the front of the line should
| basically just ignore everyone and move forward. People
| aggressively jumping in gaps would even be OK because it would
| give people in the back time to grab their stuff and get
| organized.
|
| Being polite is what ends up slowing everyone down. (the same
| is not true for boarding. Back to front outside columns to
| inside columns would be far faster)
| alharith wrote:
| You think it's beneficial. The people who are angered by the
| rudeness would not perceive it as beneficial.
| ftio wrote:
| This sounds like it might be faster, and I might like it for
| solo business trips, but getting on/off with my family is not
| optional for me.
|
| Assuming most multi-passenger groups feel similarly, and
| assuming solo business passengers represent only ~40% of the
| population, the impact of such a system (which would require
| substantially more passenger discipline/planning) would be
| pretty limited.
| fiblye wrote:
| Yeah, with this idea, people would just clog up right outside
| the airplane door waiting for their family. Anyone trying to
| get through would get some angry looks for daring to push
| through.
| TallGuyShort wrote:
| There's a documentary on Netflix, I think it's called "Speed"
| or something because it's about fast stuff, had an episode
| about doing Monte Carlo simulations of plane embark /
| disembark sequences that were optimal. They came up with
| optimal boarding processes but it required individual seat
| assignments which was a problem for kids (not to mention a
| ton of explaining). I forget if Southwest's semi-randomized
| approach was the next best, or boarding groups - I think it
| was randomized.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| > getting on/off with my family is not optional for me.
|
| Ryanair has now accustomed Europeans to travel separately
| from their family, so it wouldn't surprise me to see that
| requirement change if it drops the price.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| So Ryanair will take care of my 5 year old while I fly?
| Sounds peaceful. Last flight she spent 2 hours trying to
| lay down in the middle of the aisle.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Ryanair has pretty much given up enforcing seat
| allocations. Sure, your boarding pass might say one seat
| number, but it's pretty much a "sit in any free seat"
| policy. 90% of the time when i get on the plane someone
| else is in my seat, so I'm forced to sit in a random seat,
| giving someone else the exact same issue.
|
| The staff know that getting everyone back into the correct
| seats will take a massive effort, so don't bother.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| My experience is that yes there's lots of shuffling
| around, but people politely ask others if they accept to
| change seats.
| tristor wrote:
| This is just one of many reasons that nobody should ever
| fly RyanAir.
| [deleted]
| gav wrote:
| > The reason we do the row-by-row method
|
| The seats at the front of the plane cost more money. The
| airlines want everyone who didn't pay extra to suffer a little
| to encourage them to pay more next time.
| throwaheyy wrote:
| The US airlines' system of roughly allowing people to board in
| the order corresponding to how much they pay (with up to 9
| distinct groups) looks a little silly now.
| kmonsen wrote:
| If you are the airline it seems to work out since you are
| actually turning this into a money making opportunity?
|
| The real issue is if the slow boarding is costing the airline
| more than the money than they earn from charging from upgrades.
| Also consider that the people paying for expensive seats might
| be sad if they don't get to board early which again might
| affect airline revenue.
|
| I think airlines is pretty happy with the current situation,
| and that the passenger boarding speed is not costing them money
| so this is all good. This is just an (somewhat educated?)
| guess.
| jrs235 wrote:
| >Also consider that the people paying for expensive seats
| might be sad if they don't get to board early which again
| might affect airline revenue.
|
| Consider they would be pissed if overhead bin space isn't
| available for them so they have to jet way check their carry-
| on luggage and then wait when they arrive or find overhead
| space further back the airplane which just leads to a cluster
| mess trying to deplane upon arrival.
| paulmd wrote:
| Yeah, as long as you are "overlapping" boarding and
| servicing, I think the servicing of the aircraft takes longer
| than the boarding/unboarding, so it does not actually delay
| the rate at which the aircraft can be turned around. The
| action of boarding the aircraft takes 10 minutes longer, but
| it's 10 minutes that you were going to be sitting on the
| ground anyway while the plane is fuelled and loaded up with
| meals/etc.
| throwaheyy wrote:
| The thing is, people are not paying extra just to board
| early, they're mostly paying for the bigger seat, more space,
| more personal service. The "priority boarding" is just icing
| on the cake, a "cable channels package" tactic thrown in to
| make the customer feel like they're not getting ripped off as
| much. Assuming that boarding is not in the critical path,
| airlines could adopt a faster boarding system and get the
| plane turned around faster without turning down that extra
| revenue.
| bproven wrote:
| The fastest boarding and deplaning I have experienced is at
| Burbank airport. It is done with 2 open doors: front and rear -
| rather than just 1 door boarding only front to rear.
|
| I'm sure it is the same at other small airports as well...
| [deleted]
| pnw_hazor wrote:
| Often, especially if I have checked baggage, I wait until the
| bitter end rather than getting onboard early or waiting in line.
| If there is no room for my roller-bag, gate checking is usually
| free.
| paparush wrote:
| Boarding for the major US carriers is so broken. My solution - NO
| OVERHEAD BAGS - period.
| stanferder wrote:
| Spirit Airlines actually has the right idea on this - you pay
| to bring an overhead bag aboard, and they mean business about
| it being the proper size. I'm able to get away with not
| checking a bag on the vast majority of my flights. I'm out of
| the airport like 5 minutes after I exit the plane.
| jfengel wrote:
| Do you find that Spirit flights board and deplane faster?
| People struggling to get overhead bags when I'm feeling very
| cramped and just want to leave is one of my pet peeves.
| kelnos wrote:
| I'd only be ok with that if checked baggage came out
| immediately, with zero wait, and if there was zero incidence of
| lost baggage.
|
| I know things are better these days, but I've been burned too
| many times to ever check baggage again.
| cryptonector wrote:
| Airlines don't just sell the tickets. They sell convenience and
| comfort. And they have to mediate a limited resource shared by
| passengers: overhead bin space. So they want premium customers to
| get dibs on overhead bin space, which means letting them board
| first. The slowest part of boarding sometimes is the tail
| (economy and late-arrivals) looking for bin space, or worse,
| having to bring their carry-on back to the door for gate
| checking.
|
| To make boarding faster the airlines will first have to commit to
| not letting economy passengers have carry-on. Until they are
| willing to do this, there will be no improvement.
| MereInterest wrote:
| > And they have to mediate a limited resource shared by
| passengers: overhead bin space.
|
| If only there were other places that luggage could be stored.
| Somewhere for larger bags that aren't needed during the flight.
| Somewhere that could be loaded independently of the passenger
| door. If such a place existed, airlines could give incentives
| to have passengers place baggage there instead of overhead.
|
| Or airlines could do the exact opposite, charge extra for the
| less convenient method, and slow down the boarding process as a
| result.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| >charge extra for the less convenient method
|
| Not having to wait for my bag when I get off the plane, and
| having 0 chance of losing the bag, is worth quite a bit. And
| by charging, they do reduce the number of people with them.
|
| Source: The overheads on Spirit (which only allows a personal
| item) always have space, even on full flights.
| lcfcjs2 wrote:
| Nonsense. There can be plenty of small improvements done
| without prohibiting carry-ons. Absolute rubbish.
| ghaff wrote:
| >will first have to commit to not letting economy passengers
| have carry-on.
|
| Some do in a limited way. The lowest tier of economy (I think
| United calls it Economy Basic, aka steerage minus) allows you a
| "personal item"--which you basically have to allow because you
| can't force people to check medicines, etc.--but no carry-on.
| throwaway287391 wrote:
| It's really odd to me that airlines decided to charge for
| checked bags rather than overhead bin storage. Even before it
| was common to charge for checked bags, almost everyone I've
| ever met preferred carry-ons whenever possible. And when they
| "enforce" carry-on bag size limits, the worst thing they'll do
| is gate-check your bag for free, which is still much better
| than checking a bag and having to wait there half an hour for
| it to show up on the carousel anxiously wondering whether you
| were the lucky one whose baggage they lost today. (Hell, it's
| arguably the best case scenario, though does still cost you a
| few minutes waiting.) It's like they go out of their way to
| give me every possible incentive to be that obnoxious person
| that always brings his obviously oversized on every flight.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| Ryanair solved that problem by charging for having a carry-on.
| They only sell the space they have.
| shadow-banned wrote:
| Priority boarding is now being used by most airlines as a class
| differentiator - a perk you can add to paying for a Comfort + or
| Economy Plus or First Class ticket.
| jedberg wrote:
| Southwest has sort of figured this out. First of all, they use
| random boarding, which is almost the fastest, and the fastest of
| the viable options (good luck getting people to board alternate
| rows).
|
| They also interleave slow and fast passengers. They let
| handicapped people board, then the first 1/3 of passengers, then
| families with kids, and then the rest of the passengers.
|
| By the last 1/3 of the passengers, it's mostly center seats,
| which means high parallelism for those passengers.
| lkbm wrote:
| Related: CGPGray made a great video about boarding methods:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHbLRjF0vo
| rcthompson wrote:
| They mention that boarding even rows first and then odd rows is
| also an improvement, but I've wondered whether 2 is actually the
| right periodicity. If we suppose a row consists of 6 people with
| roller bags, what we really want is to ensure that all 6 of these
| people can occupy the aisle without blocking anyone else from
| their row. So what if we used 10 instead of 2? I.e. first board
| everyone whose row number ends in 0 back to front, then everyone
| whose row ends in 1, then 2, and so on.
|
| (I assume you could do even better by boarding window seats
| first, then middle, then aisle, but keeping rows together is much
| more family/group-friendly.)
| hokkos wrote:
| Just design plane to facilitate boarding like this prototype :
|
| https://images.vinted.net/thumbs/f800/046b0_M2bQ3jAEBTnELEZ6...
| StillBored wrote:
| The conclusions are pretty obvious, I guess they just needed to
| simulate it?
|
| The fastest boarding I've ever experienced was something Cathay
| Pacific did a few years ago. In the boarding area they had three
| lines with a bunch of section signs and an a couple employees
| hassling/sorting people between the lines. The rear of the plane
| sections were at the front of the line. I'm guessing they were
| just counting how many people were in each section?
|
| Either way, when they opened the doors, they just picked one of
| the lines and the employees walked down the line scanning
| everyone's boarding pass and then the whole line proceeded to
| board the 777 (dual isle). Then they repeated the process with
| the next line after a short pause.
|
| Which works out to back to front boarding of 1/6th of the
| passengers in a section at a time. When it was my turn the entire
| line pretty much just walked onto the plane bumped around a bit
| in the section and sat down.
|
| Quite a shock given the hour long boarding AA can sometimes pull
| off with their messed up boarding order based on miles and cabin
| front to back...
| ehnto wrote:
| I booked 4 flights with Cathay not sure what to expect, but it
| was a pretty good experience all round. Boarding was a non
| issue, fast and on time. Everything else was perfectly
| functional, if economical. The staff were excellent.
|
| I didn't appreciate the mid flight catalogue advertising for
| beauty products though. Talk about a captive audience. That
| only happened on the leg between Japan and HK, I hope it's not
| common...
| jacquesm wrote:
| AirBaltic did this until very recently in the most annoying
| fashion. I wrote them a nastygram about it and I suspect many
| other people did so too because the last two flights I was on
| were pleasantly quiet.
|
| Whichever junior marketeer came up with that campaign should
| be forced to listen to their own work product for a day or
| two in succession. I'm sure that would get them to change
| careers.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Whichever junior marketeer came up with that campaign
| should be forced to listen to their own work product for a
| day or two
|
| I'd be willing to wager quite a lot that the marketing
| genius who wanted that was not junior.
| ulfw wrote:
| Better than US airlines trying to sell credit cards mid-
| flight.
| komali2 wrote:
| I feel so, so bad for air hosts and hostesses that are
| suddenly finding themselves in the role of salesperson.
| What a shitty, _completely_ unrelated added job
| responsibility, that 's completely counter to their actual
| job's objective. Hard to get passengers to like you and
| make their flight enjoyable (and thus listen to you when
| it's time to listen to you) if you've just finished trying
| to sell them a credit card.
|
| I miss air industry regulation.
| reaperducer wrote:
| The fastest boarding I experienced was years ago somewhere in
| Asia (Singapore, maybe), where three lines boarded through
| three doors: Two on the terminal side, and one on the far side.
|
| I was in the far-side group, and we had to hike up a lot of
| stairs and then through a jetway, presumably over the aircraft
| (hard to know with no windows), and then down a bunch of stairs
| and then enter the aircraft, where we could see people boarding
| from the other side.
|
| Very fast, except for the long hike. But this was before people
| put everything and the kitchen sink into over-sized carry-ons,
| so it wasn't arduous.
| komali2 wrote:
| > put everything and the kitchen sink into over-sized carry-
| ons
|
| Which they only do because free checked is going away. You
| get what you optimize for, after all.
|
| IMO people pack way too much shit traveling anyway, but I'm
| sure here most are familiar with the onebag concept. I've no
| way to convince someone other than actually going on a trip
| with them and happily walking next to them while they drag
| their wheeled luggage around.
| amalcon wrote:
| > Which they only do because free checked is going away.
|
| They also do it to avoid the scenario where your bag simply
| ends up on the wrong plane. It's unlikely these days
| because of technology, but it's hard to shake the worry
| once this has happened to you three or four times.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > Which they only do because free checked is going away.
|
| I pack everything in one piece of carry-on luggage, and I'd
| do that even if checked luggage were free (which it often
| is).
|
| It means I don't have to take extra time or wait in a line
| to check a bag at the source airport, I don't have to take
| time at baggage claim at the destination airport (just walk
| straight from the gate to ground transportation), and I
| don't have any risk of losing my luggage (or having it
| badly repacked after a search, or having something go
| missing).
| [deleted]
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| However, it's also a massive pain in the arse having to
| fiddle around with removing various electronics and
| liquids while going through the security gate.
|
| I've actually started to opt for checking my bag whenever
| possible, even when I could get away with taking it into
| the cabin, and taking the minimum possible through
| security to avoid the too-frequent holdups. My experience
| is that this has added a maximum of about 10 minutes to
| my trip, waiting for luggage to be unloaded.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| While I don't think it should be a thing (nobody should
| have to deal with such hassles), Global Entry / TSA-Pre
| removes most issues at the security checkpoint.
|
| At many airports, _checking_ a bag can add 20-30 minutes
| of waiting in line at the departure airport, leaving
| aside baggage claim time.
| ghaff wrote:
| I tend to be of the opinion that roll-aboard "carry" ons
| are a big part of the problem with overhead space. Yes,
| some people can't really carry loads. But most would be
| better off with soft-side travel backpacks and other soft
| carry-ons that tend to be more space efficient and
| flexible. (Especially given that there's less need for
| luggage that can keep suits wrinkle free than in times
| past.)
| plussed_reader wrote:
| Reminds me of loading onto a Ryanair flight in Edinburgh; the
| labyrinth walk to the door that put you onto the tarmac a
| short walk from the stairs. Loaded back to front, and since
| there are no assigned seats on Ryanair it's just like getting
| on the (air)bus.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Whenever I've flown Ryanair, the seats were assigned and
| printed on the boarding pass (but you had to pay if you
| wanted to chose your seat). When was this time that they
| weren't?
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| Not only there are assigned seats on Ryanair (since years
| at least), but you have to pay to select one and they
| purposely place groups/families separately to make them
| choose to pay extra.
| rolltiide wrote:
| That's pretty good, its a shame all the optimal solution
| theories are only considering single aisle planes.
|
| This article and CPG Grey's dont even factor in dual aisle, or
| multiple boarding doors.
| [deleted]
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > Quite a shock given the hour long boarding AA can sometimes
| pull off with their messed up boarding order based on miles and
| cabin front to back...
|
| Not to mention the people who just say "F it" and board
| whenever they like it. For as often as I've seen them
| "rejected", I've equally seen them just waved on.
| pochamago wrote:
| I've always thought we should board back to front. Do first class
| travelers really want to be stuck in a non moving plane longer
| than others anyway?
| freedomben wrote:
| I've always thought this too, but according to the article, we
| are wrong.
|
| > _Steffen fully expected that boarding from the back to the
| front would be the most efficient strategy and was surprised
| when his results showed that strategy was actually the least
| efficient._
| doh wrote:
| I would like to see the carry-on to go away. I understand the
| consequences would be quite harsh at first, but I do believe the
| airports and airlines would eventually figure out better ways to
| handle luggage and we would all be better for it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-01-15 23:00 UTC)