Every now and then I feel like we report on some new, fresh, crispy hell relating to how airlines plan to shove as many people as possible into a given volume of space on an airplane, and so far, thankfully, the worst of these avaricious torture implements of skinflintery have yet to be actually implemented on a commercial aircraft. But the threats keep coming, most recently in the form of some genuinely miserable-looking “standing only” airplane seats that some budget airlines have said they’ll implement starting in 2026, which, if current thinking on calendar-based math proves true, will be “next year.”
News outlets reporting on theses seats, which were first seen back in 2018 at the Aircraft Interiors Expo in Hamburg, Germany, don’t seem to be specifying exactly which airlines are signing up to use these, which makes me a bit skeptical, because if these airlines have announced that they’re doing this, you’d think the articles would mention which ones they are, which so far I have yet to see.
Well, that’s not entirely true; the Irish famously cheap airline Ryanair has been vocal about wanting such standing-only seats, with their CEO expressing a desire to see his planes fitted with such non-seats since 2012. So I guess they’re on board with this, at least.
View this post on Instagram
Instagram accounts like this one have suggested that these seats have passed regulatory requirements and passed safety evaluations, leading to the spattering of articles suggesting that these things may actually show up in planes human beings may willingly get on.
Let’s take a look at these un-seats, which are officially called Skyrider 3.0:
They’re sort of a saddle/straddle design, and I guess they at least allow you to lean on the back even if you’re not really in a sitting position. You have some armrests and a seatbelt, at least. The upright design allows for about 30% more seats to be crammed into a given area, and the seats weigh about half of what a conventional economy airline seat weighs, which can provide fuel savings.
There are other mitigating factors at play here: the airplane still needs enough flight attendants to serve all the people on the plane, there still need to be enough emergency exits for all passengers onboard, and the passengers will still need to be able to evacuate the plane in 90 seconds.
Perhaps these seats really have passed all safety checks, but it’s hard to see how rows this close together will allow for passengers of the broad spectrum of sizes human beings come in to be able to evacuate in a hurry. But, if it’s true that safety regulations were, in fact, met, then I guess someone tested this?
For a short flight of an hour or so, maybe these wouldn’t be too bad? And if fares for these kinds of seats were cheap, like dirt cheap, then maybe these are not a bad thing? A $20 flight, or even less? That’s hard to argue with.
That said, these do seem miserable, and if your plane is delayed on the tarmac or anything like that, you could end up strapped to this lightly-padded nightmare for who knows how long. Is cramming as many people as possible into a plane to maximize profits an inherently inhumane act? Probably.
But still, spending maybe $30 or so to go round-trip to spend an evening in some random city you couldn’t drive to in time? That’s kind of appealing.
When Ryanair publishes such an idea, their bookings go up by 2%. Marketing at almost zero cost
The airline that seriously attempted to have pay toilets. Fun. Not.
Geez I can’t see how that could go horribly wrong.
Ryan Air. Trust nothing, this is their idea of good publicity.
I just want the opposite; give me horizontal seats. Tubes. I don’t care if they feel like coffins. I want to just lay out and take a nap. Make it small enough that people can’t hook up in them and I’d be fine.
Given the average American’s size, those tubes are 100% getting hooked up in.
I think the unspoken part here is these would probably need to be installed so you’re facing backwards. Otherwise head and neck injuries would be pretty catastrophic in a crash.
I mean you’re basically dead in most airline crashes anyway…
That’s a lot less true than it used to be. Witness that flight up in Canada where the wing snapped off and it flipped over. Most of the passengers walked away from that one. Twenty years ago, there likely would have been few if any survivors.
Some types of crashes are always going to be fatal (e.g. flying into a mountain at cruising speed, which somehow still seems to happen occasionally), but controlled decent into flat ground or water is A LOT more survivable than it used to be.
(That’s also why it never pays to annoy the flight crew – if things go bad, they may very well end up having to make decisions about who lives and who dies, so it’s always best to not be on their bad side.)
If the design only allows for 30% more seats then it doesn’t follow that the cost of the flight would/could be $20. A typical 2hour economy flight in the US is more like $150 after a lot of looking around and planning ahead, dilute the fixed costs by adding 30% more “seats”, that only brings the ticket price down to maybe $110, no? Boarding will take longer since there are more people now, so turnaround will take longer and increase costs again. And if the airline isn’t going to make more money off it, then what’s the point? Also, I see no provision for a beverage and/or snack, whether paid for or not, brought from home, purchased in the terminal, or provided by the airline.
The actual flying part on a short trip isn’t the issue, the annoyances arise when everyone is ready to go but the plane ends up sitting, and after landing takes forever to taxi or wait for a gate slot to open, total time on the ground can be longer than the time in the air at times.
If you want to speed things up, just make everybody check everything, remove all overhead storage and thus significantly reduce the time to board and deplane. ..
Or charge for carry-ons but NOT checked luggage to find out what people really think is so important to bring with them…
It seems like airlines might be better served by not flying the same route such as LA-SF ten times a day with a small plane but rather five times a day with a larger plane. It has to be more efficient to only fly one trip instead of two, and think of the lower congestion in the air and around airport landing slots.
The magic words, I believe, are “non-optional service charges”.
Certainly, sir – that ticket is only $20. Your total flight cost today will be $110:
RyanAir already has cheap as dirt flights available. They upsell everything to make $$
I’m gonna say HARD PASS for most flights that we’re familiar with, but if I could cut the fare in half for a sub-1-hour flight, then I’ll take that option. It’s not worse than a long subway ride at rush hour (actually better). There are a lot of places in the world where short, crowded flights are not uncommon — basically people commuting to work 2+ times/week.
The idea of Tokyo subway “pushers” with white gloves shoving people into train cars seems foreign to most of us, but it’s just part of life. This is just the airline version of that. Assuming it actually passes all the safety tests, which is a big hurdle.
But if it makes short inter-island trips cheaper and faster (think Hawaii, Japan, etc) then I think there’s a business case for it, and people will consider it under certain very esoteric circumstances.
To cut the fare in half you’d have to DOUBLE the number of seats and even then it wouldn’t be in half since boarding/deplaning would take longer which costs more, more weight would equal more fuel etc., and this only allows for maybe 30% more seats according to the post. This needs to be MORE profitable for the airline, not less, otherwise what’s the point.
The big difference versus a rush hour subway ride is you can always get off the subway at the next stop in a few minutes. Not so once the door closes on the plane…
Assuming all the profit comes strictly from passenger fares, that works out. I’m assuming they’re making money from cargo, add-ons, etc, but my “half price” comment was really more from the consumer side — that is, it would have to be 50% less for me to even consider it. And on the type of routes this would be used on, they’re probably not that expensive to begin with.
If they actually roll it out (which I don’t see happening), people will boycott to the extent that they have other options. I just had to give devil’s advocacy a shot because there’s nothing to really like about this.
I can’t disagree seeing as how there are already airlines with seat designs and pitch numbers that I just refuse to fly on anymore…
At some point even if it were free, if the flight is short enough I’ll take the comfort of driving myself anyway…
You also would need more emergency exits and more flight attendants. One F/A per 50 pax. An all-coach bottom feeder airline 737/A32x is already right at the max capacity based on emergency exits with current seats – that’s why they have the number of them they have. More is both expensive and cuts into the number of seats you can have.
That’s actually why the 737-900/Max9 sometimes has those famous door plugs – that is a plane that actually has an optional emergency exit for if you want to do an all-coach configuration. But it only adds like 20 more passengers, not 30% more.
I think this is more focused on the Europen market. Dublin to London or something like that. I could endure this for a trip from Seattle to Portland. If they started offering this for a flight from Anchorage to Atlanta, it would be a non-starter. Europeans would be far more likely to accept this as they are much more sensitive to the environmental impact of air travel.
Ultimately, the market will determine the viability. There is a reason Spirit Air and Southwest exist. There is also a niche for Delta for people that are interested in half a step above cattle class.
There’s no provision for a seatbelt, and there’s nothing preventing your head from hitting the seat in front, so these seats (as pictured) won’t fly in the UK*.
I’ve heard about the amount of paperwork required to make much smaller changes to an aircraft than this, so I’m assuming this is a load of bollocks until an airline actually goes through the approval process.
*(pun fully intended)
You are correct. It is an issue for European consumers and regulators who ensure that air travel is safe.
There’s gonna be a ton of folks that don’t qualify for this seating due to height differences.
Imagine how awesome it’s gonna be having even fewer flight options because you physically can’t use their rendition of the Wooden Horse torture device.
Have these people SEEN Americans?
Americans cannot be seen. Their gravitational fields prevent light from escaping.
Yet Somehow better than the “Pay extra for the non- FART IN YOUR FACE” solution of double-decker seating.
Where are the seatbelts? Those have to be required still. That red strap is for a life jacket.
They’re going to need to include in their fine print a waiver against lawsuits due to standing-related injury, such as falls, or stroke due to a veinous thrombosis throwing a clot in a person who normally does not stand for extended periods.
Looks kinda like a bike saddle. Better show up in your best Lycra skinsuit for added comfort.
Doesn’t look like overhead bins and under seat storage spaces are going to be possible with these. Guess I’ll have to break out the Gulfstream if I need to fly again.
If a Gulfstream is an option, then these low cost carriers with these seats are no where near a concern for you.
30% more seats into a given area not only means you have to get 30% more people out the door safely in an emergency. There’s also a 30% increased bioload for the restrooms and notably the ventilation system to handle.
With no more underseat storage and possibly reduced or nonpresent overhead bin volume, the airline gets get even more penalty dollars for baggage.
I didn’t even think of the baggage issue. My carry-on is already too large for the overhead bins on puddle jumpers like the CRJ series and Embraer 145.
With no underseat storage that means everything needs to go in the overhead luggage which in my experience is almost always full as it is, so these seats may end up ushering in paid carry-ons as well.
Also while I’m no lawyer, ADA compliance would be a concern of mine, I don’t think most people in a wheelchair could use these seats, so I don’t see any US airlines running these seats exclusively.
Also I don’t think these seats will work for kids either. Their little legs won’t touch the floor.
“Also I don’t think these seats will work for kids either. Their little legs won’t touch the floor.”
Instead of a lap child you’re going to be putting the little Focker on your shoulders.
The last time I flew I brought only an underseat bag and what I was wearing, a total of 2 and a half changes of clothes for 2 weeks visiting family in Florida. I needed new stuff anyway, it’s not in stores up here in February, so I hit Walmart down there and mailed it home to myself at the end.
Plenty of airlines already charge for a carry on
On the plus side, due to standing, there will be no overhead bins, as the aircraft won’t have the clearance, which tells me this is click bait.
Thank you for bioload. Brilliant word
I guess all bags would be checked because where would they fit 30% more overhead bags?
This is probably pretty close to the final solution to how the billionaire lords will move us around as needed—cheap, efficient, and with better control over their human property.
Basic economy customers don’t get a carry-on bag today – just one small personal item like a purse. I would expect the same for these seats along with a small overhead bin above these seats.
Not only that, but I’m 6’2″. I can’t stand under the overhead bins except in the middle section of the bigger long-haul planes which presumably wouldn’t use this. So either the overhead bins go away completely or I’m banned from such planes.
Ouch!
They also seem wide enough to prevent one from standing normally, either.
Because the Airlines are doing such a great job with the passengers they already can’t take care of…Thar Autopian article about how far would you drive before flying? I thought 6 hours, now I’m going to double that. Just fucking put us in large dog cages and stuff us in steerage.
Don’t give them any ideas!
Ironic that airlines treat passengers like cattle without providing sufficient room to graze.
Just reading this article gives me claustrophobia, I couldn’t imagine anyone with confined space issues actually
sittingstanding in these for any length of time.My wife and kids live in the same house as me so there is literally no one I want to see badly enough to subject myself to travel in these abominations.
I’m not sure why people make such a big deal about airplane seats. The typical domestic flight has at least 3 levels of seat comfort and international have 5 or more. Pay for the seat you want to sit in.
To me these look better than the back of the plane coach seats with no legroom and they have the bonus that they guy in front of you can’t recline.
Just pay for a better seat isn’t always possible or feasible. I recently booked an international flight through United. There were two, not three or five, seat options to choose from, coach or business. Coach was $1,250, business was $7,000. I can afford $1,250. $7,000 was more than the entire cost of my trip, including the coach seat, lodging, guided tours and ground transportation. While I could have forked over for the business class seat, it really wasn’t feasible.
United is my preferred airline. You skipped over 2 classes on United international flights. They have:
On my last international leg (San Francisco to London) I paid $250 each way to bump from Coach to Premium Plus. Well worth it on an 11 hour flight.
Sorry, but those options were not available, it was economy or business. I’m glad you have additional options, but I did not.
BTW I booked through the United website, not a 3rd party.
Economy Plus is available on every United flight (domestic and international). Premium Plus started rolling out in 2019 and is currently available on their 767, 777, and 787 planes flying international routes.
Economy and economy plus were the same seats, just different levels of service. To clarify, I did economy plus because it included checked bags. It did not include extra legroom or comfier seats. Since the seats were the topic of the article, I lumped economy and economy plus together as they are a common element.
Economy Plus always includes more legroom and pricing varies even within Economy Plus. The seats with the most legroom (Bulkhead and Exit Rows) will cost more than a standard Economy Plus seat. Windows and Aisles are more than Middle seats.
Looking at a 5 hour domestic flight I’m booking today the extra charge over regular Economy is:
$145 – Bulkhead
$140 – 2nd Exit Row Aisle / Window
$135 – 2nd Exit Row Middle
$115 – Regular Economy Plus Window / Aisle
$110 – Regular Economy Plus middle
The best deal (for me) is the 1st Exit Row. It has the same leg room as the 2nd Exit Row but the seat does not recline. It sells for the same $115 as a normal Economy Plus seat.
I almost always manage to fly Exit Row or Bulkhead. (If they aren’t available at booking they often open up starting 3 days before the flight as high loyalty customers get upgraded.)
The seat may be the same but having more space between seats is a huge deal for comfort. On a recent flight I had to fly regular Economy for a flight I booked with 12 hours notice and it was miserable with the seat in front of me less than an inch from my knees and the reclined seat in my face. It was very difficult to get things out of my bag and there was no chance I was doing any work on my laptop.
I won’t stand for this.
I won’t take this sitting down!
oh, wait…
Seems like it will be a rush to who gets to occupy the lav for the whole flight so there’s somewhere to sit.
The squat toilet will be introduced to America soon enough…
The in flight rest rooms are reserved for first class customers.
The coach rest rooms are located at Newark airport.
Concourse C.
I appreciate that Standing Seats is in quotes in the headline, as I got all fired up until I saw the image, which as you say, doesn’t look that bad. I pictured my bus or the subway with a bunch of straphanging sardines and yes, Hell No. This I could live with for a short stint (assuming they work out all the kinks).
Imagine just barely squeezing onto the plane before the door closes, and you’re stuck standing against it for the duration of the flight.
It’s the future.
Shudder.
I’ve been stuck on the tarmac for several hours with no AC with the temps above room temp, if I had to stand that entire time….
Hell, I would say letting passengers deboard during delays would be a solution, but even on the tiny regional jets with stairs literally built into the door they still roll up a ramp, so they wouldn’t let us deboard even with integral air stairs.
I got no problem standing in a vehicle, for short jaunts standing your knees bend to absorb a lot of the bumps and such, making for a more comfortable ride, hell on my bicycle the only time my ass isn’t getting beat is when it’s off the saddle.
Think I’ll drive, thanks.