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.
No I don’t want standing seats, just let me stand on my own 2 feet and give me something to hold onto like on a bus. Airplane seats are dirty and disgusting anyway.
I was on Ryanair a couple of days ago, on one of their new 737 Maxes – which they call a 737-8200 to avoid the whole “death” thing.
Their Max layout already has extra pair of emergency exits, an extra jump seat for more cabin crew, and only 8 more seats, so I imagine they can wedge quite a lot more self-loading freight aboard before it’s a problem.
The chances of this flying in the US are non-existent, and I really can’t see European regulators going for it either. Asia? Possibly. You can’t cram 30% more passengers in without increasing both the number of emergency exits (the real capacity limitation) and the number of flight attendants at a minimum. I guess some rows of these things in the back as steerage class and more premium seats up front? Actually, THAT would work for me – I’d be in the good seats up front.
If it does happen – I certainly have no interest in flying that way, not even for free. They RyanAir’s and Spirits of the world can do whatever they want, I would never fly them even now.
I call bullshit. In the event of a crash, smashing your passengers junk is not going to fly by the FAA.
I wouldn’t mind these, but what’s wrong with a bicycle saddle and a pair of handlebars? Those would be even lighter and more comfortable for a long day.
They still look like they might be more comfortable than the standard seats on Allegiant.
People complain about Spirit, but I think those people have never flow Allegiant, where I swear they engineered the seats to be uncomfortable.
I’ve been on multiple flights where they bribed people off to make the payload for the trip.
I can’t follow how this works in reality so I’m going to continue to assume it won’t exist.
Seats are half the weight, but allows for 30% more seats and 150-200 lb passengers = fuel savings? Not sure that maths.
I imagine it’s a 737 class plane flying London to Paris rather than London to New York city. So you have minimal fuel so per passenger fuel is cut by increasing passengers. But like you said it doesn’t math on long flights.
Fuel savings on a per passenger basis.
I’d rather have a seat meet current faa regs for a crash than try to certify my knees.
Hmm, posts up to the ceiling.
This is a load path not intended for when the aircraft was designed. Likely going to need to reinforce the structure. This is expensive and adds weight.
Floor and floor structure are designed for a certain passenger loading. Floor structure may need to be reinforced and new floor panels designed. This is expensive and adds weight.
Seat tracks are designed based on cabin capacity. May need to be redesigned. This is expensive and adds weight.
The extra passenger weight will reduce the capacity for baggage. There won’t be enough bins for carry-ons (especially with losing the ability to store bags under seats. A higher number of bags to be checked.
Many aircraft are passenger limited by the number of exits on the aircraft. Extra emergency exits may be required. This is expensive and adds weight.
The ratio of cabin attendants to passenger is regulated, likely will need more. More cabin attendants mean more cabin attendent seats. This is expensive and adds weight.
Just my two cents with almost 20 years of aircraft design, half of which on interiors.
Yeah, this seems like another instance of the aviation industry choosing the lowest cost options while creating unnecessary and possibly catastrophic problems.
Indeed. Until I see an airline explicitly named as implementing these seats, I won’t believe it. But your comments also point to how these seats might be used. You might be able to put a few rows in back and increase passenger density modestly: say 188 to 197. And then do a Ryanair and use them seats to bolster your reputation as the absolute cheapest in all senses. But most layouts are already pretty optimized. Ok the other hand, you certainly could increase the pitch in the front, where all those heavy seats are, the ones that bring in the revenue. Basic economy just got more basic.
Eh. Don’t buy tickets with those seats. Who are you to determine the market?
I can easily see a plane with X number of rows that are stand-up. planes already have different classes withe bigger seats or more service. Heck, UAL already offers the more-legroom rows (Emergency Exit rows) for a higher price.
Would I stand on a plane? Maybe to Vegas or Phoenix or the Bay Area, an hour trip for me. Any longer and no effing way.
Also, are they assuming everyone has the same leg lengths? Or do they adjust?
Still might be better than a packed subway car in summer with broken A/C while you’re stuck because sparks from the third rail lit the tracks on fire and somebody has to go put it out.
I never did quite understand the use of water around electricity, but that’s how they would put out such small fires. Some dude would walk out carrying one of those pump water tanks and nonchalantly tinkle on the tie fire until it was safe to resume rolling.
Memories of the CTA…
It seems appropriate that these seats kind of look like giant meat hooks.