Proposal for a column of non-reclining airplane seats

I wanted to make an ascii zeppelin, which would also have more legroom, but I can’t… :frowning:


Or you know, maybe airlines should just take a row or two out and let us have a reasonable amount of legroom. An entire plane full of people subsidizing the missing seats would add up to what, a couple dollars each?


On a standard narrow-body aircraft, two rows would be about 10% of the total economy cabin, so you’d see about 3" more legroom for about 10% more on your ticket (maybe more, because they’d also be losing all the additional fees associated with those 12 passengers they can’t carry).

Would the airlines sell more tickets with the increased prices? If not, they won’t bother.



Start with a Baudot blimp. ASCII is too new spec for the underlying tech.

1 Like

I fear this will cause the plane to list dangerously.

1 Like

what is that, a violin for ANTS?

Behold the mighty airship… First class cabins have full size la-z-boys and cigar stands!

      [] _I_"""""V__IV====l----v-v----l====V__IV""[]-[]"
                  """           "           """

My favorite part about this whole argument is this silly line of reasoning:

" if they really cared that much (about reclining), someone would have opened his wallet and paid me by now."

That’s evidence that the economic argument is BS, not that no one cares. By this same logic I should consider paying my neighbors to not play music after ten, or pay shoppers with more than ten items to get out of the express lane. Never gonna happen.


That was certainly my first thought, but according to Wikipedia:

In fixed-wing aircraft, lateral balance is often much less critical than fore-aft balance, simply because most mass in the aircraft is located very close to its center. An exception is fuel, which may be loaded into the wings, but since fuel loads are usually symmetrical about the axis of the aircraft, lateral balance is not usually affected. The lateral center of gravity may become important if the fuel is not loaded evenly into tanks on both sides of the aircraft, or (in the case of small aircraft) when passengers are predominantly on one side of the aircraft (such as a pilot flying alone in a small aircraft). Small lateral deviations of CG that are within limits may cause an annoying roll tendency that pilots must compensate for, but they are not dangerous as long as the CG remains within limits for the duration of the flight.

So it sounds like it’d be fine for large airliners, since all passengers are close to the center line. I’d want to check with aeronautical engineers first, of course…

Allegiant did. No reclining, nothing is free except water, they nickel and dime you, but hey, they are pretty cheap.

Having more passengers on one side could affect the balance sure. And would affect the balance more on small planes. But wouldn’t affect the balance as much as having one spinning engine without another counterspinning engine. And some early planes were light enough, with spinning parts heavy enough, that they would dive if you turned one way and climb if you turned the other way, but the planes would still fly well enough. And some early prop engines had the crankshaft fixed in place and the rest of the engine spinning around instead of vice-versa. I think all that would affect the balance way worse, and if those planes would fly well enough, then these planes would.

Bunk beds.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.