Home
It drives me nuts when I see how inefficient airline boarding systems are. Some airlines are better than others, but generally speaking, it's a poorly designed system. What we need is an innovation I call the tube plane.

My idea is that the entire passenger cabin would be separate from the rest of the plane, like a shotgun shell waiting to be put in the shotgun. Passengers would take their seats in the cabin "tube," located in the airport terminal. When the airplane arrives, it lines up with the terminal and smoothly ejects its current passenger tube, along with their checked luggage, to the terminal area. The new cabin tube is lined up and smoothly inserted into the airplane shell. The entire process should take about two minutes.

I suppose you'd still have to wait for refueling, unless the fuel tank is removable as well. A separate system could be at work exchanging the used fuel tank with a full one while the passengers are being loaded.

I can imagine my larger luggage - the bags I currently check - located in a shelf compartment below the floor near my seat, accessible until the passenger tube is inserted into the plane shell. That way, when I arrive at the terminal, I just step down from the seating area and grab my bags. No waiting at baggage claim.

Perhaps the passenger tube would be placed on a railroad-type track when it arrives at the terminal, and the whole thing would be taken by rail to an area near ground transportation first, and then on to the parking lot.

I can also imagine the airplanes of tomorrow requiring no pilots and no crews. Modern airplanes pretty much fly themselves now, and it won't be long before emergency situations can be handled entirely from the ground, the same way drones are controlled. The more advanced planes are probably already there.

Currently, flight attendants are safety workers disguised as food servers. It would be easy to replace the food delivery function. People can buy food at the terminal and bring it with them. Or passengers can order food on the ground before their passenger tube is inserted in the airplane shell.

The safety function that flight attendants perform is, in large part, for psychological comfort. If your flight plows into the side of a mountain, your flight attendant won't be much help. Realistically, most of the airline safety procedures could be eliminated or handled in another way. You might need one "bouncer" on each flight in case someone becomes a problem to the other passengers. And you wouldn't need to pay these bouncers if you offered free flights to anyone willing to take a training class to become certified and wear a distinctive vest on flights. I could imagine active police officers, paramedics, and firefighters enrolling in that type of program.

On my most recent flight, a passenger had a medical emergency. I was sitting next to an emergency room doctor and his fiancé, a hospital nurse. The doctor handled the emergency, not the flight attendants. The best safety procedures might involve knowing who has what type of skills on each flight.

Like most of my ideas, this one is craptastically impractical. It requires too much investment and infrastructure. But I like fantasizing about the possibilities as I stand in line watching all the frequent fliers board before I do.
 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +69
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
Feb 29, 2012
Here it is:

http://www.innovationnewsdaily.com/375-military-aircraft-test-phase-failures.html
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 24, 2012
Yes it whould be very expensive for the intial cost, but what kills this idea is there is no way to get rid of the recurring cost. To much extra weight in the plane means to much spent on fuel...
 
 
Feb 22, 2012
You could just buy a Business Class ticket and board with the frequent fliers - you can afford it0 - right?
 
 
Feb 22, 2012
I've long picture a similar system, but with the tube portion not being inserted but being set down onto a concave half-shell that runs from the nose to the tail of the plane. This allows for the added feature that tube could be ejectable/detachable in an emergency and have some sort of parachute or other reasonably gentle landing system.
 
 
Feb 22, 2012
Speaking of front and rear loading, I had the exciting experience of flying in Russia in an Aeroflot Tupolev Tu-154 (a Russian copy of the Boeing 737). Like the 727, this plane has both a forward door and a rear airstair door for boarding. However, at the Moscow airport, the rear door was not used. After landing, the passengers in the front were instructed to remain seated to allow the rear passengers to come forward and exit through the front door. Otherwise, the weight of the passengers in the back could cause the plane tip back onto its tail due to the unfortunate placement of the main landing gear.

 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 22, 2012
I dive with a scuba club and our chairman is a doctor. One of our members is an air steward with British Airways. In any training that involves CPR or handling emergencies the doctor defers to the steward. If you happen to be on a flight with a doctor who isn't an ER doc then the flight attendants training is likely to be more substantial and up to date than the doctors.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 22, 2012
Try flying Air Malta. Their planes have front AND rear boarding. The rolling stairs are pushed up to both ends of the plane, and everyone is off in five minutes or less onto the waiting shuttle buses, which take you to the terminal. Admittedly, their planes are a bit smaller, and it's not a big airport, but surely it can't be the only country in the world to see the advantage of boarding front and back. And even with the speedy deplaning, my luggage still usually beats me to the terminal.

 
 
Feb 22, 2012
As a programmer, I always thought that part of the project should be a complete overhaul after the system has been used for a few months or years. You do see this nowadays with software versioning, but how much of that is complete overhaul? How much of the base code is reused and a patina of new user interface to make the consumer think they are getting something different, when really they're just generating revenue for the software company?

If we overhauled cars today, for example, would they be so inefficient, dangerous, and costly? But the idea of driving a three wheel motor scooter with an inverted wing would never sell. Or whatever the overhauled car would look like today.

And how do we really think about this overhaul? For example, you're looking at revising a plane. Shouldn't we really look at overhauling transportation? Isn't there a more efficient way of getting people from one place to another? Pneumatic tubes or something?

Good post. Made me think.
 
 
Feb 22, 2012
There was a rumor a few years back that even 2-man crews were going to be scaled back and replaced by one pilot and a large German Shepherd dog.

The dog was there to make sure the pilot didn't touch any of the controls.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 21, 2012
conceptually the cargo area is pretty much like that already. It might be easier than we think
 
 
Feb 21, 2012
As the flight attendants remind us on every flight: most commercial airplanes have 4 passenger doors: 2 to the front, 2 to the rear, with 2 more (over the wings) on larger models.

And yet during loading and unloading, only 1 door is used.

So, without requiring any modification to the entire world's fleet of aircraft, we could quadruple loading efficiency by re-designing the passenger walkways to connect on both sides and at the front and rear of the aircraft. This would probably be expensive, but cheaper than re-engineering an airplane.

Another option would be, make the usual announcement for people who require special assistance boarding the aircraft, and then put those people on the do-not-fly list.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 21, 2012
You must be thinking about this...but for airplanes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Ig19gYP9o
 
 
Feb 21, 2012
That would make a very heavy plane and one that's less structurally sound. This solution sounds mechanically complicated and prone to failure (seriously, how many escalators and slide-walks are non-functional in a typical airport on a typical day? Compare to how many there are. Failure rate is HIGH, and these would undoubtedly be more reliable than a plane-cabin-sized tube exchange system). Very, very complicated solutions rarely solve a problem to anyone's satisfaction.
 
 
Feb 21, 2012
The biggest problem in boarding is that the people tend to take the first seat that they come to instead of moving to the back of the plane. This causes a ‘bottleneck’ and delays everyone. I suggested to Southwest Airlines that they make it known to those boarding that the seats in the rear of the plane, behind the wing emergency exits, will get extra peanuts. This would tend to make more people immediately move to the rear of the plane and help clear the isles. Southwest told me to go pound sand.

Concerning your second idea on food service, I remember flying Lufthansa in Germany and they had a wonderful system. In the boarding area they had a free buffet with different foods: i.e. fruit, yogurt, cookies and other snacks. You picked your own meal and carried it aboard. On the flight, they only had to serve coffee and softdrinks. Don’t know why this did not catch on.
 
 
Feb 21, 2012
Seems like a very expensive solution that solves the wrong problem.

The primary reason for slow boarding is that people want to carry on their luggage. Do they like carting large bags through security and dragging them 10 miles from the check in desk to their gate? No, they do it because carrying on is quicker and more reliable.

Instead of rebuilding planes, the FAA should set up significant financial incentives for airlines to create lightning quick and super-reliable baggage handling. There is no reason that a bag traveling on a motorized truck cannot beat a person on foot to the baggage carousel.

Once the super-efficient, super-reliable baggage handling is in place, the consumer would be willing to check all but their briefcases and purses, thus speeding the boarding process immensely. This faster process would let the airlines increase their asset utilization (marginally more flights per plane per day), and thus would compensate them for dropping the $50 per bag fee. The TSA would also benefit, because a higher percentage of bags would go through the fully automated screening system and fewer would go through the human security line.

Everyone wins, except Scott's then-superfluous airplane tube manufacturing firm
 
 
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 21, 2012
If you continue to add replaceable parts, you'll end up with a replacement plane. And it would be cheaper.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 21, 2012
Scott,

Here is a craptastic story that challenges your craptastic case for any change in the existing status quo:

Cabin Crew to passenger: Excuse me Ma'am, this is the business class. Your seat is in the economy. Please move to your seat.

Passenger: Whaaaaaa??? Yee donna mee naa... Mee aint budgin' till ahh getta Belfast...

Cabin Crew: Belfast?

Passenger: Aye

Cabin Crew: This seat is going to Hong Kong, Ma'am. The seat back there goes to Belfast.

Passenger: Ohh.. gee.. ohh.. dear.. thankee.. hony... shoo mee tha way...

Now, can your technology do that?

.

 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 20, 2012
Scott,

Your idea is not all fiction. Some of it already exists in other parts of the world. People roll into the airport and the rest happens electro-mechanically.

If Charles Darwin was right, very soon the petro-dollar alibaba will not have limbs on his body.

He'll look like a fat mermaid - a single live digestive system from the mouth to the tail.

.
 
 
Feb 20, 2012
If you come from a 3rd world country, the boarding process for Southwest will feel like the best idea ever.
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 20, 2012
The current contender for most efficient boarding appears to be the Steffen method, which is apparently too complicated for airlines to use (you need to know the different between 'even numbered rows' and 'odd numbered rows').
If the airlines would enforce their own pretend rules on carry on luggage, I suspect the boarding would go much faster. Plus, they could change the existing 'frequent fliers board first' method to 'frequent fliers board last' - luggage space being the only reason to fight to get on board earlier (it cannot be those coach seats).
But what so I know? I'm just self-loading cargo...
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog