Interesting article, but there are some flaws in the author's reasoning.

1. Containerizing passenger space.

Not a good idea, it would require a massive re-engineering effort in the structure of the cabin, since a whole tube is a much more reliable pressure vessel rather than half of one with a 90 degree angle where the floor meets the wall. You generate a ton of stress at those joints with pressurization cycles. Hard angles were in part what doomed the first generation of De Havilland Comets. You can possibly add a smaller, whole tube in the cabin area, but then you get the space of a narrow body aircraft & increase weight.

Reinforcing the rest of the structure of the aircraft if you remove the cabin area would also add in a ton of weight. We all know how a cylinder of paper can support many times its weight in compression, cut a big hole in one side and it will collapse. The survivors of Aloha Airlines Flight 243 didn't know if the floor structure of the 737 alone would be strong enough to survive a landing without having the plane break in two.

2. Meshed chairs.

The FAA requires that all aircraft chairs withstand a 16G impact in order to keep passengers safe. There's a reason why the seating is so heavy and bulky, it's to keep us safe during an accident. The seat structure absorbs most of the impact, so our spines and legs don't. Mesh chairs may be cool (both figuratively and literally), but I doubt they'll hold up to 1.5 tons of impact force (16 times the average weight of an American male, 191 lbs) without tearing.

3. Noise

The 787 is heading in partially the right direction to reduce cabin noise. Other than the air rushing by the plane, most noise is from the air conditioning units, and general vibration of the structure. Most planes use bleed air from the turbofan to pressurize the cabin. Basically you take some of the hot air from the compressor stage of the engine and send it through different parts of the plane (to the wing leading edges for de-icing as an example). A good part of this superheated air is sent to the airconditioning units which work to cool it down and direct it into the cabin. The 787 eliminates bleed air completely, and uses other means (mainly electric alternatives) for most systems. Additional insulation & physical isolation of parts that can induce vibrations into the structure also help.

The best way to reinvent the airline industry is to fly private. Think about how terrible a bus is, and how most of us use cars because it's an immensely better experience. Going from commercial -> private is a similarly massive leap (I've never flown on a chartered private flight, but I am training for my pilot's license). You go to the FBO (the equivalent of the commercial terminal, but on the other side of the airport), sit down on a comfy couch, watch some TV on a nice flatscreen, grab some free snacks and drinks, then walk out onto the tarmac to your plane at your leisure. No backscatter machines, no metal detectors, and CSRs who give a crap and want to help you (since you're paying them!).

Of course, flying private is not viable for most people. I see the day approaching where owning a plane will be on the same order of magnitude of expense of owning a car. Two things make flying really expensive: fuel and maintenance (you can buy a flyable used plane for ~$50k). Fuel is a fairly intuitive expense: avgas runs about $6 / gallon in the northeast. Figure a small piston plane (4 people) burns ~12 gallons / hour, and you're talking ~$72/hr to operate a plane in fuel alone (note: you're traveling about 150mph in this piston plane, much slower than a jet). Maintenance is a huge issue as well. Every so-many thousand(~2k for a piston) hours of flying, you have to shell out a ton of money ($15k for a piston plane) to overhaul the engine(s). This is in addition to standard annual and 100-hour inspections.

One thing is going to change both of those factors: better battery technology is going to make electric planes viable. Energy cost goes down since energy from the grid is way cheaper than that generated from the ICE. Maintenance is hugely reduced as well. No oil changes. No engine overhauls (electric engines last for ~10x as long as their ICE counterparts and are way cheaper). Increased reliability (adding engines is a trivial cost and doesn't increase weight significantly). Recapturing potential energy during descent. Reduced drag (no nasty air inlets for that combustion reaction).

I don't think this change is going to happen overnight, but given the focus on battery technology for EVs, I think the requisite batteries will become available within 10 years (historically, battery density has doubled over 10y).

Interesting wishlist, but that's all it is. What he doesn't list is the bump in airfare he's willing to accept for all of the proposed changes. Active noise cancellation and better screens don't come cheap, and most of the compromises he cites were decided out of economy, not because aeronautical engineers are thoughtless. It seems like the most practical thing for him to do would be to pony up and pay for business class.

Pointless article written by someone seemingly without even a wikipedia-level knowledge of the issues involved in what he's suggesting. Has no place on the HN front page.

"Remov[e] silly things like entertainment controls on your arm rest. These frequently activate the screen when your trying to sleep. Bring it all to the touch screen interface."

Nooooo! Good grief has he really never had someone repeatedly jabbing the touch screen on the back of his seat? Granted that could be partially mitigated with better touch screens, but some people still jab at iPads.

Yet another article I won't read, because the site takes pains to break zooming on iOS devices. No zooming, no reading.

I really can't understand why people do that. Is it arrogance (this is how my site looks like, PERIOD!)?

Regarding a standardization process for electronics, that already exists. Right now the FAA allows an airline to certify any piece of electronic equipment (to my knowledge), provided that every single version of the device (think all iPhone models) is tested with every single plane they run. With no passengers. Thus a carrier has to fly every plane they have with a specific device on board just to certify it, which is cost prohibitive.

The bit about taking the safety demonstration out of the cabin is not quite so simple. The author suggests a sort of "driver's license" for planes, so that a person only has to learn about the safety features and procedures once. Unfortunately, there are many different planes out there, and the safety features might be substantially different from one plane to another. (Is there a slide? Is the seat cushion your flotation device, or is there something under the seat? Is there an exit in the back?) One would need more standardization among airplanes before one can do away with repeated safety demonstrations entirely.

Another problem in the airline industry is pricing stability. current prices have been climbing over the last few years and pricing has always been confusing. I think there are several possible algorithm and economic models that could be leveraged to solve pricing on the fuel side, and on the consumer ticket side.

Stable prices means that consumers and airlines can both plan better.

For consumers, it means confidence in buying a ticket.

For airlines, it means predictable revenue, and costs, which should add to the market cap of the companies.

Many good ideas. They need to be hold against regulations, and maybe even regulations need to be hold against realities of today. Standardization is the principal idea, and I think definitely help cutting the cost for manufacturers and airlines and hopefully find its way into the ticket price.

A loaded cabin may also lead to better survival of passengers in case of a eminent fatal crash. It can be ejected, or like mars rover landing it could have inflated ballons and chute to reduce the impact.

I'm not sure he takes in to account the best thing about SLF (Self Loading Freight), which is the fact they are self loading. This leads to a great cost reduction in many cases, but as always, its a few arseholes that go and ruin it for the majority.

However, as has been suggested before, we could load the plane in a more efficent manner: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20859-test-shows-most-...

The other thing is he failed to take in to account SLFs are a bunch of whinging little things, most mil transports use backwards facing seating, as its much safer in certain disaster scenarios. Apparently, the airlines say, SLF don't like it.

I wonder how many more would hate been in a box, shifted sideways, up and down etc. Planes have a nice tendancy to only ever glide, in fact most airlines have strick limits on the number of degrees of pitch/bank that a pilot can use under normal circumstances.

I applaud the effort to think vision-first - but practical reinvention also needs to consider the provider's priorities and costs.

Honestly, even with a more comfortable in-air experience and a streamlined check-in and check-out process, the fact is that air travel will always involve being crammed inside an airtight container with a few hundred other people coping with boredom, cramped muscles, and screaming babies.

For me the best thing solution is to avoid it all.

I'm not saying "stop flying" I'm saying: knock me unconscious until I reach my destination! Then I don't have to worry about the annoying passenger next to me, the crappy food, the primitive climate control, the foggy, greasy screen on the buggy entertainment system, the harassed and overworked flight attendants, that smell coming out of the washroom, whether my overhead luggage is getting crushed by the massive duty free bag someone jammed on top of it, etc. etc. etc.

Bring on the hibernation chambers!

Here is a more realistic attempt at improving the airplane experience for economy class passengers: http://www.jamesdysonaward.org/Projects/Project.aspx?ID=2634...

This is a design concept submitted to for the 2012 James Dyson Awards. Unfortunately this design takes up more floorspace than the existing cabin layout, so they would need to iterate on the design before an airline will consider it.

The suggestion "Containerize the airline industry" is wrong on so many levels. First of all every air port in the world would have to install new equipment. That would take money and time. Secondly every airline would have to buy new planes. Thirdly it ignores the reality that container ships are bot like airplanes. Airplanes have ventilation, electronics and structural requirements that ships don't have.

What about the huge cost of keeping a fleet of planes modern? It must be difficult to run an airline, with petrol prices varying and customers expecting rock-bottom fares.

One thing that interests me is the idea that battery and capacitor technology will improve enough that kerosene powered planes will become obsolete.

Disrupting the airline industry takes a lot of cash. It's going to take more than some pie-in-the-sky cabin concept.

Let's get realistic about what the industry really needs in order to make flying an enjoyable experience. It's no coincidence that the new American Airlines logo looks like Greyhound's. =p

It would be very unwise to make flying more attractive as long as the planes are injecting fossil CO2 straight into the upper atmosphere. This makes the emissions 2-4x more potent greenhouse gases than CO2 emitted from the ground.

We should be in a hurry to implement disincentives for air travel.

I did a similar redesign with 3 row height bunks taking inspiration from submarines allowing economy passangers to sleep comfortably during long haul flights. The top two beds were foldable and the bottom row was used for seating during landing and takeoff.

I think Electrostatic engines will be a huge leap forward for jet engine travel.

I think for some long haul flights it would be nice to have rows of, say, 3-4 seats that can fold down flat into the floor. Then you can lower 3-4 hammocks hanging above each other in the same space.

this all sounds nice and neat, but reality bites back. As per writers thoughts on Virgin. "Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. is set to report an annual loss of $201 million for the 2013 fiscal year and, in response, has imposed a salary freeze for the entire fiscal year, which began March 1."

Yeah, right. Airline executives actually enjoy how much they suck at their jobs. This is an industry known for volatile, extremely high prices except on, perhaps, 3 routes and terrible service, and it still needs to be bailed out, like clockwork, every 5 years or so.

It's the worst in the U.S. We get the double joy of paying Virgin prices and getting RyanAir service.

As soon as they started charging for fucking checked baggage it was obvious that, yep, these assholes just like seeing how shitty a job they can get away with. Fuckers are trolling us, that's all. They're a real-world version of this, from Louis CK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_XiA4U_XsE#t=1m7s).

The only thing that will "reinvent" this crap-ass industry is outright obsolescence. I'd rather see work on maglev trains and in-ocean tunnels than any faith put in these assholes.

For many people, the bus/train is the better experience. It takes less time during rush hour, and you can read/nap/work during the ride. I imagine that private plane slots at an airport have a fairly limited availability, so if they become popular you'll have congestion issues too.

Three things:

(1) Private cars will go away eventually even in the states as we transition to self-driving cars (at least in the cities) that will be used more like taxis to avoid parking problems.

(2) We probably aren't that far away from self-driving planes, heck, we already have drones. One could imagine a fleet of small planes that are also used like taxis (or better yet, for ride shares).

(3) Its almost 2015 and we all saw Back to the Future, so we know what's going to happen (VTOL garbage powered Delorean anyone?). (this point is a joke, the first two are more serious)

> Think about how terrible a bus is, and how most of us use cars because it's an immensely better experience.

Yeah but most of America is basically stuck in one at least twice a day, so you have a massive demand to make them comfortable. Whereas with a plane, your middle-class American gets in one 2-3 times a year and is willing to suck it up.

In order to be comparable to cars, you not only have to hypothesize an order of magnitude shift in cost to match cars, but also an order of magnitude shift in demand to match cars. While I fully admit that there is that sort of demand in limited markets (for example, commuting programmers to the valley), these markets are not on the same chart as car demand. I do not really see what could possibly motivate ordinary people to travel 600 miles twice per day.

Meanwhile, as you've been trying to leapfrog the car market, it has not remained stagnant. If you are a knowledge worker, a self-driving car is an effective substitute for flight, since the impact of additional passive travel time is negligible. (Even non-knowledge workers need sleep, so it will be of benefit to them too.) At the distances I generally travel (regional US), an uninterrupted block of 8 hours in a vehicle is actually preferable to a 2-hour block flying, so I would actually pay less to travel by plane.

I would add that the lack of space is also an issue for a lot of people when it comes to owning a plane, and I'm not very optimistic about this for the future (urbanization...).

I wish there was some way for someone to make a kind of "cost sharing" business based on this model. I.e. I pay a bit more than a normal ticket but not hundreds of times more and TFA and all that other crap just goes away for me.

'Active Noise Canceling' in an open space isn't a reality. You can do it, in an anechoic chamber, with a massive array of microphones and an equally large number of speakers, and even then, you can often only target a particular area. It is completely irrational for a space like an airplane. His mention of a couple of speakers above your head, is particularly laughable. In an open space the best your going to do is sound masking, which is nothing more than shaped white noise to drown out the other sounds, aircraft engines already do a pretty good job of this with the exception that their frequency spectrum can be a bit annoying.

On the other hand, you can do structural vibration cancellation to reduce outside (engine, air) noise entering the cabin. This would be done using sensors/actuators on the inner structure of the cabin. A proposal was out to do this for the A380 but I don't know if it was actually included in the final design or not.

Additional points that caused a snicker:

> laser / ultrasonic zoning of noise, which I've seen some night clubs use.

I've read some research into creating noise barriers by using extremely focused sound, but in laboratories, certainly not in night clubs. Most notably the goal is to create a focused area of very high pressure using a phased array of sources. This pressure levels needed to create a 'barrier' would likely be damaging to a human ear entering the area. I have no idea where the ultrasonic nor laser idea is coming from.

> Noise suppression of the flush in the bathroom/restroom. I think the volume is too high to be safe.

The SPL level of an airplane toilet flush is a long ways away from being damaging. Annoying? sure. Damaging? not unless you have a condition that results in highly sensitive ear drums.

Agreed. It is annoying when people come up with "radical" solutions to re-vamp an industry simply by ignoring any and all technical constraints.

The situation is akin to the stereotypical boss who knows nothing about computers throwing out silly ideas to his or her hired programmers.

The engine noise serves well as "white noise" to attenuate the cramped nature of the cabin. I think active cancellation would make it feel yet more crowded, as the non-periodic sounds would stand forth more.

We're better served by noise cancelling head phones or ear plugs (the $0.50 solution).

A more important noise factor, in my opinion, is keeping all the yammerheads off their phones. Give them text messaging, if you have to, but no half hour endurance contests listening to half a conversation.