Preloading a plane cabin

You could limit loading and unloading times by removing the overhead bins and limiting carry-on to something like a laptop bag and a purse, max. But this would massively inconvenience your passengers.

Quote: Nareed

But this would massively inconvenience your passengers.

Let me simplify. Allegiant runs 4-6 one way flights per day roughly 2 hours long. Each segment carries roughly 1 hour of overhead (half hour in each direction). A normal day is 12 hours long and consists of 4 one way flights (2 round trip), but long days are nominal 18 hours long and consist of 6 one way flights. From looking at schedules, Allegiant flies 5 short days and 2 long days per week.

You could prohibit carry on luggage (except for purses, briefcases and laptops) which I wouldn't call a minor inconvenience, and you might be able to fly 3 round trip flights every single day of the week. Possibly you could develop other procedures that speed up boarding.

But the process of sliding a module that weighs thousands of pounds into place, securing it, checking the snaps, and adding an aerodynamic shell, and securing and checking that shell, can't possibly be done in five minutes. Presuming 15 minutes, that only saves you 15 minutes each time.

I can't see the cost benefit that would justify the R&D to build a fleet of planes to handle modules.

It seems like a doomed idea to me.

There will be a lot of extra weight in the connection mechanisms between the cabin and the carrier, and more points of failure with electrical and pressurization connections under heavy use with many connections and disconnections per day.

What if you got a C-17 then just drove a bus or two full of people and their luggage onto it? You wouldn't even need a gate at the terminal. Of course, there would be very little to see out the windows.

When you got to your destination, the buses could drive right to the front of the terminal, the ground transit center, or right to the hotel.



Does an M-1 battletank weigh more than a Greyhound?

Quote: Pacomartin

You could prohibit carry on luggage (except for purses, briefcases and laptops) which I wouldn't call a minor inconvenience, and you might be able to fly 3 round trip flights every single day of the week. Possibly you could develop other procedures that speed up boarding.

That's why I said "massively inconvenience your passengers."

But what holds up boarding and, even more, de-boarding, is people reaching up the overhead bins and blocking the aisle for everyone behind them. Without overhead bins, the aisle would be blocked minimally on boarding, and not at all when debarking.

You'd save your passengers no time at all. They'd all have to check luggage, and likely would check things bigger than a carry-on. So you'd need to structure bag fees to discourage large, heavy bags.

The ULCCs are heading that way already, by establishing carry-on fees. All they have to do to finish is price carry-on above checked luggage, by a lot ($20, say, to check a bag and $100 to bring a carry-on).

Getting rid of the overhead bins would make the plane feel more spacious, too.

BTW, I rarely bring a carry-on. 93-95% of my business trips are day trips, and all I carry are some papers which fit in my laptop bag. On vacation, I take along my laptop and check everything else.

Quote: Ayecarumba

When you got to your destination, the buses could drive right to the front of the terminal, the ground transit center, or right to the hotel.

You have to remember that commercial airlines are trying to get 100-120 miles per gallon per seat. An economy car gets 30 miles per gallon for the entire vehicle, so if you fill all four seats you may get 110-120 miles per gallon per seat, but most of the time people don't travel in a full automobile.

I don't know precisely what mileage you would get from a greyhound bus on a C-17 but I am guessing more like 10 miles per gallon per seat.

Personally, I think the idea would only work for the very rich who want their own customized interior. Although they could lease different size jets for different length trips (domestic or long range international), some people want their own stuff.

Quote: Background info on Gulfstream

The Gulfstream G650 (Capacity: 11–18 passengers) had a nominal list price of $64.5 million in 2013, but there was a three-year waiting list. Some aircraft produced for delivery in 2013 sold for more than $70 million to buyers that wanted to take immediate delivery. Long range cruise: 7,000 nautical miles and Fast cruise: 6,000 nmi .

On May 18, 2014, Gulfstream announced at the annual European Business Aviation Association exhibition, that it had developed an extended range version called the G650ER. The G650ER is capable of flying 7,500 nautical miles at Mach 0.85, due to its 4,000 pounds (1,814 kg) increase in fuel capacity.

A Gulfstream G350 (Capacity: 11–18 passengers) cost $33.25 million (2010) and has a range of 3,800 nautical miles

So if JFK to London is 2994 nautical miles you only need a $33 million jet, but if you want to go JFK to Hong Kong (7011 nautical miles) you may not make it without refueling with a G650. So in theory you need a jet that could cost more than double.

Logically, you could lease a different size jet for a different length trip. But there are very wealthy people who like their own stuff. In theory you could bolt a personal module to airframes with different size engines. If you don't fly for 6 months, you could leave your module in storage, which has to cost a lot less than maintaining a full jet and paying interest on the purchase.

Quote: Nareed

But what holds up boarding and, even more, de-boarding, is people reaching up the overhead bins and blocking the aisle for everyone behind them. Without overhead bins, the aisle would be blocked minimally on boarding, and not at all when debarking.

The ULCCs are heading that way already, by establishing carry-on fees. All they have to do to finish is price carry-on above checked luggage, by a lot ($20, say, to check a bag and $100 to bring a carry-on).

Allegiant is pretty close
(1) One Free Personal Item :no larger than 15 inches in height, 16 inches in length and 7 inches in depth
(2) One Carry-On Bag per passenger: no larger than 14 inches in height, 22 inches in length and 9 inches in depth (45 total linear dimensions)
(3) Up to 4 Checked Bags per passenger: for which the sum of length, height and depth measurements is no more than 80 inches in total (40 pounds max)

Since they are charging $15 one way for carry-on-bag and $20 one way for the much larger checked bags, there is almost no financial incentive to carry on luggage. At this point they could probably bring the total of carry-on's to zero by simply charging the same amount. I don't think it is necessary to go as high as $100.

They screwed enough people by changing the definition of 22 inches in length to include the wheels and handles. Millions of bags were sold where the 22" does not include the wheels and handle. So people who up with a bag having already paid $15 each way, and they get a last minute charge of $50 (minus $15 already paid) for checking the bag. Unless they purchase a new bag for the return trip, they must pay again.

Quote: Nareed

That's why I said "massively inconvenience your passengers."

Fine, we will go with massive inconvenience. The point is that there are cheaper ways to improve turn around time without doing a multi billion redesign of the airplane. Besides, most people get frightened by airline accidents, but they eventually get over them. Once a module becomes detached for the first time, people will flock to those airlines without detachable modules on their airframes.

Quote: Pacomartin

Since they are charging $15 one way for carry-on-bag and $20 one way for the much larger checked bags, there is almost no financial incentive to carry on luggage. At this point they could probably bring the total of carry-on's to zero by simply charging the same amount. I don't think it is necessary to go as high as $100.

I think they would need to charge more for a carry-on. Lots of frequent travelers just like the convenience of not having to wait for baggage.

In London downtown there is a Congestion Charge of £11.50 daily for driving. The Penalty is £65 if paid within 2 weeks, £130 if paid within 4 weeks, and £195 if paid within 6 weeks. After that the court decides. Now that is on top of outrageous parking fees and high gas.

The government says it needs these massive charges and penalties to assure that people don't drive in Central London. Most citizens in UK observe that it would make much more sense to just prohibit private cars from central London, rather than creating this massive revenue mechanism.

Comparably, right now a standard checked bags is at least 2.5 times the volume of a carry-on bag. Yet the carry-on is $15 and the checked bag is $20 if you pay at the same as you book the flight. The charges go to $45 starting the day after you book (either carry-on or checked) and go to $50 if you show up at the airport without having prepaid a baggage fee.

Quote: DRich

I think they would need to charge more for a carry-on. Lots of frequent travelers just like the convenience of not having to wait for baggage.

You are correct, of course. Even if the size requirement is more than 2.5 times less volume, and cost is the same, some people will still carry on bags to avoid the wait. But at some point you have to just prohibit things rather than charging ever escalating fees. The fee based business model already has people pissed off. Most of their tickets cost about $100 each way. If you charge $100 for a carry on bag, then people will bad mouth you on every possible media site on the internet.

Quote: DRich

I think they would need to charge more for a carry-on. Lots of frequent travelers just like the convenience of not having to wait for baggage.

Or having to check a bag at the counter.

A few weeks back I made to the airport at 8:10 for a flight leaving at 8:50. It was a bit delayed, but even if it had been on time I'd have managed to board. I had a carry-on and a laptop bag. If I'd had to check the carry-on, I'd have lost the flight (No idea whether there is gate check in Mexico).

The point is you have a better time margin if you don't check bags.

But by now the only way I can see for airlines to speed up boarding is by doing away with carry-on.

For a country like Mexico, which is smaller than the US, and where a great deal of traffic takes place between cities 60-90 away by air, saving 10-15 minutes per flight loading and unloading passengers might afford a whole extra flight.

As yet no airlines here seem aware of this.

But, you know, it's common in any business to consider ideas which might help sell the product or make the product better. I'm sure this happens in airlines, and I'm sure some airlines have considered the idea already. I did only shortly after some ULCCs began charging for carry-on bags.