No, thank you.

Yeah, I see no potential liability there. Go for it

JC

Ask those same people, whilst on the flight, how much would they pay for a seat...

I bet it would be 2x as much as they "saved." Its certainly one thing to have bravado about how much you can tolerate while in the comfort of your own study. Its quite another to deal with that shiat while traveling.

I'd just take the train.

Tickets are less expensive, the trip itself is practically a vacation, no TSA goons "keeping America safe" by making sure your bottle of toothpaste is 3 oz. and not 3.1 oz., and not a penny of the cost of travelling goes to the coffers of the airlines.

I don't see why more people don't travel by train.

Cattle cars with wings? We need a booming train infrastructure bad.

Maybe if I could sit on my bag, but not stand. I've done the sit-on-bag-in-aisle on a 5 hour oversold bus trip. It sucked. Balls.

King Something: I'd just take the train.

Back in high school my family decided to take a trip from Tokyo to Kyoto, during Golden Week (big collection of holidays in the spring so everyone travels since they have time off) and we didn't get reserved seats on the train.

It was five hours of standing packed in commuter style on the super express. Painful. Didn't help that there were younger kids and some of them were squalling.

So... I'd say no to standing on a plane, I think.

But I do agree we need good trains. MOST of the time the train isn't like what I described above, and usually you can get a reserved seat just walking into the office.

King Something: I'd just take the train.

Tickets are less expensive, the trip itself is practically a vacation, no TSA goons "keeping America safe" by making sure your bottle of toothpaste is 3 oz. and not 3.1 oz., and not a penny of the cost of travelling goes to the coffers of the airlines.

I don't see why more people don't travel by train.

Depends on how far. Cross country? Sure, if I had an extra week to get there and back. That's when the journey would be most of the fun, not just the destination. Otherwise, I'd rather just be in the air for 3 or 4 hours and then be done with the travel.

We need a underwater train in a giant tube. Yeah, that's the ticket.

King Something: I'd just take the train.

Tickets are less expensive, the trip itself is practically a vacation, no TSA goons "keeping America safe" by making sure your bottle of toothpaste is 3 oz. and not 3.1 oz., and not a penny of the cost of travelling goes to the coffers of the airlines.

I don't see why more people don't travel by train.

Because I don't have 3 days to spend getting to cleveland for business.

I use the train about 75% of the time between NYC and boston\philly\dc. Granted, its a high speed bullet-ish type train and the only part of amtrak that works, but it works nice.

You might as well take Greyhound than to go through all that.

I would.

Though I'm a starving student and have done much worse to save much less.

Cut the PC crap and just charge per pound being transported (passenger + luggage). Fat people cost more to fly around.

I'd fly more if tickets were free.

Since, you know, that article was about impossible and idiotic ways to save a few bucks on an airline... things that will not happen (especially since it wouldn't actually save the airline enough money to make it worth their while...

And this, good people, is why we live in a Wal-Mart society. People do not realize the value of comfort and quality, they want only cheap. Then when cheap and crappy is all that's available, they whine and biatch.

/Where would they put all the fat people? As it is, on any flight, I will always have at least one fatass businessman sitting in my seat with me.

sleep lack: Cut the PC crap and just charge per pound being transported (passenger + luggage). Fat people cost more to fly around.

Thanks. That's the next thing the airlines will think of.

An airliner needs to make a cross between those locker size lie down japanese hotel rooms and a jumbo jet. More people, everyone lies down and chills out = profit.

adult diapers and straps to hang from!
woohoo! save a buck!

sleep lack: Cut the PC crap and just charge per pound being transported (passenger + luggage). Fat people cost more to fly around.

A good idea would be to have a set weight (250 lbs, for example) per passenger, including all of their bags and such. Charge money for anything beyond that.

Erm, isn't that completely insecure? What if an accident happens? Sounds Titanic-y to me: I'm sorry, we have only oxygen masks for half of the passengers....

I've flown to China many, many times, and I spend about half the time up walking around, so yes. It's probably far better for the organism

.

JamesBong: An airliner needs to make a cross between those locker size lie down japanese hotel rooms and a jumbo jet. More people, everyone lies down and chills out = profit.

They also should take us to Fhloston Paradise.

On a related note the CTA in Chicago is considering cars with no seats on some of the El runs

The shenanigans during turbulence would be delightful!

The reason more people do not fly is because of the hassle, not expense. We feel the expense is unwarranted because of all of the TSA nonsense, the terrible customer service, loss of luggage, and, for many, uncomfortable situations on planes as is.

Would I do the above? Yes, but even I would say that is stupid for 99.99% of the flying crowd.

Moo.

King Something: I'd just take the train.

Tickets are less expensive, the trip itself is practically a vacation, no TSA goons "keeping America safe" by making sure your bottle of toothpaste is 3 oz. and not 3.1 oz., and not a penny of the cost of travelling goes to the coffers of the airlines.

I don't see why more people don't travel by train.

A cross country train takes 3 days, costs twice as much as flying and costs even more if you'd like to actually sleep comfortably during that time (or eat or shower).

King Something: I'd just take the train.

Tickets are less expensive, the trip itself is practically a vacation, no TSA goons "keeping America safe" by making sure your bottle of toothpaste is 3 oz. and not 3.1 oz., and not a penny of the cost of travelling goes to the coffers of the airlines.

I don't see why more people don't travel by train.

Because the travel time is over 4 times as long, and in some cases the train does no go to the destinations people want to go.

/Or else I'd be taking the train.

They could solve multiple problems by forcing everyone to fly unconscious in carbon fiber body containers.
Cheaper flights and reduced security risks!

As long as everyone signs the 'If I Should Die Before I Wake' waiver at the anesthesia station it's foolproof.

I'm 6'4. Standing might actually be better than coach seats, provided that I could walk around a little. Standing in one spot for a cross-country flight though, that I probably couldn't do.

Meh, I've stood for an entire transatlantic flight before, but then I had the option of sitting down if I had wanted, just not in the smoking section.

I might consider it if they were talking a serious discount in the tens of percent. After all, many people have jobs that require them to be on their feet for 8 hours a day, and I'm in good health.

I propse 75% discounted tickets. No luggage or carryons allowed. Hell, you wouldn't even be able to physically enter the plane. They'd just hand you a roll of duct tape.

Would the FAA actually stand for this? It is obviously not say. I have been on enough roller coaster ride airplane flights.

Stand?

Sounds like another crappy REM song to me...

Blorfmaster wins!

I imagine they'll double prices before offering this 50% off deal.

And no, I wouldn't. :D

King Something: I'd just take the train.

Tickets are less expensive, the trip itself is practically a vacation, no TSA goons "keeping America safe" by making sure your bottle of toothpaste is 3 oz. and not 3.1 oz., and not a penny of the cost of travelling goes to the coffers of the airlines.

I don't see why more people don't travel by train.

1. Expense. MSY to DFW via American, $292.00. Via Amtrack, $471.00

In fact, I have yet to find a train ticket that is LESS expensive out of New Orleans to a city served by Amtrack.

2. MSY to DFW, about 1.5 hours. Via AmTrack, 2 farking days. Leave Monday at noon, get in Tuesday at 3:50PM.

3. Rental car agencies on site at the train station, right.

4. Not everyone lives in the NorthEast corridor.

That said, I like trains. I have used them a good bit in Europe, but frankly unless you are doing close cities, it is often cheaper and more cost effective to fly over there as well.

You know what is cheaper than the train? Driving.

Fark sitting down.
Double fark standing.
If I'm flying cross-country and saving 50%, I either want to be dancing or sleeping.

Is it impractical? Yes. Unlikely to happen? Very. Would it be kickass? Very yes.

King Something: I'd just take the train.

Tickets are less expensive, the trip itself is practically a vacation, no TSA goons "keeping America safe" by making sure your bottle of toothpaste is 3 oz. and not 3.1 oz., and not a penny of the cost of travelling goes to the coffers of the airlines.

I don't see why more people don't travel by train.

Sounds great but the only way I can get to an Amtrak station is to drive or fly to Chicago.

I've seen concepts along these lines. Passengers wouldn't stand loose or strap-hang; there would be vertical gurney-like structures to strap onto. I wouldn't do it for a long flight, but if it saved me a decent amount of money on a short hop (Rochester to NYC), I'd do it.

jimmychitwood: sleep lack: Cut the PC crap and just charge per pound being transported (passenger + luggage). Fat people cost more to fly around.

Thanks. That's the next thing the airlines will think of.

Good. Fat people cost (the airline) more; they should pay more.

atomic-age: And this, good people, is why we live in a Wal-Mart society. People do not realize the value of comfort and quality, they want only cheap. Then when cheap and crappy is all that's available, they whine and biatch.

Big ole' THIS

The FAA frowns upon your shenanigans.

/not smart enough to post actual FAA frown pic
//take offs and landings would be fun to watch though

It'll be interesting to see how they get past this little obstacle.

Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Sec. 91.107

Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child restraint systems.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator--
(1) No pilot may take off a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board is briefed on how to fasten and
unfasten that person's safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness.
(2) No pilot may cause to be moved on the surface, take off, or land a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board has been notified to fasten his or her safety belt and, if installed, his or her shoulder harness.
(3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. For seaplane and float equipped rotorcraft operations during movement on the surface, the person pushing off the seaplane or rotorcraft from the dock and the person mooring the seaplane or rotorcraft at the dock are excepted from the preceding seating and safety belt requirements. Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may:
(i) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth, provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device;
(ii) Use the floor of the aircraft as a seat, provided that the person is on board for the purpose of engaging in sport parachuting; or
(iii) Notwithstanding any other requirement of this chapter, occupy an approved child restraint system furnished by the operator or one of the persons described in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section provided that:
(A) The child is accompanied by a parent, guardian, or attendant designated by the child's parent or guardian to attend to the safety of the child during the flight;
(B) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B)(4) of this action, the approved child restraint system bears one or more labels as follows:
(1) Seats manufactured to U.S. standards between January 1, 1981, and February 25, 1985, must bear the label: "This child restraint system conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.";
(2) Seats manufactured to U.S. standards on or after February 26, 1985, must bear two labels:
(i) "This child restraint system conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards"; and
(ii) "THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT"
in red lettering;
(3) Seats that do not qualify under paragraphs (a)(3)(iii)(B)(1) and (a)(3)(iii)(B)(2) of this section must bear a label or markings showing:
(i) That the seat was approved by a foreign government;
(ii) That the seat was manufactured under the standards of the United Nations; or
[(iii) That the seat or child restraint device furnished by the operator was approved by the FAA through Type Certificate, Supplemental Type Certificate.
(iv) That the seat or child restraint device furnished by the operator, or one of the persons described in paragraph (a) (3) (iii) (A) of this section, was approved by the FAA in accordance with Sec. 21.305(d) or Technical Standard Order C-100b, or a later version.
(4) Except as provided in Sec. 91.107(a)(3)(iii)(B)(3)(iii) and Sec. 91.107(a)(3)(iii)(B)(3)(iv), booster-type child restraint systems (as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and harness-type child restraint systems, and lap held child restraints are not approved for use in aircraft; and]
(C) The operator complies with the following requirements:
(1) The restraint system must be properly secured to an approved forward-facing seat or berth;
(2) The child must be properly secured in the restraint system and must not exceed the specified weight limit for the restraint system; and
(3) The restraint system must bear the appropriate label(s).
(b) Unless otherwise stated, this section does not apply to operations conducted under part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter. Paragraph (a)(3) of this section does not apply to persons subject to Sec. 91.105.

Cross-country? Sure. Trans-Pacific or Trans-Atlantic? F*ck no.

/I've stood still for hours at a time several times, it sucks, but at least here I wouldn't have to be wearing a uniform or paying attention to anything

If they removed the seats, put a bar near the emergency exits and a jukebox near the front...Put a dressing room near the back with a cot for banging I think it could be a biatchin time!

Spirit Hammer: The shenanigans during turbulence the stewardess pushing the snack carts down the aisle would be delightful!

"Excuse me Mr. 300lb Man wearing sweatpants, can you please scootch over so I can get by?"

Mr. 300lb Man ends up shoving his belly and crotch into the face of the poor schmuck that has the aisle seat next to him.

Unfortunately the cart snags on his sweats and tears them clean off. The poor schmuck then discovers Mr 300lb Man decided to go commando for the flight.

For a cross country flight? 5.5 hours is a tall order. But here's what would make it work. JUST PUT A BAR ON THE PLANE! Hell I'd take the red-eye by choice and just call it a night "over" the town.