Every now and then I feel like we report on some new, fresh, crispy hell relating to how airlines plan to shove as many people as possible into a given volume of space on an airplane, and so far, thankfully, the worst of these avaricious torture implements of skinflintery have yet to be actually implemented on a commercial aircraft. But the threats keep coming, most recently in the form of some genuinely miserable-looking “standing only” airplane seats that some budget airlines have said they’ll implement starting in 2026, which, if current thinking on calendar-based math proves true, will be “next year.”
News outlets reporting on theses seats, which were first seen back in 2018 at the Aircraft Interiors Expo in Hamburg, Germany, don’t seem to be specifying exactly which airlines are signing up to use these, which makes me a bit skeptical, because if these airlines have announced that they’re doing this, you’d think the articles would mention which ones they are, which so far I have yet to see.
Well, that’s not entirely true; the Irish famously cheap airline Ryanair has been vocal about wanting such standing-only seats, with their CEO expressing a desire to see his planes fitted with such non-seats since 2012. So I guess they’re on board with this, at least.
View this post on Instagram
Instagram accounts like this one have suggested that these seats have passed regulatory requirements and passed safety evaluations, leading to the spattering of articles suggesting that these things may actually show up in planes human beings may willingly get on.
Let’s take a look at these un-seats, which are officially called Skyrider 3.0:
They’re sort of a saddle/straddle design, and I guess they at least allow you to lean on the back even if you’re not really in a sitting position. You have some armrests and a seatbelt, at least. The upright design allows for about 30% more seats to be crammed into a given area, and the seats weigh about half of what a conventional economy airline seat weighs, which can provide fuel savings.
There are other mitigating factors at play here: the airplane still needs enough flight attendants to serve all the people on the plane, there still need to be enough emergency exits for all passengers onboard, and the passengers will still need to be able to evacuate the plane in 90 seconds.
Perhaps these seats really have passed all safety checks, but it’s hard to see how rows this close together will allow for passengers of the broad spectrum of sizes human beings come in to be able to evacuate in a hurry. But, if it’s true that safety regulations were, in fact, met, then I guess someone tested this?
For a short flight of an hour or so, maybe these wouldn’t be too bad? And if fares for these kinds of seats were cheap, like dirt cheap, then maybe these are not a bad thing? A $20 flight, or even less? That’s hard to argue with.
That said, these do seem miserable, and if your plane is delayed on the tarmac or anything like that, you could end up strapped to this lightly-padded nightmare for who knows how long. Is cramming as many people as possible into a plane to maximize profits an inherently inhumane act? Probably.
But still, spending maybe $30 or so to go round-trip to spend an evening in some random city you couldn’t drive to in time? That’s kind of appealing.
As soon as the seatbelt light goes off there’ll be a race to spend the entire flight seated on the toilet
Well, money talks – and mine says “no f—in’ way”.
Just because an airline offers a standing room only flight does not mean I need to book a standing room only flight.
I guarantee that these seats will launch with low fares that will quickly disappear once enough planes are in the air with these. In 3 years, you’ll be paying the same amount as the old seating.
Surely the extra seats, the extra passengers, and their extra luggage will more than wipe out any fuel savings from the seats themselves being lighter?
Well it’s about the fuel consumption per head. That’s why flying first is an ecological nightmare.
Note that flight attendants are not there to serve the passengers, they’re safety equipment. Their job is to evacuate the passengers in an emergency in 90 seconds using half of the exits. You have to have 1 flight attendant for every X passengers. It was 40 passengers back in the 90’s in Canada, I don’t know what it is today.
So yes, increasing the passenger load by 30% would require 30% more flight attendants even if there’s no service.
The average US man is 5’9″ and woman is 5’4″, with roughly 2.5 inches for a standard deviation. The seats will likely be designed for folks within about 1.5 standard deviations, which would encompass most people.
On the other hand, I am 6’6″ tall, 3.5 standard deviations taller than average. On most airlines my knees are in the back of the seat in front of me before the person sitting there reclines into my space.
Without some sort of up/down adjustment mechanism, there would be absolutely no way I could ever fit into this.
I had the same thoughts. I have a 34-36″ inseam; I imagine I would be riding on my tailbone with seats like these. Even if they’re height adjustable I guess they’d have to eliminate overhead storage entirely? Definitely no more underseat storage so 100% checked baggage? Hard pass.
On the other hand for those of us close to average height, it could amount to more leg room. No room for overhead bins though.
I surely wouldn’t be in a hurry to do it, but I’m not sure it would suck worse than the current situation
I’m not sure why this article is triggering something different in the advertising, but I’m receiving pro-Trump ads on this article and nowhere else. I don’t know if that’s a concern for you, but I don’t generally see political ads on this site. I usually just get car, camper, or tech ads, maybe some other shopping.
There’s a fix for that. Fork over $50 bucks for a basic membership. Then sleep well at night knowing that you’re able to read quality writing (without triggering ads showing up) and supporting them directly instead of them having to scrape the barrel for ad placements.
I am a member, and have been since it was offered. I don’t get many ads, but I do note the ones I see that seem off from the norm. On other sites, I get occasional political ads and expect them, but it was odd to see one here. I am only mentioning it because it seemed off that this particular article had them.
Hmmm. I don’t think I’ve seen an ad here since I joined. I see like a spacer that say advertisement, but nothing fills in the minimal space adjacent. I’ll keep an eye out for it. Anyway, sorry, didn’t mean to throw stones.
I sometimes get the spacer instead of an ad, but I usually get 1-2 ads per article and sometimes one on the main page (and I would gladly see a couple more to ensure that non-members aren’t put off the site before they decide to join).
They aren’t usually intrusive (most of mine don’t even have a video component–this one did, but I don’t know if I’ve just lucked out before), and I thought that political ads was one of the categories they had turned off.
I appreciate that you want people to become members, as I hope we all do.
using an ad blocker?
No. Paying subscriber that takes ads out of the equation.
I ask because I have no idea if my subscription suppresses all ads, because I’m using multiple ad blockers.