Why fit windows in airliners, given today's technology?

[Alan P]

Whilst the views can be stunning, far more important is is the amount of daylight let into the cabin and the effect on circadian rhythms. For instance, travelling westbound across the Atlantic, there is less chance of jet lag (which should already be less than on an eastbound sector) if passengers are exposed to the daylight for the whole journey and work with the clock by staying up until normal bedtime on the local time on arrival.

So on a westbound - if you departed at 1pm local, having been awake since 7am, then stared at the sun for 10 straight hours and then landed around 3pm at destination (8 hours behind), knowing full well it's gone midnight at your departure point and you've been up since 7am that morning, and then stayed up for another 8 hours finally going to bed at 11pm local (7am at your departure point) you will have been awake for 24 hours and experienced approximately 19 hours of daylight without sleep. You WILL experience jet lag. There is NO chance you won't.

When films were projected from the aisle on narrow bodies then the blinds needed to be down for the film, modern seat back screens are far better at coping with all but the brightest sun.

Well, how bright is the sun at 37000ft? I haven't noticed it anything but VERY bright, it doesn't appear to modulate, would that roughly equate to "the brightest"? It's practically impossible to watch a film (usually dark scenes) on the screen with the sun shining in the window.

There were always some people who closed their blinds and slept but I can't quite put my finger on when the era of the day time long haul flying dormitory was ushered in - certainly with most airlines during the last 10 or 12 years.

Co-incidentally the same period that ultra-longhaul, non-stop routes were introduced and longhaul transfer traffic increased exponentially with the introduction of airline codeshare alliances?

For the previous 40 years I can't remember a single daytime long haul trip when the blinds were closed by the crew without a by your leave.

I can't remember a single flight from 40 years ago that lasted 10-14 hours non stop. Fewer people flew, fewer flights, shorter durations - it's hardly a fair comparison. In any case people nowadays fly for many more different reasons in far greater numbers, transfer from and to many different destinations.

As to the general debate - well, hopefully it'll extend to buses, trains and cars (obviously windscreens will still be necessary!).

[-Neu-]

Boeing, by putting in bigger windows on the 787, obviously realise there is more to windows than just annoying the design and structural engineers.

Don't be so sure. This is what Boeing Considers the future of air travel might look like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-48

[Philbky]

So on a westbound - if you departed at 1pm local, having been awake since 7am, then stared at the sun for 10 straight hours and then landed around 3pm at destination (8 hours behind), knowing full well it's gone midnight at your departure point and you've been up since 7am that morning, and then stayed up for another 8 hours finally going to bed at 11pm local (7am at your departure point) you will have been awake for 24 hours and experienced approximately 19 hours of daylight without sleep. You WILL experience jet lag. There is NO chance you won't.

Hmm, lets see, it's currently 22.30 local (04.30 BST) here in Houston on April 27. Yesterday I (age 65) and my wife (60) got up in the west of Ireland at 04.00. We drove 75 miles to Shannon and then had to sit on an A320 for an hour before take off due to slot restrictions at Heathrow. We had a 15 minute hold over Woodley before landing. Booked on the 14.35 to Houston, we got on on board time and then had to sit for 65 minutes on the gate before push back due to slot restrictions. A 10 hr 5 minute sector followed. Having cleared customs, I picked up a car, drove 45 minutes to my daughter's and, after a chat and a snack went to bed at 23.30 local (05.30 BST) 25 hours 30 minutes from getting up. I slept until 06.30 local and got up when my excited 3 year old grandson came into the bedroom. Am I tired - a bit, I've been entertaining a 3 year old and a 1 year old most of the day, as well as shopping. Am I jet lagged -no.

The crew on the flight were great and decided to let individuals leave their blinds up or down. I certainly didn't stare at the sun for ten hours, neither does anyone else with sense. We are talking here about access to natural daylight during waking, daylight hours.

Well, how bright is the sun at 37000ft? I haven't noticed it anything but VERY bright, it doesn't appear to modulate, would that roughly equate to "the brightest"? It's practically impossible to watch a film (usually dark scenes) on the screen with the sun shining in the window.

.

The brightness of the sun obviously modulates depending on its position in the sky and the position of the aircraft relative to the sun which will change. As for the screens, I watched 2 films, the moving map and a couple of "shorts". Sitting on the right hand side of a BA 777, the four hours plus to Newfoundland had the sun on the left hand side, the 5 hours plus from Newfoundland onwards had the sun on the right, moving along the aircraft as it declined in the sky until sunset about the time we touched down, by which time it had been around 20 degrees to the right of the nose over Alabama, Louisiana and Texas. I certainly didn't have a problem watching the screen.

Co-incidentally the same period that ultra-longhaul, non-stop routes were introduced and long haul transfer traffic increased exponentially with the introduction of airline codeshare alliances?

Codeshares do increase long haul transfers, but the bulk of transfers are still from short and medium haul.

I can't remember a single flight from 40 years ago that lasted 10-14 hours non stop. Fewer people flew, fewer flights, shorter durations - it's hardly a fair comparison. In any case people nowadays fly for many more different reasons in far greater numbers, transfer from and to many different destinations.

40 years ago was 1972. The DC8-62 and the B707-320 were flying from Europe to the US west coast non stop in around 11-12 hours and had been since around 1968. The 747 was being introduced on the same routes as the 200 srs came on stream. The trans-Siberian and "Silk Rd" routes to Japan and routes to Australia were obviously not non-stop but most pax were on board for the duration, often not allowed to disembark at the en-route stops.

In the light of this debate I had a chat with the Purser who said closing the blinds is always a difficult question. Generally she let people make up their own minds but she said some crews just want peace and quiet and close the cabin down as soon as they can.

Numbers flying has little to do with the debate. Those of us who were flying long haul during the last 40 years for business or pleasure (and working for cheapskate companies and now being retired I've generally flown economy) have seen a remarkable change in the numbers flying but also in the way people behave on board probably leading to crews wanting to keep people quiet.

As to the general debate - well, hopefully it'll extend to buses, trains and cars (obviously windscreens will still be necessary!).

Sorry, but that's a silly comment.

[Philbky]

Don't be so sure. This is what Boeing Considers the future of air travel might look like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-48

Boeing once toyed with a blended wing-body, a sort of flying wing, to produce dramatically better aerodynamics and fuel efficiency. Passengers would have sat in a wide cabin, rather like a small amphitheater. But tests with a mock-up produced such a negative reaction that the company dropped the technology, except for military refueling aircraft.

[Philbky]

I can't remember a single flight from 40 years ago that lasted 10-14 hours non stop. Fewer people flew, fewer flights, shorter durations - it's hardly a fair comparison. In any case people nowadays fly for many more different reasons in far greater numbers, transfer from and to many different destinations.

As a rider to my previous reply to this point, 55 years ago the DC7C, Lockheed Starliner and Bristol Britannia had all cracked the problem of non stop westbound trans Atlantic flights.

In July 1958 TWA scheduled 60 flights each week from Europe to New York, of which 30 were Starliners, including seven nonstops a week from Paris, five from London, four from Frankfurt, two each from Madrid, Lisbon and Geneva, one from Zurich and one from Rome. Three 1649s a week flew the Polar route Europe to California, sometimes nonstop. At a maximum speed of 377 mph and an economic cruise of 290 mph these non stops were marathon journeys.

No window blinds in those days and the curtains that were provided weren't that good against the sun. Add to that the vibration and noise and sleeping was a great deal harder.

[Paul Davies]

I'm with the op on this, it's something which has occurred to me in the past. By providing conformative screens on the inside skin of the passenger compartment with an appropriately placed camera looking outside and feeding it the passenger gets all the benefits of large (limitless I suppose) window and the manufacturer does not have to worry about the increased weight and strength required by windows.

Theoretically you could skin the whole the passenger compartment for that flying feeling when sitting in your seat and nothing around you just sky and clouds! Thunderstorms would look spectacular and the views only enjoyed by those with window seats could be enjoyed by everyone.

Camera trickery like placing cameras under the wings could remove them from sight so increasing viewing pleasure and if needs be cabin staff would have full control over their use, and if the crew were worried about something on the aircraft then all those small cameras would allow them, potentially, a view around the outside of the whole airframe.

Imagine how less confined you'd feel if by looking up you saw the sky and stars, looking down you could see the ground, look around to see sky, clouds, other aircraft et etc, all fantastic in my book.

Not to everyone's taste I know.

[Alan P]

Sorry, but that's a silly comment.

I reckon if you got a little more sleep on your flights you might be less grumpy.

[AV O]

Given the regular timings for Delhi t/f at LHR to a USA destination, there is even more reason for the pax to stay awake on the transatlantic sector. With a late evening/early hours departure ex Delhi the time to sleep is on the sector to London at a time when the pax would normally sleep, spending the transfer time and daylight hours awake. On arrival in the US they can then have an evening meal, go to bed at bedtime local time and get up next morning in tune with their surroundings.

As for transfer pax, most are transfer from short/medium sectors to long haul rather than long haul to long haul.

Do you consider Sydney to Singapore a short haul flight ? Unless you know another way from down under !

Without being rude, you do not seem to realize or be aware of the passenger movement around the world.

As for your flight, and the example I gave above, fortunately, you did not have some 2/3 hours bus ride before take off (only 1hour flight) or some 2 hours after landing, with children or grand-parents to take care of.

Edited April 28, 2012 by AV O

[chaddy]

This reminds me of another issue that was discussed years ago: the seat direction. Some researches have shown that having the seats facing backward would be better from a safety point of view. However when passengers were interviewed about this, nobody wanted this kind of arrangement. Rear facing seats are installed on some military transports... but of course in that case the passengers are not allowed to complain much..

Back in about 1984-85 I had the unfortunate experience of a rearward facing seat in a Trident. Not an experience I would care to repeat...no matter how much safer it might be.

Cheers

[Philbky]

Do you consider Sydney to Singapore a short haul flight ? Unless you know another way from down under !

Without being rude, you do not seem to realize or be aware of the passenger movement around the world.

As for your flight, and the example I gave above, fortunately, you did not have some 2/3 hours bus ride before take off (only 1hour flight) or some 2 hours after landing, with children or grand-parents to take care of.

Of course not, but most pax travelling Sydney to Singapore and on to Europe are on through plane flights. As for being aware of passenger movement, before retirement I earned part of my living working with airlines on airline security so am totally conscious of the statistics of pax movements.

You seem to have missed the facts of my trip this week. The drive from home to Shannon is 75 miles on country roads. Then a 1 hour wait before boarding, followed by 1 hour sitting on the aircraft due to flow restrictions at LHR. What should have been a 60 minute flight was a 75 minute flight due to the hold at Woodley. In the almost 5 hours on the ground before boarding at LHR for Houston we had to transfer from T1 to T5.

After boarding we had 65 minutes sitting on the ground awaiting a slot. Then the flight, US Customs clearance, a car pick up then a drive to my daughter's. It would have been harder with children but, being of grandfather age, I don't understand your comment re grandparents.

As far as dealing with children is concerned, we regularly flew to the US, both east and west coast, with my daughter from her being 8 years old - from the early 1980s onwards - and the fact that in those days most blinds weren't closed didn't seem to bother her.

In the last 3 years she has flown LHR - Rio return 3 times, one LHR- Rio one way and Rio - Houston one way - some of the trips on her own, others with her husband with a child between 6 months and 24 months. She has also done two Houston - LHR returns with the same child between 30 months and 36 months plus a second child between 6 months and 11 months. In terms of daytime flying she finds daylight doesn't make much difference until the child is around 12 months old. Once the children reach a year old she would prefer them to stay awake for most of the flight as she finds the more tired they are on arrival, the quicker they adjust to local time.

[Philbky]

I reckon if you got a little more sleep on your flights you might be less grumpy.

Grumpy? Don't think so.

[Philbky]

One point those who espouse closed blinds and windowless aircraft miss is that of safety and security. There is a very good reason that blinds cannot be closed for take off and landing. It is essential that in the event of an accident survivors can see out and rescue teams can see in.

In these days of aviation terrorism closed blinds in flight do not aid visual inspection when aircraft go radio silent and chase aircraft are sent to identify and report (and this happens more often than the media and general public realise)

[theplasticsurgeon]

Windows every time - allows for interesting shots like this.

Anyone guess where - I'll post answer by the end of today.

[Seahawk]

If I fly, I want a widow seat to look out

Cue one of Gerard Hoffnung's collection of foreign hotel notices: "There is a French widow in every room".

[Swamp Donkey]

Looks like LHR, before the second T5 satellite was built???

[theplasticsurgeon]

Looks like LHR, before the second T5 satellite was built???

Correct - Aug 2008.

A flight from TFS to BHX about 15 mins before landing.

[Giorgio N]

Do you consider Sydney to Singapore a short haul flight ? Unless you know another way from down under !

It is if compared to a Sydney to Abu Dhabi...

You're making a good point here: both the south-east asia hubs and those in the various emirates have plenty of passangers that disembark from long-haul flights to embark on other long-haul flights.

Of these passangers, those who travel for business usually have developed their own personal way of dealing with jet-lag (guess how I know...).

Those who travel for tourism might not... but honestly if I travel for tourism I care little if I suffer from jet lag. Different story when I have to arrive in Sydney at 8 AM and have to start working immediately.

[AV O]

It is if compared to a Sydney to Abu Dhabi...

You're making a good point here: both the south-east asia hubs and those in the various emirates have plenty of passangers that disembark from long-haul flights to embark on other long-haul flights.

Of these passangers, those who travel for business usually have developed their own personal way of dealing with jet-lag (guess how I know...).

Those who travel for tourism might not... but honestly if I travel for tourism I care little if I suffer from jet lag. Different story when I have to arrive in Sydney at 8 AM and have to start working immediately.

The same thing applies for people travelling from Southern South America to Asia. Any way they go, (through US or Europe) according to where their stop over airport is, it is roughly a x2 10/12 hours trip.

Other case : Some West Africans have no choice other than through Europe to reach East Africa .

Edited May 8, 2012 by AV O

[Alan P]

Hope I'm not flogging this one too much, but out of 240 pax i brought over from Bangalore yesterday, almost 200 were transferring through LHR, mostly to the States. Unsurprisingly, most of them were sleeping on the way over and the cabin was dark although it was daylight all the way. I'm guessing they'd probably sleep at least part of the way over to the US even though it would be daylight all the way on that leg too.

Can't imagine how enduring 24 hours of daylight through the window and staying awake for 30+hours would possibly contribute to the absence of jet-lag!!

Al