By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The double-level airplane seat concept, known as Chaise Longue, has evolved significantly since its inception, now featuring improved privacy and space for lower-level passengers. While initially envisioned for economy class, industry feedback suggests a better fit for premium economy, with a focus on increased legroom and comfort. Despite ongoing industry skepticism and regulatory hurdles, the latest mock-up, showcasing enhanced accessibility and potential for lie-flat options, represents the most advanced iteration of the design, with hopes for pre-production prototypes in the near future.
Read the original article here
The concept of the double-level airplane seat, a design that promises to fundamentally alter the way we experience air travel, is reportedly making a comeback, and this latest iteration is being dubbed the ‘ultimate, final statement’ in seating arrangements. While the initial sketches might have appeared on the internet years ago, for the designer, this isn’t just a fleeting idea; it’s a sustained passion project, a career endeavor that has been meticulously developed over half a decade. The ambition behind this innovation is to reimagine cabin configurations, moving beyond the standard single-level seating that has been the norm for so long.
However, the very notion of such a radical redesign immediately sparks a torrent of questions and concerns, primarily centered on its practicality and desirability from the perspective of both airlines and passengers. A significant hurdle for airlines to even consider adopting such a design is its failure to address two fundamental requirements: either saving space or reducing weight, both critical factors in operational efficiency and cost. If the design doesn’t contribute to these core airline objectives, its appeal diminishes considerably, regardless of its novelty.
From a safety standpoint, the implications are particularly alarming. Emergency egress, a paramount concern in aviation safety, is predicted to become a “shitshow” with a double-level seating arrangement. The ability for passengers to quickly and safely exit the aircraft in an emergency would be severely compromised. The FAA, with its rigorous safety standards, would likely find such a design untenable. The upper seats, in particular, present a clear tripping hazard with their integrated stairs. Furthermore, passengers in these elevated positions would be brought closer to any smoke that might accumulate higher up in the cabin during an incident, a significant disadvantage in a fire scenario.
The very visibility and spatial awareness crucial for efficient evacuation are also called into question. When all seats are at the same level, a standing passenger can survey the length of the plane and identify the clearest path to safety. However, with stacked seating, a passenger in an upper or lower tier might lose this crucial visual overview, making it difficult to determine the best direction for evacuation. This lack of clarity could lead to confusion and delays during a critical moment.
Beyond safety, the passenger experience, or rather the potential degradation of it, is a major talking point. The idea of being stacked like “firewood” or subjected to the “human centipede-style” seating arrangement conjures images of extreme discomfort. The potential for a constant barrage of farts, leading to a “pink-eye flight” experience where passengers are subjected to the lower body functions of those above, is a particularly vivid and unappealing prospect. The notion of being the “Dutch oven” rather than the “ovenee” highlights the intimate and potentially unpleasant proximity to fellow passengers’ biological processes.
The practicality of simple actions, like needing to use the restroom, becomes a complex maneuver. Imagine being the window seat passenger on the lower deck and needing to navigate past multiple people. Or an aisle seat occupant having to endure being stepped over, or worse, stepped on, as others attempt to access the aisle. The feeling of being “swaddled like a baby” or living in a “coffin-like” space is hardly conducive to a relaxing or even tolerable journey. The claustrophobia experienced by those in lower, window, or middle seats could be profound.
The issue of carry-on luggage further complicates the implementation of this design. With the upper cabin storage space likely being eliminated or drastically reduced to accommodate the second level of seating, the question arises: where will passengers store their belongings? Airlines might leverage this as an opportunity to further penalize travelers by mandating checked baggage, potentially at exorbitant fees, transforming what was once a convenient option into a costly necessity. This aligns with a broader cynical view that such innovations are not about enhancing passenger comfort but about maximizing airline profits, with concepts like “Farter Class” and “Fartee Class” emerging as a stark, if humorous, commentary on this perceived reality.
The very architects of these designs, often described as young MBAs, are seen by some as out of touch, speaking in overly formal language like “half a decade” for what seems like a relatively short period in the grand scheme of a “passion” project, making their pronouncements feel “insufferable.” This detachment fuels the sentiment that the people designing airplanes either harbor a deep-seated animosity towards passengers or have never actually experienced flying in a standard economy seat themselves. The desire for more comfortable, futuristic travel options, like “Fifth Element pods,” stands in stark contrast to the reality of this stacked seating proposal. Ultimately, the sentiment is that the current iteration of the double-level airplane seat, while a bold statement, is a design that raises more concerns than it offers solutions, potentially pushing the boundaries of comfort, safety, and basic human dignity in air travel.