Fermilab Astrophysicist's Method Cuts Plane Boarding Times in Half

It's faster, but it won't work because people who travel in groups, like families, want to sit beside each other in the same row. In his method, they'd have to enter the plane separately. Who would let their child who they're flying with get on the plane without them?

I'm aghast he hasn't thought of this problem.

It might be able to be modified to account for this, but it will probably both increase boarding time and still separate people who don't want to be separated.

I totally agree with you critical_thinker. It just goes to show that while many scientists are very intelligent they seem to lack common sense sometimes.

@critical_thinker

Might want to watch the video again. "As with all boarding procedures, passengers with children boarded first."

Critical_thinker and azaria1 both fail to consider that airlines using this system could easily allow for an exception in the case of young child, just as they already do now, if a child or dependent happens to be asked to board without a guardian. These exceptions should still not be frequent enough to interfere with most people and would still allow a significant speedup. BTW, part of critical thinking is finding workarounds for problems, not just citing a trivial objection and then declaring that the problem has no solution.

@Critical_thinker: Think a little bit more. If you've got someone sitting with their children, either they'll be in the same set of seats (i.e. row 3 on the left side), or, if they're a child they're more likely to trust to be a bit further away from them, THEN you get separation, but, evidently, you're more comfortable with this child being further away.

Yes, it'll separate people who don't want to be separated, but any version that lets people on in bursts will do that. This one means that, actually, they're not separated for as long as they would be with other methods.

@NullPoint

Exactly, if both @critical_thinker and @azaria1 had watched the video only 10 seconds in, they would have heard, "As with all boarding procedures, passengers with children boarded first. This caused an early, but predictable hangup." Now to be fair, neither this article nor the original in Consumerist mention the children boarding issue. You can only find this out by watching the video.

Or read the report:

"Other considerations
such as companion travelers are also fairly simple to accomodate in the context of the Steffen method and, if done
well, would have a marginal, if not negligible, effect on
the boarding time. (Specifically, as long as paired passengers are not seated near the front of the aircraft where the primary aisle interferences materialize, they will have a few additional seconds—on average half of the time required to walk the length of the cabin—to stow their
luggage and be seated.)"

I went through the original manuscript, but stilI cannot find the astrophysics in it...

All I want is to sit by the window, see the stars, the clouds, the land below and the land approaching, and give me my peanuts, dinner, drinks and easy access to the bathroom. Should the plane be abducted by an alien space craft and we are taken to another galaxy, all the better! ;)

Imagine if the interior of the plane was a separate component. You could have the interior, complete with the overhead bins and even the luggage area underneath, in the boarding area to be filled up at your leisure as people arrive. The plane could pull up to the terminal and disgorge the previous interior. Those passengers could get out and gather their luggage, then leave without waiting for the baggage claim folks. Meanwhile, the new fully packed interior section could slide into the airplane shell, and the plane could take off. Turnaround time would be just a few minutes, and everyone would save time.

It would require a total redesign of both airplanes and terminals, but the real problem is that it would be more difficult for the airlines to justify charging an additional fee per bag.

Hello PopSci Readers --

This is Jon Hotchkiss, I am the co-author, along with Jason Steffen of the paper on Airline Boarding. First, let me say this: thank you for your interest in our work. I'm so pleased to see such spirited discussion.

Second, let me add that Dr. Steffen did the vast preponderance of theoretical thinking (OK, more like 100% of it) -- I am the executive producer and creator of the TV show, This vs That. We are responsible for producing the television show in which this experiment was performed.

As one of you has already noted, we did consider that families would not want to board separately from one another, which is why in each of the boarding methods we tested, we allowed the family with small children to board first. The Steffen Method of boarding does allow for modifications -- However, the end result, if this method is used, is still faster boarding.

If you like this experiment and are interested in experiments and science that will also shed light on what I like to call "the science right around us" - I hope you will follow us on Twitter:

@thisvsthatshow

We are going to be unraveling a number of other mysteries very soon, including: which is the better/hotter fuel for your BBQ, propane or natural gas? Which flotation device will more likely save your life after a plane crash, the seat cushion or the life vest? And which car is more likely to help save the environment, a hybrid or a high mileage combustion engine only car? Among many many others.

Again, thanks for your interest in the research.

Kindest regards,
Jon

I agree that the method, while it makes sense, is simply too complicated to communicate to people when and how they should board and would just lead to problems at the gate as people try to sort themselves out.

I've often thought wouldn't be faster if these planes had two doors, one at the front, one at the back and you could load from the middle to the front and middle to the back.

Obviously this would have to be taken into account for future planes and the walkways that we use now but seems like it sure would be quicker to me.

It would also be easier to communicate boarding to people this way as well. They would simply form two lines at the gate. Middle rows board first with one group entering from the front and another group entering from the rear of the plane.

That would be my suggestion. I liken it to being on a city bus with doors at the front and rear.

I am not belittling this at all, but isnt this just a text book exercise into industrial engineering ( def- is a branch of engineering dealing with the optimization of complex processes or systems.)
the first guys who did experiments like this just took out a stop watch and noted done how long it took people to do simple tasks like move a box from a to b.

I guess what I am saying is. I am little surprised this hasn't been tried or figured out 50 years ago.

if both @critical_thinker and @azaria1 had actually flown on *any* airline instead of running their mouth about the lack of common sense in scientists, they would know that every airline allows passengers with children to board first.

--
"You don't become great by trying to be great; You become great by wanting to do something and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." ~ Randall Munroe

It's a really nice idea. Only, there are lots of airplanes without so many exits. And the boarding takes only a few minutes. 15-20 tops. It may seems much more, when you are aboard, but it's not. Giving a plane a slot to taxi is much more difficult, many times takes much more time. It really does not matter, how much time you will spend with boarding, the plane will still stay on the ground, not moving. So it might be a genuine experiment, with potential in next years, but it is not viable currently. Ogh, and think about the thefts, and other atrocities, that could occur during this new type of boarding. Too many people at once, none could watch them properly.

remccainjr

You obviously have never flown with Ryanair!

If you have paid for premium boarding, then you can bord first. Otherwise you wait. Children or not. And no. There are no seat reservations. So your 2 yo might very well sit 20 rows behind you.

I enjoyed this article. Very interesting, but surely it would require a high degree of coordination to send people to their seats in order. Even with the current "block" system there are always people trying to board in the wrong block. Infrequent flyers, non-native speakers, passengers in business lounges waiting for the last minute to board. There would need to be a call off system and a highly responsive populous. I think you would require more staff, acting as autocratic cat herders.

HarveyD

*Not that difficult. I would be enough to print the boarding passes on different color paper. Or mark them with big numbers.

"Next boarding blue cards!"

And who cares if somebody cheats, as long as most people follow the instructions. Mind you. There should be enough newspapers and luggage space for everybody. Then there wouldn't be the need to rush.

Someboy. It wouldn't be the first time I was proven wrong. I like the idea of visual cues - the coloured tickets, but I still think the coordination will prove to be a bit more intricate than that. It may require additional space at the boarding gate to queue. I's say you would need at least twelve "blocks" for a domestic flight. I think you might find the benefits shown were partially the result of the Hawthorne effect. It’s always difficult to process people. Lloyds law will not apply because people move at varying speeds and there are multiple, shifting bottlenecks. Not saying it can be done but it’s not simple.

Trade the overhead storage for more room for each passenger w rows of stadium style seating .extra Storage under higher seats.

As an Arizonan, I am used to Southwest's "cattle call" seating. When I flew Lufthansa out of Frankfurt and Munich, I was certain the Germans would demonstrate their fabled efficiency. With individuals, they were firm and adamant. But as soon as the gates opened the passenger jammed the gate area, causing delays. Like Southwest, the Lufthansa crew waited till the plane was full before they started offering incentives to passengers willing to take a later flight due to overbooking.
I expect if the passengers were mathematicians specializing in chaos theory, the scientific seating method might work. In the real world, chaos wins.

NullPoint, Nighteyez07, and remccainjr - Obviously, you don't realize that only parents with "young" children (usually age 5 or younger) get to board first. Are you willing to let your 6, 7, or even 10 year old hang around by themselves while you board or let them board what could be several minutes before you do? Don't be so quick to denigrate people with a valid comment. In the video, I see no other "older" children or teenagers who might mess this plan up by boarding later, don’t you think that would happen?

Also, most people aren't stowing much of anything in the overhead bins in this video - you know people carry much more on board aircraft today - especially now with pricey checked bag fees. How would you like to be an aisle seat passenger getting on last with no overhead space for your carry-on?

Sailalaska - Lufthansa does load from front and back at Frankfurt on some of their planes. That doesn't work either as they have people trying to pass each other in the narrow aisles because they went in the wrong door - they don't know or care where their seat is in relation to the front or back door. They just get in the shortest line to get onboard. It's a big mess; believe me.

Gravymeister - you're right; chaos wins even with the most efficient gate and flight crews. We are more like cattle than programmable robots; the Southwest model seems to work better than most despite how much people complain about it. Look at their turnaround times – some of the shortest in the business.

They could still let families with children board first like they do now. Then they could use the alternating system for the rest of the people and it would still save time.

HarveyD

You still need to check in at the gate before boarding the plane. The machine would simply refuse to accept the wrong kind of ticket. Yes. Chaos the first couple of weeks. Then people would learn and accept that if you want to board first, you need a window seat. The whole question of boarding order would lessen when boarding times are reduced. It's no big deal to wait for an extra minute, where today you wait for five. And it won't be long until the newspapers and magazines are read on displays.

It could also be so that the very first ones to board are families and windowseaters with bags that fit under the seat, freeing up overhead space for late boarders.

Mind you. This would never work in Italy. But for the rest of the world.

This whole ridiculous debate over children illustrates one important flaw to human decision making:

People will reject "imperfect" ideas even when they are BETTER than the idea they currently accept.

Did you naysayers read the article? The way we are doing it now is actually SLOWER than just doing it randomly. Doing it through the "system" way is the FASTEST way tried.

WTF are you even arguing about "oh no it will never work" they just fucking did it in the video without the passengers being fucking experts on chaos theory.

"Oh but what about 10 yr old children???" The airlines can fucking tweak it whatever fucking way they want--it will still be faster than doing it the stupid block method they do now.

Jesus fucking christ!

Check bags for free and instead charge for bringing your roll-aboard into the cabin with you. One "personal item" per person. There. I just made the boarding/de-boarding process 50% faster and people will pay for convenience on easy-on, easy-off instead of paying for INconvenience of waiting all day for their luggage.

Science can cure stupidity (From the video), but the ethical stance currently standing is it should not. There is even scientific evidence suggesting we should not try. Perhaps some day.

"....the last will be first..." Be kind to you other passengers as you enter the plane. It does not matter who sits first; the plane leaves all together with the boarded people, regardless. Be kind, gentle and patient to your fellow human being; why, you want the same for you.

@BubbaGump,

"Be kind, gentle and patient to your fellow human being; why, you want the same for you."

I also follow the golden rule proposed by Jesus. However, since I am a masochist, I am the opposite of kind, gentle, and patient ;)

@B.V.
A little hyped up are we? Your tirade is typical of someone who doesn’t have a good answer to the presented arguments against a new idea – cuss and scream and belittle those you disagree with. How is this a “debate over children,” and how does that “illustrate a flaw to human decision making?” Just because you say it doesn’t make it true. How are our concerns about how children are treated in this system trivial or flawed?
I’m a naysayer because I state the obvious - this “system” is not a valid experiment because it doesn’t accurately test the true make-up of a boarding group (children boarding or not boarding with parents, groups not boarding together, real levels of carry-on baggage, etc.)? And, it doesn’t show how the airlines can “tweak” it to solve those issues – their “tweak” may make it as bad or worse than the current ways of loading aircraft. Because it doesn’t adequately test that which It proposes to solve means it is worse than imperfect; it is invalid. It may not be faster than the current block system because it ignores those questions and others brought forward by those calmly thinking and commenting about this study.
I’m not a fan of the block or random systems either, but I’m not going to curse at those that might defend them just like I didn’t curse you because I don’t like that you advocate this system. Let’s see a test that is less imperfect before we start claiming it’s the best thing we’ve seen since sliced bread, and that everyone that disagrees is stupid.
Your outburst is not conducive to constructive discussion and totally inappropriate in a publication that strives for reasoned argument. And, it cements your view of what you think about children – you don’t care about younger children that may be separated from their parents or what they might read should they come across these comments. Shame on you for commenting in this way, and shame on POPSCI for publishing it. Since you are a masochist, I assume you would have liked me have been much more derogatory to you, but I won’t give you that satisfaction.

lcmgadams,

My outrage is at the level of stupidity of the naysayers who's biggest argument has been "BUT WHAT ABOUT CHILDREN?!!?!?!"

That was the first thing they "solved" in the video: parents/children board first. Then, everyone boards according to the system.

Go watch the video... seems like a pretty damn accurate test to me.

B.V. So your counter-argument is essentialy, "you saw it on TV so it must be true?"

You are going to hate the scientific community, as we are all naysayers by nature.

All this "experiment" proves is the hawthorne effect.

If you are looking for a group that accepts theories on blind faith and never questions anything - try religious forums, although you might have to change how you sign off your posts.

@HarveyD,

There is a difference between skepticism and stupidity.

When someone tells you HOW it will work, and then SHOWS it working to you... and you still claim you didn't just see what you saw; that's beyond stupidity (and exactly the kind of mindset you'd expect to see on a religious forum).