@mins You commented: I wonder if the direction of seating has any importance. [...] Studies for railroad didn't show any advantage, so both are used. Glossing over the fact that trains run both ways, so pointing all seats in the same direction means they're either all facing forward or backwards depending on which direction the train is traveling; I was wondering: which study are you referring to? I can't find any that support your statement.
(just out of curiousity; I tend to take rear-facing seats in the train, because all else being equal (I don't experience motion sickness in trains), I prefer to take the safe option)
@Sanchises "pointing all seats in the same direction means they're either all facing forward or backwards depending on which direction the train is traveling" I see that you've never been in Japan :D
@Federico I have seen this done on the shinkansen. It was amazing how efficiently they'd worked out the process. They combined rotating the seats with changing over the antimacassars, so the person doing it could reach all of the seats from the aisle.
@Federico I have indeed not. I'm glad the Dutch railway system does not have this system... it would likely cost millions, be poorly designed because they wanted a more complex system for less cost than the stock option, and after years of failure be fixed permanently because maintenance is too expensive.
True. But the few 'innovative' projects generally failed miserably (their Italian high-speed train has been replaced by a Swiss 160kph old-fashioned loc with old leftover carriages; their "walk-through" Koploper (with the distinct raised drivers position to allow for a passenger connection between trains underneath) no longer has said connection...
...and in a regional train they changed the stock design by mounting the airco underneath the carriages for a bit of extra capacity, leading to frequent failure in snow or icy conditions.
But as long as they don't try to do anything fancy, I guess they're allright.
@Federico In the end, they were only used in the intercity service to Groningen I think, so depending on when and where you lived in the Netherlands, you may never have seen them.
Given the size of the Netherlands, you hardly need it anyway. yes Maastricht-Groningen could be the exception, but the feeder service not so much, the train already does that quite well. Would be interesting if the law would prohibit also flights like AMS-Curacao :D
@Sanchises there used to be a Groningen/Eelde to Amsterdam service using an Embraer 120. It must have been 20 years ago that I went with my grandmother on a day trip to M
Schiphol from Groningen just because she want to do some plane spotting with me.
@Federico Repositioning flights between EIN and AMS (often after a foggy day by Transavia) generally cruise at 7000' (or I guess 4000' if they're using 36C or R, that halves the flight distance) if I recall correctly. It's the typical altitude used for arrivals; departures are initially cleared to 6000' before being bumped to FL130.
@Federico The advantage of having a feeder flight is that missed flight due to an initial delay are the airline's problem rather than the passengers' (you'll only get money back from the NS to reimburse the travel costs, not the subsequent missed flight)
But of course that's a huge waste of fuel for a legal loophole.
(although of course that could be said about the entire aviation industry, which is still miraculously tax-exempt for fuel)
no, but personally I don't see why incrementing the problem instead of reducing it. Sure, they say "it is not at capacity", but someone really thinks humans will stop when capacity is reached?
The Hangar
The Hangar