36

According to this image, taken from The Science of Survivability (Page 79) from NOAA, the statistically safest seats to sit in are at the rear of the plane (69% survival rate vs 49% at the front). Aircraft seat survivability

From a business perspective (and ignoring any ethical considerations of whether passengers should pay more for a better chance of survival), it would seem to me to make more sense to put your highest paying and likely most regular passengers in the safest part of the plane, the rear. Yet almost exclusively they are placed in the front, the un-safest part.

So why are First/Business class seats in the un-safer front of the craft and not the safer rear?

dkwarr87
  • 687
  • 2
  • 7
  • 13
  • 6
    FO/FO, simple as that – CGCampbell Feb 06 '15 at 12:10
  • 6
    @dkwarr87 The image you have referenced displays the intensity of the shock wave when initiated in the event of head-on collision. Not all crashes are like that. Chances of survival depend more if your time has come. – Farhan Feb 06 '15 at 13:50
  • 34
    Your chances of being killed at all are so insignificant that the difference between 49% and 69% is statistically irrelevant. If an individual wanted to make it relevant, then the only statistically rational choice is not to get on the plane at all since you then reduce your chance of being killed in a plane crash to zero. – Simon Feb 06 '15 at 14:40
  • 7
    @Simon "in a plane crash", yes. "BY a plane crash", no, alas. I won't mention specifics, but a number of commercial accidents have resulted in deaths of people on the ground - even in some cases from aircraft at cruise altitude. – Russell McMahon Feb 06 '15 at 14:44
  • 1
    That presentation presents that image without context. See this article, which seems to be the original source. The probabilities shown are the probability of survival given that there were both survivors and fatalities. It excludes all instances where either everyone died or everyone survived. – Cascabel Feb 07 '15 at 06:39
  • 2
    @Jefromi: Which is reasonable, given that both in the event that everyone dies and in the event that everyone survives, all seats are equally bad or good for survival, respectively. The only time choosing the location of a seat in a way to improve one's relative chances of survival toward other seat locations is when only some of the people survive. – O. R. Mapper Feb 07 '15 at 11:33
  • 15
    Imagine the conversation. Vip: "why is my business seat on the rear of the plane?", hostess: "because in the event of a plane crash you have an higher chance of surviving..." – Emanuele Paolini Feb 07 '15 at 11:36
  • @RussellMcMahon That really is splitting hairs. The chance of being killed in a plane crash, if you are outside the plane, are vanishingly small. Completely irrational to even consider it. – Simon Feb 07 '15 at 19:02
  • @O.R.Mapper It's reasonable, yes. But that doesn't mean everyone will infer it when they see the image without context - it's still important to explain what it means, that the numbers are just relative probabilities. – Cascabel Feb 07 '15 at 19:13
  • 2
    See also: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/11658/where-is-the-safest-seat-in-the-plane – A E Feb 07 '15 at 20:01
  • 1
    @Simon re "splitting hairs" -> I agree. As an engineer I was just commenting on the 'to zero' at the end of "... the only statistically rational choice is not to get on the plane at all since you then reduce your chance of being killed in a plane crash to zero." 'ALmost ... ' or 'essentially ... ' would not have woken the pedant within :-). Just North of the English-Scottish border is the small town of Lockerbie. There is NO signage to guide those who seek to what they are looking for. Asking directions feels wrong (and probably is). Drive through the town and the road to the cemetry .... – Russell McMahon Feb 07 '15 at 23:52
  • 2
    .... is quietly signposted. Walk through the original cemetery to the memorial behind, feeling like the intruder that you risk being. Take photos (as I did) with the very strong awareness that gawking tourism is what they wish to avoid. Most of the people buried there were in the aircraft. 11 were unfortunate enough to live in the wrong place. A very extreme outlier, but not quite zero. Nit picking ? Sure. But worth being aware of. Ground casualties are in the news regularly in their ones and fews. – Russell McMahon Feb 08 '15 at 08:29
  • 2
    @EmanuelePaolini VIP: "Booyah! Suck it, plebs!" – Michael Feb 09 '15 at 01:27
  • 4
    Business class is typically booked by managers. They can be and are replaced more often and easily than others. Sorry, couldn't resist ;-) – Arne Burmeister Feb 09 '15 at 07:09
  • 1
    Excellent answers from everyone, very informative and helpful, thank you. So to summarise: the passenger comfort and convenience benefits greatly outweigh the statistically insignificant increase in chance of survival of a statistically unlikely event :) – dkwarr87 Feb 09 '15 at 10:08
  • Is the stat true and verified? – Firee Feb 10 '15 at 12:02
  • Really if I am worried about dying in a plan crash I will take the back of the plane because it cuts my odds of dying in half? No if I am worried about dying on a plane I don't get on it. If I get on the plane I want convenience. They board from the front because the front of the plane is the closest to the gate. Even in coach same price tickets the front sells first. – paparazzo May 28 '15 at 02:36
  • Useful article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9957319/Which-is-the-safest-seat-on-an-aircraft.html – Him May 29 '15 at 23:53
  • 2
    @Simon To be fair, both probabilities are vanishingly small in most cases. For the major U.S. airlines, over the last 13 years, more people on the ground have been killed by airliner crashes than passengers. To be more precise, there has been 1 of the former and 0 of the latter. – reirab Jun 03 '15 at 17:02

8 Answers8

81

There are several reasons:

  • First In, First Out
    They are given precedence to board the airplane before others, and precedence to disembark the airplane before others too.

  • Quieter Environment
    On commercial airplanes, engines are on the wings which are in the aft of first class. Hence first class is quieter, which is a better experience.

  • Low Turbulence
    Turbulence at the front of the plane is lower than the back. Aircraft are extremely flexible and will bounce around more in the back than the because the bump hits the front and causes the back to vibrate.

  • Seating Arrangement
    Important and prominent passengers feel that they should be in the front or on the upper deck (747 or A380), when available. They also feel that they do not need to see other parts of the airplane which are not of their concern.

  • Marketing Strategy
    When economy class people walk through first and/or business class, they will notice the perks and benefits of traveling in these higher classes. They may upgrade their seats on future travels for a higher price.

Farhan
  • 29,390
  • 14
  • 112
  • 183
  • 8
    Excellent points. And all of these are much more important than the extremely small chance that the plane will crash and first class doesn't fare well. – fooot Feb 06 '15 at 15:07
  • 6
    Not sure about your turbulence point. I would expect the majority of the force of turbulence to catch the wings and tail (which are designed to catch the air) and therefore front of the plane get shaken more these remote forces. – Oli Feb 06 '15 at 15:39
  • 1
    It's that or the elastic property of the fuselage allows it to dampen turbulence from the wings before it reaches the front. Both might be true at different levels of turbulence. – Oli Feb 06 '15 at 15:47
  • 1
    I would agree to point 1 through 3 and 5, but aren't point 4 just a personal reflection? Is it proved to be evidence that first class and/or business passengers aren't interested in seeing the plane? Not that I see any reason for them to explore the plane - I just find it non-science. :) – Kristofer Gisslén Feb 06 '15 at 16:14
  • @KristoferGisslén How many rich people would like to see the lifestyles of less richer or poor people? Specially, when there is no benefit of doing it. – Farhan Feb 06 '15 at 16:19
  • I don't know. I only questioned the evidence behind that point of your answer as I do believe you've backed up the rest of your answer with quite solid evidence (or at least it seems credible) :) – Kristofer Gisslén Feb 06 '15 at 16:27
  • 4
    I was under the impression turbulence is lowest around the wings, since the airplane pivots around the wings during turbulence due to its CG and point of support being near the wings. See http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/turbulence/ – March Ho Feb 06 '15 at 16:35
  • 5
    I see how leaving first is good, but why is entering first desirable at all? – gerrit Feb 06 '15 at 16:39
  • 1
    If you enter first, you get early access to the booze! You don't have to wait in a line on the jetbridge. You have first pick of an overhead bin to put your expensive suit in. – Jacob Krall Feb 06 '15 at 17:54
  • 3
    @gerrit you also get to put your carry-on in the most ideal location - i.e. close to you, without moving other stuff out of the way, etc. - if you board last, chances are you will end up with something under the seat in front of you – user2813274 Feb 06 '15 at 21:53
  • 11
    Entering first becomes desirable if the seat on the plane is significantly more comfortable than the seats in the waiting area. – Patricia Shanahan Feb 06 '15 at 22:10
  • 1
    On some foreign airlines, the boarding is not done from the front, but from a door that exists at the boundary between first class and eco class. The eco class people never see first class. – Walter Feb 07 '15 at 01:20
  • 4
    @Walter Not just foreign airlines; that's reasonably common whenever there's a door there, because it's more efficient (I've done it on a United 757). – cpast Feb 07 '15 at 05:31
  • 1
    @gerrit Depending on door placement, how much would a first class person enjoy passing through an area where a broodmother and her uncontrollable brood of 3-5 broodlings had been seated before first class could board? – killermist Feb 07 '15 at 22:47
  • @Farhan I've accepted Jay Carr's answer as it answers the question from the safety pov, but I really like your answer as well as it explains it from the airlines pov. It's a pity I can't accept both as the answer or I would :) – dkwarr87 Feb 09 '15 at 09:50
43

Farhan did an excellent job explaining the answer from a creature comfort perspective, but let me explain why from the standpoint of safety and public perception of said safety.

Firstly, the difference between the front and the back isn't as stark as the red and green colors might imply. As your graph shows, the survival rate in the front is 49%, and the rear is 69%, and while a 20% gap is significant, it's not like everyone in the front always dies and everyone in the rear always survives.

Secondly, planes simply do not crash all that much, and most frequent fliers just aren't worried about dying in a plane crash, so they'd rather the convenience of the front of the airplane.

Thirdly, of those who are worried about dying in a crash, most of them are unaware of the fact they are 20% more likely to do so at the front of the craft. Most people assume that if the plane crashes, they are just going to die. Thus, they assume moving to another part of the airplane isn't going to help. Thus, there isn't really any market demand to move 1st class seats to another location.

As a final thought, I think even knowing the stats, personally, I'd still rather be up front. I've read of accidents where there were several people near the rear who survived the initial impact and then either died from exposure or died from a spreading fire because they were too injured or weak to move. Morbid as it is, sometimes I think I'd rather just "get it over with"...

Jae Carr
  • 24,145
  • 38
  • 131
  • 228
  • 9
    Also note that the chance of death only applies if some, but not all, of the passengers die during the crash. Since many flights that crash crash with total fatalities, the difference is even lower than one would think. – March Ho Feb 06 '15 at 16:39
  • 3
    @MarchHo absolutely; these numbers don't show the interesting bit, which is "chance of dying per flight at the front vs at the back", which are both absolutely tiny. – Roman Feb 07 '15 at 20:16
11

Looking at the diagram of fatalities, it's immediately obvious that the majority of people are in the safest spot. The most spaced out people are in the deadliest spot. This seems rational to me.

From a business perspective (and ignoring any ethical considerations of whether passengers should pay more for a better chance of survival), it would seem to me to make more sense to put your highest paying and likely most regular passengers in the safest part of the plane, the rear.

From a business perspective, it makes sense to keep your number of reported casualties as low as possible. Also from an ethical perspective, too, obviously.

DeltaLima
  • 83,202
  • 11
  • 272
  • 366
Dewi Morgan
  • 580
  • 5
  • 11
  • 6
    I'm pretty sure this is not the actual reason, but I like the way you think. – David Richerby May 29 '15 at 08:23
  • Yeah. Likely just a psychological thing, where people feel like they are being treated as more important if they are in front. – Dewi Morgan Jun 02 '15 at 00:09
  • FIFO (as Farhan mentioned) is the main reason. Most of the people up front tend to be business travelers who have to fly very frequently and want to get off the plane and out of the airport as quickly as possible. Additionally, getting off first makes them less likely to miss close connections. Getting on first means that they are ensured that overhead space will still be available and also allows them to relax and get something to drink while everyone else stands in a line waiting to board. The people up front tend to be more frequent fliers than particularly wealthy fliers, due to upgrades. – reirab Jun 04 '15 at 15:03
  • FIFO would be the definitive truth if everyone entered the plane through the tail, and exited through the nose. Obviously, they don't.

    First class is ahead of the exit in most planes I've been on. If it were behind the exit, and everyone else ahead, nothing would change in terms of FIFO: first class would still be let out first, then everyone else.

    In some planes, first class is even entered through an entirely separate door.

    So, FIFO seems clearly not the main reason. Psychology seems the main part, continuing a tradition that goes all the way back to the captain's cabin in sailing ships.

     – Dewi Morgan Jun 05 '15 at 00:02
6

Because, like in so much else, we trade off safety for convenience.

Why fly at all, if you want to be inconvenienced, but safer? Okay you couldn't get where you're going, but it's (almost) impossible to be involved a plane crash if you aren't on a plane.

The real answer is that statistically, very few people are ever involved in a plane crash. Of those, statistically very few die.

As stated in my answer here, if you got on a random plane right now, and then at every airport immediately disembarked and got onto another about to leave, it would take you something between 20 and 100 million flights before you died.

So you have a 0.00000001 to 0.00000005 chance of ever dying in a plane crash. That's so close to negligible that it isn't a factor. And if you survive a plane crash, are you really likely to be grateful to your airline for putting you in the nice "ever so slightly safer" seats in the back?

The statistics of the "safer" seats is based purely on accidents which have a proportion of fatalities: it excludes accidents where everyone or nobody dies, and ignores injuries.

In short, you're looking at a statistically insignificant statistic about which seat is "safest" on a plane that will almost certainly not crash anyway, and even if it did, everyone would be probably be fine (85% of accidents have no fatalities).

Compare that negligible difference in safety, with the 4.5 million passengers per day, of which approximately half a million (10%) or so are likely business class.... and you're looking at massively inconveniencing 182 million of your best paying, most impatient passengers every year, in exchange for making them ever-so-slightly less likely to die in an accident they probably wouldn't be involved in in the first place.

If I'm in a plane crash, I'm probably either dead or not... my concern is not whether I'm going to use my frequent flyer miles, nor where I'm sat.

Community
  • 1
Jon Story
  • 10,417
  • 1
  • 48
  • 62
5

As a high paying passenger what would you prefer, that you need to walk all the way from the front of the aircraft to your seat through a narrow walk way or be able to be seated immediately and not look at the lower class?

Rear entry is not used because the wing it in the way of the jetty.

Putting them in front also allows you to call them later so they don't have to wait in their seats as long before departure and lets them wander the gate and spend more in the shops.

ratchet freak
  • 27,428
  • 5
  • 79
  • 143
  • 2
    call them later for a date? Seriously, though, don't most airlines board first class as "priority boarding", which means they're on the plane first? That part makes no sense. – FreeMan Feb 06 '15 at 17:23
  • 3
    @FreeMan Business class seats are more comfortable than airport benches, and it gives business class passengers 1st claim to economy overhead bins if the business class ones get full... – Akash Feb 07 '15 at 12:21
3

In both jets and propeller planes, the section of the plane in front of the engines is generally the quietest. The ride tends to be smoother as you get further away (in either direction) from the wing, too. The common answer that the seats are up there to speed loading and unloading might have been true back in the day, although most airliners still board through a forward door (either the first or second door on the left is most common).

I suspect the real answer has to do with legacy airliners, though: back in the day, first-class seating was in the front, and now it's there because that's where it's always been.

paulr
  • 372
  • 3
  • 5
  • 5
    "The ride tends to be smoother as you get further away (in either direction) from the wing, too": Is there evidence to support that? I had always heard that the ride is smoother close to the wing, and anecdotally my experience has been that the back of the plane (which is far from the wing) has the roughest ride. – Nate Eldredge Feb 08 '15 at 19:01
1

More (likely) ways to Die

I'm going to add another twist: There are more ways to die in a plane than in a plane crash, which your question implies. Business class is spacious, comfortable and relaxing. Economy class is loud, tight and uncomfortable.

  • If your movement is restricted, you could get Deep Vain Thrombosis. More a risk in economy than spacious business class where you have the space and comfort to move.
  • You are sitting closer to a load of other passengers who could in theory give you some flu or something in economy than business.
  • You are treated like livestock in economy and correspondingly more stressfully. It wouldn't surprise me if you're more likely to get a heart attack for that reason than you ever are to die in a plane crash.

In my humble opinion: If you're sufficiently concern to be reading this, book a seat in business: relax in the lounge before the flight, sit with fewer passengers, have the flight attendants close at hand if you have questions or concerns and enjoy some good food.

Dataset Limiations

Your data is limited in that it does not go into the change of risk depending on the conditions in which you are flying. If you're flying over water, there is the ever-so-marginal risk the plane might ditch. You are then better off in the front, since it normally doesn't strike the water and floats nose-up. There are unpleasant stories from US1549 (Hudson Crash) about the rear of the plane, whereas the evacuation at front was relatively clam. Depending on the specific destination, you might be better off in another section of the plane. This is the reason why there is no clear trend and just about every authority including Boeing and the FAA says that every seat is as good as any other seat.

Furthermore, your data is based upon accidents dating all the way back from 1971. This is not really a representation of the current risk since the causes of accidents have changed. For instance, Ground Proximity Warning Systems (to stop you flying into mountains) was made mandatory for Part 121 and Part 135 operators only in 1978. Incidentally, the types of accidents this applies to involves going into terrain nose-first.

Bottom line is that probability is so incredibly remote it is virtually impossible to put halfway reliable number to stuff like this. Unlike vehicle traffic, the fatality rate jumps substantially depending on how many accidents just happen to occur that year.

Thunderstrike
  • 33,169
  • 6
  • 131
  • 195
  • Regarding the first part of this answer, it doesn't really answer the question. All of those points about the reduced risk in business or first class would still be true if it were at the back of the plane, as they have to do with seating arrangement, not location within the plane. Regarding the second part of the answer, crashing short of a runway on land would normally be more deadly in the back, too, since planes flare nose-up to land. For example, all of the deaths and the vast majority of injuries in the Asiana SFO crash were in the back. – reirab Jun 04 '15 at 15:14
1

All these answers seem to disregard the obvious cultural aspect: being up front is seen as more prestigious, and was so long before airplanes came along. First class cars in trains tend to be in front, the more expensive seats at a play or sports event are up front, at formal dinners the higher-status guests are seated closer to the head of the table, in the days of segregation black people had to ride in the back of the bus...

jamesqf
  • 2,577
  • 1
  • 16
  • 13