67

On a recent long-haul flight I sat by the windows and was dreaming away staring into infinity out of the window. Then a thought came up, in Asia sleeping busses are very common. This made me think, why are there no dedicated sleeper planes? Especially for the long-haul 10 to 13 hours this would be ideal.

Brilsmurfffje
  • 5,512
  • 3
  • 26
  • 44
  • 5
    Related: https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/21713/why-are-there-no-2-3-4-5-tier-bunk-beds-on-airplanes – MJeffryes Feb 27 '18 at 12:31
  • 40
    I watched a video of Emirates first class an it got individual cabins with beds. (There's also a bathroom with showers for those can pay US$ 10k for a good ride) – jean Feb 27 '18 at 13:24
  • 6
    Well, the DC-3 started as the sleeper version of the DC-2. So there were sleeper planes, but the space requirement for beds made them uneconomical (except in first class). – Peter Kämpf Feb 27 '18 at 14:10
  • 1
    Short answer: Money. Singapore Air tried to run an all Business Class A340 between JFK (or maybe EWR) and SIN; they could not operate profitably. I expect the same to be true even with the A350/787/777-300ER in terms of running a business class/lay flat config for long hauls. – user1008090 Feb 27 '18 at 14:50
  • 2
    @user1008090 BA runs an all business class service from London to JFK – MJeffryes Feb 27 '18 at 15:28
  • @MJeffryes Indeed, but they run it on Airbus A318s, the smallest aircraft in their fleet. They're configured to carry just 32 passengers, indicating that it's a very specialist service. – David Richerby Feb 27 '18 at 17:01
  • 1
    @DavidRicherby True. There are some airlines that do it with a 757, though. Singapore used to have an all-business A340 that did non-stop Singapore-New York flights (which was the longest flight in the world at the time,) but they've discontinued that service. They are resuming non-stop service to New York soon, but with a normal multi-cabin configuration. – reirab Feb 27 '18 at 17:50
  • 1
    For myself, I don't see how anyone can be expected to sleep comfortably in such close proximity to a bunch of strangers. – jamesqf Feb 27 '18 at 18:26
  • 2
    @jamesqf It's a lot more comfortable (and much less close proximity) than trying to sleep in a 3-4-3 economy configuration... – reirab Feb 27 '18 at 22:25
  • @reirab: But I don't see how anyone could possibly sleep in economy. – jamesqf Feb 28 '18 at 04:51
  • "...in Asia sleeping busses are very common." Not only there. Also in South America and many other areas. In sleeping trains also exist. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Feb 28 '18 at 10:14
  • "...why are there no dedicated sleeper planes?" Some people might not want to/cannot sleep on a plane. Maybe just normal places with dedicated sleeper areas. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Feb 28 '18 at 10:23
  • 1
    At first, I thought this might be a question about the equivalent of "sleeper cars" (souped-up cars that look very unassuming on the outside). – Skyler Feb 28 '18 at 15:06
  • In most jurisdications a large aircraft must be able to be evacuated in 90 seconds or less. Doing that in a full sleeping configuration would be difficult. – BevynQ Mar 01 '18 at 06:40
  • Does this kind of question not belong in Travel.SE? – oldmud0 Mar 01 '18 at 22:06
  • I don't know, but if they did Jennifer Aniston would be doing the commercials for it. – Michael Mar 02 '18 at 02:19
  • Because "welcome to capitalism, my friend!" – Electric Pilot Mar 02 '18 at 17:01
  • British Airways actually fly a “sleeper” service between LCY and JFK. The Airbus A318-112s that serve this route have been configured with only 32 passenger seats, all that convert to fully flat beds. Due to takeoff weight limits at LCY (because of short runway and steep climb), the westbound service actually stops at SNN to refuel, but passengers clear US immigration there, in order to land domestic at JFK (pretty much makes up for all the time lost to refuelling); eastbound the flight is direct. https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/travel-classes/business/club-world-london-city – eggyal Mar 03 '18 at 18:10

10 Answers10

101

There certainly are; it's called "Business Class" and you'll find such areas with seats that recline into what are essentially beds on most long-haul aircraft. However, you simply can't fit as many people on board when they use up so much room, so airlines have to charge much more for these to make it economically viable. It's often twice the price of a normal ticket or even more.

Cooper
  • 2,365
  • 1
  • 10
  • 17
  • 5
    Yeah I was exactly sitting there but it is space wise very inefficient while an Asian sleeper bus is very efficient configured with seats overlapping under and over – Brilsmurfffje Feb 27 '18 at 12:29
  • 51
    @Brilsmurfffje Good luck evacuating everyone from a widebody full of bunk beds in under 90 seconds. – MJeffryes Feb 27 '18 at 12:33
  • @Brilsmurfffje if passengers got more space means there are less passengers to be evacuated – jean Feb 27 '18 at 13:22
  • 7
    @Brilsmurfffje Unfortunately more space doesn't put more money in the airline's pockets. They're worried about fuel efficiency, and packing as many paying customers inside as possible. – Cooper Feb 27 '18 at 13:35
  • 24
    @MJeffryes That's a very important point! This is not about volume of the seat/bed, but about safety standards. If these did not exist, RyanAir would really look like this: https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/23/28043469_e21fcfd265_z.jpg?zz=1 – yo' Feb 27 '18 at 16:10
  • 1
    @Cooper I don't thinh airlines are worried to pack as many paying customers in a plane as possible. They want to get as much money from a flight as possible. If there would be enough 1st class customers to regularly pay the flight + profit, they won't bother with such nuissance as bussiness and economy class customers whatsoever, – Crowley Feb 27 '18 at 16:58
  • 1
    I flew on one of those once... Was comfortable for maybe an hour, but fully-reclines is a bit of an exaggeration, it is nowhere near "flat". After 7 hours "across the pond" is grew to be rather uncomfortable, especially on the legs. The "aroma" in that cabin by the morning was also a little.. ripe. Not sure I'd fork over the extra for that again. – Trevor_G Feb 27 '18 at 16:58
  • 3
    @Trevor_G Most airlines' business-class seats actually do fold into fully-flat beds these days. British Airways has a notoriously crappy business-class product. There are some airlines that still use "angle-flat" seats in business, but these are thankfully becoming fewer and farther between. – reirab Feb 27 '18 at 17:12
  • 1
    @yo' Standing seats are on the horizon. – TemporalWolf Feb 27 '18 at 18:24
  • @yo': I thought RyanAir did look like that. – A. I. Breveleri Feb 27 '18 at 19:00
  • 3
    The question is not "why are there no beds". It is "why are there no sleepers" like this this sleeper train. Why are there no bunk-beds? Or like this sleeper airplane? – Astor Florida Feb 27 '18 at 19:35
  • @MJeffryes If the answer is about safety and evacuation, then that should be posted as an answer, rather than claim something about business class or whatnot. The question asks about the equivalent of sleeper buses, which are not more expensive (or pack significantly fewer people) than buses with seats. Frankly I think this exact question has been asked, and has much better answers, here – ShreevatsaR Feb 27 '18 at 20:43
  • 1
    Problem with the Lufthansa concept is that if you choose it, you’re basically choosing to not be able to sit at all for the entire flight. And the majority (even of those who do want to sleep all the way) don’t want the upper bunk. – WGroleau Feb 28 '18 at 04:11
  • @A.I.Breveleri not yet, but the CEO did claim they were looking into adopting standing seats. – André Paramés Feb 28 '18 at 09:17
  • "...you simply can't fit as many people on board when they use up so much room..." The people should use exactly the same room (=volume), sleeping or awake. This argument could maybe get refined a bit. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Feb 28 '18 at 10:16
  • Twice? It's nearly 10 times the cost (about $10K) to fly business class across the pacific compared with ecconomy (about $1K). – Bohemian Mar 02 '18 at 20:46
  • That is not true. You can fit the same amount of people in superposed bunks. I'm not sure if it will pass security tests, though. – Rolf Mar 05 '18 at 01:21
  • 1
    @Rolf Current seating is very space-efficient, with each passenger's legroom tucked beneath the seat in front. To make the same savings with horizontal bunks you'd need them stacked so close together that passengers wouldn't be able to sit upright on their own beds. That's already a problem for any elderly or less mobile passengers, not to mention the ladders they'd need to ascend to get up there! – Cooper Mar 06 '18 at 08:29
  • 1
    @Cooper true that. I was thinking that it would be space efficient to have small "coffin-like" pods for sleeping, but I didn't think it as thoroughly as you did. It would indeed be challenging to get in and out of such an area. That would not work, considering safety constraints. – Rolf Mar 08 '18 at 15:38
62

They just don't really fly them any more.

All things considered history has a big impact on this. 13 hours is by comparison fairly short when it comes to long distance flying, historically speaking. Early aircraft that flew much slower than today's jets were built more like trains than the modern planes we have now. They had dining areas, berths, saloons, and powder rooms.

The Hindenburg had cabins for pretty much everyone aboard:

enter image description here

(source)

The Boeing Clipper had sizable sleeping berths that could accommodate many of the people aboard.

enter image description here

enter image description here

One of the big modern roadblocks on berths is the seatbelt regulations that accompany many modern regulating authorities. Classic berths would more than likely not pass modern safety regulations and certification tests.

Glorfindel
  • 707
  • 1
  • 11
  • 22
Dave
  • 101,073
  • 5
  • 220
  • 364
  • "One of the big modern roadblocks on berths is the seatbelt regulations" Only partially related, but what about crew rest areas then? Are those not covered by seatbelt regulations? – user Feb 27 '18 at 16:02
  • 9
    Those berths have some awkward belts in them which could be implemented in regular passenger berths as they are now on some of the larger planes like the A380 etc. What we will never get back is the full size beds that we had on old dirigibles! – Dave Feb 27 '18 at 16:04
  • 1
    @MichaelKjörling You still have enough seats for the crew, AFAIK – yo' Feb 27 '18 at 16:10
  • @yo' Hopefully :) But if some of the crew is resting in the rest area, their seats may be some distance away... I actually might ask a separate question about this later. – user Feb 27 '18 at 16:24
  • 5
    @MichaelKjörling The crew isn't sleeping in their bunks during critical flight phases. They're required to be in a seat buckled up just like everyone else. They only occupy those bunks during cruise. – reirab Feb 27 '18 at 17:13
  • 1
    @reirab Good enough for me. – user Feb 27 '18 at 17:37
  • @Dave They have full size beds! In fact, these look much more luxurious than the ones on say the Hindenburg. – user71659 Feb 28 '18 at 01:35
  • @Dave Two words: Singapore Suites. And, of course, there's also Etihad's The Residence if you want your own in-flight shower, butler, and living room in addition to full-size bed... and have $30k lying around for a one-way flight. – reirab Feb 28 '18 at 05:42
  • 1
    The middle illustration shows how far engine technology has developed - I did not know that they used to turn the propellers by hand during flight! – pipe Feb 28 '18 at 07:55
  • I am aware of the various full size bed options on the long haul A380's out there however those are only in part of the plane. This answer focuses on true sleeper planes where there is enough bedding to go around. – Dave Feb 28 '18 at 14:27
  • 1
    Re the Hindenburg: The Hindenburg was ***ing huge compared to modern airplanes, as is clearly visible in your image. But it wasn't just the Hindenburg*, of course. All lighter-than-air vessels benefit from being massive via the square-cube law. When you switch to heavier-than-air, suddenly it starts working the other way round and the cabin is abruptly tiny. – Kevin Mar 01 '18 at 07:18
  • @MichaelKjörling The regulations mean you need a seat + belt for everyone on board (off-topic: exceptions apply). So you can't have beds instead of seats, but you certainly can have beds in addition to seats - if you can afford to . – Peter Mar 01 '18 at 13:43
  • 1
    Wow that Clipper is when people who could travel really travelled in style. Fab. – mike rodent Mar 02 '18 at 13:21
54

I have flown in sleeper class with British Airways flying overnight from Toronto to LHR.

enter image description here

It was an expensive luxury which started out great, but when fully reclined the bed is not exactly flat and, if you sleep on your side, there are definite pressure points on the hips and knees. That made it rather uncomfortable after a few hours. Rather than arriving refreshed and awake like I had imagined, I arrived sore, even more tired, and just a bit cranky about the waste of $$$.

The morning "aroma" in that cabin was also a bit ripe. Apparently nocturnal flatulence was not something the designers considered.

Personally, I would not fork over the extra for that again. I was much more comfortable on the return journey in an extra-wide business-class seat.

At the very least you should check to see what sleeping equipment they install. Based on the images on-line, some are apparently a lot better than others.

Trevor_G
  • 4,876
  • 2
  • 24
  • 36
  • 50
    Thank you for making me feel much better about not being able to fly in business class. – Lightness Races in Orbit Feb 27 '18 at 22:20
  • 10
    I have to say, I fly Business on any long haul flight, and my experience is totally different to yours - I arrive refreshed, awake and relaxed. My British Airways seat was also completely flat on all flights I have had with them (both 747 and A380). – Moo Feb 28 '18 at 02:42
  • I know that Lufthansa has this: http://crankyflier.com/2011/03/17/lufthansa-goes-back-in-time-gives-first-class-travelers-a-seat-and-a-bed/ I have flown a fair bit in J but these lay flat seats are not the same as a mattress, some airlines provide you with one on request if they make the bed for you. My question was more related to sleeping for the masses. – Brilsmurfffje Feb 28 '18 at 08:42
  • @Moo yes if you fly often enough I am sure you get used to it. On a sample of one, it was like trying to sleep in a (VERY) strange bed. If you moved wrong the foot part also went down, but that may have been a fault with the one I was in. – Trevor_G Feb 28 '18 at 15:49
  • @Brilsmurfffje yes that looks more comfortable. Re:For the masses, I don't really have comment on that, other than the shorter flight durations with modern aircraft. A dormitory type aircraft would be great for night flights, but what do you do with it for the return day-flight. – Trevor_G Feb 28 '18 at 15:52
  • @Brilsmurfffje Lufthansa doesn't have those beds anymore (they were removed 2 or 3 years ago from the 747-400, when they removed First class completely on those planes). – dunni Mar 01 '18 at 08:27
  • 1
    Hey, Trevor, a colleague, a few days ago, had a similar unsatisfactory experience with this particular flight (on the way to southern Africa). High expectations were definitely not met. – Spehro Pefhany Mar 01 '18 at 22:12
  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit Yes, and they sometimes only serve regular champagne, not Dom Perignon ... so let's all stick with Economy ;) – Hagen von Eitzen Mar 02 '18 at 07:58
  • Is LHR Lahore, or Heathrow airport (LHR) – Qasim Mar 05 '18 at 05:12
  • 1
    @Qasim London : Heathrow – Trevor_G Mar 05 '18 at 15:14
25

Not only is it expensive, as in less seats, the relatively high speed of current airliners mean that most flights aren't that long.

It wasn't always that way. In the 1930's, the average speed of an airliner was 130-180mph. Due to the slow speed and lengthy flight times, sleeping berths were installed, especially in the case of the very long range ocean transports like the Shorts Empire, Boeing 314, and Martin M130 who could remain in the air for over 24 hours. At that time, airlines still derived most of their profit from mail delivery, and there weren't that many people who would use air travel (considered dangerous and uncomfortable), so the sleeper berths were a way to encourage people to use air travel, while there weren't enough passengers to fill conventional seats on those long flights.

One land transport that had a long range was the Douglas DC2, originally developed to compete with the Boeing 247, when Boeing would only sell the 247 to United Air Lines (which it owned). American Airlines requested that Douglas develop a version of this that had sleeping berths for transcontinental flights. Douglas widened the fuselage, lengthened the wings, and called the result the Douglas Sleeper Transport.

We know this legendary aircraft, the first that could turn a profit on passenger traffic alone, by it's later name... the DC3.

tj1000
  • 8,767
  • 1
  • 23
  • 37
  • "...the relatively high speed of current airliners mean that most flights aren't that long...." Probably the question asker would be happy if only the long distance flights which take more than 8 hours would be equipped with beds. There are quite a lot of them. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Feb 28 '18 at 10:18
  • There are, in some business and first class seating, but it's pricey. Intercontinental flights are the only ones that extend beyond a few hours, and international flights are a small percentage of overall flights. In 1935, a flight across the US could take 16-20 hours. Today, it's more like 3-4 hours. We don't see many sleeper berths on aircraft today because the flying time is much shorter than it once was. Time waiting to take off, on the other hand... – tj1000 Feb 28 '18 at 19:03
  • "... international flights are a small percentage of overall flights." That's true if measured in number of flights although the more relevant number might be revenue share where international flights with larger distances flown and higher number of passengers per flight might catch up a bit. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 01 '18 at 08:33
  • The DC2 can fly for 6.3 hours non-stop and the DC-3 for 7.4 hours, a 777LR can fly little over 22 hours non-stop. So I would think beds would be useful there – Brilsmurfffje Mar 06 '18 at 10:28
12

Singapore Airlines have a few "Suites class" cabins on their A380 planes with actual full-sized beds. It looks like this:

Singapore Airlines Suites Class cabin full-size bed photo

Source: USA Today

A report from one lucky traveler who racked up enough miles to try it:

http://dereklow.co/what-its-like-to-fly-the-23000-singapore-airlines-suites-class/

From the report:

In the Suites, you don’t just lie on a seat that has gone flat. Instead, you step aside while the Singapore Airlines flight attendants transform your Suite into a bedroom, with a plush mattress on top of a full-sized bed. When the adjacent suite is empty, the dividing partition can be brought down to create a double bed.

Although it's not mentioned in this report, in most "normal" businesss-class "flat bed" style seats you still must have a seatbelt fastened over the blanket while sleeping (presumably due to safety requirements), so it's not quite the same experience as on a sleeper train, but can come pretty close.

Igor Skochinsky
  • 231
  • 1
  • 5
7

I'm surprised at the answers:

mostly all wrong. Here we go (I used to work doing software internal layouts a airlines)

The answer is:

1) Utility, 2) Safety, 3) Upsell, and 4) Embark/Disembark speed.

Contrary to popular belief, It's not really a concern whatsoever about manipulating internal vehicular space. Airplanes displace a larger amount of internal volume than they require, and the residual space is mostly air, so so long as the bed weighed not more than the chair it replaced it could be done and zero MATERIAL cost to the airline.

But there are other costs: and much bigger concerns

Safety (and by that I mean financial liability in a litigious business space)

Beds aren't done mostly because people underestimate the impact of turbulence. In fact, it's well known, you can double your probability of not dying in a plane by simply wearing the lap belt and staying sitting down.

I.E. turbulence kills as many humans in planes as air plane crashes do: And it's the head hitting the roof that does it. However staff are less lucky in that they get such beds for use on long haul. In fact they are lovely.

While this may seem facile, it's not: in a 3 bunk bed layout the proximity to neighbour beds (above, above and roof) would ultimately cause you to have a MUCH higher incidence of human/airplane collisions while at rest but under turbulence, which while such impacts would not always mean your head got smashed, there'd be more impacts for both these reasons: lap belts would be unusable, your head would be nearer obstructions, and a much smaller turbulence jolt would cause collisions.

Similarly landing would be highly problematic and there would be much greater incidents of hospitalisation and death at landing.

Utility

in both senses: an airline can't swap the air frames to different legs as easily, and a passenger can't eat lying down

Upsell

you can't upsell business and first class sleeping pods so easily if economy has them, and airplanes usually lose money in economy and make money in business/first, so they never dis-incentivise upgrading.

Embark/Disembark speed

speed on off MASSIVELY affects profit margins for airlines, every second they are on the floor they LOSE money every second they are in the air they MAKE money. They designed the A380 to be able to on/off at much higher speeds because of this concern. If you have beds it takes ages to get embarked/disembarked.

Mr Heelis
  • 187
  • 2
  • 3
    "I'm surprised at the answers: mostly all wrong." Funny that they make the same points as yours then. – Transistor Mar 03 '18 at 09:42
  • 2
    If you can double your probablity of not dying by doing-and-so, that would imply that without doing so-and-so your probability of arriving alive can be at most 50%. I don't think flying is quite that risky, even if you spend the entire trip dancing in the aisle. – hmakholm left over Monica Mar 03 '18 at 13:53
  • 1
    Nicely done, @HenningMakholm. Halving the death rate does not double the survival rate. – TOOGAM Mar 03 '18 at 23:49
  • Your assesment about turbulence impact depends on the bunks. My guess is that contained, padded bunks would be as safe as seats. But then it would feel like being in a coffin. – Rolf Mar 05 '18 at 01:25
  • the issues just re-iterate that some vendors provide it.. @Transistor what was the OP's question it was "why are there no sleeper planes" and I actually answered it – Mr Heelis Mar 05 '18 at 09:59
  • @HenningMakholm no, it's more correct you halve the probability of dying, I just used a winsome way of saying it.. to encourage people to be aware of something massively under-reported, because it saves lives and (also) I have found such information massively encourages people who fear flying – Mr Heelis Mar 05 '18 at 10:01
  • @Transistor no, they were not at all answers, which is why I came on here to correct them all. In fairness two of the sub points I mention are identified, and given as a whole answer when really they are a part of one point each, and I've made 6 points under 4 categories - for example: repeat demonstrations from history and repeating ad-infinitum that "sleeping pods are available in 1st class", and "they used to years ago", is absolutely not an answer to the question and is merely reference as self evident in my answer – Mr Heelis Mar 05 '18 at 12:36
  • @MrHeelis: Claiming that the probability of not dying is something that can be doubled, and therefore less than 50% to begin with, is something that massively encourages people to fear flying. It seem you have somehow redefined "winsome way" to mean "blatant lie"... – hmakholm left over Monica Mar 06 '18 at 12:18
7

Tu-114 (image source: Wikipedia)

There were sleeping berths in the upper-class cabin of the Tu-114 aircraft in the 1960es. In 1970es these planes were modified -- the sleeping compartments, as well as other "luxurious" design elements were replaced by standardized seats. The modified version could transport 224 passengers (versus 170 in the original design with sleeping compartments).

Sleeping compartment

Passage between sleeping compartments

Image source (Russian)

Glory to Russia
  • 832
  • 1
  • 8
  • 12
  • 2
    Given the noise of the NK-12 turboprops, I wonder how one could really sleep in a Tu-114. But it's interesting to see how a classless society traveled back then. – Peter Kämpf Mar 03 '18 at 12:16
  • @PeterKämpf: Probably quite easily - it's quite easy to sleep through loud noises as long as the noise doesn't change suddenly and isn't too high-pitched. – Vikki May 30 '18 at 00:37
6

I flew on a sleeper once, about sixty years ago. I think it was a Douglas DC-6 from Miami to Buenos Aires. I don't remember much, except that the bunks were a little like the ones on sleeper trains.

When airlines switched from piston power to jets, flying times were cut in half.

Walter Mitty
  • 241
  • 1
  • 5
3

As others have stated, there are sleeping berths, but only for those who can afford the premium.

I myself have taken sleeper trains several times; I like them because I can arrive at my destination city in the morning, and still have the whole day to do things.

I can sleep quite well on a plane, in coach, by using a foam collar -- the kind they give to people with neck injuries. Whether by train, bus, or plane; I can't stand when I have to arrive in the late afternoon or evening, because then the day is shot -- I can't do anything except go to my hotel and get ready to go to bed. (Unfortunately, where I live, most night flights are banned because of noise restrictions.)

Jennifer
  • 151
  • 1
  • 2
    "...there are sleeping berths, but only for those who can afford the premium." Couldn't one make them a bit cheaper, like an economy version of them? Maybe stacking them up a bit. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Feb 28 '18 at 10:21
  • 3
    @Trilarion No, because the cost is directly related to the space they take up (if you want to take as much space as N economy passengers, you'll have to pay the airline roughly what those N passengers would pay in total), and you can't stack them because you need to be able to evacuate the plane quickly. Also, if there's another bunk above you, you'd need some kind of seat belt that would stop either of them hitting their heads on the low ceiling during turbulence. I'm not sure if it's also a requirement that passengers must be sitting for take-off and landing. – David Richerby Feb 28 '18 at 17:54
  • 1
    @DavidRicherby Your comment seems to answer the question best so far. It's a mix of security concerns and current regulations (which would need to change in order to get low cost sleeper planes). If only it were an answer. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 01 '18 at 08:28
  • @Trilarion Cooper's answer covers the price aspect; Dave's covers safety. – David Richerby Mar 01 '18 at 08:33
  • One more thing: planes go fast enough that you have to take time zones and jet lag into consideration. Some people stay on the time zone of the city they took off from right until they walk off the plane, and some people change their time zone (and sleep patterns) as soon as possible after takeoff. (I'm in the latter group; and I almost never suffer from jet lag.) Sleeping arrangements would have to take both groups into account; some sleeping while others consider it to be daytime. – Jennifer Mar 01 '18 at 22:08
-1

The incredibly simple answer is that:

You have to be sitting upright in a chair, in a seat belt, for take off and landing.

It's that simple - an "all-bunk" configuration (like a sleeping-bus) is a non-starter.

That's all there is to it.

Community
  • 1
Fattie
  • 1,892
  • 1
  • 21
  • 41