Overcoming the Challenges for Privacy in Business-Class Seating

Summary of the challenge – what the problem is.

As airlines seek to outperform one another and offer the most luxurious experience possible, features that enhance the feeling of privacy on a business-class seat have become increasingly popular.

The methods manufacturers of aircraft interiors use to increase the feeling of privacy can include:

• To plan the aircraft LOPA (Layout of Passenger Accommodations) to optimise space between or angle of the seats. For example, staggering the seats and/or facing them away from the aisle spaces can make the passenger feel less exposed.
• Incorporate additional wings or panels to the static furniture that surrounds the seated passenger. These can make the passenger feel cocooned or help to block lines of sight.
• The addition of a sliding door to the furniture that surrounds the seat to create a fully enclosed mini suite. This presents the highest level of privacy but also the greatest challenge for an engineer.

Why it’s a problem?

Regulatory:

The seating manufacturer must prove that there is no possibility for the door to become jammed, causing the passenger to be trapped in their seat or restricted in their egress path in the case of an emergency.

Ensuring the door remains open for taxi, take-off, and landing (TTL) so that the crew can ensure safety conditions for the passenger (seatbelts, stowed tables, lifejackets, etc)

The addition of doors can reduce access directly from the aisle to the seat, making it difficult for disabled passengers.

Experience/Functionality:

The mechanisms to operate the door and the door panel itself must occupy space that would normally be reserved for the passenger. In high-density cabins, space is already at a premium, so the seat or bed can feel small after the addition of a movable door.

A suite door adds weight, cost and complexity to the suite. The airline must decide if these concerns outweigh the benefits.

So, what’s the solution to this problem?

Additional moving parts mean the designer must hide the mechanism from the passenger to prevent possible injury via pinch or trap hazards. Mechanisms in aircraft cabins are also susceptible to foreign object debris (FOD), so creative solutions for close-outs that move with the door are required. Thorough testing is critical to ensure the reliability of the system.

Careful positioning and sizing via stress analysis for a sliding mechanism is critical to save space. With high expectations of quality and user experience, it is also critical that hardware or fixings are not visible.

A means to ensure the door is fixed in the open position for TTL must be developed in such a way that it cannot be intentionally or inadvertently operated by a passenger. This is not as easy as it sounds when you are dealing with passengers of all shapes and sizes, so again, analysis and testing plays a key role in development.

Even locking mechanisms themselves require careful consideration. It must be immediately apparent visually to the crew that the door is in its locked condition, with no chance of ‘false positives’.

Perhaps the biggest challenge is to prove that the door mechanism cannot become stuck/inoperable with no means to be overridden. The solutions to this are numerous, but they can include failsafe mechanisms, pressure-sensitive catches, magnetic devices, means to remove the door completely etc. Each manufacturer will be investing time and effort in to meeting the stringent requirements, but the onus is on the engineering team to prove to regulating bodies that their product does not pose any risks. As the requirements surrounding these mini-suites are relatively new,  this is mostly unchartered territory for airlines and interior manufacturers and can cause extra engineering effort and risk to project schedules.