Not sure if there is "reason" for forward facing seats (perhaps crash safety? If so, why not put them all backwards since that is safest?)

I could imagine seats facing "outwards", with a corridor along the windows. Kinda like a cinema but the screen is replaced by a row of windows. This way no one gets to "hog" the window seat (apart from the front row, and even then others can still see the windows on their walk along the corridors to the toilets etc). Bonus points for raised stadium-style seating with storage lockers under the rows at the back.

We fly an aircraft with "club seating" (two rear facing seats facing two front facing seats). Experimentally, my son who is prone to airsickness has a harder time in the rear facing seats [which are closer to the center of mass and center of lift and so experience less excursions in turbulence than the forward facing seats, yet he is sicker in the rear-facing seats].

Those of us prone to motion sickness don't do well when facing the wrong direction. I have the same problem in trains /subways /limos /etc

I'd guess the G-forces of take off would be quite uncomfortable if seated backwards facing. You'd be pressed into the seat belt rather than into the seat.

Are takeoff G-forces actually higher than braking G-forces at landing? I think they're probably comparable given the speeds and runway lengths are similar, so you would just be swapping the seatbelt discomfort from the end of the flight to the beginning. You could also probably make the seats pivot slightly to counteract the plane's angle of attack causing discomfort.

Braking is higher G but consider that the descent and landing aren't really nose-down situations and the braking part itself takes seconds. When taking off you have nose up for quite some time throughout the climb. Sitting backwards would make it pretty uncomfortable unless the seats are somehow redesigned (they'd have to be anyway to handle the different stresses).

I'm not an expert on this issue in any way, but my instinct is that there would be more acceleration during take-off. When landing, the plane has already decelerated to just above the minimum speed to maintain lift (nearly stalling), and doesn't have to come to a complete stop on the straight part of the runway before turning off to wherever it's going to de-board. Conversely, during take-off the plane goes from zero to hopefully well above the speed to generate lift.

Also, the plane tilts by up to 20 degrees.

My instinct was the opposite. I happened to be on an A321 this AM so measured it with my phone.

Acceleration was about 0.4 g with peak of 0.5 g. Second stage climb (5-10K) was 0.2g nose up. Rest of climb was 0.1g. Decel was 0.3-0.4 g also with a peak at 0.5 g.

On the big engine Lears, I’m quite sure the accel is higher than braking plus reversers. Airliners might also have higher accel rates on shorter runways as they often do power limited takeoffs on long runways in the interest of maintenance economy.

Related, we had a hold for weather at the destination, so I checked the pitch of the plane in the hold. It was 0.1 g nose up, which was quite noticeable when walking up the aisle to the restroom.

I think it is safest if you will not factor people having book/laptop/hot coffee in front of their face. For other considerations see sibling posts.

The same issue is for back facing seats on autonomous cars. I don't see it happening.

Discount business class in the isle, economy next to window.

Problem solved.

Probably wouldn't happen -- it would require one class to rub elbows with another.

It's not that easy to make a screen that looks anything like a real window, the main reason being that the perspective won't change when you move your head.

"Why have windows at all outside of First Class?"

-Airline execs once economy passengers get used to having no windows on one side.

Pretty sure windows are required so that passengers can see outside in case of an emergency.

Fair point - I was on a plane and on landing saw the wing flap act in an unusual way (didn't fully open compared to other flap and seemed like it was limited/stuck on one edge and one end raised more than the other and down end shaking and wasn't what I'd seen on that type of boing before). I pointed this out to the staff, who thanked me. Might of been nothing, and not something you follow up or indeed, how you would follow up. But equally, may of been sign of something amiss.

>However, aviation regulator the European Aviation Safety Agency said [in reference to windowless planes]: "We do not see any specific challenge that could not be overcome to ensure a level of safety equivalent to the one of an aircraft fitted with cabin windows."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44383220

Don't they just need windows at emergency exits? Passengers are already supposed to await cabin crew instructions before they evacuate, and passengers probably aren't really that great at evaluating danger aside from the obvious signs like fire or being under water, but the exit door window would also tell you that.

Or more importantly so that the rescue service can see in.

You could have cameras and screens instead of windows. Much, much cheaper in the end.

Windows tend to work slightly better after running into the ground than cameras, electrical systems and screens do.

(A broken window still lets you see outside)

You don't need to have a window on every seat. You could have a few real windows on the side and complement the missing ones by screens.

Doesn't seem like the kind of thing you can rely on in an emergency.

Maybe, though such footage would be useful in a black-box for post-incident/post-flight analysis as a visual comparison to the recorded control/instruments - could only help.