You think the pax are unruly now, wait till you get 300+ booze filled pax in an aluminum tube where they can’t see out when it hits turbulence.......

Thats a terrible idea! I survived a commercial plane crash! 3 survivors. I have worked hard to fly again.
Take away my feeling of not going up in a tin can (not seeing there is an outside) I wouldn't be able to fly at all!
I can't be the only one! Bad idea!

I wonder how many engine fires/faults have been spotted through those windows allowing the crew to take action

FTA: "The portholes provide passengers with visual comfort and avoid a feeling of claustrophobia. They have no practical use..."

Ahhh. So Tim thinks providing visual comfort and claustrophia-avoidance are not practical uses of windows. Good to know, Tim...that I'll never be flying one of YOUR airlines.

50% weight savings?!? I doubt it. Cargo planes are lighter cause they have no seats. Most cargo planes are old passenger planes that have just had the windows blocked out, it's still the same airframe. By the time all these screens and the associated crap is installed it probably won't make any difference. Passengers need to see what's going on outside in the event of an emergency, this will never get approved anyway.

It was interesting that in his interview with the BBC Tim Clark did not mention the passenger once other than to say “…the passenger will notice that there are no windows when boarding but will be surprised to be able to see outside when in the cabin”. Nothing was said about passenger response, whether positive or negative. For someone in the business of customer comfort this omission was a stark one.
As has been mentioned earlier that air rage is an increasing problem that is not being solved by limiting alcohol consumption...no windows on aeroplanes will only make it worse.
Also, Mr Clark mentions less weight means higher speeds, less fuel consumption, longer ranges but aeroplanes are already flying long ranges which, again, promotes the potential for air rage.
But that said the extra weight capacity gained however much it might, or might not, be will not be used to reduce fares or improve passenger comfort; instead it will be used to carry heavier or more cargo thereby increasing the profit margin on a particular flight.
It is clear therefore that this will be a VERY bad thing for passengers it is without advantages except perhaps for the moaners, that are on most flights nowadays, that have to complain when the blinds are not lowered. Airlines used to provide blindfolds but as a cost cutting exercise this is no longer so.

Windowless aircraft is 50% (fifty) lighter? The guy is out of his cotton picking mind, where he got this stupid number, perhaps a 1% maybe 2% lighter alright. Go back to sleep Clark

Really dumb idea. He thinks like the "bargain" carriers, "The cattle must refrain from mooing."

There is a federal regulation requiring a "clean wing" for take-off, which means that no frost, ice or snow may be on the wing. Most companies comply with this reg by requiring a cockpit crew member to visually check the wings through a designated cabin window. I don't think the FAA will allow your airplanes into US airports with no windows Tim.

On the positive side, you could dim the screens to allow the virtual window shades to remain up during the entire flight.
On the flip side I'm sure it won't be long until someone discovers that advertisement can be played on these screens as well.

I’d like to know how Tim Clark arrived at the 50% lighter figure. That seems absolutely absurd to me. I know this isn’t a black and white comparison, but take the difference between the 777-200LR and the 777-F (which is based on the -200LR airframe). The freighter obviously has many structural differences, such as a strengthend floor, etc. However, even bearing that in mind, the freighter, which is manufactured without any windows (bar the cockpit windows and exit door portholes), is still only 1700 pounds lighter than the -200LR. The empty operating weight of the -200LR is 320,000 pounds, and the empty operating weight of the -F is 318,300 pounds. Like I said, I know this isn’t a black and white comparison, but it sure as heck is a long way off 50%.

These CEO's are so out of touch with humanity. They dream in dollars and that's probably what their wet dreams consist of also. Sorry, crap like this makes me want to puke!

If they want to be really innovative why not have the entire side of the plane showing a digital image of the outside. Why restrict to a window. That would at least be a whole new experience.

This fills me with rage. 50% weight savings = 100% joke. Stuff the customers in a tin can, sit down and shut up, you'll know when we're there when the doors open again. The "virtual windows" are only in first class. Awful!

Old man yells at clouds. Closes windows.

There is live view and of course, since it is a screen with video input, there can be recorded views. I can see the crew displaying clear bkue skys as they penetrate a nasty looking weather system. They could also show the plane flying through a flack field or under attack by enemy fighters as they enter turbulence. The possibilities are endless.

PULL DOWN THE SHADES AND PRESS ON......Now what's your next problem!!!

Well, I am self loading cargo already.

Too bad someone else posted a similar article a week or two ago!

Tell him he's dreamin !!

Why not remove all infrastructure inside the cabin so they could jam more passengers in but standing room only and without windows what a wonderful joyful flight it would be NOT

What is he smoking. I want it too.... 😝😝😝

Terrible idea. I for one love to look out the window at the amazing view at 7 miles up. So much so that I once got into a brief argument with a flight attendant when I opened my blind when we were flying over Greenland on a flight from SFO to Heathrow. “Please close that - people are trying to o sleep!” she whisper shouted. “But I want to see the Greenland ice sheet.” I responded. I avoided further conflict by using my blanket to block the light while I continued to take in the magnificent view. I truly hope this never happens.

"Emirates' boss Tim Clark wants airliners without cabin windows"....but not passengers!

How will the PAX be able to tell crew when there are problems outside like a hole in the wing or engine cowlings flying off or little gremlins looking in ala Twilite Zone?

My views on this subject remain the same as the earlier posting on 6/8/18 ... my eyes are already subjected to too much screen time. Please don't give me yet another option to make me more stupid.

this is stupid

Its called video cam views at every seat, from all angles ....

removing windows and placing screens wont that also increase the weight or same weight🤔. the screen sharpness looks good 👌.

Not a chance I would fly with any airline where I can't get natural light or see properly out of the window. Looking out, forwards and backwards is a massive part of the enjoyment. Airlines need to stop telling passengers they're only interested in getting from A to B as cheaply as possible - they're starting to believe it!

Talk about a great way to induce motion sickness in turbulence, BLAH!

When I travelled I never take a window seat. So what's the big yahoo about no windows. I just wanna get from A to B that's all. I'm not driving the plane.

This is a great idea. The digital screens showing what an external camera records would give the exact same image. If the plane is 50% lighter and cheaper to run then hopefully the tickets would get cheaper. Win/Win for everyone.

The idea has been around for a long time. Check a couple of other articles from 4 years ago.

http://thesource.com/2014/10/27/could-you-imagine-flying-on-an-airplane-with-no-windows/

https://abcnews.go.com/Travel/plane-seat-window/story?id=22602728

Sure there are challenges to overcome but I think people will go for it.

Spent many, many hours flying around in military cargo planes with no windows. It is no big deal.

There's something else behind this and it's not about reducing aircraft weight (screens would weigh about the same as windows) or the chance of depressurisation (in all the billions of miles flown around the world, how often does that happen?), but more likely a money-saving option. Solid tubes would be cheaper to make than ones with holes in them, plus they can control the inside perception for pax so they can induce desired sleep patterns (like they do now by dialling down the temperature and the oxygen content).

Actually sounds like a great idea, if indeed there is significant weight savings due to the support structure.

Only downside I see is that in a very rare emergency (say crash landing with total power loss), then perhaps the screens and/or cameras won't work, taking away valuable situational awareness for both passengers and crew trying to figure out which exits are safe to open.

However I think that's a sufficiently rare downside that the vast fuel savings (again, assuming that the 50% weight figure is true) would outweigh, if you'll pardon the pun.

(Other concerns, like motion sickness, I don't think would be a problem if the displays are real enough, which is sounds like they are, and inspecting an engine would be fine with cameras out there.)

This thought came about AFTER a passenger was almost VACUUMED out of one a few months ago. Why cut off your NOSE to spite your FACE?