# Motorcoach Amenities Poll



## Swadian Hardcore (Jan 2, 2015)

Which amenities would you want the most on a motorcoach so that you will consider riding that motorcoach?

1. Extra Legroom
Reduce seating for more legroom.

2. Extra Recline
Increase the maximum recline.

3. Extra Lumbar Support
More support for your waist as you sit down, also provides "bonus recline".

4. Extra Seat Padding
More padding into the seats.

5. Window Shades
Pull-down window shades.

6. Enclosed Overhead Parcel Racks
Little doors on the overhead parcel racks.

7. Overhead TV
Self-explanatory.

8. Personal (seatback) TV
Self-explanatory.

9. Lavatory with Sink & Running Water
Self-explanatory.

10. Extra Luggage Allowance/Capacity
Increase the luggage capacity with bigger cargo holds, allowing each passenger to take two full-size checked bags instead of one.

11. Bigger Windows
Self-explanatory.

12. Capped Air Vents
The window escape bar will wrap around the air vents for cleaner vents and to prevent airflow from blowing in your face.

13. Footrests
Self-explanatory.

14. Legrests
Self-explanatory.

15. Wi-Fi
Install Wi-Fi router to connect to the Internet on the move.

16. Power Outlets
Install 110v power outlets to charge electronic devices on the move.

17. Indirect Lighting
Lighting that will be recessed and less intrusive.

18. Mood Lighting
Colored lighting.

19. Thermopane Window
Reduce window glare and increase scenery-viewing comfort.

20. Three-Point Seat Belts

Self-explanatory.

What type of headrest do you prefer?

1. Winged adjustable headrest
Adjustable headrests with wings on the sides.

2. Narrow adjustable headrest
Narrow, flat adjustable headrests.

3. Wide fixed headrest
Old-fashioned wide headrests built into the seatback.

Which extra amenities do you want the most on a motorcoach?

Most of these are minor and the self-explanatory ones have no explanation.

1. Cup Holders

2. Magazine Net

3. Driver Call Button

Press an overhead button to alert to driver to your needs.

4. Audio/Radio System
Plug in headphones and listen to audio.

5. Carpeted Seat Backs
Cushy but gets dirty easily.

6. Fabric Seat Backs
Not so cushy but doesn't get dirty easily.

7. Tray Tables

8. Fold-up Center Armrest

9. Grab Handle with Coat Hook

10. Aisle Lights
Little lights along the aisle side of the seats.

11. Reversible Seating
Flip the seats around to make a booth at the expensive of legroom and privacy.

12. Cloth Velour Seat Covers
Warm, old-fashioned cloth seat covers.

13. Vinyl/Faux-Leather Seat Covers

14. Leather Seat Covers

15. Entrance Step Feature
An extra step comes out from below the stairwell to assist boarding without needing the extra yellow stool.

16. Snacks/Drinks


----------



## SP&S (Jan 2, 2015)

Seven hours on a bus? No thank you.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 2, 2015)

The only amenity I want on a 7 hour bus ride is a train ticket off of the thing.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jan 2, 2015)

Pass on the bus! My limit is a couple of hours, max 3 on a bus no matter what type it is or who runs it! Make mine a train!! I'd even prefer to Fly over riding a bus!!


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jan 2, 2015)

How about forget about the distance, just vote for the amenities?

Well, I'll vote for myself, then.

You know you can vote for multiple.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jan 2, 2015)

Yeah, I'm supportive of all forms of transportation and I have to say that if a trip is gonna take 7 hours by train, bus or car... I'll take a plane. (Unless I want to spring for a sleeping car and enjoy the journey.)

Intercity buses are better suited for trips under 4 hours, unless you are there to enjoy the actual trip or can't afford plane tickets.

Better question would be... What amenities would you want added to a bus before you'd consider taking one on your next trip?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jan 2, 2015)

All right, I changed the question, Ricky. But the poll is still the same.


----------



## SarahZ (Jan 3, 2015)

RyanS said:


> The only amenity I want on a 7 hour bus ride is a train ticket off of the thing.


This made me laugh pretty hard.


----------



## guest (Jan 3, 2015)

I have very stong feelings AGAINST televisions of any kind on a bus, unless they are headphones-only. What if I don't like the movie? What if I want to read a book or take a nap?


----------



## rickycourtney (Jan 3, 2015)

guest said:


> I have very stong feelings AGAINST televisions of any kind on a bus, unless they are headphones-only. What if I don't like the movie? What if I want to read a book or take a nap?


Agreed. On some planes, United has seat back TVs with DirecTV. You can watch the TV on the ground for free, but instead of the screens turning off once they are in air, the unused TVs instead just play advertisements. There is no audio, but since most people can't figure out how to turn them off (hold down the brightness button), it creates a really annoying pulsating light throughout the cabin. Makes it hard to sleep at night.

I think Greyhound is on the right track with this. They are experimenting with a "bring your own device" entertainment system that uses an on-board server and Wi-Fi to allow customers to stream movies and TV shows to their own laptops, smartphones and tablets.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jan 3, 2015)

I agree that the TVs are bad as well. Greyhound Canada had them on their "VIP" DL3s, but they were recently removed during a rebuild and replaced with Wi-Fi pending later installation of the "bring your own device" onboard entertainment system.

I just had to include it in the poll because it's a common amenity on motorcoaches and I wanted to see how many people actually vote for it.


----------



## Anderson (Jan 5, 2015)

I'll join the chorus against random TVs on various modes of transportation. The idea made sense back in the 80s and 90s, but it feels increasingly outdated now that personal devices are so pervasive. If they can be easily shut down (or indeed default to being off), that's one thing, but...well, I'm just thinking of how annoying those seat-back TVs are in taxicabs. I don't mind having the ease of swiping my credit card back there, but other than a weather check they're useless (I could see them being useful if they included an easily-accessible "Check my flight/train" button, but that's not present as far as I can tell). If anything, I'd prefer a vehicle that I could use my laptop on and that had the option of no provided on-board entertainment (since, unlike the movies on the Auto Train, you _can't_ simply go to another car to avoid it).

Edit: I'll also say that I did a bus tour of California with my mother when I was about nine (I was fresh out of third grade). It was nifty at the time, but I cannot see myself doing it now. Then again, if I knew then what I know now...I'd have probably tried to split the difference with my mother and done the bus to Yosemite (which was, to be fair, very nice) and Tahoe (nice as well) and then done the train from San Francisco to LA (the difference in scenery being Big Sur vs. Vandenberg). I think my limit for willingly taking a bus would be in the 3-4 hour range almost no matter how nice it was...and then only if the rail options were utterly unworkable or non-existent.

Edit2: And yes, I'll join RyanS's sentiment: For an all-day bus ride, the only thing I really want at this point is a ticket off!


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jan 5, 2015)

I guess if you customize a bus to your own liking, you'd have to try it out to see how long you'd be willing to spend on it. After all, there's always this thing available for MSRP over $1,000,000: https://www.prevostcar.com/sites/default/files/prevost_conversion_coach_brochure_04-13.pdf.

Good thing about overnight rides is that, if you can fall asleep, and the schedule doesn't make stops until the next morning, the 7-8 hours will be gone in a flash. But, of course, falling asleep depends greatly on the safety and comfort of the vehicle. So I guess you can consider this poll to that regard: sleeping on a seated coach with no berths.

Of course, if you have a berth, sleeping will be easier, but it'll also be more expensive and definitely more dangerous in rollover accidents.

I've have horrible overnight rides in seats and great overnight rides in seats, but nothing "in between", so maybe this poll will determine the line between the two. After all, a nonstop overnight seated ride can cover 350-500 miles in no time at surprisingly cheap rates so that you can take more trips and longer trips with your yearly budget and vacation days.


----------



## jis (Jan 22, 2015)

But then after each trip you need a week and possibly considerable doctors bills to get your back back in normal shape


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jan 23, 2015)

jis said:


> But then after each trip you need a week and possibly considerable doctors bills to get your back back in normal shape


Depends on the motorcoach. That's why I have the poll: how to make sure you get right back into action after an overnight bus ride. Which is, of course, not impossible for mere mortals.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jan 23, 2015)

After my most recent overnight Greyhound ride, I was able to jump right back into action because everything just seemed to work out. But I think making that happen _always _instead of _sometimes_ is going to make a big impact. And Greyhound's new buses are currently _never_ going to allow passengers to jump back into action after an overnight ride. That bus I rode was an old 1998.


----------



## Steve4031 (Jan 23, 2015)

Legroom. Wider seats.

And I still don't want to be on one. But if I have to be then leg room is a premium.


----------



## rickycourtney (Jan 24, 2015)

I feel like the "extra legroom" Greyhound has now is good, but not great.

Whenever I ride a normal motorcoach I feel like I'm eating my kneecaps the entire ride. Greyhound's legroom is better than most airplanes and is fine for a 3/4 hour trip, but I wouldn't want to endure it much longer than that. The legroom on Amtrak's long distance coach is phenomenal, but not practical for a bus.

Problem is that even with Amtrak's level of legroom a portion of the population, myself included, won't sleep well unless they can lie flat. I doubt Greyhound or any other carrier would ever offer that in regular scheduled service here in the US.

The issue of seat width can't be solved without going to 2+1 seating, most modern coaches are as wide as legally allowed.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jan 24, 2015)

Motorcoaches shouldn't offer 50" seat pitch because they won't be able to lie flat anyways. IMO, a bit more than Greyhound legroom would be best while keeping CASM low.

Motorcoaches need to be safe, cheap, and comfortable to overcome the stigma many people have with them. That is, like I said before, not impossible. Wider seats would mean 2+1 seating and the seat itself would take up a lot more space so seat pitch would have to be boosted too. The result is safe and comfortable but not cheap. No-frills Megabus is cheap, but not exactly safe or comfortable. Greyhound's new motorcoaches are safe and cheap, but not comfortable because they messed up the seats and still need some more legroom. Something safe, comfortable, and cheap is what we need.

The amenities in the poll will make motorcoach travel safer, more comfortable, and/or more convenient, without sacrificing low fares. This is why you will see that I do not mention "bigger seats" or "wider seats".

Also, people's obsession with legroom has cause Greyhound to make the massive mistake of increasing legroom but buying terrible low seating for their new motorcoaches. The extra legroom is no use if your seat is low to the ground and blocks the legroom anyway. Plus, when it's sagging and causing hip pain and back pain. It is my opinion that legroom without lumbar support or sufficient padding is useless because bumping kneecaps is better than hip and back pain.


----------



## railiner (Jan 25, 2015)

I was just thinking about what your said, Swadian, and am trying to figure out why all of these new seats regardless of maker, (with the notable exception of Van Hool's proprietary seats), seem to have the same problem....they remove a row to offer greater pitch, but you still can't slide your legs far ahead under them...your shins hit the bottom of the seat. At first, it was the electric outlet conduit, but even though they have relocated them, the problem persists.

I thought some more about it, and now I am thinking that perhaps the older seats (pre-2009) that did allow you to stretch way out, perhaps had shorter seat cushions. That would certainly make a difference. I will measure them the next chance I get, and see if that may be the case. So the shorter cushion would not support your thigh's as well as longer ones, but would allow you to stretch below the seat ahead. A trade-off, for sure....

It could also perhaps be that the 2009 and newer "containment seats", have a heftier frame taking up more of the underseat space....


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jan 25, 2015)

I think it has to do with containment. When I was riding on that falling-apart Van Hool T2140, I noticed that the seats were set higher than the other seats I've sat in. The windows were elevated 34" above the floor, which is a lot, but I didn't feel it because the seats were mounted so high. This may explain why Van Hools always have a feeling of extra legroom. The J4500s, which also have 34" window elevation, have much worse sightlines out the window because the seats are lower.

I also checked out a parked J4500 with permission from the owner and was able to confirm that the J4500 passenger cabin reaches the rear wall. This means it should have as much seat pitch as a Van Hool, but not as much legroom because the seats are probably lower with any of the North American seats (National, American, Amaya).

Recently, I found out about Kiel Seating, a German manufacturer that makes the Setra seating. They also sell seats in North America and can be ordered with MCIs and presumably Prevosts. They comply with the highest safety regulations and may be the perfect solution between comfort and legroom. Here's a brochure: http://www.kielna.com/images/kielna/products/Avance_1020_1010/Avance1010_1020.pdf. 

Their main problem seems to be that they are made for Euro-width (2.55m) coaches which are slightly narrower than NA-width (2.59m).


----------

