Don't compare military troops transports and airliners.
Goals are not the same, inducing requirements and means differ. Not to say that soldiers can be packed as cargo, but military transports are supposed to mobilize huge amount of troops with their equipements on the battle field in no time, and soldiers know that and are prepared for critical scenarios.
If troops were to ask for same treatment as civilian passengers, it would raise the following issues :
- you'll need wider seats and pitching, in a more "civilian" configuration, meaning much less "passengers" per aircraft, and much less troops carried per flight.
- more planes to carry troops, more targets for the enemy. You don't always fly in ally airspace.
- This increases aircraft operations, which kills one military strategy called sneak attack. Predictible operations are a strategy error.
- More flights means more time to be handled, meaning delays. Time is always an issue in military operations, both upon mobilizing, and returning back home with waiting families.
- if you want to have both nice seatings and paradrop capabilities, you'll have to make room for the drop process which also removes more seatings.
- optionally, you'll also need flight attendants to serve meals.
- All that induce more costs (planes, civilian plane equipements like expensive seats, galleys and trolleys, etc.) which increases military budget.
It seems on a military point of view, having civilian-like things doesn't bring advantages, only issues. So that's how it is.
If troop transport concepts were to be used on civilian side (airliners), I don't think you and me would agree (assuming we're not soldiers)
- we paid for the flight, soldiers are paid to fight and signed with all that comes with that duty including death.
- we just want to have a good flight from departure to destination in the safest possible way, in a comfortable seat, with meals and entertainment.
- if airliners were that "loaded", we'll have less flights per route, meaning less schedules. If the schedule doesn't comply with your plans, you'll have to wait for the next available flight.
- serving meals would be much more complicated; perhaps it's better to have lunch before flight, not inflight. Ask a flight attendant's opinion about serving meals and pillows in that condition...
- lavatories on the other hand would always be mandatory, don't worry. But we should be trained to walk through, step over sleeping passengers legs...
- we would have to sign a waiver about the sideward facing neck (head, and shoulder) injury(es) in case of critical stop.
- we would also have to sign a waiver about "flying bags" upon turbulences. It's highly unlikely you would be able to put everything in luggage bins with that much passengers in a Boeing 737.
- The only advantage would be a substantial reduction in travel cost (on our side)
Worth it ? I, personally say NO !
By the way, mass evacuations are a huge step beyound your posted picture. ;)
I inverted scenarios by suggesting why military personnel wouldn't have the same treatment as civilian travelers on purpose : you're comparing two very different situations that doesn't have the same priorities, goals and safety concerns. That means what matters, what is more efficient, what costs less in a case are not the same for the other. The target audience is different. One is going to fight at war, the other is on vacation/family/friends visit, business travel or starting a new life. That means it's not only about safety concerns.