The space between the seats is a commons, just like the audio spectrum.
You chose a seat expecting that it would recline, I chose a seat expecting I could actually sit down without dislocating my kneecaps. These expectations overlap, and might require grown-up negotiation to resolve.
Maybe you should take your own needs into account when buying your ticket, and choose seats without reclining seats in front of them then. Such as those in the exit row, or those in the front row.
I won't book a ticket if I have to sit in front of the exit row, or in the last row on an aircraft. The idea that you should not have to factor in similar preferences when booking your flights strikes me as nothing more than entitlement.
And when I do exactly that, but the airline moves me and sticks me somewhere I don't want to be? Or I try, and all the extra legroom seats are taken already? Maybe you should be aware that your fellow passengers have almost certainly already done all they could to avoid making an unpleasant experience worse.
Then they should take it up with the airline and not make my experience worse when I am dealing with the airline screwing me also.
By trying to tell the person in front of them not to recline they are effectively saying "I didn't get what I wanted so I am going to take it out on a person who may have"
> Then they should take it up with the airline and not make my experience worse when I am dealing with the airline screwing me also.
How do you propose that both of these should happen? "Take it up with the airline" - when? The cabin crew can't (or won't) do anything about it, creating a fuss on the plane is a recipe for getting thrown off. That means it's got to happen after the flight. That means we both have to get through the flight somehow.
> By trying to tell the person in front of them not to recline they are effectively saying "I didn't get what I wanted so I am going to take it out on a person who may have"
If you believe that there is some sort of implied right to recline, then the airline has screwed both passengers over by double-selling the space. If the passenger in front can assume a right to recline, it's certainly the case that the person behind can assume the more fundamental right to actually sit down. If you say that the person behind must allow the person in front to recline, you're saying that all the downside of the airline's action must fall on only one of the two people affected.
Flawed logic. You have the "right" to recline since that feature is built into the seat you are paying for. You don't have the "right" to play annoying music because that is socially unacceptable and not built into the cost.
Because when every person reclines, as usually happens whenever meals are not being served, there is the same amount of space between each seat, but all the seats are in a more comfortable position.
>> "Because when every person reclines, as usually happens whenever meals are not being served"
I have never seen this happen on short of long haul flights. Unless is it night time the vast majority of people tend to have their seats upright. From what I've seen the reason is simple - in flight entertainment in on the back of the seat and most people want to watch a movie.
"Comfortable" is subjective, though. While there may be the same distance between seats when they're all reclined, the change in the shape of the space is enough to make a previously workable arrangement impossible because, and here's the remarkable bit, people are different shapes.
not just socially unacceptable (which may vary by person) but more important against the rules of the airline. In buying a ticket you agree to abide by the rules, which means not being loud and playing music, and means allowing others to recline.
The people who actually own the airplane you're in will tell you to stop doing that, and will deny you use of their property if you refuse to comply.
Those same people intentionally paid for a seat reclining function with the intention that passengers use it.
This is constantly framed as an issue between passengers, but it's not. It's an issue between passengers and the airline. Their equipment, their (and the government's) rules.
> Those same people intentionally paid for a seat reclining function with the intention that passengers use it.
Not quite. They paid for a seat reclining function hoping to lure punters into paying for a ticket. I'm not sure they care whether anybody can actually use the seat functions further than that.
> This is constantly framed as an issue between passengers, but it's not. It's an issue between passengers and the airline.
Absolutely this. Getting customers arguing over the details of property rights they almost certainly don't have is a truly wonderful reframe.
There is a homeless fellow dressed up as a space alien on the L train in NYC that does exactly this. He rolls on with a saxophone, plays as loud as possible, and tells passengers 'I'll stop if you pay me!'
I have question, at a few cases my laptop display was almost crushed, when seat in front me started reclining. Who in that case has responsibility for the damage?
If you stumble on my laptop while taking a step backwards in a public space, you definitely are responsible for it; why wouldn't you be responsible for your movements hitting other people or their property?
No, that's not necessarily true. If you have placed your laptop on the floor in the public space, then you haven't taken reasonable precautions and you'll have to pay for your laptop.
Because reclining the chair is using it in a predictable way and as it was intended to be used. It's a bit like laying your laptop in the middle of the freeway and then claiming people can't run it over.
My lap isn't the middle of a freeway - accidentally smashing it by reclining is exactly as if accidentally smashing something from a shelf with your elbow while walking; you should be looking where you're going and are responsible for the direct consequences of your actions.
I don't understand your argument. If I place my laptop on the tray, aren't I using the tray in a predictable way in line with its intended purpose (i.e. to hold things)? Does your assertion that the 'reclining chair being reclined is its intended use' not apply to 'the tray holding things is its intended use'?
Liability would almost certainly be yours alone. The passenger who reclined their seat was using the seat as it was intended, so there is no offense there. The airline would likely argue that they never made any guarantees as to the protective nature of that pocket, nor did they tell you to put your laptop in there.
I'm consistently surprised that airlines have yet to launch plane lines featuring business class seats / service throughout the cabin on select routes. I would assume that it would be easy to fill such a plane a few times a day with reasonable rates across east coast commuter routes and from NY to London.
SQ used to fly a non-stop LAX/EWR to SIN flight with 100 business class only seats. I've been on it once and it was filled maybe 40%. They killed the route last year.
Every row of 6 now becomes a row of 4, and the spacing between each row increases by 33% just in seat pitch alone. Business class seats are also larger themselves, so the difference in row depth is probably more like 50%.
So 30 rows of 6 economy class seats each = 180 passengers now becomes 20 rows of 4 seats each = 80 passengers.
You have to more than double your fare to break even.
You can probably fill planes in this configuration, but the question is at what frequency? Scheduling is intensely important to air travelers, and a luxurious plane that only flies once/twice a day and has little schedule flexibility is a non-starter. This is especially true domestically in the US, since few journeys begin/end at major air hubs, making scheduling connections a pretty big deal.
Your luxurious aircraft will mean a long layover, not to mention your connector flight probably can't get enough volume together to also be luxurious, so at best you're only getting the premium experience on a single leg of the trip.
This is also why comparatively "luxurious" airlines like Virgin America are struggling. They do not have the scheduling frequency nor the variety of destinations that American travelers demand. It turns out you really cannot just build an airline out of major arterial routes.
It really isn't. That's a heavily controlled environment. Airlines condone reclining. Therefore, reclining should be expected by people paying to enter, unless the terms of service state otherwise.
The only idiotic part of this equation is the person who misdirects intolerance and anger at the recliner rather than at the airline's environment. On an individual level, money is one form of compensation to give up a feature one would expect to use. Asking to be paid isn't the same thing as expecting to be paid. Try negotiating with honey (dialogue), not vinegar ("Knee Defenders"). Or pay up. Or boycott the airline. Use something else. Air grievances.
I don't think I misunderstood you. Sorry, respectfully, I just don't see a good argument in the article against theoretical uncontrolled markets by drawing parallels to that context. Of course, it depends on a clear definition of uncontrolled and consideration of any non-market forces that still exist surrounding it.
The idea that Donald Marron (who argues "we ought to allocate the initial property right to the person likely to care most about reclining... the person sitting behind") is wrong simply because the author has never had anyone attempt to negotiate with him is specious. If I spread out across two seats on a busy subway, I would probably also say I "rarely had anyone complain... and nobody has ever offered me money."
(I also find the whole tall-privilege angle interesting, especially given the vitriolic way he framed the debate on Twitter -- "The world favors the tall, yet they have the gall to whine about the one place (airplanes) where height costs them" -- but being 6'6" I'll leave that aside lest I be accused of advancing some sort of tall agenda.)
There's definitely a weird and creepy bias against short men (for a fun time, check out twitter.com/heightismxposed and gawk at people who are literally saying that any guy who's under some arbitrary benchmark is subhuman and should kill himself), but as somebody who's a foot shorter than you, I will happily jump in and say that reclining seats on an airline is not part of the War on Short Men; this dude is just crazy and bitter.
Think of it this way: now you have a nicely curated list of people who's opinions you know are completely worthless, and if you ever run into any of these people in person you have advance warning that they're moronic!
6'7" here. Tall privilege is definitely a thing, but saying that giving private companies more of my money under threat of physical pain is a socially just compensator is frankly absurd.
This is purely anecdotal as I don't have real numbers to back it up, but it seems to me like every airline has been on the edge of going out of business for as long as I can remember. I don't think it's greed so much as there is virtually no margin in airlines to begin with.
Makes sense to me, and seems to fit the gamut of airlines. The theory also explains why airlines have hostile customer service - there's just no upside to management working to improve things.
There have indeed been a lot of airlines on, or over, the edge.
"Over the last 30 years, more than 150 airlines have sought bankruptcy protection or disappeared, but more keep springing up as investors continue to put hope over experience, said Denis O’Connor, managing director with AlixPartners, a restructuring firm."
Alternately, this would be less of an issue if customers were willing to pay more to fly on an airplane, then airlines could make the amount of money with fewer passengers on the plane. As it is, there's fixed costs (crew, the plane, fuel to a certain extent) to flying an airplane somewhere regardless of how many people are on it, and the only way to make money is to charge enough to recover those fixed costs. You can either charge more per passenger or you can fit in more passengers. The cost for an additional few inches of legroom on United is about $40 on a larger plane, about $20 on a commuter plane. I understand that some people can't afford to upgrade, but then packing more passengers in benefits those people, presumably -- they'd rather have the lower fares than the extra legroom.
I'd love to pay 1.5x the cost of a normal airline ticket if airlines removed half the seats and gave more space, but there are several reasons that they don't/won't do that. First class tickets usually cost 2.5x-3.5x the cost of a coach-class seat, which is pretty hard to justify for any middle-class patron.
The massive costs required to enter the market prevent fresh competition and fresh models, and we really need to find a way to fix that.
Airline profit margins are razor-thin. They aren't greedy; rather, passengers are obscenely price-sensitive when it comes to airline tickets, and as a result we get planes packed like sardines.
Greedy? Do you know what airline tickets cost back before seat space started decreasing? Here's a hint, the airlines leading this trend are known as budget airlines and consumer cost has absolutely plummeted while airline profit margins are razor thin.
If you want more space, go pay for it, it's called premium economy or business class. I bet that you get more space in present day discounted business than you did in 1980s economy, for less money.
Can we try not to be sociopaths for two seconds? Just politely ask the person behind you if they mind. They'll most likely say yes even if they do mind, but they'll appreciate the gesture.
I personally find it impolite to lean back without acknowledging the person behind, given the tight seating arrangement (which everyone has common knowledge about).
The reclining feature of the seat is a vestige from a day when seats weren't crammed. Just because it exists doesn't mean you should feel entitled to use it without any consideration of others.
> I have rarely had anyone complain to me about my seat recline, and nobody has ever offered me money, or anything else of value, in exchange for sitting upright.
I bet no one has ever made that offer. Saying that "oh, no one has offered to pay me to stop something, therefore people can't care all that much" is the Homo Economicus fallacy gone wild. Would a majority of people accept that deal, if someone brazen enough actually offered? I doubt it. It would just cause needless conflict in a small space where everyone is stuck together for hours and hours, which is why people don't do it in the first place.
> When you buy an airline ticket, one of the things you’re buying is the right to use your seat’s reclining function.
"Rights" aren't god-given things. You can't look up in the cosmic rule book who has the right to do what. The argument is how we, as a society, want to allocate that right, and just stating "I bought the ticket therefore I own the right" isn't really useful.
I'm not coming down on either side of the Great Recliner Debate, but this article kind of irks me. We don't work the way the author is assuming, and I don't think saying "I have X right, pay me to stop if you don't like it, even though such a payment is unusual, socially uncomfortable, and potentially insulting" really adds much value to the conversation on this (frankly largely irrelevant) conversation.
I agree that the article is irksome and illustrates the worst caricature of the economist, but as a confound: some airlines do charge differently for seats that recline and don't recline. United Economy Plus seats that don't recline are cheaper than United Economy Plus seats that do recline. Some people certainly are paying money specifically for the ability to recline.
The interesting thing is that I would pay a bit more for seats that don't recline, in front of my seat. I say that as a 190cm/6 foot 3 tall person, who barely fit in modern seats on some flights, in the first place.
I would also happily give up my ability to recline if it meant the person in front of me couldn't either.
Maybe aircraft with three distinct blocks of seats should have 1/3 which just simply lack recline. You want recline? Book the other 2/3 of the aircraft, I'm going to be booking that 1/3.
How many minutes do you think it will take the airline to work out that if the seats don't recline there doesn't have to be so much space between them and you can fit in a couple of extra rows.
United will totally let you do this, actually. You simply look for the seats right behind the Economy Plus seats that don't recline, and buy them. I think they may cost more than other Economy Plus seats, actually. I presume other airlines are similar.
Paying for rights to the space behind a seat may not be a great solution, but at least it's a solution, and debating about its merits may lead to a better one. The current situation is that there is no right answer: neither the seat-recliner nor the space-requester can be objectively said to be in the right, so who gets the space comes down to who is less polite and more assertive. If everyone agrees that whoever bought the ticket can claim the space or sell it to the person behind them, then that's an objective property right one can appeal to without having to just say "Well, I want the space, I don't care that you want it too, and I can be more of a jerk than you about it."
That's a good point. That said, I still take objection to the tone of the article. The author didn't motivate his solution in the way you just did; it was more of a "this is the obvious solution, and I don't really care about what other people say" approach. I'm fine considering this as a starting-off point, as long as everyone recognizes that having on-board reclining rights negotiations isn't really a long-term solution.
Another solution —based on the incident that's described in the article— would be for the passengers to start throwing water at each other. If the pilot had to land every 5 minutes to dispose the water throwers, soon it would be more expensive for the airlines to have seats with so little space between.
I don't understand the fuss over reclining seats. It's not like that feature is added by accident or something. They're intended to recline. It's a feature for the person occupying the seat. If I want to use it, I will use it whenever the rules allow me to. Likewise, I will plan the use of the area behind the seat in front of me with the assumption that they may recline their seat at any time it's allowed. This may make it difficult for me to use my laptop. That's either the airline's fault for cramming us in so tightly, or my fault for buying a ticket for a seat where we're crammed in so tightly.
I'll note that I'm 6'3" tall and constantly have trouble with space on airliners. But I'd rather save money than pay for more space. I'm not going to hassle the person in front of me just because I'm cheap.
Enough said. When you run an airline like a prison, surprise surprise, passengers tend to get into fights.
I told myself I'd never fly Continental again, as their planes don't even have enough room to fit my knees without sticking them into the aisle. Turns out they'd merged with United, and fooled me once more.
This last (and final) time I flew them, they elected to forgo loading a small plane with many passengers' bags so that they could load non-passenger cargo instead. EWR->BDL is a mere three hour drive (actually shorter than the flight, given delays), but they insisted on flying the bag. Of course their phone support hotline is designed with the sole purpose of preventing you from communicating with the people delivering your bag, and they are unable to handle someone who changes addresses every second day (ie a traveler), so the next time we saw that bag was back at LAX a week later. Still waiting on a reimbursement check for all the wedding paraphernalia we had to spend time rebuying.
Just say no to legacy carriers, and let these aging dinosaurs die.
I'm surprised that this is an issue. I'm a frequent flyer and I always recline my seat whenever it is possible to do so (except when eating). I never ask the person behind me, and nobody ever asked me for my permission to do the same. I've always assumed that this was standard practice in airplanes. Only once somebody complained but I think he wasn't used to flying (he wasn't particularly tall). Actually, I find it impossible to sleep without reclining the seat as my head falls forward.
On occasion I've had to grab and push the seat-back in front of me to prevent it from being reclined down into my legs. If you try to recline fully, you'll literally pin me in place, in a very painful position.
> Actually, I find it impossible to sleep without reclining the seat as my head falls forward.
Above a certain height, you stop hoping you're going to get any sleep on a flight.
I propose an alternative solution then, I'll kick the seat of the guy in front of me until he sits up or pays me to stop kicking his seat. I've never had someone offer to pay me to stop kicking his seat, so clearly as per the logic of the article people must not mind it.
Seriously though, they should just take the seat recline feature off the seats in the first place. Its not like it makes much of a difference, they only recline like 3 inches anyway, but that's 3 inches less the guy behind you has to cram his knees into that tiny space. My usual solution is actually much like I said above, if they lean back and bang my knees I just keep shoving my knee into the back of the seat till they get the hint and lean it up again.
The big problem I've seen is not to do with leg room (which doesn't change too much when a seat is reclined). The person in front of me has a seat which reclines. Good for them. But if they recline I can no longer see my inflight entertainment screen as it's on the back of their seat.
The problem with reclining airline seats is that the "point of reclination" is too far down, which leads to the person behind losing valuable space. As someone who is a fair bit above average length, it is more or less impossible for me to use a normal economy class seat if the person in front reclines their seat (aka "if you don't recline your seat you won't have my knees in your back").
A more correct design is something like [1] which reclines by shifting the 'seating' part forward. The reclinee then chooses between reclined seat and space for knees, and the person behind doesn't need to care: The dark plastic part below the table never reclines. (This particular seat is obviously too large for airplanes.)
When you buy an airline ticket, one of the things you’re buying is the right to use your seat’s reclining function. If this passenger so badly wanted the passenger in front of him not to recline, he should have paid her to give up that right.
That's a weak argument. If the recliner's ticket purchase granted the right to use the reclining function then wouldn't the Knee Defender purchaser also have been granted usage rights for his purchase that prevents reclining?
He would have been better off going with the "first mover advantage", whichever object (seat back or knee defender) occupies the seat row DMZ wins.
I've noticed that the divide in the "recline debate" seems to fall based on a person's leg length.
I try to avoid booking economy whenever possible (it isn't always possible) at great expense, and that's fine. But the few times I do have to sit in economy someone in front will recline onto my knees and then as the aircraft moves I have this person's body weight literally bouncing up and down on my knees for a 2-9 hr flight.
I literally have to take strong painkillers to sit in economy and even that doesn't really work. My knees feel like someone has stood on them for several days after also.
So for me what this "debate" becomes is: "one person's comfort Vs. another person's pain and potential long term health issues."
But ultimately I don't blame these "pro recline" people, I just think they're inconsiderate jerks, the people who I really blame for all of this is the airlines and the complete lack of rational legislation.
Once one airline reduces seat space (e.g. -1 inch) and gets an extra row of seats, now all of the other airlines have to follow suit or they'll be "charging more for the same service."
What we need is for government (e.g. EU, US, etc) to sit down and come up with rational minimums based on different flight durations. 2-3 hour flights can have X seat pitch, 3-5 have y, and 5+ need Z.
Alternatively just offer a new seat class for taller people. If you're over 6' then you can sit in an economy seat with 3" more pitch for $100 more. No extra "free" baggage, no better food, no express security line, just those 3" and nothing else.
On a related note: Aircraft seat design sucks. I read once that only a single company makes aircraft seats and that they basically haven't changed the design in 30 years (due to certification or some nonsense), this just boggles my mind and annoys me endlessly.
>Alternatively just offer a new seat class for taller people. If you're over 6' then you can sit in an economy seat with 3" more pitch for $100 more. No extra "free" baggage, no better food, no express security line, just those 3" and nothing else.
Aren't you describing United's Economy Plus seats, and other airlines' equivalents?
Unbundling the value of the leg room and the value of the perks would reveal that people pay essentially nothing for those extra perks. It's not like if they had a "leg" package and a "better food, priority boarding, etc." package, that the latter would be 50% of the premium and the former 50% of the premium, probably more like 90/10 (and notably, all of those other things cost essentially nothing for the airline to provide). They offer those perks as an enticement so travelers will feel like they are getting more stuff.
Of course, you aren't even really paying for just more legroom. It's also used as price discrimination since invariably the Economy Plus seats are the last seats booked. So you are really paying for a combination of legroom and the flexibility to purchase your flight closer to the departure date. I don't even have an estimate on what would be the split if you could unbundle this fact, but eyeballing some flights in the next couple days between SFO and London or SFO and New York, all the economy seats on United are full but there are still 7-10 seats available in Economy Plus.
Every airline I've flown with in the past few years has offered more room in exchange for more money, even ignoring first/business class. At the very least, you can pay extra for an exit row seat. Many also have a separate economy section with a bit more room.
The solution is available right now, and you apparently just don't want to pay for it. Why is government intervention required?
Would it be reasonable to charge women more, an ethnical minority, or people with blonde hair? No, of course it wouldn't. That's why.
Being born tall is out of a person's control. It isn't a choice. Why should they pay 50% more as a result?
If you (or anyone else) thinks it is different from the other "out of your control" categories I listed then explain /why/ that is the case. Because from my perspective charging tall people more and charging e.g. women more aren't different at all and both equally unreasonable.
'Alternatively just offer a new seat class for taller people. If you're over 6' then you can sit in an economy seat with 3" more pitch for $100 more. No extra "free" baggage, no better food, no express security line, just those 3" and nothing else.'
Literally 45 minutes ago you were apparently just fine with paying extra for more room. But now that you've discovered you can have that, it's no longer good enough. Wat.
I am never fine with paying more, ever. But $100 or similar more is reasonable, 50% more is not.
You're pointing at existing services which cost 50-3000% more and claiming "problem solved already." Wat?
Nobody should be paying 0c more just due to the way they were born. But if there MUST be a charge (e.g. due to actual increased costs) then it should be somewhere within the region of $100-200, not $350-700 more.
That's really confusing. You compare it to racial and sexual discrimination, but then say that $100-200 more would be OK. You seem to switch between making a principled stand and trying to save money, depending on whatever's more convenient at the time. Which makes the "principled stand" sound like a crock. So let's concentrate on the price.
First of all, how do you decide that $200 is OK but $350 is not OK? The airline industry is pretty competitive. If one doesn't offer what you want, use one that does. If none of them offer what you want, it's probably because it's not actually cost effective (assuming that it's legal).
Secondly, you're just wrong about the cost. I picked a United roundtrip between IAD and SFO, and they want a whopping $84 for Economy Plus on the outbound leg, and $79 on the return leg, on top of a $414 base roundtrip fare. That's $174 extra for the roundtrip, within the range you state as acceptable. For another example, I flew IAD-PEK on United earlier this year, and it was $200 each way for Economy plus, on a $1,400/person trip that takes 14 hours each way.
I checked on American and for a similar trip they wanted $50-60 per flight for "Main Cabin Extra" which is their equivalent. Finally, I checked JetBlue, which cost a total of $115 extra each way for "Even More Space".
Now, one might expect you to delighted at this, since apparently you didn't know before, and it's exactly what you asked for. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen, though.
It isn't confusing at all. When the reason to charge more is material cost (i.e. increased fuel cost) some charge can be justified even if it remains discriminatory in nature (see mens Vs. womens' health insurance for one example).
> First of all, how do you decide that $200 is OK but $350 is not OK?
That is easy, look at a normal ticket, figure out how much you're paying per inch and then calculate how much they should be charging for ADDITIONAL inches based on that figure (even ignoring the savings presented by taking less passengers (less luggage, less admin, etc)).
They're charging too much.
> The airline industry is pretty competitive. If one doesn't offer what you want, use one that does.
None of them do. They're competing for 90% of the audience who aren't tall, nobody wants a niche in that 10% of the market.
So they sell a "premium" product to people who want, don't need, it. So they charge a premium price.
> Secondly, you're just wrong about the cost. I picked a United roundtrip between IAD and SFO, and they want a whopping $84 for Economy Plus on the outbound leg, and $79 on the return leg, on top of a $414 base roundtrip fare. That's $174 extra for the roundtrip, within the range you state as acceptable.
That's a 50% increase which I stated was unacceptable. Let's ignore fixed figures and say 50% is too much, period. That is too much and that is my point.
> For another example, I flew IAD-PEK on United earlier this year, and it was $200 each way for Economy plus, on a $1,400/person trip that takes 14 hours each way.
That's a very interesting way of wording things. You use three techniques there to mislead, first you conflate single trip with round trip costs, secondly you are vague about if the $1,400 is the relative cost (of a normal economy ticket) or the new cost after you added in the Plus, and lastly you use a personal anecdote nobody can possibly verify.
So I won't respond to that. No way I can argue with vague "facts" and unverifiable anecdotes anyway. Plus looking at the cost of flights your figures all seem inaccurate.
> Now, one might expect you to delighted at this, since apparently you didn't know before, and it's exactly what you asked for. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen, though.
As you didn't state the cost of the economy tickets along with the cost of the "upgrades" those figures are utterly meaningless as you well knew before you posted them.
You likely went and found the shortest cheapest flights you could, then noted the upgrade cost (e.g. $50 on a $100 flight) and used that as "proof" that upgrades are inexpensive.
But relative to the base ticket they're not and that's the only thing that matters. 50% is 50% is 50%. You can find a $100 ticket or a $5,000 ticket, if the cost is 50% more for the legroom (while offering less than 50% more space) then they're over charging people who were born a certain way.
This is the last time I'll reply to you as some fact checking in the above post as made me deeply distrustful of you and your motives. Frankly I don't want to have a conversation with someone who will be intentionally misleading in this way.
Hilarious. You dispute my facts even though I got them straight from the airlines with no cherry-picking. You respond with zero facts of your own. And, of course, even though I found exactly what you said you want, you now say you don't want it. It's awesome! How can you say with a straight face that $200 is OK to charge, and then complain about a charge that's less than $200? I mean, it's right there in the comment history! It's not even deep, it's right up there!
Your rhetorical skills are amazing. Terrible, but amazing.
I just did this, three weeks ago. I paid extra for a bulkhead seat on a long-haul flight, and had it at check-in.
Between check-in and boarding, the airline moved me into a seat I couldn't sit in for more than 10 minutes at a time, despite knowing I'd specifically booked the extra legroom because of my height. The airline had overbooked the flight, and there were no other seats available for the cabin crew to move me to once I was on the plane.
They've refunded the additional legroom extra cost. They haven't come close to refunding the difference in value between the seat I paid for and the travel experience I had.
I am 6'2" and on my last flight I had a not so friendly interaction with an older 'gentleman' in front of me - no tray or laptop involved.
This 'gentleman' quickly/forcefully reclined his seat, driving the supporting rail into my kneecap...
I immediately made an instinctive "Owww" sound/cry and moved my legs due to the pain of the impact - which could have been the end of it... Instead, he immediately turned around in an aggressive manner and demand I quit 'kicking' his seat.
When I retorted that I hadn't kicked his seat and that I merely was attempting to prevent my legs from being further banged against, he became irate, yelling to the attendant 1/2 a cabin away that I was kicking his seat - all the while, continuing to recline his seat in a bouncing manner (because we're in kindergarten?).
Fortunately, an attendant behind us witnessed the interaction from the start and intervened - offering the 'gentleman' flying solo a new seat with no one behind him or to not recline. After relocating the guy to his new seat, she came back to check on me and apologized, indicating that the seats were too cramped already (and indicating that the guy clearly had a bit of an attitude from the start of our interaction).
I agree with the popular sentiment expressed here and in the comments of the article - "just treat each other respectfully and you'll likely come to an amicable resolution"... This said, there are always those out there who really aren't concerned with an amicable and friendly resolution - those who are more concerned with just doing what they want without challenge or compromise, regardless of the impact to those around them.
In the end, this is a problem with the airlines and their ever obsessive pursuit of the bottom line - more sardines in the can... As someone who started flying as much as I could as a young man, I can say that in recent years the airlines have reduced my air travel to only required business travel where no suitable alternatives exist. Factor in the TSA with the hassle of dealing with the above and I'd rather just drive - even if it takes me 3 times as long to get to my destination.
In this case, the gentleman's behaviour helped resolve the issue because he got to recline and you got to sit without him in front of you. Much as we like to criticize asshole behaviour, it can be be very effective at times.
Explanation as to why siblings are such jerks to each other? Because parents have the ability to intervene and provide more resources?
Ultimately, the instigator of such a request should have used a more polite way of making his/her request - just like we ask our kids to do. Because at some point there won't be extra resources to shift around and then the situation escalates and someone gets hurt.
Flight attendants and many other customer focused workers learn to triage. If you make a polite request the chances are that you will continue to be polite and so become a low priority. A situation like mattezell described has the potential to spiral and draw in other passengers or cause complaints to be raised. Thus the attendant has every incentive to mitigate the situation even if it comes at a cost to more polite passengers.
Isn't is fairly obvious that the space is owned by the airline?
The problem is not that the space is being sold -- it is obviously expensive to have space on a plane and we all know it is being sold.
The problem is that it's being sold twice by the airline. The airline gives both customers the impression that they have a purchased a license to use it. We get suckered into it as though it were some tricky ethics issue, when it's really just a mess created by the airline's ambiguity.
When did the idea of a shared resource hit its final bullet and got buried?
This whole idea of hyper-capitlising every tid bit of everyday life, sacrificing social etiquette to the altar of economic theory has gone too far. If you try to assign ownership of such things as reclining right (as if such a right ever existed), then where will you stop? Are you going to negotiate and pay me for my right to repeatedly bang my knees in teh back of your seat? How about paying me to stop humming loudly just behind your back?
It's not about monetisation nor economic optimization. It's about being well-behaved in society. You want to recline your seat? Why not ask if the person sitting behind you minds? What about settling on a position that at least partially satisfies you both? The space in the cabin is shared. Stop acting like a child or sociopath and be mindful of others. Stop making everything be about your wallet.
One of the biggest problems of modern urban life is: there is minimal to no cost (in the long term) of being an asshole, because people you encounter at random you will rarely meet again. Under such circumstances, it's reasonable to replace courtesy with monetary compensation.
125 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 150 ms ] threadOr we could both behave like adult human beings.
You chose a seat expecting that it would recline, I chose a seat expecting I could actually sit down without dislocating my kneecaps. These expectations overlap, and might require grown-up negotiation to resolve.
I won't book a ticket if I have to sit in front of the exit row, or in the last row on an aircraft. The idea that you should not have to factor in similar preferences when booking your flights strikes me as nothing more than entitlement.
By trying to tell the person in front of them not to recline they are effectively saying "I didn't get what I wanted so I am going to take it out on a person who may have"
How do you propose that both of these should happen? "Take it up with the airline" - when? The cabin crew can't (or won't) do anything about it, creating a fuss on the plane is a recipe for getting thrown off. That means it's got to happen after the flight. That means we both have to get through the flight somehow.
> By trying to tell the person in front of them not to recline they are effectively saying "I didn't get what I wanted so I am going to take it out on a person who may have"
If you believe that there is some sort of implied right to recline, then the airline has screwed both passengers over by double-selling the space. If the passenger in front can assume a right to recline, it's certainly the case that the person behind can assume the more fundamental right to actually sit down. If you say that the person behind must allow the person in front to recline, you're saying that all the downside of the airline's action must fall on only one of the two people affected.
Social acceptability is defined by society. Why is reclining acceptable?
I have never seen this happen on short of long haul flights. Unless is it night time the vast majority of people tend to have their seats upright. From what I've seen the reason is simple - in flight entertainment in on the back of the seat and most people want to watch a movie.
Further, just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should exercise that right.
The fact the conversation is happening means this isn't exactly an open and shut case on social acceptability on reclining.
Flawed logic. You've paid to be moved from A to B. Incidental furniture is a bonus: you merely might have the ability to recline the seat.
Those same people intentionally paid for a seat reclining function with the intention that passengers use it.
This is constantly framed as an issue between passengers, but it's not. It's an issue between passengers and the airline. Their equipment, their (and the government's) rules.
Not quite. They paid for a seat reclining function hoping to lure punters into paying for a ticket. I'm not sure they care whether anybody can actually use the seat functions further than that.
> This is constantly framed as an issue between passengers, but it's not. It's an issue between passengers and the airline.
Absolutely this. Getting customers arguing over the details of property rights they almost certainly don't have is a truly wonderful reframe.
Unless you can't afford it, in which case people will take all your rights away.
Also, good luck getting me to pay you for your laptop if I step on it.
Edit: See Eos Airlines.
Business class seats also take up a lot of space.
Say you want to switch this United Airlines A320 to all-business arrangements:
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Airl...
Every row of 6 now becomes a row of 4, and the spacing between each row increases by 33% just in seat pitch alone. Business class seats are also larger themselves, so the difference in row depth is probably more like 50%.
So 30 rows of 6 economy class seats each = 180 passengers now becomes 20 rows of 4 seats each = 80 passengers.
You have to more than double your fare to break even.
You can probably fill planes in this configuration, but the question is at what frequency? Scheduling is intensely important to air travelers, and a luxurious plane that only flies once/twice a day and has little schedule flexibility is a non-starter. This is especially true domestically in the US, since few journeys begin/end at major air hubs, making scheduling connections a pretty big deal.
Your luxurious aircraft will mean a long layover, not to mention your connector flight probably can't get enough volume together to also be luxurious, so at best you're only getting the premium experience on a single leg of the trip.
This is also why comparatively "luxurious" airlines like Virgin America are struggling. They do not have the scheduling frequency nor the variety of destinations that American travelers demand. It turns out you really cannot just build an airline out of major arterial routes.
The only idiotic part of this equation is the person who misdirects intolerance and anger at the recliner rather than at the airline's environment. On an individual level, money is one form of compensation to give up a feature one would expect to use. Asking to be paid isn't the same thing as expecting to be paid. Try negotiating with honey (dialogue), not vinegar ("Knee Defenders"). Or pay up. Or boycott the airline. Use something else. Air grievances.
(I also find the whole tall-privilege angle interesting, especially given the vitriolic way he framed the debate on Twitter -- "The world favors the tall, yet they have the gall to whine about the one place (airplanes) where height costs them" -- but being 6'6" I'll leave that aside lest I be accused of advancing some sort of tall agenda.)
Makes sense to me, and seems to fit the gamut of airlines. The theory also explains why airlines have hostile customer service - there's just no upside to management working to improve things.
"Over the last 30 years, more than 150 airlines have sought bankruptcy protection or disappeared, but more keep springing up as investors continue to put hope over experience, said Denis O’Connor, managing director with AlixPartners, a restructuring firm."
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/business/17air.html?pagewa...
The massive costs required to enter the market prevent fresh competition and fresh models, and we really need to find a way to fix that.
If you want more space, go pay for it, it's called premium economy or business class. I bet that you get more space in present day discounted business than you did in 1980s economy, for less money.
I personally find it impolite to lean back without acknowledging the person behind, given the tight seating arrangement (which everyone has common knowledge about).
The reclining feature of the seat is a vestige from a day when seats weren't crammed. Just because it exists doesn't mean you should feel entitled to use it without any consideration of others.
I bet no one has ever made that offer. Saying that "oh, no one has offered to pay me to stop something, therefore people can't care all that much" is the Homo Economicus fallacy gone wild. Would a majority of people accept that deal, if someone brazen enough actually offered? I doubt it. It would just cause needless conflict in a small space where everyone is stuck together for hours and hours, which is why people don't do it in the first place.
> When you buy an airline ticket, one of the things you’re buying is the right to use your seat’s reclining function.
"Rights" aren't god-given things. You can't look up in the cosmic rule book who has the right to do what. The argument is how we, as a society, want to allocate that right, and just stating "I bought the ticket therefore I own the right" isn't really useful.
I'm not coming down on either side of the Great Recliner Debate, but this article kind of irks me. We don't work the way the author is assuming, and I don't think saying "I have X right, pay me to stop if you don't like it, even though such a payment is unusual, socially uncomfortable, and potentially insulting" really adds much value to the conversation on this (frankly largely irrelevant) conversation.
I would also happily give up my ability to recline if it meant the person in front of me couldn't either.
Maybe aircraft with three distinct blocks of seats should have 1/3 which just simply lack recline. You want recline? Book the other 2/3 of the aircraft, I'm going to be booking that 1/3.
I'll note that I'm 6'3" tall and constantly have trouble with space on airliners. But I'd rather save money than pay for more space. I'm not going to hassle the person in front of me just because I'm cheap.
Enough said. When you run an airline like a prison, surprise surprise, passengers tend to get into fights.
I told myself I'd never fly Continental again, as their planes don't even have enough room to fit my knees without sticking them into the aisle. Turns out they'd merged with United, and fooled me once more.
This last (and final) time I flew them, they elected to forgo loading a small plane with many passengers' bags so that they could load non-passenger cargo instead. EWR->BDL is a mere three hour drive (actually shorter than the flight, given delays), but they insisted on flying the bag. Of course their phone support hotline is designed with the sole purpose of preventing you from communicating with the people delivering your bag, and they are unable to handle someone who changes addresses every second day (ie a traveler), so the next time we saw that bag was back at LAX a week later. Still waiting on a reimbursement check for all the wedding paraphernalia we had to spend time rebuying.
Just say no to legacy carriers, and let these aging dinosaurs die.
> Actually, I find it impossible to sleep without reclining the seat as my head falls forward.
Above a certain height, you stop hoping you're going to get any sleep on a flight.
Seriously though, they should just take the seat recline feature off the seats in the first place. Its not like it makes much of a difference, they only recline like 3 inches anyway, but that's 3 inches less the guy behind you has to cram his knees into that tiny space. My usual solution is actually much like I said above, if they lean back and bang my knees I just keep shoving my knee into the back of the seat till they get the hint and lean it up again.
A more correct design is something like [1] which reclines by shifting the 'seating' part forward. The reclinee then chooses between reclined seat and space for knees, and the person behind doesn't need to care: The dark plastic part below the table never reclines. (This particular seat is obviously too large for airplanes.)
[1] http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2675/3701747083_6437a7a2b4.jp...
That's a weak argument. If the recliner's ticket purchase granted the right to use the reclining function then wouldn't the Knee Defender purchaser also have been granted usage rights for his purchase that prevents reclining?
He would have been better off going with the "first mover advantage", whichever object (seat back or knee defender) occupies the seat row DMZ wins.
I try to avoid booking economy whenever possible (it isn't always possible) at great expense, and that's fine. But the few times I do have to sit in economy someone in front will recline onto my knees and then as the aircraft moves I have this person's body weight literally bouncing up and down on my knees for a 2-9 hr flight.
I literally have to take strong painkillers to sit in economy and even that doesn't really work. My knees feel like someone has stood on them for several days after also.
So for me what this "debate" becomes is: "one person's comfort Vs. another person's pain and potential long term health issues."
But ultimately I don't blame these "pro recline" people, I just think they're inconsiderate jerks, the people who I really blame for all of this is the airlines and the complete lack of rational legislation.
Once one airline reduces seat space (e.g. -1 inch) and gets an extra row of seats, now all of the other airlines have to follow suit or they'll be "charging more for the same service."
What we need is for government (e.g. EU, US, etc) to sit down and come up with rational minimums based on different flight durations. 2-3 hour flights can have X seat pitch, 3-5 have y, and 5+ need Z.
Alternatively just offer a new seat class for taller people. If you're over 6' then you can sit in an economy seat with 3" more pitch for $100 more. No extra "free" baggage, no better food, no express security line, just those 3" and nothing else.
On a related note: Aircraft seat design sucks. I read once that only a single company makes aircraft seats and that they basically haven't changed the design in 30 years (due to certification or some nonsense), this just boggles my mind and annoys me endlessly.
Aren't you describing United's Economy Plus seats, and other airlines' equivalents?
I don't fly United as they're terrible but every other airline I've flown on offer more than just legroom in Economy Plus/Comfort/Premium Economy.
For example Delta: Priority boarding, free alcohol, better snacks, sleep kit. British Airways: Better food, larger drinks menu, more "free" baggage, power plugs Virgin Atlantic: Dedicated check in desk, priority boarding, free newspaper/drinks, amenity kit, additional "free" bag
And so on. Most come with additional perks.
Plus the cost is quite a bit more. A £730 return flight is £1100 on Premium Economy, 50% more expensive! Just for leg room. That's a lot of money.
Of course, you aren't even really paying for just more legroom. It's also used as price discrimination since invariably the Economy Plus seats are the last seats booked. So you are really paying for a combination of legroom and the flexibility to purchase your flight closer to the departure date. I don't even have an estimate on what would be the split if you could unbundle this fact, but eyeballing some flights in the next couple days between SFO and London or SFO and New York, all the economy seats on United are full but there are still 7-10 seats available in Economy Plus.
The solution is available right now, and you apparently just don't want to pay for it. Why is government intervention required?
Being born tall is out of a person's control. It isn't a choice. Why should they pay 50% more as a result?
If you (or anyone else) thinks it is different from the other "out of your control" categories I listed then explain /why/ that is the case. Because from my perspective charging tall people more and charging e.g. women more aren't different at all and both equally unreasonable.
'Alternatively just offer a new seat class for taller people. If you're over 6' then you can sit in an economy seat with 3" more pitch for $100 more. No extra "free" baggage, no better food, no express security line, just those 3" and nothing else.'
Literally 45 minutes ago you were apparently just fine with paying extra for more room. But now that you've discovered you can have that, it's no longer good enough. Wat.
You're pointing at existing services which cost 50-3000% more and claiming "problem solved already." Wat?
Nobody should be paying 0c more just due to the way they were born. But if there MUST be a charge (e.g. due to actual increased costs) then it should be somewhere within the region of $100-200, not $350-700 more.
First of all, how do you decide that $200 is OK but $350 is not OK? The airline industry is pretty competitive. If one doesn't offer what you want, use one that does. If none of them offer what you want, it's probably because it's not actually cost effective (assuming that it's legal).
Secondly, you're just wrong about the cost. I picked a United roundtrip between IAD and SFO, and they want a whopping $84 for Economy Plus on the outbound leg, and $79 on the return leg, on top of a $414 base roundtrip fare. That's $174 extra for the roundtrip, within the range you state as acceptable. For another example, I flew IAD-PEK on United earlier this year, and it was $200 each way for Economy plus, on a $1,400/person trip that takes 14 hours each way.
I checked on American and for a similar trip they wanted $50-60 per flight for "Main Cabin Extra" which is their equivalent. Finally, I checked JetBlue, which cost a total of $115 extra each way for "Even More Space".
Now, one might expect you to delighted at this, since apparently you didn't know before, and it's exactly what you asked for. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen, though.
> First of all, how do you decide that $200 is OK but $350 is not OK?
That is easy, look at a normal ticket, figure out how much you're paying per inch and then calculate how much they should be charging for ADDITIONAL inches based on that figure (even ignoring the savings presented by taking less passengers (less luggage, less admin, etc)).
They're charging too much.
> The airline industry is pretty competitive. If one doesn't offer what you want, use one that does.
None of them do. They're competing for 90% of the audience who aren't tall, nobody wants a niche in that 10% of the market.
So they sell a "premium" product to people who want, don't need, it. So they charge a premium price.
> Secondly, you're just wrong about the cost. I picked a United roundtrip between IAD and SFO, and they want a whopping $84 for Economy Plus on the outbound leg, and $79 on the return leg, on top of a $414 base roundtrip fare. That's $174 extra for the roundtrip, within the range you state as acceptable.
That's a 50% increase which I stated was unacceptable. Let's ignore fixed figures and say 50% is too much, period. That is too much and that is my point.
> For another example, I flew IAD-PEK on United earlier this year, and it was $200 each way for Economy plus, on a $1,400/person trip that takes 14 hours each way.
That's a very interesting way of wording things. You use three techniques there to mislead, first you conflate single trip with round trip costs, secondly you are vague about if the $1,400 is the relative cost (of a normal economy ticket) or the new cost after you added in the Plus, and lastly you use a personal anecdote nobody can possibly verify.
So I won't respond to that. No way I can argue with vague "facts" and unverifiable anecdotes anyway. Plus looking at the cost of flights your figures all seem inaccurate.
> Now, one might expect you to delighted at this, since apparently you didn't know before, and it's exactly what you asked for. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen, though.
As you didn't state the cost of the economy tickets along with the cost of the "upgrades" those figures are utterly meaningless as you well knew before you posted them.
You likely went and found the shortest cheapest flights you could, then noted the upgrade cost (e.g. $50 on a $100 flight) and used that as "proof" that upgrades are inexpensive.
But relative to the base ticket they're not and that's the only thing that matters. 50% is 50% is 50%. You can find a $100 ticket or a $5,000 ticket, if the cost is 50% more for the legroom (while offering less than 50% more space) then they're over charging people who were born a certain way.
This is the last time I'll reply to you as some fact checking in the above post as made me deeply distrustful of you and your motives. Frankly I don't want to have a conversation with someone who will be intentionally misleading in this way.
Your rhetorical skills are amazing. Terrible, but amazing.
Between check-in and boarding, the airline moved me into a seat I couldn't sit in for more than 10 minutes at a time, despite knowing I'd specifically booked the extra legroom because of my height. The airline had overbooked the flight, and there were no other seats available for the cabin crew to move me to once I was on the plane.
Your solution doesn't work.
I am 6'2" and on my last flight I had a not so friendly interaction with an older 'gentleman' in front of me - no tray or laptop involved.
This 'gentleman' quickly/forcefully reclined his seat, driving the supporting rail into my kneecap...
I immediately made an instinctive "Owww" sound/cry and moved my legs due to the pain of the impact - which could have been the end of it... Instead, he immediately turned around in an aggressive manner and demand I quit 'kicking' his seat.
When I retorted that I hadn't kicked his seat and that I merely was attempting to prevent my legs from being further banged against, he became irate, yelling to the attendant 1/2 a cabin away that I was kicking his seat - all the while, continuing to recline his seat in a bouncing manner (because we're in kindergarten?).
Fortunately, an attendant behind us witnessed the interaction from the start and intervened - offering the 'gentleman' flying solo a new seat with no one behind him or to not recline. After relocating the guy to his new seat, she came back to check on me and apologized, indicating that the seats were too cramped already (and indicating that the guy clearly had a bit of an attitude from the start of our interaction).
I agree with the popular sentiment expressed here and in the comments of the article - "just treat each other respectfully and you'll likely come to an amicable resolution"... This said, there are always those out there who really aren't concerned with an amicable and friendly resolution - those who are more concerned with just doing what they want without challenge or compromise, regardless of the impact to those around them.
In the end, this is a problem with the airlines and their ever obsessive pursuit of the bottom line - more sardines in the can... As someone who started flying as much as I could as a young man, I can say that in recent years the airlines have reduced my air travel to only required business travel where no suitable alternatives exist. Factor in the TSA with the hassle of dealing with the above and I'd rather just drive - even if it takes me 3 times as long to get to my destination.
Ultimately, the instigator of such a request should have used a more polite way of making his/her request - just like we ask our kids to do. Because at some point there won't be extra resources to shift around and then the situation escalates and someone gets hurt.
The problem is not that the space is being sold -- it is obviously expensive to have space on a plane and we all know it is being sold.
The problem is that it's being sold twice by the airline. The airline gives both customers the impression that they have a purchased a license to use it. We get suckered into it as though it were some tricky ethics issue, when it's really just a mess created by the airline's ambiguity.
This whole idea of hyper-capitlising every tid bit of everyday life, sacrificing social etiquette to the altar of economic theory has gone too far. If you try to assign ownership of such things as reclining right (as if such a right ever existed), then where will you stop? Are you going to negotiate and pay me for my right to repeatedly bang my knees in teh back of your seat? How about paying me to stop humming loudly just behind your back?
It's not about monetisation nor economic optimization. It's about being well-behaved in society. You want to recline your seat? Why not ask if the person sitting behind you minds? What about settling on a position that at least partially satisfies you both? The space in the cabin is shared. Stop acting like a child or sociopath and be mindful of others. Stop making everything be about your wallet.