
Don’t Want Me to Recline My Airline Seat? You Can Pay Me - edward
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/upshot/dont-want-me-to-recline-my-airline-seat-you-can-pay-me.html
======
epi16
> 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.

~~~
Rangi42
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."

~~~
epi16
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.

------
aridiculous
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.

------
Shivatron
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.)

~~~
CocaKoala
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.

~~~
DSMan195276
Well dang. I'm 5'6''/5'7'' as well, but I never really thought I was _that_
short until now.

~~~
CocaKoala
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!

------
mattezell
Anecdotal 'me too' story:

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.

~~~
jiggy2011
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.

~~~
r00fus
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.

~~~
jiggy2011
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.

------
paulnewmanseyes
Don't want me to play Call Me Maybe on loop on my phone speakers for the
entire nine hours of the flight? You can pay me!

Or we could both behave like adult human beings.

~~~
darkstar999
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.

~~~
judk
Way does built-in in mean? Airplanes are designed to withstand noise, and
smells too.

Social acceptability is defined by society. Why is reclining acceptable?

~~~
MereInterest
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.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "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.

------
mikeash
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.

------
orclev
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.

------
andmarios
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.

------
mindslight
> _United Airlines_

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.

------
sp332
_people will trade the right so that it ends up in the hands of whoever values
it most._

Unless you can't afford it, in which case people will take all your rights
away.

------
eCa
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.)

[1]
[http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2675/3701747083_6437a7a2b4.jp...](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2675/3701747083_6437a7a2b4.jpg)

------
pierrebai
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.

~~~
svantana
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.

------
jeffdavis
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.

------
jbigelow76
_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.

------
finder83
I feel like this whole issue was largely resolved by Jet Blue who gives a
couple of more inches of space. Even if someone reclines, I felt like I wasn't
being invaded by the person's seat. Of course now they charge for higher
legroom seats...so essentially Jet Blue has done exactly what the author
states. As a slightly above average 5'11" guy, I feel though that the average
coach airline seat is designed as a torture device. The arms are too low to
properly rest my shoulders (forcing me essentially to either severely slouch
or fold my arms the entire flight), the seats are too close to fully extend my
legs, the seat itself has a slight incline so that your knees get particularly
more uncomfortable, and the space to the next person (particularly with shared
armrests, and overweight people) requires me to slightly bend away from them.
All of this combines to muscle cramps in the back for a couple of days after
flying. It's really a miserable experience that I feel could be largely fixed
by the airlines, if they weren't in debt, greedy, or dieing. I don't really
blame the people in front of me for wanting to recline (I often do a couple of
inches, though never the full length). I blame the airlines (and in essence
the manufacturers, though I'm convinced they build what the airlines are
demanding) for designing horribly uncomfortable seats with no space.

(copied from the other post)

------
cookiecaper
There's little I hate more than contemporary air travel. The bottom line is
that they get away with these shenanigans because at raw speeds 4-5x faster
than the next-fastest alternative, and the ability to move unimpeded with
minimal infrastructure (terminals at the starting and ending points), which
allows aircraft to cross any terrain by taking the shortest path, there is
often no other reasonable option.

When your options are driving and using up 4 days to get there, paying for
gas, lodging, and food throughout the drive, plus deferred costs like wear and
tear on your car and the impact this extended travel time may have on your
employment, and 4 days back with the same expenses and costs, v. 6 hours in a
plane, the answer has to be plane unless the person literally _can 't_ endure
a plane ride without major medical risk.

Air travel is excruciating. There are a lot of challenges in that industry but
we _badly_ need disruption. I suspect the answer will come through small
airports and making a NetJets-esque experience more accessible. What can we do
to make that a reality?

If I recall correctly, there was a group in Southern California that was going
to do a cost-attainable private flight club like this a few years ago, but
they never actually began service.

~~~
r00fus
The answer is more heterogenous travel options like rail (either passenger or
ferried cars).

Air travel is resource prohibitive, so why is it used for small legs like
replacing a 2-3 hr high-speed rail train with a 1.5 hr flight?

Adding inter-metro rail links and integrating trains into ITA network to
interlink them would allow those who hate planes to not fly (and get out of
everyone else's way).

------
qwerta
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?

~~~
elmuchoprez
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.

~~~
qwerta
I would argue that airline has responsibility. They explicitly allow laptops
use and even provide tables and sometimes wifi.

~~~
sliverstorm
Ah, so because laptop use is allowed on the plane, if your laptop is damaged
under any circumstances for any reason, they are complicit and liable.

------
__derek__
> But I’ve seen a distressing amount of sympathy for Mr. Knee Defender, who
> wasn’t just instigating a fight but usurping his fellow passenger’s property
> rights.

hahahahahahahaha

> I understand people don’t like negotiating with strangers, but in hundreds
> of flights I have taken, I have rarely had anyone complain to me about my
> seat recline

There is a very simple explanation for this: you're a white man who is
probably fit, wears expensive clothing, and looks well-educated. On the
intimidation scale, you're near the top. You should not be surprised that more
people do not risk physical, mental, or emotional discomfort by making this
request.

> If sitting behind my reclined seat was such misery, if recliners like me are
> “monsters,” as Mark Hemingway of The Weekly Standard puts it, why is nobody
> willing to pay me to stop?

Because that is considered anti-social behavior. Similarly, I don't offer to
pay someone who is standing on the walking side of an escalator or a group of
people who are taking up the whole sidewalk or the person at the neighboring
table whose laugh is too loud. For better or for worse, that would not be
acceptable.

------
Someone1234
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.

~~~
mikeash
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?

~~~
Someone1234
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.

~~~
mikeash
Here's a direct quote from your previous comment:

'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.

~~~
Someone1234
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.

~~~
mikeash
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.

~~~
Someone1234
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.

~~~
mikeash
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.

------
r00fus
I've been reading the comments here and am surprised no one has mentioned that
there are different types of reclining seats.

There are the ones (most planes) where the seatback simple tilts back, and
others (France TGV, some buses, some planes - e.g. 777-200ER IIRC) where the
seat slides forward while reclining, sacrificing leg clearance for the
passenger while increasing his/her seat angle. In this case the passenger
behind the reclining seat would only experience a mild change, and very
unlikely any knee impact.

It's clear that in the second case, a passenger is giving up something to get
something, so it's more "fair". I'm not sure why more planes didn't take this
approach sooner - maybe due to patents or maybe safety?

------
melling
Or we could just pay the extra money for a ticket to the airline that provides
more room to everyone.

~~~
Thriptic
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.

~~~
potatolicious
Flying has intense network effects that are difficult to solve, and jet fuel
costs a lot.

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...](http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Airlines_Airbus_A320_V3.php)

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.

------
draker
Are you tired of the passenger behind you on flights always disrupting your
flight? Ms. Hacker or Mr. Business bouncing your seat as they decided the tray
table is a laptop desk? Being unable to recline your seat as s/he's using the
Knee Defender?

Do we have the product for you! Introducing, the Tray Oppressor!

A convenient strap to stop the tray table attached to YOUR seat from opening.
You paid for this seat, enjoy it without the Knee Defender impeding your
recline or those unnerving tray tremors.

Simply place the Tray Oppressor around your seat ensuring to overlap the tray,
tighten and enjoy a great flight!

It's FAA regulation that tray tables must be up during takeoff so no need to
worry about boarding early, just wait for takeoff and stop that tray.

------
pan69
Your "right" to recline. What a bunch of bullshit. The person who wrote this
article is a self-righteous asshole.

What about the space in front of me? I paid for that space but somehow your
"right" to recline overrules my right to that space?

If anything, I shouldn't be paying my fellow passenger to buy of their "right"
to recline, it should be an option when I buy my airline ticket, as in, when I
buy my ticket I want included that the person in front of me cannot recline
their seat.

PS: When I'm on a flight (and I don't fly often) I always check with the
person behind me if it OK to recline. Most of the time this will pre-emptive
any form of possible aggression (if there would be any) or complications.

------
clumsysmurf
This would be less an issue if airlines were less greedy, trying to cram
everyone like a sardine.

~~~
cwyers
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.

~~~
cookiecaper
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.

~~~
r00fus
Your math doesn't add up 50% markup inverted == 66% of total seats, so only
33% more room. Also the marginal cost of an empty seat goes up 50%.

------
lukasm
I don't know if I ever read something that captures so well what First World
Problem is.

------
yodsanklai
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.

~~~
regularfry
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.

------
tokai
This article is a great argument against uncontrolled markets.

~~~
aric
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.

~~~
tokai
You misunderstand me aric. The article is a good argument, not the reclining
problem.

~~~
aric
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.

------
stcredzero
I really wish there was some marketplace for stuff like this. I'm sick and
tired of bug guys invading my space on planes. Lots of guys just put their
knees 3 or 4 inches into my space. They don't even ask. Either they're not
aware of it, or they're pretending it isn't happening.

I'm really tired of subsidizing other's air travel. If they want some of my
seat/legroom space, they can just as well ask and pay for it.

------
radicalbyte
I'm below average height (183cm, average here is 183.8cm _) but over average
weight (105kg, average is 85kg_ ).

I'm 20% heavier than most, but I don't have to pay extra to fly.

* [http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/gezondheid-welzijn/publi...](http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/gezondheid-welzijn/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2012/2012-3746-wm.htm)

------
jiggy2011
And this is why we can't have nice things.

------
k-mcgrady
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.

------
jussy
Hey can I pay you to not listen to incredibly loud music through your terrible
headphones as well? Or snore? Or any other minor discrepancy you perform
against another human.

Idiot

------
Thrymr
How much for the armrest?

~~~
mattezell
tree fiddy

