A 'Right' to Recline?

Townhall.com ^ | September 3, 2014 | Jeff Jacoby

[Political Junkie Too]

A Christian would take into consideration the person whom you are about to invade and at least ask that person if they wouldn't mind if they reclined.

How many times has the person behind you ever asked if you mind that they are constantly rocking the seat because of their pressing down on the tray table while working at their laptops?

Why is it only the recliner who is seen as being rude?

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

I paid for the seat and the space above it and if you invade it, you might not get all the sleep you were hoping for.

I like to turn the overhead blower on high and then point it behind me. It makes a protective barrier of air that keeps sneezes and coughs behind me from wafting forward.

I guess I don't consider whether the cold blowing air bothers the person behind me, or whether it blows right onto their food or their face.

Should I?

Is there anything else that the person behind me feels entitled to control in my seat? Maybe the light, perhaps? Adjustable headrest?

-PJ

[hecticskeptic]

For the most part, I agree with your conclusion…. it really is about sleepers versus workers. As for some of your comments, I could argue but these are fine points. You could say that the ‘tray was included for eating the meal that the airline served’. However, it could easily be argued that if a person didn’t want a meal (even back in the days that meals were actually served), that tray was still there for the use of the individual… to read a book, to play cards, to make it easier to write or draw etc. etc. There was no restriction on the use of the tray and hence a broader scope would have to be applied to its intended purpose… the tray has always been there simply as a utility device for the passenger to use for their purposes and enjoyment. It was never restricted to just being used for food service. This brings us to computers….the use of which is just another example and more modern extension of what falls under that broader scope. The fact that the highest percentage of the tray usage might have originally been for food service is not actually relevant to the discussion.

The problem actually comes down to one of ‘what did the airline sell you’ and/or ‘what did you think you were buying’ when you bought your ticket. I’m fairly certain that there is no fine print anywhere that says that you what they sold you is a seat that is guaranteed to recline and be allowed to recline for your sleeping requirements and enjoyment…. and I’m certain that the same is equally true for the tray table. All of this is implied stuff… as is other things such as flight attendant service, storage for the luggage you brought on board, the use of the washroom etc. However, if I had the time, I’m sure that I could find advertising pictures from various airlines showing happy sleeping passengers in a reclining positon as well as people working on their laptops. Thus I think that by virtue of these advertising imagines, it’s implied that what they are selling (and thus what you think that you bought when you purchased a ticket) is a level of capability that is in line with what was demonstrated in the advertising images, no? And that is where the problem arises… the airlines have set up a conflict by selling two things that can’t both happen at the same time. You can recline or the person behind can use a tray table…but they can’t be done simultaneously. And as you put it, the conflict is between having the facility to be able to sleep and the facility of being able to work.

I suggested some solutions to the problem on an earlier thread and still think that one of my ideas has some merit. One of the solutions is of course to just disable all recline functions….however, that’s a narly solution that sure doesn’t make everyone happy including computer users who themselves might to take a break or choose not to work if it is a late night flight, they are feeling unwell or whatever. If the seats can’t be redesigned to allow both reclining and use of the tray to happen simultaneously, one of the solutions is to have the seat release be a two part deal…. Here is a copy of what I proposed elsewhere when this topic was bandied about….. The airlines could come up with an interlock system whereby the person who wants to recline has to have their seat cooperatively released by the person behind. This adds a layer of complexity that the airlines probably don’t want but it avoids the conflict by having both parties involved…. If this was done, there would have to be upfront announcement that explained it all to the passengers during the “here’s how your seat belt works” announcements. Something like this…. “If you are in a seat that has the capability of reclining, please be aware that the person behind you may not want you to recline. If that’s the case, you can push your recline button and your seat does not recline, very simply the person behind you has not consented to releasing it..… you can ask them to release your seat but if they don’t want it released for whatever reason, your seat won’t be able to recline and please respect their decision. For those of you who don’t care if the seat ahead of you is reclined during the flight, you can push the release button now so that the party ahead of you can recline if they so choose. Oh and for those of you who attempt to recline your seat, this automatically releases the seat ahead of you for recline.

[Tax-chick]

I was sitting around church this evening as a choir was assembling to practice, and they were talking about this issue. One of the guys made a comment identical to my #46. I wonder if he’s a FReeper. He was ticking off some teachers by being insufficiently awed by them, too.

[Political Junkie Too]

However, it could easily be argued that if a person didn’t want a meal (even back in the days that meals were actually served), that tray was still there for the use of the individual… to read a book, to play cards, to make it easier to write or draw etc. etc. There was no restriction on the use of the tray and hence a broader scope would have to be applied to its intended purpose.

This is true. The difference being that playing cards, reading a book, knitting, etc., were low-profile activities on the tray. It was an activity that fit nicely within the confined space.

Today's laptops take up much more vertical space than playing cards or reading a book. The issue is not really the laptop, it's the screen that abuts the seatback in front of the user. As the screens get larger, the complaints get more frequent.

-PJ

[hecticskeptic]

I don’t know that the screen on my current laptop is any bigger than the one from several years ago... in fact it might actually be smaller. I haven’t done this yet but a lot of folks in my company also travel with a subnotebook, tablet, netbook or laplet because of tightness of space on a plane. It’s a serious compromise though and frankly, if the seat reclines enough, this doesn’t really solve anything.

[hecticskeptic]

I never thought of this before but I think that some of this discussion about reclining is an unintended consequence of getting rid of meals when the tray use meant that the seats had to be left in an upright position for a substantially longer period of time… and it gave people something to do and be slightly more sociable so that they weren’t immediately looking to go to sleep.

[Political Junkie Too]

I think you might be right. If there were an old-tyme meal service on the planes, the trays would be reserved for that use, and only after the meal would people be likely to break out their personal entertainment.

Also, back then the entertainment was on a projected screen in the front, or later on monitors suspended from the ceilings. It's only recently that personal screens are built into the seat backs, creating another conflict in the recline vs. screen view.

And as technology marches on, even the seat-back screens are making way to personal tablets and smartphones, where the airlines can simultaneously outsource the monitors to the passengers and charge them for the wifi access to movies.

All in all, it's just another brick in the wall of irritability.

-PJ

[Daveinyork]

“If you don’t want to be “tread” upon, then fly Business or Economy Plus.”

I solve it better - I don’t fly unless I have to. That way I limit my time in close proximity to inconsiderate jerks.

I could say the same to you: If you want to fly in comfort, fly first class.

The fact that we are having this conversation demonstrates how far we have fallen in good manners and consideration for others. Without them, free society will not stay free.

I have watched my little carryon get moved from all over the plane to make room for the huge suitcases others have brought because they either didn’t want to wait for their luggage, or were too cheap to pay the baggage fees, which I pay.

It starts with someone reclining his seat in someone’s face. The one with the seat in his face starts kicking the reclined seat back, and we’ll have a tit for tat scenario which could result in a brawl on the plane and the authorities having to step in to resolve it, probably by arresting both parties.

Etiquette and consideration for others is to prevent those sorts of brawls which invite government intervention, which makes us less free.

[Sir_Ed]

I’m not a liberal, but I have a bad back, and if I can’t recline my seat it starts hurting so much that by the time the flight ends I can barely move.

Call that “entitled” or not, but if I’m paying for a seat that has the ability to recline I will recline said seat to save my aching back.

Ed

[Daveinyork]

Liberals believe in sharing the pain. If you have a special need, fly first class so you don’t share your pain with the passenger behind you in coach.

I have back trouble and knee problems. I don’t make them someone else’s problem.

Do you also take a large carryon?