Replies

...after all, that space comes with a tray that can be lowered for their personal use for the laptop.

That tray was not included for using a laptop. The tray was included for eating the meal that the airline served. Or used to serve.

It's only a recent phenomenon that people are working at their seats on their laptops. More likely, they are watching a movie. By "recent," I mean since the original design purpose of the tray was made obsolete by the airlines no longer serving hot (or any) meals like they used to.

Still, the new clash of "rights" is the right to recline and sleep vs. the right to work on their computer.

People may simplify it to recline vs. tray space, but it is really sleepers vs. workers.

-PJ

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.