A 'Right' to Recline?

You may not be 100 percent sure what you think about Vladimir Putin's maneuvers in Ukraine, Burger King's tax inversion, the indictment of Texas Governor Rick Perry, or Scotland's independence referendum. But you know exactly where you come down on the Great Airline Reclining Seat Controversy, don't you?

Everyone has an opinion on the passenger in Row 12 who caused an uproar on a United flight from Newark to Denver when he used a plastic bracket called the "Knee Defender" to block the woman in front of him from reclining her seat. When a flight attendant told the man to remove the gadget — which United, like most airlines, prohibits — he refused. The infuriated woman in Row 11, reported the Associated Press, "then stood up, turned around, and threw a cup of water at him." Whereupon the plane was diverted to Chicago, and the two passengers were ejected.

Three days later, another passenger was booted from another flight because of another struggle over legroom. American Airlines diverted a Miami-to-Paris flight to Boston, where Edmond Alexandre was arrested on charges of "interfering with a flight crew" after fighting when the seat in front him was reclined.

Small wonder these stories have struck a nerve. You don't have to be a frequent flyer to know how cramped air travel has become, or how maddening — not to mention kneecap- and laptop-endangering — it can be when the already minuscule space between you and the seat-back in front of you suddenly shrinks further because a passenger one row up leans back without warning. Nor is it hard to understand the frustration of a passenger with an aching back or a need to sleep who presses the recline button, only to discover that the seat has been deliberately immobilized by a fellow traveler.

But how did the battle between knee defenders and recliners turn into an all-or-nothing clash of rights?

"I own the right to recline, and if my reclining bothers you, you can pay me to stop," asserts economics reporter Josh Barro in The Upshot, a New York Times politics and policy website. "If sitting behind my reclined seat was such misery .?.?. someone would have opened his wallet and paid me by now."

Conversely, the Times's international business editor, Damon Darlin, is just as adamant in defense of his right — not his wish or preference, mind you, but his right — to attach a disabling clamp to the seat in front of him.

"The real problem is undefined property rights over the same four or five inches of space," Darlin maintains. "The person with the recliner button holds an advantage. The Knee Defender reallocates the rights."

Au contraire, argues the Financial Times in an editorial. An airplane ticket "is a contract that guarantees very few things, but the right to recline your seat at cruising altitude is one of them."

A plane ticket, of course, guarantees no such thing. Just as a concert ticket doesn't guarantee the right to view the stage unobstructed by a tall person right in front of you. Just as a hotel room reservation doesn't guarantee the right not to be disturbed by sounds from guests in the adjacent room or the corridor.

You can't always get what you want, to coin a phrase. That's routinely true of public accommodations, where our experiences — travel, dining, lodging, entertainment — must be shared with other human beings, in all their not-always-congenial variety. It makes life worse for all of us when people become so obsessed with their own satisfaction that they convince themselves they have a guaranteed right to it. Common courtesy and self-control used to be esteemed as indispensable to a healthy society. But the more we rely on law and regulation to maintain social order, the less we seem to emphasize good character and values.

Most air travelers, most of the time, don't descend into rudeness and selfishness. But as the obnoxious "I-have-a-right" mindset grows ever more entrenched, clashes like the one involving the Knee Defender are apt to proliferate. Barro wants to be paid not to recline into the lap of Darlin, sitting behind him. Darlin claims the freedom to "reallocate" Barro's ability to move his seat. Compromise? Consideration? Thoughtfulness? Nothing doing. For some people, the right to be a jerk trumps all.

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.

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

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

“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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.