Denied seat recline on long haul

[simongr]

Do you think 6"2 is abnormally tall?

They should not have to pay for extra leg room to not have their knees squashed, they have already paid for a ticket and therefore should be able to be seated without hindrance from an ignorant person seated in front of them.

I am the same height as you and fully believe that the person in front has the right to recline on longer flights. You have both paid the same (subject to fare variations of course) for the same seat. If you want more space then don't impinge on the person in front - pay for more space yourself.

 

[dfcatch]

There's a world of difference between reclining SYD-MEL, and reclining SYD-LAX.


Sent from AFF Mobile Edition

 

[medhead]

Since you should mention this... as posted on another bulletin board by a person with the handle chetdogleash:

I'm glad you posted that quoted. As per my example of people who recline the seat and then sit upright, they are not getting the benefit of reduced muscle activity. They've actually increased their muscle activity by not using the seat back as a support.

 

[eastwest101]

There's a world of difference between reclining SYD-MEL, and reclining SYD-LAX.

I agree with the comments of dfcatch. I still beleive that seat pitch and nature of a taller and bigger australian body size will mean that airlines will need to look at seat pitches that are suited to the population and to the length of the flights. Even domestically we have some fairly large distances to fly, and internationally this is even more so. Its not like we are hopping aboard 30 to 45min flights very often in Australia - we typically use air transport to cover thousands of km's and not hundreds.

I still think an airline that configured its fleet so the left hand side of the Y cabin had recline enabled and the right hand side of the cabin had recline disabled would pretty quickly find out exactly whom wants to recline and whom dosen't (given same seat pitch and price).

Its not good enough to say that people should pay the exorbitant J class fares in Australia or seek exit rows and front rows as the exit and front rows only account for about 5-7% of available* Y seats on the market.

And also before the thread gets derailed more than it is - I think reclining for a night flight of 3-12hours is different from reclining on a day flight of 2hours or less.

* and not that available to people whom are not higher tier FFers

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'm glad you posted that quoted. As per my example of people who recline the seat and then sit upright, they are not getting the benefit of reduced muscle activity. They've actually increased their muscle activity by not using the seat back as a support.

yes - for those people who recline but then sit upgright. But for those that recline and actually use it - there is additional comfort. That even applies on a flight SYD-MEL for example. Sitting still for 1.5 hours (or more by the time you board, taxi, taxi again and wait to disembark) is not easy at the best of times. I don't even do that at the office.

 

[dfcatch]

yes - for those people who recline but then sit upgright. But for those that recline and actually use it - there is additional comfort. That even applies on a flight SYD-MEL for example. Sitting still for 1.5 hours (or more by the time you board, taxi, taxi again and wait to disembark) is not easy at the best of times. I don't even do that at the office.

Yes - but in the context of the greater etiquette debate.... There is a stronger argument to suggest not reclining on such a short flight.

The weight of the argument is entirely opposite when it come to long-haul - and the point of the OP's comment.


Sent from AFF Mobile Edition

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Its not good enough to say that people should pay the exorbitant J class fares in Australia or seek exit rows and front rows as the exit and front rows only account for about 5-7% of available Y seats on the market.

no - but pax could demand change. Several US airlines have introduced a significant amount of extra leg room seats (UA's E+, Delta Comfort etc etc). If people are willing to pay an extra $19 to sydney for an E+ seat then the gripe is with the airline for not offering that service, not with the recliner IMO.

 

[medhead]

yes - for those people who recline but then sit upgright. But for those that recline and actually use it - there is additional comfort. That even applies on a flight SYD-MEL for example. Sitting still for 1.5 hours (or more by the time you board, taxi, taxi again and wait to disembark) is not easy at the best of times. I don't even do that at the office.

Yes, I thought you'd say about the second bit of your email. I guess I'm lucky to be able to manage support and comfort with the seat upright. And I'm sure plenty of other people could as well. However the implication of reclining is you are going to sit still, so I fail to see that as an argument. I manage to move with the seat upright.

I should add my only gripe with recliners are those who sit upright with seat reclined.

 

[Mal Ware]

Would it not also be the case then that the person who wishes to recline has also paid for a ticket and therefore should be able to be seated in a reclined position without hindrance from an ignorant person seated behind them?

You could use that example if by both reclining neither impeded the other, however when the person in-front reclines and their seat actually is touching the knees of the person behind, who is the ignorant one?

at 6'3 I find reclining gives me more flexibility to stretch out my legs (straight) under the seat in front of me. How does that make me ignorant? I would have thought the 6'2 person behind me would also employ the same tactic. If they don't, soes that make them ignorant of how to manage their own comfort?

So because you choose to recline you have decided for the person behind you that they must? A person doing this and not realizing that they are impeding someone is ignorant, but you doing so fully aware would make you both inconsiderate and arrogant. But its okay, if you do it to me, just make sure your you are not tired, cause it will be a bumpy ride......For you.

I am the same height as you and fully believe that the person in front has the right to recline on longer flights. You have both paid the same (subject to fare variations of course) for the same seat. If you want more space then don't impinge on the person in front - pay for more space yourself.

LOL - How can the person in behind "impinge" on the person in front? IT is you in front who is doing the initial impinging by reclining on them. Talk about denial...

 

[serfty]

... Talk about denial...

Yep!

I prefer to be a more reasonable creature and instead "talk" about acceptance.

If the airlines did not want PAX to [have the ability to] recline then the seats would not have that function.

I'm generally not happy if a passenger in front of me reclines, but that's the way it is and if reclined upon, then so be it ...

 

[trippin_the_rift]

I wonder if you can designate the seat infront as a comfort seat?

 

[simongr]

LOL - How can the person in behind "impinge" on the person in front? IT is you in front who is doing the initial impinging by reclining on them. Talk about denial...

Denial? You stated that if someone reclines you will jam your knees into their back - I would define that as impinging.

 

[medhead]

Yep!

I prefer to be a more reasonable creature and instead "talk" about acceptance.

If the airlines did not want PAX to recline then the seats would not have that function.

I'm generally not happy if a passenger in front of me reclines, but that's the way it is and if reclined upon, then so be it ...

I'm sorry but this has nothing to do with what the airline wants. The airline provides an option to passenger to entice them to spend money. There is no element in that of wanting or not wanting people to use the option. Recline functions (and armrests) are a matter of agreement between the passengers involved, either verbally or non-verbally. What is important for acceptance on both sides is consideration of the other party. Saying the airline wants me to recline without any consideration is not good, IMO.

I think the OP was being very considerate and I fully support them in doing that. I also think the reply was not at all considerate, hence my advice to reply "no, I am reclining a little, this is your warning".

 

[dfcatch]

LOL - How can the person in behind "impinge" on the person in front? IT is you in front who is doing the initial impinging by reclining on them. Talk about denial...

Dude - you're allowed to recline - get over it

If you don't want someone reclining into you - get a bulkhead/exit row or pay for J/F.

The legitimate discussion IMHO is on the etiquette of:

1/ Should you recline - and if so - only on long-haul or short-haul too?

2/ Should you recline during a meal time?

3/ Should you inform/request permission from the person behind?

4/ What is the polite way to recline?

5/ How to get back at recliners who ignore the etiquette?


But for the record - there is no "impinging" by reclining.

 

[serfty]

I'm sorry but this has nothing to do with what the airline wants. ....

It seem you have misunderstood - I have clarified. (reclining is optional)

The underlying part about "airline wanting" relates directly to revenue - it has everything to do with "wanting" to increase it.

It costs them more to have recline facility; it seems bean counters have come to the conclusion the cost-benefit is there, as you state "to entice them to spend money".

 

[Mal Ware]

Denial? You stated that if someone reclines you will jam your knees into their back - I would define that as impinging.

Yes it is, as a direct result of your initial impinging. Don't you see, by committing the first act you therefore cause the second one. Do not recline there would be no knees in the back.

But for the record - there is no "impinging" by reclining.

For the record there is. You cause someone pain by putting your seat into their knees, I would call that impinging. Another one in denial.

"Oh the airline lets our seats recline so therefore it could not possibly cause discomfort to the person behind me, therefore in my mind I am not impinging"...

Very much a head in the sand, attitude. Dude

 

[blackcat20]

For the record there is. You cause someone pain by putting your seat into their knees, I would call that impinging. Another one in denial.

But why should the person in front spend an uncomfortable 14+ hours in the upright position just so the person behind (ie you) gets more legroom?

Given everyone usualy reclines, everyone ends up with the same amount (or lack of) space. If you don't want someone resting on your knees, make sure you're sitting in the front row.

 

[serfty]

...

Very much a head in the sand, attitude. Dude

I am detecting very much the same attitude in your posts - as well as denial.

I'll just have to differ in my opinion of this with you whilst I recline ... slowly ...

 

[dfcatch]

Yes it is, as a direct result of your initial impinging. Don't you see, by committing the first act you therefore cause the second one. Do not recline there would be no knees in the back.

For the record there is. You cause someone pain by putting your seat into their knees, I would call that impinging. Another one in denial.

"Oh the airline lets our seats recline so therefore it could not possibly cause discomfort to the person behind me, therefore in my mind I am not impinging"...

Very much a head in the sand, attitude. Dude

Dude you talked about impinging of rights, not impinging of comfort (which for the record I am caring less about with attitudes like yours).

Fact - everyone has the right to recline (rightly or wrongly), no-one has the right to demand someone else not recline.

So, again, reclining impinges on no rights.

If you feel this will cause you discomfort, and don't wish to recline as well - then that's your problem. It's not someone else's problem. You have rights - the right to purchase an exit seat, the right to select a bulkhead, the right to purchase a premium cabin if the service offering in whY is unsatisfactory to you.

PS. Given I'm generally in the 'don't recline' camp - the fact that you've managed to tempt me to slam my seatback into your knees - shows that perhaps you want to rethink your approach and arguments.

I get that you don't want the person in front to recline - but short of buying that seat - you don't have the right to stop them.


Sent from AFF Mobile Edition

 

[tuapekastar]

dfcatch and serfty pretty much nailed it between them.

All pax have the right to recline if the facility is there. For anyone to say they do not is ludicrous. If you were not 'allowed' to recline the facility would be removed (or a specific direction given not to use it, as with takeoff/landing).

The issue here is all about personal preferences and etiquette, and clearly there are (and always will be) diverse views.

I have no need or desire to recline on flights up to about 4 hours. Beyond that, I might do it, and I might not (meal times excepted). Just depends on how I am feeling and the circumstances.

I have had people seated in front of me recline on shortish flights and I don't really like it, but recognise that (again, mealtimes excepted), they have the right to do so.

I am under 6 feet tall. If I was over 6 feet tall maybe I would have a different view, but I'm not so I don't!