Denied seat recline on long haul

[burmans]

A bit amazing this has got to 459 posts about something most agree with one position.

 

[straitman]

A bit amazing this has got to 459 posts about something most agree with one position.

Do they really 'mostly' agree :?:

I don't think so :!:

 

[asg29e]

For all those anti-recliners out there..

The original Knee Defender - travel gadgets accessory - airplane legroom, DVT - travel accessories

I wonder how long it would take after deployment of this device for a fight to break out...?

Edit: old news I see, already covered on another thread.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

For all those anti-recliners out there..

The original Knee Defender - travel gadgets accessory - airplane legroom, DVT - travel accessories

I wonder how long it would take after deployment of this device for a fight to break out...?

Interesting marketing form the knee defender people - they have a quote from the FAA sayin gthe use of the knee defender is not against federal law. That seems to imply that they are fine to use.

What the quote omits is the policy of an individual airline - many of which prohibit their use. As a passenger you are bound by the CoC of the operating airline, which can equally incorporate airline policy that is separate and distinct from federal US law (but no less legally binding).

 

[dodgeyhack]

Allow me to introduce, the latest revolution in air travel...

The knee defender defender, aka the lumbar pillow.

 

[chrisb]

I wonder how long it would take after deployment of this device for a fight to break out...?

There'd be no fight. I'd just assume my seat was broken and press the call button to get it resolved. What the FA does next will be interesting.

 

[eastwest101]

There'd be no fight. I'd just assume my seat was broken and press the call button to get it resolved. What the FA does next will be interesting.

Yes - that would be very interesting to see. And then to what happens to the cabin crew and airline policy after the first user is asked to remove the device described (assuming that they comply) and then puts it out all over the internet.....

 

[burmans]

Yes - that would be very interesting to see. And then to what happens to the cabin crew and airline policy after the first user is asked to remove the device described (assuming that they comply) and then puts it out all over the internet.....

You assume that's their response, they may just move you!

 

[chrisb]

You assume that's their response, they may just move you!

Possibly. But they'd probably try themselves and from their point of view may see the device.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yes - that would be very interesting to see. And then to what happens to the cabin crew and airline policy after the first user is asked to remove the device described (assuming that they comply) and then puts it out all over the internet.....

As we've agreed - seat recline is an advertised feature on QF. So if this was on a Qantas flight there would be no option for the crew but to ask the knee defender to be removed. I suspect there is a catch-all clause somewhere (at least an implied condition) in the CoC that a passenger does not interfere with any aircraft equipment.

 

[eastwest101]

As we've agreed - seat recline is an advertised feature on QF. So if this was on a Qantas flight there would be no option for the crew but to ask the knee defender to be removed. I suspect there is a catch-all clause somewhere (at least an implied condition) in the CoC that a passenger does not interfere with any aircraft equipment.

Yes as far as CASA advice would go -

Passengers should not use threatening, abusive or insulting language, or behave in a threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly manner on board an aircraft. Passengers must not interfere with pilots or cabin crew in the performance of their duties, interfere with aircraft equipment, or disobey any instructions given by a member of the aircraft crew. If passengers do not comply with these requirements, they may be issued with an infingement notice by CASA or prosecuted.

But I guess the knee defender lawyers would be looking at the actual law and see if it says "must not interfere with aircraft safety equipment" or "..must not interfere with aircraft equipment". There would be a definition of what is and isn't "aircraft equipment" and/or "safety equipment" and also a definition of "interfere"

Perhaps this is why they may be claiming that they are legal uin the USA due to different laws of course.

 

[JohnPhelan]

Actualy, the catch-all that would apply is:

or disobey any instructions given by a member of the aircraft crew.

 

[whatmeworry]

As we've agreed - seat recline is an advertised feature on QF. So if this was on a Qantas flight there would be no option for the crew but to ask the knee defender to be removed. I suspect there is a catch-all clause somewhere (at least an implied condition) in the CoC that a passenger does not interfere with any aircraft equipment.

Sit back and relax in our ergonomically designed, slimline seats with built-in lumbar support for your comfort. Our adjustable headrest and seat recline are sure to keep you comfortable for the duration of your journey.
Onboard our A380s and refurbished B747s our seats offer softer cushioning, a netted footrest and more legroom for additional comfort on longer journeys.

QF's website might advertise recline but it also mentions more legroom... One could argue one would need that extra space for their knees which are of course part of the legs!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Perhaps this is why they may be claiming that they are legal uin the USA due to different laws of course.

technically in the USA they are not illegal. That is a correct statement by the makers of knee defender. But their statement is potentially misleading as there is no caveat that pax should check the policy of individual airlines, under which contract law would apply (possibly prohibiting the use of the device depending on the airline). (Much in the same way as it is probably not illegal to place a cabin bag at your feet at the emergency exit during flight, but QF policy may prohibit it.)

 

[chrisb]

They're not illegal - until you're told by an FA to take it off the chair and decide to ignore them.

They would be illegal if more people did it. It just hasn't been a problem so far.

 

[sumthinfornuthin]

I came back from OOL to SYD in J on Monday.
As lunch was being served the PAX in front of me reclined his seat right back and then proceeded to eat his lunch with the back of his seat overhanging my tray table and knees.
AND ...........Yes... there is a GOD because as the tosser was drinking his red wine in the "relaxed" position the plane hit a bit of a pocket as we were in cloud and he spilt it over himself.
If he had been sitting up and not invading my space it would not have happened....Called KARMA.

Did I object when he reclined...NO I DID NOT...but he got what he deserved.

IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE WHEN PEOPLE ARE EATING & DRINKING !!!

 

[eastwest101]

technically in the USA they are not illegal. That is a correct statement by the makers of knee defender. But their statement is potentially misleading as there is no caveat that pax should check the policy of individual airlines, under which contract law would apply (possibly prohibiting the use of the device depending on the airline). (Much in the same way as it is probably not illegal to place a cabin bag at your feet at the emergency exit during flight, but QF policy may prohibit it.)

Thats what I would think as well. In the USA they are not illegal but may fall foul of an airline policy, and if asked to remove said device by cabin crew then refusal would be (probably) illegal or at least against airline policy.


In Australia -current Civil Aviation Act (1988) Section 24 says:

24 Interference with crew or aircraft
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person does an act; and
(b) the act:
(i) interferes with a crew member of an aircraft in the course of the performance of his or her duties as such a crew member; or
(ii) threatens the safety of an aircraft or of persons on board an aircraft.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) A person must not tamper with:
(a) an aircraft; or
(b) an aeronautical product that is of such a type that tampering with it may endanger the safety of an aircraft or any person or property;
if tampering with it may endanger the safety of the aircraft or any person or property.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.


As only a layman I read that as - the knee defender product may or may not be illegal depending on how you interpret Part 24 - the question some will be asking is does the knee defender count as interference with an aircraft as the act intended? (debatable) Would a knee defender be interfering in an aeronautical product that is of a type that may endanger the safety of an aircraft/person or property? (no) . Also note the use of the words "tamper" and "interfere" which are also intruigingly not in the definitions part at the start of the act.

This page is a useful guide as to what part of aviation safety is regulated by which particular act or regulation or which order, I didn't realise it was such a "dogs breakfast" before.

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90040

As far as I can tell - QF and VA dont have a specific policy regarding the use of knee defenders, so may be open to interpretation of cabin crew, once the cabin crew ask you to remove a knee defender then of course there is no argument that you have to obey cabin crew instructions/directions in both the Airline Policy and in CASA law?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Thats what I would think as well. In the USA they are not illegal but may fall foul of an airline policy, and if asked to remove said device by cabin crew then refusal would be (probably) illegal or at least against airline policy.

In Australia - as I said before - the knee defender product may or may not be illegal depending on how you interpret the words "interfere" and the exact wording of "aircraft equipment" or "aircraft safety equipment". As far as I can tell - QF and VA dont have a specific policy regarding the use of knee defenders, so may be open to interpretation of cabin crew, once the cabin crew ask you to remove a knee defender then of course there is no argument that you have to obey cabin crew instructions/directions in both the Airline Policy and in CASA law?

Generally speaking, you are required to comply with lawful instructions. lawful instructions relate to safety on board, or the maintenance of discipline. Given the knee defender could potentially fall into either of those categories the latter preventing a fight breaking out) I would say this is an example of where a pax would be required to comply with a crew request to remove it. (There are several examples where you might not necessarily suffer any legal consequences if you fail to comply with a crew member instruction on the basis that their instruction does not fit into the above categories. But that discussion has been had elsewhere )

 

[Geegeela]

Of course, none of this would matter if our knees bent the other way.

Yes, it is a pity Emu Airways are no longer operational.

No doubt they would have had the total solution to this contentious issue.

 

[JohnK]

A bit amazing this has got to 459 posts about something most agree with one position.

I don't think it is a clear cut as you think.

I walked through the economy cabin on QF52 yesterday and I would say that only ~50% of the seats were reclined and not all of them fully reclined either. What would be interesting is how many of those reclining would have actually reclined had the person in front not reclined?

And I also witnessed further stupidity on a Sri Lankan airlines flight in business class a couple of weeks earlier. I was in row 2 with no one in front of me in row 1. The IFE is in the back of the seat in front. I noticed the person in row 1 middle reclining during the short flight and the seat recline is more than 45 degrees. :shock:

So if the person in front reclines the IFE is no longer usable as you would need to lie on the floor be able to watch it.