I’d never consider asking someone to not recline their seat, switch seats, etc without offering something in exchange.
Traveling with a child and wanting to sit next to them, I’d approach someone, explain my plight, then offer to buy them a drink once the cart comes out in exchange for their cooperation. Not a drinker, fine, how’s about $20 for your trouble, along with my eternal gratitude?
Accidental and incidental bumps as the person behind adjusts their position, gets in and out of their seat, puts their tray up and down is absolutely to be tolerated. If you’re not willing to put up with that then yes, you should get a first class seat.
Deliberate punching and hitting the seat for the purpose of making the person miserable, is not cool and not reasonable for the person to tolerate.
Nah, I’m not talking about punching the seat. But I’m going to move my legs around as much as I always do and that’s going to be a constant source of movement for the seat in front of me. I’m regularly crossing or uncrossing my legs, shaking my foot, etc.
I don’t think anyone is saying not to do that. If the person in front doesn’t like it, yes, that’s on them.
Normal use of your seat by either party (reclining/moving around) is fine. Asking for accommodation is fine. Expecting it and becoming hostile if you don’t get it, not so much.
Maybe Bob’s “last name” explains some of it. 
“Did he really just say that Martha?” "Well your hearing aids are just as good as mine George! Yes. That’s exactly what that whippersnapper said about that poor daddy-long-legs snowflake. Just bc people of his given political correctness are prone to complain about the rights of others interferring w their sensitive extremely sensitive nature doesn’t mean that’s the case here. Can poor Bob help it if his capitalist employer, who’s paying for his air ticket already, has absolutely refused to accommodate his long shanks? Yes I’m assuming Bob has already stood up for himself & approached his employer about his delicate condition & special needs &… well George you know the rest of the story. Bc of poor Bob’s genetic impairment of PC mentality considers his bourgeoisie capitalist employer in need of Gov’t intervention bc since Bob has indeed spoken up for himself & assuming his employer not only paid for his fare but must’ve also purposely put him in short seats by ordering his gicket for him. After all we can’t expect poor Bob, who doesn’t have to order his seat (bc his employer must do so bc otherwise Bob would have a choice & thus be responsible for his own demise which as history shows us in overwhelming detail that those of the PC mentality are never in the wrong bc they never apologize, ergo they’re always right…) & if Bob has problems he must’ve informed his employer… of course since Bob doesn’t have to pay for his ticket & his employer must be the one ordering his ticket, we can assume Bob had to have expressed his willingness to give his employer a few denarii of his own so that when his employer bought his ticket they could’ve accommodated his rather lengthy needs.
Of course if my presumption of employer fault is wrong bc Bob orders his own tticket & therefore has the option to chip in a few bucks for his own vertically challenged needs since his employer is paying for the main ticket, & either one could write that extra special needs cost off on their taxes…
Well, if this isn’t clear enuff by now, you will never ever know it…
Everyone getting on a plane knows that my colon contains noxious gas. You wouldn’t mind if I expelled it in your direction, would you?
mmm
Mustard gas?
This.
My WAG here is:
a) The airlines don’t build the seats themselves. Some other company builds the seats for them. (I’m certain of this part, actually.)
b) They originally set the recline back in an era when there was more room between rows, before laptops were a thing, and when you only used the trays to put your food and drink on.
c) The companies that build the seats will modify the seats to the airlines’ specs, within reason.
d) When the airlines squeeze the rows of seats closer together, having the seat construction companies adjust the recline is probably the last thing on their minds.
So yeah, it’s very much the airlines’ fault for not having the seats’ recline reduced as they squeeze the rows together.
But that’s not the airline behind you; it’s another human being. If someone uses all that recline that was designed for seats that had more room between them, despite the fact that that excess room doesn’t exist anymore, that person is being an asshole.
Maybe they’re within their ‘rights’ to be an asshole. I won’t argue that - let’s face it, we all have the right to be assholes on a regular basis, in our encounters with other human beings. But the fact that one has a right to be an asshole, doesn’t make one any less an asshole when someone avails themselves of that right.
To emphasize and generalize:
Under normal conditions in which an other has given me no reason think of them as someone who considers their comfort more important than mine I would be mindfully intentionally careful to minimize my actions imposing upon them, even upon some inconvenience or lesser comfort to myself. I think that is true for most of us.
If the other has not only signaled that their comfort matters more than mine, that they are more entitled to it than I am mine, moreover if they persist in doing that action with no compromise after a polite request to change the behavior, then my mindful intentional consideration of how my actions might impact them would be no more. Tucking my knees pressed up against the seat and pushing forward a bit in order to get comfortable, which of course I would otherwise never do, would be now allowable behavior.
Again, for me this is theoretical as I am never bothered by a reclining person ahead of me and am not a recliner myself. I sit, open up my book, and usually promptly fall asleep. But that is a reasonable understanding of our social contract with each other: have no consideration for the needs of others around you and you can expect them to have either no consideration of yours or a desire to passively aggressively “get even” with you for your “cheating” on the social contract.
Aeronautic science this is not.
But, then aren’t you saying that your comfort is more important than theirs?
No, I am saying it is not worth less, and potentially conflicting desires can usually be both be adequately met with mutual consideration and respect.
In this particular case the action being taken, the change, is the declining of the seat into space that was otherwise being occupied by another individual. It is a change, even if one allowed by the airline, of what was the default arrangement. If one is informed that doing such is imposing discomfort on another (it may not be, wouldn’t bug me for example), and one persists in taking that action without any offer of any compromise (in consideration of the action-taker’s comfort), with the attitude of “their problem” then one is an ass, and has released other’s around them from any social contract to be considerate of them in any way, by action or inaction.
But it’s a needless and bad idea for all of this to depend on different people’s interpretation of the social contract, especially since that arrangement will tend to favor social cheats - people who are selfish dicks at the expense of people who are instinctively accommodating.
People who care about the issue are clearly split. Some people feel strongly that their comfort is compromised (or worse) by reclining seats. Some people can’t sleep comfortably without reclining seats, so it’s a problem if they can’t recline on long haul flights.
So it’s a terrible idea to distribute these people at random throughout the aircraft, to create maximum potential for conflict. Why can’t the airlines simply establish that one section of the aircraft is for recliners, one section is for non-recliners? As a pro-recliner, I would look very favorably on an airline where I knew I could be sure of being able to recline my seat without worrying about objections from the person behind me. And it sounds like many non-recliners would feel equally positive toward an airline that provided a non-reclining section.
It seems we should all be lobbying the airlines for a better product.
I would clarification on the contradictory comments that seats don’t recline enough to offer extra comfort and seats recline so much that they are an assault on the passenger behind them. I don’t see how both of these can be true.
While I don’t necessarily agree with the statement, it quite possible that the extra recline that you get is not really getting you a significantly more comfortable position, while at the same time restricting the space of the person behind you to a great extend.
Perception of the space to sit back a bit more is not the same of the perception of the you legspace or space in front of your face.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn moto g(6) met Tapatalk
It’s simple. A two-inch recline (standard on the major airlines now except Delta, and they’re planning to join the others) makes very little difference to the person in the seat. It’s simply too slight an angle. However, when there is very little space the front edge of your seat and the back edge of the seat back in front of you, 2 inches is significant.
We know pitch means amount of space between the forward edge of the seat back in one row to the *forward edge *of the seat back in the row in front. On some airlines, it’s 31 inches or so–pretty cramped. But in economy airlines, it’s 28-29 inches. Let’s use 30 inches.
30 inches pitch minus 17 inches of seat (average depth) = 13 inches of space
But that 13 inches includes the* depth* of the seat back for the row in front. I can’t find measurements for that, but if it’s a mere 3 inches, that leaves you with
10 inches, front edge of seat to back edge of seat in front. Whew! Tight fit! Subtract the 2 inches of recline from the seat in front, and you’re down to a mere 8", or 20% of that small space.
No wonder people get testy.
But the seat doesn’t slide. It rotates. So 2 inches at the top of the seat is nearly nothing at the bottom right?
Same is true for the bottom left.
This is a self-serving claim that is simply not true for everyone. It makes no difference to you. For me (and other people in this thread), even a couple of inches makes a significant difference in whether I’m able to sleep comfortably. I don’t care on a short flight, but I would avoid any airline that abolished recline altogether on long haul flights.
If it really makes no difference to the person reclining, why does this problem exist? Do you really believe that everyone who wants to recline is just deliberately being a jerk for no reason?
They would be getting testy based on two mathematical errors in that statement then.
This would be 80% of that space, not 20%, and would only be true if he seat was sliding backwards two inches and not reclining two inches from the top. Trigonometry tells us that the two inches at the top translates into much less than two inches at the knee.
In the same way that every the same way that every customer, student, and worker has the “right” to call people names and use profane language (subject to safety regs, etc.).
That’s why part of the conversation is about politeness.