It should be pointed out that we're in this situation largely because of yet another case where manufacturers made something assuming it'd be laid out one way, but the airlines in reality did it much more cruelly to passengers than plane manufacturers thought they would.

We've seen this movie before with the 747 lounge (how long did those last?) and any plane with a fuselage width that could hold, say, 9 semi-comfortable seats across or 10 cramped ones. Guess which one the vast majority of airlines will pick?

Yet this disconnect keeps happening, even though Boeing should have learned long ago to assume the worst and don't give 'em a choice where one option would be to make things really miserable for pax.

Instead we just get the finger-pointing when something turns out bad.

With the seats the problem is that the recline was set assuming more seat pitch than the airline actually gives...it's like everything is calibrated to international E+ (aka plain economy if back in the 70s), so if you're in economy and cramped to 30" then the leanback is much more annoying than it would be at 33" or 34".

Spirit Airlines used to be really awful on this, having A319s with 28" pitch AND the reclining seats. I think they've redone most of 'em with the thinner non-reclining seats by now.

I think it's important to be cognizant of all that, as it's human nature to focus on the other individual, and airlines have certainly played divide-and-conquer with pax in other areas when convenient (such as when they were introducing luggage fees).