I recently flew r/t on the new JFK-SFO route on the reconfigured 320s (with the most leg-room in the first 11 rows, as opposed to in the last 15 or so rows)...

On the outbound, in row 5, I was really SHOCKED how much those extra few inches add to one's comfort... I don't know what the pitch is exactly, but it was really remarkable how much room we had.

On the inbound -- and this is the point of the post -- we were seated originally in 9B and 9C. I couldn't remember whether or not the exits were at 10 and 11 or 9 and 10, so I double-checked with the gate agent who told me they were at 10 and 11 -- and that due to FAA regulations, seats in row 9 do not recline. This was the redeye! I was so thankful that she let me know about this because if I had boarded the flight -- which had only three seats open -- and couldn't recline on a redeye back to JFK, I would've been really ticked off. Luckily, we were moved to 22B and 22C, and all was fine.

IMHO, jetBlue needs to add an advisory to the seating configuration/selection pages for at least the redeye flights about the inability to recline in row 9. Transcon tix can get very pricey -- even on B6 -- and it would really be a shame to pay the max (something around $399 o/w) for a seat on a redeye for 5+ hours without recline...

Just my .02, but I plan to write to Speak Up about it.

Good to know...thanks. I'm going to be out in the bay area for a conference next spring. I'll have to remember that when I book.

The only seats that do not recline on the 320s are 9A, 9F, 10A, and 10F. These are due to a change in FAA policy that says any window seats that recline into an exit row may not recline at any time. However now 9B,C,D,E and 10B,C,D,E are now allowed to fully recline at any point in the flight.

Thanks very much for the clarification! That being the case, I would've been fine not having changed my seat. Nevertheless, I still think jetBlue should inform passengers booking 9A, 9F, 10A, and 10F that their seats will not recline due to FAA Regulations. Personally, unless it were an emergency, having only those four seats to choose from on a redeye (or equally long journey as from SFO-JFK), I would not pay the max. fare...

I agree, but honestly I haven't recieved many complaints about the non reclining seats on the transcon flights. I've flown 10 or so transcon flights (4 redeyes) these past few weeks alone and nobody seemed to bothered by it. Between the leg room, TV's, and Radio's I don't think they really noticed that much. I've had those seats many times on my commutes and I'll just slouch a bit and lay my head on the wall by the window and i'm all set. Granted I'm very easy to please and just happy to get a seat.

If the seat in front of the exit is far enough in front of the exit that it can be fully reclined without blocking the exit, would FAA policy allow it to recline? If so, would it be better to give the exit row seat a bit extra seat pitch, taking a fraction of an inch from the rest of the front seats (which would still have plenty of seat pitch)? Then there would be no "bad" seats that don't recline.

The 3 seats are all bolted together, so setting them up in a misaligned manner probably won't work too well.

I think the best was when the row in front of the first exit and the first exit row reclined above 10,000 feet. During takeoff and landing, the rows were locked, and the FA released them at the appropriate time.

Why did the FAA implement the new regulation!? The other seemed to have work just fine!

Agreed. Interestingly, there was recently (about 6-8 months ago), an article in the Economist about airplane safety demonstrations and the complete inapplicability of the recommendations in the event of a real emergency. It would be too morbid to cite specifically what the article (which is written as a satire of a pre-take-off safey announcement) says, but the point is that the 10,000ft rule was sufficient to satisfy the necessity that the seats would not impede passengers' ability to exit the aircraft in the event of an emergency where such an exit would actually be useful.

Maybe entertaining as a satire piece, and I agree that the routine is pretty entertaining, but, at the same time, AF managed to evacuate a fully loaded wide body that was caught fire on landing at YYZ a few months ago. I'm clearly not going to argue that lack of recline allowed that to happen, but it is worth considering that some of the plans make sense.

Oh, don't get me wrong, there's definite value to the demonstration and most of the safety measures that are in force... My point was that at 30,000+ft, the likelihood of surviving an exit from an aircraft through the over-wing exits is so slim that it's none. So the old FAA rule about being able to fully recline in the Exit Rows above 10,000ft was sufficient.

Not only that, but the exits CANNOT be opened once the aircraft is airborne! DeitCoke and jetBlueFA can elaborate on this one, but my basic understanding is that the outside air pressure forces the exits to remain closed when in the air. It's physically/virtually impossible to open them.

Clearly, these exits cannot be used when the aircraft is airborne. Even if you could get out, where would you go if the plane were in the air?

The FAA's rule concerning seat reclining is to ensure that there is no possibility of having the exit row blocked by a reclined seat, whether intentionally by a passenger, or due to a malfunction.