Originally Posted by SeriouslyLost

Which part isn't accurate? I provided a link that broadly covers some of the history and directly addresses the economic argument. The law is certainly well established: almost no situation gives you the right to injure others. For the people that are asserting an absolute right to recline regardless of situation to the point of injuring others, what is the actual argument they're using to justify that? "That's an opinion" and "that's just not accurate" don't cut it.




I see a lot of people on FT say things like that. They don't address the argument presented. IMO it's somewhat disingenous - facts and/or references have been presented; you don't get to just dismiss them.

Given the discussion is already starting to misrepresent what I've been saying by positing extremes I've not mentioned, I want to make it explicit: I'm not saying people don't have any right to recline.

I am saying that the right is not unlimited.

It's shared space.

Everyone has paid for the space, both the seat itself and the surrounding space, among other things.

The nature of the space means that sometimes you'll be able to recline (fully, partially, whatever) and sometimes you won't.

The fact of shared space and everyone knowing they cannot predict who will be around them naturally implies that limits on "rights" might occur on the day. It's what the economic theory says, what most forms of ethics say, and it's certainly what the law says.

Sure, people can recline. But that right stops where someone else's knees start. Sure, you can recline and they may not be able to use their laptop. That's the nature of the shared space. But if you recline (say, suddenly) and damage property in the course of doing so then you're liable for that damage. I don't see that you're having rented the seat suddenly changes the law and ethics such that you're now allowed to injure other people and destroy their property. In the exact same way, no one can expect the person in front not to recline at all if there's space for them to do so. No one can expect that they will as a matter of course be able to use their laptop the way they might prefer. Again, it's shared space and diminished "rights" all around.

Originally Posted by SeriouslyLost

And the lie to your "theory" is shown extremely simply by the fact that I have just as much "ownership" of the space in front of my seat as you do to the space behind. After all, I paid for that space too. It's got a tray and everything! Amazing, huh?

Originally Posted by GadgetFreak

No, a persons ability to recline is not limited by the random chance of who is sitting behind them. Imagine airlines trying to build a pricing model on that. How tall the person behind someone happens to be is that persons problem. If they are too tall to fly it is their problem. Their height can't infringe on the person in front of them.

Originally Posted by cynicAAl

I guess you missed my point. I wasn't saying that the entire space in front of you belongs to the person in front of you, just the 2 inches of air space that the seat enters when it is reclined. If the person in front of you isn't reclined, enjoy the airspace. When the person reclines, their seat moves into the space behind it that it was designed to use. Therefore, you have no valid objection to the person using the space. If their reclining requires that you sit differently, you should probably learn to sit differently. Or choose a different seat next time.

Originally Posted by Bogwoppit

It was nice to see them deal with the issue so politely, but it was also very easy to see why fights break out.

Originally Posted by BeatCal

I disagree. My partner is 6 ft, 6 inches. When he puts the seat back, his scalp is in the person's face. If the person is trying to do some work, do you have the right to keep her from it

Originally Posted by SeriouslyLost

I can see that we will simply have to disagree. No one on the absolute side of things has done anything other than repeat themselves and ignore anything that's been raised or asked. It's a hollow position they're holding on to.

Originally Posted by Badenoch

Your response to not being able to use your laptop because my seat is reclined is to deliberately spray sputum on my head and all the adjacent passengers in a petty act of childish vengeance? You may therefore not be the best suited to lecture anyone on "common courtesy."

Why is it the entitled feel "common courtesy" is a one-way street going solely in their direction?

Originally Posted by BeatCal

You misread
Step one: nicely ask and perhaps buy drink for person
Step two: Ask again
Step three (as person has now showed he is a jerk). Push seat up with your knees and hands and then use knees to prevent recline
Step four. Sneeze

Originally Posted by GadgetFreak

Indeed, people saying that they control another persons seat have done nothing but repeat they're hollow position.

Originally Posted by Kgmm77

Quite the opposite. In the wrong seating configuration, factually, your seat is not going back if I'm in the seat behind.

I'm not saying that in an aggressive "I'm spoiling for a confrontation" manner, it's simply a fact. On a recent TAM flight, my knees were firmly embedded in the seat in front when it was upright. Had the occupant tried to recline, she would've had to overcome physics or amputated my legs in order to recline (as well as causing me even more pain trying).

Originally Posted by cynicAAl

Personally, I like the passive-aggressive people behind me who jam their knees into the seatback when I recline. It provides the lumbar support that the seat lacks.

Originally Posted by BeatCal

You misread
Step one: nicely ask and perhaps buy drink for person
Step two: Ask again
Step three (as person has now showed he is a jerk). Push seat up with your knees and hands and then use knees to prevent recline
Step four. Sneeze


Airplane seats were made to recline when there were 2/3 less rows.

Originally Posted by alphaod

Step five: Guy in front slams his entire body weight into the seat in an attempt to recline and breaks your legs.