As someone who always reclines (even in full recline I still feel I am sitting pitched forward) I don't understand the hostility to the OP's proposal.

While I think having half the plane being no-recline is too much, it would not hurt anyone to have a set number of rows in the back of the plane for those who don't want any seat recline.

With the exception of passengers who are unusually tall the inconvenience is minor and insignificant. For example:
While I would care if someone is genuine physical pain if I recline I do not care in the slightest if someone finds it "super awkward" to get something in their carry on or has trouble passing snacks to their kids. Trivial issues at best and not worth reconfiguring half of all aircraft seats to accommodate his/her picayune problems.

Who are you to tell others what inconveniences are "minor and insignificant"? Is it OK for me to tell the must-recline people that their inability to do so (should seats be switched to non-reclining) is a minor and insignificant inconvenience? Because in MY eyes it certainly is!

I guess I don't think it's up to you to decide if someone else's issues are trivial or not.

I agree, the hostility the OP's post has generated is baffling. What's wrong with discussing a possible solution to a travel problem?

It is up to me to decide when you asked for my opinion about your idea to impose a 50-50 split on whether there should be non-reclining sections in aircraft.

It is also up to me to decide if the passenger behind me doesn't want me to recline. If it's a genuine physical issue I'm happy to sit up straight. If it's someone who finds it "super awkward" to hand a snack to her children because I recline then tough luck.

It's not a bad idea in theory, but an airplane is not a pie which can be split up in perfectly equal sections. If you split front-back, there will always be those who complain that they want the front section but its recline state is not their preference, and if you split left-right there will always be those who complain that they want the other side but its recline state is not their preference. There will be accusations from both sides that their side is getting the least desirable section of the cabin, etc. etc.

That didn't take long...

It's not just about seat pitch. When the seat in front of you reclines it also makes it difficult or impossible to use your tray table for certain things like typing on a laptop. It's also about the way in which some folks recline, slamming their seats back fast and hard, which can impact knees and spill drinks that are placed on the tray table.

See, that's me, a die-hard recliner, seeing the validity of the other side's complaints. I simply don't think their complaints are serious enough for me to forego reclining if I paid for a reclining seat.

Nor is splitting the plane because some noisy minority whines about being willing to pay for a bigger seat, longer pitch, and/or better meal, yet there are still various classes of seats on most airplanes.

I see the logical reason, I simply don't agree that the reasons are strong enough to invalidate the idea.

Both sides would inevitably complain that their section of the cabin is in some way a sub-standard location. "All the reclining seats are in the back of the bus like Rosa Parks! They're treating us like second-class citizens! It's not fair!" or "All the non-reclining seats are on the right side of the plane! My neck hurts and I need a non-reclining seat on the left side! It's not fair!"

No matter how you split the cabin, there will always be those who want their preferred section to be in another location, and will complain bitterly about it.

To paraphrase P.T. Barnum, "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please some of the people all of the time, and there's no way in hell you can ever please all of the people all of the time."

It does seem to me that, short of making E- seats non-recline, the airlines have already provided a good range of options if you want to avoid having someone recline into you. Bulkheads, extra seat pitch rows like E+, MCE, Economy Comfort and Even More Room, and exit rows are often 30% of the available seats.

If you're flying with kids (no exit row) and need e.g. diaper/toys/sippy-cups from your bag (no bulkhead) and not on a route JetBlue serves sufficiently (no Even More) - then it's a bit harder, though I take your point.

^ Seats recline 3 inches at the top. Less lower. E+ typically has about 3 inches more pitch. Therefore sitting in E+ if the guy in front of your reclines, you have the more room than you would have in E- with no recline allowed.

So if you don't want the guy in front of you to recline, pay for E+ and you get the same effect and accept that the guy in front reclines. If you want even more room, pay for business.

I have the opposite impression - looking around this kind of discussion at FT, usually the most aggressiveS & combatants are the non recliners.

I don't recall any thread started by a recliner asking for more reclining, or asking to keep the seats as they are. I usually see threads started by non recliners complaining about.

I'm pretty sure the silent majority are the recliners. Usually who complain is the loud minority, who want to change the current status quo.

That's a lot of ifs and ands. The Venn diagram is getting very sliver-ish.

What does one expect from someone who demands 50 per cent of all seats on all aircraft be non-reclining just so she can hand a sippy cup to her kids? It's just soooo "super awkward" otherwise. :rolleyes:

Actually, no.

1. The constraints just describe parents of young children in non-JetBlue regions.

2. No one said 50%

3. Mock my diction if you want; at least I didn't call anyone "stupid" or "dumb" or "worthless" or insist that I must be in the majority because I'm so enraged about my side of the issue.

4. The reason you hear more from Non-Recliners is that the status quo is skewed toward Recliners. It makes sense that people on the "other side" would agitate for fair treatment or in this case, a separate section.

5. Separate sections, yes, might eventually restrict the marginal seat buyer. On either side. That's kind of how air travel works in general. There's no God-given right to recline or to have enough leg-room. My idea was meant to diminish what has led to extreme truculence in the sky in recent weeks.

Well, no; it might describe parents of young children in regions without JetBlue OR United OR Delta OR American OR Frontier. All of these carriers have a more-room section. As I said, the Venn diagram gets very sliver-ish. :D :D :D