The Fierce Legal Battle at the Heart of the Fight over Reclining Airline Seats | Hacker News Reader

The Fierce Legal Battle at the Heart of the Fight over Reclining Airline Seats

slate.com

28 pointsimartin2k80 comments

The wording of this is weird (even if I get the point). Airlines don't sell you space, they sell you a seat too. If I pay for a seat, and it has a recline button on it, I'm entitled to use that button and recline my seat -- I really don't see any room for another interpretation.

I do always feel a little guilty by reclining. Especially with some of those seats that by reclining, the seatback media player is tilted just so that it's harder to watch. And on Amtrak one time, my wife reclined her seat too quickly and the woman behind us spilled her water on herself -- that was embarrassing for us all, honestly.

But the point stands. I can recline my seat, and you can recline yours, and that's the way it is.

For those of you that want to take a passive aggressive route, by the way, my father in law says if he really needs to use his laptop en route he will point his air con at the recliner in front of him until they sit up straight. Maybe try that.

There is more to it than your entitlement.

Is the person behind you not entitled to comfort?

Your car is sold with a horn. Are you entitled to sit on it for 10 minutes at 3am in a residential area for no reason? Possibly. Should you? That’s the more important question when we live in a society.

Also if your father in law absolutely needs to use his laptop perhaps he should fly business class (I can’t speak to domestic services but internationally you’re guaranteed to be unaffected by others’ seats)

There’s a pretty big gap between “needs to work on flight” and “can afford business class”

Premium Economy bridges the gap.

When has there been any alluding to or promise of being able to work in economy? It always seemed best effort. Eg if your laptop was small enough, if you’re at a seat with power, if the person wasn’t reclining.

IMO you should not book economy with the expectation to work for any decent portion of it uninterrupted.

(Again this an EU/international view. I’ve not flown US domestic)

Using your car horn in that manner is illegal in most places, as it should be. Shouldn't you be more upset with the airline for designing and selling a product that is almost unusable because of how uncomfortable it is?

Are you entitled to deny another person their comfort and use of a service they have paid for? I don't understand this argument because it goes both ways. The airline is the only entity to blame.

> Shouldn't you be more upset with the airline for designing and selling a product that is almost unusable because of how uncomfortable it is?

Precisely. As the article/book author is correct to point out too. And this applies to so many products and services these days. We're conditioned to accept what's made available, because there's usually little we can do about it directly. So companies are free to engage in "value engineering", successively making every product asymptotically approach the border between "fit for purpose" and "fraudulent marketing".

The car horn is a safety feature that is designed to be used as a warning mechanism. It's a poor analogy to compare it to "comfort", which literally translates into the passenger in the back also reclining and reclaiming the same amount of space.

At the end of the day, the person paid for a seat and that seat comes with comfort features that they can use.

To reiterate, it's a poor analogy as no one is honking at you or keeping you from sleeping or waking you up or whatever else a random car horn would do to you at 3 am (at which point you should be calling the authorities because if you live in a civilized place, that ought to be illegal)

How does the fact that you bought a seat with a recline button give you the entitlement to cause discomfort or pain to the person behind?

If the seat came with a button that would deliver an electric shock to the person sitting behind, would you feel entitled to push it?

but the button is there for you to push if you so desire. The Airline has given you an option which you may or may not use.

Can you buy the right to hurt another person without their consent?

Who is hurting anyone here?

False analogy... but you know that already. One is a comfort feature, the other is a theoretical psychology test.

If it were merely a comfort feature it would not be controversial.

It's strictly a comfort issue. (for both parties, and the hind passenger can always comfort themselves the same way via reclining their chair too... not rocket science - pardon the sarcasm)

The analogue with Disney and FastPass/VIP resonates with me. A few years ago I was speaking on a panel at a two-day conference in LA. My panel was the first day, so I decided to quietly skip out on the second day and go to Magic Mountain instead.

My local park back home doesn't have anything like FastPass so when I heard about it, I was excited because I only had a few hours to spend and promptly got it as soon as I got to the park. As I walking to the first ride that I pre-reserved, I came across a family, all wearing the same t-shirt; the kind of shirt you have pre-made for a family event like an outing or a reunion. I thought that was neat and went on my way.

Fast forward to an hour or so later, and I see the same family at one of the coasters, standing in line while I walk right ahead and past them to the front. I start to think -- geez, is this sending the right message to this family, that those with more can just zoom ahead?

(As a very imperfect solution, I ended up running into them yet another time, right as I was leaving, and I gave them my FastPass.)

Life is fraught with a lot of those ambiguities. Or at least I think so. I order DoorDash, even though I know I'm getting convenience at the cost of a exploitative system for the vulnerable and underemployed.

There isn't a "correct" answer, just as there's no "correct" answer to the seat problem. Everything is relative. I do tend to think though that with a little empathy for everyone else, you'll do pretty well.

Force the airlines to articulate a policy upfront (they’re free to make it whatever they want). That way it becomes an externality they’re not allowed to pass on to their customers blamelessly (which apparently they do today so the customers fight amongst themselves instead of blaming the airline). I think that’s the game theory equivalent answer here to the cake cutting solution of “I cut you pick”.

Ryanair - Europe's largest short haul airline - have no reclining seats.

And universally despised :).

> even though I know I'm getting convenience at the cost of a exploitative system for the vulnerable and underemployed.

By what measure is it exploitative? How is that any different than if the delivery person worked for the restaurant?

> How is that any different than if the delivery person worked for the restaurant?

As far as I know, at least in Europe if the person works for the restaurant they have almost always a right to days off and always for sick leave and contributions for the pension, while the delivery companies try to make them figure as "self employed". Laws are being passed (most recently in Spain) to avoid this issue, so this might not be the case everywhere anymore.

A delivery person working for the restaurant works for the restaurant, and has reasons to care about both the restaurant and the customer - and in return, both have a reason to care about the delivery person. DoorDash, Uber Eats and friends are VC-funded multinationals that ruthlessly exploit restaurants and the delivery people, strip-mining the local markets, often ruining restaurants in the process. The mischief and borderline fraudulent behavior of those companies is well-documented, and regularly discussed on HN.

> Fast forward to an hour or so later, and I see the same family at one of the coasters, standing in line while I walk right ahead and past them to the front. I start to think -- geez, is this sending the right message to this family, that those with more can just zoom ahead?

I think it's great that you are worrying about this and that you ended up giving them your pass later.

OTOH, there's no end to these thoughts. Some families cannot even afford a park visit. Other families might have time but no money for a FastPass. Why is your ability and willingness to pay for the pass an issue by default? That family might go to Disney every year, save up and enjoy the experience. You took a limited opportunity to go and hop on rides, you might have not done without the FastPass system.

> I do tend to think though that with a little empathy for everyone else, you'll do pretty well.

Another family could have used the FastPass more, could have swapped an airplane seat etc.

Ultimately your empathy cannot fix things / make the best possible choice, but yes, it's still preferable to not taking the opportunity to be considerate. And it will make you feel better as well. Win/win.

Though, in the end, it doesn't mean we shouldn't look to improve policy / systems to address these issues of imbalance.

Disclaimer: I'm talking here about the Disney World FastPass system; if the system is different at other parks, I'm not familiar with it.

FastPass is a very interesting example, because for decades, it was not a "pay-to-win" system. Everyone had the same access to it.

For a long time, it was designed such that those who understood the system better, and were willing to purposefully structure their time at a park, could take better advantage of it: as soon as you enter the park (at opening, ideally), get a FastPass for a ride you know will be highly congested, then go and ride one of the other most-popular rides; by the time you're out, your FastPass time will be pretty close. Use your FastPass, and immediately go back and get another one for another ride. Rinse and repeat.

About ten years ago, Disney shifted the system to a limited number of FastPasses per ticket, which you could pre-book online. This was definitely fairer than the previous system, because it made sure everyone was getting the same number of FastPasses. The only people losing out were those who could previously work the system. Worth noting that this was also around the time the crowds in the parks were getting to be excessive—maximum wait times for rides increasing from the 1-1.5 hour range during the mid-2000s into the 3+ hour range in the 2010s.

Now, very recently, they've changed it to be an explicit "pay-to-win" system, where you pay extra for each FastPass.

Another example of selling the same space twice is cities moving from fixed parking meters, to meters that print out a parking receipt.

With the meter stuck on a pole at the parking space, if I pay for an hour but leave after 20 minutes, the meter still shows time. Somebody else can come and park there for 40 minutes, free.

But if I buy a paper receipt and stick on my dashboard, and leave after 20 minutes, the next person still has to rent the same 40 minutes of time.

Nobody I mention this to is upset about it (neither am I, at heart, though I do notice it). That suggests to me that conflicts over tray space on airplanes is driven more by a sense of claustrophobia and powerlessness, than by any particular notion of fairness or ownership.

In Australia, parking at popular beaches is both packed and crazy expensive, with day passes pushing $50, so there's a well-established tradition of giving your parking ticket to the guy waiting to swipe your spot as you pull out.

Of course, the councils running the parking didn't want to lose out, so they've "upgraded" to parking meters that require you to punch in your license plate number, which is then printed on the ticket in large letters to make sure it can't be reused.

In the Netherlands ( and probably elsewhere) you get a parking app and hit start and stop so you only pay for the exact amount of time you used.

I bet they make a lot of revenue from people forgetting to hit stop

I understand your cynicism, but most systems like this have a reasonable maximum timeout (usually the maximum time you're allowed to stay in that zone - 2-3 hours) at which point it'll end the session.

While that's far from ideal for a 5 minute stop, it's not the only way to pay (you can also try and guess how long you'll be in the spot and prepay much like meters but to the minute rather than some multiple of the change in your pocket) - and at some point you need to take ownership of your oversight, no?

I’ve parked in places where I’m pretty sure the only option was to start a timer (it’s why I made the comment).

EDIT: yup, RingGo in a city centre in England. Just checked. Only option is to start a timer. And it stops in 5 hours time if not stopped (£5.60 for the first 2 hours then a fixed £3.80 for the time until 10pm)

When the old systems worked just fine, and there is no option to prepay, no, I will not take ownership of my “oversight” - it’s dark patterns designed to prey.

It’s more inconvenient for me yet they charge me a convenience fee (especially if you drive a lot of rentals, registering each car is a PITA).

Yet, one airline which fits seats which can't recline (ryanair)is universally hated.

(pre covid, was a frequent flyer. you have to learn to roll with the punches on many things in flight. being in the J class seats makes this specific problem go away, but thats just another form of monetization of the commons)

The mechanism is more expensive and adds weight. Of course they don't recline. Their value proposition is very clear, and I respect that. I just don't fly with them.

Unfortunately, you can't chose an airline that has fixed seats but doesn't do all the rest of the things that make ryanair universally hated.

Also, scheduling and direct flights are more important to me than comfort, so even though I would prefer a flight with fixed seats, the airline that hubs out of my nearest airport is going to get most of my business (even if it's not much).

I went with Ryanair once. There were like 100 reasons to hate them and I normally like flying.

> It’s deliberately engineered by the airlines so they can sell that same space twice.

It seems more likely that they chose to leave the existing ambiguity in place than that they deliberately engineered it. They have more to lose than gain by designating explicit right-of-way, same with arm rest possession. Instead they leave it to bottom up negotiation, which works well most of the time.

Also, if everyone on the plane leans back, as most do, it's all the same amount of space, just at a 45° angle. So the airline is just selling a space with the ability to realign itself as needed.

Unless you're in the very front, in which case you do gain more space without losing any from someone in front of you.

Those seats are usually already more expensive to reserve.

> It seems more likely that they chose to leave the existing ambiguity in place than that they deliberately engineered it.

Once the same thing has been happening for a long time, and you keep designing it that way, it becomes deliberate engineering.

I experienced a different twist on this... Flying overseas a few years ago on a group trip, somebody else had booked my ticket, and didn't buy extra legroom for me. I'm 194cm/ 6 foot 4, and my knees were lodged into the back of the seat in front of me, and I couldn't move.

The person sitting in front of me was furious at me, because she couldn't recline her seat, yelling about her right to recline the seat.

I asked her if she wanted me to cut off my legs, which she didn't have an answer for, but she was still angry the whole trip.

Same for me. My knees are staying put. There's nowhere else for me to put them.

You're welcome to recline as much as you want, unless it gets in their way.

She sounds like a jerk, but other than acting out like a child, she isn’t wrong. Personally, I would let it go, but it’s not her fault someone else messed up your ticket. I’m very short and that typically gives me a disadvantage is many scenarios. One of the few places it works to my advantage is aboard a flight. However, more than a few times I’ve sat next so someone very not small, who occupied some of my space for the duration of the flight. Politeness dictates that I can’t complain, because obviously I can’t expect someone to drastically alter their shape for the next few hours. But how is it fair?

Tall or short, big or small - each height/size etc comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages - fair or unfair.

Part of flying coach and having very cheap air-fares is we have to put up with sub-optimal conditions and risk having to be tolerant of our fellow travelers. It is part of the unwritten contract.

Screaming kids, drunks, people with questionable hygiene, snorers, rowdy groups, people taking up extra space, super-talkative neighbours etc etc.

If we are serious enough about wanting to lower the risk of such inconvenience, we need to get out the plastic and pay for economy plus, business class etc.

All reasons why I would personally drop it and chalk it up to an annoyance of flying, but I still don't think it's fair. Your hygiene habits or body size have to be someone's problem, and I don't think it's fair to make them someone else's. I miss out on all kinds of things because I'm 5'2". If you can't reasonably fit in one airplane seat, you ought to miss out on cheap(er) air travel and pay for the extra space instead of dumping your problems into my lap.

Indeed. If a small person should be required to give up flight seat space to the larger persons, then every tall person should be on their knees at concerts.

I was quite surprised to see in the article that the lady in front of you apparently was in the right. She had paid for that space not you.

> Every airline has a rule, which is that the person with the button can lean back, but they are super deliberate about keeping that rule quiet.

To me that sounds crazy. Everyone has to fit in the seat when upright, because of take-offs and landings. But reclining the seat can make it impossible for a passenger to fit in. Or put in another way: you buy the passenger space for the reclined position and are then asked to sit in the upright position.

But as the article says, this split people 50/50 and each half cannot understand the other half.

disclaimer - didn't read the article.

but here's the thing - exit seats used to be free (i used to check-in early at the airport and ask politely, i always got them), but:

1) they're often narrower due to trays/screens in armrests (this was a problem when i was heavier)

2) all the low-budget online check in crap combined with the fact that I now have to pay for the extra legroom is basically discrimination. Most people can choose to lose weight (i did) but can't choose to be shorter (I'm 196 cm).

The most infuriating thing is when they eventually do random assignment to the exit seats because nobody paid for them.

IMO, there should be a "I am tall" verification system that overrides paying for exit seats and prioritizes them.

How is this even a debate, if you weren’t supposed to use it they wouldn’t pay extra to install seats with a reclining mechanism.

I recommend you listen to the conversation or read the book. It covers the authors’ theory that there are 6 basic views of ownership and that Rocky 50% of people when presented with this scenario take a very strong position for their preferred view even though it’s not necessarily more or less right objectively. Fascinating to see this in real-time ;)

Just because something is legally available to you does not mean it is the right thing to do. A good example of this is one's right not to wear a mask; or ride your unmuffled motorcycle around the neighborhood at 2am. The list goes on...

Unmuffled motorcycles at night break at least half a dozen laws at every level from local to federal. Masks were also mandated in most of the US. Not the greatest examples.

Just because you are allowed to do something doesn't mean you should, or that it's your right to do if it infringes upon someone else's rights.

Have you ever flow coach class overseas, and you want to sit upright, but the person in front of you decides to recline fully? The in-flight entertainment screen on the seat is now only about 8 inches in front of your face. Hell, if you have food and drink on your tray table, some of that is being pushed toward you by the now-angled back of the seat. Fuck you if you do that and don't care about the person behind you.

You are aware that you can recline your seat back too and reclaim the exact same amount of space the front person "took" from you, right?

Look - the simple matter of it is that this person paid for a seat on a plane. It comes with a reclining function. Some opt to use it, some don't. Simple as that.

There is no need to get vulgar or mad at a basic function of a reclining seat - reclining.

Your car comes with a horn (a basic feature). You bet your ass I’m going to get vulgar and upset if you sit outside my house and blast it at 3am

Poor analogy. The horn is a safety feature, and of course basic, as it serves as a warning mechanism. In addition, if you live in a civilized area and not the wild west, you should be calling the authorities, not cause further troubles via getting "vulgar and upset".

The reclining seat on an airplane is designed to be reclined - it has 2 modes: upright and reclined, at the passenger's preference. Its usage is not a safety feature, it's an option built into it and the price you pay for the ticket.

If you are bothered by it, you can always recline your seat and reclaim your space. Literally.

That space behind me is not useful to me. My food is still crammed up in the < wedge of the now-greatly-slanted back seat and horizontal tray table. My in flight entertainment screen is now angled down, playing a movie for my belly rather than my eyes.

I cannot open a laptop, because that "relcaimed" space behind me is not the same type of space and is frankly useless to me.

Your argument is why humanity is becoming less civil and intelligent. People aren't thinking. One person shouts, so everyone around him shouts. Now everyone is shouting. The correct answer would have been for the loud moron to speak at a lower volume.

And finally, your argument fails because the last seat in the airplane usually cannot recline. So if you want to be fair, that precludes the person in front of him from reclining, and so on to the front of the plane.

The space behind you is exactly the amount of space taken away from you by the front reclining seat. You can easily reclaim your stolen space by reclining yourself.

Ergonomics of in-flight entertainment screens are not a concern of mine if I am trying to sleep or be comfortable. Take it up with the manufacturer or the airline if you've issues with it, not the person using their seat as designed.

If your personal usage of a laptop was an issue, it would have been addressed at the design stage of the airplane. You are flying economy, therefore you don't get the special treatment. Either upgrade to FC or accept what the rest of us peons deal with - cramped spaces made slightly more comfortable with a reclining seat.

As for the "your argument fails" part - same with the front passengers, who don't have anyone reclining against them. You pay economy, you get economic space. It's just how the world works. I've been there plenty of times, and there's nothing I can do about it - I just accept it. The world is not fair.

> same with the front passengers, who don't have anyone reclining against them. You pay economy, you get economic space

Front-row seats and exit row seats are paid upgrades because of the extra space. They aren't paying economy - they're paying slightly more.

That was my point. Front row seats cost more than the very back end row (which has no reclining functionality) because of extra leg room. Maybe it wasn't clear in how I phrased it.

> The space behind you is exactly the amount of space taken away from you by the front reclining seat. You can easily reclaim your stolen space by reclining yourself.

I'm going to give you an acre of land. Would you rather have a square 208 feet on a side, or a strip 1 foot wide by 43,560 feet long? They're exactly the same amount of space!

> if you weren’t supposed to use it they wouldn’t pay extra to install seats with a reclining mechanism

Of course they would, if being able to say they have this option in their marketing materials increased sales enough to cover for the expense.

Be under no illusion that they care about your comfort, or even that there are seats and airplanes involved in their business. They're showing time and again that it's just an optimization problem for getting money out of people; that it happens to be air travel is incidental.

I'm so confused that you got downvoted.

It should be obvious that they paid the money because they profit from it. It should also be obvious that they would want that profit whether or not you're supposed to use it.

> How is this even a debate, if you weren’t supposed to use it they wouldn’t pay extra to install seats with a reclining mechanism.

Exactly, there's really no question here. The feature is installed to be used.

I have a different solution to the seat conflict: the only winning move is not to play

I've taken far fewer flights in recent years. It's just too uncomfortable to travel in steerage, and I'm too poor to afford first class.

I mean this is my solution basically. Flying sucks, and I have sworn to do it as little as possible.

Yep. I'd much rather drive, or take a train should one be available.

That said, if it's for work and my employer already paid for an economy seat, I'm generally okay with splurging a bit out-of-pocket for the business class / first class upgrade. If there was a seating section with first-class seats but none of the extra service I'd take that every time.

Same here. Good thing I live where I live.

It gets worse. The "standing seat" concept is back.[1]

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/skyrider-standing-pl...

Good, that "solves" the problem for all the tall folks. Nobody can recline, and by definition everyone has "leg space".

Unless the standing space "reclines" to diagonal. :)

Oh god. I always dreamed to fly aboard a sci-fi dropship, but now I'm realizing I don't actually want to travel like that in the real world.

> Each time they push us an inch closer, they get to put six extra seats on the plane, so it’s actually quite valuable to them to shrink the pitch. And they’re able to do so because the FAA decided to allow the airlines to keep shrinking the pitch, and as they do, that wedge of space becomes a more valuable resource.

See FAA regulatory capture.

Here's one of many articles with that theme

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a34045023/boe...

The original article is off base here. As far as I know, there are no FAA requirements for minimum seat pitch, only for being able to evacuate the airplane fast enough.

As it happens, in 2018 Congress mandated the FAA to come up with some standards, but as of last year it hadn't happened:

https://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/Congre...

> in 2018 Congress mandated the FAA to come up with some standards, but as of last year it hadn't happened

Exactly

Mine! also discussed on EconTalk [1]. Looks like the authors are on a publicity tour. I wonder if their results in the book hold up over time. Much of Freakonomics doesn’t IIRC.

[1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/econtalk/id135066958?i...

Why don't airlines give you the option when you buy your ticket of saying if you are going to recline or not? Then seat "going to recline" people in front of other "going to recline" people, and seat "not going to recline" people in front of other "not going to recline" people.

Airlines are not going to implement that out of the goodness of their hearts, especially since they overbook flights regularly and have no idea if a given seat will be in use by a given person until boarding time.

The way the article states the rear passenger's claim is wrong. They say, "No, it was mine. I had it first, for my laptop".

From the perspective of the rear passenger, the claim is, "This space, this approximate vertical rectangular volume that I occupy with my body and seat, is my space." When the person in front reclines back into that space, they are now taking something away from me.

And I'm sorry, but the front passenger has no valid claim. They are either stupid/simple minded, as the woman clearly was, by beliving that they bought the button which gives them (magically? at no harm to anyone else?) extra space to recline into.

Let's be frank about it. If you use that button to recline back into someone else's face (because that's about how close it gets these days), then you are an asshole unless you ask them first if they mind... or unless you check first and see they are either reclining themselves or are at least asleep.

That's a ridiculous conclusion to come to. The seat stands upright for takeoff and landing, but at any other time is available for reclining within a particular angle.

The flight attendants even make it a point to let everyone know to put their seat in the upright position, which implies common usage.

If the space has become more cramped for the rear passenger, they are welcome to recline and reclaim that same space.

Some people (myself included) deal with back and neck issues where sitting up straight is strenuous and causes pain over time, not to mention further encourages poor posture.

I understand we're retreading what the article states, but you are wrong in your position. (pun not intended)

Even in business class I had some showdown with guy behind me who's angry he doesn't have more leg room. Early morning flight, I upgraded because I needed to sleep, and the guy wakes me up mid flight by violently kicking the back of my seat. When I turn to confront him he angrily tells me to pull my seat up. I don't even talk to him, I just buzz the flight attendant and told her what happened. She speaks to him but he started doing it again. I buzzed her again. Don't know what she said but this time he stopped.

Probably something along the lines that if he does it again, he'll be spending his arrival meeting with some nice airport police officers at the destination.

Flight attendants have a lot of authority in-flight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com