Westjet is going to make you pay to recline your seat
thestreet.com
thestreet.com
I do get that she just wanted to relax a little. She wasn’t trying to be mean. But wow, how the awful design of that plane made her reasonable desire to rest in her seat physically painful for me.
We’re talking about comfort, not safety. (I am struggling to find any reported injuries from reclining accidents.)
We're talking about safety, not comfort! They can survive on low oxygen under the plane so put some seats down there!
I’m 6’. My partner is 6’ 7”. I’d prefer to not have to pay extra for more legroom. I’d also prefer to not pay for anything else in my life.
Conflating safety and comfort in the context of an airline is incredibly disingenuous. I’m as safe as I’m miserable flying middle seat economy. I’m also in that position because I preferred to spend my dollars on something else.
Do we have any evidence this varies based on reclining and leg room relative to height?
If so, you absolutely have a point, possibly legally under the ADA.
Also got a macbook pro screen crushed from a reclining seat once... nobody cared.
Was there injury? Was your ability to exit in an emergency impaired? If so, there might be a safety issue. Being in non-injurious pain is uncomfortable and annoying and it sucks, but it's not fairly characterised as a safety issue any more than getting a neck crick from a lack of lay-flat seating counts as a safety issue.
On the last flight I took, an Economy+ seat with more legroom, was over 250% more expensive. It came with no additional perks, just legroom.
I need to recline or else I have terrible back pain.
However, if someone asks me nicely I will switch seats with them or otherwise try to consider their happiness. So, ask nicely. Don’t thrash like a trapped chicken and hope to annoy people into submission.
Eh, there is a polite and impolite way to recline a seat. It’s fair to complain about incourteous fellow travellers.
All ways are polite. You are just making shit up.
Why do so many smart people think that correct behavior is whatever makes intuitive sense to themselves and everything else must be wrong? NOBODY HAS EVER CONVENED A SUMMIT ON RULES FOR RECLINING AIRLINE SEATS, DUDE. There is no council of elders. There's just us.
Either you're a pluralist, who understands that the world has lots of different kinds of people in it, that we don't all agree, and somehow we must get along without resorting to violence... or you're part of the why we aren't getting along.
As I said in my original comment. There are no rules. But there is empathy. Empathy is a gift. It's a choice. Thank you for choosing it. But it's not my right to demand it from you. My comfort is NOT your problem.
And it's so strange to be downvoted when I say that, because if my comfort is your problem, then you all should be upvoting me so that I will feel good about myself! Every downvote proves I'm right. (sort of)
This is the reason the majority of people have to suffer rules created for the lowest common denominator. Jesus Christ.
It's not the person in front of you's fault that the little bit of comfort the feature built into the seat she bought offers her is inconvenient to you.
This is as obnoxious as slamming the seat backwards.
It works at scale about as well as people slamming back when they recline. It’s not a bad idea, and I’d endorse recommending it. But it isn’t as reliable as paying for a better seat.
Or dump your apple juice on their head and claim accident.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/29/spirit-airlines-chapter-11-b...
Seems to be working great for the man running the show right now!
I was flying Spirit quite frequently. I'm well prepped. I have a backpack that is the maximum size allowed as a personal item, I carry an empty water bottle and a meal from home. They have an option where you can bid on exit row and big seats in advance. I'd bid the lowest amount ($4-10) and almost always win the upgrade.
Not everyone is aware of this though. I dislike businesses that prey on customers' lack of knowledge to bombard them with fees.
The guy next to me on a flight last year got hit with a $80 fee at the gate because his bag was an inch or so too big. It was his first time flying Spirit. It was cheaper for him to discard that bag and purchase a smaller bag for the flight back.
How much more nickel and diming is there left to be done? Standing seats? [1]
Very anecdotal evidence, but I was on a trip last week and Spirit was more expensive than American which is what I chose. I'm not loyal to any airline.
No one was at the gate hounding at people for bag sizes. I had Wi-Fi on the plane and got a drink and a small snack. My knees also appreciated the slightly longer legroom.
[1] https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/standing-seats-budge...
I am mostly loyal to Delta and by the end of the year, my wife and I will have flown over a dozen times on our dime - many of those shorter flights. I like free checked bags, priority check in, etc
Basically the economies of scale and different route topography (hub & spoke vs. distributed) that powered low cost airlines in the past doesn't work anymore. It doesn't account for the basic fact that the bigger airlines have more cashflow and can outspend the smaller ones where the low-cost passengers don't have any brand loyalty.
Now it's a race to the bottom because the only way these kinds of airlines can survive is more cost cutting and a few more dollars of revenue per passenger.
One interesting aspect that is touched upon in the video is also that airports are basically municipally-run real estate monopolies for the airlines. The big carriers capture airports in the 6 biggest national markets (or geographic centers) and use the monopoly to punish the other carriers. In most places it's near impossible to expand or diversify airport capacity- it takes many decades.
Then the major airlines have a lot of business travelers where they are using other people’s money.
This is ahistoric. Flying started out comfortable and expensive. (Though I’d argue a first-class seat in an unpressurized cabin flying through the weather was less comfortable than a modern economy seat flying over it.)
Airlines fought to find ways to make tickets cheaper because a vast majority of flyers choose the cheapest ticket on checkout. (There are legitimate issues with add-on fee transparency. But even after accounting for that, most travelers —until super recently—chose the cheapest ticket.)
> doesn't understand the value of trains
I’m not seeing that many WestJet routes across which a train would make sense? It certainly wouldn’t be cheaper.
>The Premium section at the front of these planes will have "ergonomically contoured seat cushions, reclining seat backs and a large headrest with four-way adjustment capability."
So.. poor people don't deserve ergonomic seats?
You know what I would pay for? Bunk beds.
It’s more that you can sell a seat cheaper if it isn’t ergonomic.
In fact, I would go so far as to say there are no people in the world who earn an airplane ticket through deserving it. It's an entirely pay to play luxury.
Also makes people more likely to upgrade. Basically all the same reasons why economy doesn't get business class seats
What are you referring to?
I wish people would talk to each other more.
(Or Air North - very limited service, but my favourite North American airline. Great service, they’ll pre-prep meals for you if you have dietary restrictions, their economy snack is a lovely warmed-up cookie, and they serve local beer and coffee from the Yukon.)
I am wondering if I am in the minority here but I always pick non-direct flights and not just because they are cheaper. I have a hard time spending 7-8 hours straight cramped up in a seat. I'd rather split that into two 4-4 flights.
For daytime flights within North America, I have to say I haven't reclined my seat in years. The person in front of me doesn't recline half the time, either. It just seems like there isn't the space for it, and it barely makes a difference in comfort, anyway. It's not like reclining increases legroom. So, I can see where Westjet is coming from.
(I think I might change my tune if I was on flight long enough to sleep/nap on.)
It also helps that Ryanair forgo the usual magazine basket which typically sticks out and makes it impossible to move your legs left to right.
Sure. Yet what economists and policymakers often can't or won't understand is that slight pricing inefficiency are a load-bearing parts of a happy and productive society. When you slice and dice every market segment such that everyone gets a product with just barely positive ROI, you spread cynicism, misery, and a zero-sum mindset and you actually reduce overall productivity.
Yeah, okay, if you require as policy that seats decline and people have a certain amount of legroom, prices might rise a bit, and on the margin, people would take fewer trips and thereby GDP would tick lower or something.
So what? Letting people feel a shred of dignity while flying is worth perhaps reducing total trips by some infinitesimal percentage of it reduces the overall misery of society.
The crappy thing about enshittification is we're all part of the same system and participate in the same economy. Hyperoptimization for cost is spiritually shitting where you eat.
It’s called friction and it’s amply modelled in economics. (Luxury is in many cases exemption from transactional friction.)
> Letting people feel a shred of dignity while flying is worth perhaps reducing total trips taken by some infinitesimal percentage
In aggregate, you reduce trips flown minimally. On the individual level, you’re pricing certain families out of flying.
True. Don't we tacitly agree as a society, in other contexts, that certain experiences aren't worth having at all if they're below some quality threshold? We have minimum wages and we don't let people sell cars made of cardboard, even to those otherwise unable to buy transportation.
I'm not sure economists have properly modeled the mass psychic effects of enshittification or, more generally, model the morale and spirit of the people as a proper factor of production.
I think the reasonable delineation is that we do for safety and we don’t for comfort.
Otherwise, it strikes me as patronizing to decide someone else shouldn’t fly so you and I can avoid the friction of paying for a more-comfortable seat.
> not sure economists have properly modeled
Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done?
My views have shifted towards believing the optimal level of economic paternalism being somewhat above zero. Comments like yours are why.
It's beyond obvious that a society in which every transaction is just barely tolerable is a miserable society, that people will make themselves miserable by hyperoptimizing for price, and that perhaps policy has a role in stopping that self destructive behavior.
Individual choice is not the summum bonum ultra of a good life. Where's the economics model that captures that?
Also, what's the rational basis for being paternalistic about safety but not quality? Safety is a dimension of quality. Are people competent to be autonomous about marginal utility except when it involves a seat belt?
Your position is incoherent. Either come out against safety mandates and minimum wages or acknowledge that there is a role for policy in setting quality floors.
You might say "safety risks impose externalities we must internalize". That's just availability bias talking. We can see broken bones. We can't see broken souls. Each incremental hit to public trust and overall happiness is also an externality we must all bear.
> Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done?
You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones. I'm not talking about immediate and local transaction costs.
Apart from anarchists, nobody believes in zero regulation.
It may be the case that pricing the poor out of flying leaves them feeling more dignified. It may also be the case that enrages them. I’d want to ask them before assuming on their behalf.
> Where's the economics model that captures that?
Honest question, did you look before assuming the answer?
> You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones
Nope. Friction is modelled micro and macro economically, which much of the research focusing on the systemic effects of seemingly-insignificant frictions.
Which frictions capture the concepts I'm describing? I'm not talking about transaction costs. I'm not talking about search frictions. I'm not talking about information frictions. I'm talking, ultimately, about how economists don't model social cohesion itself as a factor of production and fail to account for it when optimizing for consumer surplus. When markets train people to treat every interaction as zero-sum, the consequent mass cynicism itself imposes severe transaction and opportunity costs on society. Revealed preferences are differently welfare-maximizing under different market structures! And don't bullshit me about economists taking this effect into account. Who models social capital depreciation? Give me names.
You people have all the mathematical tools to model welfare. You just don't deign to do so.
Again, did you even bother to look?
> When markets train people to treat every interaction as zero-sum
Not how every economic interaction is modelled in even toy models.
> Revealed preferences are differently welfare-maximizing under different market structures
…yes.
> You people have all the mathematical tools to model welfare. You just don't deign to do so
I can’t tell if this comment thread is just a desire to rant.
To third parties, yes, this is all modelled. Not perfectly. But not due to lack of effort. There are lots of things thrown out above, so I’m not going to chase down citations for someone who is unlikely to read them, given many should be findable within minutes of googling.
And they seem to be following the very same media playbook: make outrageous statements about some kind of insane fees they're going to introduce (like the famous RyanAir toilet-use add-on) to emphasize how cheap they are.
Anyway, the ever-ongoing enshittification in the air-travel space is entirely to blame on the consumers -- the people could stop this nonsense at any time, but apparently they're fine with it, so...
How? I suppose the answer is to stop flying, I basically don't fly already, so that'd be fine with me but, if you are a flyer, in Canada we have Air Canada and Westjet if you're flying domestic. I suppose we could stop buying economy seats, but "premium" doubles the price.
This seems to be broadly true, and the driver behind at least American airlines expanding their middle and front cabins.
A better comparison in Canada would be Flair.