Which airlines ban the use of Knee Defenders during flight?
travel.stackexchange.com
travel.stackexchange.com
This product is like covering up your neighbors reading light because it bothers you. It's not yours to turn on/off. Lack of space is part of air travel, if you can't fit your laptop on a tray that is reclined then pay for first class or get a smaller laptop.
I don't think these are strict rules or anything, you are certainly entitled to do whatever you wish, it's really just a question of politeness.
Sure, out of politeness I might refrain from using the intended functionality of the seat if you ask nicely (same goes for switching off the light or redirecting the airflow nozzle, and I might choose to delay my toilet break to avoid disturbing your sleep). My sense of politeness tends to go out the window when people start suggesting its selfish or impolite for me not to coordinate my cabin controls to their liking.
There is worse behavior on planes of course. I was once on a flight where I put my backpack under the seat ahead of me and the woman sitting in that seat started kicking it. I firmly pointed out to her that there was a laptop and camera in the bag and that she needed to stop. She informed me that the space under her seat was hers and that I needed to move my bag. The dispute finally ended when she hit the call button and the attending flight attendant eventually had to have her removed from the plane.
A flight on a plane with smoke in the air.
It's usually not that you can opt out of this. Would be cool though: left aisle: no reclining seats, right aisle: reclining seats. :)
That the seat is designed to work in different positions has little to do with whether or not it is rude to use some of those positions. Rudeness is in general situational. An action that is fine under some circumstances can be rude in other circumstances.
For example, my home theater is designed to make very loud sounds. Are you going to argue that this means it can never by rude of me to listen at top volume?
My digestive system is designed to expel noxious gases. Do you think that justifies farting in crowded elevators?
I'm 6'4". My knees always touch the seat in front of me - reclining helps me angle my legs a bit more so I have a few more positions for my legs, particularly on 8+ hour flights, which I often take. It also helps my back hurt less, and often means a significant difference (>1 hour more) in the amount of sleep I get on a flight.
I'm not sure why using the seat as it's meant (particularly in response to someone else using the seat in the same way in front of you) is perceived as selfish.
Granted, I often purchase Economy Comfort/Plus/Premier seats on redeye flights of more than 6 hours, but sometimes it's not an option.
The one in front reclines, putting the one behind in more discomfort. They are prioritising their own comfort over the person behind.
This is like, the definition of selfish, unless the person behind is short enough for it to have no discernible effect (so likely under 5'10 or so).
I expect the same courtesy from those sitting in front of me
But I'm not sure it really is about the yes/no answer - it is more a display of courtesy to someone whom you are about to cause discomfort
If you're convinced that this WILL cause discomfort, why are you asking people - which very well might be too polite/afraid/distracted to decline - if you can do that?
Aren't you, based on your very own impression and description of reclining, asking people if you can slap them every 10min for the rest of the flight?
(I dislike flying in general, and I never had to take a flight longer than 4.5 hours. I couldn't care less about the argument, but would probably lean towards the 'So my chair can be set back. I guess I use it as intended' position)
A slap with consent may be weird, but a slap without consent is battery. So, if one accepts your slap analogy, there's a good reason to ask consent.
For me there is no analogy or issue. Ignoring the 'I think flights are crap in general' base line: My seat. I recline it or not, but that's my decision.
I would have a harder time to recline it, if I'd be convinced that this is in some way 'hard' on the one behind me. But IF I were convinced that this was 'hard' for the person behind me, I'd not ask them for consent.
A) They say "Please don't recline".
Hah! I'm right! And I'm a great person for asking, and now not reclining my seat. Go me.
B) They say "Enjoy"
B1) Hmm. I am convinced that this reclining thing is bad for people in the seats behind the person in question. They agreed, but unless I'm wrong I'm now making their life miserable. But yeah - they're fine with it?
B2) Interesting. Maybe reclining isn't that bad? I should reflect and think about whether my 'reclining is bad and torture' idea is sensible.
it is more a display of courtesy to someone whom you are about to cause discomfort
which my English as a second language skills parse as unconditionally causing discomfort (after asking).
That's the twist. IF you are convinced that reclining your seat causes discomfort, would asking for permission be the right thing to do?
(Obviously I might just plain suck at English once more and fail to understand that sentence correctly)
But I can see that this isn't clear from my original post so sorry for causing confusion
But I'm not sure it really is about the yes/no answer - it is more a display of courtesy to someone whom you are about to cause discomfort
I parse that as
- You think reclining causes discomfort (Not sure I agree, but let's take this as given for now)
- But you ask the one behind you
For me it followed that if the person behind you says 'Sure, go ahead' you'd knowingly cause them discomfort (albeit after asking them / with their consent)?
For the sake of sanity: Can you pick that apart for me? Text is a crappy medium, this isn't my native language and nuances are hard. Where did I fail?
Throughout this interaction I am assuming a few things:
1. Reclining causes discomfort to the person behind 2. But the amount of discomfort varies quite a bit from person to person (e.g. I can imagine that a small child is less discomforted than others) 3. I can't really tell for sure how much discomfort reclining will cause so I ask if it is OK to recline. Then it is up to the person behind to decide how comfortable they are with this.
Are you suggesting that I shouldn't recline at all because it causes discomfort to those behind even if the amount of discomfort might be negligible?
And how about the person behind who can no longer make use of the entertainment system or tray table?
Individual comfort is maximised if you recline, but the comfort of the cabin as a whole is better if only some people recline?
Me in expecting politeness from my fellow flyers and you in that you want to use every inch of space you have paid for.
I can't really say you are wrong - I think we just come at the question of how to get on with other people in public in different ways.
I can not believe people think they have the prerogative to stop other people from reclining. It is intended functionality and we have certainly paid for that.
Will our ancestors (again +10cm[0]) in 100 years still mutter about reclining seats? :)
[0]: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3780/20130902/averag...
I fly a lot within Europe (granted, with a limited selection of airlines) since 2006 and never noticed a decline of space during this time.
Except for the super discount carriers (I rarely fly Easy Jet and never flew Ryanair, so I can't really comment on that) the seat pitch seems around 31" in economy for most flights I ever took.
This is about what most airlines offer on long haul flights (in cattle class) and is certainly tolerable for short hops of less than two hours.
Well I guess that is the question: What did we pay for?
Did we pay for comfort? Reclining does seem to offer that.
Did we pay for discomfort? Not reclining may be a cause of mild discomfort. Who would pay for that?
Did we pay for actual physical pain and significant discomfort? Hell no, but if you are tall and the person in front does recline then this is a reality.
I can't believe people think that have the prerogative to cause other people actual pain. I'm really not convinced you or I paid for that.
Why would you think otherwise? If you can't fit in the space designed then pay for a seat with more leg room or try suing.
Its not a case of thinking I have some sort of privilege that would be infringed by the person in front of me reclining their seat - it simply didn't work. the seat in front of me reclined ~ 1/3rd of its normal distance before hitting my knees, and there was no way to get my knees out of the way. In that case I apologise to the elderly gentleman in the seat in-front, and after he glanced at my knees he (very considerately) concurred that getting the full recline out of his seat was 'unlikely to work'.
Sometimes I try to pay extra and reserve an exit row seat, sometimes they aren't available. The last time I got one I ended up wedged between a rugby player and an obese person for ~12 hours, It's not always an improvement, nor is it necessarily cheap.
And like the poster somewhere up-thread, I don't like being a hypocrite, I try to recline my own seat as little as possible.
I have experienced this in buses and trains, on trains especially. There this can be tolerable, because there is a much more space (at least where I've experienced reclining), and people mostly have been very understanding and kind of afraid that someone from the back will start to shout on them.
In any case, it as well quite a sad thing, that whether there is enough space to be able to recline or isn't, we have a situation were we are unable to sort this out between ourselves.
This is why we can't have nice things.
I for one would absolutely not appreciate guerrilla tactics in a cramped and potentially tense environment by fellow passengers.
The reclined seat in front reduces the space between the eyes and book so it becomes a little blurry, Ok for an hour, but causes a headache after 10. Ditto the tablet and movie screen. If you recline to compensate, it hurts the back because non-reclined with the pillow inserted between back and seat is really the only comfortable way to spend an entire flight.
In 2015, aside from the people with upgrades, most people in first-class don't want to be there (i.e. they're not there because they're wealthy, but because their disabilities or age make coach literally impossible) and most actual rich people fly private because even first class isn't great.
I find that the only thing that I can do on planes, these days, is take a pill, make sure I get 2 armrests (I'm 6' and 195 pounds) and nod off-- and I don't sleep very well. If we had 300 mph trains at competitive prices like Europe and Japan have, I'd rather take those.
An inch of extra legroom means fewer seats on the plane, and even if I had to pay 5% ($40-50) more, then it's too much. Some of the 'premium economy' options aren't that expensive anyhow. I flew Virgin Atlantic in April and only paid something like $60 for a bit of extra room (and as a bonus, because few people do, had an empty seat next to me).
Another thing with regard to your age, and I mean no disrespect, is that I believe ones tolerance for certain kinds of discomfort tend to decrease with age.
I'm not that old (31). I just happen to remember a time when air travel wasn't horrible.
Older people are actually far more tolerant of discomfort. They just suffer more bodily pain when conditions aren't right.
5% being $40-50 means an airfare of $800 to $1000. If domestic flights cost that much, then we should consider airlines forgone for domestic travel and elect officials who'll make competent train service (not necessarily government run, but with infrastructural improvements and revisions of right-of-way laws that enable passenger rail competition) a #1 priority. As for international flights, the reason you see four-digit fares is the very high taxes on those, and the monopolies that airports have, and various other weird factors involving pilot unions and seniority tiers. NYC-HKG really should only cost about $850.
"It is not because of the few thousand francs which would have to be spent to put a roof over the third-class carriage or to upholster the third-class seats that some company or other has open carriages with wooden benches ... What the company is trying to do is prevent the passengers who can pay the second-class fare from traveling third class; it hits the poor, not because it wants to hurt them, but to frighten the rich ... And it is again for the same reason that the companies, having proved almost cruel to the third-class passengers and mean to the second-class ones, become lavish in dealing with first-class customers. Having refused the poor what is necessary, they give the rich what is superfluous."
Which always keep me thinking, why there isn't a temporary-attachment/hook-technology which would place tablet in my eye level?
You could keep typing on wireless keyboard that is on the tray or just watch movie.
Also, as a kind passenger, before reclining I always look behind to check whether person behind me is not eating of doing something on their tray. If they do, I am trying to recline slower so at least they can move their stuff.
Take a look: https://www.voegol.com.br/pt-br/servicos/assento-mais-confor....
So, yes, reclining your seat is included in what you pay, you can even pay more to recline more your seat, and low-cost companies are known for having non-reclining seats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-cost_carrier).
We flew back from Turkey last year on a brand new Airbus with slimline seats and it was purgatory. I really hope this trend doesn't catch on with regular airlines.
Such a list [of airlines] would not be meaningful. All airlines have wide rules to prohibit "tampering" with seats, with Knee Defenders or otherwise; you can improvise one with a well-sized bottle, after all. Those that point out the Knee Defender as banned are only making it explicit that this specific device is not allowed.
More to the point, if the passenger unable to recline complains, the flight attendants will insist that you stop using it.
Rejecting the premise of the question is very frustrating and causes some people to not bother with SE. At least leave a comment asking if they'd consider different types of answer, but otherwise just ignore the question.
Is my answer still off-topic? And how does this differ from what's essentially the same Q & A re: Knee Defenders? At the end of the day, the issue is that you can't tamper aircraft, not that you're doing it with a Knee Defender specifically.
I mean, I had people stop reclining because they couldn't move their seat. They look back and see me smiling because my knees block it.
Disclaimer: I'm from Europe, we usually fly in very small planes where there's literally no way to have space unless paying 2-3x the price for business class.
In my experience, domestic US flights and even some transatlantic flights with US carriers, are just as bad unless you pay extra for more premium carriers or upgrades, just like in Europe.
I also think its incredible rude to recline, especially forcefully, like some people have done to me.
I think that these egomaniac people are the same that get to the end of an escalator and stop to see where they should go, or exiting a train and doing the same thing blocking the exit / entrance to anyone else.
As my mother told me, "Two wrongs don't make a right"
Hence, put me next to the emergency exit which on some planes seems to have more room in front too
I would have more sympathy for your position if I thought it was likely that you investigated the knee room and reclining policy prior to purchasing a ticket.
The claims are that it is all about safety and fairness and blah blah blah. Does anybody saying this honestly believe that 7 footers just wing it? Why should the world be different for the 6'2" than for the 7'1"?
"it's such a bummer that other people are so inconsiderate that it has to come to this."