The debate is whether the space occupied by a reclining seat "belongs" to the passenger in the seat, or the passenger behind the seat.
In all these debates (I've seen many), advocates for either view are certain the answer is (a) obvious and (b) corresponds with whatever they personally prefer. (b), presumably (and to be charitable), because everyone else must surely prefer whatever they prefer. Tall people tend to be sure the space obviously belongs to the passenger behind. People who can't sleep sitting upright think it's obvious the space belongs to the passenger in front.
The lack of introspection or understanding of how someone else could see it differently is what really amazes. Each viewpoint seems utterly obvious to its adherents - those who disagree must be either inconsiderate and selfish, or whining, entitled and oblivious that they enjoy the same rights as other passengers.
This seems like a model for many other disagreements of more import.
Why are we so blind to the equal weight of symmetrical opinions?
Why are we so blind to our bias toward rules that benefit ourselves over others?
There's a wonderful Econtalk segment on this issue: https://www.econtalk.org/michael-heller-and-james-salzman-on-mine/
The authors wrote a book on property rights in everyday life, and how they differ from legal property rights. The example of airline seats is a case where, if you survey people, they give basically 50/50 answers about who "owns" the airspace in front of an airline seat, and therefore whether reclining the seat is appropriate.
Their belief is that it is actually in the airline's interests for this to be ambiguous. This is because when paying for an airline seat, people naturally assume that they will have the right to both recline and the right to not have the person in front of them recline. The airline doesn't want to mediate this conflict, because they want to continue to sell seats to people who optimistically believe they will have access to both. So the airline has no desire to give a clear pronouncement either way, because that will lower the perceived value of a seat.
It's fascinating and predictable that the math/econ oriented sections of the commentariat pretty universally go to property rights and prices as the solution, rather than kindness. Some other groups are at least considering other allocation mechanisms (tall or mobility-limited get more consideration than average).
The intuition that it must be legibly equal (everyone has same allocation of space, regardless of any consideration except price) is not universal at all.
I think airplanes and airports are extra hard mode for kindness. Everyone in coach is miserable, constrained, and neglecting their physical needs. They've been dehumanized by the TSA and quite possibly gate agents, have been carrying heavy things for hours, and are stuck in a container that is uncomfortable-at-best for anyone of any height. And the people wanting accommodations have been through the same ringer, so they don't ask nicely for a favor, they demand the other person stop being an asshole (or in this case skip to kicking and shaking the seat). I don't think this is a good opportunity to expand the kindness frontier.
I also think tall people have asserted without proving that their suffering is greatest here. Lots of people have back or hip problems that are improved by reclining. Lots of people can only sleep while reclining and sleep is a very big deal (even during daylight). Some of those people are tall and care more about reclining than leg room. It is not at all obvious to me that more kindness leads to less reclining.
Fully agreed, but I think that hard-mode is where kindness is most important. Everyone IS suffering, and the total amount of suffering CAN be higher or lower depending on our decisions, and on our mechanisms for negotiation and understanding. Honestly, I'm sympathetic to defined property rights being the fallback resolution, in the cases where the involved people can't agree on a better equilibrium. I'm just saddened at the state of humanity that this is the first-best option brought up, rather than actual discussion and empathy.
> I also think tall people have asserted without proving that their suffering is greatest here.
Yup, that IS the downfall of Utilitarianism as a philosophy. Interpersonal utility comparisons are impossible, so reducing net suffering is undefined. That shouldn't prevent us trying, even if we recognize that it's not objectively or universally correct.
Personally, I'm quite tall and suffer knee pain in coach seats, even if reclined, but much worse when the seat in front of me reclines. My solution is to harm the environment a bit more and waste money on business-class tickets, but that's not available to most (or to me, som...
As a note a lot of budget airlines (at least in Europe) don't have reclining seats. That can be a decent reason to fly with them.
If I pay for a plane ticket, and get a seat that reclines, then I’ve paid for the ability to recline, and that means that I’m reclining. If that creates problems for other passengers, they should address that complaint to the airline, because that’s what the problem is: a conflict between the passenger (who wishes to not be inconvenienced by the reclinability of others’ seats) and the airline (which chooses not to provide enough room between the seats, or otherwise design the seating, such that this problem wouldn’t happen).
I as another customer have no re...
One customer has no responsibility to ensure another customer's experience is satisfactory. One could also point out that a customer (traditionally) has no responsibility to ensure that the staff are satisfied.
But I would say that one human being should consider how their actions might impact on other human beings - even if they happen to the customer. If I am in a restaurant it is possible for me to notice that my loud speaking is annoying to another person and tone it down. By all means recline your seat, I don't care. But please don't adopt the general policy that when you are the customer you can suddenly stop thinking about how your actions might effect others.
Many airlines offer extra legroom seats for a few extra dollars. It's informative that despite how much people complain about airline seats, very few are willing to pay 10 dollars extra to avoid the issue. Airlines listen to people's wallets, not their mouths.
I wonder if this discussion didn't take a wrong turn when it focus on the "who owns the space" and sought to resolve things via some property rights type of approach. I think the question of ethics here are very likely orthogonal to property rights.
In terms of the rights, well that is not a problem -- they belong to the airline[1]. If the airline is doing a bad job of communicating what bundle of rights are leased that cannot be resolved by point out property rights.
But I think more to the point is the conflict here is about non-pecuniary externalities and...
I don't quite understand the perspective behind someone 'owning' a specific space. Do airlines specify that when you purchase a ticket, you are entitled to the chair + the surrounding space (in whatever ambiguous way that may mean)? If not, it seems to me that purchasing a ticket pays for a seat and your right to sit down on it, and everything else is complementary.
I am still fascinated by how people are so sure they are right on this issue, in opposite directions
There are three separate issues here.
One is - Is it appropriate for any person to recline their seat?
The other is - If you are a non-recliner and a seat is reclined unto you, what is the appropriate reaction?
The last is - If you recline unto a non-recliner and they ask for you to put your seat in the upright position, what is the ethical response?
For the first question, one way I can think to test this would be to examine the differences in total leg-room volume when everyone is not reclined against when everyone is reclined.
If I had more...
-
If you are tall, put your feet (instead of your bag) under the seat in front of you.
-
Every flight I've taken (circa 2000-2014) was either at 95%+ capacity, or was a 1 hour commuter leg with a half-full plane #misleadingAverages
It's mixed use. During daytime / meals / working it's seat up. During night / light's off, recline. Maybe they should repurpose the no smoking sign to "Recline".
I'd say, a reclined seat in front of you is a tiny inconvenience at most, just let it go instead of making up your own etiquette, pretending it's the only right one and arguing about it with others.
I enjoyed reading the replies to this tweet, since it's a lower stakes issue that has all the contours of broader ethical debates. Granted, what triggered the tweet was not low stakes:
There are passionately held beliefs on both sides (see replies to the original tweet for more). As with any argument, different principles lead to different conclusions. One principle with many adherents is that the rules follow directly from the design of the airplane:
But this could still screw over the person behind you. So maybe reclining is bad, based on the fact that it harms more than it helps?:
These views, by the way, are similar to what a travel industry analyst says to the NY Times: "Airplane etiquette is you only recline when necessary, and if you must recline, just put the seat back a little bit to get the comfort you need without encroaching too much on the person behind you."
Another principle: the person in back of you could have "property rights" over the area directly behind your unreclined seat:
But reclining may also be justified based on the consequences:
Many other variables. Long haul vs. short haul:
Dimmed lights:
Meals:
Height:
If the replies are at all representative, this issue is in a bad state where a significant share of people have opposing beliefs about what's right and when. So we should expect to see more conflicts between passionate passengers.
One potential solution is that the airlines try to coordinate everyone. An announcement could say "Our policy is that passengers should feel free to recline. Just check to make sure you do not spill the drink of the person behind you." This should douse the passions and lead to less conflict. A grumpy person being reclined on should feel less empowered; the loudspeaker announcement is common knowledge.
Another thing airlines could do is sell reclining and non-reclining tickets. Then everyone knows what they're getting---another way of making the policy more explicit.
This is not to say that either policy would be the best. Maybe an "asking equilibrium" is optimal, so that people can forge personalized agreements. "Is it alright if I recline?" "Sure, let me move my drink" or "Yes could I have a few minutes to finish eating?" or "I'm sorry but actually no, I'm extremely tall." I worry that this system would disadvantage nice people though.
This seems like an issue where kind and reasonable people could disagree. With no (clear) connection to other ideological commitments, perhaps it's a useful exercise for understanding the other side.