The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Knee Defenders and Virtual Laps—Part 2
There never used to be fights over reclining airline seats. Why are they breaking out now, and what does this tell us about the hidden rules of ownership?
This post is adapted from our new book, Mine!: How the Hidden Rules of Ownership Control Our Lives, available March 2. To learn more about the book, visit minethebook.com.
Yesterday, in Part 1, we introduced the Knee Defender and the three conflicting ownership stories—attachment, possession, and first-in-time—that passengers use in high-altitude fights over inches of personal space.
Why are these conflicts breaking out now? There never used to be rage around reclining. Until recently, airline seats had greater pitch, or space between seats—enough both for reclining and for lowering the tray table. No one thought to ask who controlled the space because it didn't much matter. But airlines have been shrinking the pitch in economy class, down from 35 inches not that long ago to just 28 inches on some planes.
There's a lot at stake for the airlines: one inch of pitch saved per row can add up to six extra seats per flight to sell. To grow profits, airlines are squeezing ever more passengers inside a fixed steel tube—at the same time that people are growing bigger and tray tables have become precious computer stands. The stakes are high for passengers as well. In the COVID-19 era, each inch of personal space can feel like a life-or-death matter. So, passengers get angry at each other. But why aren't they angry at the airline?
It turns out neither Beach nor Williams really owns the wedge of reclining space. The airlines do. And they are savvy pros at ownership design. As Ira Goldman, the inventor of the Knee Defender (whose website traffic increased five-hundred-fold after the Denver flight incident), described: "What the airlines are doing is, they're selling me space for my legs, and they're selling you the space—if you're sitting in front of me—they're selling you the same space to recline. So they're selling one space to two people."
Can the airlines do that?
Yes. In 2018 the Federal Aviation Administration declined to regulate airplane seats, leaving their design to the airlines. In turn, the airlines use a secret weapon that lets them sell the same space twice on every flight. The weapon is strategic ambiguity, a sophisticated tool of ownership design. Most airlines do have a rule—the passenger with the button can lean back. But they keep it quiet. Flight attendants don't announce it.
Ambiguity works to the airlines' advantage. When ownership is unclear—and it's unclear far more often than you might imagine—people mostly fall back on politeness and good manners. For decades, airlines have counted on high-altitude etiquette to defuse conflicting claims. That's why Delta CEO Bastian said you should "ask if it's okay" to recline. Passengers negotiate among themselves as they angle ahead in line, nudge elbows over shared armrests, and jostle for overhead bins. Money rarely changes hands. (One study, though, suggests about three-quarters of passengers would agree not to recline if the person behind offered to buy them a drink or snack.)
But as airlines continue to shrink the pitch, unspoken rules over the front-to-back squeeze are breaking down and everyone ends up looking unreasonable. Goldman saw ownership ambiguity as a business opportunity and created a technological solution. The problem, though, is that a unilateral move to lock the seat violates customs of politeness. It feels like taking something without asking.
The Knee Defender may seem like a silly novelty item, but it reflects one of the great engines for innovation in our society: as valued resources become scarcer, people compete more intensely to impose their preferred ownership rule, and entrepreneurs find ways to profit.
In post #3 tomorrow, we will introduce another ownership puzzle: why does New York City have some of the world's best drinking water?
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“passengers inside a fixed steel tube”
That would be aluminum.
Probably, but maybe composite. Hell, I don’t know. It’s hard to keep up with space-age aero materials nowadays, which might even be reverse-engineered from the Roswell UFO or one of its successors. My guess would be the fuselage and wings are 2024 aluminum alloy.
Some of your terminology suggest you’re a pilot and maybe even an aeronautical engineer.
787 is composite. It’s why American had to change their livery from the polished fuselage.
The obvious reason fights are breaking out is that the airlines are packing passengers in too tightly, violating passengers’ expectations about the amount of personal space they are entitled to have.
In this sense it is the airlines, not the passengers, that are the source of both the violation of expectations.
This series of posts comes off a bit like a law professor blithely opining about the property rights of prisoners in a concentration camp who are stealing and fighting over food. The way to resolve the issue is not to develop a new law code resolving which prisoner is entitled to which scrap of food. The resolution is to stop starving the prisoners in the first place.
Exploiting the prisoners’ misery by conducting sociological research into their behavior when in pain without doing anything to resolve it is not as bad as actively adding to their misery by e.g. performing medical experiments on them.
But it still smacks of the unethical.
I understand the concentration camp analogy is extreme and the passengers have voluntarily paid money to be on the flight. But they are nonetheless in a cramped and uncomfortable situation. And the cause of the fighting is not ambiguity as to property rights but their discomfort. Resolve the discomfort and the fighting will dissappear.
If you don’t like air travel as it is currently offered, don’t fly. Or fly first class. But don’t ask the government to solve your problems.
Even for conservatives and libertarians, there are areas where government regulation is appropriate and beneficial. The area of human dignity and a minimum degree of personal comfort is one such area, in my opinion. I think that there should be standards for minimum amount of space to accommodate a passenger. Airline travel and aircraft are already highly regulated, why not for a person’s “fit” into and airplane? And don’t you think cramming people in hurts safety, as well? It MUST be tougher to get out in an emergency with such tight seating.
The U.S could do a great service by regulating seating space on aircraft.
Spoken like a true statist who has no concept of personal responsibility and would prefer to defer all decision-making to unseen bureaucrats.
Screw you, I am none of those things. Typical, you take what I say and stretch it to ridiculous extremes.
We have fire codes and building codes requiring certain criteria for living space, passage ways, etc., etc. Why not on planes?
We have fire codes and building codes requiring certain criteria for living space, passage ways, etc., etc. Why not on planes?
You are confusing two things. We do have the equivalent of fire codes for passage ways. An airliner has to be capable of full evacuation in something like 90 seconds. This in effect serves as a limit on the number of seats an airline can install, because if it packs them in too tight, they can’t get out.
But in terms of living space, if there were high consumer demand for very small spaces, it would probably be good to allow them. Other countries have things like pod hotels and the like. Indeed, single family home zoning has gotten a lot of criticism lately, because it discriminates against lower income people. Mandating space on airplanes would similarly increase fares.
Dilan,
If you really believe that a 90 second evacuation is possible, I have a bridge…
The fact is that now the aisle are so narrow that attendants frequently slam carts into the seats, the people getting by each other on their way to and from the heads require “excessive bodily contact.
The pitch in half the aircraft does not permit people to eat comfortably if the person in front reclines.
1. The aisles on most airliners are the same width they always were. (10 seat across 777’s are an exception, but bear in mind, those are dual aisle aircraft and easier to evacuate).
2. It’s possible that Americans have gotten faster and that the 90 second rule hasn’t taken that into account. On the other hand, air travel is safer than it used to be, so 90 second evacuations are less common.
3. People can eat. We know this because people DO eat on longhaul flights in Economy Minus.
“People can eat. We know this because people DO eat on longhaul flights in Economy Minus.”
More spouting off with lack of knowledge. It is routine on flights in which ALL passengers are served food, that flight attendents ask all passengers to raise their seats to the upright position.
“are the same width they always were”
Present real historical data rather than your conjecture.
No, they don’t. I know because I routinely sleep through the airline meals. I have never been asked to wake up to raise my seat just for a meal.
Rosami,
The do and they have on the two dozen international flights that I have taken in the last five years
What can I say? It’s never happened to me on either business or personal trips. And when I called a colleague who works for one of the airlines, she confirmed that’s not the practice on her airline nor any of the ones she’s aware of.
Maybe the better question is which airline are you flying on with such obnoxious policies and why do you put up with it?
Where is the personal responsibility/personal decision making when there aren’t airlines trying to compete on offering more space in all classes?
For people who have to travel for business reasons who are below the executive level, no employer will cover/compensate for first class and very few will cover even business class.
If you have to travel all the time for business reasons, you have a frequent flyer account and very likely will get comfortable seats.
If you are asked to travel as a one-off, you might have to sit in the back. But that’s a situation where the beef is with the employer, not the airline.
And note, most employers don’t completely low-ball this issue. E.g., they don’t require that employees use Basic Economy with no seat assignments, on transoceanic flights they often spring for Business Class, etc.
The US government does not pay more than the negotiated fare for basic economy. Now what is it that you are saying about most employers?
That is false. The CONCUR software governments use doesn’t even show Basic Economy fares:
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-airlines-aadvantage/2024002-government-contractor-rate-basic-economy-required.html
Have you ever flown on a YCAL fare?
Were you ever able to get the US government more than its city-pair fare? Have you ever been allowed to take an alternative airline even if the fare was lower.
I doubt it.
Your cite does not show Basic Economy because the US Government negotiates a single coach fare between city fares. What seat you get is the seat you get in economy. So you have proved nothing.
Economy is not Basic Economy. The flyer can still claim frequent flyer benefits from economy class. Including being able to get status and upgrade with status or miles.
Remember as well that most government workers are taking short flights within the country anyway. Even if you get stuck in an Economy Minus middle for 1 hour and 50 minutes, it’s not a big deal.
You are just spitballing.
Several airlines have tried to compete by offering more space in all classes. I remember the ads. I also remember them losing their shirts and reversing the policy within a year. By our behaviors, we customers have expressed a strong preference for lower fares – far stronger than our preference for leg room.
“Spoken like a true statist who has no concept of personal responsibility”
How, exactly, does your notion of personal responsibility provide any bargaining power to the individual traveller wrt the airline?
Even for conservatives and libertarians, there are areas where government regulation is appropriate and beneficial. The area of human dignity and a minimum degree of personal comfort is one such area, in my opinion.
The airlines offer a minimum degree of personal comfort! The public includes a lot of people who think saving $30 on a ticket is more important than their comfort. And mandating personal comfort will just result in the ticket cost increasing anyway, so it’s not as if mandating seat pitch would do anything other than force the public to pay the higher price that some/many of them don’t want to pay.
So, how about standing room only? Just line people up and give them a strap to hang on, like a subway at rush hour. Cram them into the planes as they do the commuter trains in Japan, with sticks. That would result in cheaper tickets, no? Oh, and food, water, and bathrooms? Scrap that, too. Hold it ’til you get there. Or shit your pants, no sense in driving others’ ticket prices up with a commode.
You are conflating things that are potential safety hazards with issues about passenger comfort.
We do regulate safety hazards. But passengers PREFER the discomfort to save some money- if they didn’t, everyone would start buying Economy Plus/Economy Comfort/Main Cabin Extra/Premium Economy, and airplanes would be full of those seats rather than Economy Minus.
Passenger comfort and safety overlap. It’s going to take longer, and be more difficult, to evacuate a plane with e-minus seats, for example.
I welcome regulation that wold make airline seats reasonable. Now they are not. Businesses that treat people like cattle are inviting regulation.
The federal government requires that the airlines demonstrate that the passengers can evacuate quickly. Otherwise the airlines can’t install their seat configuration.
Safety is just not the issue here. The issue is there’s a significant segment of the market who is willing to be treated like cattle to save $30 or something.
“treated like cattle”
A common expression but is it true?
I don’t fly too often but my family flew United to Florida in 2019, it was reasonably priced and there was enough room. Maybe the ultra bargain lines are different.
I certainly didn’t feel like a cow.
I tend to agree, but I am willing to assume it arguendo to point out why so-called “cattle” treatment is happening.
That said, Spirit has 3 inches less seat pitch than United, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to describe their planes as pretty packed in.
Evacuation with trained and pre-drilled employees is far different than what a set of random passengers can do.
Random passengers almost never have to evacuate. The point is, the evacuation standard imposes a safety baseline. This issue is about cheap consumers who refuse to pay for legroom, not safety.
“This issue is about cheap consumers who refuse to pay for legroom, not safety.”
Not to mention small customers.
Legroom is only a problem for some people. So if airlines make the seats roomier at a cost of, say, $30 a passenger, a family of 4 has to pay $120 extra, even though it’s probably only one of them that’s getting squeezed.
Dilan,
Your comment about cheap customers is bogus on many airlines. Try to be more knowledgeable before spouting off.
Don:
I’m quite knowledgeable. You have already been called out for falsehoods several times in this thread.
if they didn’t, everyone would start buying Economy Plus/Economy Comfort/Main Cabin Extra/Premium Economy, and airplanes would be full of those seats rather than Economy Minus.
Most airline passenger revenue is from business travelers, and their employers generally do not pay for Premium Economy or whatever the particular airline calls it. Business travelers account for a disproportionate share of revenue because they are more likely to book flights on short notice, and because employers will pay extra for non-stop flights to save time.
And if you think airlines are handing out lots of upgrades to Frequent Flyers you are mistaken.
You guys are baiting and switching on “upgrades”.
Upgrades to Economy Plus/Comfort/MCE are VERY common for business travelers. And that’s all you need to solve the legroom issue.
“so it’s not as if mandating seat pitch would do anything other than force the public to pay the higher price that some/many of them don’t want to pay.”
On the other hand mandating a minimum seat pitch only for reclining seats might accomplish something.
The people willing to sacrifice comfort to save $30 on an airline ticket ought to be willing to do without reclining seats.
Some airlines already restrict recline in Economy Minus. But I don’t think it’s a big issue either way. Everyone knows if they purchase the rock bottom tickets, they are going to be uncomfortable, recline or no recline.
“Some airlines already restrict recline in Economy Minus. ”
I’m not saying restrict it. I’m saying eliminate it completely.
I will rephrase. Some airlines don’t feature recline in Economy Minus.
You don’t have the right to sacrifice the other guy’s comfort to save $30 on your airline ticket.
But you have the right to sacrifice the other guys $30 to be more comfortable?
Nope, but then I’m not arguing for an absolute minimum seat pitch.
My argument is that below a certain seat pitch reclining seats should not be allowed.
” The public includes a lot of people who think saving $30 on a ticket is more important than their comfort. ”
You can tell because they were explicitly offered this choice, and chose the way they chose.
I don’t fly — yet I am still taxed to subsidize it.
Those taxes are keeping parts of airplanes from falling through your ceiling.
The point you’re missing is that by analyzing property rights of prisoners fighting over food, you can illuminate general principles that apply everywhere but which are harder to see in less stark circumstances.
Yes, it would be nice if the prisoners were set free and if the airlines would voluntarily forego the revenue of the extra seats but a) that’s not going to happen and b) it’s irrelevant to the learning point at hand.
To be completely honest, in the airline case there is pretty solid evidence that you don’t want it to happen. Airlines are a highly competitive market operating on very thin margins. They add seats in order to drop the average price of the seats all through coach class. If you want more leg room, you can pay for it by buying business or first class tickets. Based on the number of people who buy such tickets, the airlines have a remarkably good idea of how much we value that knee space. This is not something the airlines are imposing in a vacumn. This is a decision that we buyers are making when we choose low fares over more spacious seating.
Rats become more territorial when in confined spaces. So do humans. If you put more and more rats in a cage, you will get to a point where they start fighting. Same with humans.
When you study the tendency of caged rats to fight when they become increasingly crowded, are you really studying property rights? Is the fighting really caused by or about property rights? I don’t think so. You are instead studying a breakdown in order under stress, and which rat starts fighting in a pair can probably better be attributed to random chance and/or factors of the rats involved than to any theory of property rights.
What makes humans different? The fighting here really doesn’t have anything to do with property at all. Attributing it to property or thinking of it as being caused by property rights in the first place is a mistake.
The fact that people are about evenly divided as to who is at “fault” and whose “rights” are violated is a good clue, indeed strong evidence, that what’s going on here isn’t about “fault” or “rights” at all. It’s also good evidence that it would be more fruitful to attribute who starts fights to who’s particularly uncomfortable, psychological factors, or just plain chance than to theories of rights.
People here are creating myths to cloak the aggressive inpulses they feel that they can’t otherwise account for, putting a cloak of conscious will and rational explanation on what are really unconscious impulses. They pretend they brought in and are riding the tiger whose existence they can’t otherwise explain. Without the myths, they would have to admit the tiger is controlling them rather than the other way around.
Going to a situation like this to learn general principles of property rights is like visiting natal wards to learn general principles of storks. There’s a basic misunderstanding about the cause of what’s going on.
The difference between your caged rats and humans in an airliner is the degree of voluntariness. Humans have many choices, from driving to taking a bus to taking the cheapest airline seat to taking a more expensive airline seat. When they choose the cheap airline seat, they get what they bargained for.
It is absolutely about property rights, as ought to be obvious from how ferociously the two seat occupants press their claims of ownership over that little section of space.
Humans have many choices, from driving to taking a bus to taking the cheapest airline seat to taking a more expensive airline seat. When they choose the cheap airline seat, they get what they bargained for.
You left out the choice of losing your job.
The obvious reason fights are breaking out is that the airlines are packing passengers in too tightly, violating passengers’ expectations about the amount of personal space they are entitled to have.
Not true.
It’s very important not to phrase “consumer expectations” in the form of the old joke about a shoe- “I want a shoe that is tiny and dainty outside, and big and roomy inside”.
The actual consumer expectation in economy-minus class is to pay as little as possible. That’s it. Airlines offer plenty of products with more legroom. The people involved in these disputes are, for the most part, people who prefer to save money than to be comfortable.
And that’s THEIR fault, not the airlines’.
Spoken as if by someone who never flies, or has to fly on a schedule. Many times I had to take coach because I needed to get there, and there was no other option. E-plus sold out. Business sold out. First sold out. So, economy, in the middle, or the last row. Not something I’d choose, regardless of price.
I fly all the time, pre pandemic at least.
Yes, occasionally everything is sold out and you have to fly coach. Even then, though, since I fly on the same airline and pay higher fares rather than taking whatever airline is cheapest, I basically always get upgraded at least to extra legroom economy. It’s actually extremely rare for a frequent flyer who is not a complete cheapo who will take the flight that is $10 cheaper to ever get stuck in a regular economy seat.
As a 6M miler on two airlines, I’d say that you are full of hot air, Dilan.
And while I don’t believe in hitting girls, some Delta Charlie who threw a drink at me would need medical attention when the plane landed.
I assure you of that….
You certainly sound like the kind of tough guy who could have a good chance in a fight with a girl.
And your fares are paid for by you personally, or your firm?
Both, and sometimes clients as well!
I have routinely given up an E+ or even a first class seat to get home 2 hours earlier in the middle of the back row.
But I know I’m making a choice. I know I’m not going to get any work done. I’m lucky to have enough room to watch a movie on an iPad.
I know how much I spend on business flights versus vacation flights. I set my expectations accordingly.
Which I think illustrates the larger question. The people getting crammed into the back don’t really understand how much their tickets are discounted (on average) to the people sitting in E+.
They also tend to be amateur travelers, so sometimes they are just assholes.
Yet you do choose it because you could always pay the alternative price of waiting for another flight. You frame the question as if your schedule was an external boundary. It is not. It is part of your decision about the total costs you are willing to pay for your personal comfort.
More to the point, your individual choices aren’t precisely relevant. The fact that I want a car the exact shade of blue of my lover’s eyes does not obligate a car manufacturer to produce that for me. They are entirely within their rights to aggregate my preference with that of thousands of other consumers to decide to make ‘this many’ blue and ‘that many’ green cars. Mass service delivery, like mass production, inherently involves tradeoffs that we consumers accept. If you’re really pissed off enough about legroom, abandon mass markets altogether and buy your own plane.
” Airlines offer plenty of products with more legroom.”
Those seats hanging under the wing are always the first to get filled.
Your analysis is failing to account for people who travel for work, and aren’t making the travel choices in the first place.
I have to ask this: Libertarians assure us that in the absence of regulation, competition will force businesses to offer better service. Yet it seems to me that the huge counter example to that is air travel. It was deregulated in 1978, swiftly went to hell, and has stayed there ever since. I’m old enough to remember, pre-1978, when flying was actually fun.
So what happened? Why didn’t competition cause the airlines to offer better service?
The airlines offer pretty good service to the business travelers who account for 80% of their revenue.
The other 20% comes from people who do not prioritize service when buying their airline ticket. 6 weeks later when they actually get on the plane and start complaining, they conveniently forget that they declined the $40 upgrade to E+.
Not true. Airline service is far better now than it was in the past. You can go to more destinations, there are more nonstops, there are products like Economy Plus that allow you to purchase extra legroom, there are far more First Class and Frequent Flyer lounges, Frequent Flyer programs allow normal people to get upgrades to First or Business Class, and fares are far, far, far lower when adjusted for inflation. And planes are far safer- we don’t have a crash every year in American commercial aviation like we used to.
It’s true that if you were an upper middle class person whose goal in life was to eat a good airline meal for free on a domestic coach flight, and you didn’t care about schedule or safety, you might not like the modern era. But that’s a narrow segment of the market.
“fares are far, far, far lower when adjusted for inflation”
Some people want low fares and 1960s level service too.
Flying used to be a luxury good, now its not for most people. IMHO, its a good trade off, lower middle class people can travel far away for a reasonable price now.
Bob, we don’t agree very often, but we agree on this one.
“a good airline meal ”
Except in first class in Asian and the elite middle eastern airlines, that phrase is an oxymoron.
You can bring whatever you want from the concourse restaurants onto the plane with you.
Tell us, Dilan, what airlines do you fly? Have you ever even looked at the upgrade list for most United flights. They tend to be 30 people long with maybe 1 or 2 upgrade possibilities.
Your comment is a best a gross exaggeration.
Don:
I’m Premier Gold on United. It’s hard to get a CPU to First on some of the more popular routes, but I basically always get Economy Plus or an exit row which solves the legroom problem. And I almost always got that as a Silver as well (and it doesn’t take much flying to hit Silver).
Because customers value price over quality, much more than they realize.
Yes. A modern airliner is a bus with wings, not a wonderful experience that costs a fortune like in the 1960s.
I have exactly the same recollection and I am avreage of 3 times per month.
that should have read… “I fly an average”
“So what happened? Why didn’t competition cause the airlines to offer better service?”
Huge barriers to entry keeping new market entrants from coming in to compete on service. Then there’s the problem of finding a place to keep really large airplanes, since so many airports are geared for narrow-body 737s.
“And the cause of the fighting is not ambiguity as to property rights but their discomfort. Resolve the discomfort and the fighting will dissappear.”
Unlike prisoners, passengers can resolve the discomfort themselves by buying bigger seats.
Some, such as Southwest, permit (require?) obese passengers to purchase two seats. OK, can I purchase the seat in front of me instead? (I have a 34″ inseam…)
I think all airlines permit purchase of an EXTRASEAT, and require it if you are big enough.
“Unlike prisoners, passengers can resolve the discomfort themselves by buying bigger seats.”
The thing is, the Greyhound seats aren’t confortable, either.
Good post, and good marketing – I feel compelled to buy the book.
I’ve never been asked if its OK to recline, I’ve never asked if its OK to recline. If the strategy is ambiguity, its seems to me to be failing.
This is all more about entitlement than ownership, no?
The recline buttons are gone. This discussion is quite moot.
??? On what airlines do you fly??? (Can Russian ‘bots even fly at all?)
You mentioned the jostling for overhead bins. Over two decades ago, I put my briefcase in the overhead bin. A person who arrived later wishing to put a whole suitcase in there glowered, then sat next to me. They turned to me and complained that “someone” had put a small thing like a briefcase in there. Obviously that someone would lose less leg room under their seat than he would putting his just under the limits carry on.
I told him, “I checked my bag so there’s always room in the overhead bin.” (I also do my best to board early as possible for my ticket, which this guy did not.) The guy glowered and said something like “It would still be less uncomfortable for you. You’re not even tall! ” (I’m not. I’m 5’4″.) I just looked at him. He did temporarily shut up. He did then hail a flight attendant who looked around, found a space in overhead further back in the cabin for him. He groused that deplaning would be inconvenient, he might as well have checked it! She offered to check it for him. He declined. 🙂
People do try to make up rules that put them first. Mine were obviously “I planned in advance.” That won’t fix the seat reclining battles.
Overhead bins are shared space. People who board late always know that they might not get a spot and that they may need to gate-check their bag or put it in an overhead bin somewhere else on the plane.
It IS true, however, that some airlines want people to put the smaller items under the seats. Those that do, in my experience, announce that fact.
The flight attendant ultimately put his bag in a different overhead bin. At the time it was actually fairly apparent there were quite a spots available; we could see them. The spots just weren’t as conveniently located for him; they were further back on the plane. So he was going to have to shuffle around when deplaning.
…farther back…
If you put a briefcase in the overhead when folks need to put a roll-aboard there, you are a dickhead. Most airlines even advise as to this protocol as you’re boarding.
“need to put a roll-aboard”
No one “needs” to do that, you can check it.
Or use a smaller bag.
If you have already reached your allotment of “free” checked bags…then, yes, you do need to bring it aboard. (Unless you are saying that such people should be forced to piss away $60 as the payment to check the extra bag, in order to accommodate late-arrivers, which I don’t think you are intending to say.)
No. You still don’t “have” to bring on the carry-on. If you are transporting yourself and more than the usual amount luggage, then it is reasonable for the airline to charge passenters more for transporting the extra luggage. The passenger can pay the charge or assume whatever burden or inconvenience might be associated with not paying the charge.
Perhaps you’d rather give up leg room to save $60 because the airlines will permit that. That’s not an economic choice; it’s not “having to” bring it on. It doesn’t then become fair to someone else gives up their leg room to provide you for the leg room you wouldn’t pay for!
With foresight, you can even find other ways to not have to pack a zillion bags. You may be able to pack less. If not you can plan ahead and ship your stuff to a destination using UPS, USPS or FedEx. Things can be shipped if you pay money. Yes: shipping services charge you for that. Yes: if you want that service, you should pay it not insist other people give up what they paid for to save you money.
“No one ‘needs’ to do that, you can check it.”
If you don’t mind being separated from your prescription medication, you can let them take it from you right at the gate.
James,
Very few people need an entire roll on to hold their prescription medication. I had prescription medication in my briefcase.
It’s not medication but my mother checks her CPAP because it’s too large to fit in a shoulder bag or pocket.
“If you put a briefcase in the overhead when folks need to put a roll-aboard there, you are a dickhead.”
Million dollar idea: briefcase that expands to the size of a roll-aboard for overhead storage.
You’ll make more money if you an make a case that gets smaller, to fit in smaller spaces.
Perhaps you might make more money creating a bag that gets smaller. But evidently, some people think if you stow a smaller bag in the overhead compartment, the larger bag gets priority and the person with the smaller bag needs to give up their leg room.
In my story, if I’d not checked by carry on and instead put it into the overhead compartment, the man trying to get me to give up my leg room for his sake would have considered my use of the overhead for the carry on just fine. If I’d not checked my roll on and used the overhead, he would have been faced with the same choices the attendant gave him: check his bag, stow it further back or give up his own leg room.
Perhaps you might make more money creating a bag that gets smaller. But evidently, some people think if you stow a smaller bag in the overhead compartment, the larger bag gets priority and the person with the smaller bag needs to give up their leg room.
In my story, if I’d not checked by carry on and instead put it into the overhead compartment, the man trying to get me to give up my leg room for his sake would have considered my use of the overhead for the carry on just fine. If I’d not checked my roll on and used the overhead, he would have been faced with the same choices the attendant gave him: check his bag, stow it further back or give up his own leg room. If you had a magically shrinking bag, he would have thought you should give up your leg room! There wouldn’t have been much market for bags that require the owner who spent extra to give up the benefits to the guy who’d rather save money!
“I checked my bag”
The assumption is that business travelers do not check bags, so if you put a briefcase up there, then you are assumed to have put both a carry on and a briefcase up there. That’s a grade A dick move.
In your case, you checked your bag and you shouldn’t be punished just because your overhead bag is smaller than his overhead bag.
But this is an atypical and unverifiable situation from his perspective. So in reality, you’ll just have to deal with being considered an asshole, even if you aren’t actually being one.
That may be someones assumption. As it happens, I was traveling on business. I had a layover. I was arriving the evening before my meeting. I hate having to watch my bags during a layover and like space for my legs. Being only 5’4″ I also find it a bit difficult to heave my bag over head, and don’t like risking dropping it on others when I pull it out. This is, perhaps, not a problem people who are 6′ think about.
I knew what I was doing was not typical and the guy probably assumed whoever put the bag up there had also put their carry on in an overhead compartment. I also agree that would have been a dick move. However, I should note that on learning that I had not made that dick move, he did try to whine his way into having me give up my leg room for his leg room. I wasn’t going to do that knowing that I had checked my bag, he could have and could still do so. It turned out other options existed. The flight attendant put his bag somewhere further back which wasn’t his preference. He could have avoided that by boarding earlier.
Sure. I was willing to be so considered especially by a stranger who I would almost certainly never see again in my life! I would note he also risk having me consider him an asshole for trying to guilt me into giving up my leg room for his comfort. He seems to have been similarly willing to risk that!
Fun fact: There is a lawyer on twitter named “Ira Goldman” who claims to have invented the Knee Defender.
They have been testing airliners with no seats for a while now. In other words you sit on a stool or stand the whole trip. That’ll solve it.
Nobody in the actual airline industry seems to be seriously considering this. It has shown up in conceptual drawings for decades, but there’s no real interest in the industry.
True story: About 35 years ago, I had to sit next to stool on an Aeroflot flight of 2 hours. Drunk Russian just lost control of his, well, control. It was not a pleasant flight.
I once flew from Seattle to Chicago on a bulkhead seat because the airline cancelled the previous flight and my employer at the time didn’t promptly book us on a replacement flight, so we got the last available seats in the plane. Consumer Electronics Show was still awesome, though.
To whom do the embryos belong?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/sofia-vergara-wins-court-battle-judge-rules-that-ex-nick-loeb-can-t-use-embryos-without-consent/ar-BB1ecQHx?ocid=msedgntp
Thanks to the 13th amendment, embryos can’t belong to anyone.
That is manifestly untrue. As evidence, look at the many lawsuits over embryos including the one mentioned in the very comment you’re replying to. Precisely zero have won on a 13th amendment argument.
I am going to call bullshit here: the number of fights is probably constant; what has changed is the reporting of these incidents due to the mix of smart phones and social media
I doubt your assumption. The pitch has been decreasing since deregulation. The five seat rows in narrow bodies have also disappeared.
1. The five seat rows were in DC-9’s and their variants (MD-80, 85, 90, and Boeing 717’s). There are still some 717’s, and they have five seat rows.
2. Seat pitch hasn’t declined THAT much. When I started flying in the late 1970’s, it was 32 inches. Nowadays, it’s usually 31 and sometimes 30 on United. Same with Delta, Southwest, and American. And on United, Delta, and American, you can buy up to 34/35 inches. That’s almost always available at the time of reservation- all you have to do is not prefer saving money to comfort. When I started flying, there was no such option- there was only First Class.
It is true that we have some carriers like Spirit and Allegiant with terrible seat pitch, that didn’t exist back then. But on the major carriers- it’s not much worse than it used to be.
” it’s not much worse than it used to be.”
There’s not much more ground to lose, so it can’t get much worse than it already is.
NY has better water naturally. They don’t even filter it the same way other cities have to.
Portland tap water is pretty good, and is only filtered for cryptospiridium because the feds forced it. the non-filtered water was already better than the federal requirement for post-filter cryptospiridium count.
Seats that recline are a relic of a day when there was enough space between rows to allow this. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find out that Boeing and/or Airbus were moving to fixed seats that don’t recline.
On the other hand, the recent trend in movie theaters (remember when there were movie theaters?) towards more comfortable seating.
I criticized yesterday’s post for failing to make clear whether the authors had researched either (1) the governing laws and regulations or (2) the airline rules.
Now it turns out that they had done that research, they knew the answers, and omitted those answers from their first post to set up their second post.
That may be great for selling books. I find it annoying, and I won’t be buying their book.