Reclining on the plane


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Martin Sheaffer wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Regarding Overhead bags:

At 6'2'' 200 lbs I am what one might call "a big guy."

If you are a big guy what am I at 6'6" and around 280? If I am flying cattle far my knees are already into the seat ahead of me before anyone tries to recline (not counting exit rows). That is why we tend to fly 1st class these days (that and the 3 free checked back with a higher weight limit). :)

It's not a pissing contest. You've got bigger problems than me regarding air travel and doorways. No argument here. :-)

If I fly longer than 2 hours and it's not for work I'll give serious consideration for calculating the extra expense of first class into my travel budget.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

I said "perfect world" not "realistic."

However, business class only solves the legroom issue and that only to a small degree. It does not solve any of the other issues.

Wait, have you had an 'unwashed masses' experience in business class? I generally fly business class when I go domestically, and pretty much have experienced exactly what you have described, no kids, quiet, lots of booze, and everyone kept to themselves. Have you experienced something different?


thejeff wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
And also there is the fact that European airlines have real competition. Eurail. It is an entirely reasonable option for a European traveling within Europe to take a train instead of plane. Competing with Trains means comfort has to be a priority. Because there isnt a monumental difference in the time it takes to fly vs take a train from london to paris. But for the price of a plane ticket, I can probably get a cabin on a train if I shared it with one other person (I generally dont travel alone). A few hours longer travel time is generally worth the comfort of train travel to alot of people.

God, I'd love to have a good rail system in the US.

I'd kill for a bullet train.


thejeff wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
And also there is the fact that European airlines have real competition. Eurail. It is an entirely reasonable option for a European traveling within Europe to take a train instead of plane. Competing with Trains means comfort has to be a priority. Because there isnt a monumental difference in the time it takes to fly vs take a train from london to paris. But for the price of a plane ticket, I can probably get a cabin on a train if I shared it with one other person (I generally dont travel alone). A few hours longer travel time is generally worth the comfort of train travel to alot of people.

God, I'd love to have a good rail system in the US.

Me too. If there was, I'd never friggan fly domestically. Ever. Unfortunately, what we have blows, and is barely treading water because americans for some reason dont like trains.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

I said "perfect world" not "realistic."

However, business class only solves the legroom issue and that only to a small degree. It does not solve any of the other issues.

Wait, have you had an 'unwashed masses' experience in business class? I generally fly business class when I go domestically, and pretty much have experienced exactly what you have described, no kids, quiet, lots of booze, and everyone kept to themselves. Have you experienced something different?

I've seen kids in first class sometimes.

And you're still slowed down by the struggle to stow bags before takeoff. You do get to leave while the hoi polloi are struggling to get their's out though.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

I said "perfect world" not "realistic."

However, business class only solves the legroom issue and that only to a small degree. It does not solve any of the other issues.

Wait, have you had an 'unwashed masses' experience in business class? I generally fly business class when I go domestically, and pretty much have experienced exactly what you have described, no kids, quiet, lots of booze, and everyone kept to themselves. Have you experienced something different?

It's just an observation from my vantage in coach. Business class is just the first few rows behind First class. Imagine the Teenage cheer squad (for example) was seated in the first row of coach.

Liberty's Edge

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Martin Sheaffer wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Regarding Overhead bags:

At 6'2'' 200 lbs I am what one might call "a big guy."

If you are a big guy what am I at 6'6" and around 280? If I am flying cattle far my knees are already into the seat ahead of me before anyone tries to recline (not counting exit rows). That is why we tend to fly 1st class these days (that and the 3 free checked back with a higher weight limit). :)

It's not a pissing contest. You've got bigger problems than me regarding air travel and doorways. No argument here. :-)

If I fly longer than 2 hours and it's not for work I'll give serious consideration for calculating the extra expense of first class into my travel budget.

Wasn't trying to get into a pissing contest, it was more of I don't think of 6'2" at "big". It is possible I have a warped perspective of that though. :-)


Martin Sheaffer wrote:


Wasn't trying to get into a pissing contest, it was more of I don't think of 6'2" at "big". It is possible I have a warped perspective of that though.

"pissing contest" was my attempt at humor. It may not have translated as well in type as I had hoped. My bad if I offended or indicated I was offended. It wasn't my intent.

On the subject though, we're both above average. You clearly more than I, but we share similar issues. It's just a matter of scale.


Kolokotroni wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
And also there is the fact that European airlines have real competition. Eurail. It is an entirely reasonable option for a European traveling within Europe to take a train instead of plane. Competing with Trains means comfort has to be a priority. Because there isnt a monumental difference in the time it takes to fly vs take a train from london to paris. But for the price of a plane ticket, I can probably get a cabin on a train if I shared it with one other person (I generally dont travel alone). A few hours longer travel time is generally worth the comfort of train travel to alot of people.
God, I'd love to have a good rail system in the US.
Me too. If there was, I'd never friggan fly domestically. Ever. Unfortunately, what we have blows, and is barely treading water because americans for some reason dont like trains.

Talk to Detroit. :)

What kills me is that we had a great railroad system for its day, and we killed it. If we'd kept it and upgraded it as tech improved, we'd have a world-class one now.

Without real HSR it might still make sense to fly long domestic routes. Coast-to-coast and the like, but all the short hop stuff would be pointless.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
And also there is the fact that European airlines have real competition. Eurail. It is an entirely reasonable option for a European traveling within Europe to take a train instead of plane. Competing with Trains means comfort has to be a priority. Because there isnt a monumental difference in the time it takes to fly vs take a train from london to paris. But for the price of a plane ticket, I can probably get a cabin on a train if I shared it with one other person (I generally dont travel alone). A few hours longer travel time is generally worth the comfort of train travel to alot of people.

God, I'd love to have a good rail system in the US.

No kidding. Problem is every time they proposal something like a MPLS/STP to Chicago they want to stop in every hole in Wisconsin and the trip would take all damn day. Might as well fly! Amtrak takes ages and is not a good alternative to flying unfortunately.


At this point I've simply resigned myself to knowing that flying isn't a glamorous experience. It's oddly liberating. It's a twisted sort of enlightenment falling under the "things I cannot change" category. I basically just put on my headphones and try to zone out for a couple of hours. I read mostly.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

At this point I've simply resigned myself to knowing that flying isn't a glamorous experience. It's oddly liberating. It's a twisted sort of enlightenment falling under the "things I cannot change" category. I basically just put on my headphones and try to zone out for a couple of hours. I read mostly.

If you want a glamorous experience, you need your own luxury jet. Or at least a company one. That's how the glamorous people travel.

Otherwise, even if you're travelling on business or paying for first class, you're really dealing with mass transit.

Liberty's Edge

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Martin Sheaffer wrote:


Wasn't trying to get into a pissing contest, it was more of I don't think of 6'2" at "big". It is possible I have a warped perspective of that though.

"pissing contest" was my attempt at humor. It may not have translated as well in type as I had hoped. My bad if I offended or indicated I was offended. It wasn't my intent.

On the subject though, we're both above average. You clearly more than I, but we share similar issues. It's just a matter of scale.

LOL, and here I was just thinking that it was my attempt at humor that went "plop". No offense taken.


thejeff wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

At this point I've simply resigned myself to knowing that flying isn't a glamorous experience. It's oddly liberating. It's a twisted sort of enlightenment falling under the "things I cannot change" category. I basically just put on my headphones and try to zone out for a couple of hours. I read mostly.

If you want a glamorous experience, you need your own luxury jet. Or at least a company one. That's how the glamorous people travel.

Otherwise, even if you're travelling on business or paying for first class, you're really dealing with mass transit.

For the most part, I guess "does not suck" would suffice.

If I´d take a fast train (the "ICE") from Hamburg to Munich, it would take me 6 hours (600+ km as the crow flies). By car I would need at least 7 hours, most probably more. By plane just 1 hour 20 minutes, but it is probably more expensive, and with checking in and out, it will probably be more like 2 to 3 hours total, not counting the time needed to and from the airports, whereas the train stations are usually in the middle of the city.

If you travel first class in the ICE, it probably looks like this:
interior Enough leg room for sure, you can of course move around and you get full service while seated, up to real meals (you have to pay extra, though). Sometimes, the air condition fails, which is a disaster, though.
Most major cities have hourly connections, and the trains are fast, up to 250 km/h on special tracks built for this kind of train. So, I really can do without flying - the distances in Europe are generally smaller anyway.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

At this point I've simply resigned myself to knowing that flying isn't a glamorous experience. It's oddly liberating. It's a twisted sort of enlightenment falling under the "things I cannot change" category. I basically just put on my headphones and try to zone out for a couple of hours. I read mostly.

As a large man who is also claustraphobic, I've resigned myself to the idea that unless absolutely necessary (IE brother getting married in another country) I am not going to fly. I simply have no desire to patronize american air carriers. They are among the worst of the worst in my mind in terms of corporate abuse and mistreatement of customers.

Internationally I'll fly a European air carrier. Domestically, I just wont fly. Cruises are nice. I like boats.


Also if I ever find out who ever thought it was a good idea to create the convention of putting the recline button on the inside of the seat on most airline seats...he(or she) and I are going to have words...violent words.


As this thread is amply showing, it's not just a question of "should I recline or shouldn't I?", but a combination of airlines' attempts to fit an ever-increasing number of passengers into the same volume, combined with *some* of those passengers' utter selfishness ("I will take whatever space and whatever time I need, without regards to anyone else, and if anyone has a problem with that, it's the airline's fault"), combined with the airline's utter indifference ("It's not like they're going to get off the plane or anything, so who cares whether or not they're comfortable? We've already got their money!")

My favorite example (unfortunately not seat-reclining related) was on one of our annual Seattle trips, when Southwest Airlines had changed the maximum age for pre-boarding (from something like 6 to 4) so suddenly we were at the airport expecting to pre-board and told we'd have to board in the cattle call just like everyone else.
So of course by the time we got on the plane there were nothing but middle seats left, and not a single person was willing to change rows to allow each parent to sit with a kid.
So my 6-year-old and my 9-year-old got to sit alone between strangers on the flight.

Unfortunately, they were admirably well-behaved and I think the passengers were happy to have such tiny quiet people in the middle seats. But it was still rather amazing to be faced with a blunt, "No, we will not move to allow you to travel with your child. You should have gotten here sooner, or known about Southwest's policy change."

Oh, well. It worked out. But I doubt all 6-year-olds responded as admirably as mine did. (Gotta admit, I was peeved, but proud.)

And I've never ridden another form of transit that was so utterly cut-throat. The bus? BART? A train? I see people give up their seats for children, pregnant women, or the elderly almost every time I ride. A plane? NEVER!


NobodysHome wrote:


Oh, well. It worked out. But I doubt all 6-year-olds responded as admirably as mine did. (Gotta admit, I was peeved, but proud.)
And I've never ridden another form of public transit that was so utterly cut-throat.

Well, increasing pressure put on passengers by airlines is largely responsible for the cut throat nature. The ever increasing/unweildyness of overhead luggage? Well, I remember when I was a kid, even domestic flights allowed you to check a bag usually 2 for free. Now you are looking at 200 bucks more if you want to check bags. So people cram as much as they can into their free carryone luggage.

As for your particular example...does southwest actually seat on first come first serve IN the plane? Like as you walk on you sit wherever you want? I've never flown southwest and never will. But I am somehow baffled by the idea that your seat is not set in checkin or when you book, but when you actually sit down...


Kolokotroni wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:


Oh, well. It worked out. But I doubt all 6-year-olds responded as admirably as mine did. (Gotta admit, I was peeved, but proud.)
And I've never ridden another form of public transit that was so utterly cut-throat.

Well, increasing pressure put on passengers by airlines is largely responsible for the cut throat nature. The ever increasing/unweildyness of overhead luggage? Well, I remember when I was a kid, even domestic flights allowed you to check a bag usually 2 for free. Now you are looking at 200 bucks more if you want to check bags. So people cram as much as they can into their free carryone luggage.

As for your particular example...does southwest actually seat on first come first serve IN the plane? Like as you walk on you sit wherever you want? I've never flown southwest and never will. But I am somehow baffled by the idea that your seat is not set in checkin or when you book, but when you actually sit down...

Yes. Southwest is a "First come, first serve" "cattle call".

They've changed in recent years. You can pay $10 to be in the first group to board. You can pre-check-in online 24 hours beforehand and be virtually assured of a first-group pass.

We were just caught unawares by the change in policy, which you'd think would have popped up the moment we booked two child tickets.

The "free" seating had worked very well in the past, as sometimes the kids wanted to be in one row (and Dad would be banished to a middle seat somewhere else), and sometimes they wanted two rows. That year was the year we stopped flying for a while...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the side topic of overhead bags, I wish the attendants would be clear that if you have two bags (aka one bag and a "personal item") that one of them must go under your seat and the other in the overhead. A lot of times I see people put two bags up in the overhead to get more room around their legs and then it makes it difficult for others to get their bag in the overhead. Not like if I can't find a spot in the overhead that I can put my bag under your seat. That's one of my pet peeves.


Legendarius wrote:
On the side topic of overhead bags, I wish the attendants would be clear that if you have two bags (aka one bag and a "personal item") that one of them must go under your seat and the other in the overhead. A lot of times I see people put two bags up in the overhead to get more room around their legs and then it makes it difficult for others to get their bag in the overhead. Not like if I can't find a spot in the overhead that I can put my bag under your seat. That's one of my pet peeves.

I know what you mean, but I still dont blame those people. If the airlines didnt charge an arm and a leg for checking bags, people wouldnt have as much carryon luggage, and if they didnt cram us in like sardines, having a bag under the seat in front of you wouldnt be as much of an issue in terms of leg room.


NobodysHome wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:


Oh, well. It worked out. But I doubt all 6-year-olds responded as admirably as mine did. (Gotta admit, I was peeved, but proud.)
And I've never ridden another form of public transit that was so utterly cut-throat.

Well, increasing pressure put on passengers by airlines is largely responsible for the cut throat nature. The ever increasing/unweildyness of overhead luggage? Well, I remember when I was a kid, even domestic flights allowed you to check a bag usually 2 for free. Now you are looking at 200 bucks more if you want to check bags. So people cram as much as they can into their free carryone luggage.

As for your particular example...does southwest actually seat on first come first serve IN the plane? Like as you walk on you sit wherever you want? I've never flown southwest and never will. But I am somehow baffled by the idea that your seat is not set in checkin or when you book, but when you actually sit down...

Yes. Southwest is a "First come, first serve" "cattle call".

They've changed in recent years. You can pay $10 to be in the first group to board. You can pre-check-in online 24 hours beforehand and be virtually assured of a first-group pass.

We were just caught unawares by the change in policy, which you'd think would have popped up the moment we booked two child tickets.

The "free" seating had worked very well in the past, as sometimes the kids wanted to be in one row (and Dad would be banished to a middle seat somewhere else), and sometimes they wanted two rows. That year was the year we stopped flying for a while...

I cant even...really? We really are the walmart generation arent we? Quality, class, meh, make it cheaper!


Kolokotroni wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:


Oh, well. It worked out. But I doubt all 6-year-olds responded as admirably as mine did. (Gotta admit, I was peeved, but proud.)
And I've never ridden another form of public transit that was so utterly cut-throat.

Well, increasing pressure put on passengers by airlines is largely responsible for the cut throat nature. The ever increasing/unweildyness of overhead luggage? Well, I remember when I was a kid, even domestic flights allowed you to check a bag usually 2 for free. Now you are looking at 200 bucks more if you want to check bags. So people cram as much as they can into their free carryone luggage.

As for your particular example...does southwest actually seat on first come first serve IN the plane? Like as you walk on you sit wherever you want? I've never flown southwest and never will. But I am somehow baffled by the idea that your seat is not set in checkin or when you book, but when you actually sit down...

Yes. Southwest is a "First come, first serve" "cattle call".

They've changed in recent years. You can pay $10 to be in the first group to board. You can pre-check-in online 24 hours beforehand and be virtually assured of a first-group pass.

We were just caught unawares by the change in policy, which you'd think would have popped up the moment we booked two child tickets.

The "free" seating had worked very well in the past, as sometimes the kids wanted to be in one row (and Dad would be banished to a middle seat somewhere else), and sometimes they wanted two rows. That year was the year we stopped flying for a while...

I cant even...really? We really are the walmart generation arent we? Quality, class, meh, make it cheaper!

Believe it or not, I flew for a living for several years, and Southwest was FAR superior to any of the "major" carriers (United, Delta, American, etc.) in terms of friendliness, service, timeliness, and comfort. *AND* you don't have to pay for your first 2 checked bags.

The only airlines better than Southwest were the other regional ones: Alaska and Virgin. And those don't go everywhere we need...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

Believe it or not, I flew for a living for several years, and Southwest was FAR superior to any of the "major" carriers (United, Delta, American, etc.) in terms of friendliness, service, timeliness, and comfort. *AND* you don't have to pay for your first 2 checked bags.

The only airlines better than Southwest were the other regional ones: Alaska and Virgin. And those don't go everywhere we need...

I generally fly Jet Blue if I have to domestically... but I just cant get over the idea of 'cattle call' boarding...why on earth would anyone tolerate that? How are people not trampled in the rush to not be crammed in the middle on full flights?

Also, didnt they make big people buy 2 seats a ways back. How does that work if you werent one of the first ones on the plane... you pay for 2 seats but they arent together?


Kolokotroni wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

Believe it or not, I flew for a living for several years, and Southwest was FAR superior to any of the "major" carriers (United, Delta, American, etc.) in terms of friendliness, service, timeliness, and comfort. *AND* you don't have to pay for your first 2 checked bags.

The only airlines better than Southwest were the other regional ones: Alaska and Virgin. And those don't go everywhere we need...

I generally fly Jet Blue if I have to domestically... but I just cant get over the idea of 'cattle call' boarding...why on earth would anyone tolerate that? How are people not trampled in the rush to not be crammed in the middle on full flights?

Also, didnt they make big people buy 2 seats a ways back. How does that work if you werent one of the first ones on the plane... you pay for 2 seats but they arent together?

Yeah, forgot Jet Blue. It's really good.

I have NO IDEA. Remember, I'm all of 5'6". I would have to double my already-considerable weight to fill 2 seats.

And it's remarkably polite. There was never any shoving or trampling that I saw. Nothing like a sale at Wal*Mart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

Believe it or not, I flew for a living for several years, and Southwest was FAR superior to any of the "major" carriers (United, Delta, American, etc.) in terms of friendliness, service, timeliness, and comfort. *AND* you don't have to pay for your first 2 checked bags.

The only airlines better than Southwest were the other regional ones: Alaska and Virgin. And those don't go everywhere we need...

I generally fly Jet Blue if I have to domestically... but I just cant get over the idea of 'cattle call' boarding...why on earth would anyone tolerate that? How are people not trampled in the rush to not be crammed in the middle on full flights?

Also, didnt they make big people buy 2 seats a ways back. How does that work if you werent one of the first ones on the plane... you pay for 2 seats but they arent together?

Yeah, forgot Jet Blue. It's really good.

I have NO IDEA. Remember, I'm all of 5'6". I would have to double my already-considerable weight to fill 2 seats.

And it's remarkably polite. There was never any shoving or trampling that I saw. Nothing like a sale at Wal*Mart.

I'll have to take your word for it. My issues with flying would make that the kind of panic that would cause me to injure someone. Being a large person and claustraphobic, the idea of not knowing if i can get a descent seat until im actually trapped in the small metal presurized flying tin can is beyond terrifying.

I like flying first class on british airways. It was literally like a suite, had a door and everything lol. Absolutely no relation to anything cattle does...except possibly the steak I ate.


Another almost-totally-off-topic thought, then I need to get my handoff done for work or my boss will know I've been Paizo-ing all day:

What if we put a bar similar to a high-jump bar at every gate, at exactly the height of the overhead bins?

"If you want to take that bag on board, you have to personally get it over that bar in under 5 seconds, without throwing it. GO!"

Seems like it would help. :-P

Sovereign Court

Easyjet a cheap airline I used while in Euro doesn't mess around. You get 1 bag.....1 bag that's not a wheelie carry on plus your backpack its one bag total. Then they have a scale-gauge device where they check the bag. If it fits its good to go. If not you have to check it. Plane was tiny though and uncomfortable thank goodness the flight was only 1 hour.


NobodysHome wrote:

Another almost-totally-off-topic thought, then I need to get my handoff done for work or my boss will know I've been Paizo-ing all day:

What if we put a bar similar to a high-jump bar at every gate, at exactly the height of the overhead bins?

"If you want to take that bag on board, you have to personally get it over that bar in under 5 seconds, without throwing it. GO!"

Seems like it would help. :-P

I am pretty sure that would violate AMA regulations. Might also be some gender descrimination there too.


Kolokotroni wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

Another almost-totally-off-topic thought, then I need to get my handoff done for work or my boss will know I've been Paizo-ing all day:

What if we put a bar similar to a high-jump bar at every gate, at exactly the height of the overhead bins?

"If you want to take that bag on board, you have to personally get it over that bar in under 5 seconds, without throwing it. GO!"

Seems like it would help. :-P

I am pretty sure that would violate AMA regulations. Might also be some gender descrimination there too.

Oh, I'm sure it's illegal in half a dozen ways.

But it makes the point.

"Just WHO do you think is going to put that oversized, over-heavy bag into the overhead bin? Is that person with you? Is your inability to lift that bag going to slow every other passenger behind you? Did you think these things through before bringing this bag?"

(I was IM'ing with my friend and he accused me of hating on little old ladies with that one...)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stebehil wrote:


Most major cities have hourly connections, and the trains are fast, up to 250 km/h on special tracks built for this kind of train. So, I really can do without flying - the distances in Europe are generally smaller anyway.

If you wonder why Americans prefer to drive... taking public transport here will, at MINIMUM, double your travel time.

Thats where its even possible. You still need a car to make it "point to point" . The 20 dollar cab fare to go 4 miles to the train station to take a train to go to albany could almost cover my gas there and back.


Kolokotroni wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:


Oh, well. It worked out. But I doubt all 6-year-olds responded as admirably as mine did. (Gotta admit, I was peeved, but proud.)
And I've never ridden another form of public transit that was so utterly cut-throat.
Well, increasing pressure put on passengers by airlines is largely responsible for the cut throat nature. The ever increasing/unweildyness of overhead luggage? Well, I remember when I was a kid, even domestic flights allowed you to check a bag usually 2 for free. Now you are looking at 200 bucks more if you want to check bags. So people cram as much as they can into their free carryone luggage.

And the deregulation of the airlines back in the early 80s(?) is responsible for that pressure.

That largely hasn't happened in Europe, which is why several of you have mentioned how much nicer planes are over there.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Stebehil wrote:


Most major cities have hourly connections, and the trains are fast, up to 250 km/h on special tracks built for this kind of train. So, I really can do without flying - the distances in Europe are generally smaller anyway.

If you wonder why Americans prefer to drive... taking public transport here will, at MINIMUM, double your travel time.

Thats where its even possible. You still need a car to make it "point to point" . The 20 dollar cab fare to go 4 miles to the train station to take a train to go to albany could almost cover my gas there and back.

Except for the commuter rail lines, where they exist. Those are generally much faster than driving. And far, far faster than driving would be if they weren't there.

I don't go into NYC often, but when I do, I'll often drive and pay to park by a rail station and ride in from there.

Even in your example: A 4 mile bike ride to the station and then into Albany isn't so bad. :)

But yes, public transportation here is pretty bad, outside of a few metropolitan areas. Doesn't mean it could be built up, just that it's currently bad.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:


Oh, well. It worked out. But I doubt all 6-year-olds responded as admirably as mine did. (Gotta admit, I was peeved, but proud.)
And I've never ridden another form of public transit that was so utterly cut-throat.
Well, increasing pressure put on passengers by airlines is largely responsible for the cut throat nature. The ever increasing/unweildyness of overhead luggage? Well, I remember when I was a kid, even domestic flights allowed you to check a bag usually 2 for free. Now you are looking at 200 bucks more if you want to check bags. So people cram as much as they can into their free carryone luggage.

And the deregulation of the airlines back in the early 80s(?) is responsible for that pressure.

That largely hasn't happened in Europe, which is why several of you have mentioned how much nicer planes are over there.

I wouldn't say Easyjet was nicer than my domestic services. It was probably the worse plane comfort wise I've ever been in but the flight was too short to really sink in.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Most of the airline seats were initially designed for the amount of space luftansa and most european carriers allow between seats. Typical american airlines have significantly less room now. So the fact that you are able to recline, doesnt really make it ok.

In 2010 I flew from Houston to Bucharest (with a stop in Germany) on Lufthansa. I had bragged to Mrs. Gersen how awesome it was going to be (based on my last experience with them), so I was in for a shock when we boarded the aircraft: it had the most cramped seat conditions I've ever experienced: the seat in front of me was so close that, when the person in it reclined, I was also forced to immediately recline to avoid being struck in the face.

Oddly, I more recently flew to Iceland on Delta and found that I had plenty of room and an enjoyable flight overall.

For domestic flights, I love Jet Blue, and will never again fly Southwest if I can possibly help it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I must have been beaten down by military flight conditions, since Southwest doesn't bother me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Someone once said that the most sure sign of a societal decline is not economics, nor even a measure of fading military might. It is when a society's members no longer take the concept of politeness to each other as a given. The other bellweather are the conditions of public spaces and facilities.... do we give any consideration for the next person that might use them or not?

The fact that we even have to have threads like this is the sign of our moral and ethical decay.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
The fact that we even have to have threads like this is the sign of our moral and ethical decay.

Yeah, that's what they said about Socrates, too.

While I totally agree that politeness and consideration are of great importance, I totally disagree that their lack is in any new thing; indeed, I find that people are, on the whole, more polite today than I remember them being when I was a kid.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The fact that we even have to have threads like this is the sign of our moral and ethical decay.
Yeah, that's what they said about Socrates, too.

In the end, Athens DID fall, after all. So maybe he had a point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

Someone once said that the most sure sign of a societal decline is not economics, nor even a measure of fading military might. It is when a society's members no longer take the concept of politeness to each other as a given. The other bellweather are the conditions of public spaces and facilities.... do we give any consideration for the next person that might use them or not?

The fact that we even have to have threads like this is the sign of our moral and ethical decay.

When did we take politeness to each other as a given?

Certainly not outside of our unofficial social classes and not always within them.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:

Someone once said that the most sure sign of a societal decline is not economics, nor even a measure of fading military might. It is when a society's members no longer take the concept of politeness to each other as a given. The other bellweather are the conditions of public spaces and facilities.... do we give any consideration for the next person that might use them or not?

The fact that we even have to have threads like this is the sign of our moral and ethical decay.

When did we take politeness to each other as a given?

Certainly not outside of our unofficial social classes and not always within them.

Maybe it's a measure of me having passed my half century already, but I do remember when being polite was not considered such a strange idea. And I'm just a boy from Paterson.


LazarX wrote:
Maybe it's a measure of me having passed my half century already, but I do remember when being polite was not considered such a strange idea. And I'm just a boy from Paterson.

(shrug) I grew up in the '70s. People were rude as hell back then, compared to now.


While not as large as some earlier posters (6'2" 250ish lbs.) I nearly always recline and expect that others will do the same.

Before the flight takes off, I ask the person behind me If they mind if I recline. I have never received a negative answer. If fact, I have been thanked for asking permission.

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Reclining on the plane All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions
Quotes Thread
Deep 6 FaWtL
Weird News Stories
Good New Stories
Did you know...?
Ramblin' Man