passenger behind won't let you recline

[vjmatty]

What you will see most airlines doing in the future (some have started already), especially as they try to fit more seats on, will be switching to seats where "reclining" pushes the bottom of your seat forward instead of leaning you back, taking up your own legroom rather than that of the passenger behind you.

 

Like some movie theater seats. Makes sense.

[cmich068]

Like some movie theater seats. Makes sense.

 

None of the American airlines have any publicized plans to do it yet to my knowledge (although Spirit has seats that just don't recline at all on some of their planes) but Cathay Pacific and Air New Zealand come to mind as two of the larger airlines to have done it so far.

 

Here's a visual of the Cathay seat, click over to Economy :)

http://www.cathaypacific.aero/SlideShow/EN/index_en.html

[vjmatty]

Those actually look pretty comfortable.... never flown Cathay but I've heard good things about their business class.

[DanJ]

What you will see most airlines doing in the future (some have started already), especially as they try to fit more seats on, will be switching to seats where "reclining" pushes the bottom of your seat forward instead of leaning you back, taking up your own legroom rather than that of the passenger behind you.

 

 

One of the European cheapo-airlines a couple years ago looked at "standing seats" where you were basically leaning back on this little padded rail. Or the so-called `saddle seat`which looks like a horse saddle with a seat back. Fortunately, it doesn`t sound like these ideas passed muster with the safety officials (yet lol).

[FlyerTalker]

3. I blame the airlines (starting with American, I think) for saying, "Hmmm..we can make a ton more money if we jam extra seat rows between the existing ones, and we can cram a lot more people in!"

Actually, you can blame the traveling public. AA took out rows of seats to give "More Room Throughout Coach". The thought was that increased demand for AA tickets (because of better inflight seating) would make up for the potential loss of revenue for having fewer seats per flight. However, the masses kept on buying on price without considering the VALUE of their purchases. AA threw in the towel and put back the rows.

[gingerboo]

Actually, you can blame the traveling public. AA took out rows of seats to give "More Room Throughout Coach". The thought was that increased demand for AA tickets (because of better inflight seating) would make up for the potential loss of revenue for having fewer seats per flight. However, the masses kept on buying on price without considering the VALUE of their purchases. AA threw in the towel and put (back the rows.

 

You know, FT, you're right! It's been been a long time, and I apologize for getting it wrong). AA was my airline of choice back in the 80's and 90's and early 2000's because I got such great deals! And, comfortable seats, although hated changing planes at DFW! At that time, AA (American Eagle) basically "owned" the Caribbean (and then there was LIAT...):rolleyes:. We always got such great deals...FF miles, voluntary "bumping", FF miles for switching from First to Coach....ended up with quite a few free r/t tickets from West Coast to places like St. Barts (wierd flight and short runway!), St. Lucia, Antigua, St. Vincent, Tortola. Those were the good old days! Sigh.

[kenish]

2. When smoking was banned on domestic airlines (early/mid-90's??), most planes still had ashtrays on the armrests. That didn't mean you could use them...just because they were there! Like reclining buttons for seats?

 

FAA certification standards required an ashtray be available to every passenger. It took awhile for the reg to be removed after non-smoking took effect. During that period, airlines could still be fined for a missing ashtray "cup", even though smoking was banned!