By weight and volume. So the fatties can all sit together and pay more for bigger seats
You are assuming that the cost of the recline (person in front of me reclining) is equal to the benefit of the recline (me reclining) I would argue they are not equal. The person in front of me reclines into my knees; my ability to recline does nothing to aleviate this unpleasantry.
In addition, you also assume that every seat has the ability to recline. There are at least 2 rows where this is not the case.
Good thoughts though.
What happens when the “little guy” seats, which would presumably cost less, are sold out but there are some “fat bastard” seats left? Does the little guy get a fat bastard seat at little guy prices (it’s not his fault that the airline incorrectly estimated little guy demand), or does he have to pony up for space he doesn’t actually need?
I agree with this, even though my tickets would be more expensive. Everyone should step on a scale with all of their belongings, and the fee should be determined from there. If I fly with a carry-on and my 7 year old son flies with a checked bag, there’s no way he should be paying more than I should.
^ There are also several rows where the seats in front don’t recline into you (bulkheads, exits) that the extra tall or fat whiners can slide into.
I read stuff like this and think of Coase’s article on the nature of the firm.
I’m loathe to disagree with you but I do believe you have it backwards. Reclining takes space away from the person behind you without providing any extra leg room for yourself. For everyone to have the maximum possible space everyone should remain upright at all times.
And, Bro, did someone piss in your cornflakes this morning? The 3-4 inches behind your seat may or may not be yours, but if there’s a guy that’s over 6’2" behind you, his legs/knees are going to occupy that space. By reclining not only are you being a dick, but it could conceivably be construed at assault. You’re basically hitting someone.
From a libertarian standpoint, we need to figure out who owns the space. If Bro is right and that space is his, then the tall guy is SOL and his body parts are actually trespassing. You’d be well within your rights to kill him. Now, if that space belongs to the guy with the long legs (he is technically occupying it so I’m inclined to say it’s his) then he could kill you out of self defense if you recline and hit him. I’d beware of a garrote wire.
^From a libertarian standpoint, the plane owns the space.
On the game theory thing, he’s talking like prisoner’s dilemna. Each individual person has an incentive to recline, even if it means that not everyone is better off.
The impact of weight is grossly overestimated. According to a study done by some PhD’s a MIT, the fuel cost to fly an empty Southwest Airlines 737-700 from Boston to Denver is $6,600. Adding 122 passenger and luggage totaling 26,840 pounds only increases the fuel cost to $7,900, an increase of $1,300 or approximately $0.05 per pound. Based on that and assuming they carry the same amount of luggage, a little guy who weights in at 135 should only pay $15 less than some fat bastard who tips the scales at 435.
Unless purchasing a ticket entitles you to a certian amount of space for the time your on the plane. Hmm…I’m not sure about this one. I’d still recommend carrying a garrote wire just in case.
And, I understand the Prisoner’s Dilemma but I’m not sure it’s really applicable here. As several of us have stated, we get no benefit from reclining. It’s not a matter of if I tell on you I get a get-out-of-jail-free card. There’s no incentive for me to recline.
That’s why I suggested volume. Weight doesn’t mean much, but increasing pitch lowers capacity. More leg room equals less passengers.
^^Garrote is a good idea.
For the prisoner’s dilemna argument to work you’d have to get some payoffs looking like
You\Other Person Recline Doesn’t Recline
Recline 0\0 2-1
Doesn’t Recline -1/2 1\1
i.e. there’d have to be some preference to recline if the other person doesn’t recline. Your argument is that you don’t prefer to recline, regardless (so instead of a -1, you might have a 1). However, you can’t guarantee that there won’t be other people that generally prefer to recline, which will result in various responses from other people with other preferences.
You’re thinking in terms of incremental cost and ignoring the fact that an empty jetliner that carries 30 persons instead of 122 costs a lot less to fly.
Good posts, after some thought, I’ve decided to recline if I feel like it. And the person in front of me, can do the same.
IMO, the space behind the seat, in the range of motion of the seat, belongs to the ticket holder of that seat. Excluding the tray table of course.
I think arguing that because a person is tall or simply wants the space to himself is not a good enough argument.
If a fat person buys a tiny car,
If a fat women buys a tiny dress,
If an illiterate person takes the CFA,
If a vegetarian goes to a Texas BBQ joint,
If a retiree dividend seeker buys a start up IPO with no cash flows…
Who’s fault is it if they are unsatisifed with the experience and outcome? Neither the seller nor anyone else should be blamed in any way if someone knowingly buys the wrong service or good and gets a bad outcome.
I win!
The entire discussion is about incremental costs. The little guys here are arguing that the big guys should pay more because they are heavier and take up more space. The more space argument has some validity, while the heavier argument does not as airlines are already charging far in excess of the incremental cost due to weight to give you more space.
It will be a short-lived victory if you happen to be sitting infront of Sweep anytime soon and he garrotes you.
Behold! the next level of dbag ness
^ I saw that too. No way that is FAA approved.
I’m wondering if that woman is not allowed to show her face.