Should Airlines Get Rid of Reclining Seats? This One Is

When it was disclosed last week that British Airways planned to

install non-reclining seats

on its 25 new Airbus A320neo and A321neo planes, the predictable outcry ensued.

It was a battle royal between those who favor civility and those who assert their "right" to recline. Among the representative comments on

FlyerTalk

:

I see the inability to recline seats in short haul a positive! I hate it when the passenger in front reclines.

_



And so it will continue, as other airlines follow British Airways in fitting their planes with non-reclining seats. There are those who are categorically opposed to reclining seats, and those who categorically favor them.



Related: Wallet Watch: The 20 Most Expensive Cities for Business Travel



Rather than those categorical ayes or nays, however, the best answer might be: It depends. Specifically, it should depend on the legroom between the seats. No one complains when a passenger in first class reclines his or her seat, because there's plenty or room between seats, and reclining seats won't encroach on anyone else's space. But when there are a scant 29 inches between seats, as is increasingly the case in coach cabins, even a fully upright seat back is only a few inches from the face of the passenger behind. Under those circumstances, tilting that seat back even further is inconsiderate of other flyer's personal space at best, and an act of hostility at worst.

My suggestion as this new reality might spread: For seats with less than, say, 32 inches of pitch (the distance between seats), seats should be fixed in an upright position—no reclining seats. And for seats with 33 or more inches of pitch, seats will be able to recline five degrees for every extra inch of legroom.

There are no absolutes there; recline and pitch are co-variables, as they should be.



Reader Reality Check: 

Got a better solution? Comment below.

_