No, You Don't Get to Use 'Knee Defenders' When Seated in Coach!

If you think things are bad now, wait until they implement the "Skyrider" seats demonstrated 2 years ago at a trade show. If adopted by the FAA, and for long trips, passengers better be ready for blood clots and hemorrhoids. Recline? Forget about it!


The news that a United flight (# 1462)  from Newark to Denver had to be diverted to Chicago because of the eruption of bad behavior of two passengers in coach, ought to get every flier's attention. Evidently a tall male passenger in the seat behind the female - both in 'Economy Plus', mind you - placed a device called a 'knee defender' on the braces supporting the table thereby preventing the female from exercising the recline option. Upset, she stood up with a cold cup of water and splashed it into the offender's face.

Now, the knee defender has a more or less noble purpose: to protect the knees and legs of a tall, lanky person when the passenger in front reclines.  The problem is that the target is misplaced. That person in the front seat has every right on Earth to exercise her recline option especially if she paid extra moola to be seated in Economy Plus - for which airlines advertise more space between seats for about $40 more.  Hence, by using the knee defender, the offender has denied the front -seat passenger her own purchase of the Economy Plus seat!

Was her reaction over the top? Yes it was. What she ought to have done is to get the attention of a flight attendant.  Then the guy would have had to remove it because few airlines that I know of allow them, including United. Still, the FAA doesn't prohibit them, which is strange. (They want the airlines to decide the policy).

But let's be honest here: the real culprit is United for limiting the pitch of the seats - now to 31". This from an original 34" and a whopping 36" when I was flying in the 1960s. (When you had two seats across the plane, on each side of the aisle). In effect, airlines through their greed - which is all about packing more passengers in like sardines to grab more profit - have effectively denied the practical use of the recline option for many passengers. If they were honest, they'd do what two other value airlines (including 'Spirit') have done and prohibited any reclining!

This at least would serve notice to all passengers that though you might want to recline, it ain't in the cards. If you wanted that you ought to have gone business class or first. Given this official position known to all, the use of the knee defender would become redundant.

And don't think for a moment things will get any better going forward. Already on the planning boards is the the Skyrider’- but which is more accurately ‘the Sardine-maker’.  The approval of such torture chairs will enable the grubby-greedaholic airlines to pack fifty more people per flight (going up to 220) into their 737’s by reducing the spacing between front and back row seats by nearly 30% from 32” to 23”. Anyone who’s flown in economy recently knows this is a recipe for monstrous discomfort since as it is, you can barely recline to get a little sleep or sit up and read or have a drink without being disturbed by the passenger in front (especially if they suddenly jerk their seats backward)

According to Dominique Menoud, director general of Aviointeriors Group, manufacturer of these abominations:

"We feel extremely confident that this concept will ... have great appeal to airlines for economic purposes,"

How about for HUMAN purposes? Or is it that you just want to stir up more discontent? Hell, if economics is the governing purpose why not just  eliminate seats altogether and administer sleeping pills after strapping down and stacking  all the passengers like cordwood. I am certain this will  have "great economic appeal". But is that sufficient reason to DO it? I think not!

Yes, yes, I know, the current purveyors of flying box car sardine accommodations will assert flying is much safer now, with less fire prone seats, some better designs etc. that permits at least a decent chance of escape from a crash, such as we saw at San Francisco last year. That's a point, but I argue that had the regulation of airlines continued those improvements would still have been made and now, we'd have comfortable flights along with the new safety enhancements. I also am willing to believe most people are willing to pay more for comfort - as well as getting an honest airline fee when they plan a flight.

The main purpose of deregulation was for airlines to pile in more people and make more money. (And please don't tell me flights are cheaper now, because I can cite just as many examples showing how the prices of key flights are outrageous - depending on the cities involved: think $750 from COS to Atlanta!)

Yes, more people can travel today ....but what has that translated into? Well, I call it a "Greyhound of the skies". You're packed in just like you were in the old Greyhound buses of the past. Candy and nut wrappers strewn all about by the end of the flight, trying to squeeze out of your seat to use the loo, and then loads of cranky passengers not at all enthralled with their predicament- especially if a screaming tot is added to the mix.

Furthermore, the differences between first class and economy have reflected the general and growing inequality in our society. And as they stretch the first class seats to give them more room, at more expense, they shrink the economy class to piss regular fliers off even more. The new plan being considered is to remove two restrooms in the rear of each economy cabin and jam in four more seats.

Meanwhile, on one website called Flyertalk, we learned from a fellow blogger just how close we are to class warfare in the sky. Evidently disgusted by the grubby conditions on his flight, this Robespierre of the unfriendly skies invoked the French Revolution and warned: If you annoy “the salt of the earth enough, the rank and file and what have you, sometimes you wind up beheaded.”

Careful there, Bud. You don't want to be classified as a terrorist under the Patriot Act. But seriously, it's actually a wonder there aren't more incidents given how the traveling public's comfort and even basic humanity is being gutted by the yen for airline profits. But maybe people are no longer to be surprised given how this model is ubiquitous in our society.

As for knee defenders,  these are not what a true "Robespierre of the unfriendly skies" resorts  to. Rather he understands that the true culprit is the airline and either he boycotts it, takes a train, or......finds a seat where he can be more comfortable. (Hint: Behind the bulkheads in Economy).

No! No Cell Phones on Planes!

Back in July, 2009, en route to my dad's funeral, traveling from Colorado Springs to Atlanta at 7 a.m., I was in no mood for babble after boarding. I just wanted to be immersed in my own thoughts and the occasional music piped into my earphones. I was fortunate to be seated next to two Delta air hostesses (both in their 30s) en route back to their hub in Atlanta. They were perfect seat mates for this sort of sympathy travel: they spoke softly to each other, watched the in-flight movie and let me to my own contemplation until about a half hour prior to landing.  Then the young woman seated next to me asked if I was going on holiday. I replied, 'No, headed for my dad's funeral in Port Charlotte, Florida'. This then spawned a longer conversation about his life, after she expressed condolences. Also, we briefly got into my own interests, that I'd just released a new book etc.

Basic point? No air captive wants to be hear babble unless it's: a) welcome, b) at the right time, and c)  is appropriate to the context. Aside from screaming bratskies on planes, one of the worst experiences the contemporary air traveler can have is to be seated adjacent to a narcissistic endless yapper who doesn't know when to call it quits. Fortunately, my encounters with such bozos are infrequent, given my wife and myself most often travel together.

Now, alas, with the FCC prepared to let airlines permit cell phone use during travel, we may be looking at the advent at the endless babbler  contaminating limited air space with noise pollution. Never mind s/he may not be talking to you. Merrill Markoe ('Shut Up and Fly!', TIME, December 9, p. 23) points out the problem eloquently:

"If seatmates start to babble to you, revealing themselves to be primary narcissists so enchanted by the sound of their own chatter that they'll keep talking even when they're out of topics - a nicely executed icy glare will  often ice them into silence....

Once cell phone calls are permitted, the FCC will be offering these people a behavioral pass. If their fellow passengers shut them down they can turn to their cell phones instead. The people on the receiving end of their calls may not even be paying attention. They might be playing video games and going 'Mmm...Mmm.....hmmm'

Meanwhile, the poor beleaguered seatmate remains stuck, listening to these grating narratives being repeated.."

This is spot-on and calls into scrutiny an observation I've made concerning cell phones, which is to say that once a person gets one he believes he's been catapulted into automatic big shot status. He may not be a Fortune 500 CEO but hey, the cell confers power and when he pulls it out he can assume the same power vibe as the CEO using his to demand his cubed vassals take their marching orders.  Thus, the mere ownership of one almost inevitably incites its use and generally this becomes overuse for any stupid reason whatsoever. In this sense, comedian Louis CK was absolutely right when he provoked angst by noting it's merely one more device to keep people thinking they're "doing something"  - when they aren't doing diddly or squat. (Obviously, emergency situations are different.)

Markoe interjects this on noting that the typical response will be "People need their cell phones now!" They "can't expect to exist hours without them!"   Which is balderdash and plays into Louis CK's point that people without a life (a real life) merely employ them to try to escape their own sense of isolation, loneliness. In the olden days, back in the 60s, people read books when on airplanes - but evidently this is no longer "cool". Now,  one must be seen instead holding a stupid little device in his hand and blabbing away to some poor forlorn fool who probably has an actual life and things to do.

Am I a curmudgeon? Well, ok, I do have curmudgeonly tendencies since having lived nearly seven decades I've seen way too much bullshit, and PR crappola that is exploited when people wish to avoid hard truths. It's easier for too many to live in unreality than reality. But consider this: unless you are in Business Class, flying has become increasingly god-awful. There's less and less room between the seats (typical seat widths are now 17-17.5" compared to 22" in the 60s),  and the pitch of seats is now so restricted you can't  lean backward without asking permission of the guy behind you. Meanwhile, the food is like warmed over kibbles, seat interspaces are like small garbage dumps, and any real food (at least closer approximations) costs extra.  See also: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/07/yes-flying-was-really-much-better-in-60s.html

Now, given this, why in hell would any sane person wish to add over-caffeinated road warriors - jabbering away like pseudo big shots - to this already foul environment?

At least the FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler (and his 4 commission cohorts) only issue rule change proposals, they won't be enforcing any. Thus, each airline will get to decide whether it wants to allow passengers to make cell phone calls. Already Delta, after taking an online passenger poll, has found 70% absolutely do not want it. In a statement issued 2 weeks ago Delta said: 'The overwhelming sentiment among our customers is that cell phones can only make their flying experience worse'.

Exactly! But make no mistake other airlines - less classy and less attendant to passengers' wishes - will seek to exploit this as an opportunity to boost profits. In this case, phone companies would charge you extra for the calls made in flight and airlines would get a portion of those fees.  And make no mistake that airlines will want a piece of the action, because - if they accept cell phone calls- they'll have to install telecom equipment to make calls possible. And that won't be cheap.

Other suggestions have been made that are reasonable and ought to strike a balance. One of these is that airlines ought to ban use of cells for any flights 5 hours or less. This is short enough so that anyone who needs to communicate should be able to do so through email or text message just by connecting to the in-flight Wi-Fi service.

On longer flights, airlines could install sound proof phone booths, perhaps about half the size of the airline rest rooms. Such a move would satisfy both the hyper-connected, wannabe big shot traveler- who thinks he's too important to ever be out of reach - and the rest of us who just want to reach our destinations without going ape shit in the cabin and being arrested as "domestic terrorists" for strangling a cell blabber in his seat.

Let's hope other airlines besides Delta see the light, and look to enhancing their passengers' flight experience (or at least not making it worse). But I wouldn't make book on it!

Yes, Flying Really Was Much Better in the 60s!

Flying in the near future: on 'Skyrider' seats!

Most people who take to the skies today-  post - 1980s massive de-regulation -  have no clue about how great getting on a jet used to be in this country. Crammed into typical economy class cabins with minimal leg room, smacked by the seat in front and barely any over head space, not to mention being dinged for everything from extra luggage to snacks, to even choice of seat (now), many believe this is how it's always been.

But if they saw how we traveled in the 60s they'd be livid. Wide aisles so you didn't careen into the push carts bearing drinks (on the way to the rest room), two wide seats on either side of the spacious aisle with plenty of leg room, and full decent meals that make even today's pay-to-eat offerings look like pig slop.  Indeed, traveling back then was more like taking business class today.

My favorite jaunt was between New Orleans and Miami, from 1966 through 1969, via National Airlines. The fare was a fixed 90 bucks, and the total trip took 90 minutes to cross over the Gulf of Mexico. There was no milling about, waiting at a "gate" to get on the plane. As soon as you arrived you showed your ticket then boarded.

Within ten minutes of being airborne the airline hostesses were ready to serve you any beverage desired along with a hot sandwich (for such a short trip full meals weren't available). That included: hot pastrami, corned beef, or just plain hamburgers. I can vouch that the quality would beat even most first class fare served these days.  The 1960s flight experience was perhaps most faithfully portrayed  in the short-lived 2012 TV series "Pan Am". (I only watched one episode but thought it was fairly accurate!)

In the 1960s class differentiation on flights was neither as extreme or emphasized as it is today. Yes, there was a smallish first class option but in general you had to be a real tool to use that when the regular seating was so comfortable (they didn't use the term "economy" because Cheeze Louise, it wasn't like taking a Greyhound bus back then - though it is like that today!) 

By the time you reached your destination you were refreshed and not frazzled after long waits, security searches, cramped leg room and other tribulations. In other words, you enjoyed the flight experience.

Yes, yes, I know, the current purveyors of flying box car sardine accommodations will assert flying is much safer now, with less fire prone seats, some better designs etc. that permits at least a decent chance of escape from a crash, such as we saw at San Francisco. That's a point, but I argue that had the regulation of airlines continued those improvements would still have been made and now, we'd have comfortable flights along with the new safety enhancements.

The main purpose of deregulation was for airlines to pile in more people and make more money. (And please don't tell me flights are cheaper now, because I can cite just as many examples showing how the prices of key flights are outrageous - depending on the cities involved: think $750 from COS to Atlanta!)

Yes, more people can travel today ....but what has that translated into? Well, I call it a "Greyhound of the skies". You're packed in just like you were in the old Greyhound buses of the past. Candy and nut wrappers strewn all about by the end of the flight, trying to squeeze out of your seat to use the loo, and then loads of cranky passengers not at all enthralled with their predicament- especially if a screaming tot is added to the mix.

Furthermore, the differences between first class and economy have reflected the general and growing inequality in our society. And as they stretch the first class seats to give them more room, at more expense, they shrink the economy class to piss regular fliers off even more. The new plan being considered is to remove two restrooms in the rear of each economy cabin and jam in four more seats.

The next step after that? Probably to replace current seating with 'Skyrider' seats so people can feel like they're on a bicycle seat while traveling 4 hours from NYC to San Francisco.  Meanwhile, on one website called Flyertalk, we learned from a fellow blogger just how close we are to class warfare in the sky. Evidently disgusted by the grubby conditions on his flight, this Robespierre of the unfriendly skies invoked the French Revolution and warned: If you annoy “the salt of the earth enough, the rank and file and what have you, sometimes you wind up beheaded.”

Hmmmmm...better be careful there, son, lest the Patriot Act and its NSA patronizers label you a "terrorist"