oldannyboy wrote:

incitatus wrote:

BA has never been known for seat comfort in economy. That has been the case for decades. In the mid-80s I flew L1011 on BA intra-Europe. The cabin was 10-abreast and the seats were very narrow. In the late 80s I flew intra-Europe 757. The pitch sucked..

Wrong. The TriStar (European network only) did have ten-across, but the pitch was around 32" throughout the entire length of the cabin, and the original layout of the intra-Europe 757 was 180 pax, spread over 30 rows @ 33-34", so very generous. The Super-Shuttle birds had 195 with slightly reduced pitch, but still good.

Oh well, you are wrong. BA had several different configurations of 757, up to 207 seats.

And I never said anything about the pitch of the L1011. My very broad shoulders must have been too squeezed for me to notice the pitch. 32-in with older generation thicker seats is not generous.

There is only one aircraft on BA that I have really enjoyed the economy seat: The A380. But given the opportunity I am pretty sure they will "fix" it.

Kashmon wrote:

customers get what they ask for
BA would not do this is customers did not reward Easyjet and Ryanair with their business and reduced BA's marketshare

I hate people whining about BA's declining service - the same nutters praise easyjet and ryanair's growth....

was BA ever rewarded for having reclining seats, meals etc?
No...

Ever considered that the growth of LS, FR and EZY may be down to other factors, such as the fact they will fly from regional airports? I don't reward them with my custom for service because they are cheap, I reward them because they fly to where I want to go from a lot of airports closer to my door than London.

BA can lower the costs or increase the service all they want, but as long as they remain London focused, it will be hard to argue why I should fly with them, and I am sure I am not alone.

But if I did live in London, BA would still need to win my custom, and they can only do that by winning on price or service. They're gradually cutting back on service to match the LCC's, but if the product is similar, and the price isnt.... the LCC's are still within easy reach at other airports in the London area!

Shrewfly wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

customers get what they ask for
BA would not do this is customers did not reward Easyjet and Ryanair with their business and reduced BA's marketshare

I hate people whining about BA's declining service - the same nutters praise easyjet and ryanair's growth....

was BA ever rewarded for having reclining seats, meals etc?
No...

Ever considered that the growth of LS, FR and EZY may be down to other factors, such as the fact they will fly from regional airports? I don't reward them with my custom for service because they are cheap, I reward them because they fly to where I want to go from a lot of airports closer to my door than London.

BA can lower the costs or increase the service all they want, but as long as they remain London focused, it will be hard to argue why I should fly with them, and I am sure I am not alone.

But if I did live in London, BA would still need to win my custom, and they can only do that by winning on price or service. They're gradually cutting back on service to match the LCC's, but if the product is similar, and the price isnt.... the LCC's are still within easy reach at other airports in the London area!

no
they have taken market share away from BA and BA initially did not want to play their game so completely withdrew
now BA realizes it has to play their game
because customers continually prove to reward airlines that treat them worse....

so quit whining about BA taking away benefits
they are just giving the market what it wants....

redroo wrote:

Why fly BA now when you can fly easyjet and Ryanair?

Maybe they know BA is still a full service airline?

Faro wrote:

This seems like the way going forward with all short-haul routes...LCC's have stamped their model on the industry as a whole...

Been saying forever, that soon EVERY airline will be FR/NK in economy class.

And anyone who believes that the oh-so-vaunted Asian carriers aren't going to follow suit, is living in a dream world.
Just give it a market shock or two.

SQ789 wrote:

redroo wrote:

Why fly BA now when you can fly easyjet and Ryanair?

Maybe they know BA is still a full service airline?

It still is just about...

skipness1E wrote:

parapente wrote:

Who are all these short haul LCC companies flying out of Heathrow that everybody here is going to go to?
Have I missed something?

Vueling and Iberia Express? Both owned by BA's owner, IAG #ROFL

Do eurowings still fly from LHR?

There's Cobalt on the LCA route.

SQ789 wrote:

redroo wrote:

Why fly BA now when you can fly easyjet and Ryanair?

Maybe they know BA is still a full service airline?

Is it? I've booked to go with them LHR-AMS in May because they were a smidge cheaper than KLM and the times tie up slightly better. Looking at what I get vs FR, U2, W6 etc I'm left wondering what's the difference? You get a seat (that you can't pick for free, I picked the emergency exit seats on LOT for free!), no checked baggage on the base level and it's buy food on board.

incitatus wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

incitatus wrote:

BA has never been known for seat comfort in economy. That has been the case for decades. In the mid-80s I flew L1011 on BA intra-Europe. The cabin was 10-abreast and the seats were very narrow. In the late 80s I flew intra-Europe 757. The pitch sucked..

Wrong. The TriStar (European network only) did have ten-across, but the pitch was around 32" throughout the entire length of the cabin, and the original layout of the intra-Europe 757 was 180 pax, spread over 30 rows @ 33-34", so very generous. The Super-Shuttle birds had 195 with slightly reduced pitch, but still good.

Oh well, you are wrong. BA had several different configurations of 757, up to 207 seats.
.

Not at the time you mention my friend. Late '80s it was still 180 or 195. Fact.

Arion640 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

parapente wrote:

Who are all these short haul LCC companies flying out of Heathrow that everybody here is going to go to?
Have I missed something?

Vueling and Iberia Express? Both owned by BA's owner, IAG #ROFL

Do eurowings still fly from LHR?

There's Cobalt on the LCA route.

Yes, we still see Eurowings in LHR even after Air Berlin's bankruptcy.

I would hate the person in front of me reclining their seat. Basically to me it is encroaching on my personal space. Probably causes a lot of arguments too.

Get them gone BA!

Given BA is looking to make money, and people are pretty ok with the product offering on for example Ryanair, why would BA go out of their way to offer you things like free drinks and meals in economy? Most people (besides people on this forum) just want to get from A to B, they live in the right catchment area for LHR and/or BA is their most efficient way to get to where they need to be. Offering up extra's there is great for the image, but not the bottom line. And the "image" going down a step or two is easily made up for by the financial gains of taking some frills away. The fact BA is doing this more aggressively than the other legacy EU carriers just means they're thinking ahead in my opinion. Not saying I personally love it, because I don't, but I can totally understand what they're doing.

SQ789 wrote:

redroo wrote:

Why fly BA now when you can fly easyjet and Ryanair?

Maybe they know BA is still a full service airline?

Yeah upfront they are but not in economy with BOB that's not ''full service''!

BHXLOVER wrote:

I would hate the person in front of me reclining their seat. Basically to me it is encroaching on my personal space. Probably causes a lot of arguments too.

Get them gone BA!

What I think should happen is the reclining mechanism should be a pay to use feature. You have to swipe or tap your credit card in order to unlock the reclining mechanism. $20 fee. That will make the airline more money and also stop arguments, because the person in front has paid for the right to recline his/her seat.

Why not, it's a race to the bottom in airlines, might as well make a quick dollar from it too.

cpd wrote:

BHXLOVER wrote:

I would hate the person in front of me reclining their seat. Basically to me it is encroaching on my personal space. Probably causes a lot of arguments too.

Get them gone BA!

What I think should happen is the reclining mechanism should be a pay to use feature. You have to swipe or tap your credit card in order to unlock the reclining mechanism. $20 fee. That will make the airline more money and also stop arguments, because the person in front has paid for the right to recline his/her seat.

Why not, it's a race to the bottom in airlines, might as well make a quick dollar from it too.

And that fee should go to the person sitting behind the reclinee!

StTim wrote:

cpd wrote:

BHXLOVER wrote:

I would hate the person in front of me reclining their seat. Basically to me it is encroaching on my personal space. Probably causes a lot of arguments too.

Get them gone BA!

What I think should happen is the reclining mechanism should be a pay to use feature. You have to swipe or tap your credit card in order to unlock the reclining mechanism. $20 fee. That will make the airline more money and also stop arguments, because the person in front has paid for the right to recline his/her seat.

Why not, it's a race to the bottom in airlines, might as well make a quick dollar from it too.

And that fee should go to the person sitting behind the reclinee!

No, to the airline. The person behind could simply pay a higher price and fly business class.

Great move by BA as it will stop idiots unnecessarily reclining their seats on 40 minute flights.

sk736 wrote:

Great move by BA as it will stop idiots unnecessarily reclining their seats on 40 minute flights.

cpd wrote:

StTim wrote:

cpd wrote:

What I think should happen is the reclining mechanism should be a pay to use feature. You have to swipe or tap your credit card in order to unlock the reclining mechanism. $20 fee. That will make the airline more money and also stop arguments, because the person in front has paid for the right to recline his/her seat.

Why not, it's a race to the bottom in airlines, might as well make a quick dollar from it too.

And that fee should go to the person sitting behind the reclinee!

No, to the airline. The person behind could simply pay a higher price and fly business class.

Except of course that that EuroBusiness class uses exactly the same non-reclineable, 28in seats...

Only 35 planes. Too little, too late. But better late than never catching up on Ryanair's upgrade to non-kneecrashing seats over a decade ago. Hopefully in a few years time more planes have got the mod and we can again risk to buy a BA ticket.

cpd wrote:

The person behind could simply pay a higher price and fly business class.

sk736 wrote:

Great move by BA as it will stop idiots unnecessarily reclining their seats on 40 minute flights.

It is, however, here on a.net the same old story as when Ryanair pioneered last decade. Tall persons and midgets will never agree.

The person, who first proposed that reclining seats can be positioned tighter than 34", should be crucified.

Cunard wrote:

SQ789 wrote:

redroo wrote:

Why fly BA now when you can fly easyjet and Ryanair?

Maybe they know BA is still a full service airline?

Yeah upfront they are but not in economy with BOB that's not ''full service''!

BOB = Buy On Board
However unlike some other airline in Europe like SAS which they also has BOB as well on short haul flights, this airline only accepts Credit Card or Avios and no free water or tea or coffee as well.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well that sure would suck if I were connecting onward from an overnight flight. That's another reason not to fly BA transatlantic.

I am sure this is true. I wish we don't fly BA LH (Long Haul) as well as they start squeezing 10 Abreast on 777s and BA is one of the largest International airline flying to the US.

SQ789 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well that sure would suck if I were connecting onward from an overnight flight. That's another reason not to fly BA transatlantic.

I am sure this is true. I wish we don't fly BA LH (Long Haul) as well as they start squeezing 10 Abreast on 777s and BA is one of the largest International airline flying to the US.

Fortunately BA has terrible connections to my wife's hometown. TK still has 9 abreast in economy, and has 2.5 to 3 hour connections coming and going.

Add me to the no recline preference. All other things being comparable, such as schedule and price, I would absolutely pick the airline that does not allow recline over one that does. Now I'm not one of those saying it should be mandated on every airline, it just my personal preference.
Despite being 6' 1" I won't miss the small amount of recline available as it does not do much to increase my comfort and much prefer the person in front of me not reclining on my already limited space. I've never like reclining on the bloke behind me either and I try to avoid doing so.
It's just another issue that will never be fully settled.

SQ789 wrote:

Cunard wrote:

SQ789 wrote:

Maybe they know BA is still a full service airline?

Yeah upfront they are but not in economy with BOB that's not ''full service''!

BOB = Buy On Board
However unlike some other airline in Europe like SAS which they also has BOB as well on short haul flights, this airline only accepts Credit Card or Avios and no free water or tea or coffee as well.

That's all well and done but it still doesn't make it any difference to Economy on British Airways, the way of payment for BOB on SAS doesn't make BA any more of a 'full service airline' just because they except other forms of payment that's ridiculous.

You previously stated that British Airways was a ''full service airline'' and I replied, they are upfront but not in short haul Economy which is the case and your comparison with SAS is ridiculous.

Non the less British Airways is my favourite airline and I am proud to be a BA Executive Club member and I will always remain loyal to the airline regardless of all these recent changes, some good some bad, but in all my years of flying with British Airways I can honestly say that I have only had just the one disappointing flight with them.

ClipperYankee wrote:

It's just another issue that will never be fully settled.

I feel like it's because when we talk about reclining a seat it is inferred that we push the seat back as far as it goes and that is rarely the case for most. The seat recline isn't just 'on or off', there's a vast array of degrees which it can be put at which is something we all know and should remember when discussing this.

Personally I always recline the seat an inch or two, even when flying 30 minute sectors, as for me it takes off the edge of being sat bolt upright and so for me it makes it far more comfortable a journey. When people in front of me do the same then you can hardly notice that level of recline and so I believe it is an acceptable and very reasonable thing to do.

For me any airline I've flown with that has no recline I've found their seats to be mediocre at best and I've never felt especially comfortable on those flights. This is apparently even keeping in mind these seats are meant to be designed with a certain level of recline already built in, or so I once read here, but I just personally find them ergonomically incorrect and it hurts my back. (LS and U2 in particular).

It is all just personal preference though really but I liken it to when you get home and you want to sit down for half an hour or more. Do you make a beeline for the dining room chair, or the couch? Answer me that.

Instead of removing recline altogether on short haul then for me the recline level should have simply been reduced. But that doesn't save the airlines any money in weight reduction or maintenance.

MYT332 wrote:

ClipperYankee wrote:

It's just another issue that will never be fully settled.

I feel like it's because when we talk about reclining a seat it is inferred that we push the seat back as far as it goes and that is rarely the case for most. The seat recline isn't just 'on or off', there's a vast array of degrees which it can be put at which is something we all know and should remember when discussing this.

No, it's because we have passengers who think buying a ticket entitles them to tell other passengers how to behave. When we buy a ticket on an airline that has reclining seats, the risk exists that the passenger in front of us may use the reclining feature of their seat. If that risk is unbearable, apparently there are more and more risk-free options to choose from. The more passengers choose the risk-free option, the more carriers may be inclined to want to cater to them. In the meantime, a ticket isn't a mall-cop-of-the-air badge.

The only reason people don’t like reclining seats is because the pitch has been horribly tightened! BA have just about pushed it as tight as they can. Now marketing is all about disruption and differentiation, it all depends on whether the next CEO at IAG decides the only way he can make good money is having an inferior product to Norwegian. (They’ll still be remembered by then.....)

Next thing as of today, my thoughts is all about their long haul service. I'm reading several reviews at airlinequality.com that their Long Haul has start to deteriorated as well. Customers in Economy said that their inflight service is awful, now their Premium Economy is also getting awful as well. In my thoughts, what will their First Class and Club World looks like? Awful as Economy and Premium Economy?

The first thing that worries me on this one is the fact that A321s will be fitted like this. Although the report says short haul, you would not expect an A321 nowadays to fly less than 2 hours.
I like reclining seats and follow the rule that, if the person behind me has reclined, then I am OK to recline. Otherwise, no thanks. But this is not the big issue. The issue is the elimination of reclining seats AND reduction in pitch. If they just did away with reclining seats keeping the pitch the same by introducing slim seats to allow for a couple of extra rows, then yes.
But it seems that BA, for what they charge, is probably mulling right now on whether paint their aircrafts orange, white/blue/yellow or maybe even while/blue/green...
They do not charge LCC Price so they should not offer the same product as them even for short haul.

Ergonomically speaking I am not even sure that a reclining back -with a fixed seat is a good thing .I have never liked them.All that happens is weight is transferred to the small of your back as your body tries to slide down (gravity will have its way).Its different if one created a 'lazyZ' where the base of the seat drops as well,then the pressure points remain the same or similar.
From a previous thread I agree with those whose criticism of slimple seats was the reduction of seat padding (along with the obvious reduction of back padding).Again the main weight is on the seat not the back.And reducing seat padding saves no space.So my plea would be for a softer padded seat and a slime fixed seat back.
As a general point on pitch.What should happen is that the industry as a whole should agree minimum standards.
For instance 29" on shorthaul (say 4 hours).And 31" on longer haul.World wide agreement would stop all the seat wars and consumers would know what they are getting.

Arion640 wrote:

TUGMASTER wrote:

Not many people on this thread have picked up on the fact that BA are also adding more rows & seats to each A319/320/321.
BA call it "Densification" program.... More and More seats....less and less space.

A319's not being densified. Will be shipped to Gatwick as neo's arrive and some retirements (mainly ex bmi birds).

G-EUPA (the first BA A319) was due to retired next month. 5 of ex BMI A319 and 4 others A319 owned by BA will also retired in upcoming months.

sk736 wrote:

Great move by BA as it will stop idiots unnecessarily reclining their seats on 40 minute flights.

Hear, hear. I absolutely fail to understand why people feel the need to recline their seats on board an aircraft when they wouldn't expect to do so on a train journey of similar length. I'm not a regular BA flyer but this will certainly encourage me to use them for short and medium haul.

ScottishDavie wrote:

sk736 wrote:

Great move by BA as it will stop idiots unnecessarily reclining their seats on 40 minute flights.

Hear, hear. I absolutely fail to understand why people feel the need to recline their seats on board an aircraft when they wouldn't expect to do so on a train journey of similar length. I'm not a regular BA flyer but this will certainly encourage me to use them for short and medium haul.

Those of us in First Class can and do.

Cheers

SQ789 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

TUGMASTER wrote:

Not many people on this thread have picked up on the fact that BA are also adding more rows & seats to each A319/320/321.
BA call it "Densification" program.... More and More seats....less and less space.

A319's not being densified. Will be shipped to Gatwick as neo's arrive and some retirements (mainly ex bmi birds).

G-EUPA (the first BA A319) was due to retired next month. 5 of ex BMI A319 and 4 others A319 owned by BA will also retired in upcoming months.

Are you sure? G-EUPA has just been repainted out of the Dove scheme.

skipness1E wrote:

SQ789 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

A319's not being densified. Will be shipped to Gatwick as neo's arrive and some retirements (mainly ex bmi birds).

G-EUPA (the first BA A319) was due to retired next month. 5 of ex BMI A319 and 4 others A319 owned by BA will also retired in upcoming months.

Are you sure? G-EUPA has just been repainted out of the Dove scheme.

Skipness1E, like you, I am surprised that G-EUPA is among the A319s due to be retired first, even though it would seem make logical sense. As I understand it, unless the information I received has been amended in the last few weeks, the initial batch of retirements of A319s involves not the oldest but, in fact, the younger examples, including, as stated, many of the ex-bmi birds. The retirement schedule I saw is is follows:

Mar 2018: G-DBCI
Apr 2018: G-EUPV
Aug 2018: G-EUPW, G-EUOB
Oct 2018: G-EUOC
Nov 2018: G-DBCJ
Jan 2019: G-DBCK, G-EUOD
Apr 2019: G-EUOE
May 2019: G-EUOF

I understand that a further 8 A319s will be retired in due course.

Jomar777 wrote:

The first thing that worries me on this one is the fact that A321s will be fitted like this. Although the report says short haul, you would not expect an A321 nowadays to fly less than 2 hours.

I’m not defending the new seats, but most BA A321 flying is well below two hours. Picking one at random, G-EUXF has been to EDI, AMS, GLA, DUB, NCL, CDG, ZRH etc over the past few days, most of which are closer to an hour flying.

I believe the new seats are 'pre-reclined' however, so I’m sure (hope) there will be some degree of comfort.

Isn't Lufthansa doing the same, I'm sure I saw they are now putting 180 seats in their A320s (same as Easyjet but tighter in the back). The majority value price over comfort, I've seen that from my job where people will happily choose convoluted itineraries that are double time of the direct service in order to save £2!

As for loyalty - I prefer to fly Easyjet from Bristol, but have found many routes are less then daily, if the times don't match then it's National Express to Heathrow for BA, the extra cost for BA is offset by not needing to get a coach from Heathrow to Gatwick/Luton/Stansted for a LCC

So in a nutshell this is the BA Effect.
LCC offer no reclining seats BAD.
Premium Carrier offer no reclining seats - GOOD
BA's premium prestige makes the service, not the actual service.

ClipperYankee wrote:

Add me to the no recline preference. All other things being comparable, such as schedule and price, I would absolutely pick the airline that does not allow recline over one that does. Now I'm not one of those saying it should be mandated on every airline, it just my personal preference.
Despite being 6' 1" I won't miss the small amount of recline available as it does not do much to increase my comfort and much prefer the person in front of me not reclining on my already limited space. I've never like reclining on the bloke behind me either and I try to avoid doing so.
It's just another issue that will never be fully settled.

I agree with all of that (except for being 6'1").

On a recent long-haul trip with my wife it was almost comical how as soon as we reached cruise height... BAM! AV screen in lap... Both on the way there and again on the way back - for the entire flight - for both of our seats.

The slim seats on those flights made it just slightly less annoying than in the past, but still...

Edit: I just remembered; one of the reasons my wife and I exchanged wry smiles was because I had to catch my open wine bottle as it was thrown off the tray following meal service. "I've finished my food, so I'm back to recline now. Screw you".

MYT332 wrote:

I feel like it's because when we talk about reclining a seat it is inferred that we push the seat back as far as it goes and that is rarely the case for most. The seat recline isn't just 'on or off', there's a vast array of degrees which it can be put at which is something we all know and should remember when discussing this.

That has literally never been my experience. Nor do people recline for a nap and then bring it back up again. It's always: take-off, full recline (usually in one BAM! without a please or thank you), "prepare for landing", seat up.

parapente wrote:

Ergonomically speaking I am not even sure that a reclining back -with a fixed seat is a good thing .I have never liked them.All that happens is weight is transferred to the small of your back as your body tries to slide down (gravity will have its way).

I'm completely in that camp as well. I have tried various levels of recline (usually in order to distance myself slightly from the person in front of me - and only when I see that the person behind is sleeping) and it never gets more comfortable. For a couple of days following my recent outbound flight I occasionally had a weird twinge in my lumbar - that was when I had tried the reclined position for a couple of hours. Nothing following my return flight where I just put up with being too close to the AV screen.

Also, I have always found the slim, non-reclining EasyJet seats comfortable, while on non-slimline long haul seats I get fidgety after an hour.

So my plea would be for a softer padded seat and a slime fixed seat back.

Yeurgh! No slime on my seat back, thanks...

So British

https://www.lufthansa.com/mediapool/pdf ... 228708.pdf - This is Lufthansa's new A320 config - 180 seats including a business class - the seats at the back look very cramped.

So BA so British

chunhimlai wrote:

So BA so British

I've heard similar comments about BA in various contexts over the years and about the Landor livery in particular. I often wonder if any of these comments are made by anyone with any actual experience of 'Great Britain' other than loose perceptions picked up by watching the likes of Joan Collins in Dynasty and Royal weddings? BA has moved on a lot since it's days of being 'the world's favourite airline' and not much of it for the better. I'm flying BA from GLA to LGW in a week or so, return is by Easyjet, but only because I couldn't get the timings of the Easyjet right for the outbound flight. My last experience of BA shorthaul a year ago was so unpleasant that I vowed never to use them again if I coud help it. Sadly this time (for the outbound at least) I'll just need to don my knee pads and grin and bear it.

Hey, JannEejit, if it is really so tight (I have no recent first-hand experience on short-haul BA), dont put on your knee pads - that will just take up more space

Wear your kilt or shorts, no knee pads, and grin and bare it! (Fra wan Eejit ti another!)

I absolutely despise reclining seats. I always seem to be the one who gets behind the selfish idiot that instantly cracks their seat back right into my knees. No matter how much I push back (you'd think they would get the message) with my aforementioned squished knees there is rarely a reaction. On my most recent flight I asked a flight attendant to request that the idiot in front of me un-recline while I was eating in the last row where I had no opportunity to recline myself. The "recliner" person simply said no and looked at me like I was a monster. I of course intensely pushed her seat around as much as possible when I got up to have a pee shortly after. The truth is that I really didn't have much room to exit my row but added a bit of exaggeration as much as possible. No response of course. It seems to be that recliners are part of the one in ten ahole rule.
I would make all seats unreclinable except for first class or maybe business class where there is more room. The sooner the better.

Further to comments above concerning A319 retirements. I believe many of these have been postponed/delayed owing to acquisition of the Gatwick slots previously operated by Monarch.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

That has literally never been my experience. Nor do people recline for a nap and then bring it back up again. It's always: take-off, full recline (usually in one BAM! without a please or thank you), "prepare for landing", seat up.

Sucks to be you then. I've experienced many people not reclining the full way. And as for the small of the back issue, yeah I get what you're saying. I fly a lot between Australia and the UK and I have that issue on Qatar's 77W and do you know what fixes it? A pillow or soft jacket in the small of the back.

But a question to all: What is the difference in reclining on a short 3 hour flight versus reclining on a longer 14 hour flight in terms of invasion of personal space and reduction in knee room? The answer is none and if you hate it on short flights then you'll go out of your mind on a long flight where that bad boy is reclined for half a day sometimes. I mean say you're on an overnight flight departing at 11pm; well not everyone sleeps on night flights so what if Mr Corbett, aged 38 from Kent and a staunch anti-recliner, is sat behind you and wants to stay up watching tv all night on his Oryx One IFE system? Would you refrain from reclining and attempt to sleep like you're in a Borg alcove, which nobody would choose to do unless your name is Locutus, or would you think, sod it, I've paid for this seat, I want to try be comfortable? Maybe you'd just recline a bit? Maybe that'd be ok.... But if recline is truly the spawn of satan then Mr Corbett may still be mightily offended and upset that you've put your comfort above his own by reclining even a small amount and just how is he supposed to catch up on Season 11 of The Big Bang Theory now?

Your logic needs to be transferable so tell me again why exactly I can't recline now on a late night ATH-LHR flight with BA? Passenger experience or cost cutting? I'm going to say option 'b'.