Recently, I wrote about the plans of the government to get into the topic of the size of seats on airplanes. See The FAA and Seats (August 2022). I was reminded of the topic when I recently took flight to the great state of Texas and got to live the dream of cattle roundup-style boarding, comedian wanna-be cabin attendants, and overflowing flight companions. This is not meant to suggest the flight was oversold, or that too many individuals boarded the plane. However, too much passenger did in fact strive to occupy some particular seats (the one next to mine was a prime example).
Some flights are clearly designed for thrift. There are no in-flight entertainment units mounted in the seatback. There is precious little padding in the seats themselves. And, there is a hint that someone cleaned the aircraft at some point, but not this century. There is a concerted effort for fuel efficiency, and thus thrift. Part of that is the configuration of the seats and the space between them. Comedian Jim Jeffries addresses his perceptions of "airplane etiquette" with aplomb. His language is a bit colorful (fair warning). But, essentially, he contends that the person in the middle seat is unequivocally entitled to two armrests.
I think of him often when I see an over six-foot, over 220+-pound gentleperson folded into that center seat. In some instances, that seat was chosen from a seating chart. On other, cattle roundup-style, airlines that seat was defaulted by an unfortunate late boarding opportunity (the ticket is a bargain, but any amenities cost extra, including boarding outside of the last 50 or so passengers). Why is that mountain squeezing into that center seat? That is an intriguing question. But, more intriguing (in the whole ox-goring perspective, not that I advocate or tolerate cruelty to oxen, but I digress) is why is that particular mountain overflowing the armrest into the seat for which I paid? I mean I'm friendly and all, but this is a bit intimate for strangers in any setting.
And, at times, I think that I am alone in these perspectives. But yet . . . an article on Your Tango recently came across my newsfeed. It ignited another question about air travel that was new to me. Not above and beyond the whole armrest/seat debate, but decidedly below it. Having spent a few hours on aircraft over the years, I wonder if this new territory dispute is something new or merely new to me. This is the "manspreading debate." The headline "Photo Of Man Spreading His Legs" seemed to be clickbait, but the article is interesting.
This is a debate similar to the armrest discussion. It is, at its root, about territory and resources. We must remember that many wars have been fought over territory, and people's perceptions and jealousies surrounding it. In this particular instance, the plane passenger has his (since the good folks at Your Tango use the words "man" and "his," I presume they did their homework and confirmed for certain this individual's actual personhood and gender preferences, as well as appropriate pronoun assignment) legs spread to an extent that placed his knee in the space in front of his neighbor's seat.
I leave it to the reader to decide if this is "offsides," "encroachment" or "neutral zone." But those are merely labels. What it is, frankly, is astoundingly impolite and worse. There is only so much real estate on a plane, and whatever bargain (or premium) price you paid there should be some respect for that space you purchased (and that your neighbor likewise purchased - leased? But I digress again). Or, do we risk an accusation of geriaticism with a "hey, you kids get out of my ________(leg space, armrest, lap, etc.)?" Is it too much to ask strangers to keep their personhood to themselves in flight?
The Your Tango article describes how this "manspread" situation was publicized and discussed on a social media platform called Reddit. This included a volume of comments and reactions. Some were critical of the manspreader, and others were surprisingly sympathetic of the tall and uncomfortable. It is perhaps easier to sympathize with the mountain from afar, lamenting its stature and discomfiture. And, perhaps it is a little more difficult if in fact, you find yourself as the ox?
Is the great socialistic solution of use here: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875? If you are too large for the accommodations you have procured, is it essentially someone else's problem that they must therefore be your ox? In our modern, feel-good, society should the person being imposed upon (gored) merely grin and bear it? Is having someone touch you (or worse) for a four-hour flight just a cost of living in the world of today? Or, is it more appropriate for those who need additional space to take more formal action in that direction?
What are the rules of airplane etiquette? I would suggest comedian Jeffries misses the mark. Instead, I would propose:
- If you need two seats, purchase two seats.
- If you have the aisle seat, expect to get up for others
- Keep your arms and legs to yourself (manspreading)
- Remember that cologne you love, others may not
- Remember that the cologne you love was never intended as a marinade.
- Remain dressed (yes this includes shoes and socks)
- Pleasantries are nice, but no one wants to hear your life story
- Please and thank you are most appropriate when entering, exiting, reaching, and more.
FAA regulations regarding the appropriate quantum of seat room or legroom may standardize airlines. Standardization may move the entire air-travel industry to greater congruity. But, regardless of the size or configuration selected, there will remain outliers (mountains striving to fit in seats). Perhaps those may be minimized or ameliorated, but there will be outliers. No matter how carefully or intelligently such standards are developed, some people will simply not fit or will choose not to (Manspread).
As there are various discussion of federal standards in the world of workers' compensation, the issues with airline seats are of interest as an analogy. Similarly, some set of standards might bring uniformity and predictability to workers' compensation. But, there would remain outliers and exceptions. Will those outliers be a challenge for smaller and likely more nimble state systems or will they merely be outliers in a large federal bureaucracy? The likely answer is as obvious as it is inappropriate. You cannot legislate morality, and you cannot legislate couth. Ask Mr. Manspreader, and the poor ox that got gored.
