Don't Want Me to Recline My Airline Seat? You Can Pay Me - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/upshot/dont-want-me-to-recline-my-airline-seat-you-can-pay-me.html <comment><USER2> > I have rarely had anyone complain to me about my seat recline, and nobody > has ever offered me money, or anything else of value, in exchange for > sitting upright.

I bet no one has ever made that offer. Saying that "oh, no one has offered to pay me to stop something, therefore people can't care all that much" is the Homo Economicus fallacy gone wild. Would a majority of people accept that deal, if someone brazen enough actually offered? I doubt it. It would just cause needless conflict in a small space where everyone is stuck together for hours and hours, which is why people don't do it in the first place.

> When you buy an airline ticket, one of the things you're buying is the right > to use your seat's reclining function.

"Rights" aren't god-given things. You can't look up in the cosmic rule book who has the right to do what. The argument is how we, as a society, want to allocate that right, and just stating "I bought the ticket therefore I own the right" isn't really useful.

I'm not coming down on either side of the Great Recliner Debate, but this article kind of irks me. We don't work the way the author is assuming, and I don't think saying "I have X right, pay me to stop if you don't like it, even though such a payment is unusual, socially uncomfortable, and potentially insulting" really adds much value to the conversation on this (frankly largely irrelevant) conversation.

<comment><USER3> Paying for rights to the space behind a seat may not be a great solution, but at least it's _a_ solution, and debating about its merits may lead to a better one. The current situation is that there is no right answer: neither the seat- recliner nor the space-requester can be objectively said to be in the right, so who gets the space comes down to who is less polite and more assertive. If everyone agrees that whoever bought the ticket can claim the space or sell it to the person behind them, then that's an objective property right one can appeal to without having to just say "Well, I want the space, I don't care that you want it too, and I can be more of a jerk than you about it."

<comment><USER2> That's a good point. That said, I still take objection to the tone of the article. The author didn't motivate his solution in the way you just did; it was more of a "this is the obvious solution, and I don't really care about what other people say" approach. I'm fine considering this as a starting-off point, as long as everyone recognizes that having on-board reclining rights negotiations isn't really a long-term solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can we try not to be sociopaths for two seconds? Just politely ask the person behind you if they mind. They'll most likely say yes even if they do mind, but they'll appreciate the gesture.

I personally find it impolite to lean back without acknowledging the person behind, given the tight seating arrangement (which everyone has common knowledge about).

The reclining feature of the seat is a vestige from a day when seats weren't crammed. Just because it exists doesn't mean you should feel entitled to use it without any consideration of others.

</comment><comment><USER5> The idea that Donald Marron (who argues "we ought to allocate the initial property right to the person likely to care most about reclining... the person sitting behind") is wrong simply because the author has never had anyone attempt to negotiate with him is specious. If I spread out across two seats on a busy subway, I would probably also say I "rarely had anyone complain... and nobody has ever offered me money."

(I also find the whole tall-privilege angle interesting, especially given the vitriolic way he framed the debate on Twitter -- "The world favors the tall, yet they have the gall to whine about the one place (airplanes) where height costs them" \-- but being 6'6" I'll leave that aside lest I be accused of advancing some sort of tall agenda.)

<comment><USER6> There's definitely a weird and creepy bias against short men (for a fun time, check out twitter.com/heightismxposed and gawk at people who are literally saying that any guy who's under some arbitrary benchmark is subhuman and should kill himself), but as somebody who's a foot shorter than you, I will happily jump in and say that reclining seats on an airline is not part of the War on Short Men; this dude is just crazy and bitter.

<comment><USER7> Well dang. I'm 5'6''/5'7'' as well, but I never really thought I was _that_ short until now.

<comment><USER6> Think of it this way: now you have a nicely curated list of people who's opinions you know are completely worthless, and if you ever run into any of these people in person you have advance warning that they're moronic!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anecdotal 'me too' story:

I am 6'2" and on my last flight I had a not so friendly interaction with an older 'gentleman' in front of me - no tray or laptop involved.

This 'gentleman' quickly/forcefully reclined his seat, driving the supporting rail into my kneecap...

I immediately made an instinctive "Owww" sound/cry and moved my legs due to the pain of the impact - which could have been the end of it... Instead, he immediately turned around in an aggressive manner and demand I quit 'kicking' his seat.

When I retorted that I hadn't kicked his seat and that I merely was attempting to prevent my legs from being further banged against, he became irate, yelling to the attendant 1/2 a cabin away that I was kicking his seat - all the while, continuing to recline his seat in a bouncing manner (because we're in kindergarten?).

Fortunately, an attendant behind us witnessed the interaction from the start and intervened - offering the 'gentleman' flying solo a new seat with no one behind him or to not recline. After relocating the guy to his new seat, she came back to check on me and apologized, indicating that the seats were too cramped already (and indicating that the guy clearly had a bit of an attitude from the start of our interaction).

I agree with the popular sentiment expressed here and in the comments of the article - "just treat each other respectfully and you'll likely come to an amicable resolution"... This said, there are always those out there who really aren't concerned with an amicable and friendly resolution - those who are more concerned with just doing what they want without challenge or compromise, regardless of the impact to those around them.

In the end, this is a problem with the airlines and their ever obsessive pursuit of the bottom line - more sardines in the can... As someone who started flying as much as I could as a young man, I can say that in recent years the airlines have reduced my air travel to only required business travel where no suitable alternatives exist. Factor in the TSA with the hassle of dealing with the above and I'd rather just drive - even if it takes me 3 times as long to get to my destination.

<comment><USER9> In this case, the gentleman's behaviour helped resolve the issue because he got to recline and you got to sit without him in front of you. Much as we like to criticize asshole behaviour, it can be be very effective at times.

<comment><USER10> Explanation as to why siblings are such jerks to each other? Because parents have the ability to intervene and provide more resources?

Ultimately, the instigator of such a request should have used a more polite way of making his/her request - just like we ask our kids to do. Because at some point there won't be extra resources to shift around and then the situation escalates and someone gets hurt.

<comment><USER9> Flight attendants and many other customer focused workers learn to triage. If you make a polite request the chances are that you will continue to be polite and so become a low priority. A situation like mattezell described has the potential to spiral and draw in other passengers or cause complaints to be raised. Thus the attendant has every incentive to mitigate the situation even if it comes at a cost to more polite passengers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Don't want me to play Call Me Maybe on loop on my phone speakers for the entire nine hours of the flight? You can pay me!

Or we could both behave like adult human beings.

<comment><USER12> Flawed logic. You have the "right" to recline since that feature is built into the seat you are paying for. You don't have the "right" to play annoying music because that is socially unacceptable and not built into the cost.

<comment><USER13> Way does built-in in mean? Airplanes are designed to withstand noise, and smells too.

Social acceptability is defined by society. Why is reclining acceptable?

<comment><USER14> Because when every person reclines, as usually happens whenever meals are not being served, there is the same amount of space between each seat, but all the seats are in a more comfortable position.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "Because when every person reclines, as usually happens whenever meals are not being served"

I have never seen this happen on short of long haul flights. Unless is it night time the vast majority of people tend to have their seats upright. From what I've seen the reason is simple - in flight entertainment in on the back of the seat and most people want to watch a movie.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't understand the fuss over reclining seats. It's not like that feature is added by accident or something. They're _intended_ to recline. It's a feature for the person occupying the seat. If I want to use it, I will use it whenever the rules allow me to. Likewise, I will plan the use of the area behind the seat in front of me with the assumption that they may recline their seat at any time it's allowed. This may make it difficult for me to use my laptop. That's either the airline's fault for cramming us in so tightly, or my fault for buying a ticket for a seat where we're crammed in so tightly.

I'll note that I'm 6'3" tall and constantly have trouble with space on airliners. But I'd rather save money than pay for more space. I'm not going to hassle the person in front of me just because I'm cheap.

</comment><comment><USER16> I propose an alternative solution then, I'll kick the seat of the guy in front of me until he sits up or pays me to stop kicking his seat. I've never had someone offer to pay me to stop kicking his seat, so clearly as per the logic of the article people must not mind it.

Seriously though, they should just take the seat recline feature off the seats in the first place. Its not like it makes much of a difference, they only recline like 3 inches anyway, but that's 3 inches less the guy behind you has to cram his knees into that tiny space. My usual solution is actually much like I said above, if they lean back and bang my knees I just keep shoving my knee into the back of the seat till they get the hint and lean it up again.

</comment><comment><USER17> Another solution —based on the incident that's described in the article— would be for the passengers to start throwing water at each other. If the pilot had to land every 5 minutes to dispose the water throwers, soon it would be more expensive for the airlines to have seats with so little space between.

</comment><comment><USER18> > _United Airlines_

Enough said. When you run an airline like a prison, surprise surprise, passengers tend to get into fights.

I told myself I'd never fly Continental again, as their planes don't even have enough room to fit my knees without sticking them into the aisle. Turns out they'd merged with United, and fooled me once more.

This last (and final) time I flew them, they elected to forgo loading a small plane with many passengers' bags so that they could load non-passenger cargo instead. EWR->BDL is a mere three hour drive (actually shorter than the flight, given delays), but they insisted on flying the bag. Of course their phone support hotline is designed with the sole purpose of preventing you from communicating with the people delivering your bag, and they are unable to handle someone who changes addresses every second day (ie a traveler), so the next time we saw that bag was back at LAX a week later. Still waiting on a reimbursement check for all the wedding paraphernalia we had to spend time rebuying.

Just say no to legacy carriers, and let these aging dinosaurs die.

</comment><comment><USER19> _people will trade the right so that it ends up in the hands of whoever values it most._

Unless you can't afford it, in which case people will take all your rights away.

</comment><comment><USER20> The problem with reclining airline seats is that the "point of reclination" is too far down, which leads to the person behind losing valuable space. As someone who is a fair bit above average length, it is more or less impossible for me to use a normal economy class seat if the person in front reclines their seat (aka "if you don't recline your seat you won't have my knees in your back").

A more correct design is something like [1] which reclines by shifting the 'seating' part forward. The reclinee then chooses between reclined seat and space for knees, and the person behind doesn't need to care: The dark plastic part below the table never reclines. (This particular seat is obviously too large for airplanes.)

[1] [http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2675/3701747083_6437a7a2b4.jp...](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2675/3701747083_6437a7a2b4.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER21> When did the idea of a shared resource hit its final bullet and got buried?

This whole idea of hyper-capitlising every tid bit of everyday life, sacrificing social etiquette to the altar of economic theory has gone too far. If you try to assign ownership of such things as reclining right (as if such a right ever existed), then where will you stop? Are you going to negotiate and pay me for my right to repeatedly bang my knees in teh back of your seat? How about paying me to stop humming loudly just behind your back?

It's not about monetisation nor economic optimization. It's about being well- behaved in society. You want to recline your seat? Why not ask if the person sitting behind you minds? What about settling on a position that at least partially satisfies you both? The space in the cabin is shared. Stop acting like a child or sociopath and be mindful of others. Stop making everything be about your wallet.

<comment><USER22> One of the biggest problems of modern urban life is: there is minimal to no cost (in the long term) of being an asshole, because people you encounter at random you will rarely meet again. Under such circumstances, it's reasonable to replace courtesy with monetary compensation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Isn't is fairly obvious that the space is owned by the airline?

The problem is not that the space is being sold -- it is obviously expensive to have space on a plane and we all know it is being sold.

The problem is that it's being sold _twice_ by the airline. The airline gives both customers the impression that they have a purchased a license to use it. We get suckered into it as though it were some tricky ethics issue, when it's really just a mess created by the airline's ambiguity.

</comment><comment><USER24> _When you buy an airline ticket, one of the things you're buying is the right to use your seat's reclining function. If this passenger so badly wanted the passenger in front of him not to recline, he should have paid her to give up that right._

That's a weak argument. If the recliner's ticket purchase granted the right to use the reclining function then wouldn't the Knee Defender purchaser also have been granted usage rights for his purchase that prevents reclining?

He would have been better off going with the "first mover advantage", whichever object (seat back or knee defender) occupies the seat row DMZ wins.

</comment><comment><USER25> I feel like this whole issue was largely resolved by Jet Blue who gives a couple of more inches of space. Even if someone reclines, I felt like I wasn't being invaded by the person's seat. Of course now they charge for higher legroom seats...so essentially Jet Blue has done exactly what the author states. As a slightly above average 5'11" guy, I feel though that the average coach airline seat is designed as a torture device. The arms are too low to properly rest my shoulders (forcing me essentially to either severely slouch or fold my arms the entire flight), the seats are too close to fully extend my legs, the seat itself has a slight incline so that your knees get particularly more uncomfortable, and the space to the next person (particularly with shared armrests, and overweight people) requires me to slightly bend away from them. All of this combines to muscle cramps in the back for a couple of days after flying. It's really a miserable experience that I feel could be largely fixed by the airlines, if they weren't in debt, greedy, or dieing. I don't really blame the people in front of me for wanting to recline (I often do a couple of inches, though never the full length). I blame the airlines (and in essence the manufacturers, though I'm convinced they build what the airlines are demanding) for designing horribly uncomfortable seats with no space.

(copied from the other post)

</comment><comment><USER26> There's little I hate more than contemporary air travel. The bottom line is that they get away with these shenanigans because at raw speeds 4-5x faster than the next-fastest alternative, and the ability to move unimpeded with minimal infrastructure (terminals at the starting and ending points), which allows aircraft to cross any terrain by taking the shortest path, there is often no other reasonable option.

When your options are driving and using up 4 days to get there, paying for gas, lodging, and food throughout the drive, plus deferred costs like wear and tear on your car and the impact this extended travel time may have on your employment, and 4 days back with the same expenses and costs, v. 6 hours in a plane, the answer has to be plane unless the person literally _can 't_ endure a plane ride without major medical risk.

Air travel is excruciating. There are a lot of challenges in that industry but we _badly_ need disruption. I suspect the answer will come through small airports and making a NetJets-esque experience more accessible. What can we do to make that a reality?

If I recall correctly, there was a group in Southern California that was going to do a cost-attainable private flight club like this a few years ago, but they never actually began service.

<comment><USER10> The answer is more heterogenous travel options like rail (either passenger or ferried cars).

Air travel is resource prohibitive, so why is it used for small legs like replacing a 2-3 hr high-speed rail train with a 1.5 hr flight?

Adding inter-metro rail links and integrating trains into ITA network to interlink them would allow those who hate planes to not fly (and get out of everyone else's way).

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have question, at a few cases my laptop display was almost crushed, when seat in front me started reclining. Who in that case has responsibility for the damage?

<comment><USER28> Liability would almost certainly be yours alone. The passenger who reclined their seat was using the seat as it was intended, so there is no offense there. The airline would likely argue that they never made any guarantees as to the protective nature of that pocket, nor did they tell you to put your laptop in there.

<comment><USER27> I would argue that airline has responsibility. They explicitly allow laptops use and even provide tables and sometimes wifi.

<comment><USER29> Ah, so because laptop use is allowed on the plane, if your laptop is damaged under any circumstances for any reason, they are complicit and liable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > But I've seen a distressing amount of sympathy for Mr. Knee Defender, who > wasn't just instigating a fight but usurping his fellow passenger's property > rights.

hahahahahahahaha

> I understand people don't like negotiating with strangers, but in hundreds > of flights I have taken, I have rarely had anyone complain to me about my > seat recline

There is a very simple explanation for this: you're a white man who is probably fit, wears expensive clothing, and looks well-educated. On the intimidation scale, you're near the top. You should not be surprised that more people do not risk physical, mental, or emotional discomfort by making this request.

> If sitting behind my reclined seat was such misery, if recliners like me are > "monsters," as Mark Hemingway of The Weekly Standard puts it, why is nobody > willing to pay me to stop?

Because that is considered anti-social behavior. Similarly, I don't offer to pay someone who is standing on the walking side of an escalator or a group of people who are taking up the whole sidewalk or the person at the neighboring table whose laugh is too loud. For better or for worse, that would not be acceptable.

</comment><comment><USER31> I've noticed that the divide in the "recline debate" seems to fall based on a person's leg length.

I try to avoid booking economy whenever possible (it isn't always possible) at great expense, and that's fine. But the few times I do have to sit in economy someone in front will recline onto my knees and then as the aircraft moves I have this person's body weight literally bouncing up and down on my knees for a 2-9 hr flight.

I literally have to take strong painkillers to sit in economy and even that doesn't really work. My knees feel like someone has stood on them for several days after also.

So for me what this "debate" becomes is: "one person's comfort Vs. another person's pain and potential long term health issues."

But ultimately I don't blame these "pro recline" people, I just think they're inconsiderate jerks, the people who I really blame for all of this is the airlines and the complete lack of rational legislation.

Once one airline reduces seat space (e.g. -1 inch) and gets an extra row of seats, now all of the other airlines have to follow suit or they'll be "charging more for the same service."

What we need is for government (e.g. EU, US, etc) to sit down and come up with rational minimums based on different flight durations. 2-3 hour flights can have X seat pitch, 3-5 have y, and 5+ need Z.

Alternatively just offer a new seat class for taller people. If you're over 6' then you can sit in an economy seat with 3" more pitch for $100 more. No extra "free" baggage, no better food, no express security line, just those 3" and nothing else.

On a related note: Aircraft seat design sucks. I read once that only a single company makes aircraft seats and that they basically haven't changed the design in 30 years (due to certification or some nonsense), this just boggles my mind and annoys me endlessly.

<comment><USER15> Every airline I've flown with in the past few years has offered more room in exchange for more money, even ignoring first/business class. At the very least, you can pay extra for an exit row seat. Many also have a separate economy section with a bit more room.

The solution is available right now, and you apparently just don't want to pay for it. Why is government intervention required?

<comment><USER31> Would it be reasonable to charge women more, an ethnical minority, or people with blonde hair? No, of course it wouldn't. That's why.

Being born tall is out of a person's control. It isn't a choice. Why should they pay 50% more as a result?

If you (or anyone else) thinks it is different from the other "out of your control" categories I listed then explain /why/ that is the case. Because from my perspective charging tall people more and charging e.g. women more aren't different at all and both equally unreasonable.

<comment><USER15> Here's a direct quote from your previous comment:

'Alternatively just offer a new seat class for taller people. If you're over 6' then you can sit in an economy seat with 3" more pitch for $100 more. No extra "free" baggage, no better food, no express security line, just those 3" and nothing else.'

Literally 45 minutes ago you were apparently just fine with paying extra for more room. But now that you've discovered you can _have_ that, it's no longer good enough. Wat.

<comment><USER31> I am never fine with paying more, ever. But $100 or similar more is reasonable, 50% more is not.

You're pointing at existing services which cost 50-3000% more and claiming "problem solved already." Wat?

Nobody should be paying 0c more just due to the way they were born. But if there MUST be a charge (e.g. due to actual increased costs) then it should be somewhere within the region of $100-200, not $350-700 more.

<comment><USER15> That's really confusing. You compare it to racial and sexual discrimination, but then say that $100-200 more would be OK. You seem to switch between making a principled stand and trying to save money, depending on whatever's more convenient at the time. Which makes the "principled stand" sound like a crock. So let's concentrate on the price.

First of all, how do you decide that $200 is OK but $350 is not OK? The airline industry is pretty competitive. If one doesn't offer what you want, use one that does. If none of them offer what you want, it's probably because it's not actually cost effective (assuming that it's legal).

Secondly, you're just wrong about the cost. I picked a United roundtrip between IAD and SFO, and they want a whopping $84 for Economy Plus on the outbound leg, and $79 on the return leg, on top of a $414 base roundtrip fare. That's $174 extra for the roundtrip, within the range you state as acceptable. For another example, I flew IAD-PEK on United earlier this year, and it was $200 each way for Economy plus, on a $1,400/person trip that takes 14 hours each way.

I checked on American and for a similar trip they wanted $50-60 per flight for "Main Cabin Extra" which is their equivalent. Finally, I checked JetBlue, which cost a total of $115 extra each way for "Even More Space".

Now, one might expect you to delighted at this, since apparently you didn't know before, and it's exactly what you asked for. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen, though.

<comment><USER31> It isn't confusing at all. When the reason to charge more is material cost (i.e. increased fuel cost) some charge can be justified even if it remains discriminatory in nature (see mens Vs. womens' health insurance for one example).

> First of all, how do you decide that $200 is OK but $350 is not OK?

That is easy, look at a normal ticket, figure out how much you're paying per inch and then calculate how much they should be charging for ADDITIONAL inches based on that figure (even ignoring the savings presented by taking less passengers (less luggage, less admin, etc)).

They're charging too much.

> The airline industry is pretty competitive. If one doesn't offer what you > want, use one that does.

None of them do. They're competing for 90% of the audience who aren't tall, nobody wants a niche in that 10% of the market.

So they sell a "premium" product to people who want, don't need, it. So they charge a premium price.

> Secondly, you're just wrong about the cost. I picked a United roundtrip > between IAD and SFO, and they want a whopping $84 for Economy Plus on the > outbound leg, and $79 on the return leg, on top of a $414 base roundtrip > fare. That's $174 extra for the roundtrip, within the range you state as > acceptable.

That's a 50% increase which I stated was unacceptable. Let's ignore fixed figures and say 50% is too much, period. That is too much and that is my point.

> For another example, I flew IAD-PEK on United earlier this year, and it was > $200 each way for Economy plus, on a $1,400/person trip that takes 14 hours > each way.

That's a very interesting way of wording things. You use three techniques there to mislead, first you conflate single trip with round trip costs, secondly you are vague about if the $1,400 is the relative cost (of a normal economy ticket) or the new cost after you added in the Plus, and lastly you use a personal anecdote nobody can possibly verify.

So I won't respond to that. No way I can argue with vague "facts" and unverifiable anecdotes anyway. Plus looking at the cost of flights your figures all seem inaccurate.

> Now, one might expect you to delighted at this, since apparently you didn't > know before, and it's exactly what you asked for. Somehow, I don't think > that's going to happen, though.

As you didn't state the cost of the economy tickets along with the cost of the "upgrades" those figures are utterly meaningless as you well knew before you posted them.

You likely went and found the shortest cheapest flights you could, then noted the upgrade cost (e.g. $50 on a $100 flight) and used that as "proof" that upgrades are inexpensive.

But relative to the base ticket they're not and that's the only thing that matters. 50% is 50% is 50%. You can find a $100 ticket or a $5,000 ticket, if the cost is 50% more for the legroom (while offering less than 50% more space) then they're over charging people who were born a certain way.

This is the last time I'll reply to you as some fact checking in the above post as made me deeply distrustful of you and your motives. Frankly I don't want to have a conversation with someone who will be intentionally misleading in this way.

<comment><USER15> Hilarious. You dispute my facts even though I got them straight from the airlines with no cherry-picking. You respond with zero facts of your own. And, of course, even though I found _exactly_ what you said you want, you now say you don't want it. It's awesome! How can you say with a straight face that $200 is OK to charge, and then complain about a charge that's less than $200? I mean, it's right there in the comment history! It's not even deep, it's right up there!

Your rhetorical skills are amazing. Terrible, but amazing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've been reading the comments here and am surprised no one has mentioned that there are different types of reclining seats.

There are the ones (most planes) where the seatback simple tilts back, and others (France TGV, some buses, some planes - e.g. 777-200ER IIRC) where the seat slides forward while reclining, sacrificing leg clearance for the passenger while increasing his/her seat angle. In this case the passenger behind the reclining seat would only experience a mild change, and very unlikely any knee impact.

It's clear that in the second case, a passenger is giving up something to get something, so it's more "fair". I'm not sure why more planes didn't take this approach sooner - maybe due to patents or maybe safety?

</comment><comment><USER32> Or we could just pay the extra money for a ticket to the airline that provides more room to everyone.

<comment><USER33> I'm consistently surprised that airlines have yet to launch plane lines featuring business class seats / service throughout the cabin on select routes. I would assume that it would be easy to fill such a plane a few times a day with reasonable rates across east coast commuter routes and from NY to London.

<comment><USER34> Flying has intense network effects that are difficult to solve, and jet fuel costs a lot.

Business class seats also take up a _lot_ of space.

Say you want to switch this United Airlines A320 to all-business arrangements:

[http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Airl...](http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Airlines_Airbus_A320_V3.php)

Every row of 6 now becomes a row of 4, and the spacing between each row increases by 33% just in seat pitch alone. Business class seats are also larger themselves, so the difference in row depth is probably more like 50%.

So 30 rows of 6 economy class seats each = 180 passengers now becomes 20 rows of 4 seats each = 80 passengers.

You have to more than double your fare to break even.

You can probably fill planes in this configuration, but the question is at what frequency? Scheduling is intensely important to air travelers, and a luxurious plane that only flies once/twice a day and has little schedule flexibility is a non-starter. This is especially true domestically in the US, since few journeys begin/end at major air hubs, making scheduling connections a pretty big deal.

Your luxurious aircraft will mean a long layover, not to mention your connector flight probably can't get enough volume together to also be luxurious, so at best you're only getting the premium experience on a single leg of the trip.

This is also why comparatively "luxurious" airlines like Virgin America are struggling. They do not have the scheduling frequency nor the variety of destinations that American travelers demand. It turns out you really cannot just build an airline out of major arterial routes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Are you tired of the passenger behind you on flights always disrupting your flight? Ms. Hacker or Mr. Business bouncing your seat as they decided the tray table is a laptop desk? Being unable to recline your seat as s/he's using the Knee Defender?

Do we have the product for you! Introducing, the Tray Oppressor!

A convenient strap to stop the tray table attached to YOUR seat from opening. You paid for this seat, enjoy it without the Knee Defender impeding your recline or those unnerving tray tremors.

Simply place the Tray Oppressor around your seat ensuring to overlap the tray, tighten and enjoy a great flight!

It's FAA regulation that tray tables must be up during takeoff so no need to worry about boarding early, just wait for takeoff and stop that tray.

</comment><comment><USER36> Your "right" to recline. What a bunch of bullshit. The person who wrote this article is a self-righteous asshole.

What about the space in front of me? I paid for that space but somehow your "right" to recline overrules my right to that space?

If anything, I shouldn't be paying my fellow passenger to buy of their "right" to recline, it should be an option when I buy my airline ticket, as in, when I buy my ticket I want included that the person in front of me cannot recline their seat.

PS: When I'm on a flight (and I don't fly often) I always check with the person behind me if it OK to recline. Most of the time this will pre-emptive any form of possible aggression (if there would be any) or complications.

</comment><comment><USER37> This would be less an issue if airlines were less greedy, trying to cram everyone like a sardine.

<comment><USER38> Alternately, this would be less of an issue if customers were willing to pay more to fly on an airplane, then airlines could make the amount of money with fewer passengers on the plane. As it is, there's fixed costs (crew, the plane, fuel to a certain extent) to flying an airplane somewhere regardless of how many people are on it, and the only way to make money is to charge enough to recover those fixed costs. You can either charge more per passenger or you can fit in more passengers. The cost for an additional few inches of legroom on United is about $40 on a larger plane, about $20 on a commuter plane. I understand that some people can't afford to upgrade, but then packing more passengers in benefits those people, presumably -- they'd rather have the lower fares than the extra legroom.

<comment><USER26> I'd love to pay 1.5x the cost of a normal airline ticket if airlines removed half the seats and gave more space, but there are several reasons that they don't/won't do that. First class tickets usually cost 2.5x-3.5x the cost of a coach-class seat, which is pretty hard to justify for any middle-class patron.

The massive costs required to enter the market prevent fresh competition and fresh models, and we really need to find a way to fix that.

<comment><USER10> Your math doesn't add up 50% markup inverted == 66% of total seats, so only 33% more room. Also the marginal cost of an empty seat goes up 50%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I don't know if I ever read something that captures so well what First World Problem is.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm surprised that this is an issue. I'm a frequent flyer and I always recline my seat whenever it is possible to do so (except when eating). I never ask the person behind me, and nobody ever asked me for my permission to do the same. I've always assumed that this was standard practice in airplanes. Only once somebody complained but I think he wasn't used to flying (he wasn't particularly tall). Actually, I find it impossible to sleep without reclining the seat as my head falls forward.

<comment><USER41> On occasion I've had to grab and push the seat-back in front of me to prevent it from being reclined down into my legs. If you try to recline fully, you'll literally pin me in place, in a very painful position.

> Actually, I find it impossible to sleep without reclining the seat as my > head falls forward.

Above a certain height, you stop hoping you're going to get any sleep on a flight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> This article is a great argument against uncontrolled markets.

<comment><USER43> It really isn't. That's a _heavily controlled_ environment. Airlines condone reclining. Therefore, reclining should be expected by people paying to enter, unless the terms of service state otherwise.

The only idiotic part of this equation is the person who misdirects intolerance and anger at the recliner rather than at the airline's environment. On an individual level, money is one form of compensation to give up a feature one would expect to use. Asking to be paid isn't the same thing as expecting to be paid. Try negotiating with honey (dialogue), not vinegar ("Knee Defenders"). Or pay up. Or boycott the airline. Use something else. Air grievances.

<comment><USER42> You misunderstand me aric. The article is a good argument, not the reclining problem.

<comment><USER43> I don't think I misunderstood you. Sorry, respectfully, I just don't see a good argument in the article against theoretical uncontrolled markets by drawing parallels to that context. Of course, it depends on a clear definition of _uncontrolled_ and consideration of any non-market forces that still exist surrounding it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I really wish there was some marketplace for stuff like this. I'm sick and tired of bug guys invading my space on planes. Lots of guys just put their knees 3 or 4 inches into my space. They don't even ask. Either they're not aware of it, or they're pretending it isn't happening.

I'm really tired of subsidizing other's air travel. If they want some of my seat/legroom space, they can just as well ask and pay for it.

</comment><comment><USER45> I'm below average height (183cm, average here is 183.8cm _) but over average weight (105kg, average is 85kg_ ).

I'm 20% heavier than most, but I don't have to pay extra to fly.

* [http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/gezondheid-welzijn/publi...](http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/gezondheid-welzijn/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2012/2012-3746-wm.htm)

</comment><comment><USER9> And this is why we can't have nice things.

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady The big problem I've seen is not to do with leg room (which doesn't change too much when a seat is reclined). The person in front of me has a seat which reclines. Good for them. But if they recline I can no longer see my inflight entertainment screen as it's on the back of their seat.

</comment><comment><USER46> Hey can I pay you to not listen to incredibly loud music through your terrible headphones as well? Or snore? Or any other minor discrepancy you perform against another human.

Idiot

</comment><comment><USER47> How much for the armrest?

<comment><USER8> tree fiddy</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Leaving a company I recently joined? - <AUTHOR> Less than a year ago, I was hired as a software programmer at a high-tech company which you've heard of.  I find the work very interesting, it pays well, and I very much enjoy it.
I've recently been approached by another high-tech company which you've also heard of about the possibility of working there instead.  While the talks are at a very early stage, I might find this position more attractive in a number of ways.
I wonder, however, about the questions of ethics and loyalty in leaving so soon a company that has invested in me, not to mention the effects it could have on my friendships with current coworkers, and the future impact on my career.
Your feedback is appreciated. <comment><USER2> In general people other than Jason Calacanis understand and accept that these things happen, and are unlikely to take it personally. However if you have a trend of jumping, some employers won't like it.

But if you're particularly concerned, then I'd suggest telling the new company that while you're tempted by the offer, you feel you have more to accomplish more at your current job before you're ready to leave. Then ask them to check in with you again in several months.

Odds are that they will either sweeten their offer, or else schedule a reminder to contact you again in a few months. Once large companies find a prospect they want, the odds of just forgetting about you are fairly low. Smaller companies are more liable to do that simply because they fill the position they wanted you for, and then they don't have any appropriate openings. But big companies usually have a variety of reasonably openings available at any time. (Unless you are very senior indeed, which I doubt you are.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Despite what others say, it is perfectly normal and rational to be selfish.

The people telling you not to be selfish do so because when you act selfishly, it goes against their selfish interests.

</comment><comment><USER4> Discard immediately any shard of confidence you have that your employer might possibly be loyal to its employees. Look out for your self and your family. Basically: think with your heart. It sounds like the decision's been made. And damn the folks who think job hoppers suck. This future employer obviously thinks you're good to go. So will the next, if they approach you or are willing to talk. The whole "job hoppers are worthless" movement is only but a fraction of the potential employers. Those who believe it won't talk to you. There are plenty who think that mentality is rubbish. Do what you feel is right.

</comment><comment><USER5> Reducing the problem to a vague hypothetical and then weighing the answers of a bunch of anonymous internet people is a bad way of making this type of decision. You actually need to be very specific with company names, stock prices, contract issues, names of actual people you work with, and so forth.

For example leaving Mahalo to go to Yahoo would be a no-brainer, even if you got paid less. Leaving Apple to go to Yahoo would be stupid. Leaving Google for Facebook... tougher call. The details make more of a difference than "+1, Insightful" type posts about loyalty, happiness, and such.

<comment><USER6> Are you joking ??? For what reason(s) would anyone leave Google to work for Facebook?

<comment><USER7> For a lot of reasons:

 _Making a difference._ Facebook has about 1000 engineers/product people, Google has about 10000.

 _Interesting, popular product._ Over 400 million people using, it's exciting, once-in-a-lifetime type of product despite the issues revolving around privacy etc.

 _Money_ If you have opportunity to get any stock options inside Facebook, you have possibility to get quite amount of money after IPO.

I assume that you have smart coworkers in both places. Google has more middle management and thus company politics, but it's still relatively flat for an organization of its size.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was in your situation immediately before the recession and chose "honor" over reason. Have regretted it ever since. At the very least, interview with the company that's approached you to see where it goes. No harm in exploring the option to its fullest before you make a decision.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think you're approaching this the wrong way. Without a contract, the company you work for doesn't care about you the person, only you the worker. You can take what advantages the other company is offering and go to your boss/bosses boss/etc. and go "Listen, I've received X offer, and I'm considering it because of Y, Z, A and B, is there anything you can do to meet these?" If you make it obvious that it's not that you dislike your current job, but that the other one looks nicer, it can play to your advantage for ended up in a better position where you're at, or going to the new place. Just don't tell them the company specifically unless it becomes necessary. And only give details in the parts you care about.

<comment><USER2> Important note. The order of events that you presented matters a lot. Going to your present employer before accepting communicates the fact that you don't actually want to leave. By contrast if you say you're leaving then they counter-offer, they are doing it out of desperation but with full knowledge that they need to replace you as fast as possible because you are dissatisfied and are therefore likely to leave eventually anyways.

The rule of thumb is to never, ever take a counter-offer. But negotiating for one up front can sometimes work well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Are you good at programming?

If so, nothing else matters. The industry is not in a position to pick and choose based on how long you keep your jobs. If someone can get a year's worth of good work out of you, then that is a great deal for everyone. Because 99% of the people that interview for programming jobs have absolutely no clue about programming.

Ignore the "job hopping is bad for your career" hype. Those people are not interested in hiring good programmers, they are interested in having "headcount". You don't want a job like that anyway, so there's no loss to you. There are plenty of companies that actually want good programmers, so work for those instead. They won't care how long you were at your last job. (I wouldn't anyway...)

</comment><comment><USER11> My rule of thumb has been that a single rapid job change doesn't show anything, but you don't want a pattern of rapid job changes on your resume. That is, if your resume is currently something like 3 years at one company, then 9 months at the current place, I wouldn't look askance at that, but I'd be sure I want to stay at the next place for a while before leaving. 3 years, 9 months, 1 year and then looking again does look a little flaky.

I suspect the "job hoppers are flakes" bandwagon includes a lot of people with big stakes in companies that need willing worker bees. If you get a better offer, jump on it. If you keep getting better offers, keep jumping on them.

</comment><comment><USER12> I especially wouldn't feel guilty if i was headhunted rather than went job searching. Also: what's your skillset for you to be in such high demand? I need to get in on that!

</comment><comment><USER13> Is less than a year ago same as "recently"? How long did it take you to get up to speed and start being useful? If you've been useful for more than half the time, I wouldn't worry about it simply from this point of view: they put some effort into teaching you and you gave your work back. That's my rule of thumb for feeling bad here... Now you can think about the actual differences between those places instead.

<comment><USER6> You don't say how much skill and experience you brought to the job. You need to weigh up what you brought to the table and what they gave you.

The other big question to ask, if your current company hit a tough patch (not an unlikely scenario in this climate) how would they treat you? Would you be first or the last to be pink slipped? Are you sure. For example, It's more than likely there are managers and founders who will save their skins before giving a rat's arse about yours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you have a much better opportunity, do it - it's not unethical. Your boss may have expected you to stay for many years, but they also know not everyone does. I've done it in the past. My boss was dissapointed, and I felt bad for about 10 minutes. I would have felt bad for years if I'd stayed.

If you're concerned about friendships at work, fair enough. If you stop working daily with people many friendships will become less active. However, you can still stay in touch with people. And in 5 or 10 years, when most people have moved on from both companies, you'll hopefully keep a few friends from both.

As for the impact on your career: don't worry about it. Nothing wrong with changing to a better job. If anything, I'd say it will improve your resume (as in: worked for google then for facebook, awesome.)

</comment><comment><USER15> The only decision to be made right now is whether to continue talking to them until you get an offer (or until one or both sides decide it isn't a good fit after all). There are no downsides to doing this, so you might as well do it.

Once you have a specific offer, _then_ you have a decision to make.

</comment><comment><USER16> I think "I" as an individual should always be look out for better profits and opportunities, as the companies them selves do. Main objective of a company is to make $$ and increase profits. Then why should an individual feel guilty if hey have a better opportunity for more money and better opportunity.

Questions on ethics and loyalty should not even arise because companies most often than not make more money per employee than individual salaries. Do they feel guilty?

As for friends you can always keep in touch even after you leave your job.

Finally if this doesn't not convince you, just think of it this way if there were layoffs and your team was under the axe, will your company even give it a second thought about laying you all off?

</comment><comment><USER17> I don't know the answer to your question, but consider this: if you stay out of loyalty, would you be able to happily continue working knowing that you passed up a potentially _better_ opportunity, or would it affect your morale?

</comment><comment><USER18> Before making a decision consider the downsides...

What if the new company has problems and they need to lay you off? What if you new boss/team mates are jerks and keep making your life at the new company hell? ... What if you need to leave the new company a month after you join it.

New things are exciting, because they are different. But do remember that they have challenges as well.

While the above will likely not be the case for you, companies might think of you as not being loyal and might not want to invest in you much.

I personally would give my company 18 months at the least, and if I am getting restless I would have a nice long chat with my boss before leaving.

</comment><comment><USER19> Just keep in mind something that I've observed over time. It's anecdotal and Your Mileage May Vary (disclaimers, etc etc) but I take it as a reasonable parable when phrased as such...

I don't know if the thought/plan/idea has crossed your mind, but be very, very careful about walking in to current company with other companies offer and trying to negotiate to stay. E.G. "They offered me this (be it money, perks, hours, or anything else) and I'd like to stay here but ([list of items from previous list that are most appealing]) is quite tempting. Can you counteroffer?".

It may be different at different companies (I'd hope so) but I've observed friends & coworkers do this and end up in a worse situation staying. They've signaled to people above that they're disloyal/easily distracted/however you want to phrase it and the perception changes. The company in most cases felt they really needed to make an effort to keep the person, but the treatment and trust changed significantly afterwards.

TL;DR - Be careful about negotiating with company #2s offer to stay at current company with perks/salary/etc from company #2. You may find they keep you out of need but keep you at a distance going forward.

As for the meat of the actual question you asked - I would recommend that there's no harm in taking things through to completion with the other company and seeing what they have to offer. Even if you decide ultimately for _WHATEVER_ reason, if you handle it gracefully in most cases you can prop a door open for yourself. Assuming you get a great offer from the new company but decide that you'd like to stay where you are for a few more months , if you handle it professionally (maybe phrased as "finishing a project") there is no reason that "no thank you" has to become "no thank you for now".

Most good companies who value talent and the like will not suddenly burn your resume and curse your name if you turn down an offer in a professional manner. The likelihood is that if they wanted you today there's no reason they wouldn't jump at you in 6 months if your situation changes.

Again, TL;DR - Don't burn bridges on either end if you can help it. Manage the opportunities in a way that whichever direction you go you can leave doors open at both if your situation/opinion changes.

</comment><comment><USER20> Your coworkers should not and probably will not feel negatively about you looking out for yourself. Speaking from experience from both sides of the aisle. Just how personal relationships work.

The company has invested in you, but you have been investing in the company as well. You won't get the time you spent there back to work on something else.

If you are going to grow or be more challenged more somewhere else, then the future impact will be positive anyway, for you and others. Just be you aren't drinking the new company kool-aid before making a decision.

</comment><comment><USER21> One short stay shouldn't have any negative impact in future. Most people understand sometimes things don't work out or you get an offer you can't refuse (in a good way). If you had, say, three short stays in a row, future employers might get nervous.

I would go where you think you'll be happiest where 'happiness' is a linear equation comprising money, interesting work, nice colleagues and whatever else matters to you.

A word of caution: make sure nobody at your current company finds out you're talking to the new company until you have an offer on the table.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER22> Think what's better for you career wise... Are you learning a lot in your current job and doing interesting stuff and do you see tangible mid/long term benefits to changing your job.

</comment><comment><USER23> "I might find this position more attractive in a number of ways" - Talk to your boss about this, tell him why you would like to continue working for him and see if there is something he/she can do.

If it doesn't work, walk out, making sure you honour your notice period and have a face-to-face chat rather than sending an email.

</comment><comment><USER24> There's nothing wrong with leaving if you feel you'll benefit from doing so, just do the honorable thing not to leave your current employer in the lurch, make sure all your responsibilities are tied up to a standard you would expect and appreciate if you yourself were the employeer.

</comment><comment><USER25> Hiring employees takes a lot of time and effort, and generally a lot of money. In the future, some prospective employer may see that you've jumped ship and wasted everybody's time in the past. They would probably decline hiring you out of fear of wasting _their_ time.

That's my advice.

</comment><comment><USER26> Horribly disappointed in you.

J

</comment><comment><USER27> What I'm hearing from you is you have a bird in hand and you're saying there also appears to be a bird in a bush over there. You can't have both, but the hypothetical bird in the bush might be better than the one you have. Hmmmmm...

I don't think you've given enough detail here for anybody to tell you with significant confidence you should stay or go, but I don't see a strong case for going based on what I've heard. You started off by saying less than a year ago you started a new job at a name brand high-tech company where the work is very interesting, pays well and you very much enjoy it. ... And yet you're wondering whether you should leave? _sound of record needle screeching_ I feel like something is missing.

Sometimes people really do "job hop" and for the wrong reasons. Be sure you don't do that or you could regret it. Only you know enough details about your situation to determine that.</comment>


Here's why California's infrastructure is crumbling - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-morrison-erie-20150729-column.html#page=1

<comment><USER2> When I moved to California a few years ago I drove all of I-40 and the second we crossed from AZ into CA the roads went to shit. Worse than literally any other state's stretch. You could hear the difference. I could go on at length about about why CA seems to lack the kind of civic life I have found in other states, but I'm biased as hell and have a very limited perspective.

</comment><comment><USER3> I was really struck by the idea of "veto points" \-- basically, how many different groups can derail a project. There seems to be a sweet spot where you have enough checks and balances that good projects get done while bad projects get blocked, but some parts of American governance (obviously including California) have so many layers of checks and balances that very few projects can make it through the gauntlet.

It's one thing to have to get by the budget committee, the whole Senate, and the governor. It's quite another thing to get by all of that, plus the EPA, the voting public, unions, TV/newspaper/blog pundits, half a dozen special interest groups that have conflicting requirements, and lawyers representing all of them.

</comment><comment><USER4> As someone who lived in Canada and is currently leaving in the UK I was always surprised by the exceptionally poor state of maintenance of everything that is in the public domain in CA. Nothing was more sad perhaps than the state of the Aquatic Park pier in SF. The stunning beauty of the natural setting contrasted against the decrepit and crumbling (literally) pier railing was shocking. How do people living in one of the richest cities on the planet put up with such crap?

<comment><USER5> In California we have a government of the employees, by the employees, and for the employees of the aforementioned government.

[http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/11/michael- lewis-201111](http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111)

"I did a calculation of cost per public employee," he says as we settle in. "We're not as bad as Greece, I don't think."

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I moved from Chicago to LA and thought the roads were an amazing improvement. Nowadays I drive 25k miles a year in CA and I think the roads are mostly fine. Last year I went on a road trip from Chicago to Kansas City and back. I don't know what exactly people are talking about, CA roads look ok to me. AZ and Utah have amazing roads, but let's be fair, they are used a lot less, and are a lot easier to maintain.</comment>


How to Build a Docker Development Setup for PHP Projects - <AUTHOR> https://www.pascallandau.com/blog/structuring-the-docker-setup-for-php-projects/ <comment><USER2> Thank you very much, i always wanted to try this :-)</comment>


Ask HN: What's holding your project up? - <AUTHOR>

What's delaying delivery, execution, go live, etc... <comment><USER2> This is what it's like hiring a developer:

Me: "I need an omlette for breakfast tomorrow morning"

Developer: "Tomorrow is too soon. That's not enough time to raise a chicken."

Me: "I don't want you to raise the chicken and make the eggs yourself. Just go to the store and buy eggs."

Developer: "I can't do that. That's not the proper way to get eggs. We have to do it the complicated way, so that I can feel like I'm an elite programmer."

<comment><USER3> Yes, I can't stand it when developers want to do things properly, either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This weekend: potty-training my kid. :)

Side projects definitely take a back seat when you start being a parent, but my motivation and efficiency when I can make time have grown in proportion. I think I'm going to be unstoppable in my projects as my kid gains independence, and I get some real side-project time back. But no rush, I'm loving every stage of parenting while it lasts!

</comment><comment><USER5> I've made three pivots already, and I haven't even launched yet.

Last night after finalizing the logo (paying the graphic designer) and starting on the website design, a better name that would be easier to brand suddenly came to mind. The concept is being overhauled yet again.

<comment><USER6> You can play that game forever, or you can launch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Turns out it's way more complicated than I anticipated.

</comment><comment><USER7> Listening to music and taking my time :)</comment>


Idea Giveaway: Digital Standard Book Number - <AUTHOR>

I always wondered about ISBNs in books. I just came to know it costs more than 100 USDs. It may have been a good solution to pin point a book in analog ages. But, With digital services, I think we can do better.
So, I think a website, where self-pubishing authors can register their book, which provides an unique identifier for the book will be awesome. Technically, it'll be feasible to give this service for free, since, this site won't have daily returning visitors, and publisher market is comparatively low in number. But, providing the service for free might encourage spammers. I think any amount upto 5 USDs should be still reasonable for a digital unique identifier for a book.
A profile for the book, will be maintained online in exchange for the money, the profile will have cover picture, author, current version, publisher etc. <comment><USER2> What can this unique identifier give authors that the url of their home page for their book does not?

All I can think of is that urls do not have check digits, whereas ISBNs and presumably your unique identifiers do, so typos can be caught without network access. Anything else?

<comment><AUTHOR> This can be much cheaper and efficient option for authors to obtain unique identifiers, this service can be upto date with all digital trends, like QR codes for DSBN etc.

Also, Only a very small fraction of books have official websites. So, these pages may also serve as official web-pages for those books, kinda like IMDB for books.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> A hash would be better, it's decentralised, somewhat prevents someone reselling someone else's work, and can be used to check the book is as it was. Downsides - Different versions don't appear related by the hash.

<comment><AUTHOR> Using Hash is a great idea. May be we can use a unique hash for a book and a version hash (first 5 characters of sha1 hash of that version).</comment></comment>


Launch HN: Revel (YC S19) – Community for Women over 50 - <AUTHOR> We're Lisa and Alexa, co-founders of Revel (https://www.hellorevel.com). We help women over 50 build their community by hosting and attending small, local gatherings.
We're two women in our 30s who decided to work on this problem after seeing how important and how challenging it has been for our mothers.
Lisa's mother raised her as a single parent while working as a public school teacher, and that meant that she didn't have much time to focus on her life outside of parenting. When Lisa left for college, her mother retired, and found herself longing for a community of like-minded women, which wasn't easy. Alexa's mother is similar in need but different in circumstance: she's a physician with a high-powered career and a robust social life, living in a dense urban area, who nonetheless feels that she doesn't know where to turn for genuine connections with women her age.
In the United States alone, there are 50 million women like our mothers. They are a dramatically underserved demographic. We sometimes hear talk of "elder tech" and "silver tech" but our customer is not "the elderly"—she's in her 50s, 60s, or 70s, statistically healthier than ever before, with some disposable income to spend, and she wants to enjoy life alongside women her own age.
How Revel works is that any woman over 50 can sign up to join as a member for $15 a month. As a member, she can then browse our listings of Revel events being hosted by other members in her neighborhood. All of our events are user-generated and any member can apply to host at any time.
We're operating only in the Bay Area for now, but obviously our plan is to expand geographically as soon as it makes sense. Since we launched in late July, we've had hundreds of women sign up as members, and have had dozens of member-hosted gatherings in living rooms and backyard gardens across the Bay Area. If your mother, aunt, or family friend lives nearby, we'd love to meet her!
We'd love to hear your ideas and feedback and questions, and your own experiences in this area! <comment><USER2> Your pitch is making an assumption that the hacker news audience is not in your demographic. It reminds me of back in the day when the example incompetent user was "your mother" or "your grandmother". I am a competent grandmother - I have a few thoughts:

1\. My friend Jeff Johnson has a book on designing for the older users. "Designing User Interfaces for an Aging Population: Towards Universal Design" He lives in San Francisco if you want to contact him. [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06WPBK2V4/ref=dbs_a_def_r...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06WPBK2V4/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i2)

2\. The Bay Area seems problematic for this age group because of rising housing prices. My non-technical friends are moving out of the area because they can cash out. My friends who are staying largely are technical or married to someone technical. I would target an area that seniors are moving into and need to meet new people rather than an area where seniors are leaving.

3\. I am not sure how this is different than meetup. You would have to sell me to pay $15 a month when meetup is free until you want to host an event. Then it is $10 a month. And young people and men can come!

4\. Most women are better at making and keeping friends than men. I actually do regularly hang out with friends that I have collected over the years.

5\. I prefer mixed age groups.

6\. I prefer mixed genders.

<comment><AUTHOR> We definitely believe that all of our members are more than competent. Apologies if the tone of our pitch suggested otherwise! We're also aware that the mere fact that someone is a woman over 50 does not make her automatically someone who's interested in Revel. The demographic is a huge and heterogeneous group and Revel serves a need for some who are craving the company of their age group of women.

Will definitely contact Jeff Johnson -- thank you for the tip!

<comment><USER2> A small suggestion to help with marketing is to make your mothers the face of the company. Right now it appears as if you are doing this for your helpless mothers rather than with your awesome mothers. I am not sure how involved they are but mothers should be on the About page.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> My parents live in an over 55 community in Arizona for half the year and let me tell you: you're fucking _smart_ to be going after this demographic. They've got money, they've got time, they're way healthier and more active than their parents were at the same age.

I'm not sure lack of a community is a problem for my mom - she's way more social than my dad and has no problem making friends. That being said, I'll let her decide for herself whether or not she needs this. I sent her links to this comment thread and your homepage. My mom rules, and if she finds a great friend through your service - well!

<comment><AUTHOR> Ha, we agree wholeheartedly. Thank you for sharing with your mom -- hoping she finds it intriguing, too!

<comment><USER4> Curious: why women and not men? I understand why not both. But isn't this -- empirically -- a much worse problem for men?

I know my dad never really had any friends. Luckily, he has 6 brothers and they're kind of close, so that's a decent substitute for friends. But only one of them has any friends. My mom has one brother. He never had any friends -- ever, even as a kid.

On the contrast, my mom has tons of friends. Her 3 sisters have WAY more friends than her. My dad's sisters all have tons of friends. My mom's female friends have tons of friends, too.

I personally don't know any older women who don't have friends. Even my Grandma who was 90 when she died had two friends left around her age! I get the irony here, btw -- if they didn't have friends how would I know them?

Anyway, I could see women wanting more connection with women their age. Who doesn't want more friends? But beside one of my uncles, I literally don't know a single man in that age group that has ANY friends -- regardless of age. And even he only has a few friends, and he's genuinely one of the coolest people I know. It's sad.

Sample size of one. I get it. I know you did your research. Just curious to learn more.

My suspicion is: women might just be more receptive to this kind of thing (which is the reason they actually need it less) because they're a lot more social than men. But I'd like to get your input.

<comment><USER5> It sounds like they're doing "build a solution for a problem you know".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a woman over 50... Lots of us don't quite have 20/20 eyesight any more. You might want to give a bit of thought to improving contrast ratio on your page :)

<comment><USER7> Home page has 32 WCAG "errors" not factoring in the poor contrast ratio. Seems harsh but I'm doing a lot of ADA/WCAG work lately and it's just something you can't "unsee" once you've been exposed to the guidelines.

The code errors themselves are minor, mostly missing alt tags and form labels. It would not take a lot of work to make the home page compliant, besides the color corrections which (always) present difficulty for the designers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you so much for this feedback. It's really helpful for us to know. If there are other easy things we could do to boost accessibility, please lmk.

<comment><USER7> Happy to help, I wish you the best of luck. FYI some good tools to measure compliance are:

[https://achecker.ca/checker/](https://achecker.ca/checker/)

[https://wave.webaim.org](https://wave.webaim.org)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Any intention of offering the backend as a white label service? With all of the talk about community and social fabric experiencing challenges, I could see a lot of patrons or supporters wanting to spin up their own communities and spaces as a service (myself included), versus putting the time into an open source tool to do so (seriously! just ding my credit card and let me spend time building community instead of code).

Regardless, best of luck. Definitely an underserved market.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great idea. We honestly hadn't thought of that, but would make a ton of sense down the road. Thank you for your support.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is there something like this for adult men? (any age, not over 50) I keep reading about how most adult men struggle to form relationships, I have this problem personally just as much as any many I suppose. Seems like something a service would have tried to solve by now.

<comment><USER10> In Australia and Aotearoa we have the "Men's Shed" movement, because men typically do things together rather than having socialising as their primary goal. Work with our inclinations, not against them :)

What I've found is that I tend to have "deep friendships" that activate when I am with friends, and what counts is remembering to go and visit the friends. Sure, if I need something I will ask and they will do whatever they can, but that's kind of the minimum possible relationship.

It feels a bit weird to message someone and say "I'm taking time off work to visit your city, specifically to hang out with you"... but it works, we both feel better for doing it, and it does actually help if we have something to do while we're together. So last week I went and helped put up a mezzanine in a friend's new factory, then went and helped organise another friend's shed. We also talked a bit about feelings, which is uncomfortable but also useful. And (obviously) a good dose of "I remember that I enjoy hanging out with you".

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What is the difference between this and a 55+ Facebook group with events? It is local, member ran and free.

<comment><USER12> Many people don't trust facebook for one. I have family members that explicitly decided not to use it, so having a focused product/company around the particular subject may be more enticing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Mobile app idea: to help the elderly(or anyone) have an always on, quick response, highly versatile, support system. If they need quick help, just want to talk, need help with future planning, need help finding a roomate, or may want to consider other living options, and more. Create an app with a live 24/7 receptionist to listen to their needs, provide options, check on them on a specific schedule, calendar notifications for events, help with shopping or getting items delivered, to keep a journal on their status(that could be accessed by friends/relatives/medical/etc), weather info and warnings, schedule rides, event scheduling/reminders, and more. Subscription fee could be based upon their tax info (what they can afford)? Ideally this would be video communication and may include an in-house camera or 2-way video system. Relatives and friends would have free access to review their loved ones journal thru the app. A related ($10mo) app is based around dementia: [https://outline.com/w3m2Kq](https://outline.com/w3m2Kq) [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=io.appery.proj...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=io.appery.project370506&hl=en_US) How would this app (scale) work with 1 user, 10 users, 50 users, etc? Administrators could purchase/return items (verbally) from a range of websites and would be delivered wherever (as part of the regular service).

</comment><comment><USER14> You're going to have a few branding challenges in NYC if these guys keep up their massive growth: [https://gorevel.com/new-york/](https://gorevel.com/new- york/)

<comment><USER15> If you want, you can use the OpenDomain HelpHer.Com

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think your business model will suffer the same problem as Wag and Rover. Once I discover my community, I don't need to use your app any more. I have the names of the people in my community, I have them on Facebook and what's app, I have their phone numbers, I may even know where they live! Why would I continue subscribe?

<comment><USER12> I see it like dating apps. When/if you find a partner, you may stop using the app and even uninstall it. However for some people they may end up single again and then reinstall the dating app.

As long as the experience is positive, people will return in the future if/when the need arises.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> My mom is going to love this. I think she was really intimidated, for some reason or other, about meetup.com. This seems like a more approachable alternative. We'll see what she thinks.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing it with her, and I'd love to know what she thinks

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why 50? Why not 40? 30?

Adults tend to stop making friends after 30.

</comment><comment><USER3> If this falls through (which I hope it does not!), trying a similar network for men wouldn't be a bad pivot. My dad has had a hell of a time making friends in his retirement.

</comment><comment><USER19> How does something like this get accepted into YC? I get the whole "bundling and unbundling" thing, but this is just one Meetup group with its own website.

<comment><USER20> I would look at it more like a Meetup competitor that's making a bet on segmenting in a totally different way (age instead of interest).

All startups start by focusing on a small segment of the addressable market. That's not a weakness.

<comment><USER21> But you can create a meetup group based on age. I guess this is about positioning rather than the product.

<comment><USER20> You can create a web site in Microsoft Word. But it will never be the go-to product for that. Other products do it better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm curious: Why 50 and why women ? (You have explained a bit in the intro post but it still seems like a needless restriction).

<comment><AUTHOR> It's hard to answer why 50 and why women as separate questions because it's really the confluence of age and gender that makes our problem statement unique. We did a lot of user research with women of this age. We heard a consistent story: as she ages, she feels more and more invisible to society. Women with grey hair become less powerful; men tend to become more so. At the same time, though, she herself is feeling stronger and more comfortable in her own skin and "gives less f __ __" than she ever has before. And so our goal in building Revel is to build a space where we can celebrate the power and strength that comes from being a woman of this age.

<comment><USER23> > Women with grey hair become less powerful; men tend to become more so

Not true. I could tell from many women over 50 with lots of power and tons of man beyond 50 who lost everything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why not just create a meetup group in your area for women over 50? $15 a month per member seems kind of steep.

</comment><comment><USER25> Why discriminate by gender?

Not only it's bad and limits the market, but I'd guess many or most people who identify as a woman who want to go to social events would enjoy the company of people who do not identify as a woman, since people who are exclusively homosexual are a minority.

<comment><USER26> From the above intro:

 _We 're two women in our 30s who decided to work on this problem after seeing how important and how challenging it has been for our mothers._

Maybe they will change their minds at some point -- AKA _pivot_ \-- but this is the problem space that currently grabs them. Being interested in the problem you are trying to solve is an essential ingredient for success.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I would change _Welcome to your tribe._ to something else. Indigenous people often get offended at stuff like that and I don't really see what benefit there is to using it.

You should describe some use cases explaining why a woman over fifty should want to reach out to others in the same demographic. A couple that come to mind:

If she was a homemaker (or primarily a wife and mom) and now she's building a career late in life, networking with other women can be very valuable and helpful.

If she has had a serious career, that's often more of a burden for women than men because men with careers often have support to do that. Women frequently are doing it in spite of being saddled with other expectations.

<comment><USER26> Oops. Left this thought out:

When you do marketing or public relations stuff, you have to speak to your entire audience, not just a majority of it. Yes, that's like extra work. You need to do it anyway.

While it's true that HN is mostly male, it's not entirely. So this phrasing is a problem:

 _If your mother, aunt, or family friend lives nearby, we 'd love to meet her!_

You should have started with reaching out to the female cohort here first, perhaps even giving them something special ("Are you a woman over 50 on HN living in this area? Use this code to get your first month free!") and then added the part asking people to reach out to people that fit your demographic if they don't happen to fit it.

(I'm not in the SFBA. I am a woman over 50 and I write website copy for pay, among other things.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm really surprised about the gender focus here, and the fact that neither of you have answered any of the gender questions raised so far. Why not build for both genders? Do you have data suggesting that a) older men are not lonely/want community b) older women do not want to be around older men or c) something similar?

I agree that this is a dramatically underserved market, but I am unaware why women are particularly underserved than men.

Or is it just that men deserve to be lonely?

</comment><comment><USER28> I tend to dislike ideas that move away from the most generalized platform, but it's not that this doesn't work sometimes.

If someone says "hey, there's this app to find a dog walker, and there's this app to find a gardener, and another to find a handyman, why not just make an app where people can select their proficiencies and set an hourly rate." I tend to prefer those ideas, as compared to someone saying "well I'm going to make an app that's like Amazon but instead we just sell healing crystals."

So your application is basically just Facebook Events, or Meetup, or Eventbrite, but for women who are over 50. You're moving away from the generalized platform in favor of specificity. Sometimes that just works, but it usually doesn't. The only way I think products like that can succeed is if

a.) the generalized/abstract platform is simply too abstract for people to even know that it services the specific use-case that a more honed application addresses directly. An example for this might be that even though someone could use an abstract platform like notion.so in order to keep track of their favorite wines/add pictures/notes/comments, the platform is so generalized that they simply are unaware of that potential use case. A wine app that lets you keep track of wine with pictures and comments may be exactly what this person needs.

b.) the generalized platform either contains too many unrelated features to this specific use case, and is bloated because of it, or it is unable to put in features specific to this use case because they are not generalizable enough to the rest of the platform. An example like this might be that Amazon has prime, grocery shopping, too many filters and wishlists etc, to the point that the "healing crystal" shopping application might benefit from simply discarding the bloat. Or to the other point, a house-plant shopping application might have additional filter criteria very specific to temperature/humidity/location tolerances etc, to such a degree of specificity that this criteria would simply not make sense to include in a platform like Amazon.

I think in your case, "b" is not a factor at all. The overlap between requirements for your application and any event-hosting application would be almost identical. So what you're essentially after is "a," where it would not even occur to enough women over 50 to use Meetup in order to arrange the kinds of events you're describing. And because of this, there is no network in place on the platform for that particular demographic. Whether or not this is the case, or your platform services a real need that exists but for the lack of a more specific platform, I have no idea. Best of luck to you, though.

</comment><comment><USER29> Good idea. May i suggest that you clarify right off the bat what the ideological leaning on the platform are. Save half the country some time.

</comment><comment><USER30> What on earth is about marketing to women now and using the promise of finding ones 'tribe'? It's really cringey and fake to me.

<comment> david-gpu Are you in the target demographic? Maybe the style appeals to them. I'm sure OP have done their market research.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> When do you plan on launching in Seattle? This might be something interesting for my girlfriend's mother.

</comment><comment><USER32> I think that this is much more needed for men over 50. Though easier to launch as older women are more social then their male counterparts.

Men over 50 might the most fragile and underserved group out there (they have the highest suicide rate, etc).

Perhaps, at some point, you could launch a partner service just for older men?

</comment><comment><USER12> My ~65yo mother is single and although she has a good group of female friends she regularly meets with, finding a mate is much more elusive. I'm wondering how/if an app like this could eventually help this demographic find friends or partners of the opposite sex?

</comment><comment> 52-6F-62 This is a great idea. I could see the model extending into other areas/demographics.

Best of luck with it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's really exciting to see a project aimed at using online tools to build offline relationships for an often overlooked group. From women in my own life I can immediately see (or at least, imagine) the value. Good luck to you both!

</comment><comment><USER34> When I think about my mom, I think this totally makes sense. Hopefully you become as big as Meetup and reach Italy soon ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! We hope to reach Italy someday :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> For a website for senior women I can't help but scratch my head at how inaccessible your website is.

All your images are missing alt tags, which is accessibility 101.

The light pink text #E6989C on white #FFFFFF fails every contrast checker and is even hard for me as a young person to read.

Edit: I think you need bigger fonts (dates are 14px..nothing should probably be less than 18px), bolder font weights, deeper color contrast across the board.

<comment><AUTHOR> I really appreciate that feedback. If there are other changes we could make to boost accessibility, please let me know.

<comment><USER36> If you haven't checked them out yet, the accessibility tools in Google Chrome's Lighthouse[1] audits were absurdly helpful to me when I had to do an accessibility audit on a recent marketing site. They're not totally exhaustive, but it's certainly a fantastic start and would have at least helped you catch low hanging fruit like contrast.

[1]: [https://developers.google.com/web/tools/lighthouse](https://developers.google.com/web/tools/lighthouse)

<comment><AUTHOR> Amazing, thank you!

<comment><USER37> Please also give Firefox nightly a try

see [https://youtu.be/lHBE0mIDTHk](https://youtu.be/lHBE0mIDTHk)

screenshot [https://i.imgur.com/kdzc26U.png](https://i.imgur.com/kdzc26U.png)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Ideas? Stop being so sexist and exclusionary! Start recognizing the amazingness of diversity. Start welcoming men. You might learn a thing or three. Yes, it will be about WWII or the stock market or football, but would it hurt you to spend some time thinking about something new?

<comment><USER32> It's both easier and more trendy to launch it just for women and exclude men.

Someone should make something similar for men though. Though, I would imagine it would be more difficult.

<comment><USER21> I think this kind of thing should be not for profit though rather than YC. Someone mentioned men's shed in Australia. That sort of thing. Meetup is a good idea. Sure they are for profit but a few bucks for unlimited members is ok, it's almost free.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Any good examples of open APIs? - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys,
I've been asked to do a little research around APIs. Specifically I am after companies (could be banks and other leading organisations) and startups that have open APIs and as a result what types of services are then enabled to the customer.
Any help would be appreciate! Thanks! <comment><USER2> Hopefully I'm understanding correctly. I'm assuming "open access" means available for anyone to use. Below are a few examples.

Facebook ([https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/apis/](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/apis/))

GitHub ([http://developer.github.com/v3/](http://developer.github.com/v3/))

Twitter ([https://dev.twitter.com/](https://dev.twitter.com/))

</comment><comment><USER3> For an open source project, with an open API, take a look at musicbrainz, they're used extensively in the music industry.

If you're looking for open as just openly available, you've been given a bunch of other examples already.

</comment><comment><USER4> Please define: What do you mean by open API? Open access? Open source project with an API?

<comment><AUTHOR> My knowledge is a little ropey so I apologise in advance if this doesn't make sense. I believe it is the former - open access. For example, if a bank wanted to allow banking to be done via Facebook then they'd need to open up APIs. Or if a hospital wanted to introduce a chat forum for doctors to be able to pose questions to one another then are there examples of companies whose API's would allow them to plug that chat forum in seamlessly without having to build their own chat forum. I wondered if there were any good examples of companies that demonstrated this.

Sorry if the above doesn't make sense!</comment></comment>


Mailchimp is Down - <AUTHOR> http://www.mailchimp.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> An error occurred while processing your request. Reference #97.7bf302cc.1428935750.7389d499</comment>