高空中的對立面 誰該爲"空怒"買單

You’d think flight rage is a uniquely Chinese problem, but a US flight between Denver and Newark had to be diverted on Aug 24 after one passenger prevented another from reclining her seat.

你或許以爲“空怒”只是中國特有的問題，但事實並非如此。8月24日，在美國一架從新澤西紐瓦克飛往丹佛的美國航班上，就因爲一名乘客不讓另一名乘客放下座椅靠背而發生爭吵，從而導致飛機改降。

The flight, which was being fulfilled by United Airlines, made an unscheduled stop in Chicago to discharge the two bickering passengers. According to The Associated Press, a man attached a Knee Defender to the seat in front of him. The Knee Defender is a $22 device that locks onto the tray table on the back of a plane seat, making it impossible for the person in front to recline the chair.

這架美國聯合航空公司的飛機最後不得不臨時在芝加哥短暫降落，“卸下”這兩位爭吵不休的乘客。據美聯社報道，起初，機上一名男子將“膝蓋捍衛器”（一種價值22美元的鏈接裝置）鎖在前座椅背的小桌板（的伸縮臂）上，令前座女子無法調低椅背。

When the man refused to reMove the device at the directive of a flight attendant, the woman seated in front of him turned around and threw water at him. At this point, the pilot landed the plane and both passengers were removed from the flight.

在飛機乘務員要求男子移除器械遭拒後，前座女子轉身將一杯水潑向該男子。飛行員因此改降，將兩人都“丟”下了飛機。

The incident has caused a heated debate in US media about whether it is rude to use the Knee Defender or to recline one’s seat when over the years economy class seats have seen legroom shrink.

這場意外引起了美國媒體的熱議：在經濟艙座椅空間日益狹小時，到底是使用膝蓋捍衛器，還是將座位靠背放下更無禮？

Josh Barro, writing for The New York Times, says the passenger who used the Knee Defender was not only asking for trouble, but he was actually violating his fellow passenger’s property rights. When you buy an airline ticket, says Barro, 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.

《紐約時報》撰稿人喬希·巴羅寫道：乘客使用膝蓋捍衛器不僅給別人帶來麻煩，實際上也侵犯了其他乘客的財產權。調節座椅靠背本是你購買機票所包含的服務，如果坐在後面的乘客着實不希望前面的人放下椅背，那他可以出錢買下其放椅背的權利。

Space wars

空間戰

But Damon Darlin, another writer for The New York Times, doesn’t agree. In his opinion, the airlines have failed to establish guidelines for how much space each passenger can occupy.

但是《紐約時報》的另一位撰稿人達蒙·達林卻不同意上面的看法。他認爲，航空公司並無明文規定每個人應占有多大空間。

In Darlin’s opinion, using a Knee Defender may seem rude, but it just evens the playing field. Instead of having someone in front of you slam the seat back and wait for you to pay him, as Barro suggests, with a Knee Defender you can now negotiate.

在達林看來，用膝蓋捍衛器也許有些無禮，但至少在“空間戰”中是公平的。像巴羅所言，如果想讓前面的人調直椅背還需付錢的話，使用膝蓋護衛器至少還可以協商。

But would things be easier, as Richard Moran suggests in a LinkedIn post, if airliners got rid of the reclining function once and for all? No, says Barro, that would be very unfair to short people. Why? Because complaints about legroom are mostly made by tall people, “a privileged group that already enjoys many advantages”.

但是，事情不能更簡單一點麼？理查德·莫蘭就在其LinkedIn中寫道：難道航空公司不能取消調節椅背的功能麼？巴羅的答案是：不能，這麼做對個子矮的人太不公平，因爲抱怨腿部空間不夠的大都是高個子，而“他們已經享有太多優勢了。”

Barro cites a 2004 paper in the Journal of Applied Psychology and points out that tall people earn more money than short people. “Instead of counting their blessings, or buying extra-legroom seats with some of their extra income, the tall have the gall to demand that the rules of flying be changed to their advantage, just as everything else in life already has been. Now that’s just wrong,” says Barro.

巴羅還援引《應用心理學》雜誌2004年的一篇論文，文章指出：高個子比矮個子收入更高。他說，“且不說他們所享受的恩賜，而且他們能用更多的收入購買額外的座位空間，就這樣，他們居然還忿忿地要求飛機上的規則爲他們而改變。沒有這樣的好事！”