导语:“空怒(air rage)”,就是西方媒体借用“路怒(road rage)”一词,对这种愤怒乘客的形容。

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.

你或许以为“空怒”只是中国特有的问题，但事实并非如此。8月24日，在美国一架从新泽西纽瓦克飞往丹佛的美国航班上，就因为一名乘客不让另一名乘客放下座椅靠背而发生争吵，从而导致飞机改降。

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.

这架美国联合航空公司的飞机最后不得不临时在芝加哥短暂降落，“卸下”这两位争吵不休的乘客。据美联社报道，起初，机上一名男子将“膝盖捍卫器”(一种价值22美元的链接装置)锁在前座椅背的小桌板(的伸缩臂)上，令前座女子无法调低椅背。

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.

在飞机乘务员要求男子移除器械遭拒后，前座女子转身将一杯水泼向该男子。飞行员因此改降，将两人都“丢”下了飞机。

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.

这场意外引起了美国媒体的热议：在经济舱座椅空间日益狭小时，到底是使用膝盖捍卫器，还是将座位靠背放下更无礼?

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.

《纽约时报》撰稿人乔希·巴罗写道：乘客使用膝盖捍卫器不仅给别人带来麻烦，实际上也侵犯了其他乘客的财产权。调节座椅靠背本是你购买机票所包含的服务，如果坐在后面的乘客着实不希望前面的人放下椅背，那他可以出钱买下其放椅背的权利。

Space wars

空间战

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《纽约时报》的另一位撰稿人达蒙·达林却不同意上面的看法。他认为，航空公司并无明文规定每个人应占有多大空间。

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.

在达林看来，用膝盖捍卫器也许有些无礼，但至少在“空间战”中是公平的。像巴罗所言，如果想让前面的人调直椅背还需付钱的话，使用膝盖护卫器至少还可以协商。

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，事情不能更简单一点么?理查德·莫兰就在其LinkedIn中写道：难道航空公司不能取消调节椅背的功能么?巴罗的答案是：不能，这么做对个子矮的人太不公平，因为抱怨腿部空间不够的大都是高个子，而“他们已经享有太多优势了。”

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.

巴罗还援引《应用心理学》杂志2004年的一篇论文，文章指出：高个子比矮个子收入更高。他说，“且不说他们所享受的恩赐，而且他们能用更多的收入购买额外的座位空间，就这样，他们居然还忿忿地要求飞机上的规则为他们而改变。没有这样的好事!”