Older people and disabled people make up a measured percentage as well. So less than 90%. Additionally everyone benefits from more seat pitch, even if just to allow them to more easily use things like a laptop in economy (which is not viable now if the person in front of you reclines fully).

> You don't have competition on seat pitch because there are not enough people willing to pay the increase for the comfort to sustain an airline.

It has nothing to do with "comfort." It isn't a luxury feature in the same vein as a complementary back massage, hot flannel, or free alcoholic drink. It is what people need so they aren't in physical pain for the duration of the flight.

Now, yes, extreme seat pitch (e.g. business/first class) is absolutely about pure comfort. I am talking about a bare minimum so an adult can fit their butt, legs, and knees between the back of their seat and the back of the seat in front when reclined.

If airlines want to save some money, remove recline completely.

    > Older people and disabled people make up a measured percentage
    > as well. So less than 90%.

How does being older have anything to do with needing more leg room? Depending on the disability that may not matter either.

    > Additionally everyone benefits from more seat pitch

As an anecdote I'm 183 cm (or 6") and I actually find it really uncomfortable to sit at the optional incline offered by airlines, I'd like to either be sitting straight up or lie completely level, nothing in-between. So I'm not benefiting from it, unless it's getting quite close to 90 degrees.

    > It has nothing to do with "comfort. [...] It is what people need
    > so they aren't in physical pain for the duration of the flight.

I'm relatively fine with the current seat arrangement, and I'm happy that airlines aren't being mandated to increase prices for everyone due to some government-imposed seat size regulations.

I'm happy that I have the option to choose airlines like EasyJet for shorter trips which are essentially glorified cattle carts with wings on them, but which would allow me to affordably go somewhere over a weekend. If I want more seat space there's always something like KLM's Economy+, or other similar premium arrangements.

    > If airlines want to save some money, remove recline completely.

Aside from the fact that you're entering into a voluntary business arrangement with the airline, and it's somewhat presumptuous to assume that you're better aware of how they could save money than they are:

When you're sitting down in a chair your upper body isn't taking up volume in the space going up vertically from your knees, so there's space for the seat in front of you to recline into that space.

So this suggestion doesn't make sense. It's not an either-or, maybe airlines would benefit from removing or reducing recline, but that's not mutually exclusive with saving money by reducing the space between seats.

>"It has nothing to do with "comfort." It isn't a luxury feature in the same vein as a complementary back massage, hot flannel, or free alcoholic drink. It is what people need so they aren't in physical pain for the duration of the flight."

I'm not in "physical pain" from the seats as they currently are. The key qualifier that you should add is "some" and replace "need" with "want", perhaps even "feel is necessary". Neither of which apply to me. I neither want more space, nor do I feel it is necessary for me in any way, hence why I suggested you change your view on the matter by adding the qualifier "some".