雙語閱讀：空怒是什么

　　導語:“空怒(air rage)”,就是西方媒體借用“路怒(road rage)”一詞,對這種憤怒乘客的形容。

　　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.

　　你或許以為“空怒”只是中國特有的問題，但事實并非如此。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，就因為一名乘客不讓另一名乘客放下座椅靠背而發(fā)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 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(lián)合航空公司的飛機最后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(jù)美聯(lián)社報道，起初，機上一名男子將“膝蓋捍衛(wèi)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(diào)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后，前座女子轉(zhuǎn)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(jīng)濟艙座椅空間日益狹小時，到底是使用膝蓋捍衛(wèi)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(wèi)器不僅給別人帶來麻煩，實際上也侵犯了其他乘客的財產(chǎn)權。調(diào)節(jié)座椅靠背本是你購買機票所包含的服務，如果坐在后面的乘客著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(zhàn)

　　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。他認為，航空公司并無明文規(guī)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(wèi)器也許有些無禮，但至少在“空間戰(zhàn)”中是公平的。像巴羅所言，如果想讓前面的人調(diào)直椅背還需付錢的話，使用膝蓋護衛(wèi)器至少還可以協(xié)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么?理查德·莫蘭就在其LinkedIn中寫道：難道航空公司不能取消調(diào)節(jié)椅背的功能么?巴羅的答案是：不能，這么做對個子矮的人太不公平，因為抱怨腿部空間不夠的大都是高個子，而“他們已經(jīng)享有太多優(yōu)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》雜志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(guī)則為他們而改變。沒有這樣的好事!”