Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Southwest Airlines | Rapid Rewards
Reload this Page >

Another seat saving hassle and why I hate flying WN

Another seat saving hassle and why I hate flying WN

Old Apr 16, 2014, 3:32 pm
  #361  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Programs: UA
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by joshua362
Well I'm done offering opinions since they already been expressed multiple times in multiple ways, its definitely a polarizing thread in many directions!

A sort of similar issues occurs at a lot of General Admission concerts I've been to in recent years. And a regional difference exists, on the West Coast, coats or blankets or tarps spread out in prime front of house location are generally respected to save spots for late arrivals while that doesn't happen in the East.

And for a good laugh regarding seat saving watch this. It is not sped up!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgQ-IyK4RAs

And ironically, the name of the song playing in that video? "Gonna fly now"
rudycantfail0 is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 3:46 pm
  #362  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by ursine1
The letter is irrelevant.

  • It was written as a response to a individual customer's experience, it's not publicly published policy
  • It was written in 2011 and references website language that no longer exists regarding "claimed" seats
  • It itself includes the statement "Truthfully, we dont have a policy either way--for or against--saving seats."
Similar verbiage was reported by a recent TripAdvisor post. The reported response from the CS agent:

"I certainly understand the frustration you experienced on your trip, particularly given your purchase of EarlyBird. Because Southwest Airlines maintains an open-seating policy, Customers may sit in any open or unclaimed seat. Rather than guaranteeing a particular seat onboard, our EarlyBird product is designed to automatically assign Customers the best available boarding position beginning 36 hours prior to their flight's scheduled departure time. It is not uncommon for our Customers to save a seat (or seats) for a friend, family member, or associate in a later boarding group so they can enjoy each others company. We dont have a policy regarding saving seats, and it is acceptable for a Customer to "claim" a seat for someone as long as the boarding process is not delayed and other Customers aren't inconvenienced. Our open-seating policy comes with good points and challenges, and I am sorry you were disappointed with the handling of this particular situation".
SANdyFlyer is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 3:50 pm
  #363  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
Originally Posted by SANdyFlyer
This may not clarify a 'seat saving' policy, but it sure does add clarity to SWA's definition of 'open-seating'. In light of that, I would hardly say that 'clarifies nothing'. Many here have been stating that 'open-seating' implies they can take any unoccupied seat, regardless of whether it has been claimed by a friend or relative. This is clearly not the case...

"Because Southwest Airlines maintains an open-seating policy, general-boarding Customers may sit in any open or unclaimed seat."
As I mentioned earlier, that letter is from 2011, before things like Upgraded Boarding were introduced. As a letter to an individual customer and not publicly published policy, the only relevant part is the reference to the Southwest website, and the language regarding an "open or unclaimed seat" has since been removed. All references to the Open Boarding policy on the Southwest website now refer to any (still ambiguous) "available seat".







ursine1 is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 3:57 pm
  #364  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by ursine1
As I mentioned earlier, that letter is from 2011, before things like Upgraded Boarding were introduced. As a letter to an individual customer and not publicly published policy, the only relevant part is the reference to the Southwest website, and the language regarding an "open or unclaimed seat" has since been removed. All references to the Open Boarding policy on the Southwest website now refer to any (still ambiguous) "available seat".
And as I mentioned earlier, there are reports of CS responses still using the 'unclaimed seat' verbiage, even after the introduction of EBCI.

Your quick dismissal of CS responses is somewhat disconcerting. You realize that for the most part, CS replies are 'canned responses' that were previously reviewed and approved, right? It isn't as though CS agents write responses 'off the cuff'.
SANdyFlyer is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 3:58 pm
  #365  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
Originally Posted by SANdyFlyer
Similar verbiage was reported by a recent TripAdvisor post. The reported response from the CS agent:

"I certainly understand the frustration you experienced on your trip, particularly given your purchase of EarlyBird. Because Southwest Airlines maintains an open-seating policy, Customers may sit in any open or unclaimed seat. Rather than guaranteeing a particular seat onboard, our EarlyBird product is designed to automatically assign Customers the best available boarding position beginning 36 hours prior to their flight's scheduled departure time. It is not uncommon for our Customers to save a seat (or seats) for a friend, family member, or associate in a later boarding group so they can enjoy each others company. We dont have a policy regarding saving seats, and it is acceptable for a Customer to "claim" a seat for someone as long as the boarding process is not delayed and other Customers aren't inconvenienced. Our open-seating policy comes with good points and challenges, and I am sorry you were disappointed with the handling of this particular situation".
Again, something referenced in a letter to a customer does not trump publicly published official policy; even if that policy is specifically written to be as completely ambiguous as possible.

Even that letter is ambiguous; "...it is acceptable for a Customer to "claim" a seat for someone as long as the boarding process is not delayed and other Customers aren't inconvenienced."

Um the saving of a specific seat I desire inconveniences me. Therefore, you cannot save that seat.

The very issue here is a direct result of that ambiguity, and Southwest's desire to have it both ways.
ursine1 is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 4:03 pm
  #366  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
Originally Posted by SANdyFlyer
And as I mentioned earlier, there are reports of CS responses still using the 'unclaimed seat' verbiage, even after the introduction of EBCI.

Your quick dismissal of CS responses is somewhat disconcerting. You realize that for the most part, CS replies are 'canned responses' that were previously reviewed and approved, right? It isn't as though CS agents write responses 'off the cuff'.
I suspect everything published on the website receives more stringent review than CS emails, canned or not.

It seems this entire issue could be easily and definitively addressed if the CS responses you reference were published on the website as official policy.

I wonder why they don't just do that?
ursine1 is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 4:07 pm
  #367  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by ursine1
Again, something referenced in a letter to a customer does not trump publicly published official policy; even if that policy is specifically written to be as completely ambiguous as possible.
Your phrasing seems to be suggesting that the customer service response letters are in conflict with published verbiage on the website. They aren't. If anything, they add clarity to the ambiguous language on the website...which is exactly what I suggested several posts back.

Originally Posted by ursine1
It seems this entire issue could be easily and definitively addressed if the CS responses you reference were published on the website as official policy.

I wonder why they don't just do that?
Because in the grand scheme of things, seat saving is not that big of a deal. For many here, I imagine the echo chamber of FT has warped some perspectives...
SANdyFlyer is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 4:15 pm
  #368  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
Originally Posted by SANdyFlyer
Your phrasing seems to be suggesting that the customer service response letters are in conflict with published verbiage on the website. They aren't. If anything, they add clarity to the ambiguous language on the website...which is exactly what I suggested several posts back.
They add no clarity, they only further the confusion by walking both sides of the argument.

"...it is acceptable for a Customer to "claim" a seat for someone as long as the boarding process is not delayed and other Customers aren't inconvenienced."
Customers are inconvenienced when another customer saves a seat they would like.

It is acceptable to save a seat, except when it isn't acceptable.

In addition, they specifically say they have no policy for or against seat saving.

In what possible way can this be viewed as adding clarity?
ursine1 is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 4:32 pm
  #369  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
Originally Posted by ursine1
It seems this entire issue could be easily and definitively addressed if the CS responses you reference were published on the website as official policy.

I wonder why they don't just do that?
Originally Posted by SANdyFlyer
Because in the grand scheme of things, seat saving is not that big of a deal. For many here, I imagine the echo chamber of FT has warped some perspectives...
I'm sorry, I was being sarcastic -- I thought it was obvious.

They don't because they want to monetize their boarding procedure (and have, to great financial success) while avoiding responsibility for any issues it creates.

As I've stated anecdotally before, the #1 negative reason I encounter when discussing Southwest with a non-Southwest flyer is their boarding policy.

I'd suggest you look outside the "echo chamber of FT" to see what others think of the open boarding / seat saving policy. For many people, it's certainly a big deal.

Here's the result of a quick Google search:

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES SEAT-SAVING NON-POLICY

Selfish Southwest Airlines seat-saving passengers suck

How do I ask for a seat on Southwest that someone is saving for a friend at the back of the line?

Southwest, You Either Have Open Seating or You Don't!

There should be no saving seats on Southwest Airlines
ursine1 is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 5:05 pm
  #370  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,968
Originally Posted by dliesse
WN has done well for me in my portfolio, but the open seating policy is just one of a long list of reasons why I'll fly them only as a last resort.

It does seem to me, though, that the best solution would be to modify the check-in software. As I understand it -- and someone can correct me if I'm mistaken -- every passenger has to check in individually, even if two or more are in the same PNR. Why not fix it so that those on a single PNR are checked in together and guaranteed consecutive boarding numbers?
Passengers on the same PNR are checked in together, although it may require checking boxes by both/all names. For various reasons, the numbers may not be consecutive. There have been discussions here about whether companions of A-list CP holders should have adjacent numbers, but for now the companion needs to check in separately.
rove312 is online now  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 6:20 pm
  #371  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Inland Empire, semi-regularly going between LAX/ONT/SNA and IND/STL
Programs: Rapid Rewards, SkyMiles, AAdvantage
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by dcstudent
If you want to make sure you've got enough seats together pay for the higher fares or EBCI. Otherwise it devalues the point of my wife and I paying for EBCI or Business Select fares.
Here's the thing: EB is not a guarantee of any outcome, only of an opportunity for a better outcome. Just because you have the opportunity doesn't mean you'll get to take advantage of it, for any number of reasons: you might get to the gate late (whether through your own fault or others'), there might be a lot of through passengers, or someone ahead of you may have gone ahead and saved seats for hir family so that they could save by only purchasing EB for themselves.

I fail to see how the latter is qualitatively any different from the other possibilities.
BerenErchamion is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 7:51 pm
  #372  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,040
One Early Boarding fee = One Early Boarding seat. Seat savers know that's the basic concept but choose to game the system to save a few bucks. They have to know there's a chance someone will plonk down in that empty seat they are trying to save.
Tizzette is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 10:25 pm
  #373  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Inland Empire, semi-regularly going between LAX/ONT/SNA and IND/STL
Programs: Rapid Rewards, SkyMiles, AAdvantage
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by Tizzette
One Early Boarding fee = One Early Boarding seat.
No, it's one early-boarding position in line, which if you're fortunate enough and bother to do so, can translate to multiple early-boarding seats.
BerenErchamion is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 11:32 pm
  #374  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,597
So, to attempt to summarize still further:

1) "Open seating" is prominently used on their website and in marketing materials; "seat saving" is not.

2) Some people think one EBCI/person, while others think one EBCI/group

3) Just about everyone has no problem with a passenger saving one "non-premium" middle seat; more than that people start to.

4) People here suspect that WN encourages this ambiguity because they think it leads to more ancillary fee revenue.

Certainly WN could come out with a statement regarding 2) above. It sounds like the GAs are promoting the group idea (with seat saving) to sell more EBCI, leading to 4).
Orwaid is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2014, 11:46 pm
  #375  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,597
SANdyFlyer, at least now you are down to just accusing me of barking. The reality is that the person making most of the noise was the man behind me yelling to not take an open seat.

And when I asked the FA a direct question and did not get a direct response, I asked again and said that is a yes or no question. I am sorry you find that demeaning to the FA; had she answered my question in some way ( like "no, you can't take that seat, it is saved for someone else") I would not have had to ask the followup.

BTW, at congressional hearings, often when someone does not answer a question, often there is a follow-up with the statement "that is a yes or no question". It is not demeaning; rather, it is an attempt to ascertain the truth or the facts.

We will have to agree to disagree on what appropriate behavior is. For me, when someone asks me a direct question, I give them a direct answer.
Orwaid is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.