nwizards

About a month ago, I was scheduled on a direct Baltimore - San Antonio, scheduled to arrive around 11:30 p.m. Due to weather in FLL, the inbound aircraft was delayed, and we would now arrive SAT around 3 a.m. I did not want to get in that late, and I saw open seats on the direct flight BWI - Austin (arriving around 10:15 p.m.), so I called SW.

The phone agent said that to switch the destination from SAT to AUS, I would need to pay the fare difference, $400. I noted that neither SW nor any other airline had asked for a fare difference when I switched among nearby airports due to a significant delay or cancellation, but they said only the airport desk could potentially make the change.

I waited in the A-List full-service line for about 15 minutes, and the agent ultimately made the change I requested, no questions asked, and no change fee.

Is this a normal procedure at SW? I know I was not switching among co-terminals, but in case of severe delays or cancellations, I have always found both SW and United to be accommodating in making no-fee changes among nearby airports (for example, in a real pinch, I would fly into Richmond or PHL to get to Washington).

lougord99

The phone agents have less authority to make that kind of change than the airport agents.

rove312

I'll agree: better to ask at the airport. We were on a 1-stop SMF-MDW before connecting to MHT. Before we got to SMF, we saw a delay posted for the flight, making it a tight connection, and finally we would have missed the connection. I left my wife off while I was returning the rental car, and had her ask to get on the SMF-MDW non-stop that left later but arrived earlier and showed WGA availability. She said the agent told her no, there's a standby list on that flight. I suspect that agent was looking at another one-stop going around the same time.

When I got to the terminal, I went to the counter, and it's nice these days that I can show on my phone the availability of the flight we wanted. This agent was grumbling "How do you expect to get there earlier if you leave later?" and may have had trouble doing everything, including changing a Companion Pass booking, in the new system, but eventually got it done.

nwizards

I understand the point that airport agents have greater authority. But this seems like a poor system for several reasons:

-I knew not to pay the $400 change fee to go on a flight that would get me in on time. But I imagine some percentage of people would just pay the change fee when the phone agent says "that's how it is done," particularly if they "must be there" by a particular time.

-You waste time forcing people to speak to airport agents, and increase the overall burden on airport agents, for cases that could have been resolved over the phone.

-In the time span it takes to wait for a full-service agent (especially in an IROPS situation), the time needed for you to make the flight may expire, or the "new" flight may fill up with other re-accommodated passengers.

smmrfld

Doesn't seem to be a "poor system" for WN...been that way for years and appears to work well for them.

lougord99

I agree with you. WN has horrible irrops policy and implementation.

An example. Recently my flight was cancelled. I was in a long line to get rescheduled and called while I was in line. The phone agent said that she could not do anything and that I had to reschedule at the airport.

jeffandnicole

The world would be a lot simpler if every company allowed basic phone agents to make whatever changes the customer wanted. But, that doesn't happen at Southwest, and probably doesn't happen at the company you work for either.

No doubt, the policy is in place to hoard off people calling, trying to make excuses why their flight won't work. Most of these people aren't even at the airport yet. Yet, there are people at the airport, trying to make the best of a bad situation. Those people, rightly so, should have priority, and thus the 'new' flight should fill up with re-accommodated passengers already at the airport.

jco613

I agree to a point. When it's 1 or 2 flights, or you have what I call the "Convenience Delays", it makes sense. Let the airport deal with it. You have a sudden summer thunderstorm shut down FLL for an hour and 6 flights are now delayed, 4 planes have diverted, and most people are going to be stuck for a bit...there is not enough manpower at the airport to handle this. So, I think the phone agents could have a little more power for extreme situations, but in general I agree that the airport is the place to handle your minor issues.

rsteinmetz70112

A competent system would allow the phone agents to see if a flight is delayed or cancelled or if connections are going to be missed then allow changes or not. With good information this process could be automated and the callers either be re-accommodated relieving the people at the airport of some work or told, I'm sorry I can't do it at this time I you have to go to the airport. Cancellations would seem an obvious case where it would be easier on everyone if you could call than wait in line.. There are still going to be edge cases which must be handled at the airport. I know other airlines do it why can't Southwest?

ryw

My guess is that phone agents have more flexibility when a travel waiver is issued (during a storm IROPS with an issued waiver I was able to call in and get changed to an earlier flight to a co-terminal with no fee). Otherwise I'm guessing they have to be handled at the airport - though there have been some reports since the new IT switchover that people with delayed flights got automatically rebooked onto new connections. In general I think it makes sense to give gate agents more flexibility since they're on the ground dealing with issues as they arise, but it would seem that allowing phone agents leeway in a delay/cancellation would make sense. I wonder if this policy is a remnant of limitations on the old IT system (or even the new system).

Though in some ways making everyone line up at the airport to get service is quite in line with WN's boarding procedure!

ursine1

Southwest is horrible at IROPS, and limitations like these are why.

PAX62

To me the people physically standing at the airport gate SHOULD get priority over someone phoning it in and not even there yet...hence the current policy.

ursine1

The people who are trying to rebook a cancelled flight should get "priority." People phoning could very well be at the airport, waiting in a very long line.

joshua362

EXCEPT when an entire plane load of 143 passengers have to be re-accommodated and 2 agents are working at a 3-minute-a-person pace (if lucky).

Do the math!

So if a weather waiver or an entire flight has gone IROP, why not give phone agents the same power and let passengers with cell phones (all?) spread the work around with technology instead of hours in line?

Often1

Problem is that the rule is that OP the new ticket to AUS isn't one of the options. OP could have a refund of his ticket to its original form of payment and then rebook whatever route he wants (or pocket the refund and not travel at all).

Airport agents don't have more authority, they just have greater awareness of what needs to be done and how. E.g., they may know that while the AUS service is booked to capacity, that 50 passengers are likely misconnects, so it's OK to book OP onto that service.

While there are exceptions for high-level elites, most carriers do it this way and WN isn't an outlier (on this issue).