jrl767

I had to go SEA-LAX on my own dime the morning after a holiday weekend, having learned about the trip around close of business the day prior to said weekend ... DL/AS/VX nonstops the entire morning were on the order of $360 for coach and $500 for F, but I found WN with a 1+25 layover in OAK for $107 ... ponied up for priority check-in (automagically processed at T-36 hrs), got A28 on one segment and A35 on the other, and had my preferred window seats toward the front of the cabin on each flight (Row 1 and Row 3 respectively) -- $15 well spent

I certainly won't make a habit of WN, but in some instances it's a very workable alternative

tjl

My experience flying economy on UA is that the boarding queue at the gate is more disorderly than at WN.

Also, the T-24 check in race exists on all airlines. On airlines with preassigned seats, if you do not have a preassigned seat at booking (common, now that preassigned seats are extra charge, if there are any desirable ones still available at booking), then you have to do the T-24 check in race to get one that you may like at check in. Otherwise, you may have to wait until you get to the gate, at which time you may not have any choice, or may be at higher IDB risk.

Productivity

Disorderly boarding is not relevant however with assigned seats, other than for overhead space. I can be the last to board and I still get the seat I picked - it makes no difference.

In the many flights I've taken on non WN carriers, I have never once tried to check in at T-24 exactly. Every flight I've taken on WN, it's mandatory. You are drawing a long bow to say the checkin scramble happens on other carriers than WN.

This is one of these things that comes up again and again on these forums - WN fanatics can't understand why anybody would want to do it any other way, then those who don't like WN can't understand why anybody would subject themselves to it. I personally fall in the latter category - unless i'm saving >$500, I don't fly WN (and given the routes they fly, this never happens!). Unassigned seating, their weird dad humour, lack of interlining, it all adds up to an awful airline to me. But if you enjoy it, go for it!

pinniped

I honestly don't understand either of these perspectives.

Southwest is excellent at what they do: short nonstop flights. Full-sized jets, good frequencies, often superior airports to their competition.

The global alliances are good at what they do: giving me access to 800-whatever destinations accessible from a single PNR.

If I were to rule one of the two out of my travels, I'd either spend a bunch of unnecessary time in legacy carrier hubs...or I'd never travel beyond a rather limited route map.

I also think there's a time and place for ULCCs, another thing many on this board hate.

Productivity

Not sure what the hate of legacy carrier hubs is. I used to be Houston based, I'd swap a flight on UA (or AA or DL) and flying from IAH over the admittedly easier HOU and flying WN. All the little chummy things, the stupid humour all just bugs me on WN. I certainly would never say I felt limited by avoiding WN.

Proudelitist

If someone cheaps out and won't pony up the money for a pre-assigned seat, they deserve it. And it benefits us frequent fliers that they do, because every kettle butt in every middle seat by the lav keeps my own butt from being in that seat.

I have NO sympathy for people who refuse to pay for something and then complain when they don't get what those who DID pay for it get. Airlines are like razor blade cartridges: buy cheap, get cheap.

pinniped

But you were based *at* the hub. Out of Houston, United is always going to be your best call with the most destinations and most frequencies both domestic and worldwide.

I don't hate hubs - I quite like DEN, actually - I just hate using them unnecessarily. I'll take MCI-SAN in 3:30 over MCI-DEN-SAN in 5:30, every time.

Avoiding Southwest would cost me probably 30-40 total hours per year. For that, they can tell stupid jokes all they want. (Although to be honest, they did more of the stupid-joke stuff 20 years ago than they do today.)

I don't love everything about them and I probably wouldn't enjoy their all-coach model long-haul, but on fast short hops they do quite well.

tjl

Then why would you be against your favorite airline going to WN-style boarding for regular economy only, since you presumably pay for premium sections? Paid first, business, and premium economy passengers, and frequent flyer elites who get premium economy automatically would still get to preassign their seats in the premium sections, but then would benefit from the back of the plane boarding more quickly, potentially reducing delays or allowing the flight to "catch up" on the schedule if the plane arrived late from a previous segment.

swag

I fly WN a couple of times a year, and I've had good luck with seats - better than I would on a legacy with also no status. But besides being willing to play the 24 hour check-in game, I'm always on a nonstop.

Unassigned seating falls apart on connections. Flying OAK-LAX-EWR, you may have boarding position 1 on both segments, but it may not take much of a delay on the first leg to have you sitting for 6 hours in a middle seat near the back on the second leg. IMHO, that's the big problem that assigned seating solves.

cbn42

I have to disagree. It's easier to just get on and sit wherever, and I can avoid sitting next to a fat person or a screaming child. Turnaround times are also faster with this system.

Airlines can charge you for an earlier boarding position. I believe WN calls this "A list". There are ways of monetizing everything.

WorldLux

I would imagine that the quickest way to board a plane would be to send in group of rows that separated by enough distance. The issue is however lack of order among fellow passengers.

There are too many "let's try it anyway despite not being in the group that is boarding right now", "I'll rearrange my 6 carry-ons on board", etc. Quick boarding is already reality. Just head to Japan and book a flight on a domestic 777. They start boarding 20 minutes before departure and they leave on time.

I've experienced DH4 boardings that took twice as long.

hi55us

This is what I love about B6. They have assigned seating, let everyone board from back to front behind Mosaics and people in their extra legroom seats.

pinniped

Somebody actually tested this and found that random boarding order beat pretty much all forms of "organized" boarding.

I want to say window-middle-aisle boarding worked well once people were coached about how to do it, but without a cooperative and determined group *trying* to board quickly, one big cattle call is probably best.

Of course that takes away the opportunity for us Gold/Plat/Diamond/Whatever members to look down our snouts at the unwashed masses...

Proudelitist

You may be confusing me with someone else, I didn't say anything about rear loading.

However, part of the premium package is bin space..the reason there are so many gate lice at non-WN gates is because nobody checks baggage and everyone uses the bins. If you are late in the boarding order, you will find yourself without anywhere to put your bags. By paying more for better seats, you also get onboard sooner, meaning your shot at a bin is better. This applies to WN as well with EBCI and A List so it's really not a difference at all.

I don't mind the non-elites, no frills regular people boarding back to front first IF the FA's properly police the bins. Prevent people from using a bin way ahead of their seat. If they did that it would work well. But it would require assigned seating to ensure they all actually GO to the back where their seats are. In an open seating config, they just plop down anywhere...but usually front to back which means everyone has to wait.

pinniped

One key difference: legacy carriers encourage pax to carry everything onboard with them, thus resulting in gate-checked bags towards the end of the boarding process. I see this happening on almost every AA flight I take, no matter what type of aircraft other than widebodies. If the flight is full or close to it, the people at the end of the boarding process are checking their bags.

Southwest encourages people to check their bags. Thus you typically don't see people forced to gate-check, even in the B's and C's. When I fly WN, I'm often in Row 17, so I usually see the C's trying to find seats and bin space. FAs are pretty good about getting all the bags stowed, even for the sucker sitting in 23B.

It may not even be a big shift. Maybe Southwest's nudge to check a bag only results in a few people changing their behavior. But it seems to be enough to avoid gate-checking.