orbitmic

That part is factually incorrect. Again, sometimes it is indeed the case, but other times it is not as mentioned in the example provided of my partner and myself. We are both GGL/CCR (so the highest level of BAEC bar Premier) yet sometimes cannot select the seat next to each other when flying on separate PNRs and then find upon boarding that the flight is not very full and we have both been given a full row by TS. And also if one of us moves, the whole row shows as empty.

corporate-wage-slave

That's buried in the main TS thread: when TS switches on at T-72 normally Golds and above can move to middle seats (etc) accordingly but others cannot. But at the point it transfers to FMU control, somewhere around T26 hrs, can be a lot sooner in the wake of equipment changes, you may indeed encounter the firm block which no amount of moving around will fix.

orbitmic

Thanks! It's definitely happened to us several times and remained blocked till the end. In fact, in December, on a flight from AMM, even the airport were not able to move either of us next to the other! In both rows, the middle seat was free, which was just quite bizarre!

LondonCanuck

BertieBadger

Thanks for the correction, apologies I had not picked up on your comment before that there were circumstances where it was not true.

Nonetheless, I think the broad point stands, especially in light of c-w-s comments about why this might be so.

Namely, if you are designing a system to block seats, there is no reason to allow others to select those seats regardless of their EC level, until the number of pax forces you to start releasing those blocks. Whereas if you are designing a system to hold back more seats to high status customers, then it would be one where only those passengers could select certain "blocked" seats.

And notwithstanding that there are clearly some circumstances where this is not the case, my understanding is that, broadly speaking, those passengers can select "blocked" seats at least up until the point where it transfers to FMU?

And it seems based on the info we have, the latter description is, in fact, how TS works. At least by my understanding - if that's wrong, always happy to learn more.
​​​
Thanks

FeedbirdNiner

I think Orbitmic's description fully backs up the idea that TS tries very hard to keep space around high status pax. It is clearly not an unintended consequence, but part of an attempt to make flying with BA a better experience for those pax with the greatest spend. Makes perfect commercial sense...until someone is allowed to plonk themselves down in a blocked seat after the doors are shut!

bernardh

Slightly OT: I read recently - https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/a...-in-coach.html - that AA is about to make three changes to MCE:

1. Free booze
2. Reserved overhead lockers with placards to that effect (to prevent mere economy passengers dumping their bags upfront)
3. Empty MCE seats available to all on boarding completion (with benefits at 1. Included)

In addition CC have been told NOT to police the lockers, nor to prevent any passenger from taking any seat!

Can you imagine the scramble for the empty MCE seats and the resentment engendered in those who either paid for them or acquired them through status?

PETER01

kaka

how about, complain the said passenger and make him/her to go back to her original seat per flight safety (if cr@p happens then she would not be located in her seat)

BertieBadger

Sorry, but I can't agree that it tries "very hard", and I can give a concrete example why I think this.

In approx T-60 I'm flying in the WTP cabin, and when I look on EF, I can see a few seat blocks as expected. But equally, I can go into MMB and select any of those blocked seats for myself (a regular, common or garden GCH). So how do we square that circle with the notion that TS is trying very hard to keep them blocked?

I can look at the flight loads and see that it's far from busy. There will be no need to roll people forward from WT at this point. Equally, the WTP cabin is going to have seats spare at the current loadings. So why would a system whose primary intent be to keep a blocked seat include such accessible functionality which plainly allows me to subvert that intent? Until such time as the pax numbers demand it, there is simply no need to allow me to select a "blocked" seat - unless the primary intent of TS is that certain passengers have a broader range of seats to choose from as the departure approaches. And I believe that is exactly what we find.

Now, note that I don't claim BA to be unaware of the consequences of TS, indeed, I'm certain they are very well aware of them. By only making "blocked" seats available to certain passengers from T-72 they do indeed tip the scales in favour of certain passengers getting an empty seat for a companion. Yet, in light of the above I cannot yet see it as any more than a "hand on the tiller", especially when it would be just as simple to design a system which actually did prevent me choosing a "blocked" seat.

As such, I personally see no evidence that the primary intent of TS is to block seats, rather that's a welcome consequence. And given it's a consequence I can't see that are are much grounds for complaint when such seats are occupied (disappointment for sure, yes, but complaint, not really, at the moment). Which I believe is where we came into this discussion

(Edit for grammar, I clearly need a coffee )

corporate-wage-slave

Because your lowly Gold status is actually top of the tree, you have no constraints on seat selection, and there typically could be under 5% of passengers (could be 1%) in your lofty position. If you were in the other 95%, 99% you would see a very different seating map, and in terms of keeping seating blocked that is what matters. I suppose there is an assumption you don't want a middle seat, but if middle seats are all that is left - which there should not be - or it's an exit row/bullkhead then you can still have it. So it's about blocking seats for most passengers but for Golds plus giving them most options.

BertieBadger

Indeed, that is my understanding.

Although I was perhaps not clear, I did appreciate it was my GCH status that permitted me to 'override' the block. (my reference to certain passengers)

And of course, as you note, the practical consequence of that is that since only a small percentage of pax could do so, and therefore it is likely that the seat will remain empty.

But at the risk of repetition, if the primary intent was to be as sure as possible that the seat remained empty, why allow the option at all? This is why I currently conclude blocks to be a consequence, even if it is one BA hope to achieve.

(apols for brevity and typos, due to mobile)

orbitmic

Ot but a few weeks ago Prince Harry and his wife to be flew to and from NCE using BA and flying ET though they had 3 full rows of seats (18 seats) blocked for the two of them in an otherwise extremely busy period on the route.

To merge the discussions on the enforcement of seat blocks and the meaning of ‘status’, I would have loved this thread to have started then and to get a sense of perceptions of etiquette regarding someone deciding to join the young couple! after all, they chose to fly ET...

corporate-wage-slave

Perhaps this is the difference between "sole intent" (which would stop a Goldie taking a middle exit row seat) and "primary intent" (which stops 99% of passengers)?

flyuk

I wonder what callsign the aircraft used...