Seat Blocking on Delta during COVID-19 (Ending 5/1/2021)
Sep 21, 2020, 10:00 am
#46
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: MCO
Programs: DL PM, UA Silver, Marriott Titanium, Hertz Presidents Circle
Posts: 4,298
Sep 21, 2020, 10:02 am
#47
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809
It’s ridiculous that DL can’t figure out how to make this work this by now. They are probably loosing potential revenue, especially on leisure heavy routes where there could be lots of couples traveling together. For example on this flight below, there are 3 couples traveling together (6 total pax) and 2 solo pax, meaning that F is already at 8/10. With the stupid 50% capacity rule, there is guaranteed to be 3 empty pairs of seats where DL could have easily put 3 solo pax in F. It’s also sad to hear GAs are getting written up/disciplined for using common with processing UGs because they went over the “50% rule.”
Sep 21, 2020, 10:04 am
#48
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 223
Cmd320's explanation is partially correct. The FAA requirement is that if a flight attendant cannot occupy a jumpseat, he or she must occupy the closest seat to the jumpseat. Delta is spacing out working FAs, so that is why 1C and 1D are blocked on every flight for the front FAs.
Sep 21, 2020, 10:11 am
#49
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809
Cmd320's explanation is partially correct. The FAA requirement is that if a flight attendant cannot occupy a jumpseat, he or she must occupy the closest seat to the jumpseat. Delta is spacing out working FAs, so that is why 1C and 1D are blocked on every flight for the front FAs.
Sep 21, 2020, 10:17 am
#50
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,418
It’s ridiculous that DL can’t figure out how to make this work this by now. They are probably loosing potential revenue, especially on leisure heavy routes where there could be lots of couples traveling together. For example on this flight below, there are 3 couples traveling together (6 total pax) and 2 solo pax, meaning that F is already at 8/10. With the stupid 50% capacity rule, there is guaranteed to be 3 empty pairs of seats where DL could have easily put 3 solo pax in F. It’s also sad to hear GAs are getting written up/disciplined for using common with processing UGs because they went over the “50% rule.”
Sep 21, 2020, 10:23 am
#51
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 223
Sep 21, 2020, 10:36 am
#52
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: MCO
Programs: DL PM, UA Silver, Marriott Titanium, Hertz Presidents Circle
Posts: 4,298
Their main policy is to keep the seat next to you vacant to allow for social distancing. If there are couples traveling together, taking up two seats next to each other (which DL allows), there is no reason why the second seat should count against the 50% capacity as there will still be room for another solo pax to not have a seat mate.
Sep 21, 2020, 11:59 am
#53
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,418
When I buy DL F, I'm paying for a cabin that is booked no more than 50% full.
Sep 21, 2020, 12:04 pm
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809
That's not what the policy says. If they wanted a Southwest style policy, they could certainly have drafted it that way.
More people in a given space increases the risk of aerosol transmission. That's just simple physics.
When I buy DL F, I'm paying for a cabin that is booked no more than 50% full.
More people in a given space increases the risk of aerosol transmission. That's just simple physics.
When I buy DL F, I'm paying for a cabin that is booked no more than 50% full.
I don't really see how DL can keep this game up much longer, even if it's generating them a bit of short-term goodwill that will immediately disappear once seats become unblocked.
Sep 21, 2020, 12:23 pm
#55
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,418
It isn't going to last much longer and that's just the reality. Even DL knows this. AA and UA aren't having any noteworthy problems filling their aircraft. People aren't getting sick in droves or avoiding booking seats on either airline.
I don't really see how DL can keep this game up much longer, even if it's generating them a bit of short-term goodwill that will immediately disappear once seats become unblocked.
I don't really see how DL can keep this game up much longer, even if it's generating them a bit of short-term goodwill that will immediately disappear once seats become unblocked.
So long as DL offers a less dense cabin environment, they'll continue to get my business when the routing makes sense. Even though I'm just a lowly DL silver.
Sep 21, 2020, 12:54 pm
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,669
I agree with most of your points, but not the bolded one. People are definitely booking away from both carriers (including me, as an EXP and 1K). The reason UA and AA are filling aircraft is they've cut schedules to the bone.
So long as DL offers a less dense cabin environment, they'll continue to get my business when the routing makes sense. Even though I'm just a lowly DL silver.
So long as DL offers a less dense cabin environment, they'll continue to get my business when the routing makes sense. Even though I'm just a lowly DL silver.
Sep 21, 2020, 12:57 pm
#57
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: DTW / SJC
Programs: AA EXP, DL DM, Marriott Titanium, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 764
+1. I, along with most of my colleagues, have been exclusively choosing DL for any necessary trips over the past few months. And I suspect this type of behavior isn't that uncommon.
Sep 21, 2020, 1:13 pm
#58
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: MCO
Programs: DL PM, UA Silver, Marriott Titanium, Hertz Presidents Circle
Posts: 4,298
That's not what the policy says. If they wanted a Southwest style policy, they could certainly have drafted it that way.
More people in a given space increases the risk of aerosol transmission. That's just simple physics.
When I buy DL F, I'm paying for a cabin that is booked no more than 50% full.
More people in a given space increases the risk of aerosol transmission. That's just simple physics.
When I buy DL F, I'm paying for a cabin that is booked no more than 50% full.
Sep 21, 2020, 1:31 pm
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SEA (the REAL Washington); occasionally in the other Washington (DCA area)
Programs: DL PM 1.57MM; AS MVPG 100K
Posts: 21,358
"booked to 50%" (policy as written) is one thing; "filled to over 50% with gate upgrades while still maintaining adjacent empty seats" (a reasonable practice) is another
Sep 21, 2020, 1:34 pm
#60
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: DTW / SJC
Programs: AA EXP, DL DM, Marriott Titanium, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 764
The reality is that it is dumb for DL to be leaving pairs of F seats completely empty just because there is a couple is traveling together somewhere in the F cabin. In the example from the seat map I posted above, DL could easily fit 5 more solo pax and each of them would have an empty seat next to them. With DL and their 50% cap rule, only 2 more pax can be added to F, meaning 3 pairs of seats must go out empty. It makes zero sense to me why it’s not safe for them to fill those 3 extra seats and why they must go out empty.
I'm sure many people would be more comfortable in a cabin with 4 other couples, rather than having 9 other couples in the same space.
Not saying either way is right or wrong...but I certainly wouldn't call the current policy "dumb."