New JB Policy? Can't move into exit row / extra legroom seats
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28
This thread asks a simple and pertinent question politely and reasonably. That's not trolling behavior. Let's be equally polite and measured with responses.
FWIW, I agree that this is JetBlue's decision to make. I could understand their going either way, but as in other areas, the decision needs to be consistently applied once it is made. Inconsistency will drive customers much more crazy than will a policy they disagree with.
FWIW, I agree that this is JetBlue's decision to make. I could understand their going either way, but as in other areas, the decision needs to be consistently applied once it is made. Inconsistency will drive customers much more crazy than will a policy they disagree with.
For the record, here's what would have made this an experience much more typical of the excellent history I've had with JB. A small sign/label/etching on the seatback in front of each EML seat that says:
"Jetting loves legroom. Welcome to one of our extra legroom seats. There's a small fee for all this extra space. If you didn't pay for the seat when you booked, our friendly flight attendant will be happy to swipe your credit card for you on board."
#17
#19
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28
Good question . . . I've been occasionally assigned a ELR seat without having paid for it, so I'd imagine that if you have a boarding pass with the ELR seat on it then the FA doesn't care or know whether you paid for it or were comped.
#20
Join Date: Jan 2008
Programs: Marriott Titanium, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 404
Flew yesterday IAD-BOS and back today. Bought both tickets last minute and flights were short and empty. I often buy an "Extra Leg Room" seat for longer flights, but $25 for an hour long flight didn't seem worthwhile. Last night I was in the row behind the exit and when the door closed the row was empty so I moved up one row. No problem.
This afternoon, same deal. Flight was maybe 20% full and all 12 exit row seats were empty. Once the final passenger had boarded and sat down, I moved up a couple rows to an exit row seat. Couple minutes later a FA asked if I'd just boarded and I said, "No, I just moved up a couple of rows" at which point she told me -- in the midst of a nearly empty plane with 12 empty exit row seats, that if I wanted to sit in that seat she'd have to swipe my credit card and charge me $25.
Curious what others think.
--Jason
This afternoon, same deal. Flight was maybe 20% full and all 12 exit row seats were empty. Once the final passenger had boarded and sat down, I moved up a couple rows to an exit row seat. Couple minutes later a FA asked if I'd just boarded and I said, "No, I just moved up a couple of rows" at which point she told me -- in the midst of a nearly empty plane with 12 empty exit row seats, that if I wanted to sit in that seat she'd have to swipe my credit card and charge me $25.
Curious what others think.
--Jason
If you buy a five dollar ticket to sit in the bleachers at the new Yankee Stadium, you are not upgrading yourself to one of the (always empty) $2500 seats behind home plate.
EML is a product they are selling for much needed revenue. If you know that you have a chance to get it for free, you will not buy it for your next flight.
#21
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28
Great move by the FA and B6 if they are now enforcing this.
If you buy a five dollar ticket to sit in the bleachers at the new Yankee Stadium, you are not upgrading yourself to one of the (always empty) $2500 seats behind home plate.
EML is a product they are selling for much needed revenue. If you know that you have a chance to get it for free, you will not buy it for your next flight.
If you buy a five dollar ticket to sit in the bleachers at the new Yankee Stadium, you are not upgrading yourself to one of the (always empty) $2500 seats behind home plate.
EML is a product they are selling for much needed revenue. If you know that you have a chance to get it for free, you will not buy it for your next flight.
We can argue all day about whether a business is better off letting an expiring commodity go to waste (to use some of the many analogies in this thread . . . 9 holes of golf, a cut of meat, an empty plane seat) or using it to enhance the experience of an already-paying customer. The fact that most airlines are losing money and/or bankrupt means they probably have some room for improvement on the pricing front. But the manner in which JB is implementing the policy leaves much to be desired. nsx's point that inconsistency is an annoyance is exactly right, and if you know that your new policy makes you pretty much the only airline on which someone would be forbidden from moving further back in their cabin to an exit row, print up a little sign and be consistent.
--Jason
#22
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: UA Gold-MM, AA Gold-MM, F9-Silver, Hyatt Something, Marriott Gold, IHG Plat, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 6,376
#23
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
#24
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orlando, FL
Programs: Marriott Titanium, Hilton Diamond, United Airlines Gold
Posts: 333
It is. Before, we did not have the charging capability on our cashless cabin device. now we do...
#25
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28
Here's another reason I think if you're going to have a policy then the signs would be a good idea . . . a lot of times the FA's are not going to enforce or even announce the policy. For example, my flight the night before when they invited us to move around
The only ones (other than JetBlue) affected by "self-upgrading" are the other passengers on that row (there were none on my flight). Having signs makes it possible for those passengers who paid for extra legroom and a good possibility of an emptier row to address someone who, at the start of a long flight, comes and sits down in the empty middle seat of their EML row. That strikes me as a perfectly legitimate objection, and as I said I'd not have moved into the seats if any of the row had been occupied.
If you put up a sign, it lets the passengers who did pay to sit there point to the sign and say, "Hey, just so you know before you settle in, they'll be by in a few minutes to collect the $xx fee for the upgraded seat". As someone who does buy EML seats on cross-country flights, I'd see that as valuable.
The only ones (other than JetBlue) affected by "self-upgrading" are the other passengers on that row (there were none on my flight). Having signs makes it possible for those passengers who paid for extra legroom and a good possibility of an emptier row to address someone who, at the start of a long flight, comes and sits down in the empty middle seat of their EML row. That strikes me as a perfectly legitimate objection, and as I said I'd not have moved into the seats if any of the row had been occupied.
If you put up a sign, it lets the passengers who did pay to sit there point to the sign and say, "Hey, just so you know before you settle in, they'll be by in a few minutes to collect the $xx fee for the upgraded seat". As someone who does buy EML seats on cross-country flights, I'd see that as valuable.
#26
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28
#27
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: AA Plat, CO Gold, Marriott Silver
Posts: 107
For me, the key to the discussion is the inconsistency. For most of us, if we know the rules we are willing to follow them. If on some flights you can move to an exit row and some you can't, based on who's working the flight, then it is no longer a rule but a crap shoot. When they are not consistent it puts both the passenger and the FA in a bad position when the 'sometimes' rule is enforced.
#28
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28
For me, the key to the discussion is the inconsistency. For most of us, if we know the rules we are willing to follow them. If on some flights you can move to an exit row and some you can't, based on who's working the flight, then it is no longer a rule but a crap shoot. When they are not consistent it puts both the passenger and the FA in a bad position when the 'sometimes' rule is enforced.
#30
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 321
Yes, there is a semantical element to this post, deal with it.
For one, it would be more akin to tresspass - since you didn't deprive anybody of anything (you can't take money away from somebody who doesn't have it, that defies logic and would make a terrible case in a court of law), you are trying to access somewhere you shouldn't - like how accessing the cockpit when you shouldn't isn't all of a sudden considered "stealing" (but in the right circumstances will get the TSA/FBI involved post-911).
Now I don't wan to hear "But how can you think it is ok then?" - I never said or implied that, I merely addressed a different point in the post. You don't have to think something is stealing to think it is wrong.
(also, if your logic was correct, IMO, accepting gifts would be considered stealing since *you* didn't pay for that gift, you dirty rotten thief you.
Now to the meat of the matter, I am wondering - if it is such a problem, why not make it possible to pay on board to upgrade yourself to those seats if they are unoccupied - or any of the extra legroom seats for that matter - if they are so dead set on making money from those seats after the plane is off the ground. I will admit I don't know *how* it could be done, but it would seem possible.