stick n rudder

Holy Cripes! Your not in kansas anymore, Dorthy. Get over it. Evan Marx couldn't float a classless society. Stick to SW. They're your kind of people.

BlatheringPenguin

(sound of me sucking in a giant breath to blow on fire)

But even SW has LEGAL discrimination! They discriminate who gets on the plane first by who checked in first! And, we all know that any type of discrimination is bad-bad-bad!

(ducking away rapidly into my fire-proof safety shelter)

amusing at least myself,
-BP

Plato90s

Ah, now we know where he gets his strange ideas. A Southwest flier on British Airways, the airline for the snotty British upper class. (just a joke, people)

The irony is palpatable.

SeeYa

I have held off for 4 days not posting, just reading, just hoping this thread would die of it's own accord. It's just not going to happen! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/tongue.gif
Just to refute your most recent argument:
I am a Coach-Only traveler. I travel on my own dime and time. I also know and accept, that anyone booked in Business or First is going to get better treatment in all respects. If I were willing to spend the money, then I would expect more. In case you weren't listening, that is how business works: you reward your best customers. Further, if anyone on your flight had had a dire, need-to-be there situation, I'm sure they would have expressed that to the GA, and they would have tried to work something out.
Now I just wish we could all let this thread die. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

TransWorldOne

kook

n. Slang
A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Possibly from cuckoo.]
[syn: odd fellow, odd fish, queer bird, queer duck]

ScottC

Unless you don't fit in one seat of course, other than that no discrimination there... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

flyrights

For the record, regarding Southwest's discriminatory policy of charging large people for two seats:
To me, that means you pay for as many seats as you require, and/or can cram people into. Therefore, if say three SMALL people can fit inside only TWO seats, then Southwest should permit that as well. Until they permit that, they are discriminating, but admittedly it might be legal... maybe immoral, but probably legal.... JUST LIKE AIRLINES PECKING ORDER POLICIES...probably legal, but immoral.
Jim

Eugene

That's not true. See AA's Customer Service Plan:

"If at departure time more customers with confirmed reservations are present than there are seats available, gate agents will first ask for volunteers who are willing to give up their seats in exchange for compensation and a confirmed seat on a later flight. On extremely rare occasions, a customer may be denied boarding on an involuntary basis, if a sufficient number of volunteers is not obtained. In such events, we will usually deny boarding based upon check-in time, but we may also consider factors such as severe hardships, the fare paid, and status within the AAdvantage program."

Eugene

And thanks for the laugh, I needed that... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif FWIW, the world record of how many people can fit inside a VW Bug, is 24 (set by members of a dance team at the University of Hawaii).

Efrem

True, but unrelated to the topic. These rules apply when a flight is overbooked. The discussion is about when another flight was cancelled and its passengers have to be rebooked. Since they did not have confirmed reservations on the flight with ten seats (their confirmed reservations were on an earlier flight, not this one) the rule doesn't necessarily apply - though it may serve as to indicate their general approach.

Eugene

I have to disagree. It's a clear indication of rules applied for reaccomodation of passengers during mishaps, be it overbooking or flight cancelation, or other kinds of irregular ops. It shows which factors are taken into consideration in determining the reaccomodation order.

flyrights

Efrim and Eugene, I think it's relevant that some airline, like AA acknowledges that they give preference to their better customers, but it is STILL VAGUE. Their verbiage says "in some cases...", which basically means they STILL won't admit to what the pecking order is. Therefore, the verbiage is worthless. When someone buys a ticket, you are entitled to know EXACTLY what you are buying. If there is a pecking order, you have a right to know EXACTLY what it is. Since AA doesn't disclose that, their verbiage is meaningless, and probably woudln't hold up in any Court of law if someone sued them for UNNECESSAIRLY giving priority to one customer over another, who BOTH had "OK" confirmed tickets. It is nothing but an ADMISSION that they do discriminate.
Jim

BlatheringPenguin

Ok, if you want to get into a discussion of vagueness, what is the meaning of "OK" on an itinerary?

-BP

[This message has been edited by BlatheringPenguin (edited 07-15-2002).]

LarryJ

That isn't up to Southwest. FAA regulations prohibit more than one person occupying a single seat. (Unless one of those persons is under the age of two and then the airline doesn't charge for them)

LarryJ

Have you called them yet to ask what they policy would be?

From whom is this Right bestowed? The FAA? The DOT? The Constitution? The Creator?

You are throwing around big words without anything to back them up.

They were confirmed on a flight that cancelled. The confirmed status does not roll over to the next flight, that is why they have to STAND BY for the next flight instead of bumped confirmed passengers on the later flight.

Discrimination means nothing more than choosing based on some criteria. When you have more passengers than seats then you must, by definition, discriminate in order to pick who will go and who will not. It is not illegal, immoral, or unethical to discriminate based on fare paid.