"Bank of Southwest" has restricted TTF withdrawals effective April 29, 2011
Jul 20, 2010, 7:37 pm
#91
Join Date: Jan 2005
Programs: UA GOLD MM,WN CP A+list, HH Gold,MR LT Titanium
Posts: 2,184
As far as I can tell, free bags and no change fee are the only remaining reasons to consider WN.For many of us, these are becoming less compelling reasons. For the infrequent flyer, cost will become the only factor and WN will certainly be losing customers based on fares.
I am sure that WN has done it's homework on this change,but it does not change the bad feeling many of us are getting regarding this policy
Jul 20, 2010, 7:39 pm
#92
In Memoriam - Company Representative - Southwest Airlines
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX
Programs: Southwest spokesperson
Posts: 1,201
Welcome to FT, flight1352!
Yes, paper tickets were always tied to one name. I don't recall that TTFs were ever similarly restricted, but if so that restriction was not in place for online bookings once those became possible. The reason is simple, and probably due to an implementation decision to carry the cardholder name rather than the passenger name with the funds. Or, if both names were carried with the funds, the website implementers decided not to require the passenger name to be entered, so they had to drop the name match requirement.
Yes, paper tickets were always tied to one name. I don't recall that TTFs were ever similarly restricted, but if so that restriction was not in place for online bookings once those became possible. The reason is simple, and probably due to an implementation decision to carry the cardholder name rather than the passenger name with the funds. Or, if both names were carried with the funds, the website implementers decided not to require the passenger name to be entered, so they had to drop the name match requirement.
Jul 20, 2010, 7:55 pm
#93
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: BOS
Programs: JetBlue Mosaic, WN A List Preferred, Hyatt Globalest, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum, IHG Spire
Posts: 3,966
Doesn't Affect Me Much Personally But Still Devaluation, Slippery Slope
I was most struck by the comments from posters that this appears to be a sneaky trend with WN in that:
*Change from 3 to 2 comploimentary bags;
*Change from Complimentary TTF to LUV voucher to a $50 fee; and
*I perceive that the RR program has been devalued over the years before I became a member, and I fear what RR 2.0 may bring us.
WN should generally avoid moves that bring it in line with the negative practices of the legacy carriers. The legacy carriers are hated by the public for their business practices in much the same way the public hates cell phone companies or banks or credit card companies.
WN should continue to ddifferentiate itself from other carriers, as I'm sure Herb would want. WN should also more actively advertise the differences, not just bag fees, between it and other carriers. Adding more and more rules, fees, and complexity to the system is not differentiation. It makes WN more like a legacy carrier. It is a slippery slope, and each time down a part of the slope, you lose customers impacted by the negative change.
Again while this does not really affect me, it concerns me in terms of the direction the company might be headed in. I have to worry, as do others, what's next? I fear RR 2.0 is going to be a devaluation.
*Change from 3 to 2 comploimentary bags;
*Change from Complimentary TTF to LUV voucher to a $50 fee; and
*I perceive that the RR program has been devalued over the years before I became a member, and I fear what RR 2.0 may bring us.
WN should generally avoid moves that bring it in line with the negative practices of the legacy carriers. The legacy carriers are hated by the public for their business practices in much the same way the public hates cell phone companies or banks or credit card companies.
WN should continue to ddifferentiate itself from other carriers, as I'm sure Herb would want. WN should also more actively advertise the differences, not just bag fees, between it and other carriers. Adding more and more rules, fees, and complexity to the system is not differentiation. It makes WN more like a legacy carrier. It is a slippery slope, and each time down a part of the slope, you lose customers impacted by the negative change.
Again while this does not really affect me, it concerns me in terms of the direction the company might be headed in. I have to worry, as do others, what's next? I fear RR 2.0 is going to be a devaluation.
Jul 20, 2010, 8:00 pm
#94
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 98
Now that we know WN is going to lose a ton of business 
, the next question is: which airline is going to get this business?
Although we have lost something from WN (the ability to pool funds), whose policy will now be more favorable?
From my and my family's point of view (I realize every situation is different), WN still comes out on top.
, the next question is: which airline is going to get this business?Although we have lost something from WN (the ability to pool funds), whose policy will now be more favorable?
From my and my family's point of view (I realize every situation is different), WN still comes out on top.
Jul 20, 2010, 8:02 pm
#95
Join Date: Nov 2007
Programs: DL GM, WN AL/CP, UA Silver, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,483
I just noticed this today when booking some flights:
"Effective January 28, 2011, unused travel funds may only be applied toward the purchase of future travel for the individual named on the ticket."
Does anyone know how long it's been there...in any event, not a very good sign when TTF flexibility is constrained like that.
Are we the proverbial frogs in water and WN is ever so gradually turning up the heat?
"Effective January 28, 2011, unused travel funds may only be applied toward the purchase of future travel for the individual named on the ticket."
Does anyone know how long it's been there...in any event, not a very good sign when TTF flexibility is constrained like that.
Are we the proverbial frogs in water and WN is ever so gradually turning up the heat?
Jul 20, 2010, 8:25 pm
#97
Join Date: Nov 2007
Programs: DL GM, WN AL/CP, UA Silver, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,483
In such a situation, said customer would be getting a refund, not TTF. I see where you're coming from, but I think fraud prevention has exactly zero to do with this change.
Jul 20, 2010, 8:38 pm
#98
Join Date: Nov 2007
Programs: DL GM, WN AL/CP, UA Silver, Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 1,483
Why the hell would WN want to align themselves with general practice in the airline industry?
How brain-dead could WN be?
Not mad at you, Brian, you're just the messenger.
Jul 20, 2010, 8:55 pm
#99
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,621
Actually when we started Ticketless, no exchange was allowed at all. All we could do was either cancel and refund the refundable fares or in the case of nonrefundable fares, we would cancel and send a paper travel voucher, which had to be redeemed in person by the ticketholder. I was working the Ticketless help desk back then. When we began allowing the exchange of funds, the only way the system could work was to associate the funds with a pnr and not a specific person. The new ticketing systems have eliminated a lot of those workarounds.
Jul 20, 2010, 9:06 pm
#100
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,621
BTW, Cranky has also noticed....
Airline industry groupthink is all about the fact that you are “leaving money on the table” every time you fail to charge for anything and everything. To attract actual customers, you must think like one.
Think like a customer, and you will realize that they will be far less hesitant to part with their money when they know that they can change plans without penalty. Why do you think almost all retailers have return policies on goods when they loose money on each return? It is because retailers understand that the profits earned by customers who will make a purchase because they have the option of a refund (or store credit) exceeds the losses incurred by those who actually return items. Without a refund policy, customers walk out the store
This is the point I made about lost sales, trips that will not occur at all because of the non-reusability of funds. The new policy is a 5% step down from the old one. Full nonrefundability, which is effectively today's policy at other carriers ($150 fee approaches the full ticket price), would be much worse.
Think like a customer, and you will realize that they will be far less hesitant to part with their money when they know that they can change plans without penalty. Why do you think almost all retailers have return policies on goods when they loose money on each return? It is because retailers understand that the profits earned by customers who will make a purchase because they have the option of a refund (or store credit) exceeds the losses incurred by those who actually return items. Without a refund policy, customers walk out the store
Jul 20, 2010, 9:26 pm
#101
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Santa Cruz, CA USA
Programs: AA, UA, WN, HH, Marriott
Posts: 7,290
Actually when we started Ticketless, no exchange was allowed at all. All we could do was either cancel and refund the refundable fares or in the case of nonrefundable fares, we would cancel and send a paper travel voucher, which had to be redeemed in person by the ticketholder. I was working the Ticketless help desk back then. When we began allowing the exchange of funds, the only way the system could work was to associate the funds with a pnr and not a specific person. The new ticketing systems have eliminated a lot of those workarounds.
Jul 20, 2010, 11:15 pm
#102
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: PHX
Programs: WN CP & A-List; Hertz 5*
Posts: 100
SWABrian, thank you for getting the story on this change. I don't like the change but am more understanding and accepting of it now that you've provided some background. In the end, SWA's change policies are still more flexible than others, and I'm reassured by your pointing out that change fees aren't on the horizon anytime soon.
Jul 21, 2010, 12:18 am
#103
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,870
Hi everyone, I know that some of you are concerned and upset about this. I did some checking and this is what I found out:
After careful consideration, the decision has been made that beginning January 28, 2011, Southwest will no longer allow unused travel funds to be applied toward travel for anyone other than the original Passenger. While this procedure has been clearly stated in our Contract of Carriage for years, it became common practice to make exceptions as gestures of goodwill for our Customers.
Beginning today, Customers will see on southwest.com and on their e-mailed or faxed itineraries that “Effective January 28, 2011, unused travel funds may only be applied toward the purchase of future travel for the individual named on the ticket.” Additionally, the word “Nontransferable” will be added on Passenger ticket receipts at the airport.
By having our actions mirror our Contract of Carriage, we are taking a proactive step to align our business with the general practice in the airline industry so that we can prepare for future opportunities such as codeshare. We expect this decision to affect a relatively small percentage of Passengers, but we want to give Customers ample notice (six months) of our intentions.
After careful consideration, the decision has been made that beginning January 28, 2011, Southwest will no longer allow unused travel funds to be applied toward travel for anyone other than the original Passenger. While this procedure has been clearly stated in our Contract of Carriage for years, it became common practice to make exceptions as gestures of goodwill for our Customers.
Beginning today, Customers will see on southwest.com and on their e-mailed or faxed itineraries that “Effective January 28, 2011, unused travel funds may only be applied toward the purchase of future travel for the individual named on the ticket.” Additionally, the word “Nontransferable” will be added on Passenger ticket receipts at the airport.
By having our actions mirror our Contract of Carriage, we are taking a proactive step to align our business with the general practice in the airline industry so that we can prepare for future opportunities such as codeshare. We expect this decision to affect a relatively small percentage of Passengers, but we want to give Customers ample notice (six months) of our intentions.
Jul 21, 2010, 8:18 am
#104
In Memoriam - Company Representative - Southwest Airlines
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX
Programs: Southwest spokesperson
Posts: 1,201
Judolphin, the non-transferable policy was in effect under Herb, in fact it was in complete effect until 1996, when we started allowing Ticketless changes, and even then, Ticketless was a small portion of our ticket sales. Having said that, since we still sell paper tickets, the policy really has been in effect all along since paper tickets have never been transferable. It just was not enforced on Ticketless transactions. JerryFF, that was the point I was trying to make. We have never had a policy of transferability, the practice came about from a system ticketing limitation.
Jul 21, 2010, 8:35 am
#105
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,621
Brian, everyone appreciates your willingness to step up and participate here. This change is not popular, so you are going to take some criticism. At least we're more polite here than some of the commenters at blogsouthwest!
I understand that Southwest did not intend to create a valuable loophole in 1996. But, Brian, that was FOURTEEN YEARS AGO! At some point customers have a right to expect permanence. Fourteen years is way beyond that point.
Double credit for online bookings didn't last nearly this long, we all knew it was too generous to last, and still we were upset when Southwest phased it out. This change came completely unexpected, and its stated motivation is a relatively obscure possible future need related to code sharing. Please forgive us if we believe that anticipated financial gain was actually the primary motivation.
If the code sharing needs can be met some other way, I claim that Southwest will benefit from continuing to allow flexible re-use of funds. You will get more purchases of lower-probability trips, meaning more purchases and more trips in total.
Southwest cannot afford to spend down its customer-friendly reputation.
I understand that Southwest did not intend to create a valuable loophole in 1996. But, Brian, that was FOURTEEN YEARS AGO! At some point customers have a right to expect permanence. Fourteen years is way beyond that point.
Double credit for online bookings didn't last nearly this long, we all knew it was too generous to last, and still we were upset when Southwest phased it out. This change came completely unexpected, and its stated motivation is a relatively obscure possible future need related to code sharing. Please forgive us if we believe that anticipated financial gain was actually the primary motivation.
If the code sharing needs can be met some other way, I claim that Southwest will benefit from continuing to allow flexible re-use of funds. You will get more purchases of lower-probability trips, meaning more purchases and more trips in total.
Southwest cannot afford to spend down its customer-friendly reputation.