Dr. HFH

I haven't read all 160 posts in this thread, so please accept my apology if someone else has already expressed these same sentiments.

1. GA lucked out that he had kids with him. If he hadn't, I would hope that he would have taken her up on her threat to call the police. "Officer, he called me rude!! Arrest him!!!"

2. Remember, failure to obey the commands of airline employees, particularly cabin crew, is not a crime unless there is some safety issue involved. Simply disobeying a FA is not a crime by itself. They do not have the legal authority of dictators. IMO this is a textbook example of someone on a power trip.

3. I see nothing wrong with sharing as much of an employee's name as appears on the name badge s/he wears in public. By wearing the badge, the employee is making his/her identity public, even if it is a requirement of the job.

ffsim

As a non-WN flyer, this has been a very interesting thread. No doubt the dad displayed some DYKWIA-attitude but the employee was clearly on a power trip. Absolutely no way he and his kids should've been de-planed.

This ^

scottsam66

Tweeting is as benign as it gets. It must be a terrible way to go through life, so malleable to other's wishes.

You do know how twitter works? All she had to do was pull up SWA's twitter feed, and she likely could pinpoint the tweet.

Puh-lease!
Anyone with an 8th grade reading comprehension, knows you are favoring the GA in this scenario. Back-peddle all you want.

Absolutely nothing.

ursine1

I'm so confused.

You do know better. Family Boarding doesn't apply in this case -- but you referenced it, including a copy of the policy.

How does this help the conversation?

rsteinmetz70112

So a gate agent who is actively boarding a flight stops and then searches Twitter for hash tags related to Southwest #Southwest #SWA #LUV or some random thing the guy decided to put on it? Perhaps she could find it perhaps not, but she shouldn't have been looking, she should have been boarding the flight instead.

toomanybooks

Agreed. The rule gets bent repeatedly, every day, because anyone with half a brain realizes you can't have a parent board at A17 and a 5-year old board alone at B41. It's easy to say the parent should wait until B41, but of course that p!sses off your good customer and can blow up in your face, as here.

Sorry, delete this part.

Maybe WN ought to make the option to board traveling companions in the better spot another A-List benefit. Or allow you to purchase it as an annual benefit. Or something other than EBCI.

TennisNoob

+1
Based on her attitude, I wouldn't be surprised she spent her work time on her phone.

toomanybooks

I understand that. You understand that. Virtually no one outside us WN-obsessives does. So that's what a "normal" person would search for. It's the starting point. Meant nothing other than that.

Sorry if a bother.

Can an A-Lister decline T-36 checkin somehow, so he gets similar boarding # to his traveling companions??

LAtraveler1

Thank you! I rarely post on the boards but yesterday felt compelled to give a +1 to a comment that I thought was very well written. This earned me much criticism from @findaway. It is nice to see that I am not the only one who believed s/he was defending the GA

pinniped

Here's the ultimate irony: the actual approved procedure, per Southwest and per most of the opinions of those on this forum (as if that matters...) is for the A-list customer to board by himself and immediately throw a coat and a bag over the two other prime seats in the front. Then the kids board wtih the C's or whatever and take those seats.

As other A and B passengers board and ask for the prime seats, the Dad says "Sorry, they're saved." He does this right under the approving nose of a flight attendant if he likes. The kids mill around in the airport by themselves for a few minutes and hopefully board at the right time. Hopefully the Ops Agent can babysit for a few minutes.

Why? <sarcasm>Because that's a much better system for everyone than simply boarding the two kids with the dad to begin wtih. </sarcasm>

That's the message that Southwest sends both with their seat-saving policy (lack thereof) and with their 4-year-old rule on family boarding.

Homer15

I totally agree that this is the flip side of the seat saving situation but the obvious answer in both cases is simply for families to board with whoever has the worse boarding cards.

The answer is certainly not for "A listers" to throw temper tantrums, and I don't think having them save seats is any more justified. It certainly does not make sense to me that we should let other family members board out of turn because otherwise the A list passenger would save seats (although I would appreciate it if WN would own up to the ridiculousness its policies/lack thereof are creating).

rsteinmetz70112

Since we've not brought up seat saving.

Just to throw fuel on the fire. Most of this can be avoided by assigned seating.

satman40

Face it the guy is in the same class as a seat saver,

If it is important, pay for it and forget it.

Soccerdad1995

This is probably not a coincidence. From all accounts, the GA was a bully. Bully's choose weaker / more vulnerable victims, and avoiding anyone who can fight back. A single parent travelling with 2 minor children is a relatively easy victim in that respect.

If this GA really did demand that the passenger delete his tweet as a condition of boarding the plane, then this is an immediate termination issue. Such a person should have a job where she does not come into contact with other human beings at all.

ursine1

I suspect the reason Southwest mentioned Family Boarding in their press statement -- despite it being irrelevant in this situation -- is so they can positions themselves as being "family friendly" by referencing its offering. This despite the reality that it's limited to a very small portion of traveling families (those with children age 4 and under).

I haven't wanted to address the actual boarding situation that precipitated this incident as it's completely beside the point… but it occurs to me that it's an indefensible position to say that the agent was right in stopping the father from boarding with the kids in his A position, but ok that she allowed them to board at the end of A with Family Boarding, as that's also breaking the rules.

I suspect the Family Boarding policy is one that's bent most often. As written it's supposed to allow one adult and one child under 4 to board together, but agents generally allow family groups to board together; mom, dad, multiple children over age 4.

Since WN allows seat saving, breaking up family groups becomes problematic. It's actually more efficient to board them all together, which may be why Family Boarding policy enforcement is so lax.

Which makes it perplexing as to why the agent didn't simply allow the A-Lister to board his kids with him. Southwest treats their elites very differently than legacies, who will often bend the rules for their most loyal flyers. With Southwest, there's sometimes a palpable distain for "entitled" A-Listers, perhaps a hold-over from their egalitarian "single class cabin" past.

An A-Lister who has spent a lot of money and BIS miles earning status may be somewhat justified in being upset when that status becomes moot simply because he's brought his minor children along.

I'm not defending his behavior prior to the tweet -- I still think he was wrong and should have known better -- but this incident does point out how WN's unique boarding system (and their desire to monetize it effectively) creates these types of situations.