ursine1

Speculation over at airliners.net (post 274) that Southwest is planning changes to WGA that include carry-on and boarding limitations.

Oddly enough, I suggested here something like this might be coming about a year ago. (Essentially turning WGA into Basic Economy, and adding a new tier above WGA and below AT that kept the perks of WGA.) But now I feel like it's a longshot, primarily because it would be ill-advised to announce it now, in light of recent events and the changed public perception of WN (not to mention the for-now tanking stock price).

Thoughts?

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewt...4993&start=250

LegalTender

They could test it in certain markets to offset blowback. Basic Economy fares weren't thrown up across the board.

"Let us know what you think" is a win-win apologia, should sales flatline.

obunewbie17

I mean on a lot of routes (at least the ones I travel), if you're WGA and without status you wouldn't be boarding before mid-B's or putting a bag in the overhead bin anyway...if they add a fourth tier between WGA and AT, it'll probably help maintain the business traveler that has a company policy prohibiting the higher BS/AT fares from being purchased.

I'd be interested to know if they'd make an exception for A-List/A-List Preferred and allow them to attempt to carry-on or gate check bags, even if they've purchased a WGA fare. If so -- this might not be a terrible thing. Boarding could go faster.

dw

The poster also writes that the speculation is "Again all Rumors and speculation no factual information."

I'd say end of story.

UA and AA use the carry on restrictions mainly to push people to upfare out of Basic Economy because a carry on that is checked is going to be an extra $50 round trip. Carry on restrictions on WN may help speed up boarding, but most of those carry ons that are checked are going to fall into the two free checked bag allowance, so unless WN is planning on making changes to their checked bag policy, it's not necessarily going to be enough to convince people to upfare.

ursine1

I'm WGA without status and I often board high As/low Bs (with or without EBCI) and I always put a bag in the overhead bin.

If the speculation matches fact at some point I'll be very surprised. But Southwest has surprised me before.

Personally, I can't see how tasking Ops agents to police carry-on limits could possibly shorten turn times -- it sounds like a potential disaster to me.

And I very much can't understand how WGA = C boarding could possibly work. Would EBCI sales now be limited?

Ultimately, I'll reiterate my thought that announcing any such customer-negative changes now would be a major PR blunder.

I guess we'll see.

kennycrudup

I agree ... but I'm still nervous. 90% of my fares are WGA.

DCP2016

Would be terrible timing to announce anything of the sort right now while the media is holding a microscope to them.

flyer4512

My guess is they would do that to sell more EBCI not less

kennycrudup

FTFY

kennycrudup

... even better

ursine1

Increasing ancillary income would be the end goal of course. But right now, with EBCI as it is, people pay the fee and get B and sometimes even C positions, as there is no limit on the number Southwest will sell per flight. If the new WGA comes with "C boarding" as speculated, then EBCI would have to be limited to A and B positions, in theory at least. Or be modified completely, since it now guarantees "no specific boarding position," into something that guarantees A or B, or is tiered to guarantee A at a set price, or B at another for example. If they make no changes, and WGA + EBCI continues to be a crapshoot, your odds of getting A or B will decrease as sales of EBCI increase, which would definitely happen if everyone who buys WGA were guaranteed a C.

I'd like to think WN wouldn't be as dickish as to continue selling EBCI in it's current form in this scenario, but...

flyer4512

Personally only one time have we not had A boarding from EBCI ( usually A-30 or better) but we buy all our flights and add EBCI the day it goes on sale.

The one time we had B our flight was cancelled and we flew out 2 days later.

pinniped

I don't see what WN has to gain by adding Basic Economy (no matter what they call it). They're going through a short-term mini-crisis right now related to a single in-flight incident in which the pilot got the plane on the ground safely. This will pass.

Right now, I think of Southwest as a premium product. It commands a premium price for premium service and people are willing to pay it. Planes are pretty full right now at high prices. I can almost always fly DL or UA for less money and live with their barbie jets, flight connections, and Comcastesque customer service. Or I can pay a few bucks more and fly Southwest.

Why cede that market position by following lesser carriers into a dumb business model that even they are having second thoughts about?

One thing I like about WN is its ease and simplicity. They currently have the most stress-free, simple boarding process of anyone - in fact, I'm surprised that no one has tried to duplicate it. (I guess UA doesn't want to tell one 1K that he/she should board behind another 1K? They'd need a therapy puppy to soothe the 2nd 1K. ) Start asking gate/ops people to police carry-on bags, and that simple easy process gets more complicated, and eventually it gets tougher to turn planes around quickly.

Don't do it, Southwest. Don't fix what isn't broken.

bobbybrown

Limiting carry-on bag might be acceptable as long as two bags are checked for free. But I'll be pissed if WGA boards after WGA-plus (the new class with carry-on). Boarding is very slow these days.. something should be done such as mandatory gate-check for high-C, or 100 point vouchers for gate-check volunteers.

dabeags