Kevin AA

(emphasis added)

situation A) EBCI passenger gets shooed away by a seat-saver
situation B) EBCI passenger does not get shooed away by a seat-saver

Both situations A) and B) have happened many, many times. Therefore it is false to claim that just one seat-saver has no effect on EBCI. It happens every day, not just every once in a while.

If you board early, "save" a seat but either 1) no one else wants to sit there before your friend arrives; or 2) someone else wants to sit there and you let them, then you are not a seat-saver, because your actions had no effect on anyone else's boarding priority.

NoStressHere

I chuckle at the comments about "impact" on others.

One of the more common situations has two people traveling together - that is us anyways.

One boards. Other is 10-20 people further back.

If the first person saves a middle seat, how many are actually put out? There are always middle seats left.

The whole thing is silly. Just find a seat and sit down unless it is saved. Then take the next one.

justhere

No!!! It is false to claim that even just one seat saver has an effect on EBCI. Do you understand how logic and proof works? If the claim is that "even just one seat saver devalues EBCI" then there can be no, zero, nada, nyet, zilch, none, etc, instances of a seat save not devaluing EBCI. You yourself state "situation B) EBCI passenger does not get shooed away by a seat-saver" and that is an instance of a seat saver not devaluing EBCI. So right there you have now proven that the claim "even just one seat save devalues EBCI" is false. Finally. Thank you.

nsx

Possibly. If you don't buy the extra EBCI and you want to save a seat without drama, you head to the rear half of the plane. Whereas if you bought the extra EBCI you would both sit up front. So yes, allowing seat saving improves EBCI results to the extent that drama-avoiding seat savers move past the front of the plane.

Kevin AA

But you don't know that in advance. That's the point I'm trying to make. Every additional person who saves a seat on the flight devalues EBCI more, starting with just one. A) or B) might happen, and your mere presence on the plane saving a seat is what devalues EBCI, because you are letting someone else who is further back to cut in line and board with you. The gate agents won't allow that, but greedy passengers can just do it themselves and the other passengers are expected to deal with it.

justhere

Agreed. Just like the hundreds or thousands of other scenarios that may or may not devalue EBCI.

The more I think about it, I'm not so sure that this isn't closer to what is going on. WN knows how many complaints it has from people who bought EBCI and complained that they didn't get what they paid for (in terms of higher in the boarding number or available seats once onboard). Boarding number isn't affected by seat savers. Seats onboard certainly can be. I'm sure some of the complaints detail how seats were saved and some just state that there weren't as many seats as they expected (possibly due to through passengers, etc but complaint doesn't specifically mention saved seats).

WN also knows that EBCI purchases can go up, down, or remain flat if they stop seat saving. Common sense says that if they stop seat saving, EBCI sales would not go down and would be unlikely to stay flat. So they would almost certainly go up. And as has been pointed out earlier, EBCI sales cannot go up too far without raising the price otherwise they'll get cannibalized.

It honestly makes sense that WN may not even like seat saving but having a policy against it would be too disruptive to the current EBCI model. At least until such a time that WN feels it can charge more for EBCI.

justhere

You don't have to know that in advance. And no, not every additional person who saves a seat on the flight devalues EBCI more. Why? Because you don't know any more than I do who is and who is not affected by a seat saver.

You are looking at this as an all or nothing situation. It's never that simple. Seat savers certainly can cause someone's EBCI purchase to be devalued but there is no guarantee that will happen. As I've explained, for your claim to be true and mine false, every single EBCI purchase would have to be devalued by every single seat saver. There is no way for you to prove that. The problem is that your claim requires positive proof. Meaning it can be proven only if every EBCI purchaser agrees that they didn't get what they paid for.

My claim is that a single seat saver doesn't necessarily devalue EBCI. I only need one EBCI purchaser to agree that the seat saver didn't affect them. I do that and your theory is disproven. To put it in probability terms, which you seem to like, what are the odds that the first EBCI purchaser on the plane wants the one seat that is being saved by someone who boarded before them? The odds are against that happening. So the majority of the time, there will be at least one EBCI purchaser who doesn't even know a seat was saved, let alone their purchase devalued.

I really cannot make it any simpler than that. I get that you are totally against seat saving. I don't care one way or the other if you are against it. I respect your opinion on it. You just can't in any way, shape, or form, prove that every seat saver devalues every EBCI purchase. That's it. That's my whole point. Well that and not all seat savers are greedy. That uses the same logic so I'm not going to repeat it again. And before you say "neither can you prove it doesn't", I don't have to. I never claimed that seat saving never devalues EBCI. I understand that there are no absolutes and guarantees in this. That's what you seem to be missing and offering your opinion as fact.

Kevin AA

It may be low, but it's not zero. That is what devaluation means. The higher the probability that someone gets shooed away from an otherwise empty seat, the greater the devaluation. The only way for EBCI to not be devalued at all by seat-savers is for the probability of getting shooed away being ZERO, and we know that is not the case. If it were zero, then there would be zero complaints and zero threads on the matter. That would work if the load factor is something like 60%. You have to have a sea of empty seats in order for people to claim multiple seats when they board and not irritate people boarding after them.

justhere

It doesn't have to be zero and that's not what devaluation means. The probability of someone getting shooed away and any EBCI devaluation aren't related. At least not directly. You are making an assumption that everyone values EBCI the same way you do AND that it is valued the same each and every time. Even currency, which is where you normally use the word "devaluation" doesn't have the same value to everyone all the time.

Go back and reread what I wrote. Your argument is a logical fallacy, a faulty generalization, to try to prove your point. It only takes one person, one time, to buy EBCI and get the seat they want while someone else saves a seat for your claim to be false. That's it. One time. There are millions of people who buy EBCI each year. And there are thousands, if not millions who save a seat. Your argument is that over thousands of flights and millions of enplanements there is not ONE SINGLE PERSON who bought EBCI and thought to themselves "I got what I paid for". We know there are seat savers and you claim that "The only way for EBCI to not be devalued at all by seat-savers is for the probability of getting shooed away being ZERO, and we know that is not the case." So if it's not the case then your conclusion is that EBCI is devalued. Meaning that Each. And. Every. Person. Buying. EBCI. Didn't. Get. Full. Value. For. Their. Purchase. EVER, EVER, EVER.

And you think the odds of the first person boarding with EBCI wanting a seat that isn't saved to be MORE unlikely???? Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds?

toomanybooks

Middle seats in the front are worth way more than middle seats in the back. Someone with a tight connection may very well prefer middle 1B to aisle 22C. Especially on a short flight. I would and I am not a small guy.

Middles behind the exit row suck. They are the least valuable seats on the plane. That's why WN should EXPLICITLY allow them to be saved. Virtually no cost and would eliminate a lot of this angst.