seat saving
Oct 18, 2018, 9:41 am
#123
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,808
I know that it was an attempt to illustrate the issue. That's my point that it DID NOT illustrate the issue. It incorrectly compared something that's not even remotely on the same level as something else. In other words it was a false comparison. It did nothing to prove or disprove that the number of emplanements was inappropriate to consider.
I hate to parse this out but look at what you wrote. "A more appropriate metric (denominator) is occurrence per flight". So the way to measure this is to take the number of saved seats and divide it by the number of saved seats?? So 100% of the seats are saved 100% of the time is your claim?? And if enplanements is, in fact, inappropriate, please do tell a better way to measure how many seats are saved compared to the number of people that could save a seat. Seems pretty straight forward. And to look at occurrence per flight doesn't change anything unless you are drilling down to specific routes. Otherwise occurrence per flight or total occurrences vs. total flights is going to be statistically the same. And I didn't say seat saving is not an issue. I've said that it's not the size of an issue that it is claimed to be. Large businesses always have issues and depending on the issue(s) they may or may not change something to address the issue(s). In other words, they'll look at metrics to determine their next step. And obviously, as of now, they haven't done anything about seat saving. Whether that's because they can't or won't could be debated but really how hard would it be to tell the FA's that seat saving isn't allowed and to publish that. They haven't, so a reasonable person would conclude that seat saving isn't a large scale issue.
You said that seat saving is line cutting and are now emphasizing that by saying it mathematically IS. In other words one is the other. They are identical. They are equal. There can be zero variance from that. I said it may or may not be line cutting. That is, they are sometimes equal, sometimes not. So to use your example, if A15 boards and sits in a window seat, then someone from A16 to B39 sits in the aisle seat, then B40 boards and sits in the middle next to A15, no harm, no foul, right? Because no seat was saved and they followed the boarding order. So no line cutting. Excellent. Except that A15 was saving the middle seat but no one asked to sit there and A15 didn't put anything on the seat so someone could have sat there if they wanted to. So same outcome but with seat saving. Ergo seat saving didn't equal line cutting in this case.
As far as devaluing the product, maybe so but I don't think I've ever said it does or doesn't devalue it. Not really my problem. As long as people are playing by the rules, which they are when saving a seat, I'm sure some people will feel that it does devalue EBCI. And I'm sure some people feel like it's great value. Again, that's a customer service issue for WN and they'll use whatever metrics they have to determine what, if anything to do about it.
I hate to parse this out but look at what you wrote. "A more appropriate metric (denominator) is occurrence per flight". So the way to measure this is to take the number of saved seats and divide it by the number of saved seats?? So 100% of the seats are saved 100% of the time is your claim?? And if enplanements is, in fact, inappropriate, please do tell a better way to measure how many seats are saved compared to the number of people that could save a seat. Seems pretty straight forward. And to look at occurrence per flight doesn't change anything unless you are drilling down to specific routes. Otherwise occurrence per flight or total occurrences vs. total flights is going to be statistically the same. And I didn't say seat saving is not an issue. I've said that it's not the size of an issue that it is claimed to be. Large businesses always have issues and depending on the issue(s) they may or may not change something to address the issue(s). In other words, they'll look at metrics to determine their next step. And obviously, as of now, they haven't done anything about seat saving. Whether that's because they can't or won't could be debated but really how hard would it be to tell the FA's that seat saving isn't allowed and to publish that. They haven't, so a reasonable person would conclude that seat saving isn't a large scale issue.
You said that seat saving is line cutting and are now emphasizing that by saying it mathematically IS. In other words one is the other. They are identical. They are equal. There can be zero variance from that. I said it may or may not be line cutting. That is, they are sometimes equal, sometimes not. So to use your example, if A15 boards and sits in a window seat, then someone from A16 to B39 sits in the aisle seat, then B40 boards and sits in the middle next to A15, no harm, no foul, right? Because no seat was saved and they followed the boarding order. So no line cutting. Excellent. Except that A15 was saving the middle seat but no one asked to sit there and A15 didn't put anything on the seat so someone could have sat there if they wanted to. So same outcome but with seat saving. Ergo seat saving didn't equal line cutting in this case.
As far as devaluing the product, maybe so but I don't think I've ever said it does or doesn't devalue it. Not really my problem. As long as people are playing by the rules, which they are when saving a seat, I'm sure some people will feel that it does devalue EBCI. And I'm sure some people feel like it's great value. Again, that's a customer service issue for WN and they'll use whatever metrics they have to determine what, if anything to do about it.
If they are, as you say, "playing by the rules", then they will allow people to sit in any open seat next to them. Because that's the rule..ANY open seat. Nothing devalued..but by removing an available seat by saving it, they are devaluing the product by reducing the options available to everyone after that number who paid extra to increase their options..which is the incentive behind A list and EBCI and BS.
Oct 18, 2018, 10:47 am
#124
Join Date: May 2005
Location: PHX
Programs: AA Gold, WN A+ & CP, HH Diamond, Hyatt Platinum, National Executive Elite
Posts: 3,246
That's not seat saving because in your scenario nobody stopped anyone from sitting there and A15 didn't hold the seat. That's the way it is supposed to happen. Nobody's BP got knocked back a number.
If they are, as you say, "playing by the rules", then they will allow people to sit in any open seat next to them. Because that's the rule..ANY open seat. Nothing devalued..but by removing an available seat by saving it, they are devaluing the product by reducing the options available to everyone after that number who paid extra to increase their options..which is the incentive behind A list and EBCI and BS.
If they are, as you say, "playing by the rules", then they will allow people to sit in any open seat next to them. Because that's the rule..ANY open seat. Nothing devalued..but by removing an available seat by saving it, they are devaluing the product by reducing the options available to everyone after that number who paid extra to increase their options..which is the incentive behind A list and EBCI and BS.
The bottom line is that no one does anything wrong by saving a seat and no one does anything wrong by sitting in an open seat. Some people don't like the idea of seat saving and some people don't care. So this boils down to ridiculous arguments (and I include myself in that) trying to set rules that none of us have any power to set. WN hasn't done anything about it and, at least for now, appear to be quite happy with whatever service metrics they use to determine whether or not to implement a specific seat saving rule. But it's not up to me, you, or anyone else to have a moral obligation to ensure that someone else gets what they paid for. And just to be clear I don't mean by breaking rules ourselves. If I have B40, I do have an obligation to not line up in A1-5 but I certainly don't have an obligation to make sure Mr. or Mrs. A47 feels like they got value for money by buying EBCI.
Oct 18, 2018, 11:15 am
#125
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,813
I wrote a long post about this and it disappeared. I'm going to try again.
Pre-Boarding is governed by Federal Las A Regulations it is very little Southwest can do about it. They cannot deny pre-boarding based on a the employees guess that the person is faking.
As far as line jumpers, I don't see many and those that do usually are either moving up a few spaces or are attempting to have others board earlier than their position. I have seen OAs have people stand aside it they are boarding out of their boarding group. Southwest has the ability to police this and to some extent they do. I have also seen OAs board people ahead of their boarding position for unknown reasons.
Seat saving is a somewhat different animal. Except for a few "special" seats ( bulkhead, exit row seats with more legroom) and few undesirable seats ( non reclining seats) most of the seats on the aircraft are effectively one of three types aisle, middle or window each seat in each class is effectively equivalent. Some people also prefer certain rows in the cabin, but again there are multiple equivalent rows.
Looking at the "special" seats anyone boarding after about A30 could easily find all of those seats taken, whether there was any seat saving or not. I don't know how many seats are saved on an average flight, but I'd assume less that 10. Anyone boarding between A 30 and around B 30 should be able to find a roughly equivalent window, aisle or middle seat. After that point seats will begin to fill up and some passengers preferences will be affected. To say that 1 person saving a seat affects the selection available to a passenger because they are "cutting the line" ignores the fact that many seats are the same. Invoking mathematics to "prove" that selecting an aisle seat two rows back somehow disadvantages a specific passenger is pretty much a stretch. In fact passengers boarding early may be disadvantages by having a very large late boarding passenger in the middle seat they were hoping would stay open. The seat saving is much more amenable to game theory and a Monte Carlo simulation than to any straight forward arithmetic analysis. Nothing guarantees that any passenger, even the first to board gets their preferred seat option if the number of thrus is high enough.
There is no rule Southwest could create that would "solve" these "problems". Many passengers would not know the rule or would ignore it. The crews would not appreciate being forced to referee the inevitable conflicts. The only solution would be to implement some sort of seat assignment program. Depending on the implementation that could create as many problems as it solves. I would prefer assigned seating but I can live with the current Southwest system tweaking it will almost certainly make it worse in my opinion..
As far as line jumpers, I don't see many and those that do usually are either moving up a few spaces or are attempting to have others board earlier than their position. I have seen OAs have people stand aside it they are boarding out of their boarding group. Southwest has the ability to police this and to some extent they do. I have also seen OAs board people ahead of their boarding position for unknown reasons.
Seat saving is a somewhat different animal. Except for a few "special" seats ( bulkhead, exit row seats with more legroom) and few undesirable seats ( non reclining seats) most of the seats on the aircraft are effectively one of three types aisle, middle or window each seat in each class is effectively equivalent. Some people also prefer certain rows in the cabin, but again there are multiple equivalent rows.
Looking at the "special" seats anyone boarding after about A30 could easily find all of those seats taken, whether there was any seat saving or not. I don't know how many seats are saved on an average flight, but I'd assume less that 10. Anyone boarding between A 30 and around B 30 should be able to find a roughly equivalent window, aisle or middle seat. After that point seats will begin to fill up and some passengers preferences will be affected. To say that 1 person saving a seat affects the selection available to a passenger because they are "cutting the line" ignores the fact that many seats are the same. Invoking mathematics to "prove" that selecting an aisle seat two rows back somehow disadvantages a specific passenger is pretty much a stretch. In fact passengers boarding early may be disadvantages by having a very large late boarding passenger in the middle seat they were hoping would stay open. The seat saving is much more amenable to game theory and a Monte Carlo simulation than to any straight forward arithmetic analysis. Nothing guarantees that any passenger, even the first to board gets their preferred seat option if the number of thrus is high enough.
There is no rule Southwest could create that would "solve" these "problems". Many passengers would not know the rule or would ignore it. The crews would not appreciate being forced to referee the inevitable conflicts. The only solution would be to implement some sort of seat assignment program. Depending on the implementation that could create as many problems as it solves. I would prefer assigned seating but I can live with the current Southwest system tweaking it will almost certainly make it worse in my opinion..
Oct 18, 2018, 12:18 pm
#126
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/UA
Posts: 10,775
But if no one saves a seat, then there are no seat saving problems. That should be obvious. What is your point?
Oct 18, 2018, 12:24 pm
#127
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/UA
Posts: 10,775
It is seat saving because A15 saved the seat. It was just that no one asked to sit there. And my point was to illustrate that seat saving and line cutting aren't one and the same thing. They can be but aren't always. It's also the rule that you can save seats. Plus it's not up to the customer to ensure that another customer feels like they did or did not get value for their money. That's up to the business.
Most people don't do that because they know that the car will be towed away in the event the parking space owner shows up and you are occupying it. Imagine if the parking lot owner had the same stupid policy as Southwest and said "oh well find another place to park". Would you pay for a reserved space if you got treated like that?
Oct 18, 2018, 2:04 pm
#128
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,881
So to use your example, if A15 boards and sits in a window seat, then someone from A16 to B39 sits in the aisle seat, then B40 boards and sits in the middle next to A15, no harm, no foul, right? Because no seat was saved and they followed the boarding order. So no line cutting. Excellent. Except that A15 was saving the middle seat but no one asked to sit there and A15 didn't put anything on the seat so someone could have sat there if they wanted to.
Say what?!
How did A15 save the seat if anyone could have sat there if they wanted to? Saving a seat prevents someone from sitting there. A15 did not prevent anyone from sitting there. Odd logic (again).
Oct 18, 2018, 2:14 pm
#129
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,881
I know that it was an attempt to illustrate the issue. That's my point that it DID NOT illustrate the issue. It incorrectly compared something that's not even remotely on the same level as something else. In other words it was a false comparison. It did nothing to prove or disprove that the number of emplanements was inappropriate to consider.
I hate to parse this out but look at what you wrote. "A more appropriate metric (denominator) is occurrence per flight".
So the way to measure this is to take the number of saved seats and divide it by the number of saved seats?? So 100% of the seats are saved 100% of the time is your claim?? And if enplanements is, in fact, inappropriate, please do tell a better way to measure how many seats are saved compared to the number of people that could save a seat. Seems pretty straight forward. And to look at occurrence per flight doesn't change anything unless you are drilling down to specific routes. Otherwise occurrence per flight or total occurrences vs. total flights is going to be statistically the same. And I didn't say seat saving is not an issue. I've said that it's not the size of an issue that it is claimed to be. Large businesses always have issues and depending on the issue(s) they may or may not change something to address the issue(s). In other words, they'll look at metrics to determine their next step. And obviously, as of now, they haven't done anything about seat saving. Whether that's because they can't or won't could be debated but really how hard would it be to tell the FA's that seat saving isn't allowed and to publish that. They haven't, so a reasonable person would conclude that seat saving isn't a large scale issue.
Oct 18, 2018, 3:17 pm
#130
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,808
Anyone boarding between A 30 and around B 30 should be able to find a roughly equivalent window, aisle or middle seat. After that point seats will begin to fill up and some passengers preferences will be affected. To say that 1 person saving a seat affects the selection available to a passenger because they are "cutting the line" ignores the fact that many seats are the same.
The only solution would be to implement some sort of seat assignment program. Depending on the implementation that could create as many problems as it solves. I would prefer assigned seating but I can live with the current Southwest system tweaking it will almost certainly make it worse in my opinion..
The only solution would be to implement some sort of seat assignment program. Depending on the implementation that could create as many problems as it solves. I would prefer assigned seating but I can live with the current Southwest system tweaking it will almost certainly make it worse in my opinion..
I agree, WN should move to assigned seating, AND keep the BP order system. That would be orderly, and any extra money I pay to reserve that seat would most likely be preserved.
I think the way WN could effectively police it is to PUBLISH it, and ANNOUNCE it at the gate and onboard. They shouldn't be policing it by hovering over every row during boarding, but they could certianly put it on the PA and pick a side when there is a conflict.
Oct 18, 2018, 3:58 pm
#131
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: Southwest A-List; Alaska MVPG; Hilton Diamond; Avis PreferredPlus; Marriott Bonvoy Platinum Elite
Posts: 920
It would be ridiculously easy for Southwest to simply announce and publish a policy that you can only save seats behind the exit row. Anyone can still try to save a premium seat or a seat in the front half, but presumambly they would quickly yield upon being challenged.
Oct 18, 2018, 4:11 pm
#132
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Nashville -Past DL Plat, FO, WN-CP, various hotel programs
Programs: DL-MM, AA, SW w/companion,HiltonDiamond, Hyatt PLat, IHF Plat, Miles and Points Seeker
Posts: 11,073
Open seating. No saving or not saving policy.
Just the way it is.
Southwest is the largest domestic carrier. MOST folks are just fine with it.
Accept it or fly another airline.
Why do some folks not understand this?
Just the way it is.
Southwest is the largest domestic carrier. MOST folks are just fine with it.
Accept it or fly another airline.
Why do some folks not understand this?
Oct 18, 2018, 4:18 pm
#134
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,881
FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that covers the most up-to-date traveler information. An interactive community dedicated to your favorite topic: travel! That's right: all travel, all the time. The FlyerTalk forums are open for business 24 hours, 7 days a week. Even better, all travelers -- from vacation travelers to mileage junkies -- are welcome in the community. Just choose a forum and you can get to the business at hand: conversing about programs, how to make the most of your miles and points, general travel, airports, destination and dining information.
Oct 18, 2018, 4:43 pm
#135
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,808
It is seat saving because A15 saved the seat. It was just that no one asked to sit there. And my point was to illustrate that seat saving and line cutting aren't one and the same thing. They can be but aren't always. It's also the rule that you can save seats. Plus it's not up to the customer to ensure that another customer feels like they did or did not get value for their money. That's up to the business.
The bottom line is that no one does anything wrong by saving a seat and no one does anything wrong by sitting in an open seat. Some people don't like the idea of seat saving and some people don't care. So this boils down to ridiculous arguments (and I include myself in that) trying to set rules that none of us have any power to set. WN hasn't done anything about it and, at least for now, appear to be quite happy with whatever service metrics they use to determine whether or not to implement a specific seat saving rule. But it's not up to me, you, or anyone else to have a moral obligation to ensure that someone else gets what they paid for. And just to be clear I don't mean by breaking rules ourselves. If I have B40, I do have an obligation to not line up in A1-5 but I certainly don't have an obligation to make sure Mr. or Mrs. A47 feels like they got value for money by buying EBCI.
The bottom line is that no one does anything wrong by saving a seat and no one does anything wrong by sitting in an open seat. Some people don't like the idea of seat saving and some people don't care. So this boils down to ridiculous arguments (and I include myself in that) trying to set rules that none of us have any power to set. WN hasn't done anything about it and, at least for now, appear to be quite happy with whatever service metrics they use to determine whether or not to implement a specific seat saving rule. But it's not up to me, you, or anyone else to have a moral obligation to ensure that someone else gets what they paid for. And just to be clear I don't mean by breaking rules ourselves. If I have B40, I do have an obligation to not line up in A1-5 but I certainly don't have an obligation to make sure Mr. or Mrs. A47 feels like they got value for money by buying EBCI.
I am not sure I follow...what you are describing is A15 hoping nobody sat there, but not actively saving it. So..not saving it. To save a seat you need to try to prevent someone from sitting in it. Telling people not to, making it look already occupied..simply sitting there and doing nothing isn't saving...if it is, then NOT collecting stamps is a "hobby", to paraphrase Dawkins.
"but it's not up to me, you, or anyone else to have a moral obligation to ensure that someone else gets what they paid for."....It's up to WN, as the receipient of the money. Truth in advertising, contract law, weights and measures, usuary, commerce regulation, fraudulent practices, bait and switch, deceptive practices,disclosure, class action...pick your legal and regulatory poison. Otherwise I could sell you all sorts of things and have no obligation to deliver it whatsoever. And of course, I am damn well going to make sure I get what I pay for.