Post all SW questions concerns, etc. here...

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I was reading this yesterday---although it's not something that comes up a lot it looks like with assigned seating next January the "customer of size" policy is being changed. I think here on this thread it had been more used when people needed an additional seat due to an injury. My assumption is that it will still be under the same umbrella as it was previously.

https://support.southwest.com/helpcenter/s/article/extra-seat-policy

Pertinent to the assigned seating part

Southwest® flights with assigned seating (those departing on or after January 27, 2026)​

Customers who encroach upon the neighboring seat(s) should proactively purchase the needed number of seats prior to travel to ensure the additional, adjacent seat is available. The armrest is considered to be the definitive boundary between seats; you may review information about the width of Passenger seats.

What happens if I arrive to the airport and haven’t reserved the space I need?

• You will be required to purchase an additional seat and pay any applicable seat fee at the airport (at the applicable fare available on the day of travel).
• If the flight is sold out or adjacent seats are not available on your flight, we will rebook you on an alternate flight to your destination on which adjacent seats are available.

Extra seat refunds

We will refund an extra seat purchased provided the following conditions apply:

• The flight(s) must depart with at least one open seat (or with Passengers traveling on space available passes).
• Both seats should be purchased in the same fare class (i.e., Choice, Choice Preferred, Choice Extra, or Basic).
• The refund request must be made within 90 days of your date of travel.

Receiving seat assignments

Depending on the fare you purchase, you may be able to select your seats at the time of booking. If you’re unable to select your seats the time of booking, we will automatically assign your seats 24 hours prior to original scheduled departure.

When you arrive to the gate for your flight(s), board in your assigned group. Once onboard, if necessary, please request a seatbelt extension from our Flight Attendant.

Customers may not purchase more than one seat for the sole purpose of keeping the seat next to the Customer empty.


__________
The main difference is mostly tied to will you or won't you get a refund and now there are additional hurdles being added for that refund and that if you get to the gate and you need an additional seat you'll be charged for it right then and there and will have to then see about getting a refund IF you and your flight qualifies for it. No longer is it as generous as it was.

Regardless for those that find themselves needing the additional seat for whatever reason would still definitely advise to book that additional seat as soon as you know you'll need it simply because of needing that seat next to you actually available.

 

[TheOneWithTheTriplets]

That was my gut that you were not on the same reservation as your husband/not flying with him). That verifies that was the issue as it saw you trying to book for someone else and used you as the one to look for who qualifies for not but you weren't on the reservation with the other passenger.



FWIW that could be an unintended loophole. Maybe or maybe not but I doubt that SWA intends for people to circumvent here..companion pass not withstanding as that one has always had wonky reservation rules.

Purely my opinion but the footnote appears to be written for scenarios in which there's a reservation with more than one passenger who needs to be removed from the reservation. Rather than lose the benefits for seat selection SWA advises it will look for someone else who would qualify n the same reservation.

You were booking with separate reservations using your points for your husband. If you added a seat selection after you booked for your husband the system was matching your husband's CC status and saw he was eligible. That, to me, does not mean that the way you were doing it (well really the way the other poster suggested you do) was intended to be the workaround for what you initially were doing with booking two separate reservations. The benefit, listed in the footnote, clearly states it's for the same reservation.

OK, just so we're all on the same page here, you are clear that the her husband is a cardholder (not just an Auth User) right? As a cardholder, he has a seat selection benefit. It does not say he has a seat selection benefit if booked through his account or on his points. As a cardholder, he has a seat selection benefit, period.

That's why I keep coming back to it just being an error when she was booking for him (because the system failed to look at his CC status at time of booking) and it worked when she logged into his account and picked his seat (because at that point it was properly connecting the fact that he was a cardholder and had a seat selection benefit).

 

[DebbieB]

Heads up - I have flights PIT-MCO 10/20 & 10/28, both have dropped significantly in the last week.

 

[palhockeymomof2]

OK, just so we're all on the same page here, you are clear that the her husband is a cardholder (not just an Auth User) right? As a cardholder, he has a seat selection benefit. It does not say he has a seat selection benefit if booked through his account or on his points. As a cardholder, he has a seat selection benefit, period.

That's why I keep coming back to it just being an error when she was booking for him (because the system failed to look at his CC status at time of booking) and it worked when she logged into his account and picked his seat (because at that point it was properly connecting the fact that he was a cardholder and had a seat selection benefit).

Yes confirming he is a primary cardholder

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

OK, just so we're all on the same page here, you are clear that the her husband is a cardholder (not just an Auth User) right? As a cardholder, he has a seat selection benefit. It does not say he has a seat selection benefit if booked through his account or on his points. As a cardholder, he has a seat selection benefit, period.

That's why I keep coming back to it just being an error when she was booking for him (because the system failed to look at his CC status at time of booking) and it worked when she logged into his account and picked his seat (because at that point it was properly connecting the fact that he was a cardholder and had a seat selection benefit).

Saying "he has a seat selection benefit, period" means there's a disconnect going on in how I'm explaining it.

I am clear that they both have their own credit cards in their own name. My authorized user question was just to clarify that to begin with, that question became irrelevant when the poster explained they both have them. I was not mixing it up if that's what you're implying.

I understand what your stance is. You say well he has a credit card in his own name (which I wasn't debating, I understood that point once they clarified they both have one in their own names) therefore he should qualify for a free seat selection. Yes, but does that mean every situation he is eligible to have that occur based on how it is being booked? That's the question and SWA repeats over and over "same reservation" which the poster was not booking it that way, they were booking on behalf of the husband using their rapid reward points on a completely separate reservation than their own. I can't even call it a system failure to detect the husband's card because it did, a system failure in detecting the card would be if it didn't even pick it up when in his account or if the poster was booking both of them on the same reservation but in that made up scenario she didn't have the cc and only he did and it didn't pick up that he had a card.

That is where my caution statement came out because we can't assume that just because xyz occurred means it's a system error. It may be or it may not be, but it's not a given. I can see why your suggested work around worked after the fact but I am not confident in being able to know if that is just a poor loophole that SWA didn't account for someone to see or SWA's answer to a system limitation if it is labeled a limitation to begin with, I am as you can tell a more cautious person.

I think if the poster was booking separate reservations but the husband had had enough points so then that particular reservation was booked with the husband's points in the husband's account it would have worked out because it would see that each person on separate reservations had a qualifying credit card for the free seat selection.

I don't have high confidence of just being able to call up SWA and getting one answer and saying "yup that's the answer" because we all know how calling can get us multiple different answers depending on who answers.

I would hazard a guess and say most of us here would book on the same reservation thus this exact scenario wouldn't likely come up.

Regardless I'm just not so quick to say system issue when something doesn't work out without knowing it's not supposed to work that way. YMMV.

 

[TheOneWithTheTriplets]

Yes, but does that mean every situation he is eligible to have that occur based on how it is being booked?

Yes, he is eligible. If he is on a reservation, he is a cardholder and has a seat selection benefit, unless there are no seats left in the categories. That's how the footnote reads. Not "if booked through a cardholder's account" or "if booked by a cardholder". The text states, "When available, primary Cardmembers with a Southwest Rapid Rewards® Priority Credit Card or a Southwest Rapid Rewards® Performance Business Credit Card will be able to select a Preferred or a Standard seat at the time of booking, or up to 30 minutes prior to a flight’s scheduled local departure time." It makes no mention of booking it in the primary cardholder's account or with their points. It only clarifies if there are no more seats left in those categories.

One could argue that, when she was logged into her account, she was technically selecting it for him versus him selecting it himself. So, in this case, he couldn't select at time of booking because *he* wasn't booking, she was. But, without question, it is is right as a cardholder, not a loophole, for him to log in and select seats for himself and up to 8 folks on the same reservation as him, no matter who booked the ticket initially.

That's the question and SWA repeats over and over "same reservation" which the poster was not booking it that way, they were booking on behalf of the husband using their rapid reward points on a completely separate reservation than their own.

He is on the "same reservation" with himself. He has a seat selection benefit. The fact that he was able to log into his account and book his seat is a feature of his card, not a loophole.

Perhaps they hold firm to the idea that you must be logged into the Tier Member / Cardholder's account to use a seating benefit, in which case it will require an additional step when the initial booking happens in a different account than the cardholder. But the fact of a cardholder being able to select seats, regardless of which account booked a ticket, is part the card agreement, not a YMMV. If anything, it's likely a good note for those cardholders who are using the other, 48 hour seating benefits to make sure they are logging into the cardholder account at that time to make that selection.

ETA: I don't think it's worth arguing here. I totally see your point on being cautious about trusting whether something is a loophole or a feature. Lord knows I get a little giddy when I get something extra that I'm not 100% sure I was required to be provided and I would warn others that they may not get the same.

I would also say that cardholders are paying a fee for a level of benefits and they should be receiving the benefits they are paying for. If a cardholder were unable to select a seat despite it being available and part of their card's benefit offering, I would for sure stand firm with SW about honoring their agreement.

 

[Mle8308]

I guess I stand corrected. I'll be honest, I just stood in my "group of 5". Never checked or had anyone check if they were 1 spot in front or back of me. I've had positions across two number ranges and would stand towards the back for one and the other would stand in the front of the second group keeping us together and never had anyone say otherwise. Definitely didn't do it to with any ill intention and I definitely wasn't trying to insinuate someone with position 60 try to stand with 50.

Same, we never pay any attention to who has the exact order in the group of 5. If I have A23 and A24 goes on before me, I really don't care. I've never had anyone in the group of 5 ever look and line us all up in the right order. We just get on in that grouping. And the gate agent never cared, either. Now if it were someone with a C24, that is a different story!

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Yes, he is eligible. If he is on a reservation, he is a cardholder and has a seat selection benefit, unless there are no seats left in the categories. That's how the footnote reads. Not "if booked through a cardholder's account" or "if booked by a cardholder". The text states, "When available, primary Cardmembers with a Southwest Rapid Rewards® Priority Credit Card or a Southwest Rapid Rewards® Performance Business Credit Card will be able to select a Preferred or a Standard seat at the time of booking, or up to 30 minutes prior to a flight’s scheduled local departure time." It makes no mention of booking it in the primary cardholder's account or with their points. It only clarifies if there are no more seats left in those categories.

One could argue that, when she was logged into her account, she was technically selecting it for him versus him selecting it himself. So, in this case, he couldn't select at time of booking because *he* wasn't booking, she was. But, without question, it is is right as a cardholder, not a loophole, for him to log in and select seats for himself and up to 8 folks on the same reservation as him, no matter who booked the ticket initially.



He is on the "same reservation" with himself. He has a seat selection benefit. The fact that he was able to log into his account and book his seat is a feature of his card, not a loophole.

Perhaps they hold firm to the idea that you must be logged into the Tier Member / Cardholder's account to use a seating benefit, in which case it will require an additional step when the initial booking happens in a different account than the cardholder. But the fact of a cardholder being able to select seats, regardless of which account booked a ticket, is part the card agreement, not a YMMV. If anything, it's likely a good note for those cardholders who are using the other, 48 hour seating benefits to make sure they are logging into the cardholder account at that time to make that selection.

I'm not going to lie I feel like you're not actually reading what I'm saying and opting to pick and choose words here and there and mix it up. The YMMV part is not about some card holder agreement for goodness sake. It was very clearly said "YMMV" with the comment about calling something a system error or failure without knowing it actually is in which case I said I am more cautious That is the very definition of your mileage may vary because you are more willing to call it that whereas I am not.

This isn't a normal situation. It's where someone else is purchasing a ticket for someone else using their points and not on the reservation with them. That's what I've been trying to get across. The answer to this is really we don't know because nothing in SWA's information has clearly spelled this out.

We do not disagree on a seat selection benefit based on being an applicable card member. What we disagree on is if it qualifies on every transaction on every way it is booked. I am not confident it does based on how the pp is booking it. It's okay that we don't agree but do understand I'm not debating the idea of being a card member and getting a seat selection benefit to which you seem to think so. The loophole description is me saying that you suggested the poster go in AFTER the ticket was booked because it didn't work during the booking process. That is a loophole, workaround, etc. What I stated was I didn't know if that was intended to work that way or not.

Again this is where the poster is booking with their points for someone else not on their reservation. It is not the same as someone booking points for someone else on the same reservation, nor is it the same as someone booking their own ticket on their own account. So yes of course he is on the same reservation as himself...but his points were not the ones used to book it and the person whose points it was is not on the reservation with them.

Seriously, I commented because I think it's important when this has just been released live a few days ago to work out what is actually glitches and something didn't work as intended versus figuring out what are actually the rules of the new way of SWA. And quite frankly SWA has done a poor job in really giving the best details with some of their explanations contradicting themselves. So forgive me for saying immediately calling out something as a system error or failure may not be the best course of action without knowing without a doubt it actually is (which would be in writing from SWA). I'm moving on in this discussion and don't intend to respond further on this matter at this time. Maybe we'll get more and more examples of this in the future, that would be lovely.

 

[TheOneWithTheTriplets]

The answer to this is really we don't know because nothing in SWA's information has clearly spelled this out.

What we disagree on is if it qualifies on every transaction on every way it is booked. I am not confident it does based on how the pp is booking it.

Like I said, I don't want to argue. But, I do want to make sure that you understand where I'm coming from.

You believe that the text is unclear and SW could have intentions of limiting this benefit in the case where the cardholder didn't book the ticket for themselves. You think that the account that books the ticket may potentially have some impact on whether this benefit still exists.

My position is that SW has put out a written policy which represents a contractual agreement to offer the benefit WITHOUT indicating any limitations based on who first books the seats or which account's points are used to book. If they have not spelled out these limitations in writing, then they do not exist. They are neither explicit nor implied with the benefit they are offering. Plenty of lawyers have gone through all of these terms before publishing them. If they intended to limit this benefit to tickets booked on the cardholder's account, then they would have put it in writing.

 

[EACarlson]

I was reading this yesterday---although it's not something that comes up a lot it looks like with assigned seating next January the "customer of size" policy is being changed. I think here on this thread it had been more used when people needed an additional seat due to an injury. My assumption is that it will still be under the same umbrella as it was previously.

https://support.southwest.com/helpcenter/s/article/extra-seat-policy

Pertinent to the assigned seating part

Southwest® flights with assigned seating (those departing on or after January 27, 2026)​

Customers who encroach upon the neighboring seat(s) should proactively purchase the needed number of seats prior to travel to ensure the additional, adjacent seat is available. The armrest is considered to be the definitive boundary between seats; you may review information about the width of Passenger seats.

What happens if I arrive to the airport and haven’t reserved the space I need?

• You will be required to purchase an additional seat and pay any applicable seat fee at the airport (at the applicable fare available on the day of travel).
• If the flight is sold out or adjacent seats are not available on your flight, we will rebook you on an alternate flight to your destination on which adjacent seats are available.

Extra seat refunds

We will refund an extra seat purchased provided the following conditions apply:

• The flight(s) must depart with at least one open seat (or with Passengers traveling on space available passes).
• Both seats should be purchased in the same fare class (i.e., Choice, Choice Preferred, Choice Extra, or Basic).
• The refund request must be made within 90 days of your date of travel.

Receiving seat assignments

Depending on the fare you purchase, you may be able to select your seats at the time of booking. If you’re unable to select your seats the time of booking, we will automatically assign your seats 24 hours prior to original scheduled departure.

When you arrive to the gate for your flight(s), board in your assigned group. Once onboard, if necessary, please request a seatbelt extension from our Flight Attendant.

Customers may not purchase more than one seat for the sole purpose of keeping the seat next to the Customer empty.


__________
The main difference is mostly tied to will you or won't you get a refund and now there are additional hurdles being added for that refund and that if you get to the gate and you need an additional seat you'll be charged for it right then and there and will have to then see about getting a refund IF you and your flight qualifies for it. No longer is it as generous as it was.

Regardless for those that find themselves needing the additional seat for whatever reason would still definitely advise to book that additional seat as soon as you know you'll need it simply because of needing that seat next to you actually available.

It's reverting back to what it was previously and I for one am in favor of it. If you need two seats on a full flight, you need to pay for two seats. If it's not a full flight, SW will refund the cost of the ticket.

Like I said, I don't want to argue. But, I do want to make sure that you understand where I'm coming from.

You believe that the text is unclear and SW could have intentions of limiting this benefit in the case where the cardholder didn't book the ticket for themselves. You think that the account that books the ticket may potentially have some impact on whether this benefit still exists.

My position is that SW has put out a written policy which represents a contractual agreement to offer the benefit WITHOUT indicating any limitations based on who first books the seats or which account's points are used to book. If they have not spelled out these limitations in writing, then they do not exist. They are neither explicit nor implied with the benefit they are offering. Plenty of lawyers have gone through all of these terms before publishing them. If they intended to limit this benefit to tickets booked on the cardholder's account, then they would have put it in writing.

The written policy states that the cardholder can choose seats, it does not say that anyone booking on behalf of the cardholder can choose seats. This is why PP can book the ticket, log in to her husband's account and select a seat.