Southwest Early Bird Checkin

[Dizholic]

sign me up for the poopyhead posse

IMO if a passenger pays extra for EB they should

* be seated before family preboards, who have exactly the same opportunity to purchase said EB to guarantee availability to sit with their youngins. If it is their true priority to sit next to their children, it shouldn't be an issue despite the cost...cut back on a few mickey bars.

I just sent an e-mail off to SW stating the same thing. I know paying for EB does not guarantee an A BP, but I would be really angry if I had to board after families who did not pay. There should be a way for them to board all EBCI's, then any A's that are left, then families. So if EBCI's goes to lets say B 12, then families should board after that. I think that is the fair way.

 

[blissventure]

I just sent an e-mail off to SW stating the same thing. I know paying for EB does not guarantee an A BP, but I would be really angry if I had to board after families who did not pay. There should be a way for them to board all EBCI's, then any A's that are left, then families. So if EBCI's goes to lets say B 12, then families should board after that. I think that is the fair way.

I think you're right. Otherwise, those with at least one under 5 basically receive a free $10.00 "coupon" per pre-boarded passenger, round trip.

(And of course, those who are disabled and need assistance--and are pre-boarded--are in a totally different category.)

 

[Lewisc]

I'll settle if SW just enforces the stated policy; one adult boards with a child under 5. The airline doesn't really want a 2 year old sitting himself. The FAs don't want to delay push back until they can bribe a passenger into switching.
The system doesn't tell the GA when the EBs BPs end and the OLCI BPs begin.

You don't want a passenger who didn't pay $10 to board ahead of you? This isn't that different from not wanting a passenger who didn't hover over an internet enabled device at T-24 boarding ahead of you.

 

[ironz]

I'll settle if SW just enforces the stated policy; one adult boards with a child under 5. The airline doesn't really want a 2 year old sitting himself. The FAs don't want to delay push back until they can bribe a passenger into switching.
The system doesn't tell the GA when the EBs BPs end and the OLCI BPs begin.

You don't want a passenger who didn't pay $10 to board ahead of you? This isn't that different from not wanting a passenger who didn't hover over an internet enabled device at T-24 boarding ahead of you.[/QUOTE]

Right...even pre-EBCI, if you log in at T-24 there is a chance of getting a "B" BP and having people with kids who logged in later board ahead of you.

I really think people are making a mountain out a molehill here.

 

[blissventure]

I'll settle if SW just enforces the stated policy; one adult boards with a child under 5. The airline doesn't really want a 2 year old sitting himself. The FAs don't want to delay push back until they can bribe a passenger into switching.
The system doesn't tell the GA when the EBs BPs end and the OLCI BPs begin.

You don't want a passenger who didn't pay $10 to board ahead of you? This isn't that different from not wanting a passenger who didn't hover over an internet enabled device at T-24 boarding ahead of you.

I totally agree with you about the one adult with a child under 5, so I'm happy to modify my position. And it's OK with me it's free. None of us want a two year old by themselves. My general opinion stems from this: Maybe I just get the worst luck, but the last time I flew southwest the family groups were massive. A large family, maybe one 5 and under, but everyone hops on together. If SW has quit allowing this, great. There won't be a problem. But, if they do, that's the loophole that will be exploited.

 

[Dizholic]

(And of course, those who are disabled and need assistance--and are pre-boarded--are in a totally different category.)

I totally agree with you!!!!

 

[Dizholic]

You don't want a passenger who didn't pay $10 to board ahead of you? This isn't that different from not wanting a passenger who didn't hover over an internet enabled device at T-24 boarding ahead of you.

What does one have to do with the other??? I am sorry that makes no sense to me.

 

[mgilmer]

As a disabled person, I get to board first so I do not have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that the smart thing for SWA would have been to just sell the A slots from A16 thru A60 for a set fee (say $25) and they would have reaped a real windfall. If this is really all about raising revenue (and I do believe that was the reason) then this would have been a more straight forward way to do so.

 

[bookwormde]

Hey guys sorry if you are offended when I pointed out the extreme statements on both sides

I do not specify anyone as you will see in the example below I do not reference the poster but it is just one of many examples of the I am not going to take care of someone else’s child not matter what type statements when we all know that in some circumstances (such as emergency situation I referenced we would all “take care of someone else’s child) or a child who was suffering form anxiety and needed comforting

Just one of many examples of hyperbole that was posted by people on both who should know this does not contribute to the value of the tread.

“And I think they are empty threats. I'm not going to service someone else's child. I'll expect the child to behave properly or I'll make the flight attendants rue the day they decided to work for an airline that put them in the position of having to nursemaid an effectively unattended minor and a 50 year old man acting like a child”

Lots of unproductive hyperbole on both sides.

bookwormde

 

[bicker]

You're mistaken. That wasn't hyperbole.

 

[MarkinNM]

You know...sometimes you just lose me!! I think I'm understanding you, then I get to a point and go..huh???

That is soooooooo true and funny!!!!!

You know...sometimes you just lose me!! I think I'm understanding you, then I get to a point and go..huh???
You know guys. Bavaria has a valid point, and not about being an 'evil poopyhead'!!. There is plenty of room for all views and opinions. But there isn't room for those who feel their way is the only way. For instance....I boarded a SW flight a few years back. It was before the numbered A, B and C system came into being. You got to the gate early and you staked out your spot in line.

I remember those days of camping out at the gate waiting and waiting forever, I actually think the way SW boards now is a HUGE improvement....

I'll settle if SW just enforces the stated policy; one adult boards with a child under 5. The airline doesn't really want a 2 year old sitting himself. The FAs don't want to delay push back until they can bribe a passenger into switching.
The system doesn't tell the GA when the EBs BPs end and the OLCI BPs begin.

You don't want a passenger who didn't pay $10 to board ahead of you? This isn't that different from not wanting a passenger who didn't hover over an internet enabled device at T-24 boarding ahead of you.

I agree!

I really think people are making a mountain out a molehill here.

I think so also BUT has the potential to blow up to a HUGE storm IF its not handled right by SWA, I hope they did their homework here and are ready....

 

[Tara]

Originally Posted by Lewisc
You don't want a passenger who didn't pay $10 to board ahead of you? This isn't that different from not wanting a passenger who didn't hover over an internet enabled device at T-24 boarding ahead of you.

What does one have to do with the other??? I am sorry that makes no sense to me.

Because with OLCI at 24 hours, there was no guarantee you'd get a boarding pass that put you in front of family boarding. The only thing that would make ECBI different is if they limited the number they sell. I can't see an easy way for them to do that, though, without really minimizing their ability to make enough money on it. BS is limited to A1-A15, but A-List passengers are an unpredictable value.

I think one mistake they made is in the name - Early Bird. That implies you're going to get something better IMO. They should have made it "hands-free" or something that implies no action needed. That's what the real convenience is, not having to be online at T-24. Leave everything else the same (except maybe the price - could price it differently based on flight length maybe) and people will naturally figure out that getting it might increase their chances of a better boarding position. But reframing the service will help keep expectations where they ought to be.

 

[Lewisc]

:
I think so also BUT has the potential to blow up to a HUGE storm IF its not handled right by SWA, I hope they did their homework here and are ready....

Maybe they couldn't wait for the revenue but they could have announced the new policy 2 days earlier. A day before they extended the schedule instead of a day later.

 

[bookwormde]

Slightly OT but since it is being discussed

I guess I am getting confused about the family boarding policy, every flight I have been on the announcing has been immediate families with children 4 and under can board, not 1 person with a child. I can see the confusion with the first sentence and the second sentence of the policy stating slightly different things. I have never heard an announcement of on person per child under 4 on only flight so I assume the goal in the second sentence is the governing thought. Anyone have different experience

“An adult traveling with a child four years old or younger will board between the “A” and “B” boarding groups. If you have an “A” boarding pass, please feel free to board with that boarding group. With an all-jet fleet outfitted with comfortable, leather seats, our families with small children are easily accommodated together.”

bookwormde

 

[bicker]

I believe we can safely say that the "governing" principle is the efficient and safe boarding of the flight. Everything else is just a "nice to have" by comparison.

 

[kaytieeldr]

They're losing me as a customer because of the way this was rolled out for one, and also because it's not worth the stress of it all to me. I know life isn't fair, but it just doesn't seem right to change the rules on people who've had their flights booked for months. When airlines add their fees, they usually add them on flights booked from x date forward...not on existing bookings. It would bother me less if SWA had done that...

But it's not a rule - it's an option.

SW still boards the way they do because they feel it works at this time....will they change? Who knows. I can see them charging more for A bp's down the road. In fact, I almost wonder if they are paving the way for this now, with the EBCI. I can see where they could charge an extra $15 per ticket to ensure an A BP. Of course, there would be a finite number of those seats. But heck, all airlines do that now.....just look at JB. They list '5 seats left at this price' all the time

But that's not the same thing at all. ALL airlines offer seats at a variety of prices, and once one fare bucket is sold out, the available-ticket prices jump. JetBlue is simply being proactive and letting its customers know. How many threads have there been about someone trying to book a fare but not being able to, and it's because there are fewer seats at that fare than people in the poster's party?

 

[candfandm]

Could someone explain to me how the many people board at a time in each group. I have read there is an A1-15 boarding group, what are the next groups to follow?

 

[suevee]

Could you use a SW credit to pay the extra fee for Early bird boarding? I haven't read the whole post. so I am sorry if this has already been asked and answered.

 

[sanibelover]

I just checked in a family of five without paying the extra $10 for early check-in and got A18 - A22 so there is no problem with not getting A's yet. Guess it could happen as the word of the early check-in policy gets out.....

 

[cherbear]

From MSY (New Orleans) to MCO...

NON Early bird at T24 - A18 and A19. YES!! I figured it wouldn't catch on in New Orleans yet...