Fakers are easy to spot if you're on the plane with them; they get miraculously cured only after the plane lands. I'm not talking about being able to walk off vs. using a wheelchair or walker to board, I'm talking about being able to essentially sprint off the plane and up the jetway carrying a full load, and to sling overhead bags down one-handed when they piteously asked the FA to put them up when boarding. People with invisible disabilities tend to move at the same speed getting on AND getting off; I've never assumed anything but that such a person had a medical condition.
As to assigned seats on SWA, I'm against them, at least for the majority of fliers. (I'm OK with selling a guaranteed "A" slot, but that would have to be a true guarantee; no accepting payment from anyone who won't get one of the first 60 slots.) Remember that the reason SWA chose not to assign seats is that not having to deal with "zone" boarding speeds their turnaround time considerably. It's still a profitable aspect of the model, and Elliott wants to maximize profits. SWA's biggest problem is not with their boarding process, but with their operations infrastructure, in particular their IT system. They failed to invest in upgrading it for years, and the Great Christmas Meltdown was the result. I also expect they will drop the "737 only" mandate; being wedded to one aircraft leaves them little bargaining power with mfrs., and also leaves them in a bad place when a model is grounded. Knowing what Boeing has been up to in the past decade or so means the handwriting is on the wall with that one. Lack of assigned seating isn't really costing SWA butts-in-seats, I don't think, their average load factor is at 80% right now, a bit down from previously, but disposable income is a bit scarce right now, and business travel will never go back to what it once was now that we have perfected online meetings. (The airlines with the very highest load factors are the European
budget carriers like RyanAir, which averages 98%. They can do that because they offer REALLY low airfares last-minute to fill seats at below cost. The trick is that the way the tax structure works there, airlines often have to pay landing fees based on how many seats the aircraft has, even if they are empty, so they essentially give away the space so that a passenger will assume the cost of the fees.)
Family seating is an interesting conundrum, one with int'l differences of opinion. I've read quite a lot on the subject, and the one thing I've become sure of is that most people don't really understand why regulatory agencies want it. (
Hint: it is NOT for the safety of the child.) There were extensive live emergency evac tests done in the UK with volunteers, and it was discovered that if parents were not seated with their pre-teen children, the *parents* ended up fouling up emergency evacuations in order to search for the kids in the dark and the smoke, causing other passengers to get injured in the process. The kids, OTOH, did exactly what the crew told them to do, did not panic, did not look for their parents, and got safely out of the aircraft very quickly. (They concluded that this comes from routines learned in school safety drills. The tests excluded very young children; all airlines currently seat children under age 6 with an adult in the party because kids that young are generally not really capable of understanding how to use the oxygen masks in a crisis.) Most European countries followed the UK testing result and mandated years ago that children under age 13 must be seated "within arm's reach" of an adult member of their traveling party; which does not mean all in the same row. Under that rule you can seat a parent and two children in the middle seats of 3 consecutive rows; the kids just have to be within grabbing distance without a parent having to mow down anyone else to get to them in the dark. Somehow I feel that the "arm's reach" standard is not going to be considered in the US; the push is for same-row, and that's where the airlines are resisting, because normally they can get a premium fee for an aisle seat. (The answer to that, as someone else pointed out, is that airlines could restrict same-row free family assignments to seats aft of the wings, and accomodate with consecutive middles elsewhere.)
One perk I can easily see getting cut is the baggage allowance: down from 2 free checked bags to one. Allowing free checked baggage speeds up boarding because people are less likely to try to get oversized bags into the cabin, so it doesn't make sense to cut it entirely (and it's also hugely popular with consumers), but going from 2 to 1 when every other airline now charges for all of them (unless you have status or a branded CC) is low-hanging fruit. Don't expect the weight limit to change, though; that's a worker's comp issue for baggage handlers.
Conversely, one new thing I'd like to see is an a la carte option for using Rapid Rewards for things other than drinks and flights. With an updated IT system you should be able to use points to pay for extra checked bags, special boarding positions, and full internet. I think that would cut down on the number of people who manage to accumulate enough points for flights, because they would be constantly chipping away at their balance with extras, leaving more seats to be sold for cash without loss of customer goodwill.
Good luck with that.
