Why doesn't SW participate in RAC?

[Mich Mouse]

Traveling with a baby and all the assorted stuff.....Why don't they participate? It seems it would be to their benefit...less lines at counters etc.

We would rather not be lugging the luggage.

 

[Edd]

They don't have the software, company wide, installed to participate.

 

[goofy4tink]

Not to mention that airlines have to pay to be included in that service. It doesn't just 'happen'. Granted, it's not a huge sum for each person, but it does add up. Evidently, SW doesn't feel the need to offer it. There is a reason they are able to give free checked baggage, and good fares. They know how best to run an airline. It works, it doesn't need fixing.

You don't need to 'lug your luggage' when you arrive at MCO. Tag your bags, send them off with DME and you ride the bus. But, you do have to handle your own bags at the end of the trip....just the same way we did before RAC came to the resorts.

 

[Mich Mouse]

How does RAC make $$$$? Do the resorts pay a fee for the convenience of their guests?

 

[Mich Mouse]

We posted at exactly the same time...

Thanks for answering the questions.

 

[Lewisc]

Originally it was a systems issue. SW doesn't do interline baggage transfers and doesn't (didn't?) use the same software systems used by most other airlines.

SW has updated their computer systems. A competing company offers remote check in to SW passengers at various locations in Las Vegas. Originally that company only did SW but they now handle other carriers. Any issues can currently be solved. At one point there was a problem with BPs, a passenger who got a BP in advance wouldn't be able to check their bags. In other words a passenger would have to decide what's more important, getting a BP 24 hours in advance (coveted "A" BP) or using RAC and getting a BP less then 12 hours before their flight.

RAC is a free service. I suspect BAGS,Inc is only willing to spend a limited amount of money adjusting their systems to work with SW. SW is a profitable airline. I suspect they're willing to spend very little adjusting their system so it can work with BAGS, Inc.

The rumor is airlines pay about $1 per bag, approximately their cost if a passenger uses a curbside skycap at a major airport. Even before airlines started to charge for checked bags they were trying to charge extra for curbside check in.

SW may be unwilling to pay that fee. Traditionally SW flies out of smaller airports, with either no curbside check in or curbside check staffed by SW employees.

MCO is counting on RAC in their plans for handling passengers without having to increase the main terminal. I suspect the airport is the entity we can thank if/when SW comes on board.

I'm not going to start a poll but I wonder how much people would be willing to pay for RAC. The going rate for remote baggage check in is $10-$20 per bag. I might be willing to pay $5-$10 but I'd probably just take my bags on the bus if I had to pay $20/bag.

To answer a previous poster, Disney pays most of the cost of RAC. They're paying a "wholesale" rate. We don't know if Disney is paying per bag, if they have a cost plus contract or some variation.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Not to mention that airlines have to pay to be included in that service. It doesn't just 'happen'. Granted, it's not a huge sum for each person, but it does add up. Evidently, SW doesn't feel the need to offer it.

Diane,

What is the basis for your statement that "airlines have to pay to be included in that service" (RAC)? I know there's been speculation on this board for years that the airlines pay for RAC, but I've never read anything factual that indicates that any company other than Disney is paying BAGS Inc. to operate RAC.

I honestly cannot believe that United or American would have agreed to incur any "net new" costs to become part of RAC in 2005.

Here's what I wrote recently in another thread about Southwest and RAC:

The launch of DME and RAC was four years ago, which was long before airlines such as United and American had fees for normal checked bags.

However, airlines such as United and American were desperately cutting expenses. United was operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, while American was doing everything they could to avoid the same fate (they were successful). American even eliminated pillows in domestic economy!

If United and American had faced any net increase in the cost of providing checked baggage, they would not have signed up for RAC. Anyone who really thinks that United and American are subsidizing Disney's RAC program is unaware of the state of the airline industry in 2005.

Please note that I wrote, "any net increase." United and American might have been willing to pay a small cost to BAGS Inc., if, and only if, it corresponded to savings elsewhere that exceeded that cost.

In contrast, Southwest Airlines made a healthy profit in 2005.

The big difference is that the legacy carriers who participated in RAC from day one all used industry-standard software systems and networking that allowed interline connections and interline baggage transfers. BAGS Inc. leveraged that system. Southwest had its own proprietary system, built around how Southwest does business.

Even if neither BAGS Inc. nor Disney expected any per-bag fee from the airlines, Southwest faced an interface issue (and associated costs) that the other airlines did not.

Saying that the current carriers who participate in RAC are willing to pay a per-bag fee, while Southwest is too stingy, is giving the other carriers too much credit.

Arguably, Southwest is more committed to quality service than any other U.S. domestic airline.​

 

[Lewisc]

I don't think I can navigate the search function and find the post but one credible poster, who is familiar with the financial arrangements with remote airline check in, gave us information. Generally the hotel is paid rent for the check in space, part of the fee paid by the passenger goes to the hotel. Not a factor with the Disney.

The same poster said airlines pay a per bag fee of about $1/bag. That fee is approximately the same fee an airline pays if a passenger uses curbside check in. Remember the legacy airlines tried to charge for curbside check in in some airports, before they started to charge for checked bags? I'm sure they assumed it's the same $1 if the bag is checked curbside or in WDW so what's the difference. SW operates in smaller airports, in at least some of those airports SW staffs the curbside check in. SW would be smart enough to ask why increase the number of bags that cost us $1 to check. This the most likely explanation why some of the legacy airlines didn't initially come on board.

SW was considering putting a check in desk on level one, to accommodate DME passengers. I know they occasionally (rarely?) do that for DCL buses.



A credible poster said at least when BAGS, Inc was first testing SW there was an issue if a passenger already obtained their BP online. Basically RAC could only check in a SW passenger if that passenger hadn't already checked in online. I suspect we'd get a lot of complaints if SW passengers, who decided to use RAC, wound up with B and even C BPs. I suspect RAC won't participate with SW unless they can accomodate passengers who already got their BPs.

A couple of credible posters said MCO is counting on luggage delivery and remote baggage check in to reduce the space pressures on the main building.

Diane,

What is the basis for your statement that "airlines have to pay to be included in that service" (RAC)? I know there's been speculation on this board for years that the airlines pay for RAC, but I've never read anything factual that indicates that any company other than Disney is paying BAGS Inc. to operate RAC.

I honestly cannot believe that United or American would have agreed to incur any "net new" costs to become part of RAC in 2005.

Here's what I wrote recently in another thread about Southwest and RAC:

The launch of DME and RAC was four years ago, which was long before airlines such as United and American had fees for normal checked bags.

However, airlines such as United and American were desperately cutting expenses. United was operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, while American was doing everything they could to avoid the same fate (they were successful). American even eliminated pillows in domestic economy!

If United and American had faced any net increase in the cost of providing checked baggage, they would not have signed up for RAC. Anyone who really thinks that United and American are subsidizing Disney's RAC program is unaware of the state of the airline industry in 2005.

Please note that I wrote, "any net increase." United and American might have been willing to pay a small cost to BAGS Inc., if, and only if, it corresponded to savings elsewhere that exceeded that cost.

In contrast, Southwest Airlines made a healthy profit in 2005.

The big difference is that the legacy carriers who participated in RAC from day one all used industry-standard software systems and networking that allowed interline connections and interline baggage transfers. BAGS Inc. leveraged that system. Southwest had its own proprietary system, built around how Southwest does business.

Even if neither BAGS Inc. nor Disney expected any per-bag fee from the airlines, Southwest faced an interface issue (and associated costs) that the other airlines did not.

Saying that the current carriers who participate in RAC are willing to pay a per-bag fee, while Southwest is too stingy, is giving the other carriers too much credit.

Arguably, Southwest is more committed to quality service than any other U.S. domestic airline.​

 

[goofy4tink]

I don't think I can navigate the search function and find the post but one credible poster, who is familiar with the financial arrangements with remote airline check in, gave us information. Generally the hotel is paid rent for the check in space, part of the fee paid by the passenger goes to the hotel. Not a factor with the Disney.

The same poster said airlines pay a per bag fee of about $1/bag. That fee is approximately the same fee an airline pays if a passenger uses curbside check in. Remember the legacy airlines tried to charge for curbside check in in some airports, before they started to charge for checked bags? I'm sure they assumed it's the same $1 if the bag is checked curbside or in WDW so what's the difference. SW operates in smaller airports, in at least some of those airports SW staffs the curbside check in. SW would be smart enough to ask why increase the number of bags that cost us $1 to check. This the most likely explanation why some of the legacy airlines didn't initially come on board.

SW was considering putting a check in desk on level one, to accommodate DME passengers. I know they occasionally (rarely?) do that for DCL buses.



A credible poster said at least when BAGS, Inc was first testing SW there was an issue if a passenger already obtained their BP online. Basically RAC could only check in a SW passenger if that passenger hadn't already checked in online. I suspect we'd get a lot of complaints if SW passengers, who decided to use RAC, wound up with B and even C BPs. I suspect RAC won't participate with SW unless they can accomodate passengers who already got their BPs.

A couple of credible posters said MCO is counting on luggage delivery and remote baggage check in to reduce the space pressures on the main building.

Thanks for posting...pretty much what I would have said!!!

 

[pickles]

bit of a hijack

when I was at MCO and leaving. they had the skycap thing outside and a long line inside. I had never heard of skycap and followed outside to check in(by luggage). I asked the fellow at the thing what it was and he told me it was a paid service. I was the only one standing there so checked in the bags and paid him somewhere around $1-$2 a bag...was I too cheap?
I am afraid I simply didnt know its purpose and was listening to a guy saying they had swa check in outside as well as in.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Deja Vu!

Here are other threads saying "that Southwest will soon be a partipating airline" -- in March 2007!

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1379911

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1386590

IA credible poster said at least when BAGS, Inc was first testing SW there was an issue if a passenger already obtained their BP online. Basically RAC could only check in a SW passenger if that passenger hadn't already checked in online. I suspect we'd get a lot of complaints if SW passengers, who decided to use RAC, wound up with B and even C BPs. I suspect RAC won't participate with SW unless they can accomodate passengers who already got their BPs.

I'm sure the person who posted this issue was not trying to mislead anyone, and believed it was a legitimate issue. However, I never accepted that it was true. I think someone's theory was repeated until it somehow turned into "fact."

Essentially, RAC is a remote skycap service.

Southwest skycaps at airports can check passengers' bags and issue/reissue Southwest boarding passes, even if the passengers already checked in online the prior day. (The skycaps have been able to do so since online check-in began.) The passengers' boarding passes do not change to a B or C boarding passes. Thus, there's not an inherent problem within Southwest.

 

[Brian Noble]

The short answer is: they don't feel that it is in their best interests. We can speculate as to why, but it doesn't really matter. I suspect it's as much cultural as anything, much as SW doesn't publish its fares to third-party search engines.

 

[Lewisc]

Horace--The difference is the curbside check in is using the SW computer system but RAC would be using their system to interface with SW's system. A very credible poster said this issue came up when testing the system. RAC's system wouldn't let them check baggage for a SW passenger who already checked in online (and had a BP). SW's system was giving RAC the ability to do a total check in (BP and luggage) or nothing. I remember the thread asked SW passengers if they would use RAC if it meant they couldn't get an online BP. I can't see selling this to SW passengers. I don't think RAC will add SW unless/until they can check bags for passengers who have already checked in online.

Brian--SW participates with a third party check in service for passengers in Las Vegas, Fort Lauderale and maybe Miami. That suggests the issue isn't cultural but rather financial and/or system issues. I guess we could say SW's culture is not to spend extra money on a service that benefits very few passengers (systemwide). The Las Vegas service initially only handled SW. I suspect it was designed to work with SW.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Horace--The difference is the curbside check in is using the SW computer system but RAC would be using their system to interface with SW's system. A very credible poster said this issue came up when testing the system. RAC's system wouldn't let them check baggage for a SW passenger who already checked in online (and had a BP). SW's system was giving RAC the ability to do a total check in (BP and luggage) or nothing.

Southwest would not be a viable RAC participant unless passengers can also check in 24 hours ahead and keep their position in the boarding order after checking their bags with RAC. Southwest's own system can handle it, based on current airport curbside skycap service. It's clearly a mandatory requirement for any interface between BAGS, Inc. and Southwest.

I find it difficult to believe that they developed an interface two years ago, started testing it, were surprised by such a deficiency, and were unable to make the necessary fix to the programming in two years.

I have great respect for the person who originally posted about the deficiency. However, my guess is that, in this case, he was only repeating something he heard from a source he believed to be reliable.

 

[goofy4tink]

It really shouldn't be all that difficult (at least I wouldn't think it would be) to be able to check in for your SW flights at that 24 hr mark, however you normally would have, then head to the RAC counter and get your boarding pass printed out and hand off your bags. Or get the boarding pass issues when you check in at the 24 hr mark and show it in order to have your bags checked. Seems like a no-brainer to me...but systems being what they are may make that entirely impossible.
Besides.....SW most likely feels that they don't need to do this. That things work just fine without adding RAC to the equation. Now...if people started booking with other, participating airlines, for their WDW trips, then you might see a change.
But, people will go with the lowest fare, and the lowest fees..even if it means they don't get all the 'perks'.

 

[Lewisc]

I find it difficult to believe that they developed an interface two years ago, started testing it, were surprised by such a deficiency, and were unable to make the necessary fix to the programming in two years.

It really doesn't matter. It's not important enough for SW to allocate the money necessary to be a participating airline, at least as fast as some posters would like.

SW participates with a vendor in Vegas. Perhaps they developed the interface but BAGS isn't able, or willing, to make whatever changes are needed at their end.

You hit the nail on the head. For several years posters have said SWs participation is imminent.

SW accounts for a signifant percentage of the passenger traffic into MCO. At least one poster questioned if RAC could handle a dramatic increase of passengers.

 

[seashoreCM]

Now if Southwest thinks it can save money not having to handle as much baggage in-airport, it may see fit to allocate a portion of those savings towards joining RAC.

If BAGS thinks that the amount offered by Southwest is financially worthwhile, even if the amount is less than what other airlines pay, they may take on Southwest.

I take it Southwest is good at adding destinations by getting gates at a rent less than what other airlines pay, and the airports are happy where the gates vacated by a bankrupt or downsizeing airline are not sitting empty yielding no rent.

 

[DisneyWalker44]

A credible poster said...
A couple of credible posters said ...

The problem with "credible posters" is that when it comes to Southwest and RAC, they have been wrong. Despite years of posts that the kinks were worked out, that testing was imminent, etc. Southwest isn't a participating airline - there have been no public tests and no verifiable evidence that anything was being worked on.

While it is possible SW has put a ton of work into becoming a participating airline and has been on the brink of turning the switch a number of times only to be foiled again and again, I think it more likely that these posters - no matter how credible - simply don't have access to reliable information .

 

[Lewisc]

We know SW updated their computer system. We know SW works with a competing remote check in vendor in Las Vegas.

We don't know if the hold up is with BAGS not spending the money so their system works with SW, if SW isn't willing to spend money to change their system or if SW is unwilling to pay whatever it costs to participate with RAC.

I suspect members of DIS are far more interested in SW joining RAC then SW is.

 

[dburg30]

I suspect members of DIS are far more interested in SW joining RAC then SW is.