Why I HATE Southwest Airlines...

[disneyldwjr]

Wouldn't be nice if SW could post the deminsions of the seat so you could measure your own rear end to see if you can fit.

They do, the seat is 17" across. It is on their website, along with the pitch of the seats, the size of the plane and a lot of interesting other facts.

 

[jarestel]

ITA, rules/policies are set for a reason. If you follow rules/policies every time, you simply cannot get into trouble. Common sense has NOTHING to do with this. Policies/rules do.

I beg to differ. Common sense does have something to do with why we have rules. If we employ a bit a common sense in thinking about this PARTICULAR situation, we come to the conclusion that the enforcement of the rule in this PARTICULAR situation had no affect on anything or anyone except to inconvenience the OP. I don't think the purpose of the rule in question is to inconvenience passengers, in fact I believe the purpose of the rule is to prevent passengers from being inconvenienced.

Employing that common sense we like to talk about, we can understand that the purpose of "the rule" is to ensure that a COS doesn't inconvenience another passenger by encroaching on the other passenger's seat space. Now in this PARTICULAR situation where the plane was mostly empty, there would not be an issue with seat space encroachment, therefore enforcing the rule did not achieve its underlying purpose, ie protecting the comfort of other passengers. So the arbitrary enforcement of the rule simply for the reason of it being a rule was not the best use of common sense.

By the way, did I mention my comments apply to this PARTICULAR situation only?

 

[disneyldwjr]

I beg to differ. Common sense does have something to do with why we have rules. If we employ a bit a common sense in thinking about this PARTICULAR situation, we come to the conclusion that the enforcement of the rule in this PARTICULAR situation had no affect on anything or anyone except to inconvenience the OP. I don't think the purpose of the rule in question is to inconvenience passengers, in fact I believe the purpose of the rule is to prevent passengers from being inconvenienced.

Employing that common sense we like to talk about, we can understand that the purpose of "the rule" is to ensure that a COS doesn't inconvenience another passenger by encroaching on the other passenger's seat space. Now in this PARTICULAR situation where the plane was mostly empty, there would not be an issue with seat space encroachment, therefore enforcing the rule did not achieve its underlying purpose, ie protecting the comfort of other passengers. So the arbitrary enforcement of the rule simply for the reason of it being a rule was not the best use of common sense.

By the way, did I mention my comments apply to this PARTICULAR situation only?

If there is a chance of me losing my job because I did not impliment a policy or rule, then, trust me, the rule/policy will be implimented, regardless if common sense could have prevailed.
Since the ONLY person who was there was the OP, then I really have no opinion on the incident, only on the rules. I don't voice an opinion on any occurance UNLESS the other side gets a turn at relating the incident.

I have worked way too long in a profession where common sense could prevail and I could have lost my job if I employed it. IMHO, it is better to follow the rules and policies put in place by the people that pay me, then to take any chances. I can do enough of that in my personal life.

 

[jarestel]

If there is a chance of me losing my job because I did not impliment a policy or rule, then, trust me, the rule/policy will be implimented, regardless if common sense could have prevailed.
Since the ONLY person who was there was the OP, then I really have no opinion on the incident, only on the rules. I don't voice an opinion on any occurance UNLESS the other side gets a turn at relating the incident.

I have worked way too long in a profession where common sense could prevail and I could have lost my job if I employed it. IMHO, it is better to follow the rules and policies put in place by the people that pay me, then to take any chances. I can do enough of that in my personal life.

Okay, I'll try another way of making the point that common sense should be used when determining rule enforcement.

I'm driving on a state highway a couple of weeks ago and I come upon a traffic accident. Traffic is stopped and is backing up fast. One of the traffic officers decides that, even though U-turns on this highway are strictly prohibited, he will employ common sense and allow us to make u-turns so that we don't have to sit in traffic for who knows how long and we can be on our way. Now the officer could have used the logic that rules must be followed at all costs and in all situations or civilization will end and chaos and anarchy will ensue. But he decided instead that enforcing the rule prohibiting u-turns in this case would not make sense. And I'm glad he did reach that conclusion, rather than making us wait just so he could enforce a rule for the sake of enforcing a rule.

Black and white situations are great for idealogical discussions, but they aren't always practical in the real world.

 

[disneyldwjr]

Okay, I'll try another way of making the point that common sense should be used when determining rule enforcement.

I'm driving on a state highway a couple of weeks ago and I come upon a traffic accident. Traffic is stopped and is backing up fast. One of the traffic officers decides that, even though U-turns on this highway are strictly prohibited, he will employ common sense and allow us to make u-turns so that we don't have to sit in traffic for who knows how long and we can be on our way. Now the officer could have used the logic that rules must be followed at all costs and in all situations or civilization will end and chaos and anarchy will ensue. But he decided instead that enforcing the rule prohibiting u-turns in this case would not make sense. And I'm glad he did reach that conclusion, rather than making us wait just so he could enforce a rule for the sake of enforcing a rule.

Black and white situations are great for idealogical discussions, but they aren't always practical in the real world.

Poor analogy. There was no threat of holding anything up at any time. U turns on a hightway? Where did the cars that did the UTurn go? The wrong way on the highway. BIG potential for more accidents, don't you think.

Here is one. Rules of the bank: EVERY ONE must show ID to withdraw money. Teller decides she has seen customer over the course of many days, she decided to employ her own set of rules, common sense to not make the customer angry or inconvienanced, customer makes a withdrawl, she never checks the ID, customer was a scam artist and had withdrawn a large amount of cash from someone else's account.

The officer is your situation was empowered by his badge to make that exception, the bank teller is not. We don't know that the SWA GA was empowered. We have ONE side of the story. We all know there are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and what really happened.

I really don't care if you go around deciding that people lack common sense if you feel a rule should be broken and it is not, it is, IMHO, just another ripe example of entitlement mentality. Me, I will stick with the rules and live a very long and happy life.

 

[EmptyNester]

Now in this PARTICULAR situation where the plane was mostly empty, there would not be an issue with seat space encroachment, therefore enforcing the rule did not achieve its underlying purpose, ie protecting the comfort of other passengers. So the arbitrary enforcement of the rule simply for the reason of it being a rule was not the best use of common sense.

By the way, did I mention my comments apply to this PARTICULAR situation only?

I think the point is that the OP had no way of knowing if the flight would be full when she booked her flight. The rules state that a COS who can not fly with the arm rest down, needs to buy an extra seat - when they make their reservation - not "at the airport if a GA/FA determines they have to".

If the flight isn't full you get a refund. Pretty simple, and fair IMO. The OP knew these rules, but chose to ignore them. By ignoring the rules, she put herself in the situation that embarassed her.

JMO, YMMV

Just curious, does anyone know if other carriers offer a refund on the second seat if the flight isn't full?

 

[Disneyjosh229]

By ignoring the rules, she put herself in the situation that embarassed her.

Exactly!

Many people think that the rules don't apply to them. Apparently the OP thought that since she was traveling with her son (who didn't take his entire seat) the rules didn't apply to her. WRONG! It dosent matter if you traveling with your 118 year old grandma, rules are rules. Of course the gate agent at MCO could have let her by. But beleve me, the next time she went to book a flight on SW, she wouldn't be purchasing a 2nd seat, taking the rights of another passenger, away. Bottom line is, IF YOU DON'T FIT IN YOUR SEAT, BUY ANOTHER!!!

What a novel idea...

 

[Disneyjosh229]

Just curious, does anyone know if other carriers offer a refund on the second seat if the flight isn't full?

Sorry to double post...

No, other carriers don't inforce this rule. If you are the passenger sitting next to a COS, and you tell the FA that you want another seat, they can move you, but they will not charge the COS for another seat (which personally I think is wrong).

 

[jarestel]

U turns on a hightway? Where did the cars that did the UTurn go?

The highway was 2-way, so we just went back the way we came. And happily so, I might add.

 

[jarestel]

I think the point is that the OP had no way of knowing if the flight would be full when she booked her flight. The rules state that a COS who can not fly with the arm rest down, needs to buy an extra seat - when they make their reservation - not "at the airport if a GA/FA determines they have to".

I may not have mentioned that my comments applied only to the PARTICULAR situation she chronicled for her return trip. Sorry if I was unclear about this.

 

[seashoreCM]

The FA can do no more than ask/bribe, they cannot make anyone ...

Oops -- The FA can make anyone do anything under the pains and penalties of being put off the plane while/when the plane is on the ground. Except if the the FA's order is unreasonable including but not restricted to being forced into an uncomfortable position or prohibited from summoning the complaint resolution officer, the airline is subject to paying compensation if the passenger doesn't get to fly.

It is unlikely that the FA will ask someone to move so that two later boarding adults can sit together.

 

[ducklite]

Sorry to double post...

No, other carriers don't inforce this rule. If you are the passenger sitting next to a COS, and you tell the FA that you want another seat, they can move you, but they will not charge the COS for another seat (which personally I think is wrong).

Why would the passenger who was NOT being the nuisance (I hestitate to use the word, but I think in this situation the true definition of the word applies) be the one to have to switch seats, unless of course they were being offered an upgrade.

If I was seated next to a COS, darn straight I'm not giving up my seat to accomodate them. They were the ones who can't fit into their seat, and didn't have the forethought or were simply too selfish to buy a second seat. Why should I in essence be punished?

Anne

 

[LuluLovesDisney]

I am not going to even address whether or not the policy is right or wrong, but I HAVE to say the way the FA enforced the policy was certainly wrong- she was not helpful or informative, called someone down to "look at" this woman, made her jump through (as it turned out due to empty flight, which was info she had available) unneccessary hoops and made a spectacle of a "valued" customer. If she needed to enforce the policy, she should have taken the woman aside and explained it to her politely and professionally.

In addition, what if the flight were full, HOW could she buy another seat? Would they have told her she couldn't board at all?

This should be taken care of at the time tickets are purchased, NOT last minute. Completely unprofessional to throw this at someone when they are already on the plane.

 

[disneyldwjr]

Oops -- The FA can make anyone do anything under the pains and penalties of being put off the plane while/when the plane is on the ground. Except if the the FA's order is unreasonable including but not restricted to being forced into an uncomfortable position or prohibited from summoning the complaint resolution officer, the airline is subject to paying compensation if the passenger doesn't get to fly.

It is unlikely that the FA will ask someone to move so that two later boarding adults can sit together.

You are absolutely correct, I should have said they cannot not make someone move their seat IF there is not a small child involved or a seating violation.

 

[disneyldwjr]

I am not going to even address whether or not the policy is right or wrong, but I HAVE to say the way the FA enforced the policy was certainly wrong- she was not helpful or informative, called someone down to "look at" this woman, made her jump through (as it turned out due to empty flight, which was info she had available) unneccessary hoops and made a spectacle of a "valued" customer. If she needed to enforce the policy, she should have taken the woman aside and explained it to her politely and professionally.

In addition, what if the flight were full, HOW could she buy another seat? Would they have told her she couldn't board at all?

This should be taken care of at the time tickets are purchased, NOT last minute. Completely unprofessional to throw this at someone when they are already on the plane.

Well, it is really difficult to tell the size of a pax IF the tickets are being purchased on line, now isn't it?

Again, we have heard ONE side of this story. Let's not jump to conclusions here. Watch Airline sometime and watch how the pax brings the attention to themselves when the GAs try to be senseative to the needs of the passenger.
If the plane was full and she needed a second seat she would have been SOL, and she was NOT already on the plane. Did you read the OP?

 

[justcruisin]

At least this thread is raising awareness for all of us.

Ducklite --- would you REALLY want to sit next to an unattended 5 year old?

I'd give up my seat under most circumstances (even if it was poor planning) ... Call it Karma --- but those Hilton wanna-be's NO WAY .... I'd only give up my seat to move AWAY from them (though their conversations would be interesting without doubt)

 

[mom23boys]

The FA will move people to put you with the two year old, they are not under any such obligation to do so for the five year old, That's the way it is, get over it. if you do'nt like it, then drive. People think nothing of putting their kids with strangers in day care all day while they are many miles away, yet it's a problem to be three aisles away in a plane? Sheesh!!!

Frankly, I won't give up my aisle seat for a five year old to sit with a parent. Get there early, get up in the middle of the night to print your boarding pass, do everything that I do to make sure I get the seat I want. Take responsibility for yourself and your kids, don't try to inconvience me because YOU neglected to plan ahead.

Anne

Anne, I totally agree with you. We had a 7 am flight on the 19th with Airtran. I got up at 6:30 on the 18th and started my logon to get our seat together. We are a family of 6 (with my DM). I got us all together.

On the way home, we waited to go to the MK till after I could logon on the 25th to get our seat assignments on the 26th. The Conciege (sp) helped me print them out.

People really do need to take responsibility for thier children sitting with them.

Sharon

 

[LuluLovesDisney]

Well, it is really difficult to tell the size of a pax IF the tickets are being purchased on line, now isn't it?

Again, we have heard ONE side of this story. Let's not jump to conclusions here. Watch Airline sometime and watch how the pax brings the attention to themselves when the GAs try to be senseative to the needs of the passenger.
If the plane was full and she needed a second seat she would have been SOL, and she was NOT already on the plane. Did you read the OP?

You've missed my point completely- obviously there is no person who can see a customer if the tickets are placed online. However, there should be something that alerts that passenger that "passengers over xxx will be required to purchase an additional seat due to . . . "

Of course we've heard one side of the story- that is the ONLY information ANY of us has available- we are discussing this particular situation. Referencing the OP and giving opinions on the situation AS IT IS PRESENTED is NOT jumping to conclusions.

And I apologize that I said she was already on the plane- I meant to say it was a few minutes before boarding- when she has very little opportunity for recourse- she's past security, has checked her bags, etc.

If the plane were full ans she needed a second seat, you say she would be "SOL". My point was that airlines should do everything in their power to take care of this LONG before a few minutes before boarding. If this were a passenger flying somewhere for surgery and did not have the money for another ticket, there would be major consequences.

My point was that airlines should make all passengers aware of the potential extra seat charge in case they will need it at the time of purchase whether online or on the phone. If all passengers are aware of this they can plan accordingly and buy all of their seats together to ensure that they will be able to be accomodated on the plane.

We should really bear in mind that the OP was very upset with how she was treated and with an unreasonable situation. It is perfectly understandable to charge for an extra seat if the passenger requires one, but in this situation the OP's seating arrangement/requirement was not changed. Paying for a seat "across the aisle" is just silly.

 

[ducklite]

At least this thread is raising awareness for all of us.

Ducklite --- would you REALLY want to sit next to an unattended 5 year old?

I'd give up my seat under most circumstances (even if it was poor planning) ... Call it Karma --- but those Hilton wanna-be's NO WAY .... I'd only give up my seat to move AWAY from them (though their conversations would be interesting without doubt)

I wouldn't care about the kid next to me, at five most kids are pretty self-suficcient with life, but don't expect me to pour their juice, wipe their face or otherwise entertain them. If the oxygen masks fell, I'd stick the mask over the kids face, but that's about as far as it goes. Last thing I want is some freak parent who can't be responsible enough to do what needs to be done so their family can seat together screaming that I "touched" or was otherwise inappropriate with their kid.

Anne

Anne

 

[kaytieeldr]

You've missed my point completely- obviously there is no person who can see a customer if the tickets are placed online. However, there should be something that alerts that passenger that "passengers over xxx will be required to purchase an additional seat due to . . . "

But if you read Southwest's Customer of Size Q & A http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/cos_qa.html you'll see that there isn't a SPECIFIC "passengers over..." scale (no pun intended). Needing a seatbelt extender doesn't necessarily mean one won't fit in a single seat with the armrests down. Weighing over a certain amount doesn't necessarily mean someone won't fit in a single seat - heck, for that matter, weighing UNDER a certain amount doesn't mean one WON'T need to purchase two seats.

We should really bear in mind that the OP was very upset with how she was treated and with an unreasonable situation. It is perfectly understandable to charge for an extra seat if the passenger requires one, but in this situation the OP's seating arrangement/requirement was not changed. Paying for a seat "across the aisle" is just silly.

She was not (or would not have been) paying for the seat across the aisle. She was paying for either the seat to her right or to her left. That she chose to place her child in that seat instead was her business, although wrong based on Southwest's COS policy. EVERY passenger is entitled to one FULL seat unless they purchase an additional seat.