A&e's New Series Airline

[KCFlyer]

Hmmmm, your statement "Treating them in any other manner is unconscionable and illegal" sounds vaguely familiar to the episode in were a passenger of yours was told they were to large to fly in one seat and needed to purchase two. Talk about "unconscionable". LUV should just start charging folks by their weight and treat them as cargo. While, in theory that policy makes little sense, seeing it actually done, well that was "unconscionable"! The ironic thing about the fellow that was told he had to buy another seat was that the agent that told him this wasn't to much smaller herself. So how does that work out for LUV employees anyway? Is the same person that humiliates a paying passenger and forces them to buy another seat themselves obligated to the same policy when non-reving?

What is unconscionable about charging a person who's butt is wider than 17 inches for a second seat? Would you, as another paying passenger, have no problem when your seatmate raised the armrest and took 5 inches of your seat? I would imagine in that situation, your feelings about this policy "making sense" might be changed just a little bit. Maybe a lot if it was an MDW-LAX flight.

Now...all airlines have the same policy, but their enforcement is a bit different. A spokesperson for the NAAFA had cited Delta and American as having a "fat friendly" policy. That policy put the onus of doing anything on the shoulders of their customer. If a seatmate complained to a flight attendant, they would "ask for volunteers" to share their seat with you. If those couldn't be found, they would put you on the next flight to your destination (provided it wasn't a full flight). Imagine if the program covered one of those airlines, and rather than the gate agent "humiliating" the passenger, they showed the FA making an announcement over the PA looking for volunteers to trade seats. Then imagine how good they would look as they escorted the passenger off the plane to wait for the next flight out. I would imagine that if the flight was boderline full, the agent might just suggest that they go ahead and buy the second seat to insure that they get to their destination that day. I dunno... I think being "humiliated" in front of one gate agent beats the hell out of being humiliated in front of 150 strangers on board the aircraft, but that's just me.

 

[funguy2]

In 3 episodes, you saw maybe 15 of the more than 72 Million passengers they flew last year. I'm not an expert in statistics, but I believe that 15 (or hell 45 if you want to count the BMX team) is not enough to provide a representative sample of the "majority" of their passengers.

KC Flyer:

I have to agree... In fact, I am sure situations like this occur at all airlines...

I am sure someone who has had too much to drink has been denied boarding at jetBlue (although I am sure it was much more fashionable... must have drunk martinis )

Although, I generally avoid flying LUV because of the inflight service. I flew one flight similar to the MDW-LAS flight they showed in episode 2. A friendly FA is one that helps stow your bags, brings you a second drink, and maybe a magazine. I don't like the 'forced community' atmosphere on LUV. Sometimes I try to work on a plane. Sometimes I try to sleep. Sometimes I try to have some personal thought time. Sometimes I enjoy the inflight entertainment (if its there). Sometimes, I enjoy a good conversation with the folks seated near me (after all, I am not anti-social - my username is funguy ). All of this is difficult to do when the FA's are using the PA system for entertainment.

On my 4 hour Southwest flight, the flight attendants encoraged passengers to sing on the PA system, and lured them by offering complementary drinks to passengers. And all I wanted to do was sleep. After two hours I wanted nothing other than to put on a parachute and jump off the plane, as the situation had turned into two or three drunk people singing TV theme songs.

I guess some people are willing to put up with this "legendary" service. I thought this part of episode 2 was actually a bad PR for Southwest. It reinforced my avoidance tendency. Furthermore, I always thought of A&E as being a network watched by the kind of folks who expect free upgrades, not by the kind of folks who yell at gate agents until compensated, thus my thinking that I am not the only person who saw this as a negative.

 

[funguy2]

By the way... if any one else is keeping track:

3 of 4 episodes included a drunken passenger issue.
2 of 4 episodes included a lap-child proof of age issue.

I hope they find some other issues to show us. While I am certain these things come up fairly often, it does not make great TV to show the same thing over and over...

I did think some of the blackout related things were pretty good. Southwest did rent buses to move people when they couldn't fly them... That was a good thing to do... and definitely outside the box... We only got to see the problems with that situation, but they said they had busses going back and forth from MDW to DTW I think... For people who had to get moving today, at least they tried to do SOMETHING other than "try again tomorrow".

 

[SWAFA30]

Hmmmm, your statement "Treating them in any other manner is unconscionable and illegal" sounds vaguely familiar to the episode in were a passenger of yours was told they were to large to fly in one seat and needed to purchase two. Talk about "unconscionable".

A persons ability to do their job as a customer service agent has little or nothing to do with their physical size. As such, doing away with all CSAs who are not a specific body type would in fact be unconscienable. On the other hand a person either fits into a seat or they don't. That is simply a fact. Every person that purchases a seat from us has the right to the unrestricted use of that ENTIRE seat within FAA/TSA guidelines. Unfortunately, some passengers simply do not fit into just one seat. On a full flight a person who cannot fit into one seat infringes on the seating space of those seated on one or both sides. This is uncomfortable and unfair to the passenger who has to give up a portion of the seat he or she paid for in order to accomodate a customer of size. That is simply the laws of physical matter. So in this situation who do we inconvenience? The passenger who has to give up a portion of his or her seat or the passenger who requires extra seating space? We don't sell halves or thirds of seats, we only sell whole seats. So if you require 1 and one third of seat, you must purchase two entire seats. This insures the comfort and safety of everyone involved.



LUV should just start charging folks by their weight and treat them as cargo.

I did not think I could hear anything today more offensive than the idea of dismissing employees because they are overweight. I was wrong.

While, in theory that policy makes little sense, seeing it actually done, well that was "unconscionable" The ironic thing about the fellow that was told he had to buy another seat was that the agent that told him this wasn't to much smaller herself.

If you disagree with the policy let's discuss that. If you disagree with the way the agent handled the situation, let's talk about that. However, the size of the agent involved is completely beside the point. The agent was not traveling. The passenger in question was. Of course, these situations must be handled with tact and discretion and the customer's dignity must be maintained but the fact remains that the airline has a responsiblity to preserve the rights of ALL customers.


So how does that work out for LUV employees anyway? Is the same person that humiliates a paying passenger and forces them to buy another seat themselves obligated to the same policy when non-reving?

Since non-revs don't pay to fly the subject would appear to be moot. If a non-rev truly did require a second seat, I would assume that on a full flight, they would be handled like a revenue Customer of Size and the necesarry adjustments to the passenger count would be made and a second boarding card would be issued.

 

[firstamendment]

I watched the British version during the summer. To be honest, it just made me too nervous. I guess I get enough of airline issues at work. I just need a break from it at home. That's why I haven't watched you guys. It's great publicity, so good for LUV but I live the live version, so good luck.

 

[SWAFA30]

Although, I generally avoid flying LUV because of the inflight service. I flew one flight similar to the MDW-LAS flight they showed in episode 2. A friendly FA is one that helps stow your bags, brings you a second drink, and maybe a magazine. I don't like the 'forced community' atmosphere on LUV. Sometimes I try to work on a plane. Sometimes I try to sleep. Sometimes I try to have some personal thought time. Sometimes I enjoy the inflight entertainment (if its there). Sometimes, I enjoy a good conversation with the folks seated near me (after all, I am not anti-social - my username is funguy ). All of this is difficult to do when the FA's are using the PA system for entertainment.

The myth that all SWA flights are airborne Vegas floor shows is just that a myth. I am one of close to 8,000 SWA flight attendants and the majority of us come to work and do our jobs without all of the bells and whistles. On the handful of trips when I have had a crew that was uh..."outgoing" we have done our best to "read" our audience and make sure that the humor was well received. If we have a family on board this traveling to a funeral, the antics would be clearly inapropriate and we would respect that. My point is that most people do in fact enjoy the goings on and we as crewmembers are in a tough spot trying to make everyone happy. We either tick-off the buisnessman who just wants to get some work done or we disappoint the family of 4 on vacation who heard from all that friends how much "fun"
Southwest is to fly. How do we make everybody happy????

On my 4 hour Southwest flight, the flight attendants encoraged passengers to sing on the PA system, and lured them by offering complementary drinks to passengers. And all I wanted to do was sleep. After two hours I wanted nothing other than to put on a parachute and jump off the plane, as the situation had turned into two or three drunk people singing TV theme songs.

If you find yourself in a similar situation in the future, don't hesitate to ring your call bell and let the flight attendants know enough is enough. We are reasonable people and I have never had a problem asking my co-workers to "save it for the next flight".

Furthermore, I always thought of A&E as being a network watched by the kind of folks who expect free upgrades, not by the kind of folks who yell at gate agents until compensated.

The errouneous assumption that people who watch A&E don't fly Southwest has allowed us to siphon marketshare from the other majors for decades. I'm sure people who shell out $3,000 for first/business class tickets never yell when they don't get their way.

 

[KCFlyer]

Furthermore, I always thought of A&E as being a network watched by the kind of folks who expect free upgrades, not by the kind of folks who yell at gate agents until compensated, thus my thinking that I am not the only person who saw this as a negative.

Ain't demographics weird? I fly Southwest pretty much exclusivly, unless they don't fly where I'm going. I loathe the "elites", who, IMHO, are a large part of the problem with the "major" carriers. And I watch very little TV, although my preferences when I do watch are:

1. A&E
2. Court TV
3. The History Channel

So - I know at least one A&E viewer who didn't view this program as a negative. And, using the representative sampling methodology that allowed many who watched 15 people and are able to conclude that Southwest caters to "white trash", I can state with conviction that EVERYBODY who watched A&E had a favorable response to the program.

 

[skycruiser]

So how does that work out for LUV employees anyway? Is the same person that humiliates a paying passenger and forces them to buy another seat themselves obligated to the same policy when non-reving?

Since non-revs don't pay to fly the subject would appear to be moot. If a non-rev truly did require a second seat, I would assume that on a full flight, they would be handled like a revenue Customer of Size and the necesarry adjustments to the passenger count would be made and a second boarding card would be issue

But that employee would not have to pay and additional charge nor would that employee be subject to being told, in a check in line with others listening, that they are to large and have to purchase a second seat. You are disgusted because someone suggested doing away with large CS agents but you are ok with humiliating passengers of the same size. Since you brought up the FAA/TSA what exactly is the FAR driving the regulation of overweight passengers (I am not quite sure what the TSA has to do with it but I would love to hear that explanation as well). I never said an overweight agent could no do their jobs, what I was curios about is if they are subject to the same rules that paying passengers are as well as the same kind of humility. The fact that other airlines choose to ignore this rule shows that they respect the dignity of overweight individuals. As shown in the A&E series LUV, at least in the case shown, does not. These folks know their overweight and do not need an CSA reminding them of that fact in front of a crowd of people. My comment about cargo was sarcasm meant to illustrate just how undignified this policy is.

 

[skycruiser]

What is unconscionable about charging a person who's butt is wider than 17 inches for a second seat? Would you, as another paying passenger, have no problem when your seatmate raised the armrest and took 5 inches of your seat? I would imagine in that situation, your feelings about this policy "making sense" might be changed just a little bit. Maybe a lot if it was an MDW-LAX flight.

Now...all airlines have the same policy, but their enforcement is a bit different. A spokesperson for the NAAFA had cited Delta and American as having a "fat friendly" policy. That policy put the onus of doing anything on the shoulders of their customer. If a seatmate complained to a flight attendant, they would "ask for volunteers" to share their seat with you. If those couldn't be found, they would put you on the next flight to your destination (provided it wasn't a full flight). Imagine if the program covered one of those airlines, and rather than the gate agent "humiliating" the passenger, they showed the FA making an announcement over the PA looking for volunteers to trade seats. Then imagine how good they would look as they escorted the passenger off the plane to wait for the next flight out. I would imagine that if the flight was boderline full, the agent might just suggest that they go ahead and buy the second seat to insure that they get to their destination that day. I dunno... I think being "humiliated" in front of one gate agent beats the hell out of being humiliated in front of 150 strangers on board the aircraft, but that's just me.

I have been flying for years and on different carriers both jets and props and to date the only time I have ever seen and individual asked to deplane was once. In that case it was on an CRJ and the airline was at fault not the overweight passenger. Turns out the aircraft was not equipped with an extension belt. Other than that one time I have never seen an overweight individual humiliated by a P/A announcement. I imagine it has happened but I am also willing to bet that other airlines handle the situation with a little more tact than we have seen LUV do it via their A&E series.

And yes I have had overweight individuals beside me before, non-reving we get the middle seat a lot, so I have been hit with it from both sides. Hey, those are the breaks of mass transit (if you want the extra space there is always first class). What is next? Fat folks have to buy two bus/subway tickets, how about charging them double train fair as well? What about hotel and or cruises? In a single room do they get tagged with double occupancy? Do we arm all CSA's with tape measures and/or a ring to gage improper size? Were does it end? It is a blatant form of discrimination and humiliation that, until SWA decide to deny boarding to to folks trying to get home because they didn't have the cash to ante up for their +17 inch backside, was always handled with discreetly. Oh and the funny thing about that first case, LUV allowed both passengers to fly their first legs without implementing that size penalty.

 

[skycruiser]

I fly Southwest pretty much exclusivly, unless they don't fly where I'm going. I loathe the "elites", who, IMHO, are a large part of the problem with the "major" carriers.

I hate to break it to you but LUV is a major carrier.

 

[SWAFA30]

But that employee would not have to pay and additional charge nor would that employee be subject to being told, in a check in line with others listening, that they are to large and have to purchase a second seat.

Again, since employees don't pay to fly in the first place, if they get one seat for free, it stands to reason that they could have two seats for free if needed. How and when a CSA or CSS chooses to advise a non-rev of the intention to invoke the policy is up to the CSA or CSS in question.


You are disgusted because someone suggested doing away with large CS agents but you are ok with humiliating passengers of the same size.

When did I say I was "Ok" with someone humiliating a passenger? In re-reading my posts I believe that I said more than once that such situations should be handled with discretion and tact and utmost effort to preserve the passengers dignity.

Since you brought up the FAA/TSA what exactly is the FAR driving the regulation of overweight passengers (I am not quite sure what the TSA has to do with it but I would love to hear that explanation as well).

I never said the FAA or TSA were behind this policy. Again, permit me to quote myself...

"Every person that purchases a seat from us has the right to the unrestricted use of that ENTIRE seat within FAA/TSA guidelines."

My point was that a person has the right to full use of their seat as long as they don't violate any FAA or TSA regulations. In other words they have the right to sit there without having someone else infringe on any portion of the seat they paid for. While sitting in that seat, they do not have the right to for instance threaten a crewmember or smoke a cigarette. That would be in violation of FARs. COS policies are company policies.

I never said an overweight agent could no do their jobs, what I was curios about is if they are subject to the same rules that paying passengers are as well as the same kind of humility of overweight individuals..

Again, there is no need to charge an employee for an additional seat since they are not paying to travel in the first place. Since they are standby they would only be cleared if two seats were available. If two seats were not available, I would assume they would simply be unable to travel. Also, how the individual agent handles the situation is obviously not something that I can predict.

As shown in the A&E series LUV, at least in the case shown, does not.

It is painting an entire company with a pretty large brush to assume that the way one situation was handled is the standard systemwide.
These folks know their overweight and do not need an CSA reminding them of that fact in front of a crowd of people.

If the flight is full and the CSA genuinely believes that a passenger standing in front of him or her will require a second seat that agent has a responsibility to act. As has been pointed out before some people simply cannot fit into one seat. In the interest of making sure that everyone on the flight travels as comfortably as possible in some instances steps must be taken. The passenger should be tactfully, discreetly and professionally dealt with. In cases where that does not happen the agents involved should be dealt with. However, that does not negate the fact that when handled properly this policy ensures that everyone travels safely and comfortably.

 

[mga707]

not to mention the number of obese employees.

The only, er, "ample" employees I noticed were at MDW. And if you considered even the "amplest" of them to be grotesquely obese, then you obviously haven't spent much time in Chicago... B)

 

[mga707]

I had to laugh as she found out rather quickly that last minute one way fares on the other guys weren't exactly cheap...

Yep, that was priceless! I believe they showed the US counter behind her as she whined (in that grating, Schiavo-esque voice of hers) "They wanted $3000 to get us out of here!"
Welcome to the real world, toots...

 

[KCFlyer]

I hate to break it to you but LUV is a major carrier.

thats why "major" was in quotes. Many don't consider them to be a "major" carrier.

 

[KCFlyer]

I have been flying for years and on different carriers both jets and props and to date the only time I have ever seen and individual asked to deplane was once. In that case it was on an CRJ and the airline was at fault not the overweight
passenger. Turns out the aircraft was not equipped with an extension belt. Other than that one time I have never seen an overweight individual humiliated by a P/A announcement. I imagine it has happened but I am also willing to bet that other airlines handle the situation with a little more tact than we have seen LUV do it via their A&E series.

I too have flown quite a bit over the past 25 years. I've seen a coworker pressed against the window in her window seat as a rather obese passenger took the center seat behind her. But here's the "consumer friendly" point your missing...the other airlines leave it up to YOU to initiate the action...you gotta complain about your seatmate. So...you quietly get squished on your flight, taking time only to write the airline and complain. And then you get a free ticket. I hate to point this out, but the other airlines are losing money...giving away tickets to compensate someone for "sharing" their seat is not a great way to get back to profitablity.

And yes I have had overweight individuals beside me before, non-reving we get the middle seat a lot, so I have been hit with it from both sides. Hey, those are the breaks of mass transit (if you want the extra space there is always first class).

What do you tell your supremo elite who wants to exercise his right to upgrade but can't because you just "accomodated" the obese pax who paid the 21 day advance purchase fare in a first class seat? Or are you suggesting that the other airlines offer to sell them a first class ticket?

What is next? Fat folks have to buy two bus/subway tickets, how about charging them double train fair as well? What about hotel and or cruises? In a single room do they get tagged with double occupancy? Do we arm all CSA's with tape measures and/or a ring to gage improper size? Were does it end? It is a blatant form of discrimination and humiliation that, until SWA decide to deny boarding to to folks trying to get home because they didn't have the cash to ante up for their +17 inch backside, was always handled with discreetly. Oh and the funny thing about that first case, LUV allowed both passengers to fly their first legs without implementing that size penalty.

IF you think about this heartless policy for a minute...the goal is to get people to book two seats in advance. They, more than anyone else, know if they will fit into a 17 inch wide seat. The second ticket is sold at a reduced rate, and if the flight isn't full, they are refunded the money. But lemme ask you this...how does one buy a second seat on a sold out flight? YOu don't. So you deny them boarding. That's what the other airlines do, except they wait for their CUSTOMER to point out that their seatmate will not fit into one seat. When that burden is left up to the CUSTOMER, then the airline looks like the good guy...well. except to the guy who had to complain, but he didn't feel like fitting his 15 inch wide butt into 12 inches of space on a 4 hour flight, so he had no other choice. Then they stand by...waiting for another flight and praying that there are spare seats. The goal of this policy is to get folks to plan ahead...buy the second seat and if the flights not full, request the refund. Or are you one of those who feel that becasue one cannot control how wide they are, we all should suffer in silence because that's the "right" thing to do?