Pre Boads and bulk head seats

[chgoflyer]

---

wrote:

---

wrote:

---

wrote:

---

wrote:

Prehaps you should have been on the flight and scene the jackets coats and personal effects scattered on the seats.  

---

I have. And I have moved the item and taken a seat. And when the person complained the FA wouldn’t get involved. They all see the abuse and when push comes to shove, they won’t get involved and the person with their butt in the seat will win. 

---

Until, of course, the person whose jacket you move decides to use physical force to stop you, and you are both removed from the flight.

Southwest allows seat saving. What they are doing is not wrong, according to Southwest.

Because of the Southwest "non-policy," the seat saver is every bit as "correct" in their position as the person trying to take their seat. Neither one is more correct than the other, per Southwest's "rules." Apply whatever moral beliefs you have to this situation but that doesn't mean a thing since Southwest ALLOWS SEAT SAVING.

Southwest will be liable when the eventual physical altercation happens. And it will.

---

I’m not getting tossed if someone assaults me on a WN plane. And if I do, WN will have one hell of a lawsuit and Pr disaster in their hands.  As long as they continue to tell people to take any empty seat, they are implying seat saving is not allowed. 

---

Hilarious. 

You'll get tossed if Southwest decides to toss you. 😉

And Southwest's PR will make it clear that a belligerent person was removed from the plane for not obeying the orders of the crew. 

If they tell you to step out, you don't get to say "no."

Also, fyi: While I absolutely agree that their position makes things (purposely) unclear, they do not tell passengers to take any "empty" seat, they use the word "available," leaving the definition variable, to their benefit.

But thanks for reinforcing my belief in my prediction -- with attitudes like yours, a physical altercation is all but guaranteed. 

[MCOAnne]

---

wrote:

---

wrote:

---

wrote:

---

wrote:

---

wrote:

Prehaps you should have been on the flight and scene the jackets coats and personal effects scattered on the seats.  

---

I have. And I have moved the item and taken a seat. And when the person complained the FA wouldn’t get involved. They all see the abuse and when push comes to shove, they won’t get involved and the person with their butt in the seat will win. 

---

Until, of course, the person whose jacket you move decides to use physical force to stop you, and you are both removed from the flight.

Southwest allows seat saving. What they are doing is not wrong, according to Southwest.

Because of the Southwest "non-policy," the seat saver is every bit as "correct" in their position as the person trying to take their seat. Neither one is more correct than the other, per Southwest's "rules." Apply whatever moral beliefs you have to this situation but that doesn't mean a thing since Southwest ALLOWS SEAT SAVING.

Southwest will be liable when the eventual physical altercation happens. And it will.

---

I’m not getting tossed if someone assaults me on a WN plane. And if I do, WN will have one hell of a lawsuit and Pr disaster in their hands.  As long as they continue to tell people to take any empty seat, they are implying seat saving is not allowed. 

---

Hilarious. 

You'll get tossed if Southwest decides to toss you. 😉

And Southwest's PR will make it clear that a belligerent person was removed from the plane for not obeying the orders of the crew. 

If they tell you to step out, you don't get to say "no."

Also, fyi: While I absolutely agree that their position makes things (purposely) unclear, they do not tell passengers to take any "empty" seat, they use the word "available," leaving the definition variable, to their benefit.

But thanks for reinforcing my belief in my prediction -- with attitudes like yours, a physical altercation is all but guaranteed. 

---

I hear empty on a regular basis.  Asaulting someone over a seat is a good way to get thrown in jail. The person who is the victim might be removed from that flight, but the WN bean counters don’t want the PR nightmare of a passenger being assaulted on their plane for taking N empty seat in an open seating situation. They will make sure the victim is well compensated to avoid a PR nightmare. 

[chgoflyer]

---

wrote:

---

wrote:

---

wrote:

---

wrote:

---

wrote:

---

wrote:

Prehaps you should have been on the flight and scene the jackets coats and personal effects scattered on the seats.  

---

I have. And I have moved the item and taken a seat. And when the person complained the FA wouldn’t get involved. They all see the abuse and when push comes to shove, they won’t get involved and the person with their butt in the seat will win. 

---

Until, of course, the person whose jacket you move decides to use physical force to stop you, and you are both removed from the flight.

Southwest allows seat saving. What they are doing is not wrong, according to Southwest.

Because of the Southwest "non-policy," the seat saver is every bit as "correct" in their position as the person trying to take their seat. Neither one is more correct than the other, per Southwest's "rules." Apply whatever moral beliefs you have to this situation but that doesn't mean a thing since Southwest ALLOWS SEAT SAVING.

Southwest will be liable when the eventual physical altercation happens. And it will.

---

I’m not getting tossed if someone assaults me on a WN plane. And if I do, WN will have one hell of a lawsuit and Pr disaster in their hands.  As long as they continue to tell people to take any empty seat, they are implying seat saving is not allowed. 

---

Hilarious. 

You'll get tossed if Southwest decides to toss you. 😉

And Southwest's PR will make it clear that a belligerent person was removed from the plane for not obeying the orders of the crew. 

If they tell you to step out, you don't get to say "no."

Also, fyi: While I absolutely agree that their position makes things (purposely) unclear, they do not tell passengers to take any "empty" seat, they use the word "available," leaving the definition variable, to their benefit.

But thanks for reinforcing my belief in my prediction -- with attitudes like yours, a physical altercation is all but guaranteed. 

---

I hear empty on a regular basis.  Asaulting someone over a seat is a good way to get thrown in jail. The person who is the victim might be removed from that flight, but the WN bean counters don’t want the PR nightmare of a passenger being assaulted on their plane for taking N empty seat in an open seating situation. They will make sure the victim is well compensated to avoid a PR nightmare. 

---

Who's the victim?

"I was saving a seat for my child, when a rude passenger suddenly grabbed my belongings. I tried to stop them and an altercation ensued."

Also, what you "hear all the time" means nothing.

[Catedi]

---

@robinkneerwrote:

Prehaps you should have been on the flight and scene the jackets coats and personal effects scattered on the seats.  

---

That would be, 'seen', not scene...

[Sweety_D]

Agree 100%. I am so tired of paying for a Business Select ticket just to watch 20 people with fake injuries take the first few rows! Stop allowing Pre-Boarders to sit in the first 3-5 rows!

[chgoflyer]

---

@Sweety_D wrote:

Agree 100%. I am so tired of paying for a Business Select ticket just to watch 20 people with fake injuries take the first few rows! Stop allowing Pre-Boarders to sit in the first 3-5 rows!

---

Southwest cannot. This has been well discussed.

The only "solution" is to move to assigned seating.

[Catedi]

Or, fly on another airline!

[hockeydiva]

And if you need to pre-board, then you need to wait until the other passengers have de-planed to exit.

Pre-board, post-exit.

[Boat1225]

I agree!  The abuse of the pre-board option is ridiculous.  I some times refer to Southwest as the "Miracle Airline" because I've seen so many people limp on to the plane, or be wheeled on to the plane, and walk off perfectly fine when we land.  No more limping or needing a chair.  It must have been a miracle.

There is a need for pre-boarders and I feel for the ones that truly need it, but that doesn't mean I can't comment on the rest of the pre-boarders.

The same thing is now happening with "service animals".  It's a shame when people take advantage of programs that were designed for the ones that really need help.  I once saw a sign when checking into a hotel that said, "We only consider dogs that are acommpanied by a handicap person as a service dog.  Emotional support dogs do not count or we would all have one."  I'm not condoning the sign but it shows that hotels are fighting the same trend.

[Catedi]

Sorry, Hotels allow ESAs. They are covered by the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which oversees hotel lodging. Just saying...