Southwest Airlines Community

Airlines sell seats on flights ... motels sell rooms for nights. Imagine if a family of four paid for a motel room that met their needs, but in the adjoining room was a family of eight that was bursting at the seams in the same sized room. Imagine if the second family forced open the door between the rooms and began using the space (beds, floors, bathroom) that the first family had paid for and had the right to. Would that be fair or just for the first family? Each family had paid for a finite amount of space for a finite amount of time. If you defend a Customer of Size encroaching on another passenger's seat space, would you also defend the second family in the above example taking over part of another family's motel room. I hope not!! ... View more

In response to ... "Planning a plane ride with an autistic child would be a lot easier to do if the airlines provided appropriate seating and attendants." I don't mean to be confrontational or flip, but I wonder what is fair? I am sure that Southwest, or any other airline, would allow you buy multiple seats to have more room and to use one of those extra seats for a special care-provider if you wanted bring one. But is it fair for you to expect an airline to provide extra space and extra care for the same price they charge people who do not needs those extras? Should the cost of those extra services be passed on to the people who did not use extra space or services, or should the person consuming those extra services pay their full cost. What would be fair? ... View more

Quite frankly, I am confused by the assumptions that this is an autism issue. There were three other children and two adults in the group. I have watched and read several accounts of this incident, and all of them talk about behavioral problems with multiple children and with the adults. The autistic child was definitely not the only behavioral problem, and quite possibly was not a problem at all. Without having been there, there is no way to know. ... View more

Interesting post, but it sure is hard to read when it's all one long paragraph :-( Great new blog! So much to view, so little time!! ... View more

nsx, It's good that you admit that your theory is based on inference, not facts. Once ATA ceased operations, there was no path to make everyone's plans whole. You can debate about what might have been a better or worse path to follow, but it seems pretty clear that there is not enough capacity to accommodate many, perhaps most, of the people who were affected by ATA's actions. No matter what Southwest did, many people would be frustrated and upset, with good reason. But that reason is not primarily anything Southwest did, or did not, do. It is the fact that two airlines serving Hawaii went out of business in a very short period. ... View more

Chris, Corinne, EQUALLY DISMAYED, et al, I just re-read Southwest's original press release concerning the ATA situation. It said ... "Upon hearing ATA's decision, Southwest immediately implemented a plan to take care of all Customers who purchased a ticket on Southwest and are scheduled to travel on ATA service by rebooking them on a new itinerary closest to their previous travel plans, or offering a full refund for any unused portion of a ticket." The possibility of a refund being the final remedy for some people was always there, and the press release never used the words "promise," "guarantee," and "unequivocally" in respect to the rebooking option. If some individuals implied otherwise, or if you inferred otherwise, I am sure it was because everyone wanted very much for that to be the case. It was certainly not because anyone was trying to "pull a fast one." No one wanted to disappoint your friends and families (who in some cases quite possibly might have been their own friends and families). However, it is possible to make the case that you (the people who booked ATA through Southwest) are the lucky ones. If you had booked your trip to Hawaii through ATA, you would have the following options: - No reaccommodation - No refund - No travel voucher - No customer service phone number to call - No web site on which to vent your frustration Of course, the really UNlucky ones in this situation are the ATA employees who woke up a few days ago with no jobs in a sluggish economy and in an industry that is not hiring. It's a bad situation. I know that many people worked very hard for a different result. The final result was not what anyone wanted, but rebooking of everyone was impossible. The necessary number of seats to Hawaii simply do not exist. Having your refund a few days earlier would not have changed that fact. Your frustration is understandable. Some of your comments are not. Have a nice day and try to show compassion for others. ("Others" includes the people at Southwest who tried very hard NOT to disappoint you.) ... View more

Mercedes & Others, Let's put this idea that Southwest did "no inspections" to rest. First, the citation specifies 46 of Southwest's approximately 525 aircraft as being out of compliance. So ... the vast majority were in compliance and that is not in question. Second, those 46 aircraft WERE inspected pursuant to the AD in question. That inspection was not ignored or overlooked. In fact, approximately 99.4 percent of that inspection WAS done. A small panel was overlooked, and that oversight was self-reported by Southwest as soon as they discovered. I don't think any fair-minded person could justify calling that "no inspections." In addition, Southwest performs as many as 80 other inspections on each aircraft every year. And some of those inspections cover the same area that was inadvertently missed in the specific AD inspection. That doesn't sound like "no inspections." If you want to be mad at Southwest, support it with facts, not reckless statements that are patently false. ... View more

Ken A., If you can find any credible source that says Southwest was "cited by the FAA for ignoring 'cracks' in their aircraft," I'll buy you a steak dinner! That never happened! Your comments, and those of many others, show that you are completely ignorant of the facts. If you had read the actual citation, which I have read several times, and if you had watched the hearings, which I have from beginning to end, you would know that Southwest was cited for missing, because of a documentation error, the inspection of a very small piece of the aircraft skin covered by an AD ... a couple of inches high and about a yard long. Southwest NEVER ignored a single inspection or AD, and as far as I have seen, no official source has made such an allegation. AND, because of the numerous other inspections Southwest does, the segment of skin that was missed in the specific AD inspection was, in fact, checked during other inspections. Again, "shame on you" for not taking the time to understand what is a relatively simple issue. Southwest made a mistake. They admitted the mistake. They corrected the mistake. And there is NO EVIDENCE that they ever flew an unsafe aircraft. ... View more

It is interesting that most of the comments so far were made BEFORE Southwest's testimony at the hearing. Almost all the testimony prior to Southwest 's was focused on FAA problems and not the actual safety of Southwest's aircraft. What is shocking to me is how reckless some people can be with their comments based on little or no information, but that is the nature of blogs and of many blog posters. In the case of Southwest, this is a compliance issue, not a safety of flight issue. That is not to take away from the importance of compliance, but there is a difference in this case, and if you are not willing or able to see the difference then "shame on you." ... View more

Anon, According to Wikipedia, "[Oberstar] has served on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee since his first term." His first term began on January 3, 1975. ... View more

I am sure this situation has been stressful for Southwest employees and customers alike, especially with all the hysterical, overblown reporting full of inaccuracies. Southwest is being open about the problems and about their handling of those problems. That alone should give everyone confidence that Southwest is "who" and "what" they have always been ... a great company who puts people first. I also notice that S&P has said these issues will not affect their financial rating of Southwest. "Big Money" doesn't play favorites, so I would think this is a pretty strong endorsement of Southwest's corporate character. ... View more

For those of you who want to say Southwest puts "profit over everything" ... If that is so, why were they the only airline not to lay off a single Employee after 9/11, and the only airline to continue flying their full schedule when flights resumed on 9/14, even though they were losing millions of dollars doing so? If you want to say bad things about Southwest, you need to find another mantra. That one "doesn't fly." ... View more

Ed, Here's my reasoning based on the facts at hand. At the point Southwest disclosed the problem caused by a typo in a document, they were inspecting 99+% of the surface area in question, as required by the Airworthiness Directive. The typo caused them to miss <1% of that surface area. Neither the FAA documents surrounding the proposed penalty, nor any other official documents I am aware of, question that that was the case. All the furor is about the timing of what happened after the self-disclosure. That is ... Southwest, with the approval of the FAA and the guidance of Boeing, implementing a 10-day plan to re-inspect the aircraft, which they actually completed in eight days. I believe the number of aircraft involved in the original self-disclosure was 46, so the surface area of those 46 aircraft had missed less than 1% of the inspection due to the documentation error that was self-disclosed. And as I said before, nothing that was found in those re-inspections posed a safety risk ... unless you want to argue with the aircraft manufacturer. If I didn't believe Southwest was the safest airline in the US, would I be flying four times on Southwest next week? I think not! ... View more

Keith, I honestly don't think I based anything on an assumption. To the best of my knowledge, no one has suggested that Southwest purposely skipped any inspections prior to their self-disclosure last year. They were already doing 99+% of the AD-related inspection that is in question, and it would make no sense not to do the other -1%, except for an acknowledged documentation error, which they self-reported. Who did what after they self-disclosed is less clear, and I think we should all wait before jumping to any conclusions. But it is clear that Southwest moved quickly to re-inspect based on their self-disclosed error. Also, based on what I have read about the inspections conducted after the fact on the planes in question and on what Boeing has said about what type/size of cracks are safety concerns and what type/size are not, none of Southwest's plane were ever unsafe to fly. ... View more

Bill Mead, It is misstatements like yours that continue to muddy the waters and make it impossible for the average person to get a clear picture of the real issues. "This decision by someone at Southwest to fore go the inspection ..." is simply not true. The original problem was a clerical mistake, not a conscious decision by anyone, and the secondary decision to re-inspect the planes over a short period of time was a combined decision by Boeing, Southwest, and the FAA. "One is the growth of Southwest that is now occurring faster than people can be trained ..." is misleading and does not consider the fact that Southwest has a huge base of qualified mechanics to choose from. Most from numerous qualified people who have been laid off over the past years due to other airlines' bankruptcies and down-sizing. As for re-ids, that is a fact of life in our world and is a TSA issue, not a Southwest issue. And finally, all of Southwest's new boarding policies were tested extensively before they were decided on, and all of them are as efficient, or more efficient, than previous policies. "Some manager made a decision not to pull those planes until after the Christmas rush ... " again totally unfounded and without any basis in fact. It is amazing to me how poor a grasp of the facts most posters have and how careless they are in stating their unfounded opinions are if they were facts. Let's have good, open debate about the real issues, but let's also choose our words carefully and draw clear distinctions between opinion and fact. ... View more

There is no doubt that this is a serious matter. And there is also no doubt that Southwest is taking it seriously. BUT ... there is additionally no doubt that most of the posters here have no clue what they are talking about. Southwest inspects its planes constantly. ALL PLANES are inspected in some manner every seven days ... yes, even the ones being talked about in the news. And the "skins" of all those planes were checked in accordance with FAA regs and the AD in question, except that due to an error in documentation, a very small part of the skins (less than 1 percent) was inadvertently overlooked. There is no evidence that this documentation error was anything other than an honest mistake. Does this make everything right? Of course not. But the idea that Southwest's planes were, or are, inherently unsafe is nonsense. Because of this incident, Southwest is probably the safest airline you could possibly fly right now, and because Southwest learns from its mistakes ... unlike those airlines who have been through bankruptcy more than once ... it is likely Southwest will continue to be the safest airline you could possibly fly for the foreseeable future. ... View more

Patrick, I have seen many comments that Southwest should "admit their mistake." THEY ALREADY DID. They did so in March of 2007 when they SELF-REPORTED the issue. Then, they worked with the FAA and Boeing to come up with a plan to address the issue, which they did. And in April of 2007 it appears that all parties were satisfied that the issue had been appropriately resolved. I have no idea why the FAA has decided a year later that suddenly they are no longer satisfied, but because Southwest SELF-REPORTED and worked IN GOOD FAITH with the appropriate organizations to come up with a mutually-accepted solution ... and then implemented that solution ... there is really nothing left for Southwest to "admit." ... View more

Charlene, All the airlines have significant challenges, but where did anyone say they were "excited" about Frontier's challenges? Certainly not here. I don't think anyone wants a company to go bankrupt, but consolidation may be necessary to keep the airline industry as a whole on its feet. ... View more

David, You do realize that there's a "gotcha" in your statement, "Now to do that I have to pay just as much as I would to travel on United or American, where I CAN PICK MY SEAT." You left out " ... FROM THE SEATS THAT AREN'T ALREADY TAKEN." If you buy a seat at the last minute from Southwest, you still get a reasonable fare, and you also have a reasonable chance of getting a good seat. If you buy from one of the legacies, you pay considerably more, and you get to PICK YOUR SEAT from the assortment of middle seats that aren't already assigned to people who paid less that you. AND, you don't get any choice of who to sit next to. Southwest's new policy is still the best going. ... View more

I think the most significant thing about the last year, in relation to the Wright Amendment, is all the things that DID NOT happen. There were some à ... View more

Does assigned seating guarantee that families get to sit together? NO If you wait 'til the last minute (by design or because of an unexpected event), a large family will likely not sit together. With open seating on Southwest, you are much more likely to be accommodated because their system is, by design, more flexible. Would it be okay if families were guaranteed A boarding passes, but only at the end of the A group? If YES, then guess what ... that is what the new policy GUARANTEES, right? And, families who have B or C board passes get to MOVE UP in front of other Bs and Cs. There is more up side than down to this policy, and if everyone would stop freaking out for just a minute, I think they would see it. ... View more

I can only imagine how frustrating this must be for Brian and others at Southwest. Southwest has made it very clear that they did extensive testing. During that testing, they found that families were neither separated nor inconvenienced. If you know anything about Southwest, you should know that they do not lie to their customers. So, if the new system allows families to sit together, what is the real issue here? Is it that sitting together is not enough for some of you, and that you will only be happy if you can sit together AND have your choice of any seat on the aircraft? Or is it that you are simply uncomfortable with change and that uncomfortable feeling makes you anxious and, at times, mean? The fact is, if you have not experienced it, any opinion you have is, at best, uninformed as to whether it does, or can, work. ... View more

The thing is ... All the people who are saying, "IÃ ... View more

I understand that it is Southwest's nature to apologize and move on, but I have to say I am a little disappointed since there was really nothing to apologize for. A young, immature woman made a silly decision, encouraged by a lawyer, I am sure. It appears from what I have seen, this is not the only bad decision she has made. It also appears she will make lots of money getting paid to expose herself. America ... you gotta love it. Anyway, what your employees did was reasonable and, from all informed accounts, was done is a discrete manner. At worst, it certainly was not as rude and vile as many of the comments you have received on this blog and others in recent days. Oh well, I am tired of hearing about this. I hope everyone else is. ... View more

Any by the way ... Those of you sad, troubled people who have seen fit to attack Brian Lusk ... all he did was provide a link to an article by someone who was actually on the Today Show set during the telecast, and who apparently has no ax to grind one way or another, AND provide a forum for you to spew your venom. Those of you who have appointed yourselves as the protectors of poor Ms. Ebbert's rights ... what about the rights of Mr. Lusk and of the people who happen to disagree with you. Of ... I forgot ... for your ilk, only people who agree with you deserve rights and consideration. It is you who should be ashamed ... not for having an opinion, but for being unable to state your opinion without trampling on the very principles you allege to be defending. ... View more

I find several things interesting about the general tone of the comments thus far. Firstà ... View more

Let's use a little common sense here. I seriously doubt the FA was the one who talked to the woman, or even made the final decision to talk to her. That would be the responsibility of the Customer Service Agent or Supervisor. FAs and CSAs see lots of cleavage and short skirts, so there had to have been something "different" about this case to make it worthy of any attention at all. What could have been different about this situation ... come on now ... you already know deep-down what it is, and most of you are ignoring it because it does not fit your bias in the situation. ... View more

I can help you evaluate the accuracy of the young woman's account of the events with a simple example. On the Today show she said, "Everyone on the plane heard ..." referring to conversation with the Southwest employee which has been reported to have taken place either "at the door of the plane" or "in the jetway." Now, with all the ambient noise on a plane (even at the gate), how much of a private conversation at the front of the plane or in the jetway can you hear when you are seated on the plane? Heck, in most cases it's hard to even hear the flight attendant on the PA. I am sure Ms. Ebbert was embarrassed, but it certainly had nothing to do with "everyone on the plane" hearing anything. ... View more

Well, Brianà ... View more

Rob, Southwest believes letting you talk to a real person is more friendly. If you are not willing to make a call ... at no additional expense to you, since you already have the phone ... I suspect you are one of those people who is just looking for more reasons, and a more anonymous way, to complain. Some people seem to prefer email and blogs because it's impersonal and it is easier for them to be rude and make baseless personal attacks on people. You know ... sort of like you did with Bill. When you have to communicate with a real person, you are less likely to waste time with all that and you are probably more likely to get a real solution to any real problem you have. ... View more