bjarvis: (plane)
bjarvis ([personal profile] bjarvis) wrote2007-09-20 09:09 am
Entry tags:

Southwest Changes the Cattle Call

I heard on NPR's Morning Edition while driving to work that Southwest Airlines is adjusting their traditional cattle call seating methodology.

For the uninitiated, Southwest doesn't do seat assignments. Instead, everyone is given a boarding pass with an "A," "B" or "C" on a first-come, first-served basis upon check-in, and each group is released onto the plane in order. You might be the first person at the gate, but if your boarding pass has a "C," two-thirds of the plane boards before you, including anyone who arrives at the last minute with an "A" or "B". Pre-boarding allowances are made for those needing assistance or families with children.

Under the new system, there are still no seat assignments and Southwest will still do the letter assignments but they also print a number to indicate your position in your respective corral. Effectively, your place in line will be held until you get to the gate. As a Southwest flier, this largely means that I'll still have a mad rush to check-in online from home precisely 24 hours before my flight, but there's no reason whatsoever to hurry to the gate since arriving early or late will have no impact in our choice of seats.

What I found most surprising is that Southwest is doing away with pre-boarding for families with children. Outside of opening themselves up to being bashed as non-family friendly, I'm not sure this adjustment will actually save any boarding time or appease their business customers. I'd rather families get a chance to be seated first so I can purposefully take a seat *away* from the potentially screaming babies or seat-kicking toddlers. Then again, perhaps appearing unfriendly to families will reduce the number of screaming & spewing babies and poorly parented children on Southwest flights.
jss: (badger)

[personal profile] jss 2007-09-20 01:58 pm (UTC)(link)
> perhaps appearing unfriendly to families will reduce the number of [...] babies and poorly parented children

I doubt it. If SW is the cheapest, families (especially those with younger children) are likely to continue using them, no matter how family-unfriendly they may be [perceived as], simply to save money, especially in the current US economy.

[identity profile] bjarvis.livejournal.com 2007-09-20 02:09 pm (UTC)(link)
If they're so price-conscious, one might think they would opt to not travel at all. Alas, humans are fundamentally not rational creatures. I know people who will spend a fortune to travel around to look for the cheapest possible price on a particular item they fundamentally don't need and couldn't use. *sigh*
jss: (grouchy)

[personal profile] jss 2007-09-20 02:29 pm (UTC)(link)
"Don't travel" isn't really workable. Maybe they have an Event (wedding, funeral, bar mitzvah, graduation, etc.) to attend and can't leave the kidlings behind. It's like saying "Don't go out to restaurants" — it'll never happen.

But yes, People Are Stooopidd(tm).

[identity profile] bjarvis.livejournal.com 2007-09-20 02:36 pm (UTC)(link)
Attending major events somehow seems exempt from need vs. want analysis. They'll spend a fortune to take the spousal unit & offspring across the continent to attend a second cousin's third wedding but still miss their rent, car and credit card payments.

I sometimes despair for the future of our species.