Airline executives: idiots, or morons?

[tahnan]

Today the New York Times asks, Will Airlines and Passengers Call a Truce?. They report that "in the space of 18 months, the concept of a plane ticket has been transformed from an all-inclusive purchase to a pay-as-you-go plan, turning the relationship between airlines and customers increasingly sour." Really, New York Times? Eighteen months? Did you try flying at all during the rest of the last decade? In general, it's a fairly shallow article, following the modern journalistic practice of quoting someone new every few paragraphs and being sure to include viewpoints from random customers as if they're experts.

But the quote that really struck me as brilliant was from the chief executive of Southwest, Gary C. Kelly: "You can decide whether to take care of people and treat customers like guests in your home." I find that I'd really like Mr. Kelly to come and be a guest in my home, so that I can tell him that I've decided he's too fat to sit in my living room unless he buys another chair.

Comments

[q-pheevr.livejournal.com]

The really odd thing is that the words "has been transformed" are a link to an article published eighteen months ago, under the same byline, which asserts:

In just a few short months, the airlines have discovered to their glee that their customers are willing to pay for most everything from checked bags to soft drinks to pillows and blankets — and are doing so without much fuss.

So in August, 2008, Micheline Maynard thought that the fees had emerged in the previous few months, but now she's saying that the change took place between August, 2008, and now. And even if she had forgotten about her previous article on the subject, the Times clearly hasn't, because they provided a link to the earlier article from the current one. But did anyone there actually read the earlier article, or think about putting two and two together?

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Rounding, maybe? "Eighteen months" sounds better than "twenty months", because "eighteen" is a round number and "twenty"...OK, that sounds stupid when I write it down, but in base twelve (which is how months are counted), eighteen really is rounder.

[q-pheevr.livejournal.com]

Well, sure, I can see rounding "twenty months" down to "a year and a half." But the point is, why is Maynard writing about this as if it were a new thing now, when she wrote about the same phenomenon eighteen months ago, and the Times knows this perfectly well?

Basically, I'm adding to your earlier rhetorical question, "Did you try flying at all during the rest of the last decade?" Although I'd add that it matters where you fly, too. In December, I took a domestic flight within the United States for the first time in, well, about a decade, and was really startled when American Airlines charged me extra to check a bag—I figured that sort of nonsense was limited to sleazy 'discount' airlines. I had gotten used to Air Canada charging for meals on medium-range flights, but transporting baggage seems like a rather more fundamental component of the basic service, and no standard-grade airline I've ever flown with in Canada or Europe has ever charged me extra for it.

[rubrick.livejournal.com]

On the contrary, in the U.S., some of the smaller carriers (Alaska, maybe?) are the only ones who aren't yet charging for the first checked bag. Among the major carriers there was a very swift progression from two bags free, to one bag free, to no bags free, with the going rate for that first bag rapidly escalating from $15 to, I hear, $30 on some airlines.

An obvious unintended (but surely not unexpected?) consequence of this is that the number of people taking aboard their maximum number and size of carry-on bags has ballooned, and every flight is prefaced by visibly-frazzled flight attendents spending 15 minutes trying to squeeze all the bags into the overhead bins.

yes, but

[lauradi7.livejournal.com]

Kevin Smith normally (on any airline) buys two seats, which he had done on Southwest, but he stood by for an earlier flight and caught it. It was ridiculous of them to let him on and then boot him off, but he knew the company's policy and it was basically a stunt for him to make such a big deal about it. If he really objects to the corporate policy he shouldn't have bought tickets on Southwest to begin with. (hmm. unless this was a deliberate move on his part to get a seat that he *knew* would cause problems so that he could let the rest of us know about the policy).

Re: yes, but

[cnoocy]

Whether or not Kevin Smith knew about the policy isn't really relevant to the quote though, is it? I don't invite a whole bunch of guests over, and then single out a few for public humiliation and possible expulsion because they're too fat, or sexy, or anything.

Re: yes, but

[sensational.livejournal.com]

He didn't actually violate their policy. The policy is that someone is too fat too fly if they can't put down their armrest. He could. He doesn't even need a seatbelt extender. There is an exception to the policy if the pilot makes a call--but this pilot didn't. The stewardesses lied to him.

So, the policy is fattist and shitty, but he wasn't even violating it in this case. He buys two seats for comfort and because he can.

Re: yes, but

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

It's not actually clear to me that he knew the policy. My impression is that he buys two seats so that he doesn't have to deal with someone sitting next to him the whole time going, "Oh my god you're Kevin Smith! I've got this screenplay I want you to read...." See for instance this comment at the Economist blog (http://www.economist.com/comment/480090#comment-480090), which cites Smith as claiming in a podcast (that, full disclosure, I didn't bother to listen to) that "he only started buying two seats recently, as a matter of comfort (because he doesn't like sitting right next to a stranger -- which is a pretty common preference)".

Beyond that, of course, note that I didn't actually cite, or link to, or in any other way mention Kevin Smith in my post. Smith is the most recent and most public instance of Southwest putting this policy into practice, but they've been doing this sort of thing--capriciously, inconsistently--for at least several years. My point about the quote is not "and yet he did this to Kevin Smith"; it's "and yet he thinks that this sort of policy is the way you treat guests in your home".

Re: yes, but

[cazique.livejournal.com]

I'll mention now that it's not clear why you think airline executives are idiots (or morons).

Maybe what Kelly's talking about* isn't the person who's too big to fit in the seat, but the passenger whose seat is next to that person. I mean honestly Tahnan, if you came up the aisle to your middle seat and a 450-lb person was in the aisle, spilling over into your seat, would you really just squeeze into your 40% of a seat, think "ah well, my bad luck" and settle in with good cheer for your transcontinental flight?

I don't really think Kelly was talking about one or the other, just trying to make a point. And I think it's a good point, though I don't know if the living room analogy is a fair one - this is travel, and each passenger has paid for one seat. If you can't fit in one seat, for some definition of "fit in", why isn't it reasonable to require someone to buy enough seats to fit into? And you can be as snarky and whiny as you want, but when you have guests in your home I assume that if one of them takes up 3/4 of a love seat you don't cram a second normal-size one on there too.

I also find it funny that you bemoan and being sure to include viewpoints from random customers as if they're experts while what you're doing is throwing your opinion as a random customer out there.

Re: yes, but

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Cazique,

I wouldn't be entirely happy to find someone 450 pounds taking up part of my seat. I'm also not entirely happy when I find someone behind me who's four years old and will kick my seat, but the airlines don't make parents buy an extra seat in front of their children. I'm also not entirely happy when I find someone next to me who takes up my space with a strong odor (lack of showering, too much cologne, etc.), or by talking, or by elbowing, or by turning on their light when I'm trying to sleep, or by snoring when I've got my light on and I'm trying to read, or....

There are multiple points here. First, when I'm a passenger on a plane, I accept that many facts about my environment (including who I'm sitting next to) are out of my control. The fact that I don't like the people near me doesn't entitle me to make them move or leave to accommodate me.

Second, airlines aren't interested in making everyone comfortable, or even making people comfortable by eliminating all annoyances; they're picking one small set of people that they feel they can get away with putting out (figuratively and, it turns out, literally).

Third, regardless of whether the policy is justified, you cannot publicly humiliate someone by saying "You're too fat to fly; get off our plane" and simultaneously claim that you're treating customers like guests in your home. During parties, I have had guests in my home that I haven't liked, and indeed I have had guests in my home who, simply by being who they are, have made other people uncomfortable; and at no point did I say to those guests, "You know, someone else is uncomfortable; you're just going to have to leave my house now."

Fourth, as has been noted variously, Southwest isn't always enforcing this policy in any sort of reasonable way. Kevin Smith, for instance, claims that he did "fit in" one seat, and that didn't stop the employees from ejecting him. (And note that Southwest has been apologetic to him while defending the actual actions.) Or consider the comment on Southwest's blog (http://www.blogsouthwest.com/blog/not-so-silent-bob) in which a woman says

I was told, specifically, by several people at Southwest that if I couldn't fit in a seat, I could not sit next to my 4 year old, 35lb daughter and just share the two seats with her. I was told that I had to buy 3 seat for the two of us, even though we would have been very comfortable in two seats.

If you had someone in your home who took up 3/4 of a love seat, I assume that if her daughter wanted to sit next to her, you wouldn't prevent her. That may not mean that the policy itself is inherently unfair, but it does mean that Kelly is willing to accept an ongoing pattern of haphazard enforcement of it as the way you'd treat a guest in your own home.

And finally: Damned straight I'm throwing my opinion as a random customer out there. Because this is my blog, not a newspaper article. You can be as snarky and whiny as you want, but I trust you can tell the difference.

Re: yes, but

[cazique.livejournal.com]

Thanks for replying substantively. I see your point, but my rebuttal would be that none of the examples in your first paragraph (maybe the elbowing, slightly) impinges on your ability to take up your full seat - they're just extremely bothersome. (I've been the snorer and the snoree - I know this sort of thing is universal.) Even the kicking child (and I've been the kickee and the parent of the kicker) is still a different animal - not all kids kick, kids can be asked to stop (and it sometimes works) - but if you can't fit in your seat you can't fit in your seat.

Paragraph the Second doesn't really relate to the discussion. Paragraph the Third, you are quite right. Paragraph the Fourth, I hadn't thought about the big-parent-small-child variant.

However - At least Fourth, and I believe Third, seem to me to be saying "this policy isn't being enforced politely/humanely/fairly/consistently. That may be (and you provide some examples) but that does NOT mean the policy itself is unfair, illegal, or whatever, and it is that (the policy itself, not the enforcement thereof) that I *intended* my last post to address. That's all I'm trying to say, that the policy makes some sense. (One might reply that there's no good way to enforce it, and that means it's not a good policy, and I would understand but disagree with that line of reasoning.)

Paragraph the Finally - good point. you win that one, skeletor.

Re: yes, but

[silkblade.livejournal.com]

So it would be ok if the airlines extended this to tall people too? Because I've sat next to a some tall people who were infringing on my ability to use my seat because one of their legs was practically taking over my entire leg area. Or guys who think they have to sit with their legs extra wide to prove...something.

Ooh, or maybe they'll extend it to obnoxious people who put their seat backs down because they make it very hard for me to use my seat tray for anything and to move comfortably in my seat. More than once, I've had one of them hit me in the head because I was leaning over my tray.

Flying is uncomfortable for everyone because the airlines pack us in like sardines. Is it really necessary to turn it into a potentially humiliating experience for some as well? There aren't any rules that they feel the need to follow, so even if you made your last flight the person checking you in for your next might decide that you have to be kept off that one.

Re: yes, but

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

I just came across a piece on Slate (http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2245115) asking that very question about tall people. (I wasn't really looking for it; I was reading their piece about how the government enforced Prohibition by poisoning people, but that's another post.) And that's the thing I was alluding to in Paragraph the Second: by singling out fat people with their policy, they're being arbitrarily discriminatory.

Re: yes, but

[jadelennox]

I would argue that it's not necessarily true that somebody overflowing the seat prevents me from 8-4 seat more than somebody who is kicking me. I've been squeezed by large people next to me into tiny spaces, and it's uncomfortable, but I've lived with it. I've been kicked by toddlers whose parents won't discipline them for entire flights, thus preventing me from sleeping, digesting food, were concentrating on a book or movie. I've sat behind a toddler who was bouncing back and forth so that I couldn't use my tray table at all because the chair kept moving and banging the tray table forward and back into me. I have sat next to obnoxious businessmen who are offended that they have to sit next to the other peons in coach and let their arms, coats, magazines, and laptop bags overflow into my space. I have sat next to people who fell asleep and ended up leaning on me. I have sat next to people whose music was playing so loudly that came through their headphones and I couldn't sleep or concentrate.

It's a false dichotomy to say that the only form of discomfort on an airplane that prevents you from using the seat you've paid for is the one that makes you cramped. They are all different forms of discomfort.

Southwest's policy has nothing to do with whether or not you are putting out the person in the seat next to you. If it did, they would let fat women sit next to their children, and, as said above, they would make parents buy seats in front of and behind their hyperactive children. They would have a no perfume rule. Etc.