Welcome to the Southwest Airlines News and Discussion thread - 2023 edition. Please continue to post your news and discussions below.

Link to the previous 2022 edition:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1468671

Is it safe to assume due to the lack of posts Southwest is now largely back to regular ops?

I can't quote because it's the 2022 thread, but regarding stricter regulations to avoid problems like this, SteelChair objected thus:

Especially when the regulators themselves don't have the wherewithal to even identify the issues, let alone fix them. And they can't mandate the solutions.

That's assuming regulators remain as underfunded, disempowered, and anemic as they are right now. That's exactly the problem that needs to be fixed. They don't have the wherewithal? Give it to them. They can't mandate solutions? Let them.

It takes work and money, neither of which anybody has an appetite for, even after MAX and this meltdown. Until people get that appetite, dumb stuff like this is going to keep happening, because nobody will be punished for being so dumb, and nobody will have the power to incentivize them to be smart.

ck8msp wrote:

Is it safe to assume due to the lack of posts Southwest is now largely back to regular ops?

Yes - WN executed their plan and was mostly back to normal on Friday (I'd argue better than normal from a performance perspective as they posted some pretty impressive OTP)

Look for the $79 one way fare from MDW to HNL in an attempt by damage control to make things right. Bob Jordan plain and simply did not accept accountability and spoke very little of updating the technology so it will happen again.
Spring Break ? Who knows.

hamiltondaniel wrote:

I can't quote because it's the 2022 thread, but regarding stricter regulations to avoid problems like this, SteelChair objected thus:

Especially when the regulators themselves don't have the wherewithal to even identify the issues, let alone fix them. And they can't mandate the solutions.

That's assuming regulators remain as underfunded, disempowered, and anemic as they are right now. That's exactly the problem that needs to be fixed. They don't have the wherewithal? Give it to them. They can't mandate solutions? Let them.

It takes work and money, neither of which anybody has an appetite for, even after MAX and this meltdown. Until people get that appetite, dumb stuff like this is going to keep happening, because nobody will be punished for being so dumb, and nobody will have the power to incentivize them to be smart.

The FAA is charged with safety, not service. They are organized and funded to provide safety oversight, and they do a good job of it. The results speak for themselves with regard to safety.

No one has alleged that Southwest did anything unsafe.

If any airline chooses to run a poor business, that's on them. As long as they aren't committing safety violations the FAA has no role.

SteelChair wrote:

hamiltondaniel wrote:

I can't quote because it's the 2022 thread, but regarding stricter regulations to avoid problems like this, SteelChair objected thus:

Especially when the regulators themselves don't have the wherewithal to even identify the issues, let alone fix them. And they can't mandate the solutions.

That's assuming regulators remain as underfunded, disempowered, and anemic as they are right now. That's exactly the problem that needs to be fixed. They don't have the wherewithal? Give it to them. They can't mandate solutions? Let them.

It takes work and money, neither of which anybody has an appetite for, even after MAX and this meltdown. Until people get that appetite, dumb stuff like this is going to keep happening, because nobody will be punished for being so dumb, and nobody will have the power to incentivize them to be smart.

The FAA is charged with safety, not service. They are organized and funded to provide safety oversight, and they do a good job of it. The results speak for themselves with regard to safety.

No one has alleged that Southwest did anything unsafe.

If any airline chooses to run a poor business, that's on them. As long as they aren't committing safety violations the FAA has no role.

The regulator in this case would be the DOT. The DOT does not like when you sell a schedule and then don’t operate said schedule.

Technically the dot doesn't like it when you advertise something, failed to operate it, and don't refund the customers. As long as Southwest isn't holding back refunds, dot really doesn't have any room for action here. Especially if a number of these cancellations early on were due to crew legalities.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

sonnyr23 wrote:

Look for the $79 one way fare from MDW to HNL in an attempt by damage control to make things right. Bob Jordan plain and simply did not accept accountability and spoke very little of updating the technology so it will happen again.
Spring Break ? Who knows.

IMHO he's a weak leader and should be fired.
Who was COO when Gary Kelly was CEO? Wasn't it Bob Jordan?
Where was Southwest's communications to passengers and its staff, for DAYS, while the meltdown occurred? Nowhere.
What did Bob Jordan say in his eventual weak 3 minute video speech? "We apologize, we suffered a huge problem from weather, our IT systems are weak, the weather was really bad, our workers are great, that weather was tough, we're going to get back to operation". Not very clear, not that apologetic, lots of blaming the weather. Own it, Bob.
Other airlines buy tickets for passengers on a different airline when problems occur. Where was the vaunted "power in the hands of our Team" where a gate agent had an open credit card to rebook passengers on other airline flights, something that even US ULCCs have done before? Oh, wait, the WN "Team" members didn't have that kind of authority or abilities. Another management failure.
Fire him.

sonnyr23 wrote:

Look for the $79 one way fare from MDW to HNL in an attempt by damage control to make things right. Bob Jordan plain and simply did not accept accountability and spoke very little of updating the technology so it will happen again.
Spring Break ? Who knows.

I doubt it. I understand that loads are already higher than normal for this dead travel time. So, Southwest has no need to give seats away at fire sale prices.

Eolesen wrote:

Technically the dot doesn't like it when you advertise something, failed to operate it, and don't refund the customers. As long as Southwest isn't holding back refunds, dot really doesn't have any room for action here. Especially if a number of these cancellations early on were due to crew legalities.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

That's not true at all. DOT is the regulator.

It's well within their purview to assess whether or not you're reliably operating your transportation network, and impose regulatory sanction as a result.

The administration has good reason to care as well, as an airline disruption that large has financial impacts like a small bank collapse or minor natural disaster. All depends on who you have at the regulator, and what kind of appetite they have for a fight.

Chemist wrote:

sonnyr23 wrote:

Look for the $79 one way fare from MDW to HNL in an attempt by damage control to make things right. Bob Jordan plain and simply did not accept accountability and spoke very little of updating the technology so it will happen again.
Spring Break ? Who knows.

IMHO he's a weak leader and should be fired.
Who was COO when Gary Kelly was CEO? Wasn't it Bob Jordan?
Where was Southwest's communications to passengers and its staff, for DAYS, while the meltdown occurred? Nowhere.
What did Bob Jordan say in his eventual weak 3 minute video speech? "We apologize, we suffered a huge problem from weather, our IT systems are weak, the weather was really bad, our workers are great, that weather was tough, we're going to get back to operation". Not very clear, not that apologetic, lots of blaming the weather. Own it, Bob.
Other airlines buy tickets for passengers on a different airline when problems occur. Where was the vaunted "power in the hands of our Team" where a gate agent had an open credit card to rebook passengers on other airline flights, something that even US ULCCs have done before? Oh, wait, the WN "Team" members didn't have that kind of authority or abilities. Another management failure.
Fire him.

Depends on Bob Jordan’s relationship with the BOD. Also, depends on how well the BOD understood current operations, risks associated with current tools and technology, investment decisions, and a belief in the strategic choices. Said another way, if the BOD knew about the antiquated systems, the risks of those systems, more sophisticated technology was in the pipeline to replace those systems and this situation occurred, then Bob Jordan would be safe unless there was significant pressure from regulatory agencies and/ or investors.

Another topic is his poor communication skills. The guy needs some serious crisis management media training and a better corporate communications leader.

bluecrew wrote:

Eolesen wrote:

Technically the dot doesn't like it when you advertise something, failed to operate it, and don't refund the customers. As long as Southwest isn't holding back refunds, dot really doesn't have any room for action here. Especially if a number of these cancellations early on were due to crew legalities.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

That's not true at all. DOT is the regulator.

It's well within their purview to assess whether or not you're reliably operating your transportation network, and impose regulatory sanction as a result.

The administration has good reason to care as well, as an airline disruption that large has financial impacts like a small bank collapse or minor natural disaster. All depends on who you have at the regulator, and what kind of appetite they have for a fight.

Congress doesn't have to leave this to the FAA as a safety matter, nor to the DOT as a matter of operating to schedule. It has the FTC (unfair and deceptive trade practices), or it can directly regulate the industry itself as per the Constitution 1.0.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Congress doesn't have to leave this to the FAA as a safety matter, nor to the DOT as a matter of operating to schedule. It has the FTC (unfair and deceptive trade practices), or it can directly regulate the industry itself as per the Constitution 1.0.

Airline regulation went away in 1978 - it ain't coming back.

bob75013 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Congress doesn't have to leave this to the FAA as a safety matter, nor to the DOT as a matter of operating to schedule. It has the FTC (unfair and deceptive trade practices), or it can directly regulate the industry itself as per the Constitution 1.0.

Airline regulation went away in 1978 - it ain't coming back.

We wanted it we got it. I guess we should be thankful there were no holes in the fuselages.

bob75013 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Congress doesn't have to leave this to the FAA as a safety matter, nor to the DOT as a matter of operating to schedule. It has the FTC (unfair and deceptive trade practices), or it can directly regulate the industry itself as per the Constitution 1.0.

Airline regulation went away in 1978 - it ain't coming back.

There’s thousands of aviation regulations

NIKV69 wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Congress doesn't have to leave this to the FAA as a safety matter, nor to the DOT as a matter of operating to schedule. It has the FTC (unfair and deceptive trade practices), or it can directly regulate the industry itself as per the Constitution 1.0.

Airline regulation went away in 1978 - it ain't coming back.

We wanted it we got it. I guess we should be thankful there were no holes in the fuselages.

We got what the congress wanted - more competition and lower fares.

Until recently, I was paying lower fares on routes than I did in 1978 - and when sales hit, the fares are still lower than those of 1978

MIflyer12 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

Eolesen wrote:

Technically the dot doesn't like it when you advertise something, failed to operate it, and don't refund the customers. As long as Southwest isn't holding back refunds, dot really doesn't have any room for action here. Especially if a number of these cancellations early on were due to crew legalities.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

That's not true at all. DOT is the regulator.

It's well within their purview to assess whether or not you're reliably operating your transportation network, and impose regulatory sanction as a result.

The administration has good reason to care as well, as an airline disruption that large has financial impacts like a small bank collapse or minor natural disaster. All depends on who you have at the regulator, and what kind of appetite they have for a fight.

Congress doesn't have to leave this to the FAA as a safety matter, nor to the DOT as a matter of operating to schedule. It has the FTC (unfair and deceptive trade practices), or it can directly regulate the industry itself as per the Constitution 1.0.

This is in line with my earlier suggestion that Southwest (and others per performance) needs to note on their site a conspicuous advisory (each page offering flights) that they frequently have system failures in excess of industry standards. Their IT department would go into emergency damage control. I suspect they would rapidly improve.

bluecrew wrote:

an airline disruption that large has financial impacts like a small bank collapse or minor natural disaster.

Out of curiosity, to whom and how is your example comparable? Whilst I have absolute sympathy for passengers I personally don't see how such a weather-related disruption in December has "financial impacts" equivalent to a bank collapse.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

This is in line with my earlier suggestion that Southwest (and others per performance) needs to note on their site a conspicuous advisory (each page offering flights) that they frequently have system failures in excess of industry standards. Their IT department would go into emergency damage control. I suspect they would rapidly improve.

Southwest already does better than that. When making reservations, travelers can click on flight numbers and get on time/cancellation info on every single flight that WN flies.

MIflyer12 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

Eolesen wrote:

Technically the dot doesn't like it when you advertise something, failed to operate it, and don't refund the customers. As long as Southwest isn't holding back refunds, dot really doesn't have any room for action here. Especially if a number of these cancellations early on were due to crew legalities.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

That's not true at all. DOT is the regulator.

It's well within their purview to assess whether or not you're reliably operating your transportation network, and impose regulatory sanction as a result.

The administration has good reason to care as well, as an airline disruption that large has financial impacts like a small bank collapse or minor natural disaster. All depends on who you have at the regulator, and what kind of appetite they have for a fight.

Congress doesn't have to leave this to the FAA as a safety matter, nor to the DOT as a matter of operating to schedule. It has the FTC (unfair and deceptive trade practices), or it can directly regulate the industry itself as per the Constitution 1.0.

All literally true, but what does a regulation that would have prevented last week’s . . . festivities . . . actually look like? You can’t regulate (or legislate) competence.

Cubsrule wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

That's not true at all. DOT is the regulator.

It's well within their purview to assess whether or not you're reliably operating your transportation network, and impose regulatory sanction as a result.

The administration has good reason to care as well, as an airline disruption that large has financial impacts like a small bank collapse or minor natural disaster. All depends on who you have at the regulator, and what kind of appetite they have for a fight.

Congress doesn't have to leave this to the FAA as a safety matter, nor to the DOT as a matter of operating to schedule. It has the FTC (unfair and deceptive trade practices), or it can directly regulate the industry itself as per the Constitution 1.0.

All literally true, but what does a regulation that would have prevented last week’s . . . festivities . . . actually look like? You can’t regulate (or legislate) competence.

We already have a blueprint for this in the form of EU 261.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

asteriskceo wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Congress doesn't have to leave this to the FAA as a safety matter, nor to the DOT as a matter of operating to schedule. It has the FTC (unfair and deceptive trade practices), or it can directly regulate the industry itself as per the Constitution 1.0.

All literally true, but what does a regulation that would have prevented last week’s . . . festivities . . . actually look like? You can’t regulate (or legislate) competence.

We already have a blueprint for this in the form of EU 261.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EU261 provides (nominal) compensation during events like this. It in no way prevents them.

Cubsrule wrote:

asteriskceo wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

All literally true, but what does a regulation that would have prevented last week’s . . . festivities . . . actually look like? You can’t regulate (or legislate) competence.

We already have a blueprint for this in the form of EU 261.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EU261 provides (nominal) compensation during events like this. It in no way prevents them.

Sure, but when you put a bigger dollar figure on the disruption, you make the bean counters more likely to step in and decide to actually fix the problem.

sonnyr23 wrote:

Look for the $79 one way fare from MDW to HNL in an attempt by damage control to make things right. Bob Jordan plain and simply did not accept accountability and spoke very little of updating the technology so it will happen again.
Spring Break ? Who knows.

I don't think it needs to be spelled out that they will upgrade the technology. They know they need to upgrade technology.

This time, they lost upwards of $173 million dollars (give or take a few million) in revenue over the course of the four days. (assumptions $15.8 billion dollars in revenue based off of https://www.southwestairlinesinvestorre ... -114543222 figures).

This does not include any incurred costs for meals, hotels, or other incidentals pilots, flight attendants, and passengers incurred.

It took four days for them to recover and reset everything this time. They may not be so lucky next time with their growth strategy.



The thing to be mindful is: time.

It is not like they can go to Amazon, Best Buy, and MicroCenter and buy a piece of software off the shelf, install it, and problem is fixed.

bob75013 wrote:

We got what the congress wanted - more competition and lower fares.

Until recently, I was paying lower fares on routes than I did in 1978 - and when sales hit, the fares are still lower than those of 1978

We also got a bad attitude toward routine maintenance and business models that revloved around spending as least as possible on things. Not a good combo.

Well, DEN is ready for another storm today and Monday. Let's see how they hold up.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Eolesen wrote:

Well, DEN is ready for another storm today and Monday. Let's see how they hold up.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

This time they'll just preemptively cancel a bunch of DEN trips and not wreck the whole system.

Bradin wrote:

sonnyr23 wrote:

Look for the $79 one way fare from MDW to HNL in an attempt by damage control to make things right. Bob Jordan plain and simply did not accept accountability and spoke very little of updating the technology so it will happen again.
Spring Break ? Who knows.

I don't think it needs to be spelled out that they will upgrade the technology. They know they need to upgrade technology.

I'm not a crisis communications expert, but being clear and explicit about things like this are important to send a message that you're actually doing things to fix the problem in the long term.

It's going to be very interesting to watch Southwest these next few months. The fact Southwest doesn't appear on comparison travel websites means flyers will have to actively seek out Southwest in order to get fare deals. My friend works in tourism and was joking with travellers who paid with a Southwest Airlines credit card about whether or not their card worked and said everyone was familiar with the meltdown. I know several people whose family members were stuck, including one who wasn't stuck but cancelled her Southwest flight and rebooked on another airline knowing she could use the credit later this year.

Consumers have short memories but Southwest more than any other airline relies on consumer trust to make a buck. I wouldn't be surprised if the meltdown forces them to fall into line with the rest of the industry in terms of at least including their flights on comparison sites.

Upgrading the technology is not going to be like the Direct TV technician coming by the house to install the dish. The first task on the agenda for the SWA BOD to vote on and give the green light to Bob Jordan to upgrade the technology but some of us still feel just like in The Wizard of Oz is that Gary Kelly is The pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Possible that Gary Kelly is the puppeteer pulling the strings of Bob Jordan and The BOD of Southwest.

USAirKid wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

asteriskceo wrote:

We already have a blueprint for this in the form of EU 261.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EU261 provides (nominal) compensation during events like this. It in no way prevents them.

Sure, but when you put a bigger dollar figure on the disruption, you make the bean counters more likely to step in and decide to actually fix the problem.

Maybe. But is that incentive materially larger than the incentive caused by the revenue losses? That’s hard to say.

WN732 wrote:

Eolesen wrote:

Well, DEN is ready for another storm today and Monday. Let's see how they hold up.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

This time they'll just preemptively cancel a bunch of DEN trips and not wreck the whole system.

Wishful thinking. They still have to get their rampers to show up to work

Cubsrule wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

EU261 provides (nominal) compensation during events like this. It in no way prevents them.

Sure, but when you put a bigger dollar figure on the disruption, you make the bean counters more likely to step in and decide to actually fix the problem.

Maybe. But is that incentive materially larger than the incentive caused by the revenue losses? That’s hard to say.

That’s not really the purpose of such a regulation. The stranded passengers would be undoubtedly better off if the US had EU 261 protections.

USAirKid wrote:

Bradin wrote:

sonnyr23 wrote:

Look for the $79 one way fare from MDW to HNL in an attempt by damage control to make things right. Bob Jordan plain and simply did not accept accountability and spoke very little of updating the technology so it will happen again.
Spring Break ? Who knows.

I don't think it needs to be spelled out that they will upgrade the technology. They know they need to upgrade technology.

I'm not a crisis communications expert, but being clear and explicit about things like this are important to send a message that you're actually doing things to fix the problem in the long term.

Watching this unfold from the outside has been an interesting study in corp comm. WN has absolutely fumbled the ball completely insofar as their comms through this entire ordeal, from the DEN VP letter to CEO response, they've just fouled everything up. It doesn't sound like the internal comms to employees has been any better.

Beyond upgrading the systems, which will be a long project, WN's got some cultural and leadership issues that could be a longer course correction.

Hello everyone, happy New Year

Bob's communication definitely needs some work, though Southwest did plan to begin modernizing their infrastructure last year. During a media briefing and interview with the Dallas Business Journal several weeks prior to the meltdown, Southwest execs and Bob described how out of date some of their systems are and detailed a plan through 2026 to modernize. In Bob's own words, "the lack of technology upgrades and outdated processes are holding the carrier back..." and commented directly on the exact issue that caused the meltdown with crew scheduling, several weeks prior to the holiday meltdown. It's ridiculous that it's taken this long to improve, but they're aware and have a plan to modernize; ableit too little, too late.

The first year after Gary stepped down, Southwest unveiled these modernization plans and other long-requested improvements, like in-seat power. I'm sure that's no coincidence.

- https://twitter.com/David_Slotnick/stat ... 7753985053
- https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news ... ation.html

blockski wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

Sure, but when you put a bigger dollar figure on the disruption, you make the bean counters more likely to step in and decide to actually fix the problem.

Maybe. But is that incentive materially larger than the incentive caused by the revenue losses? That’s hard to say.

That’s not really the purpose of such a regulation. The stranded passengers would be undoubtedly better off if the US had EU 261 protections.

Hardly. The refund protections in 261 are pretty much the same as the US carriers voluntarily do.

If the compensation protections were enacted, I can almost guarantee that the airlines would still come out ahead because they would raise prices incrementally either on a system-wide basis or for the markets most likely to experience disruption.

Rarely do you see the cost of mandates being absorbed out of goodwill. There is no such thing as altruism when it comes to airline finances....

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Eolesen wrote:

blockski wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Maybe. But is that incentive materially larger than the incentive caused by the revenue losses? That’s hard to say.

That’s not really the purpose of such a regulation. The stranded passengers would be undoubtedly better off if the US had EU 261 protections.

Hardly. The refund protections in 261 are pretty much the same as the US carriers voluntarily do.

The Feds don't need to stop at refunds. The tarmac delay rules allow fines up to $27,500 per passenger. How many passengers did WN cancel or delay in December?

Many people here seem to think that this all starts and ends with carrier contracts of carriage. The FTC could invalidate those, and the fun could really start.

United was fined nearly 2 Million for Tarmac delays in 2021. Did any of the passengers see any of that compensation? No they got nothing. So thats a joke.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-lo ... lay-fines/

Eolesen wrote:

blockski wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Maybe. But is that incentive materially larger than the incentive caused by the revenue losses? That’s hard to say.

That’s not really the purpose of such a regulation. The stranded passengers would be undoubtedly better off if the US had EU 261 protections.

Hardly. The refund protections in 261 are pretty much the same as the US carriers voluntarily do.

If the compensation protections were enacted, I can almost guarantee that the airlines would still come out ahead because they would raise prices incrementally either on a system-wide basis or for the markets most likely to experience disruption.

Rarely do you see the cost of mandates being absorbed out of goodwill. There is no such thing as altruism when it comes to airline finances....

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

I strongly disagree that the provisions of EU 261 are basically the same as voluntary US airline practice; they are not. There’s a huge difference as a passenger in having Southwest be legally obliged to issue you a cash refund (not flight credit) than what they’re doing now.

And yes, the costs of these regulations would be absorbed into ticket prices. But that’s not the point - the point is that a meaningful, passenger-facing customer protection regulation serves a different purpose (compensating customers who had holiday travel ruined) rather than purely forcing the airline to run a better operation (which is an indirect benefit at best, but not the primary purpose of the reg).

Again, the purpose isn’t to soak the airlines. It’s to mandate the amount and form of compensation for customers, and ideally make it simple and even automatic for them to obtain.

The US Tarmac Delay policy isn’t meant to serve as a customer protection feature, it’s mean to be a punishment for the airlines.

USAirKid wrote:

Bradin wrote:

sonnyr23 wrote:

Look for the $79 one way fare from MDW to HNL in an attempt by damage control to make things right. Bob Jordan plain and simply did not accept accountability and spoke very little of updating the technology so it will happen again.
Spring Break ? Who knows.

I don't think it needs to be spelled out that they will upgrade the technology. They know they need to upgrade technology.

I'm not a crisis communications expert, but being clear and explicit about things like this are important to send a message that you're actually doing things to fix the problem in the long term.

I think Southwest's message, while vague, was appropriate. Your sentiment and assessment would be correct that they want to fix the problem. However, to find the root cause of the problem takes time. A lot of time to do analysis and to figure out what went horribly wrong and not having a repeat.

In Bob's message - https://swamedia.com/releases/video-sou ... -statement

"I'm apologizing to them daily and they'll be hearing more about our specific plans to ensure the challenges that they’ve faced the past few days will not be part of our future."

It's easy for anyone to say "fix this and it will solve everything." However, my perspective is that IT not being modernized and lack of proper risk management is more of a symptom of larger challenges. Challenges and risks that need to be identified, prioritized, and mitigated.

travaz wrote:

United was fined nearly 2 Million for Tarmac delays in 2021. Did any of the passengers see any of that compensation? No they got nothing. So thats a joke.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-lo ... lay-fines/

Yeah that should go directly to any passenger that was part of those fine inducing flights.

I don’t think many would be too mad about getting a 20k check after a night mare like that.

blockski wrote:

Eolesen wrote:

blockski wrote:

That’s not really the purpose of such a regulation. The stranded passengers would be undoubtedly better off if the US had EU 261 protections.

Hardly. The refund protections in 261 are pretty much the same as the US carriers voluntarily do.

If the compensation protections were enacted, I can almost guarantee that the airlines would still come out ahead because they would raise prices incrementally either on a system-wide basis or for the markets most likely to experience disruption.

Rarely do you see the cost of mandates being absorbed out of goodwill. There is no such thing as altruism when it comes to airline finances....

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

I strongly disagree that the provisions of EU 261 are basically the same as voluntary US airline practice; they are not. There’s a huge difference as a passenger in having Southwest be legally obliged to issue you a cash refund (not flight credit) than what they’re doing now.

And yes, the costs of these regulations would be absorbed into ticket prices. But that’s not the point - the point is that a meaningful, passenger-facing customer protection regulation serves a different purpose (compensating customers who had holiday travel ruined) rather than purely forcing the airline to run a better operation (which is an indirect benefit at best, but not the primary purpose of the reg).

Again, the purpose isn’t to soak the airlines. It’s to mandate the amount and form of compensation for customers, and ideally make it simple and even automatic for them to obtain.

The US Tarmac Delay policy isn’t meant to serve as a customer protection feature, it’s mean to be a punishment for the airlines.

Is WN not refunding folks who ask for refunds? If they aren’t, that’s a problem. But I haven’t heard of it happening and my experience was that I was refunded pretty quickly (the money hit in about 48 hours) and without complaint.

Eolesen wrote:

blockski wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Maybe. But is that incentive materially larger than the incentive caused by the revenue losses? That’s hard to say.

That’s not really the purpose of such a regulation. The stranded passengers would be undoubtedly better off if the US had EU 261 protections.

Hardly. The refund protections in 261 are pretty much the same as the US carriers voluntarily do.

If the compensation protections were enacted, I can almost guarantee that the airlines would still come out ahead because they would raise prices incrementally either on a system-wide basis or for the markets most likely to experience disruption.

Rarely do you see the cost of mandates being absorbed out of goodwill. There is no such thing as altruism when it comes to airline finances....

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

No, under EU261 if WN is unwilling to book travelers on another airline the passangers could do it themselves and get a refund. The airlines are also in the hook for food and lodging for weather cancelations and there is a hefty fine for long delays that goes straight into the customer's pocket.

Why didn't WN reps have the authority to buy customers tickets on other airline flights? Yet many of the customers did this for themselves. Not a good service example.
I thought in the past that WN customer service reps had the authority to "make it right" and make local decisions for good service? That was the story a decade or two ago when you read about the great WN service and culture. Apparently that has changed.

Cubsrule wrote:

Is WN not refunding folks who ask for refunds? If they aren’t, that’s a problem. But I haven’t heard of it happening and my experience was that I was refunded pretty quickly (the money hit in about 48 hours) and without complaint.

My niece had her WN flight cancelled on 12/23. I was able to get her a UA flight the following morning. A few days later, she called and cancelled her return WN leg as she had already purchased a ticket on another carrier she thought would be a safer bet. She asked for a refund but they only offered her a credit. She wasn't aware she could have been more assertive in demanding a credit.

I'm sure a lot of passengers that aren't aware of all their options were convinced to get a credit instead of a refund.

Eolesen wrote:

blockski wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Maybe. But is that incentive materially larger than the incentive caused by the revenue losses? That’s hard to say.

That’s not really the purpose of such a regulation. The stranded passengers would be undoubtedly better off if the US had EU 261 protections.

Hardly. The refund protections in 261 are pretty much the same as the US carriers voluntarily do.

Not at all. Southwest is offering refunds if pax are not re-accommodated, not both. Lufthansa canceled my flight, rebooked me on SAS the next day, offered a hotel and I still got €600 on top of it.

Chemist wrote:

Why didn't WN reps have the authority to buy customers tickets on other airline flights? Yet many of the customers did this for themselves. Not a good service example.
I thought in the past that WN customer service reps had the authority to "make it right" and make local decisions for good service? That was the story a decade or two ago when you read about the great WN service and culture. Apparently that has changed.

Southwest does not have interline agreements with any other carriers. This is why they cannot rebook a passenger on another carrier.

freakyrat wrote:

Chemist wrote:

Why didn't WN reps have the authority to buy customers tickets on other airline flights? Yet many of the customers did this for themselves. Not a good service example.
I thought in the past that WN customer service reps had the authority to "make it right" and make local decisions for good service? That was the story a decade or two ago when you read about the great WN service and culture. Apparently that has changed.

Southwest does not have interline agreements with any other carriers. This is why they cannot rebook a passenger on another carrier.

They can’t just book seats a full rate like any other travel agent in the GDS?

freakyrat wrote:

Chemist wrote:

Why didn't WN reps have the authority to buy customers tickets on other airline flights? Yet many of the customers did this for themselves. Not a good service example.
I thought in the past that WN customer service reps had the authority to "make it right" and make local decisions for good service? That was the story a decade or two ago when you read about the great WN service and culture. Apparently that has changed.

Southwest does not have interline agreements with any other carriers. This is why they cannot rebook a passenger on another carrier.

I'm not talking interline - is that not a reciprocal agreement for carriage? I'm talking get on the phone and book a flight and pay for it for the customer. The same thing the customers are having to do for themselves.