FYI: New TSA Screening Procedures on the Way

[Sea Hag]

The carry on luggage has really gotten out of control. Have you seen what people bring on as carry on these days? And it really does slow things down. Charge, it might bring some order back into the carry on fiasco.

 

You got that right about carry on luggage being out of control! I was recently on a SW flight, where toward the end of the C boarding group somebody brought on board a big guitar case. I have no idea where he thought he could put that. He was clearly destined for a middle seat, but maybe he'd bought an additional middle seat for the guitar.

[slidergirl]

I'm all about the free market. Southwest manages to provide the lowest fares, no overbooking, free changes, and free checked bags. Cleaner, upgraded interiors, too. Flights are always full and they are profitable. In fact, I believe they are the largest domestic airline in the country.

 

 

It's just a shame that other airlines seem to race to the bottom in all the wrong ways when you have a perfect example of how to do it right. Hopefully the pendulum swings in the other direction and more and more will follow Southwest's lead.

 

Well, you are wrong about WN and providing the lowest fares. It is totally dependent on the market and routes. WN is rarely, if ever, the cheapest out of my home airport for the places I fly. The airline that I fly - I never pay for bags, I've never been involuntarily bumped. As long as I get this, I won't fly the Greyhound in the Sky

[waterbug123]

Basic Economy?? Did any airline offering it LOWER a fare when instituting this fare class?

I don't think so,

 

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. You might book a flight from XXX-YYY and specify you want the cheapest available. If that route does not offer the "basic economy" fare class, there will still be a fare that is cheapest available FOR THAT PARTICULAR FLIGHT. Whether it's cheaper than the basic economy price on a similar flight or not is irrelevant. The point is simply that if one says they always book "cheapest available" they need to understand that that is not necessarily the same as booking the actual basic economy fare class.

[slidergirl]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. You might book a flight from XXX-YYY and specify you want the cheapest available. If that route does not offer the "basic economy" fare class, there will still be a fare that is cheapest available FOR THAT PARTICULAR FLIGHT. Whether it's cheaper than the basic economy price on a similar flight or not is irrelevant. The point is simply that if one says they always book "cheapest available" they need to understand that that is not necessarily the same as booking the actual basic economy fare class.

 

Yeah. Some naive people who buy "the cheapest available" on some of the domestic legacy lines end up with a Basic Economy fare because they just see the $$, not the actual offering. Then, they whine when Mom, Dad, and the 6 kids are split up all over the plane :rolleyes: If they had actually READ what they were trying to buy instead of having $$ fixation, they could have either paid the extra to be able to select (but again, NEVER guaranteed) seats all together, or chosen an airline like WN where they can try to scam the gate agent into boarding all 8 of them during "family boarding", even though 3 of the kids are over the designated age... (NOTE: NEVER try to fly WN out of SLC to Southern California or Orlando over a 3-day holiday weekend!!!!!!)

[luvtheships]

Yeah. Some naive people who buy "the cheapest available" on some of the domestic legacy lines end up with a Basic Economy fare because they just see the $$, not the actual offering. Then, they whine when Mom, Dad, and the 6 kids are split up all over the plane :rolleyes: If they had actually READ what they were trying to buy instead of having $$ fixation, they could have either paid the extra to be able to select (but again, NEVER guaranteed) seats all together, or chosen an airline like WN where they can try to scam the gate agent into boarding all 8 of them during "family boarding", even though 3 of the kids are over the designated age... (NOTE: NEVER try to fly WN out of SLC to Southern California or Orlando over a 3-day holiday weekend!!!!!!)

 

 

3 of the kids? Hmmm

 

So in your scenario...

 

If you are traveling with more than 3 kids and those extra kids fall into the pre boarding age...are you expecting this family to not get family boarding? Why?

 

 

 

it's perfectly acceptable for parents and 2 qualifying kids plus their older kids to board this way and not sure why this would bother you so much.

 

It's only a scam if the airline says all kids must be underage but the parents insist on pushing the older kids through anyway however if there are younger kids then the family absolutely does qualify for family boarding

 

Why would you have an issue with this if there are indeed young kids in that family? And why would you not expect the entire family to board together if they qualify?

 

It's a different story if none of the kids qualify, but that isn't what you posted

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited June 6, 2017 by luvtheships

[bUU]

3 of the kids? Hmmm So in your scenario... If you are traveling with more than 3 kids and those extra kids fall into the pre boarding age...are you expecting this family to not get family boarding? Why?

Family boarding is defined as follows: "An adult traveling with a child six years old or younger may board during Family Boarding". So in slidergirl's scenario, each child six years old or younger may board with an adult during family boarding. It explicitly isn't "whole family boarding". In slidergirl's scenario, part of the family should board during family boarding and the rest when their zone is called. Is that not what's best for that family? Perhaps, and so slidergirl's other point is that such considerations should be used to determine which airline to use, and perhaps disqualify Southwest entirely, on the basis of their family boarding provisions.

 

Is it possible that no airline offers advantages that the family may wish? Yes. There are many things that are simply not offered by the marketplace. It's unfortunate.

 

it's perfectly acceptable for parents and 2 qualifying kids plus their older kids to board this way and not sure why this would bother you so much.

I cannot guess whether it bothers slidergirl at all, much less speculate about why. The point is that it doesn't matter. A passenger expecting to be able to board a parent plus both qualifying and non-qualifying children (when family boarding only is for "An adult traveling with a child six years old or younger") is an example of the scamming that slidergirl was referring to. Different people may have different perspectives on whether the rules should be different, but they're not different.

 

Why would you have an issue with this if there are indeed young kids in that family? And why would you not expect the entire family to board together if they qualify?

Let's cut through the static and recognize that the problem here is that space and storage is a grievously scarce resource in the passenger cabin of today's domestic aircraft. That's 100% the source of the problem, but an aspect of the problem for which, in the moment, passenger cannot do anything about. It must be taken as a given. In an environment of scarcity, the rules specify the parameters of how the scarce resource is fairly divided. You're effectively saying that families with (younger and older) children should get a bigger share of the scarce resources than they are supposed to. While you're entitled to your opinion about that, it isn't justified by the terms and conditions as they have been promised to all passengers. Your perspective if allowed to prevail (and to be clear, it often does) means adults traveling without children are to be deprived of fair treatment. I respect the fact that you don't see it that way, but objectively that's what you're saying.

 

As I indicated above, that unfair perspective is often allowed to prevail. Life isn't fair. However, the fact that life isn't fair doesn't make it any less valid to highlight unfairness when it occurs. Actually, that's precisely the time when it is most appropriate to highlight unfairness.

 

It's a different story if none of the kids qualify, but that isn't what you posted

So you're willing to lump in families with only older children with adults traveling without children in the group of passengers to be deprived of fair treatment. That doesn't make it much better.

 

Don't get me wrong. There are really good reasons for society to provide some advantages to families with young children. The point here is that there are limits, and even when they're clearly outlined in the rules there are some who don't care and will insist that their personal preference should prevail and be imposed on others, by unilateral fiat. That should sound wrong to everyone who cares anything about fairness.

[lbjen]

Pre-boarding for families isn't about overhead luggage space! It's about making sure you don't get stuck with a virtually unaccompanied 8 year old sat next to you for 4 hours.

[slidergirl]

Pre-boarding for families isn't about overhead luggage space! It's about making sure you don't get stuck with a virtually unaccompanied 8 year old sat next to you for 4 hours.

 

Precisely why you take your chances with an airline with "festival seating" to get maybe a lower price. If you want to make sure you don't get stuck next to that kid or get badgered and pressured by a family to give up your seat so that they can all sit together, book on an airline that allows seat selection ahead of time - it will potentially decrease the unaccompanied kid scenario.

 

I my home airport is located in an area where large families are very much a norm. Not unusual to see families with 3-6 kids waiting (and none of the kids are teenagers). There have been times on those 3 day weekends where, back in the days before WN restricted family boarding to an adult with the underage child, a plane could be almost full with those families before general boarding started...

I just don't like it when people think they are exempt from things like boarding protocol, overhead bin usage (bin hogs are a particular peeve), armrest sharing, making sure your headphones don't bleed out to where I can hear all your music, etc. it's a tiny metal tube and it's bad enough to be crammed in there like cattle. When people throw out courtesy for their own wants, it becomes like Lord of the Flies in there... I don't hate kids - I just do not like it when people use them as pawns to try to gain advantages they are not entitled to over the average man.

[bUU]

Pre-boarding for families isn't about overhead luggage space!

It is for those who board in Zone A. Compliance with the rules for family board, "An adult traveling with a child six years old or younger may board during Family Boarding," leaves far more overhead luggage space for those in Zone A than "whole family boarding".

 

I just don't like it when people think they are exempt from things like boarding protocol, overhead bin usage (bin hogs are a particular peeve), armrest sharing, making sure your headphones don't bleed out to where I can hear all your music, etc. it's a tiny metal tube and it's bad enough to be crammed in there like cattle. When people throw out courtesy for their own wants, it becomes like Lord of the Flies in there... I don't hate kids - I just do not like it when people use them as pawns to try to gain advantages they are not entitled to over the average man.

Excellent points.

[luvtheships]

Pre-boarding for families isn't about overhead luggage space! It's about making sure you don't get stuck with a virtually unaccompanied 8 year old sat next to you for 4 hours.

 

 

 

Thank you. At least someone is recognizing this

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[luvtheships]

Family boarding is defined as follows: "An adult traveling with a child six years old or younger may board during Family Boarding". So in slidergirl's scenario, each child six years old or younger may board with an adult during family boarding. It explicitly isn't "whole family boarding". In slidergirl's scenario, part of the family should board during family boarding and the rest when their zone is called. Is that not what's best for that family? Perhaps, and so slidergirl's other point is that such considerations should be used to determine which airline to use, and perhaps disqualify Southwest entirely, on the basis of their family boarding provisions.

 

Is it possible that no airline offers advantages that the family may wish? Yes. There are many things that are simply not offered by the marketplace. It's unfortunate.

 

I cannot guess whether it bothers slidergirl at all, much less speculate about why. The point is that it doesn't matter. A passenger expecting to be able to board a parent plus both qualifying and non-qualifying children (when family boarding only is for "An adult traveling with a child six years old or younger") is an example of the scamming that slidergirl was referring to. Different people may have different perspectives on whether the rules should be different, but they're not different.

 

Let's cut through the static and recognize that the problem here is that space and storage is a grievously scarce resource in the passenger cabin of today's domestic aircraft. That's 100% the source of the problem, but an aspect of the problem for which, in the moment, passenger cannot do anything about. It must be taken as a given. In an environment of scarcity, the rules specify the parameters of how the scarce resource is fairly divided. You're effectively saying that families with (younger and older) children should get a bigger share of the scarce resources than they are supposed to. While you're entitled to your opinion about that, it isn't justified by the terms and conditions as they have been promised to all passengers. Your perspective if allowed to prevail (and to be clear, it often does) means adults traveling without children are to be deprived of fair treatment. I respect the fact that you don't see it that way, but objectively that's what you're saying.

 

As I indicated above, that unfair perspective is often allowed to prevail. Life isn't fair. However, the fact that life isn't fair doesn't make it any less valid to highlight unfairness when it occurs. Actually, that's precisely the time when it is most appropriate to highlight unfairness.

 

So you're willing to lump in families with only older children with adults traveling without children in the group of passengers to be deprived of fair treatment. That doesn't make it much better.

 

Don't get me wrong. There are really good reasons for society to provide some advantages to families with young children. The point here is that there are limits, and even when they're clearly outlined in the rules there are some who don't care and will insist that their personal preference should prevail and be imposed on others, by unilateral fiat. That should sound wrong to everyone who cares anything about fairness.

 

 

 

Nope not at all but I'm totally understanding that families with young AND older children qualify for family boarding

 

Re read my post

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[bUU]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[slidergirl]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

And, I'll agree with you that I have to agree to disagree with the opposing poster...

;)

[lbjen]

I seriously think you guys are missing the point of why they let families board together, and why they do board together when they can! I can't believe you seriously think people 'break' the age rule so that they can be sure to get all their carry on luggage on board. It's completely idiotic that you would think that's why families would do that. It's purely so that they can get their pick of seats. That's it. And I've seen flight attendants walk down the aisles and pull cases out of overhead lockers on plenty of occasions. Getting on 'first' doesn't guarantee your case stays out of the cargo hold.

[bUU]

The reason why I suggest we agree to disagree is because it seems we have reached a point where those who are family-focused are unwilling to look at the matter from the perspective of the other people on flight. They are insisting on only looking at it from the standpoint of the families and failing to acknowledge the way what they are talking about effects others. They have already talked about what the families get out of it there is no need for me to go into that. What is needed for me to do is to show how what they are talking about affects other passengers.

 

I've already done that. And if folks are interested in understanding things from a perspective other than just the narrow family-focused perspective then I invite you to go back and read what I wrote.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[lbjen]

But you are suggesting that your desire to carry your luggage on board, and have it right next to you, is more important than a family's desire (and possible need) to sit together, and your reasoning for why that is so, is apparently because you believe families only abuse the privilege so that they can carry on massive amounts of luggage and leave no room for yours.

 

If you could at least admit that families do really have a good case for wanting to board earlier and sit together, and that it isn't luggage based, then sure, I agree that it's annoying that sometimes *the people* (and I mean all groups who board before you) bring on too much luggage and it's annoying when yours gets gate checked. It almost happened to me last month when some guy in the first class seat across from me thought his hat needed half a bin. Even if I wasn't sitting in the same class of seat (and I was), your hat does not need half a bin, sir.

 

I just want you to drop this absurd notion that families are trying to game the system purely to take all your luggage space, because it's ridiculous. That's not why they do it. If it ultimately has a knock on effect for you, then I'm sorry about that, but that's life in a society that respects that families are a vital part of our community. We were all children once.

[luvtheships]

No use in arguing with those that are upset when families get priorities so why bother

 

Some of us understand that it makes sense to have a family sit together and that families are something to be cherished and encouraged

 

Alternately the posters who are against this practice might be more comfortable sitting between a 5 yo and their 10 yo sibling. Lol

 

Let me know how that goes....oh I forgot....they will blame the parents if the kids are quarrelsome with each other lol

 

Btw I don't get upset when seniors get priority

 

Or the handicapped

 

 

Sorry you are upset families are prioritized. Maybe the airline has them as their focus and not the single adult traveler.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[waterbug123]

 

I just want you to drop this absurd notion that families are trying to game the system purely to take all your luggage space, because it's ridiculous. That's not why they do it..

 

Wow, so you know this for a fact? You routinely poll each of the families with multiple children who all board early and ask them why they're doing it? And without exception they tell you it's about seats, and that overhead space plays no part in it whatsoever. Amazing that you have time to conduct such detailed passenger polls.

[luvtheships]

Wow, so you know this for a fact? You routinely poll each of the families with multiple children who all board early and ask them why they're doing it? And without exception they tell you it's about seats, and that overhead space plays no part in it whatsoever. Amazing that you have time to conduct such detailed passenger polls.

 

 

 

You might be on to something here

 

Yup couples decide to have more kids and to travel with them while they are young so they can grab the valuable real estate on a plane.

 

 

Alternate theory....families choose this airline so they can get their families a well priced ticket on an airline that will make flying just a little bit easier for them so that they can travel and make family memories

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[nealstuber]

I seriously think you guys are missing the point of why they let families board together, and why they do board together when they can! I can't believe you seriously think people 'break' the age rule so that they can be sure to get all their carry on luggage on board. It's completely idiotic that you would think that's why families would do that. It's purely so that they can get their pick of seats. That's it. And I've seen flight attendants walk down the aisles and pull cases out of overhead lockers on plenty of occasions. Getting on 'first' doesn't guarantee your case stays out of the cargo hold.

 

 

While it seems like this discussion has evolved somewhat towards Southwest'a boarding practices, on other airlines that now offer an economy ticket where you agree to board last without only one small carry on: I think it would be wrong for a family with young kids to book those rates and then still expect priority boarding and overhead space.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[bUU]

But you are suggesting that your desire to carry your luggage on board, and have it right next to you, is more important than a family's desire (and possible need) to sit together

That is not what I'm suggesting. Please stop trying to corrupt my statement of my perspective. I am the one who says what I am suggesting and that is especially important since you seem intent on putting into my mouth (or fingers, as the case may be) a ridiculously nonsensical and inane characterization of my perspective. I'm suggesting that a non-family passenger's desire to carry their luggage on board and have it near their seat is more important to that non-family passenger than a family's desire to save the cost of flying an airline that doesn't give them a way of booking seats together so that they can have a great chance of flying together to that non-family passenger. The point, which I've already highlighted for you, is that to understand the whole situation you have to understand and respect both the perspective of the family passengers and the perspective of non-family passenger, such as someone traveling on business, as I do.

 

The family boarding rules outline that airline's promise - both their promise to families about how far the family can legitimately expect to deferred to, and the promise to non-family passengers about what the non-family passenger can legitimately expect in terms of how far their convenience will be compromised to benefit family passengers.

 

If you could at least admit that families do really have a good case for wanting to board earlier and sit together, and that it isn't luggage based

I haven't said one thing contrary to that, and that's why I'm so surprised at your response and so convinced that your response could only be the reflection of not reading what I'm writing, or worse, reading more into what I'm writing than is actually there. What I've said is that non-family passengers have just a good of a case for wanting the family boarding rules adhered to as they are written, and that their expectation in that regard is legitimate and worthy of as much respect as you are demanding for families benefiting from what family boarding (actually) offers.

 

I just want you to drop this absurd notion that families are trying to game the system purely to take all your luggage space, because it's ridiculous.

Good thing that I never said that. Stop reading more into what I'm writing than is there. The reality is that the illegitimate "whole family boarding" does take up more overhead space than compliance with the family boarding rules as they are written, and that results in less space available for Zone A passengers.

 

While it seems like this discussion has evolved somewhat towards Southwest'a boarding practices, on other airlines that now offer an economy ticket where you agree to board last without only one small carry on: I think it would be wrong for a family with young kids to book those rates and then still expect priority boarding and overhead space.

And so that begs the question about how far will today's entitlement culture drive things away from what these airlines are actually offering. Will folks who deliberately purchase a lower priced service still try to game the system to extract from the service considerations that are not included in what they purchased? I think we can bet on it. And that sort of thing drives a spiral that makes things like airline travel pretty close to inhumane, especially for people who abide by what they agreed to.

[Crusin6]

That is not what I'm suggesting. Please stop trying to corrupt my statement of my perspective. I am the one who says what I am suggesting and that is especially important since you seem intent on putting into my mouth (or fingers, as the case may be) a ridiculously nonsensical and inane characterization of my perspective. I'm suggesting that a non-family passenger's desire to carry their luggage on board and have it near their seat is more important to that non-family passenger than a family's desire to save the cost of flying an airline that doesn't give them a way of booking seats together so that they can have a great chance of flying together to that non-family passenger. The point, which I've already highlighted for you, is that to understand the whole situation you have to understand and respect both the perspective of the family passengers and the perspective of non-family passenger, such as someone traveling on business, as I do.

 

The family boarding rules outline that airline's promise - both their promise to families about how far the family can legitimately expect to deferred to, and the promise to non-family passengers about what the non-family passenger can legitimately expect in terms of how far their convenience will be compromised to benefit family passengers.

 

I haven't said one thing contrary to that, and that's why I'm so surprised at your response and so convinced that your response could only be the reflection of not reading what I'm writing, or worse, reading more into what I'm writing than is actually there. What I've said is that non-family passengers have just a good of a case for wanting the family boarding rules adhered to as they are written, and that their expectation in that regard is legitimate and worthy of as much respect as you are demanding for families benefiting from what family boarding (actually) offers.

 

Good thing that I never said that. Stop reading more into what I'm writing than is there. The reality is that the illegitimate "whole family boarding" does take up more overhead space than compliance with the family boarding rules as they are written, and that results in less space available for Zone A passengers.

 

And so that begs the question about how far will today's entitlement culture drive things away from what these airlines are actually offering. Will folks who deliberately purchase a lower priced service still try to game the system to extract from the service considerations that are not included in what they purchased? I think we can bet on it. And that sort of thing drives a spiral that makes things like airline travel pretty close to inhumane, especially for people who abide by what they agreed to.

 

 

Ok so it's really the entitlement culture that is at issue

 

 

Btw I hate the idea of entitlement but that doesn't mean I'm embarrassed about what I have worked for or feel I don't deserve it

 

 

Just putting that out there because feelings about entitlement culture can go many ways...

 

A. We are all absolutely the same and no one is entitled to anything more than the person or bum next to them.

 

Or

 

B. I'm a hard worker and I'm entitled to the benefits that I reaped and do not need to be ashamed of that nor do I need to be politically correct and try to downplay my successes in life Btw that doesn't mean I would step on the downtrodden either so no need to think that but heck I'm a solid person and can care for myself and know hard work and making good decisions in life will only benefit me and I don't need or want handouts

 

 

Or

 

C. Let's give every group/person that whines and refuses to take responsibility anything and everything they want because we are worried about them to the point that we can't teach them to fend for themselves because that will upset them too much and let's make sure we cater to the one whiner and ignore the 10 other people who are benefitting from a policy or procedure

 

Point is that being a family and getting some things to make things easier is ok...it's not an entitlement...it's not whining...it's not a handout....it's just using common sense...which ultimately benefits all around

 

 

Just like they prioritize the elderly and infirm

 

It's just makes things easier and at the same time adds a hint of altruism too lol

 

Oh and it's just good business practice

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[FlyerTalker]

I see that luvtheships and Crusin6 (the Chang and Eng of Cruise Critic) are back.

[Bo1953]

Well, this TSA thread has taken quite a turn... a new thread should be started to dwell on the twists and turns of it... I agree with some and others on this and have additional opines too.

 

bon voyage

[bUU]

Ok so it's really the entitlement culture that is at issue Btw I hate the idea of entitlement but that doesn't mean I'm embarrassed about what I have worked for or feel I don't deserve it Just putting that out there because feelings about entitlement culture can go many ways...

You missed one: D. "Voluntary compliance is for suckers and so if I am willing to ignore the terms and conditions and I can get away with it, yea for me." And that's the one that we really need to be worried about.