We have seen several blog posts regarding a recent trip taken by one of our Southwest Customers who was asked to purchase an additional ticket in Phoenix for his return flight to Sacramento because he required more than one seat. The blog posts associated with this situation are very emotional.
Unfortunately, however, some of the online postings have contained inaccuracies which have led to misunderstandings about Southwest Airline's Customer of size policy. In a nutshell, Southwest Customers who occupy more than a single seat are asked proactively to book and purchase the number of seats they need as a means of notifying our Company of a unique seating need. For accurate and complete information about this policy that aims to ensure the comfort and Safety of all Customers, we invite you to click here.)
We regret that this unfortunate situation occurred, and we are in the process of expressing our regret to this Customer and his family. Out of regard for their privacy, we can't comment on the specifics of the circumstances in a public forum like this blog. But I hope you realize that, as a Company which has a longstanding reputation for compassion, we are always striving to do the right thing.
Comments
Was a blog post really needed to point this out? It's been enough bad PR for Southwest already, why call attention to it on a blog full of Southwest junkies where 95% could recite the entire Contract of Carriage word-for-word from memory anyways?
I know I can.
As a "customer of size" myself, I've always appreciated Southwest's upfront approach to the subject. I know that space on airplanes is incredibly scarce, and while I'd love to see all airlines increase the amount of room every passenger gets, reality is reality and we all have to deal with what we've got. In the case of larger passengers, it means two seats.
However, Southwest, by far, has the best policy of any airline regarding the subject. And unfortunately, they've been punished in the press as a result of their straightforward approach. But for me, if other airlines would be as honest and up-front about their policy (all airlines require larger passengers to buy two seats; only Southwest makes their policy public) flying would be a much easier process for me.
I haven't even mentioned the fact that only Southwest will refund the cost of the second seat if the flight is not overbooked. In my experience, that's been the case every single time I've flown Southwest. No other airline will extend the same consideration.
Long story short -- Southwest is the friend of large travelers, not the enemy. It's unfortunate that they get beaten up for being the only honest ones in the bunch.
Yes it was - whren a company blogging points out the bad things written about it (from a PR point of view) then I actually have a bit more respect about the blog, the writer, and the company behind it. I would personally have went further and linked to the source articles instead of leaving it to Google (other search engines are available) but this is actually an important point of principle. The blog talks about daily issues. This is a daily issue. It was blogged.
+1 credibility for blogsouthwest.com in my book.
I disagree Mathew - what better place for SWA to point it out than on their own blog? Southwest has a company culture that allows it to have rational discussions about the good, the bad, and the ugly - see the thread on the summer schedule being released late for a most recent example. Customers are upset and Southwest lets them speak their mind.
In a nutshell - a man needed a liver transplant, flew SWA from Sacramento to Phoenix to the Mayo clinic, where he was told he couldn't get his liver and Mayo referred him back to the University of San Francisco. So he tried to take the next flight back to Sacramento. At this point, he was informed of the COS (customer of size) policy and asked to purchase a second ticket.
Here's where everything starts to fall apart. Allegedly (that would be a bold italic "Allegedly") the man informed the gate agent that he was going for a liver transplant and didn't have enough money for the second fare. He even showed (again, allegedly) medical documentation to support his case.
Now - think of all the people you know at Southwest and the corporate culture they have. Can anybody think of any single gate agent who wouldn't waive that rule in a heartbeat if every aspect of his story was true? Can you imagine anybody at Southwest hearing, "I've got to get to Oakland today for an organ transplant" and asking the person to fork over more money? Nope - it didn't happen that way, just not possible from Southwest.
Look at the title of the blog post that started everything - "Southwest Nearly Lets Liver Transplant Patient Die Because He Wouldn't Buy 2nd Ticket" - you can read the entire thing at http://consumerist.com/consumer/complaints/southwest-nearly-lets-liver-t... - but the 'story' doesn't pass the smell test.
Digg picked it up, you can read more here - http://digg.com/business_finance/Southwest_Airlines_Nearly_Lets_Liver_Tr...
And flyertalk.com has a few posts - http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=651852
And it will probably make Today In The Sky sometime this morning - http://blogs.usatoday.com/sky/
In summation - there's no way that gate agents, supervisors and customer service all told a dying man "No, since you are a COS, you can't board until you buy your second ticket" when informed of the situation.
From reading lots of posts and lots of versions of the alleged story, I would have to say there is a good chance this "story" is a partial, or even total, fabrication.
First, it began on a "blog" with a very specific special interest.
Second, it has been picked up by several other blogs, one of which has a record of its last six "front page" stories being proven false.
Third, there are numerous facets of the story that just don't add up. They are inconsisent with medical/transplant practices, Southwest policies, and plain old common sense.
I think we need to be very leary of this kind of reporting.
I think it is to easy to blame Southwest Airlines for someone else's choice of lifestyle. It is like blamming Mcdonalds for being fat. I think Southwest is more then fair with its policy.
if you look at the screenshot of the booking, you'd notice that they did *indeed* have a discount fair on their return leg of their trip. So the claim that they weren't offered a discount ticket is a LIE!
Thank you all for reassuring words, Southwest employees/cronies.
I agree with several of the postings above -- the story that I'm seeing presented is simply NOT consistent with the behavior of Southwest Employees. Sure, out of 32,000 folks, there could be a few who were having a bad day, but refusing passage to anyone in this sort of scenario just doesn't seem likely.
Chalk up one more attempt at creating an "urban legend" about the evil corporate giant that is staffed by cruel and unfeeling people.
Kim
I have very PERSONAL knowledge of end stage Hep-C and liver transplants. Something about the way this story has been reported does not sound accurate to me. I wish the passenger all the best and hope he was successful in being one of the lucky few to receive an organ transplant. It is a precious gift! Share Life ~ Be an Organ Donor
Post new comment