Galley Gossip: Switching seats, exit row safety & asking for upgrades

by Heather Poole on

Recently on a flight a passenger took the empty seat beside me. He had an assigned seat that he left behind. If by luck of the draw I had an empty seat (true not paid for), then it seems to me that as a beneficiary of said luck that I have inherited certain rights. If the other guy had stayed in his OWN seat, I would have had the enjoyment of more space. His moving AFFECTED me. The only reason I point this out is because while my situation was benign, I know that sometimes these little irritations or frictions on flights escalate into real on board conflicts (fights), and while I am describing out a pretty subtle point here, I think that it is better for the flight crew to mediate between passengers using preventive practices (etiquette, courtesies, “rules” etc.) rather than letting passengers resolve them themselves, in those cases where we are dealing with seat assignments at least. – Trevor

I’m going to tell you what 90% of the flight attendants I know would say. You paid for a seat. One seat. Not two seats. Not an entire row. Just a single seat. So if a passenger wants to switch seats, that’s okay. The passenger is allowed to sit in “your” row. While at my airline passengers are free to move to any open seat available in their ticketed cabin, other airlines (regional carriers dealing with weight and balance issues and airlines who charge extra for certain seats in the same cabin), require passengers to ask a flight attendant before swapping seats. If the flight attendant says it’s okay, it’s okay, the passenger can move.

Just because you were lucky enough to to score an entire row to yourself does not mean you have “inherited certain rights.” Oh sure it’s annoying when someone who already has a seat invades your space, but imagine you are the one stuck in an undesirable seat and there are two open seats in the row behind you, wouldn’t you move? Should a passenger have to suffer just because someone else is the “beneficiary of said luck” when there is plenty of room for both passengers to stretch out and relax?

In the future, if you’d rather not sit next to anyone, try making your row a little less appealing. The most popular seat on the airplane is the aisle seat. Take it! Otherwise someone will plop down beside you. Then, after takeoff, spread out. Pull the tray table down and place something on top of it. Put a bag, coat, or book in the seat beside you. Pretend to sleep. Not many people are ballsy enough to wake a sleeping passenger. Try traveling with a packet of Kleenex. No one wants to sit next to the sick guy. Or better yet, travel with a child. Works for me. Passengers avoid kids like the plague. That said, if someone still wants to sit in your row, they can. So be prepared to move your things out of the way.Airlines are charging for exit row seats and I have been on two flights where they have remained empty and flight attendants required payment from passengers who requested to switch to them. My question is what happens in case of an emergency landing? Do you think it is safer to have an able bodied person willing to open the door sitting there? I can visualize pandemonium as people rush to the door. I think gate agents or flight attendants should be able to offer these seats to qualified passengers! – Laura

While it makes sense to have willing and able bodied passengers who meet the exit row criteria seated in an exit row in case of an emergency evacuation opposed to leaving those seats vacant, FAA does not deem it necessary. I could tell you why I think this is, but it doesn’t matter what I think, or what you think for that matter. It is what it is. My question to you is, if flight attendants and agents working for an airline charging an extra fee for the exit row could move passengers to the vacant seats for free, how would they determine which lucky passengers to choose without creating the same type of pandemonium? With all that leg room, the exit row is the most sought after row on the airplane! That said, I understand why some airlines, mostly discount carriers, are charging the extra fee. They have to stay in business somehow!

At my airline we do not charge a fee for the exit row, but our ticket prices are higher than most discount carriers and the exit row is often blocked just for frequent fliers. Nine times out of ten the most elite frequent fliers occupy the exit row and bulkhead seats. So while my airline isn’t charging a fee for the row, they are asking for something even more – passenger loyalty. It comes in the form of miles. So what’s worse, an airline charging a small price to anyone willing to pay for the extra space, or an airline who only rewards a select few? Wouldn’t you rather be able to purchase the seat than not even have a shot at it?

This summer my husband and I will be traveling internationally. (New York to Warsaw) We have never asked for an upgrade to first class. If the agent says there are seats available, is there a charge? Or just willingness to fill a few seats? Additionally, what is the “polite” way to request an upgrade? – Lecia

While it never hurts to ask, it’s highly unlikely you will get an upgrade to first class free of charge. Not with airlines losing money the way they are these days. Because so many people travel often, it’s unfair to upgrade one group of passengers over another without going through the proper procedures. Trust me, passengers are keeping tabs. If an agent were to upgrade a passenger for free, rest assured that agent would hear about it in the form of a complaint letter from another passenger who also wanted an upgrade. For an airline employee, upgrading passengers for free is not worth losing a job over. Remember passengers are miserable, flights are full, and agents are under a lot of pressure to get airplanes out on time, so if you decide to give it a shot, be polite, friendly, and honest about what you want. Agents have heard it all, every story in the book, from pregnancy to bad backs. An honest approach will only work to your advantage. Whatever you do, do not hover over an agent. That will only work against you. Simply wait until the agent has a free moment to ask your question, and then, after your request has been made, step away from the desk. The last thing an agent needs is added stress.


Photos courtesy of Matt Sidesinger and Rnair

Two billion reasons why you pay to check bags

by Tom Johansmeyer on

Or, you could call it “2 billion reasons why flight attendants shouldn’t get raises.” It works both ways.

The labor debacle at British Airways reminds us of the perpetual stupidity turmoil that has come to characterize the airline industry. Not to pick on BA, but the strike shows how disconnected the flight attendants are from the nuts and bolts of the business, and it translates across the pond. Yet, passengers are in a similar state of denial, feeling wronged by the airlines as they are nickled and dimed for “amenities” such as checking luggage. With the latest data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, it’s pretty obvious that airlines need to bring in some more money, and it has to come from somewhere.

In the United States last year, 769.9 million travelers set foot on planes (departing from, arriving to or completely domestic), a decline of 5.3 percent from recession-stained 2008 and off 8.2 percent from 2007, when 832.2 million passengers flew the friendly skies. This was the first time the number of fliers fell below the 800 million mark since 2004, in which 763.7 million passengers boarded planes. Think about it: 2009 is basically 2004. The airline industry has lost five years of growth.Meanwhile, fewer people were paying less for tickets, with the average fare falling $30 from 2007 to 2009 – settling at around $315. The increase in demand led to the shedding of around 700,000 flights from 2008 to 2009.

In all, this dynamic cost the U.S. airline industry approximately $2 billion … and that doesn’t include financial losses elsewhere. Fewer customers spending less led to a profound decline in revenue, and the airlines need to find a way to get it back. They’ve been able to close the gap, in part, through the ancillary fees we’ve all grown to hate. Every time you pay to check a bag, eat an unsatisfying sandwich or grab a little more leg room, you’re helping to keep these guys in business.

Of course, this would be a lot easier if the airlines would do their part. Price increases are frustrating when you see striking employees looking for more in a market where their salaries are effectively unsustainable. And with some flight attendants willing to subject themselves to interviews with 18 airlines in order to land a job, it’s pretty clear that demand is sufficiently high to make pay raises not only unnecessary but irresponsible.

So, it’s time for both sides of this equation to accept reality.

Passengers: you’ll be paying for extras. The airlines need it right now, and the beauty of momentum is that they’ll keep charging us for everything imaginable even when the economy recovers, because they aren’t going to slash a revenue stream that’s paying off.

Flight attendants: raises? Look at the economics of the situation. If passengers are paying more for the same service and demand is high for a shrinking number of positions, there’s no reason to pay them. With revenue in the tank and an aggregate net loss of $4.6 billion for 11 U.S. airlines last year, there’s no money for raises … unless there’s a new way to extract blood from a stone, of course.

%Gallery-64688%

Fees passengers hate actually make sense

by Tom Johansmeyer on

I honestly don’t have much of a problem with all the extra fees being tacked on by airlines. They have an obligation to their shareholders to deliver results: it’s a fact of life. And, realistically, they don’t do us any good if they can’t afford to put planes in the air. But, I suspect I’m in the minority on this one. A recent online poll by Airfarewatchdog.com sought to learn which fee passengers hate most and found that 52 percent abhor having to pay to pick a seat. Only 14 percent had a problem paying for snacks. A mere 3 percent (my kindred spirits, I guess) said they were happy to pay for extra services.

George Hobica, Airfarewatchdog.com‘s president, observes that passengers are more tolerant of fees that come with an added expense to the airline. If you want a meal, someone has to pay for it. Sure, you’re going to pay more than the airline does – as you should – but there’s an understanding that the airline is picking up part of the burden. With seat assignments, he believes, the fact that there is no incremental cost is what irks passengers.

I see Hobica’s point, but there’s an opportunity cost for the airlines that isn’t readily seen by the average passenger. If there is a place for a fee that the airline doesn’t use, it’s potential income that can never be recaptured. Sure, there’s no additional cost to be covered, but there is the reality that the airlines aren’t monetizing something that could ease the pressure on their financial statements.

There’s a good reason for every additional fee you’re seeing: airlines don’t have a choice. Rather than push up the prices, this a la carte approach allows passengers to decide what’s important to them. Why pay for a meal you won’t eat … or for a “better” seat that won’t make a difference to you?

Airline recession will continue into 2010, good news for passengers

by Tom Johansmeyer on

The airline industry must be excited to see 2009 coming to a close. It was a year of route cuts, perk cuts and abuse from passengers over all kinds of sacrifices in the cabin … and a genuine commitment to fees for extra bags. The global financial crisis triggered in September 2008 hit the travel industry with extra severity, forcing airlines, famous for not being able to generate easy profits anyway, to scramble to keep their heads above water. But, at least there’s next year … not really.

While nobody with even shred of sense expected 2010 to be the year the airline industry went wheels up, the latest prediction from the International Air Transport Association is pretty grim. IATA expects the sector to lose $5.6 billion next year, thanks to higher fuel costs and revenue declines because of lower fares. This is worse than the $3.8 billion it originally forecasted. The number of passengers filling seats, IATA believes, will increase, but it won’t be enough to make a difference.

There’s good news in here. Continued brutal competition will keep fares low, so if you missed your chance to take that dream trip this year, you’ll have another bite at the apple in 2010. For the airlines … well, there isn’t any good news. But, is there ever?

[Photo by emrank | counting days | via Flickr]

Congress to investigate airline fees … but not for your benefit

by Tom Johansmeyer on

Congress is digging into all those new airline fees. Extra bags, special check-in situations … you name it. Before you start cheering on our lawmakers, though, you should know that they aren’t doing this from a sense of consumer advocacy. Frankly, Congress doesn’t give a damn how much you pay for air travel. But, it does care how you pay. Why? A cash-strapped government is wondering if it’s leaving money on the table.

When you look at your receipt, the line with “taxes” has never been lost on you, right? Well, the add-ons aren’t included in this number: Congress has a tax on airfare, not all the other stuff. So, for the airlines, this has been a tax-free revenue stream, one that’s been crucial to helping the already bruised airlines survive the current recession.

Yet, is it really just airfare in another form? That’s what Congress wants to know. Even if this is a different form of revenue, do you think it will be left untouched? Of course not! The government needs money, and there’s nothing stopping it from passing a new bill to tax the extra services. How much resistance would be raised?

Think about it.

The average person, even if traveling frequently for personal reasons, wouldn’t be hit too hard by the tax on the fees. If a $10 bag surcharge were taxed at 30% (just to pick a random and unreasonably ugly number) and a passenger flew weekly, he’d rack up $152 in taxes on the additional fees … and that’s assuming he needs to check the extra bag and did so every week. If faced with this or a higher income tax, how would you ask your congressman to vote?

Add it all up, and there’s some tax money to be had. The airline industry has pulled in more than $3 billion this year from the extra fees we all love to hate. If they were taxed at the same rate as fares — a much more reasonable 7.5% — $225 million in tax revenue would be generated. That’s not a trivial number.

The fees aren’t going to go away, and if all goes as it seems, a new tax will be here to stay, as well.