Thursday, March 12, 2015

Present But Not Accounted For

In yet another installment in our seemingly endless saga of airlines behaving badly, a local television station here in Michigan is reporting that a passenger on a Southwest Airlines flight was mistakenly notified that he had failed to show up for his flight that morning, and all of the other flights on his itinerary were being cancelled. This would be upsetting if he had received the message hours or even days before his flight; it would be somewhat amusing if he had received the message weeks after his return home. What makes the story noteworthy is that the passenger received this notice while he was actually aboard the airplane, during the flight…

You can pick up the original story here, if you want to, but the gist is simple enough. When the hero of our story arrived at the gate and attempted to board the aircraft, the ramp agent attempted to scan the bar codes on his boarding pass – a method of tracking passengers that is becoming increasingly common at US airports. Unfortunately, the scanner failed to read the codes on the first and second try. Since the line was long and the time to departure was short, the agent gave up and just let the passenger board, no doubt planning to manually enter the boarding information later. In the event, however, the agent either forgot about the manual update or was too busy to take care of it before the company’s computer system noted the “no-show” and cancelled the man’s non-refundable ticket…

I’ve written in this space before about the somewhat questionable ethics of non-refundable tickets, but apparently I missed the single most corrosive aspect of such products: the fact that people with non-refundable tickets miss their flights just as often as anyone else, and will then make up whatever preposterous story they can think of in order to convince the airline to refund their money or replace their ticket. After a few years (or possibly less, in some cases) of listening to stories that are filled with whining, vitriol, or outright insults to their intelligence, the airline’s customer service personnel have gotten fed up with the entire situation and are apparently refusing to listen anymore – it’s hard evidence or nothing, and the passenger in our story didn’t keep a receipt from either airport, let alone retain his boarding pass…

Now, I don’t want to rag on Southwest Airlines in particular; I know that all of the major airlines have regulations like this, and I imagine that all of them are having the same issues with their customer service personnel, at least to the extent that they weren’t already. What I think is getting lost in this story is just how lightly the airline is getting off, given the potential disaster they were courting. The linked story is mainly focused on the airline cancelling their customer’s non-refundable ticket and refusing to refund the replacement ticket he had to buy to get home following their screw-up, but imagine if they had given away his seat before the airplane left the ground. Southwest generally doesn’t have assigned seating, which means they would have been left with an airplane with 180 passenger seats and 181 people aboard - and no way to tell who the imposter really was…

Even worse, though, would be the case in which the passenger really didn’t board, but his luggage already had. This would violate any number of Federal safety regulations, possibly resulting in massive fines or other sanctions against the company – which would still be less of a fiasco than if the passenger had placed a bomb in his checked luggage and then failed to check in. In this case, the airline didn’t get around to cancelling the passenger’s ticket until he and his luggage were already in the air, which means that no one had the chance to take note of his absence and pull his suitcase out of the cargo hold, either. And while it’s true that the odds of a random murderous psychopath attempting to bring down any specific airplane are very small, they aren’t quite zero – and I wouldn’t want to be the one who tried to use that as a legal defense in either civil or criminal proceedings…

No comments: