The word “full” means “containing as much or as many as is possible or normal”. It requires no modifiers, as it is a binary condition. Something either is full or it is not. And yet nearly every time I find myself on a plane, I hear announcements referring to the flight as “full” despite the presence of empty seats.

This is generally done in a valiant effort to get folks to move their carcasses out of the aisle, so that the plane might take off on time. It can also be an encouragement to not stuff multiple bags into the limited overhead space. Regardless of the good intentions, it’s simply inaccurate to call a flight “full” if there are unused seats.

The exact language of that falsehood can vary. Sometimes, perhaps when there are slightly fewer empty seats, a flight may be incorrectly described as “very full”. My favorite, however, is both inaccurate and redundant: “completely full”.

This verbiage has long been a source of eye-rolling amusement for me. While contemplating it recently, however, I did come to recognize the predicament in which the airlines find themselves. How exactly should such a flight be described pithily? “There are very few empty seats” is accurate, but it doesn’t exactly trip off the tongue. As best as I can see, any single word that could be used to describe the situation of having only a tiny number of unfilled seats also has negative connotations. “Packed”? “Jammed”? “Crowded”? No matter how true they are, they sound unpleasant. “Full” is erroneous, but it at least seems neutral in terms of the customer experience.

Still, I’m certain we can do better. How about using a different modifier, one which isn’t an intensifier? Describing the plane as “nearly full” or “almost completely full” would work just fine. So too would “near capacity”. There are options for airlines to put an end to the mendacity. With a simple change, they can be less full of it.