Southwest Airlines To End Free Checked Bags Policy For First Time in Its 54-Year History (cbsnews.com) 64
Southwest Airlines boasts that its passengers' "bags fly free" -- but not for long. From a report: Starting May 28 -- just in time for the busy summer travel season -- only Southwest's most elite Rapid Rewards A-List Preferred members and passengers who book their top-tier Business Select fares will receive two free checked bags. Frequent flyer A-List Members, Southwest-branded credit card holders and other select customers will be allowed one checked bag.
Everyone else will be charged for their first and second checked bags on flights booked on or after May 28, the carrier says. It's a break with Southwest's 54 year history -- one that could undermine customer loyalty to the carrier, according to experts. "This is how you destroy a brand. This is how you destroy customer preference. This is how you destroy loyalty. And this, I think, is going to send Southwest into a financial tailspin," airline industry analyst Henry Harteveldt, of Atmosphere Research Group, told CBS News senior transportation correspondent Kris Van Cleave. "Southwest, with these changes, becomes just another airline."
Everyone else will be charged for their first and second checked bags on flights booked on or after May 28, the carrier says. It's a break with Southwest's 54 year history -- one that could undermine customer loyalty to the carrier, according to experts. "This is how you destroy a brand. This is how you destroy customer preference. This is how you destroy loyalty. And this, I think, is going to send Southwest into a financial tailspin," airline industry analyst Henry Harteveldt, of Atmosphere Research Group, told CBS News senior transportation correspondent Kris Van Cleave. "Southwest, with these changes, becomes just another airline."
Vultures are killing it (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the only reason I fly Southwest and now that it's being taken away, I won't be a customer after May.
Re: (Score:2)
If you get their credit card, you can still get a free bag.
Re: (Score:2)
They're also ending their fuel hedging program:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news... [yahoo.com]
The fact that their finances are forcing them to do this is not good.
Re: Vultures are killing it (Score:4, Insightful)
Iâ(TM)m not sure forced is the right word, more like the venture capitalist owner saw that Southwest made $440m in bag fees and Delta made $1.7b.
Re: (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m not sure forced is the right word, more like the venture capitalist owner saw that Southwest made $440m in bag fees and Delta made $1.7b.
Unfortunately, that's exactly how some C-level managers "manage" companies, by becoming exactly like their competitors, including copying their mistakes.
Re:Vultures are killing it (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that their finances are forcing them to do this is not good.
Finances are not forcing Southwest's hand. A private equity firm is forcing Southwest to make changes. And this private equity firm only owns around 10% of Southwest stock, but it has managed to force major changes.
Some of the changes do make sense for Southwest's finances. However, as a general rule, private equity firms look at short-term results, with a horizon for bailing out after a few years. Unfortunately, that horizon is often the time when the short-term measures damage the company sufficiently to affect financial results. Look for Southwest financials initially to improve, then for Elliott Investment Management (the private equity firm) to bail with a profit on their $2 billion investment, and then finally for Southwest to implode.
Re: (Score:2)
Finances are not forcing Southwest's hand. A private equity firm is forcing Southwest to make changes... Look for Southwest financials initially to improve, then for Elliott Investment Management (the private equity firm) to bail with a profit on their $2 billion investment, and then finally for Southwest to implode.
Isn't this basically the same process which has pretty much destroyed the retail pharmacy sector in the US?
Private equity firms are fucking parasites, and they should be outlawed.
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch.
And at only 10% control.
It occurs to me that if all of the dedicated Southwest flyers all bought shares of the company, they might be able to form a block of comparable size. Apparently there are 599M shares outstanding, so an equal sized block would mean 59.9M people buying 10 shares each at $31 a share.
Supposedly there were 123M people who flew Southwest in 2021. If half of those people decided to join a group dedicated to ousting the vulture investor board picks...
Re: (Score:1)
My guess is that 123M people includes "dupes".
Re: (Score:2)
as a general rule, private equity firms look at short-term results, with a horizon for bailing out after a few years.
If that were true, you could easily get rich from shorting the stock as soon as they bail.
So why aren't you doing that?
Re: (Score:2)
Elliott Investment Management (the private equity firm)
That evil Singer guy? I knew it. He is a vulture indeed, one of the worst vultures on planet Earth.
Re:Vultures are killing it (Score:4, Insightful)
If what they say is to be believed, then their execs don't understand their customers.
According to CNN, they started selling on flight finder websites and didn't see the expected increase in sales, and assumed it was because people preferred cheaper flights and to pay for their bags.
In reality, there's no increase in sales because the "good luck sitting next to your family" plan doesn't work for a lot of people, and most of those people avoid Southwest like the plague because of the nickel-and-diming upcharges just to have a chance of sitting together. As long as Southwest hasn't implemented reserved seating, and requires people to pay money to avoid a panicked rush 24 hours before the flight, when the people who are the least able to take the time to do that (people with families) are the most heavily impacted by the policy, then Southwest isn't even an option.
Besides, I guarantee Southwest isn't going to meaningfully lower their rates in exchange for not bringing checked bags. Every airline that has done this has ended up with longer boarding times and everybody bringing their bags and then gate checking them anyway when the plane ends up being full, which delays departure even more, but you'll notice that the prices on those airlines are still higher than Southwest, because most of the cost of air travel isn't the 60 checked bags weighing less than 50 pounds each. A 737 weighs 140,000 pounds. Those 3,000 pounds represent O(2%) of the cost of the flight. And I guarantee they aren't going to charge only $3 per flight for a checked bag.
No, they're not doing this to lower prices. They're doing this to encourage people to bring less luggage so that they have more room to carry mail and make a bigger profit on each flight . And that's fine, but it would be nice if they were at least honest about it.
Re:Vultures are killing it (Score:4, Insightful)
The execs appear to also not understand southwest's business model. The boarding and checked bag rules were obviously specifically designed to make getting people on the airplane far far faster. (assigned seating and dealing with carry-ons is super slow). Southwest's business model was based on getting planes loaded fast and getting them back in the air. Presumably that meant they could service a particular passenger base with fewer airplanes. If they slow down their boarding, then they are just another airline without that advantage anymore. This does sound like new upper management just not understanding the structural strengths of the company.
Though honestly "no free check bag" has turned into "take a carry on size bag and check it at the gate for free because too many people are bringing carry-ons" for most airlines anyway. So I don't really know what this policy accomplishes other than selling more travel-sized toothpaste. I can see charging for more than 1 bag, but charging for the first bag just doesn't make sense because there simply is not enough carry-on space for everyone to bring a carry-on size bag. So the main impact is actually to just slow down boarding and increase the work the gate agent has to do. That sounds a lot like bad management - a policy that only appears to increase revenue because the trade-offs aren't being accounted for correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Though honestly "no free check bag" has turned into "take a carry on size bag and check it at the gate for free because too many people are bringing carry-ons" for most airlines anyway. So I don't really know what this policy accomplishes other than selling more travel-sized toothpaste.
Now nobody brings bigger bags, because they cost money. So instead of larger bags, they are smaller bags, which means you can fit more of them under the plane, which at least potentially means you can free up space for more pallets of mail.
They do have reserved seats soon (Score:2, Informative)
As long as Southwest hasn't implemented reserved seating
Southwest announced some time ago they are moving to assigned seating the second half of 2025 [azcentral.com].
Every airline that has done this has ended up with longer boarding times and everybody bringing their bags and then gate checking them anyway when the plane ends up being full
Totally agree it's just going to turn Southwest into the same mad struggle for overhead every other airline has.
You are probably right they are doing it to make more cargo room, but I re
Big data and no competition (Score:2)
So yeah you personally might decide this was a line crossed but it will probably not be because it really was but because you're going to read my post and dig your heels in the way human beings tend to do in these
Re:Big data and no competition (Score:4, Interesting)
That's actually not true.
They have data showing it will be a net loss for them in revenue. But the exec who provided that data to the board was summarily fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you discriminate against autistic spectrum people?
Re: (Score:3)
This is the only reason I fly Southwest and now that it's being taken away, I won't be a customer after May.
Sadly the writing has been on the wall for Southwest for some time now. Ever since Elliot Partners took over, they're an outfit of Vulture Capitalists who ruin good companies.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the only reason I fly Southwest and now that it's being taken away, I won't be a customer after May.
Your complaint would be relevant if cutting up service piecemeal hasn't resulted in air travel becoming insanely affordable. An airline where "bags travel free" is another way of saying if you don't use your luggage allotment you're subsidizing other passengers. The lowest fare option should always be al-a-carte. And Southwest will no doubt continue to include a bag on any premium service.
You pick a strange reason to hate an airline.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the only reason I fly Southwest and now that it's being taken away, I won't be a customer after May.
Would you feel differently if they gave a discount to those with no bags?
Because, logically, that's the same thing.
Great, more carry-on (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that why flying is cheaper and more accessible than ever before? You better tell them they are doing it wrong, because they clearly are in your conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
MY first flight to Honolulu was not only free, but I got paid too! And it was on a cargo plane so I didn't have to deal with whiny, drunken tourists.
Yeah, it was on a cargo plane owned and operated by a company I was working for. They were temporarily relocating me from Houston to Honolulu.
In reality though, flying is more accessible now. WAY more passenger flights than ever. I'm not sure about affordability because I can remember it being quite inexpensive 20 - 30 years ago, if you just schedule your f
Re: (Score:2)
Next month, I'm taking a 3 day train trip from Oregon to Pennsylvania, to avoid the hassle of flying.
Wife is taking a plane for the same trip. She has a layover with a tight connection at O'Hare. I wish her the best of luck.
Re: (Score:1)
I hope she does. I hope she doesn't miss her connecting flight.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think environmentalists enjoy planes idling on the runway?
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-... [phys.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I would love for bullet trains to replace shorter flights, up to about 500 miles. JetBlue agrees. [sfexaminer.com] No liquid limits, no stripping, no removing tablets and laptops from your baggage unless you will be passing over/under/through critical infrastructure such as the Hoover Dam.
If we had trains you might have a point (Score:3)
SW going down (Score:1)
I can remember when checkin - pay the ticket, throw my checked bag to the counter and running from the curb outside and onto to the plane could be done within 10 minutes of door closed and plane rolling. (~1983-4), and those $15 flights.
Guess the hots pants and free booze wont be back either. My mom actually saved up the little bottles, from post flight give/throw aways from kind flight attendants that would last her ano
Re: (Score:2)
does it matter with a oligopoly? (Score:2)
Also isn't
Re: (Score:2)
Now? Not in the slightest. Elections have consequences.
It's just another airline now (Score:2)
If I have to fly, I have to fly, but there's nothing special left about SWA compared to the other major legacy carriers. Now I have to go hunt for a decent price on an acceptable airline, factoring in the extra costs of things like baggage.
Well, that's not quite true for everyone: They may fly to/from a more convenient airport without having to change to a "regional partner" or even changing planes. But that's only a "plus" if it specifically applies to you.
Re: (Score:2)
If I have to fly, I have to fly, but there's nothing special left about SWA compared to the other major legacy carriers.
Unless you're flying alone, Southwest is by far the worst of the legacy carriers, and has been for a long time.
The first airline that assigns seats on the day of the flight will win. Automatically reorder the passengers to maximize the probability of families sitting together (with across-the-aisle being the last resort). Secondarily, give each person preferences for aisle versus window, but with weaker weight than any other group getting to sit together. Then compute a seating layout that maximizes the
Re: (Score:2)
I've flown SW with friends/family and we could always sit next to each other. Just board, sit down in adjacent seats and be done!
They might not be the most coveted seats, but we could sit next to each other if we wanted.
And nobody came to nag us about changing seats either, like ALWAYS happens when we have reserved seats ahead of time, which people flying together ALWAYS can do when buying tickets.
Still better on change fees (Score:2)
If I have to fly, I have to fly, but there's nothing special left about SWA compared to the other major legacy carriers.
Their lack of change fees is still a differentiator. And cancellation of even the low-end fares gets you a flight credit. For now.
Herb Kelleher is rolling over in ... (Score:2)
... his grave [findagrave.com].
Folks Gonna Look All Like Joey On Friends (Score:4, Insightful)
Just wear several days' outfits at once.
Re: (Score:3)
Just wear several days' outfits at once.
If you've flown recently, it already looks like this... or more accurately people openly taking the piss with carry on luggage. The end result is that people are taking cases on board that fill the bin space that is meant for the carry on luggage of 3 people.
Finnair had a brilliant solution to this... if you approached the gate with more than one carry on bag the larger items were checked, no ifs, buts or "all my important shit is in there". Big bags get checked. It's a heck of a lot more efficient than
All their value-add is gone. (Score:2)
So they are raising prices and making prices less (Score:2)
this may create challenges in their boarding metho (Score:1)
Itâ(TM)s unclear what happens when one aspect of their system changes unless other parts also change. The bags flying free was designed to make boarding more efficient, which reduces gate time. If bag check is not free, then itâ(TM)ll mean more people bringing their bags on plane. This means boarding will be more complex and time consuming. Itâ(TM)s not clear their âoefirst come first chooseâ seat process will work as well, as people trying to backtrack, or holding up the entire boa
Where are you gonna go? (Score:2)
To American Airlines? To Delta? You could go to the budget airlines... and still pay for a bag. Just think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well there is going to be a lot fewer people flying, at least for vacations and such.
End stage capitalism (Score:3)
I started my career at the start of the computer age, and over that time informatics has enabled companies to evade price comparisons by enabling them to bundle things that don't belong with the product (content subscriptions with your phone) or unbundle things you need to use it (a reasonable baggage allowance and travel). In the case of health care, we don't know what *anything* costs until our insurance denies us. So sure, you can search for the cheapest flight on the Internet, but you don't know what it will actually cost to use that flight.
The ability of a consumer to price and compare products is fundamental to the reason free markets are the most efficient means of distributing resources and producing goods. It's fundamental to capitalism.
Capitalism has never really be in real danger from socialism. The real danger to capitalism is corporations developing ways to avoid price competition that consumers find intractable.
Re: (Score:1)
The US government still isn't allowed to own anything. The consequence is the US government demanding price-fixing (eg. phone providers, land lords) or paying middle-men (Eg. phone providers, PBMs) to do the work at massive mark-up. Despite the rest of the world not doing this, US-ians think economic cronyism is normal. The US had socialism in the 1950s, it's why old people claim life was better (as long as one was the correct race/sex/nationality/religion). Not young people think avoiding socialism ma
Re: (Score:2)
or unbundle things you need to use it (a reasonable baggage allowance and travel).
Citation Needed. An insane number of flights are business trippers, or short stay trippers. They are by far the biggest group of people, not you taking your vacation for 2 weeks with the family. A very significant portion of people do not check in luggage even when it is free to do so.
Unbundling this makes absolute sense. I would say I use a checked bag in about 1/5th of my flights each year. Why should my ticket subsidise others when instead the process of unbundling on airlines and setting up tiers of ser
Re: (Score:2)
It's not unbundling per se; it's the impracticality of price comparisons that's the problem.
Why can't they fix the websites (Score:3)
Why can't the online ticket agencies show "actual cost". User can click if they have bags, want lunch, want an assigned seat, etc, and it shows the total price including all the fees and charges and taxes, etc.
My guess is there is a legal problem with this, or that their contract with the airlines says they can't do it. It may also be technical in that they cannot collect this information. Another worrisome one is that people will click on different online agencies and pick the cheapest, so the agency is encouraged to not do this. Anybody know?
All distinctiveness will be eliminated (Score:2)
Standardized carry-on luggage size? (Score:2)
I wonder will this change of no more free single checked luggage mean airlines around the world that belong to ICAO will soon impose a standardized size limit to 55 cm height, 35 cm width and 20 cm depth including wheels, handles and side pockets, with a maximum weight of the luggage at 5 kg? I can see a huge demand for passengers to switch to carry-on luggage that meets this standard.