Southwest Airlines will start charging for checked bags amid slew of firsts for low-cost flyer
The low-cost airline announced on Tuesday that customers cannot check their first and second bag for free. The new rule will take effect on May 28, unless passengers are part of Southwest's A-List loyalty program or are traveling on a business fare.
Only Southwest passengers who are Rapid Rewards A-List Preferred Members and traveling on Business Select fares can get two free checked bags, the airline confirmed. Other select customers and A-List members will receive one free checked bag. The airline will also credit one checked bag for Rapid Rewards Credit Card members.
However, customers who do not qualify for the free bag options will be charged for their first and second checked bags on flights. Southwest has not yet shared how much customers will be charged for bags.
'We have tremendous opportunity to meet current and future Customer needs, attract new Customer segments we don't compete for today, and return to the levels of profitability that both we and our Shareholders expect,' Bob Jordan, the President, Chief Executive Officer, & Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors at Southwest Airlines, said in a press release.
'We will do all this while remaining focused on what's made us strong—our People and the authentic, friendly, and award-winning Customer Service only they can provide,' he added.
In a statement to The Independent, Southwest confirmed that those who cannot find a place for their carry-on bag on a busy flight would not be charged, even if it has to be checked.
'There will be times when we solicit at the gate for a soon-to-depart full flight bags to check, and of course there would not be a charge,' the statement read. 'If someone is on the aircraft and cannot find a place for their bag, of course there would not be a charge. The policies and protocols will be spelled out (along with the specific charges) as we approach adding this into our operation.'
Southwest was known for offering two free checked bags to all passengers. Each bag could be 62 inches in size and up to 50 pounds, according to the company's policy. If customers had a third bag to check, they would be charged an additional $150. If one of their two checked bags is overweight, they will also be charged an additional $150.
When it comes to in-flight luggage, passengers are allowed to have one carry-on bag, which would go in the overhead bin. They can also each have one small personal item to put under their seats.
The airline revealed the update to its bag policy amid some major changes. Last month, Southwest announced that it was laying off 15 percent of its corporate workforce, eliminating 1,750 jobs.
'This decision is unprecedented in our 53-year history, and change requires that we make difficult decisions. We are at a pivotal moment as we transform Southwest Airlines into a leaner, faster, and more agile organization,' a spokesman said in a statement. 'I arrived at this decision thoughtfully and carefully, knowing how hard it will be to say goodbye to colleagues who have been a significant part of our Southwest Culture and accomplishments.'
The company also noted that the layoffs will save Southwest about $210m this year and nearly $300m in 2026.
In November, Southwest said it was offering 'voluntary separation and extended time off' to certain employees at airports, to avoid overstaffing in certain locations. These buyouts were made to customer service agents, baggage handlers, and cargo workers at 18 airports across the U.S., according to the Associated Press.
Southwest announced some other changes in its latest press release, including introducing 'a new, basic fare on [its] lowest priced tickets purchased on or after May 28, 2025.' The airline will also be offering assigned seating and extra legroom options.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
11 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Scotland will only be safe when we have independence
As long as the UK retains imperialist global ambitions Scotland's young men and women may be called to fight in wars abroad and perhaps even to fight in illegal wars such as with the invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, with the UK Government continuing to support a fanatical Israeli regime in massacring civilians in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran, Scotland is increasingly likely to suffer future terrorist attacks from those who consider Scotland, as part of the UK, complicit. Instead of spending a billion pounds on US F35-A jets to drop nuclear bombs, never mind the many tens of billions more to be spent on offensive military hardware and additional nuclear power stations to provide the nuclear material for nuclear bombs, these funds could be committed to building more purpose-built ships (preferably in Scotland) to better defend Scotland's territorial waters, as well as to building a state of the art drone network to both defend our country and to support our troops engaged in UN peace-keeping missions overseas. The Clan Gunn motto is 'Aut Pax, Aut Bellum', which translates to 'Either Peace or War'. Independence would not only be a significant step forward in making Scotland a safer country (with Scotland less likely to be dragged into another illegal foreign escapade by the US) but would enable Scotland to be a stronger voice in the world for peace not war. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry. A raw deal for Grangemouth On Monday (June 30) BBC News reported that the UK Labour Government is funding the Official Receiver to ensure the safe operation of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery which is located in north-east Lincolnshire. Speaking on the matter in the House of Commons, Energy Minister Michael Shanks stated: "The Government will ensure supplies are maintained, protect our energy security and do everything we can to support workers". While any action on the part of the Government to save jobs is commendable, I know that Michael Shanks and his fellow Scottish Labour MPs are aware of the recent closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery whose importance to energy security was every bit as vital to Scotland as the Prax Lindsey refinery is to the people of the east of England. It is not an unfair question to ask Mr Shanks and the UK Labour Government why they were prepared only a few months ago to sit back and watch the Grangemouth refinery and its workers being thrown onto the scrapheap, yet now when a refinery based in the east of England comes under threat of closure, immediate measures are being put in place to save it? Prior to last year's General Election Scottish Labour Leader Anas Sarwar went on record to state that if Labour was elected it would prevent the closure of Grangemouth. The people of Scotland now know that Labour did nothing to save Grangemouth. The Labour Party and particularly, Messrs Shanks and Sarwar, need to explain why keeping open the oil refinery in Lincolnshire is more important than the same action for Grangemouth. During the 2014 independence referendum the Labour Party in Scotland was in the vanguard of the Better Together campaign. Some workers who've lost their jobs at Grangemouth might be asking themselves: "Better for whom"? Jim Finlayson, Banchory. Read more letters Investment not so impactful The heightened risks and uncertainties of doing business in today's global economy is, unsurprisingly, taking its toll on investor confidence: the E&Y Attractiveness Survey published in May reported falling project totals for inward investment to the UK in 2024. Scotland managed to retain its position as second to Greater London and, given the dearth of good economic news, the Scottish Government took full advantage of the headline. Numbers alone, however, say little or nothing about the economic significance of inward investment projects. Just published, the Government's inward investment results for 2024/25 confirm the recent downward trend. Importantly, the report also sheds light on the economic impact of this investment. On standardised measures – for example, jobs created and safeguarded per project – regional ranking places the North West, London, the South East, Wales, West Midlands, and Yorkshire and Humberside ahead of Scotland. Not so impressive. In the Trumpian era of unpredictable tariffs, the experience of our Irish neighbours flags the dangers and risks of placing your most important economic eggs in the inward investment basket. The over-arching imperative for Scotland is to develop a set of more keenly focused policies together with more powerful interventions which address the structural constraints and challenges that have bedevilled our indigenous growth. Key challenges here include, for example, Scotland's inability to nurture and scale internationally competitive businesses in sufficient numbers and Scotland's vulnerability to outside acquisition (sometimes hostile) of many of its most promising start-ups. (NB Both features are not unrelated.) Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns. Scotland and the Crown Estate The article on the Crown Estate by Ellie Crabbe ("Record Crown Estate profits set to drop as offshore boost fades", The Herald, July 1), is poorly researched and quite misleading. It is stated 'the Crown Estate owns the vast majority Britain's seabed …' which is true but makes no reference that Scotland is in control of the Crown Estate here and of a seabed which is longer than the seabed of England and Wales combined. The various figures and most of the information which then follow in the article do not apply to Scotland at all. Sadly, this is another article penned furth of Scotland which ignores Scotland. Alan M Morris, Blanefield. Why not back the victims? The heroic UK Labour Government has vigorously gone after groups who speak up for the Palestinian people. Palestine Action has campaigned for the rights of the Palestinian people for decades. It has killed nobody and starved nobody. The rap duo Bob Vylan denounced the Israeli forces who have murdered 50,000 people in Gaza. Bob Vylan has killed nobody ("Probe into gig remarks at festival launched by police", The Herald, July 1). The Israeli "Defence" Force has killed tens of thousands, destroyed homes and imposed starvation on a whole population. The UK Government excuses this on the grounds that Israel "has a right to defend itself ". The UK Government makes no condemnation of Israel's actions and even sells weapons to the perpetrators and sends military aircraft to the Middle East to support Israel. But in the eyes of the brave UK Government the real culprits are a campaigning organisation and a rap duo. It is clear where its pathetic priorities lie and they are not with victims of genocide. David Currie, Tarland. Establishment out of touch The furore in much of the UK press over the support of Palestine and protest at anti-Israeli sentiments expressed at Glastonbury shows how much the UK political establishment is out of touch with the general population, especially the younger age groups. Most people I know support Israel 's right to exist but do not approve of its expansion to recreate the biblical Israel as destroyed by Rome, as is the policy of the current government there. After all, where I live was once under Roman rule; not many of us fancy being run from Italy today. Perhaps those of a Biblical disposition should concentrate on the New Testament rather than the old version. Drew Reid, Falkirk. There has been much controversy over Bob Vylan's appearance at Glastonbury (Image: PA) Why were they allowed? As the Glastonbury row rumbles on, too little attention has been paid to why the controversial acts were allowed to perform at all. Both Kneecap and Bob Vylan have a known history. Glastonbury has a history of a left of centre stance, be that from "ban the bomb" to guesting Jeremy Corbyn. The warnings of problems this year were there from even the Prime Minister but were ignored. When performers chant for a "free Palestine" why not also chant "free the hostages"? Whilst Palestinian flags were in abundance where were the Israeli flags? Glastonbury is fast becoming a very political music festival, not the open event it ought to be. Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. IDF is not succeeding Otto Inglis (Letters, July 1) concludes his letter regarding the outrageous chants at Glastonbury by stating that all decent people should wish the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) a speedy and thorough victory. Unfortunately the IDF is neither speedy nor thorough. This war has been going on for almost two years and the Hamas rebels appear to be as strong as ever. The IDF, a conscript army, has assassinated leading members of Hamas while at the same time killing both innocent children and its own people who had been taken hostage. Most decent people want this conflict to end with no more slaughter on either side. Sandy Gemmill, Edinburgh.
Daily Mail
21 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Doctor issues warning about wearing common clothing item on flights
You might want to think twice before reaching for leggings or tight jeans the next time you fly, as experts have revealed the popular clothing items may be some of the worst things to wear on a plane. It's pretty common for passengers boarding major airlines like American Airlines , United, and Southwest to throw on a comfy pair of leggings or some cute jeans, but now, they have been urged to reconsider their travel fashion. A doctor recently spoke out about the dangers of donning tight clothes while flying to Huffington Post . 'The clothing we wear when we fly can significantly impact our circulation,' Dr. Hugh Pabarue, a vein specialist with Metro Vein Centers, explained. 'For example, tight clothing is not recommended. Wearing leggings and other restrictive garments such as skinny jeans that are too tight reduces blood's ability to flow into and out of the legs.' He explained that wearing skin-tight outfits while you're seated for hours in a cramped cabin can restrict circulation, leading to swollen legs, numbness, or worse - deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a dangerous condition where blood clots form in the legs. 'Wearing clothes that are too tight can potentially lead to conditions like compartment syndrome or meralgia paresthetica, causing numbness, tingling, and severe leg pain,' added Dr. Pabarue. Aviation specialist Christine Negroni also agreed with the clothing warning, and in addition to the health risks, she added that leggings pose another problem if there's ever an emergency on board. She pointed out that in the event of a fire, wearing leggings, which are made from synthetic fibers, could result in worse burns. 'The issue with leggings is the nature of the material,' Negroni told Huffington Post. 'You have a tight garment that is usually made from synthetic fibers, made from petroleum products, which is not something you want to wear on an airplane. 'The largest risk in a survivable air accident is fire.' '[The material of leggings] is going to get very hot, it will either melt on your skin or cause serious burns, and that becomes something that will impact your ability to escape the aircraft,' she added. 'In other words, if you're not damaged beyond [the] ability to exit, to get out of the airplane, then you might be affected by the fire.' One flight attendant previously went viral after she shared clothes that she advises against while flying. First, Rydell claimed you should never fly in 'shorts or crop tops' because its gets very cold on a flight. Explaining further in the caption, she wrote: 'Shorts or crop tops - ever felt the wrath of plane AC [air conditioning] on bare thighs or on your naked belly? Brutal.' Next, the flight attendant revealed why flip flops should be avoided at all costs when traveling. She wrote: 'Flip flops - fine for the beach, not for running to your gate or emergency landings. Plus, I know you will take them off during the flight and walk barefoot.' Similarly to Negroni, the air hostess also explained that tights should not be worn when flying, as she explained that they could be a safety hazard if there was a fire onboard. She said: 'Tights [are] synthetic = flammable. Not what you want in case of fire [as the] fabric might burn into your skin.' Back in April, a travel expert revealed what the most comfortable and stylish clothes are to wear to the airport. Having layers you can easily chuck off and on is vital for running to the boarding gate or settling down for a nap at 34,000 feet, she detailed. She suggested items such as slip-on sneakers, T-shirts, lounge sets, button-up shirts, and long cotton dresses.
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
Doctor issues terrifying warning to plane passengers who wear common clothing item on flights
You might want to think twice before reaching for leggings or tight jeans the next time you fly, as experts have revealed the popular clothing items may be some of the worst things to wear on a plane. It's pretty common for passengers boarding major airlines like American Airlines, United, and Southwest to throw on a comfy pair of leggings or some cute jeans, but now, they have been urged to reconsider their travel fashion. A doctor recently spoke out about the dangers of donning tight clothes while flying to Huffington Post. 'The clothing we wear when we fly can significantly impact our circulation,' Dr. Hugh Pabarue, a vein specialist with Metro Vein Centers, explained. 'For example, tight clothing is not recommended. Wearing leggings and other restrictive garments such as skinny jeans that are too tight reduces blood's ability to flow into and out of the legs.' He explained that wearing skin-tight outfits while you're seated for hours in a cramped cabin can restrict circulation, leading to swollen legs, numbness, or worse - deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a dangerous condition where blood clots form in the legs. 'Wearing clothes that are too tight can potentially lead to conditions like compartment syndrome or meralgia paresthetica, causing numbness, tingling, and severe leg pain,' added Dr. Pabarue. Aviation specialist Christine Negroni also agreed with the clothing warning, and in addition to the health risks, she added that leggings pose another problem if there's ever an emergency on board. She pointed out that in the event of a fire, wearing leggings, which are made from synthetic fibers, could result in worse burns. 'The issue with leggings is the nature of the material,' Negroni told Huffington Post. 'You have a tight garment that is usually made from synthetic fibers, made from petroleum products, which is not something you want to wear on an airplane. 'The largest risk in a survivable air accident is fire.' '[The material of leggings] is going to get very hot, it will either melt on your skin or cause serious burns, and that becomes something that will impact your ability to escape the aircraft,' she added. 'In other words, if you're not damaged beyond [the] ability to exit, to get out of the airplane, then you might be affected by the fire.' One flight attendant previously went viral after she shared clothes that she advises against while flying. Sille Rydell, claimed items such as that shorts, crop tops, and flip flops are all bad choices. She captioned the post: 'Your outfit might be cute at the gate, but at 38,000 feet? Not so much. Here's what I never fly in and why.' Alongside a clip of Rydell walking through a first class cabin, she shared what you should 'not wear on a plane' and asserted that she is speaking from experience, having 'seen it all.' First, Rydell claimed you should never fly in 'shorts or crop tops' because its gets very cold on a flight. Explaining further in the caption, she wrote: 'Shorts or crop tops - ever felt the wrath of plane AC [air conditioning] on bare thighs or on your naked belly? Brutal.' Next, the flight attendant revealed why flip flops should be avoided at all costs when traveling. She wrote: 'Flip flops - fine for the beach, not for running to your gate or emergency landings. Plus, I know you will take them off during the flight and walk barefoot.' Similarly to Negroni, the air hostess also explained that tights should not be worn when flying, as she explained that they could be a safety hazard if there was a fire onboard. She said: 'Tights [are] synthetic = flammable. Not what you want in case of fire [as the] fabric might burn into your skin.' Back in April, a travel expert revealed what the most comfortable and stylish clothes are to wear to the airport. Having layers you can easily chuck off and on is vital for running to the boarding gate or settling down for a nap at 34,000 feet, she detailed. She suggested items such as slip-on sneakers, T-shirts, lounge sets, button-up shirts, and long cotton dresses.
