Connect with us

Business

End of an era: Southwest Airlines will end open seating, introduce red-eye flights

Published

on

End of an era: Southwest Airlines will end open seating, introduce red-eye flights

For the first time since it was founded more than half a century ago, Southwest Airlines will assign seats — a shift that will allow the low-fare, no-frills company to meet evolving customer preferences and charge more money for premium seats.

The Dallas-based airline also will start to offer overnight, red-eye flights, starting on Valentine’s Day 2025, in five markets, including Los Angeles, Baltimore and Nashville.

Southwest had for years touted its model of open seating as the “ultimate expression of its founding ethos: to make air travel affordable and accessible for everyone.”

“You can sit anywhere you want — just like at church,” flight attendants told passengers.

But Southwest said it had listened to customers who sought more options, often desiring more comfortable, premium seats when they took longer flights. When customers decided to switch to a competitor from Southwest, the airline said, their No. 1 complaint was dissatisfaction with open seating.

Advertisement

“The research is clear and indicates that 80% of Southwest customers, and 86% of potential customers, prefer an assigned seat,” the airline said in a statement. “By moving to an assigned seating model, Southwest expects to broaden its appeal and attract more flying from its current and future customers.”

Currently, Southwest passengers are grouped into boarding positions based on the order of check-in, with some exceptions. This means those who check in for their flight early are rewarded by being able to get on the plane — and snag a preferred seat — before other passengers.

It’s a practice that many budget-conscious, but still comfort-inclined Southwest fliers appreciated.

In 2006, the airline abandoned a plan to assign seats after a trial run and customer surveys revealed that travelers preferred open seating. Keeping open seating was also more efficient. Assigned seating increased boarding time by one to four minutes, the airline said at the time.

The change will enable the company to make more for premium seats. Southwest said it was working on an updated cabin design, with roughly one-third of seats offering extended legroom.

Advertisement

“Although our unique open seating model has been a part of Southwest Airlines since our inception, our thoughtful and extensive research makes it clear this is the right choice — at the right time — for our Customers, our People, and our Shareholders,” Bob Jordan, Southwest’s president, chief executive and vice chairman of the board, said in a statement.

Southwest did not specify when the seat changes will go into effect. Some Southwest fans took to social media to decry the move to assigned seats, saying that it was enough to make them abandon the budget-friendly brand. Others said they always hated having to hunt for an open seat.

But at Los Angeles International Airport on Thursday, many passengers seemed unfazed by the policy change.

Jim Kingsley navigated a luggage cart stacked high with bags for him and his family, having just arrived in Los Angeles after a long flight from Minneapolis.

It’s Southwest’s inexpensive checked bag policy, not seating, that has earned his business. “Otherwise we’d be carrying all these,” he joked.

Advertisement

Southwest, he said, seems safer and friendlier than other airlines. It doesn’t surprise customers with unexpected fees and offers flights at what Kingsley said is a good value for his family.

“As far as airlines go, Southwest has got it going on,” he said.

The company, long one of the nation’s most profitable airlines, has struggled financially in recent years. Costs — including wages, goods and maintenance — have risen across the airline industry in the years since the COVID-19 pandemic began. The problem for Southwest is that its revenue has been much slower to rise than for its competitors, said Edward Russell, a freelance transport and aviation writer.

“Airlines that offer premium products and large loyalty programs including American, United and Delta have done much better,” he said. “The changes we’re seeing from Southwest are basically an attempt to boost revenue to keep up with the rise in costs.”

Estimates from Wall Street analysts indicate that assigned seating could result in as much as $2 billion per year in additional revenue for the airline. This comes at a time when Southwest has been grappling with pressure from investors to boost revenue, Russell said.

Advertisement

On Thursday, Southwest reported that its profit in the second quarter of 2024 dropped more than 46% from a year earlier to $367 million.

“Our second-quarter performance was impacted by both external and internal factors and fell short of what we believe we are capable of delivering,” Jordan said.

“We are taking urgent and deliberate steps to mitigate near-term revenue challenges and implement longer-term transformational initiatives that are designed to drive meaningful top and bottom-line growth.”

It’s unlikely that the seating switch-up will dramatically raise prices for travelers, but those who want to sit at the front of the plane or enjoy the view at a window seat should expect to pay more as they do on other airlines, Russell said.

Tomi Muñoz and Steven Romero, who flew Southwest from Denver to Los Angeles for a vacation Thursday morning, said they’d like to see the airline maintain low ticket prices. The frequent travelers said they’ve never had an issue with the open seating policy.

Advertisement

“It depends on who you are as a traveler,” said Muñoz, 22, adding that anxious fliers might get some relief by knowing exactly where they’re going to be sitting on the plane.

But Muñoz and Romero don’t worry about that.

“We end up sitting with each other anyway,” Romero, 23, said.

Destinee Gary, 25, said Southwest’s current seating arrangement enables her to avoid loud groups or potentially disruptive children during the flight. Gary, who has flown only once before, prefers to scope out the situation on a plane before committing to a spot.

But she said an increase in ticket prices would be the real deal-breaker.

Advertisement

“If it costs more,” she asked, “then why not fly American?”

Business

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

Published

on

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.

The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.

The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.

The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.

Advertisement

It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.

However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.

Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.

Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.

“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.

Advertisement

In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”

The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.

“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.

Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.

Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.

Advertisement

Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.

But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.

Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.

A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.

Advertisement

“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .

Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.

Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.

Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Published

on

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.

But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.

While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.

Advertisement

“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.

It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”

Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.

“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.

The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.

Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”

Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.

Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.

“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”

Advertisement

For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.

“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”

Continue Reading

Business

MrBeast company sued over claims of sexual harassment, firing a new mom

Published

on

MrBeast company sued over claims of sexual harassment, firing a new mom

A former female staffer who worked for Beast Industries, the media venture behind the popular YouTube channel MrBeast, is suing the company, alleging she was sexually harassed and fired shortly after she returned from maternity leave.

The employee, Lorrayne Mavromatis, a Brazilian-born social media professional, alleges in a lawsuit she was subjected to sexual harassment by the company’s management and demoted after she complained about her treatment. She said she was urged to join a conference call while in labor and expected to work during her maternity leave in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, according to the federal complaint filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

“This clout-chasing complaint is built on deliberate misrepresentations and categorically false statements, and we have the receipts to prove it. There is extensive evidence — including Slack and WhatsApp messages, company documents, and witness testimony — that unequivocally refutes her claims. We will not submit to opportunistic lawyers looking to manufacture a payday from us,” Gaude Paez, a Beast Industries spokesperson, said in a statement.

Jimmy Donaldson, 27, began MrBeast as a teen gaming channel that soon exploded into a media company worth an estimated $5 billion, with 500 employees and 450 million subscribers who watch its games, stunts and giveaways.

Mavromatis, who was hired in 2022 as its head of Instagram, described a pervasive climate of discrimination and harassment, according to the lawsuit.

Advertisement

In her complaint, she alleges the company’s former CEO James Warren made her meet him at his home for one-on-one meetings while he commented on her looks and dismissed her complaints about a male client’s unwanted advances, telling her “she should be honored that the client was hitting on her.”

When Mavromatis asked Warren why MrBeast, Donaldson, would not work with her, she was told that “she is a beautiful woman and her appearance had a certain sexual effect on Jimmy,” and, “Let’s just say that when you’re around and he goes to the restroom, he’s not actually using the restroom.”

Paez refuted the claim.

“That’s ridiculous. This is an allegation fabricated for the sole purpose of sparking headlines,” Paez said.

Mavromatis said she endured a slate of other indignities such as being told by Donaldson that she “would only participate in her video shoot if she brought him a beer.”

Advertisement

“In this male-centric workplace, Plaintiff, one of the few women in a high-level role, was excluded from otherwise all-male meetings, demeaned in front of colleagues, harassed, and suffered from males be given preferential treatment in employment decisions,” states the complaint.

When Mavromatis raised a question during a staff meeting with her team, she said a male colleague told her to “shut up” or “stop talking.”

At MrBeast headquarters in Greenville, N.C., she said male executives mocked female contestants participating in BeastGames, “who complained they did not have access to feminine hygiene products and clean underwear while participating in the show.”

In November 2023, Mavromatis formally complained about “the sexually inappropriate encounters and harassment, and demeaning and hostile work environment she and other female employees had been living and experiencing working at MrBeast,” to the company’s then head of human resources, Sue Parisher, who is also Donaldson’s mother, according to the suit.

In her complaint, Mavromatis said Beast Industries did not have a method or process for employees to report such issues either anonymously or to a third party, rather employees were expected to follow the company’s handbook, “How to Succeed In MrBeast Production.”

Advertisement

In it, employees were instructed that, “It’s okay for the boys to be childish,” “if talent wants to draw a dick on the white board in the video or do something stupid, let them” and “No does not mean no,” according to the complaint.

Mavromatis alleges that she was demoted and then fired.

Paez said that Mavromatis’s role was eliminated as part of a reorganization of an underperforming group within Beast Industries and that she was made aware of this.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending