Spirit Airlines Says: "Don't Fly With Us"

[Zeebs]

In response to the "why should I be forced to subsidize your luggage" argument. I counter with why should I be forced to pay for an adults body weight when buying tickets for my children?



Its obvious that a cost per pound for every traveler including luggage is the only fair way to fly.

Why should a child pay a cheaper fare he is using up a seat? Contrary to what everyone seems to think it isn't all about the weight. Less bags, less baggage handlers, quicker turn around all these things also save money for the airline.

There are exceptions, ifs, buts and maybes that go with everything you purchase.

The good thing with being a consumer is you have consumer choice. You can choose not to fly, fly with someone else, pay more, pay less etc.

Kirsten

 

[Lewisc]

I don't think the traveling public would (at least currently) accept being put on a scale so they can be charged by the pound.
http://flyderrie-air.com/ was done by a PR company looking to generate publicity.

The suggestion of weighing the passenger, with his luggage, makes logical sense. Some of the cost of flying is based on weight.

For years SW said the lack of assigned seats got passenger to the gate early. Lining up before the plane was even in the gate. That accounting for below average turn around time for the planes. Short enough to allow SW to schedule an extra flight per day for some planes. A plane on the ground doesn't make money.

Passengers looking to max out the overhead bins slow the loading and unloading process. Further delays when the bins are full and bags have to be gate checked. Issues when a passenger sneaks in a bag that only fits lengthwise. Issues when passengers hunt for a bin with available space. Spirit doesn't want to have to schedule increased ground time between flights..

Charging more for a bin bag should result in fewer carry on bags. That should mean faster boarding.

Then please explain why they are charging less to check a bag then carry it on? It appears that they would prefer you check the bag and therefore less cargo thus less profit.

Then I will counter with leave the baggage fees as they are and charge per pound for the seat. I shouldn't have to subsidize another adults seat when buying a ticket for my 32 pound child.

Really? So it costs more for a passanger to carry on their bags then it does for them to wait in line to check the bag in to the person who is going to weight it, print the tag, put it on a big expensive conveyor belt that takes it into a big expensive bag sorting system, where it eventually gets hand loaded onto a cart, that will be driven to the plane in a gas engined specialty vehicle, and hand loaded onto another conveyor belt up to the plane where it's again hand loaded into the cargo hull. Don't forget, you need to pay for that really cool luggage tracking system to keep track of the missing bags.

Oh, then do I still need to go through the routine that the baggage will go through once it arrived at its desitnation?

 

[lugnut33]

I know.... Jumping in a bit late here on the issue. Here's my take/thoughts on it: You have to recognize that there are fixed costs associated with checking your baggage and that the airlines have those costs whether or not you check your bags or not. Ticketing and gate agents aren't going to go away. All airports already have carousels and conveyor systems in place. Whether the tractor carrying bags to the underside of the plane carries one tractor full of bags or five - it costs the same amount of money for fuel, the conveyor, etc.

There is a cost associated with staying parked at the gate a longer vs. a shorter period of time. Gates are leased from the airport, municipality, authority or what have you. The more time you spend at a gate, the more it costs you. If you can get in and out a bit quicker, that will ultimately cost the leasing airline LESS money. There was also a very in-depth article a few weeks back in one of the Detroit newspapers about the faux "lengthening" of travel times (ie. earlier departure and later arrival times) so airlines could avoid fines from the FAA that are associated with not being on-time.

It would seem to me Spirit is trying to find a balance to manage those costs to transport luggage, gate time, FAA fees/fines etc. It's a much more complex issue than it would seem off-hand. Everything is different at every airline, at every airport, etc.

Personally, I'm a fan of this and would expect that they will show their ridership doesn't suffer. When that happens, other carriers will see that it's a good model to balance fixed costs, gate time management, keeping flight attendants happy, ground crews occupied, etc.

OK then, they shouldn't be charging for the checking bags then, you just said so yourself since the costs are already fixed. And as people have indicated here, a lot of the bags going in overhead weight as much or more than the bags people are checking in. I know a machine repair guy who carries his calibrating equipment as a carry-on and it weights 125 lbs.

It seems to me Spirit is doing it just to make more money.

Personally, I'm not a fan of paying more and that's what it comes down to.

 

[donalduck]

Although weight comes into play there are three other reasons that supercede this.

First is that the more luggage a plane has, the less paid cargo it can take on, which often is the deal breaker to whether a flight is profitable or not.

Second, carry-on luggage takes time in the boarding and deboarding process, time equals money as the plane is not making revenue while sitting at the gate.

Third, people want fares that are not capable of making a profit on, and although the DIS world seems to contradict statistics, the general populus has come to agreeance that paying ala carte for the features and services one wants works better then everyone paying a higher fare.



Or the real scenario would be the airline would be unable to remain profitable, will pull out of cities where they have the least profitable routes (think leisure destinations like Orlando) and ultimately result in less capacity in general and fares will increase.

Good then if people stop flying them they will go out of business. If they want to keep on screwing there customers that do fly them all the time then they should go out of business.

 

[Allison]

Yes, Spirit is doing this to make more money. How do they stay in business otherwise? These companies need to make a profit. We as consumers have the right to not buy a product that we deem too expensive. Seems simple to me so I just don't understand all the angst around it.

 

[goofy4tink]

Then please explain why they are charging less to check a bag then carry it on? It appears that they would prefer you check the bag and therefore less cargo thus less profit.

Then I will counter with leave the baggage fees as they are and charge per pound for the seat. I shouldn't have to subsidize another adults seat when buying a ticket for my 32 pound child.

The price everyone pays is an 'average' of everyone's weight. So, yes, I suppose your child may be paying part of my fare. BUT.......I may be paying part of the person's fare, seated next to me when they weigh 300 lbs.

This subject is about done. The airlines can decide what they want to charge. If an airline is getting $100 for a 3 hr flight, then it is not profitable..plain and simple. The airline needs x amount of dollars to make each flight profittable. How would you have them make that happen? Because something is going to have to give...and soon.
It may be time for the airlines to decide what they are going to charge for. Is it going to be all checked bags are going to be charged, or just the second one? Will we have to pay for carryon bags??? Will we be expected to pay for a 'particular' seat, or even to just choose any seat??

My solution? I would raise fares by 10%...across the board. Then, I would charge for the second checked bag.....anywhere from $15-25. I would allow one carryon bag..period. If it uses an overhead bin, they can charge $10.
If an airline decides not to charge those extra fees, then they will most likely have higher fares. I would rather be able to decide for myself what I want to pay for.

To those of you who believe they are being 'abused' by Spirit's new policy....don't fly with them. That's pretty simple. I can choose who I do business with. Now...if other airlines start to follow suit, then we'll see what happens then. But to rant and rave about having to pay for toilet use or for oxygen is just plain silly. And yes, I do remember the whole pay toilet issue with the other airline. I just have to doubt ever having to pay to use a toilet on an airline. That would be absurd. And you would find me at my AAA office getting help with my driving route to WDW from central Mass!!

 

[MiaSRN62]

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=86845.blog


LOVE THIS : http://blog.hellojetblue.com/blog/i...pirit-airlines-to-charge-for-carryon-luggage/

Newest thing in Spirit flight-wear :

Maria

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

OK then, they shouldn't be charging for the checking bags then, you just said so yourself since the costs are already fixed. And as people have indicated here, a lot of the bags going in overhead weight as much or more than the bags people are checking in. I know a machine repair guy who carries his calibrating equipment as a carry-on and it weights 125 lbs.

It seems to me Spirit is doing it just to make more money.

Personally, I'm not a fan of paying more and that's what it comes down to.

They have to pay for those fixed costs in some way. They just didn't realize that by tilting the scales so far in one direction that it would completely upset the balance. I'm sure they just assumed "XX% of people check their bags. If we charge to check bags, we'll still have YY% (presumably a smaller percentage) that check their bags yielding ZZ$"

Well that didn't obviously pan out so now they have to do this to "re-balance" of fees to make the economics of the situation work out in their books.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like paying more than I have to, but there's a limit to how poor of service/conditions I will subject myself to for a cheaper price. If you ask me, Spirit blows and I don't fly on them. I'd rather pay $50 more per ticket and fly with Delta (hub here in Detroit) than fly with Spirit. Fortunately, Delta is fairly competitive with them so that's not an issue. I've always been able to find decent fares to anywhere from DTW via NW/Delta.

I'd really like to go back to the good 'ole days when the cost of a ticket was the cost of a ticket - no hidden fees. You got a meal on coast to coast flights; checked your bags for free; the only people that had rolling suitcase type carry-ons were the businessmen that travelled; people actually dressed nice for flights, etc...

That's just not the reality of the situation anymore. While I understand (or at least think I understand) what Spirit is doing and agree with charging for carry-ons; it's not my business and as so many others have said here, it's a free-market system and that's the beauty of it. They'll either thrive or sink on this carry-on fee or go back to the old-system and evaluate their pricing for a base-ticket.

One of the local tire outlets here in the Detroit Area has grown it's business tremendously with what they call "out the door" pricing for tires. No hidden fees, etc. Seems to me that's what SWA is doing and if Spirit were smart, they'd do the same thing.

 

[darrengs]

The price everyone pays is an 'average' of everyone's weight. So, yes, I suppose your child may be paying part of my fare. BUT.......I may be paying part of the person's fare, seated next to me when they weigh 300 lbs.

This subject is about done. The airlines can decide what they want to charge. If an airline is getting $100 for a 3 hr flight, then it is not profitable..plain and simple. The airline needs x amount of dollars to make each flight profittable. How would you have them make that happen? Because something is going to have to give...and soon.
It may be time for the airlines to decide what they are going to charge for. Is it going to be all checked bags are going to be charged, or just the second one? Will we have to pay for carryon bags??? Will we be expected to pay for a 'particular' seat, or even to just choose any seat??

My solution? I would raise fares by 10%...across the board. Then, I would charge for the second checked bag.....anywhere from $15-25. I would allow one carryon bag..period. If it uses an overhead bin, they can charge $10.
If an airline decides not to charge those extra fees, then they will most likely have higher fares. I would rather be able to decide for myself what I want to pay for.

To those of you who believe they are being 'abused' by Spirit's new policy....don't fly with them. That's pretty simple. I can choose who I do business with. Now...if other airlines start to follow suit, then we'll see what happens then. But to rant and rave about having to pay for toilet use or for oxygen is just plain silly. And yes, I do remember the whole pay toilet issue with the other airline. I just have to doubt ever having to pay to use a toilet on an airline. That would be absurd. And you would find me at my AAA office getting help with my driving route to WDW from central Mass!!

I do agree with you that the subject is done, but I leave you with this Pay to Pee Time.com blog from today.


http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/04/07/the-ultimate-airline-insult-pay-to-pee/

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Good then if people stop flying them they will go out of business. If they want to keep on screwing there customers that do fly them all the time then they should go out of business.

Are you then willing to pay more for a flight on another airline because overall capacity will be reduced when they either leave the market or go out of business?

 

[Lewisc]

Spirit made money in 2009. Airtran made money in 2009. Spirit is smart. They found their passengers prefer to pay fees rather then pay a profitable fare. Spirit has decided to start charging passengers who are taking luggage but not paying checked bag fees.

Southwest is trying a different approach.

One of the local tire outlets here in the Detroit Area has grown it's business tremendously with what they call "out the door" pricing for tires. No hidden fees, etc. Seems to me that's what SWA is doing and if Spirit were smart, they'd do the same thing.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

One of the local tire outlets here in the Detroit Area has grown it's business tremendously with what they call "out the door" pricing for tires. No hidden fees, etc. Seems to me that's what SWA is doing and if Spirit were smart, they'd do the same thing.

But do you see the fundamental difference as well?

There are certain things you need when you install a tire, you need to balance the tire/rim, you need to install a valve stem, you need to mount the tire. These are all requirements to buying a new tire for a car. Some places reflect these prices seperately, which I do not agree with, I think there should be an installed price and then a take away price. There is a local place here, called Dunn Tire that does just this, they have a installed price and a take away price that doesn't include installation (although typically they do not advertise the take away price - but it is available). The only thing I don't agree with is they include road hazard on the installed price, I'd like to choose whether to pay for that.

Likewise there are certain things you need when you fly, you need a place to sit (FAA regulations), you need climate controlled oxygen to breath (air temperatures at 30,000 feet are too cold), these are included in your fare. You do not need to check luggage, you do not need to use the overhead bins, so those items can be charged seperately (and should be). You may want to check luggage based on your trip, and if so, I believe firmly you should pay for that option when you need it (if you're flying on an aircraft that charges).

Again it all comes down to Ala Carte pricing versus Bundled, sometimes bundled is cheaper, sometimes Ala Carte is, all depends on your travel needs/style (or in other in general your needs/wants). Many people shop purely based on price, others choose to fly specific airlines (this is where I fall) because of rewards programs/loyalty programs. If you're the former, you need to look at your trip and determine the best fit for you, if you're the latter, the rest is kind of moot.

 

[sgtdisney]

But to rant and rave about having to pay for toilet use or for oxygen is just plain silly. And yes, I do remember the whole pay toilet issue with the other airline. I just have to doubt ever having to pay to use a toilet on an airline. That would be absurd. And you would find me at my AAA office getting help with my driving route to WDW from central Mass!!

Not sure if this was directed at me or not, but I was not ranting nor raving about paying for toilet or oxygen use. I have already chosen not to fly Spirit (and yes I have before) simply because I don't like what the carrier has turned into (a flying Greyhound bus in my opinion.) However, my comment about the pay toilet isn't too far away from reality as you've noted with Ryan Air talking about it the UK. If this pay to pee concept comes to be, mark my words, you will have a plane full of people wearing diapers so they don't have to pay to use the lavatory, just like they are currently stuffing 10 pounds of, stuff, in a 5 pound carryon just to avoid the checked luggage fee.

The Oxygen comment was saracasm. Unless Spirit can bribe some polticians in Washington to change the federal safety regulations (which given this current congress wouldn't be too far of a stretch) but I digress. Seriously, I would prefer to pay more for a ticket on an airline (and have) because I know what kind of service it includes, but I am not a typical consumer looking ONLY for the lowest price, but I take all the other factors into account when I shop for airfare.

 

[Zeebs]

Not sure if this was directed at me or not, but I was not ranting nor raving about paying for toilet or oxygen use. I have already chosen not to fly Spirit (and yes I have before) simply because I don't like what the carrier has turned into (a flying Greyhound bus in my opinion.) However, my comment about the pay toilet isn't too far away from reality as you've noted with Ryan Air talking about it the UK. If this pay to pee concept comes to be, mark my words, you will have a plane full of people wearing diapers so they don't have to pay to use the lavatory, just like they are currently stuffing 10 pounds of, stuff, in a 5 pound carryon just to avoid the checked luggage fee.

The Oxygen comment was saracasm. Unless Spirit can bribe some polticians in Washington to change the federal safety regulations (which given this current congress wouldn't be too far of a stretch) but I digress. Seriously, I would prefer to pay more for a ticket on an airline (and have) because I know what kind of service it includes, but I am not a typical consumer looking ONLY for the lowest price, but I take all the other factors into account when I shop for airfare.

OK I wouldn't want to have to pay for the toilet but if I booked on a flight that charged for using it, I can't see many people not forking out the $1 to use it and wearing nappies to avoid it.

Paying to use the toilet is quite common in Europe, if I want to go at my local train station it costs me .20 pence. I don't like it but quite frankly if I can afford to fly away somewhere for a holiday, I can afford to pay the toilet fee.

It's not like they are asking for $20.00 to use it.

Kirsten

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Paying to use the toilet is quite common in Europe, if I want to go at my local train station it costs me .20 pence. I don't like it but quite frankly if I can afford to fly away somewhere for a holiday, I can afford to pay the toilet fee.

It's not like they are asking for $20.00 to use it.

Kirsten

You make an excellent point that I totally forgot about (it's been awhile since I've been to London), Europeans are not that unaccustomed to paying to use the lavatory, and actually sometimes its better to use a pay one then a free one because it is better maintained.

 

[sgtdisney]

You make an excellent point that I totally forgot about (it's been awhile since I've been to London), Europeans are not that unaccustomed to paying to use the lavatory, and actually sometimes its better to use a pay one then a free one because it is better maintained.

Don't some places in Europe allow people to urinate in the gutters in the streets as well? I can see it now. Spirit can charge extra if you don't want to sit in the "Pee in the aisle" section. (Again humor/sarcasm...)

 

[Lewisc]

I'm not sure what Ryan Air will do if the first person who pays to use the toilet keeps it open for the next passenger. Maybe the door won't lock without paying. OK next in line holds it shut. Maybe you can't even close the door without paying. I doubt it. They wont want to leave the door open. Even if that's what they do some passengers may be willing to use the lavatory with the door open.

This may be an idea being floated for publicity only.

Some people say Ryan Air is basically a city bus. City buses don't have rest rooms.

Some people claim airport restrooms, at least in airports used by Ryan Air, are pay toilets. Ryan Air wants to motivate passengers into using the facilities prior to boarding.

 

[donalduck]

Don't fly plain and simple

 

[TLSnell1981]

My concern isn't with Spirit directly. Spirit doesn't fly here and neither does Jetblue or Southwest. I dread the day, the legacy carriers eventually follow suit. The airfare from my city to ANYWHERE is higher than average. We don't have the advantage of low fares. Unless, we catch a sale...an average ticket to MCO (or comparable) is around $500+. And, that's for a two hour flight.

 

[lugnut33]

My concern isn't with Spirit directly. Spirit doesn't fly here and neither does Jetblue or Southwest. I dread the day, the legacy carriers eventually follow suit. The airfare from my city to ANYWHERE is higher than average. We don't have the advantage of low fares. Unless, we catch a sale...an average ticket to MCO (or comparable) is around $500+. And, that's for a two hour flight.

Well, maybe if they get rid of this overhead storage that will drive the price down? Or, maybe people in your area are especially slow at boarding and that's why you pay such a high fare? (just kidding by the way)