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

[lugnut33]

Hence why we can't swing taking the entire family to Disney the last two times we have been. We are going to try to do a complete family vacation to Disney in 4-5 years with Disney Rewards points but I am afraid that the airfare is going to completely kill the savings we get from the rewards points.

Tell them you won't bring any carry-ons and you'll run to your seats when boarding. Maybe they'll lower the price for you??

 

[lllGurulll]

Tell them you won't bring any carry-ons and you'll run to your seats when boarding. Maybe they'll lower the price for you??

Hmmmmm.

 

[Tara]

So why shouldn't pay toilets on flights be illegal?

Has anyone here said that pay toilets on flights are a good idea? Also, this Ryanair story - they've been talking about pay toilets for years. They trot it out anytime they want a little extra press.

Do you honestly believe that if you find a way around all the extra fees out there now, that they just won't continue to come up with ways to fleece you?

But you see, many of us that you are railing against don't believe this fee amounts to fleecing. You have a very negative view of this fee, a view to which you are certainly entitled. Everyone does not share your view. You seem to think that those of us who don't share your view are stupid or gullible.

And you jumped on my comment about putting my personal items under the seat as if I were "trying to get around the baggage fee." Let me state again that I do not fly Spirit. But in my comments about how the fee might not affect me, let me assure you that I'd be stowing my items under the seat because I was already paying to CHECK the rest of my baggage. Spirit itself is saying they won't charge for under-seat bags, and I can't imagine that would change - there would be too much need for exception - medication, for instance. Baby supplies. Since those items HAVE to be stowed for take-off and landing, they'd be hard pressed to allow them but not give you SOME spot to stow them.

Very few people here on this board don't agree with me, but I know nationally most people feel differently. Take a look at the reaction to this in the news, Spirit is taking a beating, as well they should.

Look at the beating the first legacy carriers to institute checked bag fees took. One or two tested the waters and the others stood back and let the press massacre them. Then they all lined up and charged the fees. Right now you can bet every legacy carrier is doing cost benefit analysis on this type of fee. I don't believe most (or any) will follow suit, at least not immediately. But some might start tougher enforcement of carry-on regs, particularly in the light of the FA union complaints about injuries.

Another thing...think about Wal-Mart. It made an unprecedented break with the largest retailers association when it came out in support of health care reform that would force companies to offer some or more benefits to workers (restrictions apply, yadda yadda yadda). Why did it do that? Because Wal-Mart provides at least some sort of health benefits to a larger percentage of its employees than any other retailer. Why does this matter? Well, it cuts into their profit margin -and if their competitors aren't offering those benefits, they have a profit potential that Wal-Mart no longer has. So by supporting health care reform, Wal-Mart was trying to effectively eliminate a threat to its competitive advantage. Now apply the same thinking to the low-fare air industry. Spirit is now creating a revenue source that no other airline has...one that will surely bring in new revenue while at the same time lowering costs because it will also bring carry-on/checked bags into better balance. If you are AirTran, you are probably thinking very hard about whether or not you want to follow suit. You're thinking about whether you can afford NOT to. You're also thanking the business gods that Spirit went first so you can watch what happens and then claim that you are just "responding to the market."

Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Do you honestly believe that if you find a way around all the extra fees out there now, that they just won't continue to come up with ways to fleece you? They come out with a new fee constantly to seperate you from more of your money.

How, when they explain exactly what the fees are for and give you ample notice and opportunity to make alternate arrangements, are airlines "fleecing" anyone? And, could you please list the new fees with which the airlines are "constantly" coming out - and a timeline if possible?
"Constantly" is extremely misleading, given that this is the first new fee in at least a couple of years.

 

[Funwith4kids]

Obviously, with the thread at 15 pages and counting this new policy will not go over well with some and will be welcomed by some.

While I disagree with the intent of the policy to make more money (it is not about safety, folks). However, would support a charge for oversized carryons or some other criteria instread of a blanket policy.

Now to the point I want to add... I didn't read all 15 pages of this thread but I have issue with a few points I did see defending the airlines need to make a profit. I agree any business should be in business to make money. But why is it our fault they have made bad business decisions over the years that led to huge structural cost issues that now we should let them charge us more when we (via our gov't) will bail them out anyway if they lose too much money? Where is the airlines' skin in this game?

 

[lllGurulll]

Obviously, with the thread at 15 pages and counting this new policy will not go over well with some and will be welcomed by some.

While I disagree with the intent of the policy to make more money (it is not about safety, folks). However, would support a charge for oversized carryons or some other criteria instread of a blanket policy.

Now to the point I want to add... I didn't read all 15 pages of this thread but I have issue with a few points I did see defending the airlines need to make a profit. I agree any business should be in business to make money. But why is it our fault they have made bad business decisions over the years that led to huge structural cost issues that now we should let them charge us more when we (via our gov't) will bail them out anyway if they lose too much money? Where is the airlines' skin in this game?

If we had rep/karma or whatever here, you would be receiving some from me right now.

 

[goofy4tink]

I'm with lugnut. I am shocked about how many people on here are.....fools! You think fares are lower because many airlines charge baggage fees? They're not lower. You think Spirit now charging for using the overhead storage bin is going to lower fares? Dream on. Competition determines fares. Supply and demand. It's as simple as that. When one airline starts a sale, everyone else matches. They lower fares when demand is not filling seats; period. If seats are filling, prices go up. The fees are purely extra income.

The logic of people on this board is that airlines don't make enough money because of the low fares they offer. Passengers, that is NOT your problem! You should be motivated to find the very lowest prices possible. If an airline goes out of business because their fares were too low, why are you concerned about it? Did you offer the car dealer a higher price for the last car you bought because you were concerned about the dealer not making enough or concern the manufacturer might go out of business? Do you hope your favorite grocery store raises its prices because their profits aren't high enough for you?

BobK/Orlando

PS-I hear Spirit charges $6 for a can of Coke. Is that true? Another rip-off. Of course, I know you're happy to pay it because that way Spirit can offer lower fares. Of course they do.

The issue continues to be that the airlines offered us ridiculously low fares years ago. We still see threads about 'when are we going to see the fares priced at $59 again?' on these boards. Families got accustomed to paying under $500 for the entire family to fly from the NE to WDW. And those prices worked for awhile....then gas prices went nutty, and the airlines started bleeding. Our problem? No, not really. But.....it's unfair of us to complain when airlines try to make up for that deficit.
Do I like paying extra for stuff that I have gotten for nothing?? No, not particularly. But, case in point...I used to fly Delta almost every time. Not anymore. To me, it is a 'flying bus'...I feel like I'm stuffed in there. And, I have to pay for any checked luggage. So....I generally book with SW or JB. At least I get my one checked bag free.
I have to weigh my options. Like I said....Spirit didn't come close to matching fares with other airlines..so, I didn't book with them.

It's all pretty simple. The airlines are free to charge for anything they want. We, as the consumers, are free to move along to a different airline.
But...it's going to be like Walmart soon. They come into a town, they slash their prices for a year or two, then when they have forced all the other shops in town out of business, their prices start creeping up.
Once we start losing those 'cheapo' airlines, we are going to see fare increases.
If you don't like a fee, don't use that airline. Anyone who thinks their bags are really free on SW is fooling themselves. You just aren't seeing the charge. It's pretty much the same as DME. Sure, you aren't paying oop for it, but it's getting paid for somehow. And that somehow is reflected in room rates. Even if you don't use DME, you're paying for it. Same with SW and those free bags. Those flying with carryon only are still paying baggage fees...it's in your fare already. But, we Americans, feel better if we can't 'see' the charge.

 

[eliza61]

It's all pretty simple. The airlines are free to charge for anything they want. We, as the consumers, are free to move along to a different airline.
But...it's going to be like Walmart soon. They come into a town, they slash their prices for a year or two, then when they have forced all the other shops in town out of business, their prices start creeping up.
Once we start losing those 'cheapo' airlines, we are going to see fare increases.
If you don't like a fee, don't use that airline. Anyone who thinks their bags are really free on SW is fooling themselves. You just aren't seeing the charge. It's pretty much the same as DME. Sure, you aren't paying oop for it, but it's getting paid for somehow. And that somehow is reflected in room rates. Even if you don't use DME, you're paying for it. Same with SW and those free bags. Those flying with carryon only are still paying baggage fees...it's in your fare already. But, we Americans, feel better if we can't 'see' the charge.

clap clap clap.

It's very much like the Walmartization of america. As long as we get the cheapest price around, we could care less about the overall effect.
Look how many people scream and holler at Disney if they don't get free dining yet will complain about food quality. We want signature dining we just don't want to pay signature prices for it.

Unfortunately the problem becomes airlines are running out of things to put charges on. So those who feel the "a la carte" pricing is the answer are going to eventually get hit to. What do you do when you run out of "la carte" items. Airport fees have gone up, fuel is through the roof, salaries with workers have to go up.

I'm the opposite, give me a flat fee that will allow you to operate profitably and give me excellent service (on time departures, excellent baggage handling).

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I'm the opposite, give me a flat fee that will allow you to operate profitably and give me excellent service (on time departures, excellent baggage handling).

Would you be willing to pay $500 - $700 round trip for the lowest fair bucket from a NE city to Orlando? People on DIS are already complaining about how expensive tickets are at $250 and that they cannot afford it, and prices should be lower. I'm used to prices that high based on my travel schedule and the fact times are more important to me then price (especially for business), but most would not be willing to accept those prices.

 

[Lewisc]

So why shouldn't pay toilets on flights be illegal?

Ryanair doesn't fly in the United States. I have no idea if pay toilets would be legal in the United States.

Obviously, with the thread at 15 pages and counting this new policy will not go over well with some and will be welcomed by some.

While I disagree with the intent of the policy to make more money (it is not about safety, folks). However, would support a charge for oversized carryons or some other criteria instread of a blanket policy.

Now to the point I want to add... I didn't read all 15 pages of this thread but I have issue with a few points I did see defending the airlines need to make a profit. I agree any business should be in business to make money. But why is it our fault they have made bad business decisions over the years that led to huge structural cost issues that now we should let them charge us more when we (via our gov't) will bail them out anyway if they lose too much money? Where is the airlines' skin in this game?

Bad business decisions include offering unprofitable fares. It includes scheduling more then enough flights to destinations like Orlando then necessary to transport the number of passengers willing to pay profitable fares.

Some LCC are charging fees as an alternative to raising fares.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Do you think the airlines should offer unprofitable fares and wait for a bailout?

 

[Lewisc]

Would you be willing to pay $500 - $700 round trip for the lowest fair bucket from a NE city to Orlando? People on DIS are already complaining about how expensive tickets are at $250 and that they cannot afford it, and prices should be lower. I'm used to prices that high based on my travel schedule and the fact times are more important to me then price (especially for business), but most would not be willing to accept those prices.

Southwest charges $600-$700 for their fully refundable fares from the NE to Orlando.

Your point is valid, however you overstate the fares some airlines need to charge.

The point is profitable fares probably start at $300 maybe $250 if you're will to book off-peak.

The fares that most DIS think are "outrageous" are the fares that are marginally profitable.

 

[lugnut33]

Would you be willing to pay $500 - $700 round trip for the lowest fair bucket from a NE city to Orlando? People on DIS are already complaining about how expensive tickets are at $250 and that they cannot afford it, and prices should be lower. I'm used to prices that high based on my travel schedule and the fact times are more important to me then price (especially for business), but most would not be willing to accept those prices.

OK, say an airline like Spirit charges $250 for that same flight you're talking about. That either means they are losing big time or you don't really know the cost of what those flights are? I know Spirit cannot be operating that much cheaper than everyone else just because they charge for luggage.

 

[Lewisc]

OK, say an airline like Spirit charges $250 for that same flight you're talking about. That either means they are losing big time or you don't really know the cost of what those flights are? I know Spirit cannot be operating that much cheaper than everyone else just because they charge for luggage.

Spirit is operating much cheaper then everyone else. You're right, it's not just the fees, which are visible. It's a lot of things that aren't apparent.

Spirit's willingness to address the issue of the overhead bins is an example of what Spirit does to limit costs (delays) and extract revenue from passengers.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Southwest charges $600-$700 for their fully refundable fares from the NE to Orlando.

Your point is valid, however you overstate the fares some airlines need to charge.

The point is profitable fares probably start at $300 maybe $250 if you're will to book off-peak.

The fares that most DIS think are "outrageous" are the fares that are marginally profitable.

It may be slightly overstated, but not by all that much. Fully Refundable and last minute fares are where airlines make money, not advanced purchase, highly discounted fares. This is why a lot of the full fare/refundable fare tickets include some of the benefits that first class/business class tickets do when it comes to checked luggage (and upgradeability).

 

[Brian Noble]

The marketplace has spoken on flat-fare pricing. Every time an airline has tried to move in that direction, they have been hammered by passengers fleeing to other airlines. Every time they add an a la carte fee, the press grumbles, but the public pays. Southwest is a very interesting counter-example---they are pricing higher on average, but sprinkling in deals, heavy spending on ads proclaiming themselves a bargain, and trumpeting "free" (really, *included*) luggage.

At first, I was convinced that wasn't going to work. But, now I'm starting to see it in the same light as the "free" dining promotions that Disney runs. In many cases, "free" dining is a *worse* deal than the straight room discount, but people fall all over themselves to book it, because they eat for "free" and they don't even bother to compare the all-in prices for OOP dining (or a paid plan) plus a room discount.

I'm starting to think that's the same market that SW is trying to develop; a set of people who automatically book with them, even at higher fares, because bags are "free" and so it must be a "deal". But, even SW is starting down the a la carte road with ECBI, so perhaps they're not sure yet either.

 

[jodifla]

With $9 fares, Spirit's pricing structure isn't really like anyone else's. So it really remains to be seen if their customer base....people who like really cheap fares....will go along with this now that their way to travel cheaply has truly been ended by Spirit.

I used to fly Spirit all the time, but can't remember the last time I got on a Spirit plane. I fly Southwest, even with the cattle call I hate and the plane changes, or Delta, and pay for baggage.

 

[pacrosby]

So how is it that JetBlue seems to offer lower than average fares and STILL offers 1 checked bag free and free drinks/snacks. Just curious. According to some of the logic here they should be headed off to bankruptcy court.

 

[PlutoPony]

OK, say an airline like Spirit charges $250 for that same flight you're talking about. That either means they are losing big time or you don't really know the cost of what those flights are? I know Spirit cannot be operating that much cheaper than everyone else just because they charge for luggage.

Spirit's operating costs are probably MUCH less than the most other non-charter airlines here in the US. Their route structure is very limited in comparison to their competitor's (with the probable exception of Allegiant) and they utilize many airports that have lower landing fees. Their flight crews have less tenure than their competition which = lower salaries (NOT to imply their crews are less able/qualified). And running only a flight or two a day out of major east coast cities definitely helps keep costs down in very high cost areas. For example, looks like Spirit flies one flight a day out of DCA and that's to FLL, Boston looks like maybe 2 a day? When you can contract out ground services like this (gate agents, rampers, etc) that also saves lots of $$ in comparison to LCC and legacies. Add to that a decent charter business and you have a model that's quite different in cost from their competition.

Doesn't make them better or worse, they just use a different business model which may or may not work for you. Different strokes yadda yadda

 

[kaytieeldr]

Obviously, with the thread at 15 pages and counting this new policy will not go over well with some and will be welcomed by some.

I feel relatively safe speaking for my like-minded contingent in saying it's not that we welcome this - or any - new fee, but that we understand the need/basis for it.

 

[Brian Noble]

it's not that we welcome this - or any - new fee, but that we understand the need/basis for it.

What? You don't think the rest of us would prefer to pay more rather than less?