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

[darrengs]

The Senator makes a valid point. Airlines don't pay taxes on the fees. Airlines that replace part of the fare with fees aren't paying "their fair share". I suspect we'll be paying taxes on airline fees in the near future.

I agree, we will definitely see fees being taxed very soon.

 

[darrengs]

When the price of anything you use goes up do you take it personally? I mean, have you been to the grocery store lately - I assume you eat

To you food and where/how you spend your vacation dollars may be the same, but personally to me it is not. To me the way the airlines are adding these fees (checked bags, carry on bags, booking online, assigned seats, exit row, aisle seat, etc.) and the fact they try to make it sound like all of this is for safety and to benefit the customer annoys me enough to negatively impact where I spend my discretionary money. After flying the past two years to Disney my family will be taking a cruise out of New York this summer with one of the reasons being the way airlines keep imposing these fees.

 

[lugnut33]

I totally agree with the comment about fares being different at different airports. I was taking umbrage with the quote "you appear to have been extremely fortunate to have found a competitive Southwest fare."

I did a quick search of flights out of Milwaukee and Chicago (Ohare and Midway) for a one week trip to Orlando in August, and Southwest was the cheapest of everybody, even before the add-ons are added on (how many people here posted that SW fares just add in the cost of luggage, which if true then the price should have been more right?). Chicago/Milwaukee is a huge market with tons of competition. I don't see how finding a good fare on Southwest is "extremely fortunate". I suppose somebody will come on there and tell me Chicago/Milwaukee doesn't matter?

There is a reason why Soutwest is the US's #1 airline.

 

[Lewisc]

lugnut33--Southwest has reduced the number of flights to lesiure destinations like Orlando. Passengers who used to be able to get a N/S flight now connect in airports like BWI and MDW. That's one reason why you still see decent fares from Chicago but higher fares from places like BDI.

Airlines with no luggage fees aren't always the highest and airlines with higher fees don't always offer the cheapest base fares.

There is no shortcut to checking.

 

[PlutoPony]

I totally agree with the comment about fares being different at different airports. I was taking umbrage with the quote "you appear to have been extremely fortunate to have found a competitive Southwest fare."

This is definitely a YMMV situation. We just don't find SW to be competitive at all for the places we fly (and not just out of IAD) and rarely bother to check their fares anymore. So in my experience finding a competitive SW fare would have been an anomaly and I don't think of SW first when people talk about LCC's and where to get the cheapest fare.

Just goes to show people's experiences are different yadda yadda.

 

[Tara]

I did a quick search of flights out of Milwaukee and Chicago (Ohare and Midway) for a one week trip to Orlando in August, and Southwest was the cheapest of everybody, even before the add-ons are added on (how many people here posted that SW fares just add in the cost of luggage, which if true then the price should have been more right?).

No, because all flights are not priced equally. These flights are more competitively priced, "loss leaders" that are meant to gain share in markets where they face greater competition.

 

[Lewisc]

Spirit is different. I remember reading this when it was current.
http://consumerist.com/2007/08/spir...callously-responding-to-consumer-complai.html

CEOs response to a complaint was intended for internal use but was forwarded to the complainant.

Please respond, Pasquale, but we owe him nothing as far as I'm concerned. Let him tell the world how bad we are. He's never flown us before anyway and will be back when we save him a penny.

 

[LisaS]

Well it appears that at least one Senator is not happy about this carry on fee and the fact that these fees avoid taxes (this will always get the Government interested).


http://www.northjersey.com/news/041...s_banned_from_charging_carry-on_bag_fee_.html

I heard about that on the news but with all due respect, I think he's confused. He seems to think that all carry on bags will incur a fee, unless he thinks the majority of air travelers are on so many meds we need roller bags to tote them around.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

CEOs response to a complaint was intended for internal use but was forwarded to the complainant.

Please respond, Pasquale, but we owe him nothing as far as I'm concerned. Let him tell the world how bad we are. He's never flown us before anyway and will be back when we save him a penny.

Very, very true. For the majority of consumers, they look at price over quality or brand when it comes to air travel (there are other instances where this does and does not apply, but air travel it is very much sided on price versus all else).

Well it appears that at least one Senator is not happy about this carry on fee and the fact that these fees avoid taxes (this will always get the Government interested).


http://www.northjersey.com/news/041...s_banned_from_charging_carry-on_bag_fee_.html

The tax piece is a big issue, the current fees should be taxed, but for the carry-on fee particularly, the government needs to tread lightly, they should not be interfering in a business decision. There is nothing usary about the fee, it is fully disclosed and consumers have options in terms of whether to put themselves in a place to be charged a fee (and where to be charged it).

 

[maxiesmom]

I do HATE the seat assignment fees. I think that is over the line but I did call and I was advised Spirit Airlines will make every attempt to sit my party together. I can't have my children sitting alone on a flight. I always price out flights and you can't really compare these prices to other airlines. As someone said it earlier these are prices people got in the 70's.

Still, you are not guaranteed seats together unless you pay for them. They may make every attempt to seat you together, but it is not a given that they will be able to do so. Plus, the FAs will not make people move who have paid for their seat to accomodate those who didn't pay and are now unhappy.

I flew this past week. Not on Spirit, but on Delta. And the flight from Orlando was full of families who were split up all over the plane. Many of them not happy.

If you are given the opportunity to pay for seats together, but turn it down, don't be suprised when you are split up. And don't be suprised when people who have paid for their seats won't move so that you can sit together.

 

[Lewisc]

There is nothing usary about the fee, it is fully disclosed and consumers have options in terms of whether to put themselves in a place to be charged a fee (and where to be charged it).

The government might have an issue charging passengers sitting in bulkhead seats to stow bags that would fit in the seat in front of them if such a seat existed in the overhead bins. A real issue if the passenger was sitting in the bulkhead seat for medical reasons or wasn't given the choice of sitting in another seat.

Otherwise I agree with you. Charging passengers for luggage stowed in the bin isn't really any different from charging passengers for checked luggage.

 

[Tara]

Well it appears that at least one Senator is not happy about this carry on fee and the fact that these fees avoid taxes (this will always get the Government interested).


http://www.northjersey.com/news/041...s_banned_from_charging_carry-on_bag_fee_.html

I like Senator Schumer - he's my senator. I think he's a little off-base on this and I wonder what's going on here. I don't see anything in his comments, however, that indicate he's concerned about the tax issue involved. Rather, he seems to be approaching it from a consumers' rights stance.

No baggage fees are subject to excise tax at the moment, a decision the government reaffirmed last year. This isn't a loophole that was just brought to light thanks to the Spirit change in policy - it's something the government has been looking at and made an informed decision about. And you can bet the lost excise tax on Spirit carry-on bags is a drop in the bucket compared to the loss in excise tax on regular checked baggage fees by all domestic carriers who charge those fees.

 

[lugnut33]

I actually sent an e-mail to Spirit Airline about the new fees and a link to another forum where we were talking about it. I only got back a standard catchall response.

 

[darrengs]

I like Senator Schumer - he's my senator. I think he's a little off-base on this and I wonder what's going on here. I don't see anything in his comments, however, that indicate he's concerned about the tax issue involved. Rather, he seems to be approaching it from a consumers' rights stance.

"Carry-on fees artificially avoid higher ticket prices and the taxes applied to tickets, Schumer said."

 

[lugnut33]

Hey, what the heck, if everybody is happy with the airlines coming up with fees, then we should be happy if the gov't wants in on the action. Fee me up Scotty!!

Wasn't it Kennedy that said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what new tax it can institute"? I'm pretty sure that's what he said.

 

[darrengs]

It is obvious that charging for checked baggage only made the carry on issue worse. However, in my opinion the fear of lost or delayed luggage has always made people feel the need to carry on as much as possible in order to not ruin their vacation if a bag did not show up.

 

[darrengs]

Hey, what the heck, if everybody is happy with the airlines coming up with fees, then we should be happy if the gov't wants in on the action. Fee me up Scotty!!

Wasn't it Kennedy that said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what new tax it can institute"? I'm pretty sure that's what he said.

Honestly that is the best point that can be made for individual fees, the fact that you do not pay taxes on them. Damn I am turning into a believer!

 

[Lewisc]

I'm pretty sure you know that's not what he said.

I'm never happy paying taxes but I can't see any reason why luggage fees should be exempt from the excise tax. SW passengers fare includees the cost to check 2 bags. Passengers who pay seperately to check their bags shouldn't be benefiting from a tax "loophole". The cost to use the overhead bin is included in the fare charged by (almost) all airlines. No reason why Spirit passengers should be exempt from paying the excise tax on that part of their fare.

Spirit knows the public isn't in favor of the new charge. They feel their customers look to save every penny.

Hey, what the heck, if everybody is happy with the airlines coming up with fees, then we should be happy if the gov't wants in on the action. Fee me up Scotty!!

Wasn't it Kennedy that said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what new tax it can institute"? I'm pretty sure that's what he said.

 

[eliza61]

Hey, what the heck, if everybody is happy with the airlines coming up with fees, then we should be happy if the gov't wants in on the action. Fee me up Scotty!!

Wasn't it Kennedy that said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what new tax it can institute"? I'm pretty sure that's what he said.

LOL,

I don't think it's a question of "Happiness". A few random thoughts.

1. Unfortunately, as some one else mentioned, we as a country really do have a "Walmart" mentality. We want an item or a service for the rock bottom price without any thought to how it effects a business.

2. We also have a mental aversion to any one raising prices so all business have to get creative to bring in revenue. Food companies will cut the package size before raising the prices, department stores have to run almost continous sales before we shop so they have to make their markup some where else and airlines are going to "fee" us to death to give us the illusion of discount ticketing.
Disney does this game well. "Free dining" isn't really free but as long as we think it's a good deal we bite.

3. I think it will get worse because in reality the fees are stop gap measures, sort of trying to hold back a flood one teaspoon at a time. fuel prices are rising along with labor cost. It will be interesting to see if we see mergers and a few go out of business.

 

[Tara]

"Carry-on fees artificially avoid higher ticket prices and the taxes applied to tickets, Schumer said."

I read that. His remarks are not about loss of tax revenue, however. They are about what should or shouldn't be included and what consumers need. That's why I stand by my original statement.