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

[Tomader]

People are making too much of this. Include the cost to check a bag when you compare airfares.

Spirit will no longer let you avoid the checked bag fee by condensing your stuff into a carryon bag. Makes a lot of sense. Avoids delays while passengers "fight" for bin room. What happens when the bin is full.

It makes no sense for the airline to not only lose checked bag fees but also have to deal with other issues as more passengers use the bins to avoid paying luggage fees.

Sometimes Spirit makes sense. Sometimes another airline makes sense.

It's that simple.

I look at this as another way to milk the customer for every penny they have. If they need to nickle and dime every service then raise the price of the ticket. In the end that is what it's all about. Tell me the bottom line. I also want to add, I will not defend the airlines one bit. Saying it's okay to take advantage of people is wrong. Bringing your luggage is not a luxury. Maybe overpacking could be but when you have a family it's hard not to. As far as people making too much out of this? I say keep it up. Sitting back and accepting things is getting us where? Prices going up, jobs going overseas, the call center for Spirit in India? When does it end. I know when someone says," enough is enough!" Not,"It's okay take all my money and my job because the government will help me!"

 

[Lewisc]

Lugnut33--You have an issue with Spirit. You won't be flying with them. I doubt I'll use them either for a variety of reasons.

Some peopole are willing to "work the system". Use a credit card once a month to obtain some discounts. Other airlines waive a checked bag fee if you use their credit card. I'd rather pay the extra money, or find another airline, rather then apply for a credit card I donn't want.

I don't think this new fee is any different then fees Spirit already charges. Getting passengers to pay to check a bag should produce some extra revenue and avoid delays as passenger look for bin space.

Tomader--LCC airlines find passengers are more willing to pay fees then pay profitable fares. SW is operating differently. It's not a matter of milking passengers. Spirit decided the new arrangement is more attractive to their passengers then raising fares $25. The new fees mean more passengers will pay to check a bag and fewer passengers will be trying to stuff oversized bags in the bins.

 

[lugnut33]

Lugnut33--You have an issue with Spirit. You won't be flying with them. I doubt I'll use them either for a variety of reasons.

Some peopole are willing to "work the system". Use a credit card once a month to obtain some discounts. Other airlines waive a checked bag fee if you use their credit card. I'd rather pay the extra money, or find another airline, rather then apply for a credit card I donn't want.

I don't think this new fee is any different then fees Spirit already charges. Getting passengers to pay to check a bag should produce some extra revenue and avoid delays as passenger look for bin space.

No, it's not just Spirit. I also dislike American Airlines and United also. I could start railing on them if you'd like? Actually I'm just not a fan of flying at all anymore. I'll do it, but begrudgingly.

 

[darrengs]

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.

 

[lugnut33]

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.

I knew that one would be coming!! Zing!!

 

[abline]

I did not know about this new carry on bag fee. I guess I lucked out by booking my flight on April 5th.

 

[donalduck]

If you don't like the fees stop flying or find another airline. It's that simple if you stop flying they will lose money and they will drop all of there stupid little fees to get there customers back.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

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.

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.

If you don't like the fees stop flying or find another airline. It's that simple if you stop flying they will lose money and they will drop all of there stupid little fees to get there customers back.

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.

 

[darrengs]

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.

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.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

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.

I think I did explain that, carry-ons take a lot longer to manage then checked bags. It's a balance between storage room and time on the ground. For some airlines cargo makes up more of their revenue then others.

Again, weight is not as big of an issue in the aggregate as the other items.

 

[darrengs]

I think I did explain that, carry-ons take a lot longer to manage then checked bags. It's a balance between storage room and time on the ground. For some airlines cargo makes up more of their revenue then others.

Not sure I agree I would think there is way more cost involved with baggage handling then the time lost while people handle their own bags.

Again, weight is not as big of an issue in the aggregate as the other items.

Perhaps not, but bottom line there is a direct cost of fuel used per passenger pound (besides I thought we were talking ala carte not aggregate??). So I still counter that unless you are paying per pound someone is subsidizing someone else. Which was my initial counter to the "why should I subsidize your baggage argument" that people were making.

 

[lugnut33]

I think I did explain that, carry-ons take a lot longer to manage then checked bags. .

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]

Again, weight is not as big of an issue in the aggregate as the other items.

Really? Is that why the airlines are so picky about a bag being a pound over the limit? Is that why they now load planes with just enough fuel to get them to their destination (better not be any delays in the air or you'll run out of fuel)? Is that why United was touting the removal of magazines since it saved them money on weight? Is that why the airlines have installed light weight seating (even if it's uncomfortable)?

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Not sure I agree I would think there is way more cost involved with baggage handling then the time lost while people handle their own bags.

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?

Really? Is that why the airlines are so picky about a bag being a pound over the limit? Is that why they now load planes with just enough fuel to get them to their destination (better not be any delays in the air or you'll run out of fuel)? Is that why United was touting the removal of magazines since it saved them money on weight? Is that why the airlines have installed light weight seating (even if it's uncomfortable)?

There are to main costs for an airline, employee costs and plane lease costs. Employees already are staffed at the check-in Kiosks, so the increase of checking additional baggage should be minimal as in most cases you will not need to add more staff (ERLANG C effect), sure it may add customer wait time, but it is not really an increase in cost born by the airline.

The second cost, plane leases are very expensive, the more miles you can get per revenue dollar, the more the plane pays for itself. If the plane has to wait 15 minutes for people to load their personal belongings, that is non-revenue generating time, no miles are being flown.

I did not say weight didn't matter because it does, it's just not the most important item IMO (industry stands to this to some degree or fashion), and I'm not necessarily against a base fare plus an fee based on weight, but from a logistical stand point, it would be very costly to implement and would hard to recover those costs in the long term.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

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?

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.

 

[darrengs]

There are to main costs for an airline, employee costs and plane lease costs. Employees already are staffed at the check-in Kiosks, so the increase of checking additional baggage should be minimal as in most cases you will not need to add more staff (ERLANG C effect), sure it may add customer wait time, but it is not really an increase in cost born by the airline.

The second cost, plane leases are very expensive, the more miles you can get per revenue dollar, the more the plane pays for itself. If the plane has to wait 15 minutes for people to load their personal belongings, that is non-revenue generating time, no miles are being flown.

I did not say weight didn't matter because it does, it's just not the most important item IMO (industry stands to this to some degree or fashion), and I'm not necessarily against a base fare plus an fee based on weight, but from a logistical stand point, it would be very costly to implement and would hard to recover those costs in the long term.

Great points. It doesn't matter what business sense it makes it remains that children are subsidizing adult airfares.

 

[sgtdisney]

I am wondering when Spirit will start charging to use the lavatory. I honestly see it coming. They will charge a fee to get into the lav and maybe even one if you want to get out. If this happens I can just imagine the number of people who start flying with Depends. At that point flying coach will really be like riding in a cattle car.

Spirit charges for everything, perhaps soon you will hear in the pre-flight emergency briefing "In the event of loss of pressurization in the cabin during flight an oxygen mask will drop from the ceiling. If you want oxygen during this emergency, please slide your credit card in the handy slot in the seat back in front of you and oxygen supply will commence at that time. For those passengers who pre-purchased Pressurization loss insurance prior to boarding your masks will supply oxygen immediately.

I think this fee is a bit extreme, to be honest with you. I do agree with many here, however, that the typical American leisure traveller only looks at the "ticket price" no matter what, and charging fees is the the only way for airlines to have a profit. However I think a fair charge for checked baggage and STRICT enforcement of carryon regulations would have been a better way to counter the people who brought huge carryon bags onto the airline to avoid a checked bag fee. The overheads were originally designed to make your flight more comfortable by allowing you a small carryon to be stowed there to save your legroom. I just think there was a better way to enforce that. Just my .02cents.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

The second cost, plane leases are very expensive, the more miles you can get per revenue dollar, the more the plane pays for itself. If the plane has to wait 15 minutes for people to load their personal belongings, that is non-revenue generating time, no miles are being flown.

Good thought, I forgot about plane lease costs.

You and I are on the same page with this one. Just goes to show you that this business is a complex one and no "one" business model is applicable to all airlines.

 

[Tara]

The second cost, plane leases are very expensive, the more miles you can get per revenue dollar, the more the plane pays for itself. If the plane has to wait 15 minutes for people to load their personal belongings, that is non-revenue generating time, no miles are being flown.

Another reason Southwest is willing to go with the "bags fly free" model. Now, that's really just "fares include bags" but to the average consumer, it *feels* different and they are incentivized to check bags. Southwest works to maintain extremely short gate turnaround times - their whole ramp workflow is built around getting a plane in and out in, what...25 minutes? When people bring on more bags, turnaround slows down. How do you get people to bring on less stuff? Tell them you'll handle their bags for free. Seems to be working like a charm, no?

 

[Tara]

Great points. It doesn't matter what business sense it makes it remains that children are subsidizing adult airfares.

Or you could say that thin people are subsidizing overweight people. But when you get down to it, none of that is really what's happening, though it's an easy target to shoot at. It assumes that the average non-refundable, lowest booking class coach fare is actually a reasonable one based on the real cost of travel. It often isn't. What's really happening IMO is that business travelers are subsidizing leisure travelers.