Spirit may charge you for talking to a live human being.

[eliza61]

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/spirit-airlines-fee-talking-human-airport/story?id=11306933




Just when you thought airlines couldn't get any stingier, the CEO of Spirit Airlines said he is considering a new fee to talk with a human at the airport.

Congress considers whether airlines disclose fees adequately.

More PhotosYes, the airline that just started charging for carry-on bags might someday add a fee for getting some help from one of its employees, Spirit CEO Ben Baldanza told ABC News. Baldanza said passengers won't see this fee "in the very near term." Or at least not until the airline improves its airport technology.



Oh well, he did also say they had no plans on putting a charge on the loo. Yet...

 

[SandrA9810]

Oh well, he did also say they had no plans on putting a charge on the loo. Yet...

Could you image the smell on the plane after a 4-5hr flight?? I'd hate to be one to clean the plane afterwards. And they'd loose a lot of flights because they couldn't just turn over for the next flight in less than a 1/2hr.

Surprisingly enough, I've enjoyed my flights on Air Tran and Southwest a lot more than some of the other airlines.

 

[bicker]

Many consumers prefer only paying for what they use. There are so many things that are more expensive for because some folks are use more than others. The folks who use should pay; the folks who use more should pay more; the folks who don't use at all shouldn't have to effectively pay for it anyway because it is included in some package price.

I should not have to pay x% more for my broadband Internet service because my neighbor canceled cable and is getting all their television via Internet streaming.

 

[sbell111]

Many consumers prefer only paying for what they use. There are so many things that are more expensive for because some folks are use more than others. The folks who use should pay; the folks who use more should pay more; the folks who don't use at all shouldn't have to effectively pay for it anyway because it is included in some package price.

I should not have to pay x% more for my broadband Internet service because my neighbor canceled cable and is getting all their television via Internet streaming.

That's a very good point.

The problem is that these extra fees aren't made apparent on the front end. People go onto expedia or travelocity and book the cheapest airline ticket not realizing that the prices that they saw were not apples to apples comparisons and that they would end up with tons of fees added on later.

 

[bicker]

Most if not all of the fees are apparent, if consumers were willing to do the work necessary to understand what they were and were not purchasing. IMHO, the issue is solely that many consumers don't want there to be terms and conditions and additional fee schedules - they want everything they want to be included included and everything about the service to be precisely as they want it, without paying extra or anything like that. So as a result they ignore the existence of this information.

 

[eliza61]

Do you think it's ignoring or some businesses purposely misleading. For example you're absolutely right that for the most part hte information is there but what I find distasteful is that the information is usually in small print on the back page (metophorically speaking) of the expedia page. Whereas the supposedly "great fare" is in big bold print.

I admit when I book a ticket I naturally asssume (and nowadays I guess I shouldn't) that if I need to speak with a human (in this case) it wouldn't cost me an extra $25 dollars. Had this news article not come out I wonder how many other folks would have known or even remotely thought to search the fine print of their ticket to realize talking with a "live" person could significantly jack up the cost of the ticket.
So what you are saying that in todays market I have to have CSI level detective skills in order to fine out the "true" cost of any ticket.

Sad

Reminds me of the old Mexican Chicken joke.
1st you buy a chicken in Mexico for a great price until you find out..
there is a charge to pluck the chicken
there is a charge to rinse the chicken with water
there is a charge to wrap the chicken
there is a charge to put the chicken in a bag to take home.
That chicken ends up costing the same as the GDP of Mexico.

Maybe I want at least a fighting chance. Like the credit card companies at least are now forced (I think they were forced) to make their statements and fees plainly written and understandable.

 

[Planogirl]

The Expedia or whoever prices are still good because you'd pay the extra fees regardless of base price. The problem is that these fees keep multiplying.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Do you think it's ignoring or some businesses purposely misleading.

I think when the CEO of an airline does a television interview or press conference or whatever led to this report about a new fee, nothing that airline does can be considered misleading.

what I find distasteful is that the information is usually in small print on the back page (metophorically speaking) of the expedia page.

At least part of that can be attributed to the third party's choice to or not to advertise additional fees.

I admit when I book a ticket I naturally asssume (and nowadays I guess I shouldn't) that if I need to speak with a human (in this case) it wouldn't cost me an extra $25 dollars. Had this news article not come out I wonder how many other folks would have known or even remotely thought to search the fine print of their ticket to realize talking with a "live" person could significantly jack up the cost of the ticket.

Since the potential new charge specifies talking to a human at the airport, and since most passengers have already purchased their tickets prior to arriving at the airport, any fee (a) could not be added to the cost of the ticket and so (b) would have to be disclosed to the passenger prior to any verbal interaction - with the passenger given the ability to opt-out with no fee.

 

[bicker]

Do you think it's ignoring or some businesses purposely misleading. For example you're absolutely right that for the most part hte information is there but what I find distasteful is that the information is usually in small print on the back page

The purpose of marketing is to present the best aspects of the offering. Always has been; always will be. And that is the case with practically every product and service offered in the consumer marketplace. The specific things that are relegated to terms and conditions may vary, but otherwise, the same mechanics are at work.

A lot of the furor over things like this is just reflective of how the American consumer gets tunnel vision when it comes to big and influencial consumer suppliers, seeing especial transgression when in reality all there is is just business as usual.

So what you are saying that in todays market I have to have CSI level detective skills in order to fine out the "true" cost of any ticket.

No. What I'M saying is that consumers need to be responsible consumers, conscientious enough to research what they're purchasing. Period. That's all I'm saying in that regard. Consumers surely do not need detective skills to find this information and integrate it into the pricing of their purchase.

Maybe I want at least a fighting chance.

Consumers do have a fighting chance. Consumers just need to figure out how to stop defeating themselves. A lot of consumers (myself including) are just too busy or too lazy to do what is responsible and appropriate. That's not a crime. It does, however, mean that consumers must hold themselves responsible for the surprises they encounter as a result, not try to foist blame off onto our suppliers.

Like the credit card companies at least are now forced (I think they were forced) to make their statements and fees plainly written and understandable.

And all of that info is in small print, on fee schedules, just like the airline baggage fees. Because that is what is reasonable.

 

[brerrabbit]

I for one wish they would stop trying to generate income through added fees and just be up front about it and add the cost to the ticket. Airlines have struggled for years since deregulation and as a result of all the price wars put themselves in a very precarious financial position. The reality is running an airline in not a cheap proposition and for years as consumers we have demanded lower and lower fares as prices have increased. For many years as we traveled to WDW fron Houston our gold standard was $200. If we could not book tickets for less tha $200 we would consider driving. Now airlines try to keep tickets down but look at other ways to generate revenue. But don't think any airline is immune, because even Southwest who advertise bags fly free try to generate additional dollars by offering a preferred place in the boarding que for additional fees. United charges $5.00 for food and fees for baggage. When I fly I pay to check my bags because quite frankly packing a bag on a plane has gotten ridiculous. I have a small computer case I carry on board and half the time I can't even find a place for it because people are bring luggage on board with them.

Be up front and charge for what you offer in the ticket price. a la carte pricing is what some demand but I for one wish they would just do away with it.

 

[kaytieeldr]

United charges $5.00 for food and fees for baggage. When I fly I pay to check my bags because quite frankly packing a bag on a plane has gotten ridiculous. I have a small computer case I carry on board and half the time I can't even find a place for it because people are bring luggage on board with them.

Be up front and charge for what you offer in the ticket price. a la carte pricing is what some demand but I for one wish they would just do away with it.

But going back to what bicker said earlier - I don't 'demand' a la carte pricing, but I see the sense in it. What I don't see, to be honest, is the so-called need to have a meal on a two or three hour flight. I'm not being critical, but I know I don't need a sandwich at 10 AM. I can wait until I land, or bring something. Why should I pay for food I'm not going to eat?

On the other hand, I travel for a week or more at a time. I need to check a suitcase (I have to bring a stepstool, long story). If you can pack everything you need in carry-on luggage, why should you subsidize my luggage?