37 replies to this topic

[amtrakwolverine]

Jerry Meekins, who is battling cancer, has a new foe: Spirit Airlines.

http://overheadbin.m...und-policy?lite

[Swadian Hardcore]

I hate Spirit Airlines. They should go broke, but they are one of the few US airlines actually earning money. I currently refuse to fly domestic.

[Anderson]

I've got a lot of issues with Spirit Airlines. Unless I'm mistaken (and I may be; there are just enough of these bad carriers out there), they're the ones who charge for carry-ons. Now, on the one hand I "get" their rationale to some extent (folks carrying bags on that won't fit in the overhead bins mucking things up and basically getting a "free" checked bag when Spirit has to toss the bag under the plane), but it would seem to me that the answer would be to check the bag but assess a penalty for doing so rather than blanket-billing everyone for carry-ons.

Of course, I don't like either option (or, frankly, charging for checked baggage), but that's another issue entirely...their option seems to be the worse of the two options, but that may simply be because it's the option that was chosen.

One solution might well be to require airlines to have certain mandatory no-refund exceptions where a refund/change fee cannot apply (i.e. if the carrier cannot get you from A to B, then even if B to A is on a separate ticket, they have to refund B to A; if you travel A to B to C domestically, then even if the connection isn't guaranteed at B, if it exceeds X hours then a refund must be granted).

[PRR 60]

I've got a lot of issues with Spirit Airlines. Unless I'm mistaken (and I may be; there are just enough of these bad carriers out there), they're the ones who charge for carry-ons. Now, on the one hand I "get" their rationale to some extent (folks carrying bags on that won't fit in the overhead bins mucking things up and basically getting a "free" checked bag when Spirit has to toss the bag under the plane), but it would seem to me that the answer would be to check the bag but assess a penalty for doing so rather than blanket-billing everyone for carry-ons.

...

If you have to gate check a bag with Spirit, it certainly is not free. A gate check bag costs $45 today, and starting November 6, the cost goes up to $100!

Spirit's business model necessitates very quick equipment turns. Running gate check bags out to be stowed in the hold impacts turn time. The $100 fee is basically to ensure that there are no gate check bags.

Spirit is what it is. They provide dirt-cheap base fares, then tack on fees for all kinds of stuff. It's their schtick. People who choose to fly Spirit take that as a given. Those who don't like it can go elsewhere.

EDIT: My personal favorite Spirit fee is the $2 added to every ticket as a "DOT unintended consequences fee." I can't even type that without laughing. This is theoretically to pay for the various stuff that DOT now requires airlines to do, such as full refund of any reservation within 24 hours of booking. Hilarious.

Edited by PRR 60, 29 April 2012 - 09:56 AM.

[jis]

I've got a lot of issues with Spirit Airlines. Unless I'm mistaken (and I may be; there are just enough of these bad carriers out there), they're the ones who charge for carry-ons. Now, on the one hand I "get" their rationale to some extent (folks carrying bags on that won't fit in the overhead bins mucking things up and basically getting a "free" checked bag when Spirit has to toss the bag under the plane), but it would seem to me that the answer would be to check the bag but assess a penalty for doing so rather than blanket-billing everyone for carry-ons.

...

If you have to gate check a bag with Spirit, it certainly is not free. A gate check bag costs $45 today, and starting November 6, the cost goes up to $100!

Spirit's business model necessitates very quick equipment turns. Running gate check bags out to be stowed in the hold impacts turn time. The $100 fee is basically to ensure that there are no gate check bags.

Spirit is what it is. They provide dirt-cheap base fares, then tack on fees for all kinds of stuff. It's their schtick. People who choose to fly Spirit take that as a given. Those who don't like it can go elsewhere.

EDIT: My personal favorite Spirit fee is the $2 added to every ticket as a "DOT unintended consequences fee." I can't even type that without laughing. This is theoretically to pay for the various stuff that DOT now requires airlines to do, such as full refund of any reservation within 24 hours of booking. Hilarious.

Spirit is the Ryan Air of the US. Both are significant money makers and are in relatively good financial health. The customers have spoken clearly as to what they are willing to live with.

[Devil's Advocate]

My personal favorite Spirit fee is the $2 added to every ticket as a "DOT unintended consequences fee." I can't even type that without laughing. This is theoretically to pay for the various stuff that DOT now requires airlines to do, such as full refund of any reservation within 24 hours of booking. Hilarious.

How about the "veteran refund fee" that tacks on five dollars to every civilian fare so that every veteran is guaranteed a refund on their non-refundable ticket?

[Anderson]

My personal favorite Spirit fee is the $2 added to every ticket as a "DOT unintended consequences fee." I can't even type that without laughing. This is theoretically to pay for the various stuff that DOT now requires airlines to do, such as full refund of any reservation within 24 hours of booking. Hilarious.

How about the "veteran refund fee" that tacks on five dollars to every civilian fare so that every veteran is guaranteed a refund on their non-refundable ticket?

It wouldn't surprise me if they had that already.

Actually, that might be another thing: Simply banning fees for certain things and telling the airline to either suck it up, price it in, or go away. The principle (at least in my mind) is two-fold:
1) There is a "basket" of implied services that go along with that ticket (a good example here, IMHO, would be the use of the onboard toilet) that if the airline is incapable of providing in the ticket price, then they shouldn't be flying; and
2) There are certain non-variable burdens that the airline has to bear that the fare serves to cover. If you wanted to go really extreme, I could see Spirit or RyanAir starting with a $.99 (or 99p) fare and then adding fees from there:
-A fee to have the plane maintained;
-A fee based on which model of plane was being used;
-A fee to cover gate costs and whatnot;*
-A fee to pay for the airline's administration;
-A fee based upon your weight and the effect of that on the plane;
-A fee based not just upon how many bags you carry, but how much total weight you bring along;*
-A fee for restroom access...*

And so forth. Items with an (*) exist in some form (though the baggage one tends to be an "overweight bag" fee, which doesn't bug me as much, and the infamous "spend a penny" fee is [at the moment] a per-use fee on short flights IIRC). But can anybody here tell me that they can't see Spirit or RyanAir turning around and saying, for example, that "Your ticket entitles you to the carriage of 200 lbs of weight between your person, your personal effects, and your baggage; all additional weight will be subject to an $X/lb surcharge"?

[John Bredin]

Actually, that might be another thing: Simply banning fees for certain things and telling the airline to either suck it up, price it in, or go away. The principle (at least in my mind) is two-fold:
1) There is a "basket" of implied services that go along with that ticket (a good example here, IMHO, would be the use of the onboard toilet) that if the airline is incapable of providing in the ticket price, then they shouldn't be flying; and
2) There are certain non-variable burdens that the airline has to bear that the fare serves to cover. If you wanted to go really extreme, I could see Spirit or RyanAir starting with a $.99 (or 99p) fare and then adding fees from there:
-A fee to have the plane maintained;
-A fee based on which model of plane was being used;
-A fee to cover gate costs and whatnot;*
-A fee to pay for the airline's administration;
-A fee based upon your weight and the effect of that on the plane;
-A fee based not just upon how many bags you carry, but how much total weight you bring along;*
-A fee for restroom access...*

And so forth. Items with an (*) exist in some form (though the baggage one tends to be an "overweight bag" fee, which doesn't bug me as much, and the infamous "spend a penny" fee is [at the moment] a per-use fee on short flights IIRC). But can anybody here tell me that they can't see Spirit or RyanAir turning around and saying, for example, that "Your ticket entitles you to the carriage of 200 lbs of weight between your person, your personal effects, and your baggage; all additional weight will be subject to an $X/lb surcharge"?

Well, I don't know about all your examples, but a friend of mine flew from Rome to Barcelona on RyanAir a few years back, and her "fare" was 1 euro with 99 euros in "fees". Mind you, it was still cheaper than the flying (or alas, rail) alternatives, but a one euro/dollar/pound fare with 99 euros/dollars/pounds in fees is an Onion joke brought to life.

[Texan Eagle]

"Your ticket entitles you to the carriage of 200 lbs of weight between your person, your personal effects, and your baggage; all additional weight will be subject to an $X/lb surcharge"?

I am completely in favor of, and have since long told my friends, that airlines should be charging per (passengers+baggage) weight rather than just baggage restriction and overweight baggage fees. Currently most airlines Allow a fixed 50 lb of free checked baggage to everyone (I am talking about international flights) irrespective of passenger's weight. Now, its not just the bags' weight that costs fuel to transport, it is the passenger's weight too. So airlines should offer a comprehensive package- free allowance 250 lbs per ticket, use it as you like it. If you weigh a measly 100 lb, you are welcome to bring 150 lb worth of checked bags and cabin bags. On the other hand, if you weigh 200 lb, your checked bags + cabin bag should not weigh more than 50 lb combined! Anything above 250 lb to be charged on a per pound basis- if you yourself happen to weigh over 250 lbs, bad luck! Apart from helping airlines get a better estimate on how much fuel to carry, this practice can encourage obese population to exercise and get in shape, after all who doesn't want to carry more free baggage Of course in litigation-happy American society, before you can say 'weight' there will be a lawsuit out against the airline by an overenthusiastic lawyer blaming the airline for discriminating against a passenger's Fundamental Right to be Obese or something.

Edited by Texan Eagle, 30 April 2012 - 08:06 PM.

[amtrakwolverine]

Update on the story

Veterans Mull Boycott Of Spirit Airlines

(FOX News) - Veterans groups around the nation are rallying to the side of dying Vietnam veteran Jerry Meekins following Spirit Airlines' refusal to refund his $197 ticket after the doctor treating him for terminal esophageal cancer told him not to fly.

http://www.myfoxdetr...120501_19603893

[Green Maned Lion]

Veterens, or a subset of them, piss me off. Thank you for protecting and serving our country. Now get over yourselves. I have not served this country, and I don't give money to organized charities, but I do help people. I do plenty for various people, making sacrifices. And I dont go around saying, "I choose to help people for no reason other then my god damned charitable heart, how down to me mere mortals!" I advocate for rail, taking a lot of my limited time and resources, which to an extent will benefit all of you. I don't want anything from it except that the members of this board afford me the same respect they give any other decent human being that doesn't go around being a destructive, malicious ass.

I run a business, and I give discounts freely so long as people don't ask for them. It really sticks in my craw, though, when somebody walks up and says "I am a veteren, give me a discount." Not a drawn out conversation where they happen to mention they are a veteren, which depending on my margin, may result in a discount. A demand. I refuse it, not because I dislike veterans, but because this one is being a pompous jerk. And they, more often then not, go into a rant that invariably includes the words "liberal" "unamerican" and "pro terrorist".

The only thing I hate more is the "I am a vendor, gimmes discount." thing. I have a canned response. "certainly, the price is [price] + 1." If they catch it, which is not always, I say, "you're a vendor. I HATE vendors."

[Ryan]

Veterens, or a subset of them, piss me off. Thank you for protecting and serving our country. Now get over yourselves.

As a veteran, I agree.

I understand that it's the pendulum swinging away from the extreme of the Vietnam era, but come one - there has to be a happy medium.

Being a veteran shouldn't even enter into this story. Regardless of what Mr. Meekins did 40 years ago, Spirit should do the right thing and issue a refund.

[fairviewroad]

Being a veteran shouldn't even enter into this story. Regardless of what Mr. Meekins did 40 years ago, Spirit should do the right thing and issue a refund.

Why is that the "right thing" in this situation? Picking and choosing who to have compassion on is a slippery slope. A 76-year-old coming down with a health
condition that prevents him from flying is not completely out of the blue. There are plenty of airlines that offer refundable fares. Mr. Meekins could have paid
more and gotten the assurance/insurance he in retrospect desired.

It's only $197, after all. May seem like a lot to Mr. Meekin but in the grand scheme of things, not so much. If it's just about the money, maybe some of
these veterans groups can chip in.

[john6185]

Again, I agree with Ryan. Simply being in the military doesn't make one a hero. I was in and I served in Vietnam and I am not a hero regardless of popular-or unpopular opinion. Veterans shouldn't go to the front of the line by virtue of having been in the military. However, a veteran who has lost their leg or arm should be highly respected if in the loss was incurred during military combat and I feel they should go to the front of the line as long as they aren't demanding. There are some who have lost a leg or suffer other disabilities due to a motorcycle accident-they are not heroes. Those ho have served in Iraq or Afghanistan have served their time in Hell and have seen things that no human should see and my sympathy goes out to them and those who have suffered injuries or maiming by terrorists-or as the current administration likes to call them, freedom fighters. I respect and honor our military but once they are separated and discharged, they are JohnQ Citizen just like Ryan and myself unless they are disabled. Now Ryan, you have my express permission to flame me....

Edited by john6185, 03 May 2012 - 05:15 PM.

[Ryan]

Picking and choosing who to have compassion on is a slippery slope.

It's a good thing that I'm advocating doing the exact opposite of that, then!

but in the grand scheme of things, not so much.

Then it shouldn't be a problem for Spirit to refund the money, then.


No need to flame, since you're agreeing with me.

But since you made the offer, I'll take issue with this:

or as the current administration likes to call them, freedom fighters.

I guess that's supposed to be a jab that they're soft on terror or something? Nonsensical, since this administration is tougher on them than the last was.

[Trogdor]

I'm actually curious which terrorists this administration has called freedom fighters.

Specific citation, please. Don't even have to post it on here if you don't want. PM is fine.

[fairviewroad]

Picking and choosing who to have compassion on is a slippery slope.

It's a good thing that I'm advocating doing the exact opposite of that, then!

OK, I guess I'm not clear on your position. It sounded to me that you're saying the right thing to do is to refund the money. Yet, Spirit's stated policy is to not
issue refunds. So are you saying they should simply issue refunds to EVERYONE who asks? Because if they only issue refunds to SOME people then yes,
they are "picking and choosing."

[Ryan]

Yes. I'm saying that they should refund the money to everyone that has a legitimate reason to request a refund. Medical advice saying "Don't Fly" should merit a refund, regardless of who the person is.

[Anderson]

I will concur with Ryan here. Technically speaking, every company has something of a "pick and choose" policy. Even with set-out policies, these are often waived for reasons ranging from public/customer goodwill (or avoiding ill will) to deciding to adhere to a general practice. The same applies to credits, etc.

What probably needs to happen, in some form, is that a set of regulations/laws (I'd prefer the latter but I'll take the former if need be) need to come down dictating that certain things "Are considered a part of the fare and may not be charged for separately or accounted for in a separate fee". I know that's still open to some weasel room on both sides (nothing is ever perfectly immune), but it would at least allow some silliness to be curbed.

And yes, included in that should be refunds under a set of circumstances (including a refund for a return trip on a non-round trip ticket if the carrier fails to deliver them on an earlier leg of the trip within a given timeframe, the issuance of medical advice against flying, etc.) among a raft of other things generally taken for granted.

With some things such as baggage fees...I'll go ahead and grant something of a caveat emptor, but at the same time I'm inclined to (at least with the worst of the carriers) suggest requiring an "average fees per ticket" declaration alongside low fare advertisements so that folks have a decent idea of what they're getting into.

[Devil's Advocate]

I will concur with Ryan here. Technically speaking, every company has something of a "pick and choose" policy.

Technically speaking Spirit Airlines has no "pick an choose" process.

You buy their tickets and you play by their rules. No exceptions.

You want a shoulder to cry on because you couldn't cheat death and lost some money in the process?

Try flying someone else. Spirit does not care. Not today, not tomorrow, and not next year.

They'd probably be belly-up by now if they continued to do business the old way.

I remember reading about Spirit's slide into debt and their last ditch effort to avoid liquidation.

This is the path they've chosen and it's been reported on again and again and again across most media.

Anyone who hasn't figured it out by now probably shouldn't be in charge of buying their own tickets.

Like most of you, I have zero interest in flying Spirit, but I also have zero sympathy for people who try to guilt their way into a free refund.