amtrakwolverine
Engineer
http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11392324-dying-veteran-protests-spirit-airlines-no-refund-policy?liteJerry Meekins, who is battling cancer, has a new foe: Spirit Airlines.
http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11392324-dying-veteran-protests-spirit-airlines-no-refund-policy?liteJerry Meekins, who is battling cancer, has a new foe: Spirit Airlines.
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!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.
...
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.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!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.
...
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.
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?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.
It wouldn't surprise me if they had that already.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?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.
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.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"?
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."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"?
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpps/news/veterans-mull-boycott-of-spirit-airlines-dpgonc-km-20120501_19603893(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.
As a veteran, I agree.Veterens, or a subset of them, **** me off. Thank you for protecting and serving our country. Now get over yourselves.
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 healthBeing 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.
It's a good thing that I'm advocating doing the exact opposite of that, then!Picking and choosing who to have compassion on is a slippery slope.
Then it shouldn't be a problem for Spirit to refund the money, then.but in the grand scheme of things, not so much.
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.or as the current administration likes to call them, freedom fighters.
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 notIt's a good thing that I'm advocating doing the exact opposite of that, then!Picking and choosing who to have compassion on is a slippery slope.
Technically speaking Spirit Airlines has no "pick an choose" process.I will concur with Ryan here. Technically speaking, every company has something of a "pick and choose" policy.
I see, thanks for clarifying. I agree that the policy should be applied equally regardless of who is making the request. It's just that I think all such requests shouldYes. 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.
I'll agree with this point, that anything that isn't avoidable ought to be included in the basic charge. However, part of this, to my understanding, is that many (most?) airline taxes are based on the airfare. Fees are not assessed those same taxes. Therefore, a $100 fare will carry more taxes than a $10 fare with $90 in fees.In a lot of ways, that's what gets me...there may be five ways to do something, but all (or all reasonably doable) options incur some sort of fee. That's been part of my issue with their fares being misleading: In a lot of cases, even after removing tax/landing fee charges and whatnot, there may be no way to get through without $X in fees, where X is a non-trivial number.
Sprit does not charge for seat selection if you don't make a seat selection. If you are willing to let Spirit pick your seat when you check-in on line, there is no charge. Of course, that will likely land you in 28E, but at least it's free....
I'll say that this doesn't get around issues such as charging for seat selection...and assessing a charge no matter what seat is selected (and presumably not having an "I don't care, just put me on the plane" option). In a lot of ways, that's what gets me...there may be five ways to do something, but all (or all reasonably doable) options incur some sort of fee. That's been part of my issue with their fares being misleading: In a lot of cases, even after removing tax/landing fee charges and whatnot, there may be no way to get through without $X in fees, where X is a non-trivial number.
...
Enter your email address to join: