# Spirit Airlines Announces $100 Baggage Fees!!



## Bob Dylan (May 3, 2012)

Just heard on the news that one of the so called "Discount" Airlines, Spirit, is fixing to raise their "Carry-On" Baggage Fees to $100!!!   No word on When, or what Flights etc. but they seem like they want to emnulate Ryan Air by Charging the Most Outrageous and Unconciousable Fees in the Industry!! :angry2: Southwest Airlines looks better all the time, but of course Amtrak is still the King of the way it ought to be!!!   

Edited to reflect "Carry-On", not Checked! Thanks for the correction! :hi:


----------



## PRR 60 (May 3, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> Just heard on the news that one of the so called "Discount" Airlines, Spirit, is fixing to raise their Checked Baggage Fees to $100!!!   No word on When, or what Flights etc. but they seem like they want to emnulate Ryan Air by Charging the Most Outrageous and Unconciousable Fees in the Industry!! :angry2: Southwest Airlines looks better all the time, but of course Amtrak is still the King of the way it ought to be!!!


The $100 fee is for carry-on bags paid at the gate (yes, if you show up at the gate with a carry-on bag not pre-paid, you pay $100 to carry it on). A checked bag paid when the flight is booked is $30. Paid at check-in is $40. Paid at the airport counter or kiosk is $45.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (May 3, 2012)

jimhudson said:


> Just heard on the news that one of the so called "Discount" Airlines, Spirit, is fixing to raise their Checked Baggage Fees to $100!!!   No word on When, or what Flights etc. but they seem like they want to emnulate Ryan Air by Charging the Most Outrageous and Unconciousable Fees in the Industry!! :angry2: Southwest Airlines looks better all the time, but of course Amtrak is still the King of the way it ought to be!!!


Saw this on this morning's news. I'm glad that Spirit does not have a large presence at San Diego.


----------



## afigg (May 3, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> The $100 fee is for carry-on bags paid at the gate (yes, if you show up at the gate with a carry-on bag not pre-paid, you pay $100 to carry it on). A checked bag paid when the flight is booked is $30. Paid at check-in is $40. Paid at the airport counter or kiosk is $45.


So the point of the $100 fee is to make the rest of the carry-on fee levels look reasonable! Yikes.


----------



## Texan Eagle (May 4, 2012)

The $100 carry-on fee is more media hype than anything else. You can call it a dumbness-fee if you will. Spirit clearly mentions at the time of booking that their base fares are low and everything else is charged and asks you in big bold text if you would like to purchase carry on bags and check-in bag fee online at the time of booking. If you are booking with half a brain turned on, you would not miss it. If you decide to act smarty pants and head to the gate without paying the fee hoping your bag will go through for free, sorry you are out of luck!

I don't find this outrageous because Spirit indeed offers very low base fares to start off with. What I *do *find unacceptable, on the other hand, are the so-called full-service legacy carriers also charging similar fees in spite of their fares being much higher. I have flown on variety of domestic airlines in the US and in economy class I don't see any difference whether it is a low cost carrier or a legacy carrier. They are all metal tubes that cram people in and fly them from A to B. Nothing more. Given a choice I would happily choose Spirit and pay for only the things I want rather than choosing a much higher priced "legacy carrier" and still pay baggage and seat assignment charges.

Also crib about Spirit as much as you want to, but guess which is the airline that is turning a profit, unlike some others going bankrupt


----------



## Anderson (May 4, 2012)

The issue I have with Spirit on this particular front is charging for carry-ons. The $100 fee being a "dumbass fee", so to speak, doesn't bug me (and neither does a nasty checking fee if you try to pack a _far_ oversized bag into the overhead bin and it won't fit) on its own.

As to Spirit's profitability (and Southwest's, for that matter), what is their union situation? I know that with most of the older carriers, a large part of the problem was (and continues to be) a combination of bad union deals and the size of the companies at those times. With Southwest, the carrier has only been a "major" carrier for about 20 years or so (I don't think it was nearly its current size in the late 1980s), meaning that it simply hasn't been big enough for long enough to acquire legacy costs on the scale of some other airlines even assuming identical union deals. With Spirit, this goes double since it's only come onto the scene in the last few years.

My point in this is that Spirit, and to a lesser extent Southwest, are able to toss around a lower cost structure because they don't have to throw off as much revenue to cover old (bad) union contracts and the like. From what I can tell, the other airlines are to a very real extent suffering from more of a problem on the expense side than on the revenue side.


----------



## Texan Eagle (May 4, 2012)

Anderson said:


> The issue I have with Spirit on this particular front is charging for carry-ons.


If the airline is charging for carry-on but offering a dirt-cheap base fare, I would not complain one bit. It's not like the other airlines are angels, they also factor in the cost of flying a carry-on baggage but tag it into the base ticket fare for everyone, whether you are taking a carry-on or not.

Look at it this way- one airline offers a $50 base fare and option to add everything as per your requirement- $20 for carry-on bags, $5 for on-board soda and peanuts, $5 for in-seat TV screen, and another airline offers $80 ticket with one carry on, soda and peanuts and a TV screen included, which is better? Neither, they are both charging the same, but in the case of former, now I have the option to take only what I want. For example, next week I am flying to Philadelphia for NTD and will have only a college backpack with me, so in that case I would prefer paying $50 base fare and declining the rest (I can keep my backpack under my seat, for which there is no charge on Spirit). For a 2 hour flight I don't care about half a can of soda and a TV screen, so why pay the extra $30 for things I don't want?

Spirit is like make your own pizza.. decide what are your requirements and pay just for that, simple. As costs go on increasing and economy continues to be the way it is now, this approach is the only one that will probably make business sense. Flying today is only a means to get from A to B, the glory days of Pan Am when flying used to be a privilege and an event to look forward to are long gone.


----------



## Anderson (May 4, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > The issue I have with Spirit on this particular front is charging for carry-ons.
> ...


As a rule, I would (assuming a longer flight, at least) consider the second to be measurably better insofar as not having to screw around with breaking things out. However, I would also point out that in a lot of cases it is easy to run afoul of the fee structure if you're not careful...so assuming your example, if there were a "tripwire fee" (i.e. something like this $100 baggage fee thrown in) of $40 that could go on top of the $80 fare, that would be a big negative. Likewise, if I am pitched the $50 fare and then there's another $20 in "minimum" fees (i.e. Spirit's seat selection fees, their "unintended consequences" fee, a mandatory "reservation fee" [and yes, I know that even the railroads were guilty of this one], etc.) that cannot be avoided, I don't care if both options come to $70...the fact that I was, in essence, sold the $50 fare and then given a $70 one bugs me.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 4, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> The $100 carry-on fee is more media hype than anything else. You can call it a dumbness-fee if you will. Spirit clearly mentions at the time of booking that their base fares are low and everything else is charged and asks you in big bold text if you would like to purchase carry on bags and check-in bag fee online at the time of booking. If you are booking with half a brain turned on, you would not miss it. If you decide to act smarty pants and head to the gate without paying the fee hoping your bag will go through for free, sorry you are out of luck!
> 
> I don't find this outrageous because Spirit indeed offers very low base fares to start off with. What I *do *find unacceptable, on the other hand, are the so-called full-service legacy carriers also charging similar fees in spite of their fares being much higher. I have flown on variety of domestic airlines in the US and in economy class I don't see any difference whether it is a low cost carrier or a legacy carrier. They are all metal tubes that cram people in and fly them from A to B. Nothing more. Given a choice I would happily choose Spirit and pay for only the things I want rather than choosing a much higher priced "legacy carrier" and still pay baggage and seat assignment charges.
> 
> Also crib about Spirit as much as you want to, but guess which is the airline that is turning a profit, unlike some others going bankrupt


Spirit is turning a profit on fees alone why do you think they charge so much. what next want a window seat thats a couple hundred more want to actully look out the window then drop 75 cents into the coin slot below for 1 minute of view time.


----------



## Texan Eagle (May 4, 2012)

Anderson said:


> As a rule, I would (assuming a longer flight, at least) consider the second to be measurably better insofar as not having to screw around with breaking things out. However, I would also point out that in a lot of cases it is easy to run afoul of the fee structure if you're not careful...so assuming your example, if there were a "tripwire fee" (i.e. something like this $100 baggage fee thrown in) of $40 that could go on top of the $80 fare, that would be a big negative. Likewise, if I am pitched the $50 fare and then there's another $20 in "minimum" fees (i.e. Spirit's seat selection fees, their "unintended consequences" fee, a mandatory "reservation fee" [and yes, I know that even the railroads were guilty of this one], etc.) that cannot be avoided, I don't care if both options come to $70...the fact that I was, in essence, sold the $50 fare and then given a $70 one bugs me.


Have you tried booking on the Spirit website? Let's go through this example step by step-

Step 1- At the Choose your flight page, it very clearly states right on top that what you are seeing here is *NOT* the final price. At this point if you are feeling you will be flying to Las Vegas for $88, it is your fantasy, not Spirit's fault.






Step 2- Right after you have decided which flight to take, Spirit tells you in no uncertain terms the charge for each type of baggage and what is allowed free. If you decide to walk to the gate without paying the bags fee in spite of such in-your-face warning, you deserve to be charged $100 baggage fee.






Step 3- Before you actually *PAY* for the ticket, Spirit explains you the exact breakup and the total amount that will be charged to your card.






I don't see anything _hidden_ or _trying to deceive the passenger_ in this entire procedure. It is clear as glass, you know what you are paying for.

By the way, the so-called legacy carriers are not much different from Spirit. I am booked on American Airlines to travel from Philadelphia to Dallas later next week and they won't let me select seats unless I am willing to pay additional $24 for some randomly selected "preferred seats".





_PS: I do not work for Spirit nor does Spirit pay me anything to defend them. I am just trying to negate a widespread hatred against an organization with facts. _


----------



## Anderson (May 4, 2012)

First of all, I'll give you plenty of thanks for giving me a look "behind the curtain" (and no, I don't mean that in any way to insinuate diabolical plotting on anyone's part...the need to log in to go further was an issue).

Second, and I'm asking this honestly, where do some of the more "interesting" fees (the "Unintended Consequences" one jumps to mind) show up? I _did_ get a breakout of some things as "Government's Cut" (and the fare got a strange division between what amounted to a "fare fare" and an accommodation charge applied to each seat..._that_ was strange to see), but that particularly infamous item didn't show.

Also, on the fuel charges: Do those lock into place? I can't tell, and a lot of companies took to making those...interestingly variable.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 4, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I'm asking this honestly, where do some of the more "interesting" fees (the "Unintended Consequences" one jumps to mind) show up? I _did_ get a breakout of some things as "Government's Cut" (and the fare got a strange division between what amounted to a "fare fare" and an accommodation charge applied to each seat..._that_ was strange to see), but that particularly infamous item didn't show. Also, on the fuel charges: Do those lock into place? I can't tell, and a lot of companies took to making those...interestingly variable.


First you were claiming that the total wasn't clear enough. Now you're concerned that the total is too simple and isn't itemized enough? hboy:


----------



## AlanB (May 4, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> I don't see anything _hidden_ or _trying to deceive the passenger_ in this entire procedure. It is clear as glass, you know what you are paying for.


Actually I have to disagree at least in part. Yes, eventually things are laid out quite clearly. However, one is well into the booking process by the time it becomes quite clear just how much that flight is going to cost you. And that I see as totally unfair, and the airlines all know this trick. They know that people make the initial choice based upon the first fare that they see when doing a search. This is why extra fees have become so prevalent in the industry.

By the time you get to that second screen showing the baggage charges, etc., the odds are quite good that most people have already made the decision to fly with Spirit, or whatever airline in question. So if someone were comparing things to say Amtrak, they'd have looked at that first price on the first page and decided that it was cheaper than Amtrak, so they decide to fly.

Again, it's not until they're well into the booking that it suddenly becomes clear just how much the flight will actually cost. And by that point, many will no longer remember what the alternatives had cost, or if they do then they figure "well I'm already here and half done now, might as well just finish things."


----------



## Anderson (May 4, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > I'm asking this honestly, where do some of the more "interesting" fees (the "Unintended Consequences" one jumps to mind) show up? I _did_ get a breakout of some things as "Government's Cut" (and the fare got a strange division between what amounted to a "fare fare" and an accommodation charge applied to each seat..._that_ was strange to see), but that particularly infamous item didn't show. Also, on the fuel charges: Do those lock into place? I can't tell, and a lot of companies took to making those...interestingly variable.
> ...


It was reported elsewhere on this board that Spirit (at least, I _think_ it was Spirit) assesses a $2 "unintended consequences" fee due to the limits on runway waiting times and so forth...but I cannot find that fee in the mix. The total "being clear" means that:

1) I can figure out what I am being charged (i.e. the total amount, as well as a reasonable breakdown); and

2) I can figure out _why_ I am being charged that amount (i.e. What each fee going to the total is, and/or what is affecting it).

For example, on the fuel surcharge: Let's say that it lists at $49.88 (which is what it lists for several of the flights listed in your example). I can't clearly tell how it calculates, and that particular price may vary. Spirit's pains to break that amount out seems, quite frankly, to be "priming" people for that amount to move up without it actually involving a change in the fare. Again, I've seen this mentioned with respect to cruises.

And Alan hit on what was going on in my mind: While the ad I cited was old, there is a general tendency for folks to look at the stated fare and not the pile of fees that doesn't show up in the ad in question. "Additional fees apply" is exceedingly (and I would argue, purposefully) vague...particularly if one line has higher fees than others (which Spirit certainly tends towards the high end of)...and it _is_ misleading when I'm showed a price of $XX.XX* and then when I get to the end of booking, I see a number substantially higher than $XX.XX

_To be fair_, I'm willing to allow that there aren't many saints left in this regard...but that doesn't mean that Spirit isn't a particularly nasty abuser of this. I would also note that some airlines take efforts to keep their fare/fee prices off of comparison sites (Spirit falls in this vein...note that the login function certainly serves to complicate bottom line comparison shopping). Also as noted, I can't get to a "total cost" for my flight without logging into their website in some fashion...again, making it hard to know what a flight is _actually_ going to cost aside from "additional fees".


----------



## saxman (May 5, 2012)

Anderson said:


> The issue I have with Spirit on this particular front is charging for carry-ons. The $100 fee being a "dumbass fee", so to speak, doesn't bug me (and neither does a nasty checking fee if you try to pack a _far_ oversized bag into the overhead bin and it won't fit) on its own.
> 
> As to Spirit's profitability (and Southwest's, for that matter), what is their union situation? I know that with most of the older carriers, a large part of the problem was (and continues to be) a combination of bad union deals and the size of the companies at those times. With Southwest, the carrier has only been a "major" carrier for about 20 years or so (I don't think it was nearly its current size in the late 1980s), meaning that it simply hasn't been big enough for long enough to acquire legacy costs on the scale of some other airlines even assuming identical union deals. With Spirit, this goes double since it's only come onto the scene in the last few years.
> 
> My point in this is that Spirit, and to a lesser extent Southwest, are able to toss around a lower cost structure because they don't have to throw off as much revenue to cover old (bad) union contracts and the like. From what I can tell, the other airlines are to a very real extent suffering from more of a problem on the expense side than on the revenue side.


Just thought I would point out that just about everyone of Southwest's employees are unionized, and they are some of the highest paid in the industry. Crews flying a 737 at WN make more than all the legacies crew members flying a widebody 767.

Spirit pilots just had a strike about a year ago or so, and pretty much got what they wanted in the end.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 5, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Again, it's not until they're well into the booking that it suddenly becomes clear just how much the flight will actually cost.


Which airline do you envision is undercutting Spirit? Which airline are Spirit's customers unable to find because they're too lazy and clueless shop around before making a purchase? I doubt they're competing with Amtrak, especially to places like Central America and the Caribbean.



AlanB said:


> And by that point, many will no longer remember what the alternatives had cost, or if they do then they figure "well I'm already here and half done now, might as well just finish things."


I honestly don't understand who you think is being taken advantage of or why you feel they should be protected from their own ignorance. If they're really that clueless then that's their problem and not Spirit's.

---------------------



Anderson said:


> It was reported elsewhere on this board that Spirit (at least, I _think_ it was Spirit) assesses a $2 "unintended consequences" fee due to the limits on runway waiting times and so forth...but I cannot find that fee in the mix.


Maybe you should ask the member who made the original claim.



Anderson said:


> Alan hit on what was going on in my mind: While the ad I cited was old, there is a general tendency for folks to look at the stated fare and not the pile of fees that doesn't show up in the ad in question. "Additional fees apply" is exceedingly (and I would argue, purposefully) vague...particularly if one line has higher fees than others (which Spirit certainly tends towards the high end of)...and it _is_ misleading when I'm showed a price of $XX.XX* and then when I get to the end of booking, I see a number substantially higher than $XX.XX


The rules have changed since 2008. What part of that is still confusing you?



Anderson said:


> _To be fair_, I'm willing to allow that there aren't many saints left in this regard...but that doesn't mean that Spirit isn't a particularly nasty abuser of this.


You really have this all backwards. Unlike other airlines that waive rule W or fee X for passenger Y on flight Z (and dozens of other possible combinations) Spirit does not change the rules at any time for any person for any reason. On Spirit what you see during checkout is exactly what you get. Nothing more and nothing less. Compared to other airlines that apply different rules to different airports, different flights, and different customers, Spirit is about as clear as they come.

Your continued insistence on perpetuating information that is both heavily biased and extremely outdated is getting mighty old.


----------



## AlanB (May 5, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Again, it's not until they're well into the booking that it suddenly becomes clear just how much the flight will actually cost.
> ...


It's not a matter of someone undercutting Spirit of vice-versa. And shopping around implies that one compares prices; not that one has to do reams of research, register accounts, and do test bookings. If I shop around for a new TV, I need only go to one website to compare prices, once I've decided what TV I actually want to buy.



Texas Sunset said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > And by that point, many will no longer remember what the alternatives had cost, or if they do then they figure "well I'm already here and half done now, might as well just finish things."
> ...


If I run a store and advertise that I'm putting Lee Jeans on sale for $24.99 and then when you show up I tell you that you also need to pay me $4 for shipping fees, $2 for the bag to put the jeans in, $1 for folding them nicely as opposed to just shoving them into that bag, $3 for using the changing room, etc. I'm going to have a visit very quickly from some official people who are at a minimum going to fine me, if not do other things that are even worse, for unfair business practices.

Someone searching for airfares shouldn't have to, as I noted above, jump through hoops to compare prices. Save taxes, the price should be the price. This is not about people being clueless or ignorant.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 5, 2012)

AlanB said:


> It's not a matter of someone undercutting Spirit of vice-versa. And shopping around implies that one compares prices; not that one has to do reams of research, register accounts, and do test bookings. If I shop around for a new TV, I need only go to one website to compare prices, once I've decided what TV I actually want to buy.


"Reams of research?" Please. Researching and buying tickets today is so much quicker and easier than what it used to be. Back when I was a child you still had to visit one or more travel agents, in person, and hope they were willing to go the extra mile without making any serious slip-ups so you could find a reasonable rate that would actually be honored by the airline. Those were the days when the customer was truly at the mercy of a system they could not hope to understand, let alone second guess.



AlanB said:


> If I run a store and advertise that I'm putting Lee Jeans on sale for $24.99 and then when you show up I tell you that you also need to pay me $4 for shipping fees, $2 for the bag to put the jeans in, $1 for folding them nicely as opposed to just shoving them into that bag, $3 for using the changing room, etc. I'm going to have a visit very quickly from some official people who are at a minimum going to fine me, if not do other things that are even worse, for unfair business practices.


Having worked retail I can tell you that it can be as easy as printing up a sheet of paper saying the advertised price was a typographical error and you are essentially home free. We did just that nearly every week for months at a time. Were the advertisements intentionally wrong? I honestly don't know, but either way the solution was exactly the same. At least that's how it worked here in Texas.



AlanB said:


> Someone searching for airfares shouldn't have to, as I noted above, jump through hoops to compare prices. Save taxes, the price should be the price. This is not about people being clueless or ignorant.


Again, you're bringing up outdated complaints. Today airlines and airfare aggregate sites are required by law to show you the full cost, including fuel surcharges and other arbitrary fees, right from the start. Luggage fees are not currently included in those rules, but they may be some day if airline passengers make a big enough push for it. If you want a simple process for a simple customer then Southwest is your airline. Spirit is for folks who want to try their hand at traveling as light as possible with as little interaction as possible and no safety net to speak of. If that doesn't sound like you then I would suggest you stay away from them.


----------



## Anderson (May 5, 2012)

I think a "typographical error" excuse could work with something fairly benign such as a minor price difference, but I'm left to wonder what would have happened if someone had come in on several occasions to find different prices than advertised and raised the issue of a persistent pattern of differences between what was/is advertised and what was/is delivered. Put another way, if a customer comes in one week and you inform them of the error...they come in the next week and you inform them of the error...how many weeks would you (i.e. the company) have to remain in error for a case to be made that you were purposefully failing to correct the ad?


----------



## jis (May 5, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> Spirit is turning a profit on fees alone why do you think they charge so much. what next want a window seat thats a couple hundred more want to actully look out the window then drop 75 cents into the coin slot below for 1 minute of view time.


As long as there are sufficient numbers of customers willing to put up with it, why not?


----------



## jis (May 5, 2012)

Anderson said:


> It was reported elsewhere on this board that Spirit (at least, I _think_ it was Spirit) assesses a $2 "unintended consequences" fee due to the limits on runway waiting times and so forth...but I cannot find that fee in the mix. The total "being clear" means that:
> 
> 1) I can figure out what I am being charged (i.e. the total amount, as well as a reasonable breakdown); and
> 
> ...


All airlines break out the fuel surcharge in the listing of components in the total, fare, at least for those that care or are paying attention. They have done so for a long long time, and yes those change from time to time, usually going up. 



> And Alan hit on what was going on in my mind: While the ad I cited was old, there is a general tendency for folks to look at the stated fare and not the pile of fees that doesn't show up in the ad in question. "Additional fees apply" is exceedingly (and I would argue, purposefully) vague...particularly if one line has higher fees than others (which Spirit certainly tends towards the high end of)...and it _is_ misleading when I'm showed a price of $XX.XX* and then when I get to the end of booking, I see a number substantially higher than $XX.XX


The rules have changed and they cannot do so now. When the rules changed, it was not just Spirit and Southwest that were dinged. Almost every major carrier was because they piled on various charges between the time you saw the advertized fare and you bought the ticket. Only Spirit and Southwest complained loudly, while others simply started listing both the numbers up front.



> _To be fair_, I'm willing to allow that there aren't many saints left in this regard...but that doesn't mean that Spirit isn't a particularly nasty abuser of this. I would also note that some airlines take efforts to keep their fare/fee prices off of comparison sites (Spirit falls in this vein...note that the login function certainly serves to complicate bottom line comparison shopping). Also as noted, I can't get to a "total cost" for my flight without logging into their website in some fashion...again, making it hard to know what a flight is _actually_ going to cost aside from "additional fees".


In a society that is set up specifically to be duped in various ways, why complain about some specific duping techniques as opposed to others? Afterall we are in general unique also in listing prices of things exclusive of taxes.

BTW, how do you figure out the total cost of a flight on any airline without pricing out an itinerary? How do you do so on Amtrak?


----------



## Texan Eagle (May 5, 2012)

AlanB said:


> If I run a store and advertise that I'm putting Lee Jeans on sale for $24.99 and then when you show up I tell you that you also need to pay me $4 for shipping fees, $2 for the bag to put the jeans in, $1 for folding them nicely as opposed to just shoving them into that bag, $3 for using the changing room, etc. I'm going to have a visit very quickly from some official people who are at a minimum going to fine me, if not do other things that are even worse, for unfair business practices.


Ok, lets use your store example itself. If the store wants to be like Spirit, they would put up an advertising stating "*Lee Jeans on sale for $24.99* *Other fees apply*" At this point it is clear that you will not get the jeans for $24.99, so if you walk into the store and get annoyed that the jeans cost $30, it is not the store's fault, it is your own fault.

BTW, in this country, which business is honest about stating prices? First of all, businesses never mention that the prices they quoted are exclusive of taxes and you will end up paying more. Last week a friend came from Delaware (which I guess has no sales tax) to Texas and she was taken aback when a dress she thought costs $50 actually cost her credit card $54.12 because TX stores add 8.25% sales tax which is not mentioned in the store ad. Going back to your jeans sale strategy, most stores in malls advertise their sales like this-

"Upto 70% OFF" Most customers walk in thinking stuff is at a 70% discount only to realize the UPTO is the most important word in the ad and there might be only one item in the entire store at 70% discount. Look around and such examples are everywhere from car rental places to restaurants. Luring the consumer into the business by not-so-honest low prices is a trick that's not unique to Spirit.


----------



## George Harris (May 6, 2012)

Much of the absolutely wacko things we see going on in airfares is not that far off from what was going on in the 19th century railroad passenger and freight rates that led to the very thorough price regulations that prevailed until fairly recently. Yes the system had many defects, but at least you knew what the ride would cost without having to do any research at all. As it is now, the guy in the seat next to you on the plane may be paying three to five times what you did or one-third to one -fifth of what you did for the exact same thing. That would be the essence of the definition of unfair business practices, cheating, price gouging or any of several other things you could think of calling it that would get you fined or in jail in most other businesses. And of course you know that if you are going between points with little to no competition or demand out of scale to supply you will be paying through the nose, while if you going between points served by several carriers, you may be able to get a seat for less than the cost of gas money to drive the distance.

I see no move by either the carriers or the government to develop some relationship between the cost of providing the service and the price charged for it.


----------



## Anderson (May 6, 2012)

George Harris said:


> Much of the absolutely wacko things we see going on in airfares is not that far off from what was going on in the 19th century railroad passenger and freight rates that led to the very thorough price regulations that prevailed until fairly recently. Yes the system had many defects, but at least you knew what the ride would cost without having to do any research at all. As it is now, the guy in the seat next to you on the plane may be paying three to five times what you did or one-third to one -fifth of what you did for the exact same thing. That would be the essence of the definition of unfair business practices, cheating, price gouging or any of several other things you could think of calling it that would get you fined or in jail in most other businesses. And of course you know that if you are going between points with little to no competition or demand out of scale to supply you will be paying through the nose, while if you going between points served by several carriers, you may be able to get a seat for less than the cost of gas money to drive the distance.
> 
> I see no move by either the carriers or the government to develop some relationship between the cost of providing the service and the price charged for it.


I am reminded of the "segment abandonment" stunts that have been mentioned in places (i.e. booking an A-B-C ticket and purposefully missing the B-C connection because the A-B-C fare was a fraction of the A-B fare).

Mind you, I'm not opposed to there being a certain amount of disconnect between cost of services and cost to customer (such is the definition of loss leaders and cross-subsidization...heck, even an operationally self-sufficient Amtrak demands that profits on some routes offset losses on others), but at the same time some regulation of bucket variations wouldn't be the worst thing to happen to the market.

Sadly, the lords of misrule at the ICC and CAB did more to make a case for deregulation than any group of economists ever could. To be fair, I _do_ fault the enabling legislation for giving them too much discretion...but it's a shame that they screwed up so badly.


----------



## jis (May 6, 2012)

And yet, no one complains about prices they pay for computer equipment and services (most fortunately for us in the industry), I suppose because they keep coming down and are perceived to be low enough for the value of the service for the customer. But what it has to do with the actual cost of providing the service is another matter altogether.


----------



## George Harris (May 6, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Sadly, the lords of misrule at the ICC and CAB did more to make a case for deregulation than any group of economists ever could. To be fair, I _do_ fault the enabling legislation for giving them too much discretion...but it's a shame that they screwed up so badly.


Ain't it the truth. It is what is known in highly technical formal terminology as "Shooting yourself in the foot!"


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 6, 2012)

jis said:


> Almost every major carrier was [dinged] because they piled on various charges between the time you saw the advertized fare and you bought the ticket. Only Spirit *and Southwest* complained loudly, while others simply started listing both the numbers up front.


1. What surcharges did Southwest "pile on" between the first query and the final fare?

2. What sort of "loud complaint" came from Southwest regarding changes to fare publishing?


----------



## PRR 60 (May 6, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Almost every major carrier was [dinged] because they piled on various charges between the time you saw the advertized fare and you bought the ticket. Only Spirit *and Southwest* complained loudly, while others simply started listing both the numbers up front.
> ...


The charges that were added by Southwest included various flat-rate taxes and fees including the federal segment tax, the 9-11 security fee, and airport PFC's. The 7.5% excise tax was included from the start. Southwest joined Spirit and Allegiant in asking the federal courts to block the new rule.

Dallas Morning News


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 6, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> The charges that were added by Southwest included various flat-rate taxes and fees including the federal segment tax, the 9-11 security fee, and airport PFC's. The 7.5% excise tax was included from the start. Southwest joined Spirit and Allegiant in asking the federal courts to block the new rule.
> Dallas Morning News


Thanks for the link PRR 60.

I still have a problem with the idea that Southwest was "piling on" hidden charges that would have previously been included in the original ticket rate. The growing list of hidden costs that were confusing and annoying consumers were related to things like arbitrary fuel surcharges and baggage fees, but Southwest did not levy those fees in the first place. More than anything I'd like Jis to explain to us which US airline he thinks was doing a better job than Southwest of resisting the temptation to unbundle everything into a confusing myriad of secondary surcharges and fees. I'm hard pressed to come up with _anyone_.

It's true that some of the fees that Southwest charges are of questionable value to passengers, but it's not like Southwest has much control over when they're levied or how they're used. The security fees are of questionable value when compared to the extremely small chance of being on a Southwest-sized aircraft on a Southwest-issued flight plan that is a target of actual terrorism. Even in the heyday of hijackings back in the 1960's and 1970's, when the most we had were early generation metal detectors and anyone at all could legally approach an open gate, it was extremely rare to be on a flight that was a direct target of any terrorist group. For an airline like Southwest the risk/reward equation still probably doesn't add up the same way it would for an airline like United or American.

PFC's as currently managed are also of questionable value in my opinion. Here at SAT we recently demolished an extremely well maintained and renovated terminal just so we could build a brand new replacement terminal with the exact same number of gates and even fewer active airlines. If American Airlines happens to go belly-up or is bought out then this brand new terminal will have no more than a couple of active United gates left in the whole building. Why did we waste all of that money on a brand new terminal that nobody was asking for and the vast majority of our city's visitors won't ever see? I really don't get it.

I can certainly understand Southwest's position about this being a rule that is applied almost nowhere in our _caveat emptor_ society outside of a handful of arbitrary exceptions such as airfare, gasoline, and concession venders. That being said, I can also see the benefit to giving the consumer the total cost up front along with a clearly itemized receipt before the last click. If it's unfair that these rules are only being applied to airfare then maybe the real solution is make them applicable virtually _everywhere_ like they are in Europe?

As Southwest explained in the article it's true that many of the fees that make up the final cost people pay are based on factors that may not be possible to quantify when creating a new nationwide advertisement. Well, that's what happens when you let your supposedly united market devolve into a huge mess of competitive tax districts actively sparing against each other for a dwindling number of tax dollars. As with many of America's problems, you reap what you sow.


----------



## Anderson (May 7, 2012)

jis said:


> And yet, no one complains about prices they pay for computer equipment and services (most fortunately for us in the industry), I suppose because they keep coming down and are perceived to be low enough for the value of the service for the customer. But what it has to do with the actual cost of providing the service is another matter altogether.


Oh, there are plenty of areas where there is little apparent connection between cost and price. Some attract a lot of attention (uninsured medical care jumps to mind), some virtually none (list prices for a lot of technical things; part of this is that nobody actually _pays _those prices as far as I can tell).

Texas: I would at least like to see a better regime of regulation on this front. Broadly speaking, I have very little issue with letting the market set prices...but I've got an issue when that market ends up rewarding businesses that engage in bait-and-switch tactics to fuel sales. In general, I'd like to see "special surcharges" (the big one here is the "fuel surcharge") put under a microscope...and not just for airlines (I know that shippers assess these charges as well, as do cruies lines). While I do not have a problem with such a surcharge existing to deal with, for example, rare spikes in fuel prices in sensitive industries, I'd at least favor restricting when and how they can be applied (i.e. setting a standard for requiring companies to either bake in or eat oil prices below a certain level and preferably banning hikes assessed after the time of purchase). In particular, I'm thinking of the tendency of cruise lines to set their triggers between $65 and $75/barrel (in the case of a $65 trigger, the price of oil hasn't been below that since 2009).


----------



## PRR 60 (May 14, 2012)

Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal on-line had an article about Spirit (the airline passengers hate but still fly), and an interactive game to match the Spirit fee with the service. Very amusing.

WSJ.com is a subscription service, but for those who can access it (Starbucks offers free access), here is the link:

Spirit Fee Game


----------



## jis (May 14, 2012)

They ought to put one together for Ryan Air that should be even more fun


----------

