# Dying veteran protests Spirit Airlines' no-refund policy



## amtrakwolverine (Apr 25, 2012)

> Jerry 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?lite


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Apr 25, 2012)

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 (Apr 28, 2012)

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 (Apr 29, 2012)

Anderson said:


> 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.


----------



## jis (Apr 29, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > 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.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 29, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> 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 (Apr 29, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.

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 (Apr 30, 2012)

Anderson said:


> 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:
> 
> ...


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 (Apr 30, 2012)

Anderson said:


> "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.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (May 1, 2012)

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.myfoxdetroit.com/dpps/news/veterans-mull-boycott-of-spirit-airlines-dpgonc-km-20120501_19603893


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 2, 2012)

Veterens, or a subset of them, **** 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 (May 2, 2012)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Veterens, or a subset of them, **** 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 (May 3, 2012)

Ryan said:


> 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 (May 3, 2012)

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....


----------



## Ryan (May 3, 2012)

fairviewroad said:


> 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:



john6185 said:


> 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 (May 4, 2012)

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 (May 4, 2012)

Ryan said:


> fairviewroad said:
> 
> 
> > Picking and choosing who to have compassion on is a slippery slope.
> ...


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 (May 4, 2012)

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 (May 4, 2012)

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 (May 4, 2012)

Anderson said:


> 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.


----------



## Anderson (May 4, 2012)

Texas: Then I'm willing to argue that Spirit _should_ have gone out of business. If your business model consists in no small part of "screw people over" (which is my opinion of Spirit's policy...and actually, from what I've read, they either have or had a $100 change/cancellation fee, but that may have been "for a credit"), I would argue that you _should_ go out of business.

One point that I've been trying to get at, though, is this: It seems clear that Spirit manages to profit with lower per-passenger yields than many other airlines, so I'm wondering what is different in the cost structure. I know that the revenue structure is different, but the cost structure seems to be substantially altered in spite of flying more or less the same planes.

Edit: Actually, a somewhat serious question in all of this: What's Spirit's take on canceled flights and the like? I ask in no small part because Ryanair got in a _huge_ amount of hot water during the Icelandic Volcano Incident over stuff in that vein.


----------



## fairviewroad (May 4, 2012)

Ryan said:


> 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.


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 should

be denied. Spirit offers trip insurance for just $14 that covers the cost of cancelling a trip due to medical reasons. This traveler (or whoever booked his ticket

for him) chose not to purchase the insurance. Why should the airline bail him out? He rolled the dice and lost.

Since I've never purchased trip insurance, I roll the dice every time I buy a plane ticket, too. I'm willing to live with the consequences.


----------



## Anderson (May 4, 2012)

You know, I can take a point there: At the very least, it's arguable that Spirit ought to push the travel insurance a bit more (and actually, a bad note goes to Spirit's PR department for not raising this as far as I can tell). In my case, trip insurance has never come up because Amtrak's policies are such that it would be very hard for me to end up out too much on a trip unless things went "perfectly" wrong. There's absolutely no incentive there, and I actually have no experience with a travel situation where I would need such insurance.*

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.

*Yes, I'm well aware that part of this is ignoring some of Amtrak's "better" deals like StupidSeats. There's a reason that I really don't tend to even _look_ at offers like that.


----------



## Trogdor (May 4, 2012)

Anderson said:


> 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.


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.

That is, until the powers-that-be decide to close that loophole and assess equal taxes to all airline fees, not just airfare.


----------



## PRR 60 (May 4, 2012)

Anderson said:


> ...
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



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

Anderson said:


> Texas: Then I'm willing to argue that Spirit _should_ have gone out of business. If your business model consists in no small part of "screw people over" (which is my opinion of Spirit's policy...and actually, from what I've read, they either have or had a $100 change/cancellation fee, but that may have been "for a credit"), I would argue that you _should_ go out of business.


How exactly can they be "screwing people over" if they clearly explain their fee structure and refund policies *before* you purchase?

Here in the US we live in a "buyer beware" market. So long as Spirit is up-front with their fees and policies I put the responsibility for choosing them on the customer.

Anyone with five minutes of focused internet browsing should be able to figure out what Spirit is all about thanks to innumerable articles, reviews, forum posts, blog entries, and their very own website.

If you play fast and loose with your money then that's on you. If you don't like them then I would suggest you avoid using them.

However, openly calling for the sudden unemployment of thousands of working class folks should be saved for really egregious actions on the part of their employer.

Wishing that level of harm just because you don't want to pay a change fee for a mode of transit you've already admitted you never use anyway is a bit much. *Seriously.*



Anderson said:


> Actually, a somewhat serious question in all of this: What's Spirit's take on canceled flights and the like? I ask in no small part because Ryanair got in a _huge_ amount of hot water during the Icelandic Volcano Incident over stuff in that vein.


Ryanair may have run afoul of laws specific to the European Union. Spirit doesn't fly anywhere near the EU and operates under laws which are more lenient in regards to canceled flights.



Anderson said:


> It's arguable that Spirit ought to push the travel insurance a bit more (and actually, a bad note goes to Spirit's PR department for not raising this as far as I can tell).


How do you figure?



Anderson said:


> In my case, trip insurance has never come up because Amtrak's policies are such that it would be very hard for me to end up out too much on a trip unless things went "perfectly" wrong. There's absolutely no incentive there, and I actually have no experience with a travel situation where I would need such insurance.*


This is just a guess, but I don't think Spirit is trying to compete with Amtrak...









Anderson said:


> 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).


I think we've found the problem in your argument. Too much presumption and not enough actual research.


----------



## Anderson (May 4, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


I'll agree that everyone gets a semi-pass here: I'd like to see the advertised price be for "fare, taxes, and minimum fees". On the other hand, I also understand the issue with the taxes being based on the airfare and so forth making a mess of things. And on yet another hand, it would seem that you could just advertise some rolled-together cost (call it "Base Ticket Cost" or something like that) to act as an umberlla for "all of the above".

As to the seat selection charges: As I'd read it, there was a charge for selecting an aisle seat, a window seat, or a middle seat. Going on the assumption that there are generally no other options on their planes (as that would require something larger than 3-3 seating), that certainly gives off the impression that you'll pay one of those fees no matter what.

As to "screwing people over": Considering the pile of fees and charges that tend to get added at a bare minimum (i.e. the "Unintended Consequences" fee, the "9/11 Security Fee" [i think that's a fee, at least]), it strikes me that there's duplicity in the structure. Put another way, if Spirit advertises a $50 fare from A to B but there is no way to actually pay $50 for that flight (or even $50 plus taxes), then I would argue that they are screwing people over. I would also argue that a business model that probably requires a certain number of people to pay for a service and not receive it is inherently duplicitous.

Moving over to the Ryanair/Iceland question: Yes, I know Spirit does not operate in the EU, but it doesn't invalidate the question of how Spirit handles (in so many words) meltdowns on their end. That I actually don't know.

On the issue of hoping for the unemployment of folks: I hate to say it, but I would argue that there has been a much broader wish for unemployment in the drives for efficiencies in much of the industry. If anything, I think you could argue that annihilating Spirit's business model would _increase_ employment in the airline sector by letting fares rise again. In so many words, you might well eliminate "over-efficiency".


----------



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

Anderson said:


> I'd like to see the advertised price be for "fare, taxes, and minimum fees".


That's what I see when I'm on their site. *What are you seeing?*



Anderson said:


> On the other hand, I also understand the issue with the taxes being based on the airfare and so forth making a mess of things. And on yet another hand, it would seem that you could just advertise some rolled-together cost (call it "Base Ticket Cost" or something like that) to act as an umberlla for "all of the above".


Spirit, like all US airlines and airfare aggregate sites, *must* show you everything you need to reach your destination (not including avoidable fees such as baggage and seat selection) rolled into one price. You may not consider baggage to be an avoidable fee, but some of us make business trips for meetings and such without carrying any baggage along. I mean, what's the point of carrying bags if you're only going to be in town for a couple hours for a single business meeting?



Anderson said:


> On the issue of hoping for the unemployment of folks: I hate to say it, but I would argue that there has been a much broader wish for unemployment in the drives for efficiencies in much of the industry. If anything, I think you could argue that annihilating Spirit's business model would _increase_ employment in the airline sector by letting fares rise again. In so many words, you might well eliminate "over-efficiency".


Airfares are rising substantially across the board. In many cases they are now double or even triple what they were even just a few years ago. Numbers of flights and seats (and their corresponding labor needs) are being substantially reduced over time. Rampant consolidation is creating thousands of unnecessary positions that can be dumped on an already saturated job market. So where are you getting this idea that if we blow away Spirit Airlines total employment will rise?


----------



## Trogdor (May 4, 2012)

Anderson said:


> On the issue of hoping for the unemployment of folks: I hate to say it, but I would argue that there has been a much broader wish for unemployment in the drives for efficiencies in much of the industry. If anything, I think you could argue that annihilating Spirit's business model would _increase_ employment in the airline sector by letting fares rise again. In so many words, you might well eliminate "over-efficiency".


That's a very curious interpretation of how economics works.

Airlines (and most companies, for that matter) don't hire people because they can afford to. They hire people because they need to.

If average airfares rise, assuming all else stays equal, the quantity demanded of air travel decreases. This leads to a lower amount of capacity that airlines need to provide to meet traffic requirements. Not sure what scenario has airlines hiring more people to service fewer passengers.


----------



## Anderson (May 4, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > On the issue of hoping for the unemployment of folks: I hate to say it, but I would argue that there has been a much broader wish for unemployment in the drives for efficiencies in much of the industry. If anything, I think you could argue that annihilating Spirit's business model would _increase_ employment in the airline sector by letting fares rise again. In so many words, you might well eliminate "over-efficiency".
> ...


There are elements of both at work. Companies hire people because they need to, but they expand services because they can afford to (and presumably because it gives them an edge over the competition).

And your point on "all else stays equal" omits two important variables:

-The first is that, at present, there are a lot of markets where one or more LCCs are heavily restricting fares. A case in point would be to compare a flight to/from Des Moines to one to/from a similar-sized market with LCC involvement. Yes, this is going to be more extreme than your average market (DSM is one of the worst in the country), but it's an example. In a lot of cases, this has led to unnaturally low fares as the various operations try to run one another into the ground fighting for market share. I think Cornelius Vanderbilt had more than a few frustrated comments about having to do this with the Pennsy.

-The second is that, absent at the very least ULCCs, fares rising won't necessarily run off enough business to offset the higher fares. This wouldn't be an issue, except that more often than not, carriers have tended to use the added revenue to either run extra frequencies throughout the system/expand operations to new markets (which can beget a virtuous cycle of market growth) when they weren't trying to reduce debt.

As to what I'm seeing out there:

This jumps to mind. $19 may be great, and yes there may be those unavoidable taxes as well, but when you've got those other (unavoidable) surcharges thrown in (such as the "unintended consequences" fee)...yeah, there's an issue. I also cannot tell at what point (if any) they start throwing on fuel surcharges...and I've seen some other cases where those have been abused (for example, cruise bookings that quote a fare and then announce a fuel surcharge if the price of oil is over a price somewhere around $75-80).

Also, I can't get through a "dummy booking" without a login, and I'm not giving my email to those guys.


----------



## Trogdor (May 4, 2012)

Anderson said:


> There are elements of both at work. Companies hire people because they need to, but they expand services because they can afford to (and presumably because it gives them an edge over the competition).
> 
> And your point on "all else stays equal" omits two important variables:
> 
> ...


You're omitting one important point: Airlines aren't expanding capacity today, in fact they are reducing capacity, specifically because they want to keep fares high.

When fares are high, people don't fly as much. Think of a typical demand curve. When price is high, quantity demanded is low. When price is low, quantity demanded is high.

What has hurt airlines in the past decade has mainly been rising fuel costs. The result of this is that we are starting to see a reduction in air service because airlines can't raise fares high enough to cover those costs, because doing so does, in fact, drive business away. The markets able to sustain the higher air fares are seeing a reduction in capacity as airlines find it more profitable to fly a smaller plane full at higher fares rather than a large plane mostly empty, or even a larger plane full with low fares. That's why you see 50- and 70-seat regional jets on routes that, 20-30 years ago, saw DC-10s.

The airlines aren't using those higher fares to expand service. They're using them to stay alive. But smaller planes require less staff than larger ones, so that's a net reduction in staff (and, regional jets are also flown by airlines that pay their staff less, but that's outside the scope of this discussion).

The existence of low cost airlines in this country has led to a significant expansion in the number of people flying, because they can now afford to whereas before, they couldn't. Airlines like Southwest and JetBlue (and Spirit) have enabled more people to fly. True, they have taken passengers from other airlines, but there are still plenty of people who won't fly low-cost carriers. If you got rid of Spirit, some of those passengers would head over to other airlines (resulting in a small capacity bump on those carriers), but others would simply not travel at all. With a reduction in passenger traffic, there would necessarily be a capacity reduction. That also means a reduction in employment.

As for your initial example of DSM vs. similar markets with LCCs, what is the total number of flights to DSM vs. that hypothetical "similar" market? In many cases, LCCs entering a market has led to an increase in traffic. Also, your comment about airlines trying to "run one another into the ground fighting for market share" may have applied 10-20 years ago, but is no longer the case. This goes back to my point earlier. Airlines are being a lot smarter with their capacity, realizing that they can't afford to get into a fare war like they used to. That's one of the things that's driving the latest push for industry consolidation. The airlines themselves realize there are too many of them out there, and there's too much capacity, and that's depressing fares and profitability.

Bottom line, I don't see any real argument that says that an airline like Spirit shutting down will lead to a net increase in employment in the airline industry.


----------



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

Anderson said:


> There are elements of both at work. Companies hire people because they need to, but they expand services because they can afford to (and presumably because it gives them an edge over the competition).


I have no idea what some unspecified theoretical "company" in some unexplained market is doing. All I know is that US airlines are busy *consolidating* their resources, *shrinking* their services, and *raising* their fares.



Anderson said:


> Your point on "all else stays equal" omits two important variables:-The first is that, at present, there are a lot of markets where one or more LCCs are heavily restricting fares.


That is no longer any sort of logical distinction. After a decade full of bankruptcies and consolidations there is no domestic carrier operating scheduled flights that does NOT employ the core elements of the "LCC" model at this point.



Anderson said:


> -The second is that, absent at the very least ULCCs, fares rising won't necessarily run off enough business to offset the higher fares. This wouldn't be an issue, except that more often than not, carriers have tended to use the added revenue to either run extra frequencies throughout the system/expand operations to new markets (which can beget a virtuous cycle of market growth) when they weren't trying to reduce debt.


I can't even tell what that is supposed to mean. :blink:



Anderson said:


> As to what I'm seeing out there: This jumps to mind. $19 may be great, and yes there may be those unavoidable taxes as well, but when you've got those other (unavoidable) surcharges thrown in (such as the "unintended consequences" fee)...yeah, there's an issue. I also cannot tell at what point (if any) they start throwing on fuel surcharges...and I've seen some other cases where those have been abused (for example, cruise bookings that quote a fare and then announce a fuel surcharge if the price of oil is over a price somewhere around $75-80).


That's what you're seeing eh? A post from *May 19, 2008 at 11:37 AM*?! :wacko:



Anderson said:


> Also, I can't get through a "dummy booking" without a login, and I'm not giving my email to those guys.


I think that pretty much explains everything right there.


----------



## Texan Eagle (May 4, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Also, I can't get through a "dummy booking" without a login, and I'm not giving my email to those guys.


FYI, you do not need to give your *real* email to them. I just did a dummy booking using a non-existent fake email address, fake name and a non-existent residence address. There is another thread about Spirit going on under this forum, you may go check out my reply there.


----------



## Anderson (May 4, 2012)

Yeah, I see that. Sorry...some sites are finicky about that.


----------



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

Anderson said:


> Yeah, I see that. Sorry...some sites are finicky about that.


I don't think it's the site that's being needlessly finicky.


----------



## Anderson (May 4, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I see that. Sorry...some sites are finicky about that.
> ...


I'm going to take exception to the idea that I would need to log into a site to get a cost for a flight from A to B or for a round trip from A to B and back. Yes, it can be ducked, but I think that barrier _is_ worth taking exception to.


----------



## PRR 60 (May 5, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


Idea! Don't fly Spirit. You have lots of choices other then flying with Spirit. Why all the angst about how Spirit conducts their business when no one is forcing you or anyone else to fly them?

There's a post on Flyertalk from someone who, due to a family issue, had to make a last minute trip from Las Vegas to Chicago. The cheapest last minute flight they could get was $700 round trip. That was until they tried Spirit. Even with fees (and that person opted for choice seating), Spirit came in at $300 round trip. They saved $400. Yes, there were fees, and yes, if there was an irr-ops, they were hosed. But, they saved $400, and the trip was fine.

Walmart is not Nordstrom. Spirit is not United. It is what it is, and it serves a specific travel market. It must be doing something right because they are profitable, and their passenger count keeps climbing. It's not the way I prefer to travel, but I have no problem with how Spirit operates.


----------



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

_Jerry Meekins_

For those who missed it, yet another special exception was made for a certain group of Americans that is already uniquely privileged among the worker classes.

Here's the original response from Spirit that some folks didn't much care for...



> We receive many requests for refunds every day for similar situations. It wouldn't be fair to bend policy for one and not all. We will not make customers who follow the rules pay for those who don't. It's just not fair.


Followed by a full refund along with another $5,000 in charity for veterans...



> In my statements regarding Mr. Meekins' request for a refund, I failed to explain why our policy on refunds makes Spirit Airlines the only affordable choice for so many travelers, and I did not demonstrate the respect or the compassion that I should have, given his medical condition and his service to our country. Therefore I have decided to personally refund Mr. Meekins' airfare, and Spirit Airlines will make a $5,000 contribution, in his name, to the charity of his choice, Wounded Warriors. We have worked hard to build a great company that makes air travel affordable while making our employees proud and customers satisfied. All of us at Spirit Airlines extend our prayers and best wishes to Mr.Meekins.


Link: *Spirit Airlines bows to pressure from veterans groups...*

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



Anderson said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


I think your bogus airline punditry is worth taking exception to.


----------

