Spirit Airlines to charge $30-45 for carry-ons?

[kwick]

Assigned seating at no extra charge.

"IT'S ON"

 

[Beaver79]

Possibly the worst idea yet to penny pinch customers.

But.....if the bag fits under your seat, you won't be charged. What a great deal!

Whoooooo are these people????!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36193399/ns/travel-news/

The CEO of Spirit was just on Fox Business defending this decision. He didn't defend his decision well. It kind of amounted to "i'm rubber your glue".... Why not just add 15 bucks to EVERY fare, allow checked bags to go free, and then you won't have people package everything they own in a 22 inch carry-on??!!

 

[climbhappy]

I just the spot on NBC. brian williams did his usual job. I see what the CEO is saying when he compares his airline to walmart and other legacies to Nordstrom.... public perception seems to be pretty negative although the only real effect, since we're only talking about a small number who are travelers on spirit, is that spirit may lose some customers and may not know until monthly or quarterly numbers are done. a quick drop off of sales would have to be evident...he can always reverse the policy ans CEOs have been wrong before

 

[jws717]

This is not that bad. It is just a way to look cheep on travelocity.com and speed turn times. I hate the dam over filled bins. Enforcement of this policy will be interesting.

 

[Whale Rider]

Spirit will be the first to charge pax to use the $hitter. I bet they charge by the pound too. uke:

 

[crashpad]

How is it quality carriers that do right by their pax, like Midwest Express, get flushed without a thought...yet this turd of an airline gets national exposure for comparing themselves to walmart?

"It's On"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Is any Spirit pilot really thinking they have a prayer in hell?

 

[climbhappy]

they'd be the perfect acquisition target for Republic..fits right into their MO. I have friends at spirit, for them i hope it works out.

 

[crashpad]

Mmm...lets see how it the seniority list plays out before we add another can of worms to the mix. I agree it would be a wise acquisition for Republic.

 

[jbrickli]

Well folks, I hardly ever post but I need to drop my two cents worth here. First, if Spirit does this it will be disgrace to not only that airline but also the industry. As it was said before, if they do it another carrier will follow suit.

Who was the first to charge for bags? How long did it take for other carriers to jump on that wagon? What about food? When Spirit did these things a few years ago the general thought was just as I see on this thread, but the things they started are industry standard now.

Please don’t think I am defending Spirit. Nothing could be further from the truth. But, as a corporate driver I can look from the outside in. All the so called legacy carries are nothing more than followers. Name one legacy or large LLC (beside SW) that does not charge for bags. I have to wonder what it is going to take to get the consumer so pissed off that they say we have had enough and we are not taking this any more. When that happens I think we will see the government get involved and impose another stimulus package on us (called airline re-regulation).

 

[johnsonrod]

In the mind of the traveling public, Spirit's name should be changed to $hit stain... Nobody I've talked to about this feels it is fair (regardless of the low fares). I think this entire thing will be a PR disaster... Great job Benny Baldanza.

 

[huncowboy]

In the mind of the traveling public, Spirit's name should be changed to $hit stain... Nobody I've talked to about this feels it is fair (regardless of the low fares). I think this entire thing will be a PR disaster... Great job Benny Baldanza.

Buddy, I am sick of your puke comments. Would you please stop, and think for a second.

Every airline charges for everything! Every damn pound you carry with you, you are being charged for. Even if you do not carry the average weight you still pay! Tell me if that makes sense to you. When you travel light, and you see the guy next to you stuffing everything under the seat and into the bin, and gate checking items, YOU are paying for his stuff because it is averaged out, and built into the base ticket price. There is no free lunch! XY airline saying "We don't charge you for this and that" is a pure lie! They all do. It is calculated into the base ticket weather you are using that service or not. They force you to buy what you may not use. How is that a good thing?

We had the same flame thread when United started charging for checked bags. Everybody was upset. Yet when I talk to people many of them like to travel light and save. Apparently it has worked, and many other airlines took out the price of checking a bag from the ticket, and now offer it as an add on.

During unbundling you rip every extra service out of the core product, to decrease the price of the core product, which is nothing more than getting you from A to B. If they manage to decrease the price of the ticket by a close to equal amount they will win because of the decision tree of price sensitive costumers is as follows:

1. go online
2. buy the cheapest ticket even if it is only $10-20 less.

If this is not your decision tree, than you are not flying ULCC, you are not shopping in Walmart, you are not cutting out coupons all the time, and Spirit is not targeting you. You are probably flying someone else because you are willing to pay for the TV, or you are tall and need the legroom, or you have the money and want to enjoy the "breeze way" boarding, or you don't mind paying for great customer service.

This is some scenarios that can happen to a passenger who is charged for the carry on:

1. You planned to have a checked bag anyhow and now you will fit your stuff into the checked bag, and thus avoid the carry on. Your final price will be less due to the reduced base ticket price.
2. You did not plan to have a checked bag but now it will make sense to make one and not have a carry on. Your final price, after the lower base ticket will be slightly more but you also get more value since now you can have more stuff.
3. You are traveling super light and do not need the carry on bag. You saved money on base ticket.
4. You had the perfect setup with one personal and carry on, and you will be charged for the carry on, however after the lower base ticket price it will be a slight hike. Not $30-45.

In all the above scenarios THEY ALL PAID LESS for the base ticket!

We will see how this works out. I think they will have to lower this eventually. But what I think is genius about this is that folks will have less carry on, and indeed turn times will be lower, thus A/C utilization will be higher allowing for significant cost savings.

 

[UM#1]

I bet nobody else follows Spirit's lead on this stupid idea.....


http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-04-14-carry-on-fees-tax_N.htm

Senators propose new tax for airlines with carry-on fees

By Harry R. Weber, AP Airlines Writer
ATLANTA — Six Democratic senators want to hit U.S. airlines with a tax if they charge passengers for their carry-on bags.
The senators said Wednesday that this would keep more airlines from following Spirit Airlines' lead. The small Florida airline said last week that starting Aug. 1 it will charge its customers as much as $45 to bring a bag aboard its aircraft and put it in an overhead bin.

READ MORE: Spirit Airlines' $45 carry-on fee meets resistance
Air travelers have been forced to pay a barrage of fees for once-free amenities since 2008, for everything from checked bags to pillows to food. That has not stopped them from flying, but critics say charging for carry-on bags is stepping over the line.
The senators —Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Charles Schumer of New York, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey— want a law that would designate carry-on baggage as a necessity for air travelers.
Airlines currently pay a 7.5-cent tax to the federal government for every dollar they collect in fares, but no tax is imposed on fees collected for nonessential services, the senators said. They said the Treasury Department last January ruled that carry-on bags are not essential for air travel.
"As a result, airlines can impose fees on these bags without paying any tax to the federal government on the revenues they collect," the senators said. "This creates a tax incentive for airlines to try to bilk consumers in the form of fees rather than by increasing the fares."
Separately, Cardin and Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said Tuesday they had introduced a bill that would effectively prohibit airlines from charging fees for carry-on luggage and require advanced disclosure of special, often higher fees for specialty checked items. The bill is based on an amendment the two senators proposed last month to the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization bill.
Spirit spokeswoman Misty Pinson said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press on Wednesday that the airline is reaching out to all the senators' offices to clarify information that Spirit believes has been misrepresented in the media.
"We are confident that once they see the complete story that they will agree that this is for the benefit of all customers," Pinson said of the carry-on bag fees.
Other airlines will be watching closely to see if the carry-on bag fee announced by Spirit on April 6 will bring in revenue and not drive away passengers. If so, other airlines could follow suit. None have indicated any plans to do so.
Spirit's new charge for a carry-on for most travelers is $45 if paid at the gate, and $30 if paid in advance.
Add-on fees have been an important source of revenue for airlines since oil prices soared to an all-time high of $147 a barrel in July 2008. Those fees became a mainstay for airlines' bottom lines even after fuel prices plunged.
It's unclear whether the anti-carryon fees legislation will gain traction among Republicans and win support in Congress.
Asked about the issue Wednesday, Shaheen seemed confident.
"I think it's important to take a stand on behalf of consumers," Shaheen said in an interview.

 

[realmanofgenius]

The longer Tiger waited to come forward and face up, the worse it got. Baldanza has lit a bonfire and unless he withdraws, the lost revenue from fighting would or should force the Board to replace him.. IMHO.