7 ms·

Have you ever flown spirit or any of the other ultra low cost carriers? It very much is a different experience than flying a legacy domestic mainline carrier.

Have you ever flown spirit or any of the other ultra low cost carriers? It very much is a different experience than flying a legacy domestic mainline carrier. I’m not alone amongst people i know who will happily fly the cheap seats on United/Delta/AA but won’t even look at a ticket from Spirit or Frontier even at a significant discount. Compare it to a flag carrier like Singapore air and it is a shockingly different product. All that’s an aside: we know what regulated airlines look like since we already tried it, much more expensive, with airlines competing not on price but on amenities.

tshaddox 6mo ago
I’ve flown Spirit and Frontier several times, and Southwest many times (I know they’re not quite in the same category, especially after their recent changes). I genuinely don’t know what you’re referring to regarding the experience being wildly different. Other than a few quirks about what they do and don’t charge for and how they board and assign seats, I feel like there’s almost no meaningful difference between these and legacy carriers like United and American. I honestly don’t even feel like the prices are consistently that different.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 6mo ago
  The two main differences are more armchair lawyering required to avoid fees (legacy carrier is often not going to put your bag in the dimension bin, but the Spirits and Frontiers of the world certainly will) and having to sit through three sales pitches instead of one on the legacy airlines. I think Delta is the only legacy carrier in the States that doesn't do obnoxious sales pitches - only the food cart upsell. Ryanair will come through with their hands out minimally three times since last time I rode them (though it's been several years, is it four now?) One other difference I can think of is that carry-ons are more rarely included in the base fare in the budget airlines than the legacy airlines, though maybe that has also gone away since the changes where bags must be included in the listed price that Southwest pushed for.
  - tshaddox 6mo ago
    I haven’t actively surveyed all the airlines, but I happened to notice recently that United charges for carry-ons.
  - thrownthatway 6mo ago
    > having to sit through three sales pitches instead of one I’m not from the US and have never flown any of the airlines being discussed here. I’ve never heard of this, is there some YouTube videos you can point me to.
    - Symbiote 6mo ago
      I can't find videos. The cabin crew stand at the front of the plane, and either play a recording or make an announcement saying you can buy a lottery scratchcard for €2 or whatever, with some of the money going to charity. They then walk down the plane "scratchards? scratchcards?" They repeat this with a collection for charity (no scratchcard), a promoted drink, and some sort of food. I think this is mostly unique to Ryanair (in Europe), I don't remember Wizz Air, Norwegian or EasyJet doing this. Part of Ryanair's marketing is to make the experience worse than it needs to be, so you know you're saving money.
      - thrownthatway 6mo ago
        Haha what! That’s wild.
      - rob74 6mo ago
        Yes, Ryanair is the undisputed leader in finding new creative ways to take advantage of their captive audience and saving a few pennies here and there (e.g. I'm not aware of other low-cost carriers that have advertising on the overhead bins or put the safety instructions on seat-back stickers because it's marginally cheaper than using cards for that). Not to mention only flying from airports in the middle of nowhere to save airport fees. ...while other low-cost carriers try to distinguish themselves by not being quite as bad as Ryanair.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- hn_throwaway_99 6mo ago
  I feel like you're living in a different universe then. I will literally never fly Spirit (well, neither will anyone else) nor Frontier ever, I loath the experiences I've had on them so much. First, as someone with relatively long thighs, I literally don't fit in their sardine can seats. But more relevant to most people, while things may be OK if everything goes perfectly and nothing is delayed or cancelled, you are completely SOL with Spirit/Frontier if something goes wrong (and "something" may just be they themselves decide to cancel an undersold flight at the last minute). It's nearly impossible to get someone to talk to, I feel like the employees know how shitty their companies are so they all have an attitude like they DGAF, and it's a mad (expensive) scramble to find alternative arrangements at the last minute. I've never had as abysmal experiences as I've had on Frontier compared to any other airline.
  - eru 6mo ago
    From a customers' immediate point of view, this sucks for you. But it's great they are not regulated utilities. Because either everyone would have to pay for extra legroom, even if they don't need it, or some freakishly long people would not be able to pay for the extra legroom that they need.
    - twiss 6mo ago
      Why do you think being regulated utilities would preclude having multiple classes of service? Airlines had first class before deregulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_class_(aviation)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_class_(aviation)#History
    - vineyardmike 6mo ago
      Ah yes, because I am also forced to buy the same amount of electricity and water from my regulated utility regardless of need.
    - kelnos 6mo ago
      That's not how regulation works. Or at least not how it has to work. I don't pay a flat fee for my water, electricity, or gas usage, regardless of how much I use. I pay for the gallons, kWh, and therms I actually use. (Yes, there are other fees on those bills, but my usage actually matters.) Airline regulation doesn't have to specify standardized seat pitch, etc.
- dghlsakjg 6mo ago
  Besides the seats, seat pitch, entertainment, cabin classes, upcharges, boarding staff paid commission to reject carryons, advertising everywhere, the unpolished behavior of other clientele, customer service, and how they handle failure, sure it’s practically the same.
  - alistairSH 6mo ago
    Failure is the one that always puts me off... At least with United, there's a good chance they can get a broken plane running again, or swap in a different airframe, within a reasonable number of hours. For example, my last flight to Puerto Rico was delayed by ~5 hours, due to a nose gear problem. They eventually swapped air frames around, giving us one that was scheduled for the late day flight, and got our air frame fixed in time for that later flight. Spirit or another super-low-cost? They don't have the extra air frames and number of flights to do that. You get to wait even longer, losing valuable vacation days (or missing work meetings).
jmspring 6mo ago
You state an opinion, but not why for that opinion. I’m mostly stuck with Alaska or a small handful being a couple hours north of Seattle and driving to/dealing with SeaTac is not fun. In the caliber you said you wouldn’t travel includes aliegent. I’ve not flown them and stick to Alaska and the local puddle jumpers to get off the island.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
fcarraldo 6mo ago
Singapore Air is majority government owned and is closer to having “utility” airlines than not.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 6mo ago
  Conversely, Air India was majority government owned, did a pretty bad job of it, and is now privately owned.
- eru 6mo ago
  Yes, Singapore Airline is government owned, but I don't see how it's a utility?
  - presentation 6mo ago
    If anything it’s a tool for making people outside of Singapore like/want to do business in Singapore, so if that makes it some twisted kind of utility then I guess anything can be a utility. Not like they have domestic flights.
RajT88 6mo ago
My company travel tool won't even let me book Spirit without it being flagged to HR.
dec0dedab0de 6mo ago
I think Spirit has the most comfortable seats out of all the ones you listed. Especially if you're lucky enough to have a row to yourself and get to lie across all three of them.
xmlblog 6mo ago
This. Maybe there's a market opportunity for people who want to be treated like cattle, but even Spirit couldn't find it.
boppo1 6mo ago
>Compare it to a flag carrier like Singapore air and it is a shockingly different product Never flown one of these, can you describe the difference? Hard agree about what you said about the others.
- dghlsakjg 6mo ago
  Staff that are unfailingly polite, comfortable seats in all classes, well maintained interiors, a culture of excellence. It is an airline that competes on being the best experience possible. My FIL used to do a lot of business in Singapore, and exclusively flew them on any route that was possible mostly economy and business class, but a spend that was high five figures per year, in the top tier of whatever their points program was. A staff member who knew what he looked like would meet him at the curb and walk him into a private check in cubicle. Even if you aren't one of their frequent fliers, they just treat you far better than you can expect from EU/NA airlines. US mainline carriers try to get the high end travellers in first class, while also trying to run an ultra low cost carrier with the new "basic" class tickets. They end up doing a mediocre job at both by not hitting the level of service that Asian airlines provide, and not having the low prices that the Ryanair's of the world give you.
  - boppo1 6mo ago
    Thank you for elucidating!
Krasnol 6mo ago
Singapore Airlines is majority-owned by the Singapore government's investment and holding company Temasek Holdings, which holds 55% of voting stock as of 31 March 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines

tshaddox 6mo ago

I’ve flown Spirit and Frontier several times, and Southwest many times (I know they’re not quite in the same category, especially after their recent changes). I genuinely don’t know what you’re referring to regarding the experience being wildly different. Other than a few quirks about what they do and don’t charge for and how they board and assign seats, I feel like there’s almost no meaningful difference between these and legacy carriers like United and American. I honestly don’t even feel like the prices are consistently that different.

SOLAR_FIELDS 6mo ago
The two main differences are more armchair lawyering required to avoid fees (legacy carrier is often not going to put your bag in the dimension bin, but the Spirits and Frontiers of the world certainly will) and having to sit through three sales pitches instead of one on the legacy airlines. I think Delta is the only legacy carrier in the States that doesn't do obnoxious sales pitches - only the food cart upsell. Ryanair will come through with their hands out minimally three times since last time I rode them (though it's been several years, is it four now?) One other difference I can think of is that carry-ons are more rarely included in the base fare in the budget airlines than the legacy airlines, though maybe that has also gone away since the changes where bags must be included in the listed price that Southwest pushed for.
- tshaddox 6mo ago
  I haven’t actively surveyed all the airlines, but I happened to notice recently that United charges for carry-ons.
- thrownthatway 6mo ago
  > having to sit through three sales pitches instead of one I’m not from the US and have never flown any of the airlines being discussed here. I’ve never heard of this, is there some YouTube videos you can point me to.
  - Symbiote 6mo ago
    I can't find videos. The cabin crew stand at the front of the plane, and either play a recording or make an announcement saying you can buy a lottery scratchcard for €2 or whatever, with some of the money going to charity. They then walk down the plane "scratchards? scratchcards?" They repeat this with a collection for charity (no scratchcard), a promoted drink, and some sort of food. I think this is mostly unique to Ryanair (in Europe), I don't remember Wizz Air, Norwegian or EasyJet doing this. Part of Ryanair's marketing is to make the experience worse than it needs to be, so you know you're saving money.
    - thrownthatway 6mo ago
      Haha what! That’s wild.
    - rob74 6mo ago
      Yes, Ryanair is the undisputed leader in finding new creative ways to take advantage of their captive audience and saving a few pennies here and there (e.g. I'm not aware of other low-cost carriers that have advertising on the overhead bins or put the safety instructions on seat-back stickers because it's marginally cheaper than using cards for that). Not to mention only flying from airports in the middle of nowhere to save airport fees. ...while other low-cost carriers try to distinguish themselves by not being quite as bad as Ryanair.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 6mo ago
I feel like you're living in a different universe then. I will literally never fly Spirit (well, neither will anyone else) nor Frontier ever, I loath the experiences I've had on them so much. First, as someone with relatively long thighs, I literally don't fit in their sardine can seats. But more relevant to most people, while things may be OK if everything goes perfectly and nothing is delayed or cancelled, you are completely SOL with Spirit/Frontier if something goes wrong (and "something" may just be they themselves decide to cancel an undersold flight at the last minute). It's nearly impossible to get someone to talk to, I feel like the employees know how shitty their companies are so they all have an attitude like they DGAF, and it's a mad (expensive) scramble to find alternative arrangements at the last minute. I've never had as abysmal experiences as I've had on Frontier compared to any other airline.
- eru 6mo ago
  From a customers' immediate point of view, this sucks for you. But it's great they are not regulated utilities. Because either everyone would have to pay for extra legroom, even if they don't need it, or some freakishly long people would not be able to pay for the extra legroom that they need.
  - twiss 6mo ago
    Why do you think being regulated utilities would preclude having multiple classes of service? Airlines had first class before deregulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_class_(aviation)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_class_(aviation)#History
  - vineyardmike 6mo ago
    Ah yes, because I am also forced to buy the same amount of electricity and water from my regulated utility regardless of need.
  - kelnos 6mo ago
    That's not how regulation works. Or at least not how it has to work. I don't pay a flat fee for my water, electricity, or gas usage, regardless of how much I use. I pay for the gallons, kWh, and therms I actually use. (Yes, there are other fees on those bills, but my usage actually matters.) Airline regulation doesn't have to specify standardized seat pitch, etc.
dghlsakjg 6mo ago
Besides the seats, seat pitch, entertainment, cabin classes, upcharges, boarding staff paid commission to reject carryons, advertising everywhere, the unpolished behavior of other clientele, customer service, and how they handle failure, sure it’s practically the same.
- alistairSH 6mo ago
  Failure is the one that always puts me off... At least with United, there's a good chance they can get a broken plane running again, or swap in a different airframe, within a reasonable number of hours. For example, my last flight to Puerto Rico was delayed by ~5 hours, due to a nose gear problem. They eventually swapped air frames around, giving us one that was scheduled for the late day flight, and got our air frame fixed in time for that later flight. Spirit or another super-low-cost? They don't have the extra air frames and number of flights to do that. You get to wait even longer, losing valuable vacation days (or missing work meetings).

jmspring 6mo ago

You state an opinion, but not why for that opinion. I’m mostly stuck with Alaska or a small handful being a couple hours north of Seattle and driving to/dealing with SeaTac is not fun. In the caliber you said you wouldn’t travel includes aliegent. I’ve not flown them and stick to Alaska and the local puddle jumpers to get off the island.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

fcarraldo 6mo ago

Singapore Air is majority government owned and is closer to having “utility” airlines than not.

SOLAR_FIELDS 6mo ago
Conversely, Air India was majority government owned, did a pretty bad job of it, and is now privately owned.
eru 6mo ago
Yes, Singapore Airline is government owned, but I don't see how it's a utility?
- presentation 6mo ago
  If anything it’s a tool for making people outside of Singapore like/want to do business in Singapore, so if that makes it some twisted kind of utility then I guess anything can be a utility. Not like they have domestic flights.

RajT88 6mo ago

My company travel tool won't even let me book Spirit without it being flagged to HR.

dec0dedab0de 6mo ago

I think Spirit has the most comfortable seats out of all the ones you listed. Especially if you're lucky enough to have a row to yourself and get to lie across all three of them.

xmlblog 6mo ago

This. Maybe there's a market opportunity for people who want to be treated like cattle, but even Spirit couldn't find it.

boppo1 6mo ago

>Compare it to a flag carrier like Singapore air and it is a shockingly different product Never flown one of these, can you describe the difference? Hard agree about what you said about the others.

dghlsakjg 6mo ago
Staff that are unfailingly polite, comfortable seats in all classes, well maintained interiors, a culture of excellence. It is an airline that competes on being the best experience possible. My FIL used to do a lot of business in Singapore, and exclusively flew them on any route that was possible mostly economy and business class, but a spend that was high five figures per year, in the top tier of whatever their points program was. A staff member who knew what he looked like would meet him at the curb and walk him into a private check in cubicle. Even if you aren't one of their frequent fliers, they just treat you far better than you can expect from EU/NA airlines. US mainline carriers try to get the high end travellers in first class, while also trying to run an ultra low cost carrier with the new "basic" class tickets. They end up doing a mediocre job at both by not hitting the level of service that Asian airlines provide, and not having the low prices that the Ryanair's of the world give you.
- boppo1 6mo ago
  Thank you for elucidating!

Krasnol 6mo ago

Singapore Airlines is majority-owned by the Singapore government's investment and holding company Temasek Holdings, which holds 55% of voting stock as of 31 March 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines