PDA

View Full Version : Airline Has No Spirit.



Daquan13
April 8th, 2010, 08:06 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_Airlines


Spirit Airlines will start charging passengers for the use of the overhead bins on their planes!

This new charge applies to passengers who booked after April 6 for future flights.

Spirit claims that the charges are needed to offset the costs of ticket reservations, but analysts are saying that Spirit is charging the extra $45 anyway just because they want to be hard asses, and that they are not being fair to the passengers.

Yet another reason not to fly! :mad:

Ninjahedge
April 8th, 2010, 08:26 AM
No, the thing is, these companies should just charge what they need to to operate the flights.

If every single airline is having problems, why do they all still fight for prices? Why is there still $99 flights to Florida?

I can understand if they are all trying to compete with a mega-corp that is shipping people like cattle and can afford the lower prices, but it just amazes me when I see crowded airports, reports of too much air traffic at airlines (clogging runway and airspace) but yet all the airlines say they do not have enough $$.....

Something is wrong with their buisness model.

Daquan13
April 8th, 2010, 12:12 PM
But the so-called dirt-cheap airfares are not really dirt-cheap if those airlines engaged in all those unfair practices are going to friggen charge passengers for everything under the sun - ranging from pillows & blankets to window & aisle seats, being overweight & having to use two seats and a seat belt extension, to food & drink.

What a crock!!

One int'l airline (Ryan Air) even wants to start charging passengers to use the bathrooms on their flights!

You have to sit still and be quiet, do not read anything, don't make a move and you're even limited as to how many times you can use the bathroom!! They are treating the passengers like little boys & girls!

Where & when will this all end? :mad:

Ninjahedge
April 8th, 2010, 01:12 PM
being overweight & having to use two seats and a seat belt extension

That is not a crock.

If I am paying the same $$ to travel somewhere and have Mr Tons-O-Fun rolling over the seat next to me so I can't even sit strait in my own, I would expect that he would have to make special accomodations, and restitution, for his increased girth.

The only tricky thing is, where do you draw the line? You definitely need two seats when you have to impose on others you are near, but how can you quantify it? Have people sit in chairs and measure them? Have people squeeze through sertain size doors?



As for the other things like blankets and pillows, that is just plain cheap. I think the soda thing may cost the most just because of space and weight, but no more so than tap water.


I think they have the right to charge for anything that IS extra. But within reason. Charge a buck for a soda, charge the same for some chips. Charge XX/lb for any checked in baggage, but allow one standard size carry-on for free! Blankets? How much does that really cost them? Same with pillows.

If they are having $$ problems, they need to up their prices on the front end and do not do the classic health care nickel-and-dime routine ($30 asprin).

Daquan13
April 8th, 2010, 03:02 PM
It IS a crock.

Before 09-11, all that stuff in coach was for free. The only thing that you paid extra for was for beer, alcoholic beverages and to listen to movies through the supplied headsets.

I think not too far from now, they'll start charging the passengers to look out of the windows, stow personal items in the seat pockets and to use the tray tables!

I just think sometimes, that they are getting too far out of hand and they're getting away with too much with all those ridiculous charges, even though they might seem small to you.

Some people (myself included), are on a limited income from the gov't, and we have to try to make ends meet by making sure that we know where every penny is going and keep track of it.

I just don't think that it's fair for the airlines to nickel-&-dime us! And until they relax some of that crap, I just won't fly.

Ninjahedge
April 8th, 2010, 03:28 PM
Daq, I think you just got the point that others will make.

If you are on a limited income, why are you concerned about flying around? That was, and still is, a luxury that we have come to expect as somehow being a given rather than something that is earned, saved for, and somehow special.

Like many things in our lives, we seem to expect it rather than truly appreciate it.

I still remember when it was a big deal to have a used 12" B+W TV in the room I shared with my brother (complete with coathanger arial!) when today's kids are walking around with iPods and portable computers.

Does that mean I WANT everything to go back to the way it was? Hell no, but at the same time I don't think many truly realize how good we all have it, even in comparison to ourselves just a generation ago.

ZippyTheChimp
April 8th, 2010, 03:35 PM
http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Fat-Guy-on-Airplane.jpg

Daquan13
April 8th, 2010, 03:53 PM
Looks like that guy is sitting on the armrest of that seat!

Ninjahedge;

I used to work for United Airlines and I used to fly on standby (non-rev). This was back in the '90s when flying standby was a pleasure. I still paid for a ticket then at times.

But eventually, even THAT became a nightmare as well because I once got stuck in Las Vegas for 8 hours and stuck in San Francisco for another 7 hours. The next year that I went there, I happly PAID for a ticket over flying standby.

Flying still beats the bus, but until and unless some of that nonsense goes away, I won't fly. I have no problem at all paying for a plane ticket if I need to be at a place quickly.

But come on now, something's gotta give! I don't care about PAYING for a ticket. I'm just not going to be croaked for extras on the planes that used to be for free in coah. I won't do it!!

Daquan13
April 15th, 2010, 06:27 AM
The Federal Gov't is now happily stepping in and is getting involved in this latest unfair practice, saying that it will heavily tax airlines that plan to charge passengers for their carry-on bags being stowed in the overhead bins.

"This type of practice is very unfair to travelers and it will not be tolerated. The carry-on feature is a right and convenience to the traveler and it shouldn't have to be abused by carriers who want to charge the passengers for something that is a nessecity and is a safety feature that's mandated by the FAA. They've gone too far!" one official said.

So this ridiculous charge that Spirit plans to put in place by this coming summer just might go away.

Ninjahedge
April 15th, 2010, 10:05 AM
I think the government should stay out of this.

They have enough problems to deal with, making sure we are charged "fairly" for something that is, to 95% of the people even in the US, a LUXURY, is a waste of time and money.

It is only a cheap attempt at getting approval ratings from their constituenct by beating on a generally unpopular idea that will have little, if any, ramifications to their political monitary support.

ForestHillsGardens
April 16th, 2010, 02:00 AM
Well, it is ridiculous that they are charging customers with carry-on bags, I am happy Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is blocking it from becoming true.

Daquan13
April 16th, 2010, 06:56 AM
Ninja;

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be condoning this new charge for the use of the overhead bin.

Nothing against you at all, but if you don't mind the idea of having to fork up an extra $45 or $50 charge for using the overhead bin, then more power to you.

Honestly, I don't think that any airline should be allowed to get away with imposing this ridiculous charge.

Have you ever thought that the gov't is intervening because the use of the bins are FAA-regulated and that it IS for the safety and welfare of the passengers that carry-on bags be properly stowed in closed and latched bins, not only during taxi takeoff and landing, but just in case of unexpected turbulences in flight? It HAS happened.

No one should ever have to be forced to pay any extra money for stowing their carry-on bags in the overhead bin. The buck stops here! Airlines are simply getting away with too much these days.

Ninjahedge
April 16th, 2010, 08:32 AM
Ninja;

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be condoning this new charge for the use of the overhead bin.

Condoning means I approve of the business practice, which I do not.

But I do not need the government to be my mother. If I do not LIKE the practice, I do not USE the company providing the service. This is not something I need on a daily basis, and somehow thinking that I am entitled to legal protection from a stated charge is ridiculous.

It is like saying that somehow Plasma/LCD TV's should be price controlled to limit profit (because it is my right to watch TV) or, as Teno would probably agree with, Apple was legally prevented from charging whatever it wanted for its non life essential products! ;)


Nothing against you at all, but if you don't mind the idea of having to fork up an extra $45 or $50 charge for using the overhead bin, then more power to you.

Where did I say I did not mind?


Honestly, I don't think that any airline should be allowed to get away with this ridiculous charge.

They should be allowed to charge for whatever service they provide that is more than moving your tuckus from here to there. Does that mean you have to LIKE it or USE it? No. But we demand that services be cheaper and cheaper, and they make them cheaper, but then do not make enough profit to stay in business. So they ala-carte everything.

Would you rather pay more on every flight you take? Would you like it if nothing was charged extra and someone else drinking more, eating more, and taking more luggage would be shared on your ticket price?

Again, I am not condoning this. I am just saying the government should stop focusing on this and let US handle it by simply NOT choosing that airline to fly on.

ANY politician jumping on this is like getting on the bandwagon against puppy killing. (not that that is not legal...). Chances are, you will get nobody disagreeing with you on the matter and it will increase your voting popularity ("Crime is WRONG!!!!"), but does not really serve the public at large.


Have you ever thought that the gov't is intervening because the use of the bins are FAA-regulated and that it IS for the safety and welfare of the passengers that carry-on bags be properly stowed in closed and latched bins, not only during taxi takeoff and landing, but just in case of unexpected turbulences in flight? It HAS happened.

That has nothing to do with charging for carrying bags on. The FAA says nothing about that.


No one should ever have to be forced to pay any extra money for stowing their carry-on bags in the overhead bin. The buck stops here! Airlines are simply getting away with too much these days.

Why should they be forced not to charge? In a consumer market for a non-essential service, the answer is simple.

DON'T FLY.

Daquan13
April 16th, 2010, 10:41 AM
So you DO, in some way, AGREE with the airlines doing whatever the hell they want to do.

Well then, any airline that decides to take up this horrible practice will eventually get their just deserts; They WILL start to LOSE some of their loyal customers and they in turn, will start to seek other airlines that aren't charging for that. Which means that they will start to lose money! And in THIS day & age, they can't afford to lose customers because they are still trying to rebound from the affects of the 09-11 terror attacks.

Laptops when closed, can fit into the seat pocket in front of you, but I'll be dammned if I'm going to put it into a checked suitcase, especially now since the gov't forces you to keep your checked in bags unlocked!! And I WILL seek an airline that dosen't charge for the use of the overhead bin.

I don't mind flying and paying for the plane ticket. I'm just NOT paying for the use of the overhead bin. I go elsewhere.

Ninjahedge
April 16th, 2010, 11:16 AM
No, I don't. Daq, you are playing sides here.

There is a difference between declaring when you buy the ticket that you need to pay extra for X Y and Z, and giving you a bunch of free soda on a trans-atlantic and charging you $20 for the bathroom.

The choice is still ours, and I do not believe it is in the province of the GOVERNMENT to tell them what to do. It is OUR responsibility to tell them, by feedback AND by simply not using them in favor of a compeditor, that we do not approve.

As for the Laptop, you are getting off topic again. I am not disagreeing with you on the concepts there, all I am saying is that that does NOT fit into consumer protection, safety, or any other regulation that the US government should have a say in.


I don't mind flying and paying for the plane ticket. I'm just NOT paying for the use of the overhead bin. I go elsewhere.

And that is exactly what I am saying.


BTW, would you still fly them if the cost of ticket PLUS overhead compartment was less than any other ticket? How much less would make you fly a plane where you did not like the policy? 10%?

Many people say they will not use something, that they do not approve of this and that, but then when they are presented with a $99 ticket to LA (with a $20 overhead luggage charge) as opposed to $200 for another airline, guess what they choose?

Completely off topic, why do you think Wal Mart does so well with its shoddy products, poor worker policies, and aggressive buisness models? Many do not LIKE what they are doing, but $2 TUBE SOCKS??!? /Colbert.

Daquan13
April 16th, 2010, 11:37 AM
Let's just cut through the jibber jabber;

I already don't like flying now - not because I'm afraid to. I've flown 1979 to '04. it's all those ridiculous charges that the carriers impose on people. This latest thing is just another stab in the back. Next thing they'll want to start charging for is just to walk down the aisle to your assigned seat, for water and coffee! Well, they probably already charge for bottled water, but they might had tap water to the list!

The airlines have absolutely no buusiness at all charging for the use of the overhead bin. Plain & simple. Cut & dry.

If you think that it is off topic, then my mention Walmart? But since you did, yeah, they've come under tremendous fire because of the way that the co treats its employees - working them to death and won't give them pay increases and cutting their benefits.

Same thing happened with me and others at United Airlines. Made us wait 5 years to reach top pay, then it wasn't even 6 months later when they started cutting our pay and revoking half of our benefits, and then they outsourced the dept, laying us all off.

Five thousand employees were affected nationwide. I had only 3 weeks left to go before I could officially retire from there, but I friggen couldn't because of the layoff date!

Ninjahedge
April 16th, 2010, 11:48 AM
There is no jibber jabber.

They may not have any BUISNESS doing that, but they should not be forbidden by law.

The government has enough to worry about. Period.

Daquan13
April 16th, 2010, 04:57 PM
But if they are allowed to do this, then other airlines will follow.

Monkey see, monkey do.

That is why I'm hoping that the gov't can stop this and nip it in the bud.

Ninjahedge
April 17th, 2010, 10:10 AM
No.

The government should not over-regulate.

That is the problem we have, we focus too much on administrative BS and not on the meat of the issue. It does not matter if they charge for just about anything so long as it is both known and not a form of entrapment like my bathroom example.

Sometimes it is up to people and consumer groups to do the dirty work in these cases, not the US government.

lofter1
April 17th, 2010, 11:17 AM
If a traveler doesn't like Spirit's policy then they can use another airline. Unless Spirit has exclusive landing rights then leave it to the market place.

Daquan13
April 17th, 2010, 02:33 PM
Lofter1, that is correct. I will NOT fly on Spirit if this goes though. Truth be told, I never flew them anyway, but if this is allowed, then I definitely won't

Ninjahedge, we can talk about this until we are blue in the face, and I don't mean any harm, but if the gov't decides to step in and moderate these unfair practices that Spirit and other airlines might want to impose on people, then there is very little or nothing that one can do to stop them.

Myself, frankly, I'm glad that finally, a handle is being put on this because I feel that things with the airlines have gone way too far. And if it starts with one airline, then you can almost bet that this disease will hit other carriers as well.

Ninjahedge
April 19th, 2010, 08:27 AM
but if the gov't decides to step in and moderate these unfair practices that Spirit and other airlines might want to impose on people, then there is very little or nothing that one can do to stop them.

??!?!?

Is this our government we are talking about?

Am I supposed to just be quiet and let them do what they think is "right"? Daq, you are starting to sound a bit strange there man. Aren't you one to complain about other government policies that you do not agree with?

So because you agree with this particular one, it is OK for the government to regulate something that does not hurt or entrap us in any way?

Daquan13
April 19th, 2010, 10:09 AM
Yes there ARE some things that the gov't does that I don't approve of.

But should I decide to fly somewhere again like maybe to Las Vegas for example, it WOULD hurt or entrap me, especially if more or the airlines adopted this bullcrap policy.

And BTW, 4 of the carriers are NOT going to impose that charge. United, American, Delta, USAirways & Jet Blue said that they wouldn't charge passengers for the use of the overhead bin. That's comforting news!

Seems to me like they probably care about keeping their loyal customers.

lofter1
April 19th, 2010, 12:33 PM
Spirit has an entirely different business model than those other airlines -- it's all about low budget / no frills (http://www.spiritair.com/Default.aspx). Most of their flights are priced significantly cheaper (http://www.wisebread.com/9-fares-at-spirit-airlines-but-is-it-a-bargain) than comparable flights on competing airlines. The added cost for luggage simply brings them up to the pricing of the competition.

Ninjahedge
April 19th, 2010, 01:30 PM
Yes there ARE some things that the gov't does that I don't approve of.

Yep, that is what I said.


Should I decide to fly somewhere again like maybe Las Vegas, it WOULD hurt or entrap me, especially if more or the airlines adopted this bullcrap policy.

No, it wouldn't.

1. Other airlines do not do this... yet. You are adding an "if" statement that does not exist to your argument. "If" they beat you to a pulp at departure it would also be something that would not be liked, but they do not do that either.

2. You have the choice NOT to fly. Very few people are forced to fly somewhere for something. People seem to think that so many luxuries are somehow rights.

3. As Lofter has pointed out, Spirit is bare-bones. They are very cheap. If you want to jump on a flight and buzz across the country to see your XXX with nothing more than the shirt on your back, they are the ones to choose.

but as soon as you want to start bringing bags, their prices start to match others. If other airlines did this, but kept their higher prices in the first place, they would never compete with Spirit.


And BTW, 4 of the carriers are NOT going to impose that charge. United, American, Delta and either USAirways or Continental said that they wouldn't charge passengers for the use of the overhead bin. That's comforting news!

I take, at most, 2 flights a year. I have not taken a flight in 2 years now. If they were to charge double the amount for a carry-on as no carry-on it would set me back less than $100 a year.

Small potatoes. Sometimes people get too carried away on the small stuff (I am guilty as charged) and lose sight of what is really important.


Seems to me like they probably care about keeping their loyal customers.

Yes, and keeping their higher prices. If they knocked their flight prices down $40 and charged $40 for carry-on, do you think their sales would suffer? Not NOW of course. You do not do something like this when someone else is getting heat for it, but just like many other things, you wait until the heat dies down, then you make one more thing a pay-to-play item when people are no longer paying attention.

An example? Gas prices. People freaked out when they hit $4 a gallon when oil prices topped $140 a barrel (or was it higher), but yet when prices went BACK to $40 a barrel, people did not notice that although gas stations raised their prices as soon as the NEWS of oil prices rose, they took their time lowering it to prices that were SUBSTANTIALLY higher than they were the last time oil was at $40 a barrel.

Why? They got heat for the $4/gallon and people have short memories. Once regular went back to $2.25, people stopped squawking and forgot that it started at $1.75! Same thing here. The big boys will not even think of trying this until Spirit has suffered the most char. We will see what happens in the next year.


Do not get me wrong, I do not like this pricing model either, but my base stance is still, KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT.

Daquan13
April 19th, 2010, 02:56 PM
But don't you realise that the gov't might be doing this because just about everything under the sun is being charge to those who fly in coach (economy) and nothing is complimentary there any more? Oh, of course, if one wants to fly in first class or business class, everything there is on the house.

It started with the meals which were changed to BOB (by on board). I've gotten a sandwich or a sub in the terminal and have taken it on the plane with me to eat later when the meals were served. The sodas were free back then.

As I said before, about the only things left that are still no-charge is to use the bathrooms, look out the windows and to use the tray tables.

Spirit just wants to price gouge. They should offer some kind of insentive to the passengers so that they won't feel like they are being croaked for money just to use the overhead bin. They'll probably even start charging for use of the HVAC system or for use of the lights or the window shades. There is nothing else left!

This is why I say that I'm so glad that SOMEONE is finally taking a stand and is standing up to the airlines getting away with imposing all those ridiculous charges.

And BTW, that $45 is just for one way. You still have to pay another $45 coming back, totalling $90!!

If Spirit is allowed to get away with this, then it could spread like a cancer to the other airlines, and that is what the gov't is hopefully trying to avoid.

shinyredapple
May 10th, 2010, 06:57 PM
I really think airlines are getting ridiculous with all of these fees. They need to realize that we are not stupid and find a different way to make money.

lofter1
May 10th, 2010, 09:18 PM
They should just charge more for everyone's actual ticket :confused:

Ninjahedge
May 11th, 2010, 07:47 AM
We all know that people are willing to pay more for a flat fee than going w/o an airplane sandwich and salted nuts......

Daquan13
May 11th, 2010, 10:14 AM
Spirit will NOT be one of the ones that I'd fly with.

Ninjahedge
May 11th, 2010, 01:06 PM
Then pay more at the bottom line with the others.

Many people say they will not go somewhere cheaper because they disagree with the companies policies, but then you see them sneaking in for some Tube Socks at Wal-Mart because they just could not pass up the "savings".

ramvid01
May 11th, 2010, 09:24 PM
I flew Spirit once, LGA-Ft Lauderdale-Hollywood.

To say their service was crappy is an understatement of the century.

Daquan13
May 12th, 2010, 02:08 AM
Ninja, it is MY choice which airline that I'd like to fly on.

You know, freedom of choice? That's why there is more than one.

I don't have to fly Spirit if I don't want to!

Ninjahedge
May 12th, 2010, 08:32 AM
I never said it wasn't. Get off your high horse Daq.

You don't have to FLY AT ALL. Please show me where I said you cannot choose? Please, quote me. Show me where I told you to fly on something else.

My point was not to force ANYTHING on you, because you get defensive and combative, but just to point out that for all the outrage the people are expressing, that quickly subsides when Spirit offers a trip to, say, LA for $99 when the competition is at $149.

YOU may feel that your carry on luggage is entitled to a "free" space, but when you have to pay $50 more for it to be "free", many will find new ways to stick things under the seat in front of them.

Daquan13
May 12th, 2010, 10:09 AM
I never once accused you.

You said "pay at the bottom line with the others.

I was just letting you know that myself, as well as everyone else, has a choice.

You're right, I do not have to fly at all if I so choose not to.

I'm not about drama, yet you've disputed me with YOUR opinions practically throughout this whole thread.
You have a right to your own opinions, yes, but you shouldn't knock me or others because of ours.

My thoughts and views here do not reflect on how others think or should think at all. The opinions and views expressed here by me are soley on MY take of Spirit, not yours or anyone else's. I go according to my own instincts and perspectives.

ZippyTheChimp
May 12th, 2010, 11:02 AM
^
The drama isn't about your opinion, but that they're in conflict. That's what NH is talking about.

You have a right to do this:

Ninja, it is MY choice which airline that I'd like to fly on.

You know, freedom of choice? That's why there is more than one.

I don't have to fly Spirit if I don't want to!

So why the need for this?

That is why I'm hoping that the gov't can stop this and nip it in the bud.

Airline fees are deregulated. Airline flight operations are regulated, and that's where govt should be; although sometimes they're AWOL.

Ninjahedge
May 12th, 2010, 11:14 AM
Thanks Zip.

Key here is that I do not like the policy myself, but crying foul is about it. The government should not be in control of independent non monopolistic, non colluded pricing plans. They can charge whatever they want for whatever service they want so long as they are not being discriminatory or working with others to price fix.

The other point is simple. Many people say that they hate this, but still go for the cheapest they can find. I hate the nickel and dime-ing myself, but if I add up all the $$s and find that I get the same service for less, once the final #s are tallied, I will go for the cheaper option (for the same service).

Back to the LA example: $99+$20 for luggage would still be less than $149. People would not LIKE being charged extra, especially if it becomes a standard, but extra is all relative. Airline travel is still dirt cheap compared to days long gone....

It is quite amazing really...

Daquan13
May 13th, 2010, 09:52 AM
Good.

Then you both can figure it out by yourselves. I'm done.

Every time I say something, it is always frocked with being heavily disputed.

Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but let others express their as well and respect it. Even if you don't like it. :(

ZippyTheChimp
May 13th, 2010, 10:53 AM
^ You need to stop whining every time someone disagrees with you.

Bob
May 13th, 2010, 11:24 AM
The nickel and dime stuff does nothing but irritate customers. I fly SWA whenever I can, because it doesn't charge for bags and it doesn't charge for inflight snacks and soft drinks. And yes, I realize I pay a few bucks more for the flight, but these small things make travel by air less of a hassle, and for that, I think it's worth it.

Daquan13
May 13th, 2010, 11:44 AM
I'm with you, Bob! You're absolutely right.

I'm not whining, Zippy.

Disagree if you must. Just don't shoot me down.

As I said, everyone has a right to their own opinions. But I shouldn't be told that I'm wrong in my beliefs.

ZippyTheChimp
May 13th, 2010, 11:52 AM
^
Explain to me how I shot you down. I made one post in this thread directed at you.

Daquan13
May 13th, 2010, 12:07 PM
My opinions are just like others here, speculation. Everyone, or at least some, had voiced how they feel about Spirit wanting to charge for carry-ons.

But when I say what I think should, or in this case shouldn't happen, it seems that you & Ninja are saying that I'm wrong in my beliefs here.

I'm not attacking anyone here personally, but those are MY opinions about Spirit. The reason why I say that I'm always being shot down. Everyone can voice theirs, but when it's me, either I'm accused of being wrong, or I'm given the feeling that I'm told that I don't know what I'm talking about.

But the bottom line is that Spirit should not be allowed to put this carry-on charge into effect. That just my take on it.

lofter1
May 13th, 2010, 12:13 PM
When one side in a debate challenges the position of the opposition then it is not an attack. It might be an argument, but that is the nature of give and take. It would be hoped that such interaction is enjoyable and edifying.

When one side (any side) is so set on a specific position that no amount of discussion will even penetrate or allow for consideration then any hope for a meeting of the minds is lost.

Daquan13
May 13th, 2010, 12:15 PM
You're right!

Ninjahedge
May 13th, 2010, 01:14 PM
(After Zip.... ;) )

Better yet, don't.

Daq, you are personalizing every post you make as if anyone differing in opinion is somehow questioning YOU and your own person.

If you are so insecure that someone saying that other people will not feel as bad as you about the itemization of airline charges, or that the government should NOT regulate private industry so much that it dictates how and what to charge for then I suggest you take a step back and realize it is a BULLETIN BOARD and that nobody ever called YOU out.

So now I am calling you out. :p

Lesson? Do not say everyone is picking on you when they aren't, or they will end up picking on you.

Daquan13
May 14th, 2010, 04:25 AM
Forget it!

All you want to do is look for a damn excuse to argue!

Why can't you just let this go?

I said what I had to say on it already.

I'm not going to keep on repeating it.

As I've also said before, you've continuously argued with me practically throughout this whole thread and the one about the car bomb in New York City. That makes 2. I'm sick of going through this with you.

Don't be calling ME out! Deal with it.

In fact, I'm ignoring you. Goodbye.

ZippyTheChimp
May 14th, 2010, 08:07 AM
I'm not going to keep on repeating it.And yet...


Don't be calling ME out! Deal with it.Moderator speaking here: Your opinion is not, as you have put it in a previous post, "the bottom line." And "dealing with it" doesn't mean shutting up and not challenging you.

Debates are common here. This thread was a debate about the thread title until your post #35 made it personal.

If you need further clarification, send me a PM. If the two of you want to continue a personal argument, do it via PM.

Posts not relating to the thread subject will be deleted.

Ninjahedge
May 14th, 2010, 09:01 AM
>recomposing<

Clipped from an original post that I went OT on..... ;)

I think maybe the only way to try and mitigate this situation is to require full disclosure of prices in advertisement.

You SAY $99, you better be able to get on the plane for $99. Not including things like taxes and other fees is preposterous, and any "ala catre" items should also be readily available on the advertisments. (They should call out the baggage fees so you are not stuck at the airport with a bag that was once fine for under-the-seat and is now considered too large and needs to be paid for in the overheads).

This should be followed in many areas (do not get me started on NYC parking!!). You get what you pay for, but it would be nice to know what you are paying before you get there, or before you even ORDER the ticket (get to the "checkout" button online).