Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let's Buy Spirit Air

letsbuyspiritair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 628 posts

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#251

Post by eru »

fcarraldo wrote: post #191
dghlsakjg wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Yes, Singapore Airline is government owned, but I don't see how it's a utility?

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#252

Post by eru »

rogerrogerr wrote: post #161
devilbunny wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, first class today is not very much more than coach cost in the regulated era. Try flying Delta. It isn’t the cheapest option, but you really do get better service. If you want to feel special, do Aeromexico first class. The checked bags are waiting for you before you can even walk there on a domestic flight. Spirit was cheap. And if you’re poor, you need cheap. If you aren’t, buy better service and don’t c…

Am I the only one who really doesn't care what kind of service I get on a plane? I don't drink alcohol, so I don't care about that. I bring my own water bottle, so I'm good on that. The little bags of pretzels are nice, but if they stood at the front and launched them out of a t-shirt cannon, I'd be good with that. As long as the required crew of flight attendants doesn't assault me, I've never really got off a plane…

It's good that you don't care, and that you can self selected into getting the cheapest fare possible. The market works.

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#253

Post by eru »

throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #172
jmalicki wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you educate the rest of us by explaining your reasoning?

Breaking down complex topics into binary black and white doesnt have to be wrong. The more important part is, how much wealth they extracted and how exactly. Was it market dominance with a superior product or amoral cost externalization. The angle of treating transportation as regulated utility shifts the business focus away from profit onto providing services, which sometimes can cost more than your income. Similarl…

> Similarly, would you close schools, because they didnt make enough money?

Yes, of course. We should separate school and state.

> Airlines are highly subsidized anyway, treating them as regulated utilities falls short of taking public ownership as public institutions, where services just cost money/subsidies.

How are they highly subsidized? And where? Perhaps we should fix that, instead of adding to the problem? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#254

Post by kqr2 »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #4
anonymouscaller wrote: post #2

Seems like an interesting idea. Wish I could get some more information on who is behind this website for credibility purposes

Looks like an AI-generated site that says it's not for investment purposes but basically makes the case for investment... I'd run from this.

SEC should investigate this.

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#255

Post by danaw »

corvad wrote: post #8
amazingamazing wrote: post #7

> The only thing missing is ownership that answers to the people — not to shareholders. Noble, but this will fail. Why would anyone do this? No incentive. These sorts of initiatives forget the toil of actually operating a business. You might as well get more pledges given that you'd have more control and the same profit share. It will regress to the same as the status quo.

I'm not sure that's even noble as by buying you would be a shareholder...

co-op: one member, one vote. members elect leadership with standard term limits. emphasis on services, price and patron returns. dividend according to use not capital investment. members have direct engagement in financials. public companies: votes scale with shares. large institutional investors and other large share holders have most say in leadership. emphasis on "shareholder value" (eg extractive value). dividends according to shares. shareholders have only limited visibility into finances. they're very different, concluding otherwise is misguided

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#256

Post by SmellTheGlove »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #233
tshaddox wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

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…

Yup, came here to say this. Once you're on the plane and its in the air, Spirit and Frontier are like pretty much every other domestic airline. There's slight variation in terms of whether you get a whole can of coke for free or not. If you're taller than me, the 28" of seat pitch vs say 31" on delta may make a difference, but I'm only 5'9".

I still avoided them like the plague because the legacy carriers are selling you operational performance and the ability to usually get you where you're going within a reasonable timeframe if you're delayed or canceled. Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant, whoever else, do not do nearly as good a job when something goes wrong. Although they should get a lot of credit - none of them have ever had a fatal crash.

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#257

Post by danaw »

antoniojtorres wrote: post #22

Random side note. Why do many of these (presumably) LLM stamped out sites have the same aesthetic where they all need a pulsating indicator at the top as if to indicate some sort of urgency aesthetic?

assuming it's an llm site, the implication here is some action needs to be taken before private equity buys it for scraps (inferred from the homepage copy)

whether it's an llm, a template or bespoke made from bytecode doesn't really matter does it?

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#258

Post by danaw »

hellojimbo wrote: post #216

why not just start your own airline instead of buying one that is dysfunctional and losing money

because airplanes, routes, employees, pilots etc arent exactly easy to come by without a whole lot more time and capital expenditure

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#259

Post by danaw »

johnnyApplePRNG wrote: post #136

This REEKS of /r/wallstreetbets manipulation... I vote to remove it entirely. Nobody is buying spirit air... a bunch of gamblers just want to pump the price monday morning.

devils advocate with no skin in the game: they're not taking any money, just "pledges". if it were a scam why not take a "pledge fee" of some kind?

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#260

Post by eru »

sailfast wrote: post #211
card_zero wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. "We want to have this, but we don't want to pay for it!" 2. "We won't pay for this, but we still want to have it!" These are of course both fair points. Why should we "pay for" things, what's that all about? We should just naturally have the natural things that we naturally want, supplied by pixies.

I think they're both actually "We want to have this, but we don't want to pay too much for it just so a CEO can make 10,000x their workers and potentially ALSO still lose money."

How much of the money goes to CEO vs shareholders is something they can work out between themselves.

If the airline goes bankrupt, that just means that the creditors get less than they otherwise expected. That's something to haggle out between creditors and management and shareholders.

(Or do you want to imply that if the shareholders saved money on CEO compensation, they would give the money to ordinary workers?)

Post reply on HN