Originally Posted by GetReal

Maybe since management believes we should be compensated less because our upgrade times are so low, we should be trumpeting to the public the fact that our Captains will be the least experienced in the industry?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by GetReal

Maybe since management believes we should be compensated less because our upgrade times are so low, we should be trumpeting to the public the fact that our Captains will be the least experienced in the industry?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by The Juice

It is like saying "Military pilots are less safe because on average they have a fraction of the hours of a career 121 pilot."

Originally Posted by Green Giant

You have to look at our new hires and where they have come from. We have hired lots from Airlines that went out of business such as ASTAR or DHL if you will, Evergreen, World, North American, Comair and so on. Then we get the heavy drivers that come here from Omni, Skylease Cargo and so on. Then we get the pilots that have spent a few years as a Captain for the regional airlines.

I would say that even though our upgrade times are low, our new Captains are some of the most experienced and capable pilots in the industry.

The pilots flying for Spirit are a very talented group of aviators and our compensation should reflect that fact.

Originally Posted by Green Giant

You have to look at our new hires and where they have come from. We have hired lots from Airlines that went out of business such as ASTAR or DHL if you will, Evergreen, World, North American, Comair and so on. Then we get the heavy drivers that come here from Omni, Skylease Cargo and so on. Then we get the pilots that have spent a few years as a Captain for the regional airlines.

I would say that even though our upgrade times are low, our new Captains are some of the most experienced and capable pilots in the industry.

The pilots flying for Spirit are a very talented group of aviators and our compensation should reflect that fact.

Originally Posted by Phteven

What really should count is what passengers are actually paying. I pulled up some numbers from the BTS DB1BMarket data table comparing NK and WN. Here you go:

LAS - FLL, Q1/2015, 10% sample of all purchased tickets (approx. 200-300 tickets per carrier).
Mean fare on NK: $153.89, mean fare on WN: $234.50
Max fare on NK: $583, max fare on WN: $712.15
Distribution of fares is normal and almost identical between both carriers.

These are "itinerary fares" which account for base fares + baggage, big front seat upgrade, etc. Not 100% certain if it includes buy-on-board food and drinks, but even if doesn't it looks like if you pay an average of less than $80 per fight for soda and snacks on NK that you'll come out ahead.

Also figured since this is a longer flight, it would probably show NK closer to WN than typical (i.e. more likely for checked bags and BOB purchases). Comparing LAS - LAX the difference in average fares is much larger.

Originally Posted by RadarColor

Tell us more Mr. Wizard.

"A low-cost, low-fare carrier such as Spirit Airlines Inc. makes its living on passenger fees. That those fees, known as non-ticket revenue, dropped by more than $2 per passenger in the first quarter, compared to a year ago, might suggest a shift in travelers' tolerance for additional charges.

Spirit blames its sagging fee tally on low fares: Travelers seeking out the lowest fares have had plenty of choices, with a raft of bargain flights, some below $50, departing from cities nationwide. Those price-sensitive travelers enticed by the lowest of low prices tend to avoid racking up additional fees"