I agree that everything shouldn't be as adversarial, but as somebody who's motto for less important/short flights has become "Just throw me in the trash," flying Spirit is fine by me. There's a segment with additional time/flexibility that they appeal to. My concern is when companies go too far in misrepresenting things, especially things that are actually mandatory, and I'm careful because I've come to expect that from most.

Edit: One big issue when flying for me the risk of cancellation and not being reimbursed, but I balance that against the ticket cost. Again, I often have some flexibility around staying in a location longer when necessary, which helps inform the carrier I select.

You want to travel somewhere and pay as little as possible. The airlines want to take you there for as much as possible. It's inherently adversarial.

It used to be the case that everyone bought a bundle that included a bunch of free (not charged at point of use) services. Whether or not you took 3 bags, you paid the same price as someone who did. Whether or not you chose seats all together at time of ticketing, you paid the same as someone who did. With the advent of unbundling (in part driven by online search), consumers could now decide whether taking 3 bags was worth whatever $X the airline proposed to charge. For people who did choose that, they paid more than people who didn't use that service.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41272-022-00388-5 has some more information about the evolution of unbundling.

For me personally, I prefer the unbundled approach; it fits my sense of connecting my costs to my consumption (and probably saves me money in total).

> The point is that we all think it’s bad and that it should change and so we’re pointing it out

No, you think it's bad. I may despise Spirit and Frontier and refuse to fly them, but I also think it's a great thing they exist.

I despise them because the lack of comfort/nickle-and-diming is not worth my time, and I can easily afford to pay more for a better experience. But if I were back being 20 years old and broke, and my body could deal much better with being uncomfortable for a couple hours, I'd love the option to be able to fly on the cheap.

Like the other comment said. There's also a time element. Who wants to take four flights, get stuck in an airport, and possible lost luggage when Spirit has a direct flight.

Precisely. You won’t catch me dead on a Spirit/Frontier flight because I can afford more comfortable/reliable options for the length of flight, but I am not the target demographic. Having cheap options is good in any industry. I fly budget airlines in Europe quite a bit because the $ saved per ounce of discomfort ratio is far higher and am thankful they exist. One’s inability to read the conditions of their fare is not a valid reason to eliminate the option for everyone else.

Since when is it “adversarial” to charge people who consume more of the product (more legroom, extra bags) more money than people who consume less? That’s how all businesses work. Is it adversarial for a restaurant to charge extra if you order a second entree?

Not even close to "all" of us think it's bad. I'm happy to fly spirit on short flights since I don't check bags or upgrade my seat. If the budget airlines didn't exist travelling would be much more expensive for me.