Post New

How did that one work out for Mitt?

"but but but bankruptcy can be a good thing....but but but free market"

LOL ---Obama kicked Mitt's ass --- and Republicans lost to Barack Hussein Obama a 2nd time. Too bad for Al Qaeda (you know, the people NeoCons stopped killing after they got their Iraq War, but the people Obama was ruthless and skillful with....not playing basketball with them in the White House )

Anyhow, America still has a thriving auto industry. And us who like to shout "America First" are glad the jobs, health benefits, livelihoods of "good decent Americans" are intact --not to mention all the supporting industries and jobs.

Ok. well it's not as noble as bailing out UAE, or bailing or Argentina, or taking airplanes from Arabs as a gift. Maybe it's not as noble as as giving Israel COMPENSATION FOR LOST TOURISM during the first Gulf War....

But Spirit Airlines is gone.

And others "in "free market" will pick up the pieces.

I'm not here to carry water for ANY domestic airlines. Americans --are cattle. Don't know quality. or hospitality if it bit them in the ass. American's can't give it, and sure as hell dont demand it and airlines skillfully know---how to cater to cattle. So I'm not defending the airlines.

BUT, many "red staters", many "low income folks" ---use airlines like Spirit. They service airports and locales that maybe the major airlines dont.

So this means - less service for those markets OR---other airlines getting leverage and jacking fares up more.

This will hurt lower income Democrats in Trenton and Detroit just as it'll hurt lower income Americans in Florida or Oklahoma.

Too bad.

Could've been different.

I looked at Spirit a few times. Of you travel with only one under-seat bag, it often is cheaper. If you travel with any more, they will nickel and fine you to death, and you'll often pay more than one of the majors.

So I never used Spirit, and never would have.

Just one data point. But many people would do the same analysis and draw the same conclusion.

That's why they went under, IMO.

If you travel with any more, they will nickel and fine you to death, and you'll often pay more than one of the majors.

And they still could not cover their costs.

Steve

I looked at Spirit a few times. Of you travel with only one under-seat bag, it often is cheaper. If you travel with any more, they will nickel and fine you to death, and you'll often pay more than one of the majors.

So I never used Spirit, and never would have.

I flew Spirit from time to time. Not because of price, but because it was sometimes the best choice for scheduling. With kids in school and other commitments, for us the prime criterion for picking a flight was often the time of departure - late enough that the kids could have at least a partial day at school, but not not landing late at night.

The travel experience was....fine. Spirit's MO was not necessarily that they were offering a terrible airline, but that they were offering an a la carte airline instead of pre fixe airline. If you topped off to get the stuff that was included in a 'normal' airline ticket, it wouldn't be any cheaper - but it wouldn't necessarily be all that much worse than being in the bowels of basic economy on another carrier. If that's what we had to do to get that 3:45 departure time on a Friday, we were all for it.

If you travel with any more, they will nickel and fine you to death, and you'll often pay more than one of the majors.

…

That's why they went under, IMO.

Consumers are smart enough to learn and understand the rules of the game. If an airline is going to charge for every little add-on, they’re going to attract people who are willing to go without those add-ons.

But if the airline counts too much on those fees for profitability, they’re going to get in trouble. Those fees are not the way to profitability, they tell consumers “don’t do that”. So consumers don’t buy the add ons and revenue suffers.

—Peter

Legit point but I don't weigh it against 'I use them' or 'I dont like them'.

Whether I like them or not - I'm glad Dearborn Mi has Ford jobs today thanks to Obama.

Trust - me - I've only used Spirit once (demographically not my thing --yes, I mean it loudly and proudly)

But in the long term....this will be one more industry: Fewer choices.

But as Carlin says - as long as the Americans have 28 choices in bottled water -- whack away at oil companies or insurance companies or airlines---the cattle don't care ;)

But if the airline counts too much on those fees for profitability, they’re going to get in trouble.

Agreed. We never worried much of scheduling, as albaby did. Most of our flights are on the long side, whenever we fly. So, we want premium economy (or better...but usually we end up with premium economy). We need more luggage than an underseat bag (I can usually get by with a single carry-on, plus my underseat bag which is my camera bag/kit). Longer flights, we need food. Etc. At that point, there is no advantage to Spirit.

As you say, if an airline relies on the various up-charges to generate profits, and its passengers are not indulging in those up-charges, they are going to have revenue problems. Which, apparently, they did.

As for Detroit, they have had big problems for decades. To put it simplistically, they don't make what people want. Going back in time, I remember when "made in Japan" was a joke, denoting bad quality (much as "made in China" is today). But then the Japanese cars got really good (there's a documentary about the American guy who was responsible for Japan kicking our butts...forget the guy's name). We were producing rubbish...unreliable rattle-traps**. I think we've most fixed that bit, in part because a Ford may very well have a Toyota engine and a VW transmission. Based on ads I view, US companies mostly emphasize trucks (including monster SUVs like Yukons). The ads for cars are Audis, VWs, Subarus, etc. I see a fair number of trucks on the road, but it is dwarfed by the number of sedans. And most of those sedans are either Japanese, Korean, or German.



**Anecdote: when I worked at the observatory, the town car we used to shuttle between the university and the base camp was an AMC Concord. It got crappy mileage, the A/C was AWESOME (which, in Tucson, is nice), and when you hit about 55mph on the freeway the dashboard would start to vibrate so violently you literally couldn't read the speedometer with any precision (an analog needle).

Whether I like them or not - I'm glad Dearborn Mi has Ford jobs today thanks to Obama.

You can't make up for bad management, like Farley. Ford is one of the few that reports sales monthly. For April, Ford Motor sales, overall, were down 14.4%. The most popular "light" vehicle in the US, the Ford F-series, was down 14.7%. The "Lighting" EV version, which is only built at the Rouge, was down 49%, on it's way to zero. The Escape was down 61% and Corsair down 40%, both on their way to zero, as they have been discontinued.

...but Farley will boast about ATP and GP, and assure us volume doesn't matter.

Detroit had hoped the worst was already priced in. It wasn’t. Ford opened 2026 with a genuinely ugly first quarter, and the April figures, freshly tallied, manage to make the picture worse.

https://www.carscoops.com/2026/05/ford-april-2026-...

Steve

Steve....

You and I have discussed this and hopefully you remember, I'm no Farley guy. Trust me--- "Blue Oval" --- let's just say Farley might have costed me 6-7 figures in my previous life and with his well intentioned Blue Oval Absolutism- shuttered a small business that I was literally ready with financing to buy.


All I am saying Steve---is I'm glad President Obama saved the auto industry in America.


Trust me---Farley? I can tell you stuff about Bob Lutz, even - Mister Reuss senior, CEO Stemple back in the day - yes I might go that far back ;)


Sorry, but I liked Mullaly and would offer my left nut for a man with that attitude to be at the helm.

Trust me---Farley? I can tell you stuff about Bob Lutz

I used to go to the local aviation museum for their monthly historical lectures. One evening, the program started with an award being presented to Lutz. In his comments, Lutz was berating we in the audience for not wearing suits and ties. What? We went there for an interesting lecture, and we were abused about how we were dressed? Lutz, in spite of his PR, seems to be the typical CEO: "swaggering, tin planted, dictator, with delusions of God-hood".

I quit going to the lectures, and cut off financial support and volunteer labor, for that museum, due to their disgustingly cavalier treatment of their supporter's money. Their latest indignity was selling their B-17, for an undisclosed sum. Museum "management" said they intended to invest the money, to provide a more steady revenue stream than selling rides on the 17. Having seen how "management" handles the museum's money, I expect that stack of cash will be frittered away, over time, so they end up with no stack of cash, no B-17, and no revenue stream, because the museum is run by a bunch of tap-dancing baboons that don't have the discipline to organize a trip to the head.

Michigan Flight Museum Sells Centerpiece B-17 ‘Yankee Lady’

https://www.flyingmag.com/michigan-flight-museum-s...

"Yankee Lady" in a promo video from the museum:

"Where Heroes Have Flown" - Yankee Air Museum B-17 Flight Experience

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rkfBZgPnQI

"Yankee Lady" in a Carhartt "Mother's Day" TV ad, several years ago.

All Hail the Carhartt Women | Spring 17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g0ktm7EoaI

Steve

You are spot on.

I will say - he was more personable than the average, insulated, product of corporate incest Detroit executive back in the day -- and it's a low bar lol. AND I will say he was temporarily effective at being somewhat of a 'carguy' who cared deeply about fit and finish and in some instances, he told the bean-counters to shove it up their ass.

But those were rare flashes -- your overall assessment is spot on.

I expect that stack of cash will be frittered away, over time, so they end up with no stack of cash, no B-17, and no revenue stream, because the museum is run by a bunch of tap-dancing baboons that don't have the discipline to organize a trip to the head.

Interesting post, but my rec was focused on the above piece of prose.

In future years, the museum will bill itself as the “museum that once housed ‘Yankee Lady’, before they sold it” in order to upgrade the viewing experience of museum goers who will now flock to view the museum that no longer owns ‘Yankee Lady’.

To view the place where the plane used to be…… now there’s a winning strategy.

Bill Z <—- Old Fartz

To view the place where the plane used to be…… now there’s a winning strategy.

Actually, you can't. The hangar door that you see in the two videos of the 17, are in "Hangar One", which is on the west side of the airport, next to where the bomber plant was. "Hangar One" was condemned a few years ago, because it's WWII structure violates too many building codes, and it was uneconomic to renovate. The museum built a new hangar, on the east side of the field. I understood the need, so I kicked a few hundred into that project too.

Here's an example of how that museum wastes money. An air museum at the former Chanute Field, in Rantoul, Illinois, went toes up some years ago. Other museums swarmed over the bones, taking planes from the dead museum's collection. The smaller aircraft, that were in the hanger, were quickly snapped up, as they were in decent cosmetic condition, and don't cost a fortune to move. The aircraft outside, battered and weathered, and big, were left. Enter the Yankee Air Museum. Rantoul is about a 6 hour drive from metro Detroit. The board members could have piled into a couple cars, driven to Rantoul, and checked in to a Motel 6. The next morning, they could look over what was available, then drive back to Detroit. But no, they flew down, in the museum's B-25. How much did that cost? And what did they snag? An EC-121, a radar picket conversion of a Lockheed Constellation, four engine airliner. It cost them $200,000 to have a specialist company disassemble the plane, truck the sections to the museum, and bolt the thing back together. Then the museum started leaning, hard, on it's supporters for money to restore the thing. This was at the same time that the museum was crying for money for the bomber plant project. So shipping the 121 to the museum both took money away from the bomber plant project, and gave them another money sink, in one stroke. When the museum was bragging about their acquisition on their Facebook page, I pointed out "you don't have a museum to show it in", as their current building is far too small. I challenged museum director Keven Walsh about the wisdom of what they did. He said words to the effect "we made brownie points with the Navy" as the Navy still owns the plane. I let it go, at that point. As I said, that bunch doesn't have the discipline to organize a trip to the head.

Oh, and a few years later, they announced they had changed their mind, and were abandoning the bomber plant project, after flushing over $10M of their supporters money away on it. Then started dunning people for money for their next bright idea.

Then they changed the name of the place, for the second time in ten years. How much does all the lawyer time and doc fees cost to change the name? Why? More waste?

That place is dead to me now.

Steve

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.