To extend this...
Splice-aware aligners are not necessary when aligning to a transcriptome, only when aligning to a genome. A "splice-unaware" aligner will do a perfectly fine job of aligning to a transcriptome, with one caveat -
Transcriptomes of alternatively-spliced organisms (basically, Eukaryota) are both incomplete (since not all transcripts have been identified), and highly redundant (since transcripts have multiple isoforms). Both of these cause problems with all aligners. It's only one caveat, though, because splice-aware aligners encounter the same problems.
If you align to a genome, which I always recommend, splice-aware aligners are required. The main advantage of aligning to a transcriptome is speed; genome alignment is much more scientifically valuable, as it starts with fewer assumptions.
Note that I say this as someone who has developed a high-speed tool for quantifying transcript expression (Seal). It is probably 100x faster than BBMap (a splice-aware aligner) in most cases, and it does a very good job at quantifying expression differences. But, it presumes that your transcriptome is accurate, which it never is. Essentially, it forces your data into a mold that you know is wrong, while BBMap would actually allow you to discover new things, assuming that the genome is correct. Genomes are far more complete and accurate than transcriptomes.
If all you want to know is whether gene A or B is more upregulated in your experiment, then mapping to a transcriptome using any aligner is fine... but you could accomplish the same thing faster and probably more accurately using a kmer-matching tool like Seal. However, if you want to seriously study what is going on and care about differential splicing, you need to map to the full genome using a splice-aware aligner.