@squeakyclean I thought the entire premise of no bag fees and open seating was to increase their turnaround time? People would check bags when it was no cost, and they would rush to claim a preferred seat. Now everyone is screwing around with carry on luggage or giant 'personal items'
The JetBlue–Spirit merger is actually a great case study in modern antitrust thinking—because both sides had coherent, but very different, ideas about what “competition” means.
Let’s break it down in three layers:
-
why it was opposed,
-
whether that opposition made sense,
-
how proponents framed it (then vs. now).
1) Why the merger was opposed
The core issue: eliminating a “disruptive” low-cost competitor
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and a federal judge blocked the deal in early 2024 primarily because Spirit wasn’t just another airline—it played a special role in keeping prices down.
-
Spirit was the largest ultra-low-cost carrier (ULCC) in the U.S. (LegalClarity)
-
Its presence on a route often forced all airlines to lower fares (the so-called “Spirit effect”) (LegalClarity)
-
The merger would have removed that low-price pressure across the industry, not just for Spirit customers (Whitcomb Selinsky PC)
The DOJ’s legal argument under antitrust law (Clayton Act) was straightforward:
-
The deal would “substantially lessen competition”
-
It would likely raise fares and reduce consumer choice (Reason.com)
A key factual point that hurt JetBlue’s case
JetBlue wasn’t planning to keep Spirit as-is. It intended to:
-
Reconfigure planes (fewer seats, more legroom)
-
Shift away from ultra-low-cost pricing
In other words, regulators believed the merger would destroy Spirit’s business model entirely, not just combine two competitors. (LegalClarity)
The judge’s conclusion
The court agreed with the DOJ:
-
Spirit is a unique competitive constraint, not easily replaced
-
Losing it would hurt price-sensitive travelers the most (Whitcomb Selinsky PC)
2) Was it right to oppose it?
This is where things get interesting—because the answer depends on your framework.
The case that it was right (traditional antitrust view)
Supporters of the decision argue:
a) Protecting low fares matters more than firm survival
Even if Spirit was struggling:
-
Its existence kept prices lower industry-wide
-
Eliminating it would raise baseline fares for millions
This is classic antitrust thinking:
Don’t allow mergers that remove price competition—even if the target is weak.
b) Airline industry is already highly consolidated
-
Top 4 airlines control ~80% of the market (ProMarket)
-
Allowing more consolidation risks oligopoly behavior
So regulators saw this as drawing a line after decades of mergers.
The case that it was not right (critics & hindsight view)
Critics say the decision may have been too theoretical and not realistic enough.
a) Spirit couldn’t survive anyway
After the merger was blocked:
-
Spirit filed for bankruptcy within months (LegalClarity)
-
(Recent reporting even suggests the airline ultimately collapsed, reigniting debate) (New York Post)
So critics argue:
“You preserved competition… and then lost it anyway.”
This is known as the “failing firm” problem in antitrust.
b) Losing Spirit entirely may be worse than merging it
If Spirit disappears:
-
Consumers lose a low-cost option completely
-
Instead of 5–6 airlines, you may end up with fewer
That could be more harmful than a merger that preserves some capacity.
c) The merger might have created a stronger challenger
JetBlue argued:
-
Combined airline would better compete with giants (Delta, United, American)
-
Market share would still be relatively small (~8%) (The Guardian)
So from this perspective:
The real competition problem is the “Big 4,” not Spirit.
3) What proponents said — then vs. now
At the time (2022–2024)
Proponents (JetBlue, some economists, industry voices) argued:
“This creates a stronger fifth airline”
-
More scale → more routes, more competition with dominant carriers
-
Better service than Spirit’s bare-bones model
“Consumers benefit from better quality”
JetBlue positioned the deal as:
-
Upgrading Spirit customers
-
Not just lowering prices, but improving experience
“Efficiencies matter”
They claimed:
-
Cost savings
-
Expanded network
-
Better aircraft utilization
But the court rejected these as insufficient to offset lost competition. (Whitcomb Selinsky PC)
Now (post-blocking, especially after Spirit’s collapse struggles)
Proponents have shifted tone significantly.
“Blocking it made things worse”
You now hear arguments like:
-
The decision accelerated Spirit’s failure
-
Consumers ended up with fewer choices anyway
-
Jobs were lost that might have been preserved (New York Post)
“Antitrust focused on the wrong model”
Critics say regulators:
-
Overvalued Spirit’s ultra-low-cost model
-
Undervalued the need for scale to compete with dominant airlines
Even some former supporters have doubts
Recent commentary shows second-guessing, even from people aligned with the original decision, questioning whether blocking it was ultimately the right call. (New York Post)
Bottom line
Why it was opposed:
Because regulators believed the merger would eliminate a uniquely important low-cost competitor and raise fares.
Was it right?
-
Legally and traditionally: yes—fits textbook antitrust logic.
-
Economically in hindsight: debatable—because Spirit may have failed anyway.
What proponents would say:
-
Then: “This creates a stronger competitor and better airline.”
-
Now: “Blocking it may have reduced competition more than allowing it.”
If you want, we can go deeper into the economics—this case touches on a really important debate in antitrust right now:
Should regulators prioritize preserving competitors, or preserving outcomes (like low prices), even if firms disappear?
Calm down. I just started at this job, am still in training, have lost a lot of interest in this board (pickleball is a cruel mistress), and have only been assigned to keep an eye on a very short list of posters.@bulk-vh my god. someone who played an ACTIVE role in the departure and disappearance of one of the greatest posters in teh board's history. a man who made his living on the backroads and consequently couldn't respond to posts in a timely manner. unbelievable. i guess this also explains the sudden disappearance of two other great posters. stollcpa and danc. unbelievable. and @unclemark how'd you get your dick stepped on with this appointment?
😉
Calm down. I just started at this job, am still in training, have lost a lot of interest in this board (pickleball is a cruel mistress), and have only been assigned to keep an eye on a very short list of posters.@bulk-vh my god. someone who played an ACTIVE role in the departure and disappearance of one of the greatest posters in teh board's history. a man who made his living on the backroads and consequently couldn't respond to posts in a timely manner. unbelievable. i guess this also explains the sudden disappearance of two other great posters. stollcpa and danc. unbelievable. and @unclemark how'd you get your dick stepped on with this appointment?
😉
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
@spartans9312 what does that guy even do now? just talk. nothin i assume?
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/2050957438510342398
@spartans9312 Stay at home Pete just still talkin. Doin nothin. Hate that guy. Shocker that would be his position.
You see folks. I’m gay. I relate very well to and my message resonates with those who want paid leave, who want to just stay home and get paid, to our socialist friends in nyc, and our Hollywood friends who groom tranny kids. I’m never going to relate to the cowboys in the Wild West, the football fans in the SEC, so let’s scrap the electoral college so I can just focus on ny, Calif, New England, and Chicago and fck the 90 percent of counties in the country that won’t like me.
@spartans9312 what does that guy even do now? just talk. nothin i assume?
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/2050957438510342398
I wonder when he will introduce the Amendment to change the constitution to allow that, instead of just using it to gin up supporters?
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
@spartans9312 Stay at home Pete just still talkin. Doin nothin. Hate that guy. Shocker that would be his position.
You see folks. I’m gay. I relate very well to and my message resonates with those who want paid leave, who want to just stay home and get paid, to our socialist friends in nyc, and our Hollywood friends who groom tranny kids. I’m never going to relate to the cowboys in the Wild West, the football fans in the SEC, so let’s scrap the electoral college so I can just focus on ny, Calif, New England, and Chicago and fck the 90 percent of counties in the country that won’t like me.
Should what state you live in make your vote either valuable or worthless? I despise the EC. Makes for a massive disengaged electorate.
@twenty Ignoring the benefits it provides to the actual election I think it might be more relevant right now than ever from the old values of insulation from tyranny and the importance of federalism. Do we want the policies of Bass and Mamdani affecting what goes on in that massive swath of red in the states between them. Their values matter and their say should matter. Accounting for same pushes us closer to the middle and reduces the chances of radical candidates. I think the EC is really important still.
Now. Would I be for blowing everything up and reimagining gov. Yes. I still like Sope’s old idea of smaller Fed gov and the creation of regional gov’s that better reflect the people and can be more responsive.
Yes. I still like Sope’s old idea of smaller Fed gov and the creation of regional gov’s that better reflect the people and can be more responsive.
Again, we already have that with the states. One more layer of bureaucracy, leading to more laws, more conflict in laws, more departments, more litigation, more confusion, etc. isn't the solution.
@twenty Ignoring the benefits it provides to the actual election I think it might be more relevant right now than ever from the old values of insulation from tyranny and the importance of federalism. Do we want the policies of Bass and Mamdani affecting what goes on in that massive swath of red in the states between them. Their values matter and their say should matter. Accounting for same pushes us closer to the middle and reduces the chances of radical candidates. I think the EC is really important still.
Now. Would I be for blowing everything up and reimagining gov. Yes. I still like Sope’s old idea of smaller Fed gov and the creation of regional gov’s that better reflect the people and can be more responsive.
Hear me out.....how about we create a very tiny Federal government (5% of GDP) that takes care of the military and borders. Then we leave the rest up to the states. And citizens can choose to move freely when they don't like their state government or stay when they do. Just an idea 😁
But who would print our fiat money? 🤔@twenty Ignoring the benefits it provides to the actual election I think it might be more relevant right now than ever from the old values of insulation from tyranny and the importance of federalism. Do we want the policies of Bass and Mamdani affecting what goes on in that massive swath of red in the states between them. Their values matter and their say should matter. Accounting for same pushes us closer to the middle and reduces the chances of radical candidates. I think the EC is really important still.
Now. Would I be for blowing everything up and reimagining gov. Yes. I still like Sope’s old idea of smaller Fed gov and the creation of regional gov’s that better reflect the people and can be more responsive.
Hear me out.....how about we create a very tiny Federal government (5% of GDP) that takes care of the military and borders. Then we leave the rest up to the states. And citizens can choose to move freely when they don't like their state government or stay when line it. Just an idea 😁
@twenty Ignoring the benefits it provides to the actual election I think it might be more relevant right now than ever from the old values of insulation from tyranny and the importance of federalism. Do we want the policies of Bass and Mamdani affecting what goes on in that massive swath of red in the states between them. Their values matter and their say should matter. Accounting for same pushes us closer to the middle and reduces the chances of radical candidates. I think the EC is really important still.
Now. Would I be for blowing everything up and reimagining gov. Yes. I still like Sope’s old idea of smaller Fed gov and the creation of regional gov’s that better reflect the people and can be more responsive.
Hear me out.....how about we create a very tiny Federal government (5% of GDP) that takes care of the military and borders. Then we leave the rest up to the states. And citizens can choose to move freely when they don't like their state government or stay when line it. Just an idea 😁
Eliminate SS and Medicare/Medicaid and that's what we already have.