When Spirit and Frontier announced plans to merge last month, they argued that the combination would make aviation more competitive. The merger would produce the nation’s fifth-largest airline by market share, enabling Spirit and Frontier to better take on the four largest airlines, which control about 80 percent of the domestic market, they said.
“This is a completely different deal than any other airline transaction you’ve looked at in the past and, for that reason, we think it’s very pro-competition, very pro-consumer,” Spirit’s chief executive, Ted Christie, said in an interview with The New York Times on the day the merger was announced.
But the group of lawmakers disagreed with that characterization, arguing in the letter that “a closer look at how competition actually works in the airline industry quickly reveals the emptiness of these claims.”
Customers have a lot to lose in the merger, they said.
For one, airline mergers have been associated with higher ticket prices in the past. And while the low-cost business model employed by Spirit and Frontier may pressure other carriers to cut fares, the merger would reduce competition among such budget airlines. Also, if the new airline abandoned that business model, the industry would “lose an important check on prices,” the lawmakers said.
Spirit and Frontier are routinely criticized for poor customer satisfaction. In combining, they would dominate certain markets and might have less incentive to address customer concerns, the lawmakers said. Finally, they argued, the merger could promote anti-competitive behavior among the largest airlines.