Spirit Airlines never became a symbol of everything Americans loved about flying. It became a symbol of something more important: choice.

At a time when Americans remain sensitive to the cost of travel and policymakers continue debating the future of competition policy, Spirit’s struggles offer an important lesson about the difference between protecting competition and protecting competitors.

For years, Spirit represented a simple but powerful idea: travelers should decide what matters to them and pay accordingly. Want the cheapest possible ticket and do not care about checked bags, seat assignments or extra amenities? Spirit gave Americans that option. People mocked the model, but millions of passengers embraced it.

That success was not accidental. It was made possible by a policy decision.

Airline deregulation opened the door for new business models, new routes and new approaches to pricing. Instead of Washington deciding who flew where and at what price, airlines had room to compete.

Spirit became one of the clearest examples of what competition can produce. And then competition did what competition always does: it evolved. Large carriers introduced basic economy products. Consumers became accustomed to lower fares and greater pricing flexibility. Spirit’s competitive edge narrowed. At the same time, the company faced operational challenges and financial pressure, including engine issues that affected parts of its fleet. Like companies across every industry do when conditions change, Spirit looked for ways to adapt. It pursued mergers. First Frontier. Then JetBlue. That should have remained a business story. Instead, it became a policy story.

In 2024, the Justice Department opposed the JetBlue merger, arguing that the deal would reduce competition and ultimately harm consumers by eliminating an important low-cost carrier. Supporters celebrated the decision as proof that the government could preserve competition and keep prices low. However, Spirit’s continued struggles raise an uncomfortable question policymakers should not ignore: If consumers ultimately end up with fewer choices anyway, what exactly was preserved?

That question matters because the administration has inherited a broader debate over how government should approach competition itself. Should regulators actively shape industries to preserve certain market structures? Or should they create fair rules and allow companies to respond, even when the outcome is consolidation, disruption or failure?

Spirit offers an unusually clear test.

Competition is not the same thing as preserving competitors. Competition is not measured by counting how many airline logos appear on the departures board. It is measured by outcomes: lower prices, innovation, consumer choice and the freedom for companies to adapt to changing conditions.

Sometimes that adaptation succeeds. Sometimes it does not. Markets stop functioning properly when the government decides that preserving a particular structure matters more than allowing participants to respond to economic reality.

Spirit existed only because earlier policymakers accepted that principle. Deregulation did not guarantee success. Airlines failed. Others expanded. New entrants emerged. Consumers benefited because companies, not regulators, determined what models worked.

The lesson was never that every company survives. The lesson was that consumers win when companies are free to compete. That principle matters far beyond aviation.

Across industries, Washington has become increasingly comfortable deciding which mergers are acceptable, what concentration levels are appropriate, and what market outcomes regulators believe should exist. The instinct is understandable. Competition matters. Preserving a snapshot of competition is not the same thing as protecting competitive markets.

Markets move. Consumers change. Businesses adapt. The government should be careful not to confuse intervention with success.

As the government shapes the next chapter of competition and transportation policy, Spirit Airlines offers a timely reminder: the government’s role is not to design the marketplace. Its role is to create fair rules and allow the marketplace to decide the rest.

Phil Bell is the CEO of Tower K Group, a public affairs firm. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.