House subcommittee hears sharp disagreement over causes of Spirit Airlines’ collapse and barriers to competition
June 24, 2026 | Judiciary: House Committee, Standing Committees - House & Senate, Congressional Hearings Compilation, Legislative, Federal
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
A House subcommittee met June 25 to examine competition and regulation in the U.S. airline industry, hearing sharply divergent testimony about whether antitrust enforcement or external shocks caused the recent collapse of Spirit Airlines and what policies would foster more competition.
The hearing opened with the chair stressing that the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 expanded consumer choice but that the modern industry remains concentrated and that airport access — gates and slots allocated under FAA rules and long-term leases — creates significant entry barriers. The chair warned these arrangements can entrench incumbent carriers and foreclose competition.
Representative Balint, the subcommittee’s opening minority speaker, argued consolidation has worsened service and raised costs for travelers. "President Trump's war of choice has made it all worse," she said, linking a recent jump in jet-fuel prices to the collapse of Spirit and criticizing the rollback of consumer protections by the current Department of Transportation.
Industry and legal witnesses pushed back on single-cause explanations. Chris Sununu, president and CEO of Airlines for America, described a competitive market with growing low-cost options and urged Congress to prioritize air-traffic control modernization and infrastructure instead of new mandates. "Competition has expanded consumer choice and kept fares down," he said, adding that modernization of the national airspace and more airport capacity would lower barriers to entry.
Legal and academic witnesses pressed opposing takes on enforcement. Christian Stout of the International Center for Law and Economics described policy bottlenecks — including slot grandfathering and rigid merger analysis — and recommended reforms such as opening underused slots and modernizing how courts evaluate failing firms. "Where low-fare entry is allowed, fares fall about 17 percent," he testified.
Professor Nancy Rose of MIT, who worked in economic analysis for the DOJ Antitrust Division, defended recent antitrust actions and disputed the claim that enforcement killed Spirit. "Antitrust did not kill Spirit," Rose said, noting that Spirit's filings cited a sudden spike in jet-fuel costs and operational problems. She argued DOJ’s 2023 action to block JetBlue’s proposed acquisition preserved a disruptive ultra-low-cost competitor and thereby protected consumers from higher fares on many routes.
Members pressed witnesses in a series of exchanges. Rep. Issa focused on gate and slot access as the de facto constraints on new entrants; witnesses agreed airport infrastructure and slot allocation heavily shape competition. Rep. Raskin and others pressed the panel on whether political interference has undermined evidence-based antitrust enforcement; Professor Rose called recent high-level departures in enforcement "troubling" and said antitrust enforcement must remain independent and evidence-driven.
Several members asked whether the blocked JetBlue–Spirit deal — and subsequent DOJ litigation — cost jobs or service. Chairman Jordan and others cited lawmakers' concerns that blocking the merger may have eliminated a path for Spirit to survive as an independent operator; witnesses disagreed about whether the blocked transaction or later fuel-cost shocks were the decisive factor in the carrier’s demise.
Other policy levers discussed included reforms to slot and gate allocation (including proposals to introduce market-like mechanisms at congested airports), targeted infrastructure investment, expansion or refinement of the Essential Air Service program to protect rural connectivity, and support for scaling Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) production and airport fueling infrastructure to reduce vulnerability to global fuel-price shocks.
No formal votes or committee directives were taken during the hearing. The chair closed the hearing after placing written statements into the record and said members would have five legislative days to submit additional questions for the record.
The hearing record includes written testimony and technical proposals from the witnesses; members signaled interest in follow-up hearings on slot/gate reforms, merger doctrine for network industries, and infrastructure measures such as air-traffic modernization and SAF permitting.
The hearing opened with the chair stressing that the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 expanded consumer choice but that the modern industry remains concentrated and that airport access — gates and slots allocated under FAA rules and long-term leases — creates significant entry barriers. The chair warned these arrangements can entrench incumbent carriers and foreclose competition.
Representative Balint, the subcommittee’s opening minority speaker, argued consolidation has worsened service and raised costs for travelers. "President Trump's war of choice has made it all worse," she said, linking a recent jump in jet-fuel prices to the collapse of Spirit and criticizing the rollback of consumer protections by the current Department of Transportation.
Industry and legal witnesses pushed back on single-cause explanations. Chris Sununu, president and CEO of Airlines for America, described a competitive market with growing low-cost options and urged Congress to prioritize air-traffic control modernization and infrastructure instead of new mandates. "Competition has expanded consumer choice and kept fares down," he said, adding that modernization of the national airspace and more airport capacity would lower barriers to entry.
Legal and academic witnesses pressed opposing takes on enforcement. Christian Stout of the International Center for Law and Economics described policy bottlenecks — including slot grandfathering and rigid merger analysis — and recommended reforms such as opening underused slots and modernizing how courts evaluate failing firms. "Where low-fare entry is allowed, fares fall about 17 percent," he testified.
Professor Nancy Rose of MIT, who worked in economic analysis for the DOJ Antitrust Division, defended recent antitrust actions and disputed the claim that enforcement killed Spirit. "Antitrust did not kill Spirit," Rose said, noting that Spirit's filings cited a sudden spike in jet-fuel costs and operational problems. She argued DOJ’s 2023 action to block JetBlue’s proposed acquisition preserved a disruptive ultra-low-cost competitor and thereby protected consumers from higher fares on many routes.
Members pressed witnesses in a series of exchanges. Rep. Issa focused on gate and slot access as the de facto constraints on new entrants; witnesses agreed airport infrastructure and slot allocation heavily shape competition. Rep. Raskin and others pressed the panel on whether political interference has undermined evidence-based antitrust enforcement; Professor Rose called recent high-level departures in enforcement "troubling" and said antitrust enforcement must remain independent and evidence-driven.
Several members asked whether the blocked JetBlue–Spirit deal — and subsequent DOJ litigation — cost jobs or service. Chairman Jordan and others cited lawmakers' concerns that blocking the merger may have eliminated a path for Spirit to survive as an independent operator; witnesses disagreed about whether the blocked transaction or later fuel-cost shocks were the decisive factor in the carrier’s demise.
Other policy levers discussed included reforms to slot and gate allocation (including proposals to introduce market-like mechanisms at congested airports), targeted infrastructure investment, expansion or refinement of the Essential Air Service program to protect rural connectivity, and support for scaling Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) production and airport fueling infrastructure to reduce vulnerability to global fuel-price shocks.
No formal votes or committee directives were taken during the hearing. The chair closed the hearing after placing written statements into the record and said members would have five legislative days to submit additional questions for the record.
The hearing record includes written testimony and technical proposals from the witnesses; members signaled interest in follow-up hearings on slot/gate reforms, merger doctrine for network industries, and infrastructure measures such as air-traffic modernization and SAF permitting.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
