An obituary for Spirit Airlines

It is with remarkable sadness that we announce the passing of Spirit Airlines, the airline carrier of the masses who valiantly and dutifully degraded obliging passengers for over 34 years. After a battle with back-to-back bankruptcies and rising global fuel costs, Spirit Airlines died doing exactly what it loved—disappointing paying customers who had such low expectations to begin with, the idea of being let down again had yet to even crossed their mind.

Spirit will be best known for their nearly-acceptable standard of service they provided to each of their customers. As their faithful motto went: it’s Service with a Grimace and an up-charge on a bottle of water.

Spirit will be missed dearly by its loyal cohort of bleary-eyed passengers who try desperately to convince themselves that dredging themselves to the airport at 5:45 AM to save a whole $15 was worth it. Gone are the good-old-days of frantically shoving all items into an overstuffed backpack just to ride on a plane held together by duct tape and a wish. Never will they forget the charmingly-apathetic flight crew gate checking your dignity at an extra cost (there is never room in the overhead).

Spirit warmed the hearts of many, not just because they all had to wear six t-shirts, three hoodies, and a down winter coat on their flight to Cabo. The beloved airlines graciously inspired those around them to take risks, like flirting with heatstroke rather than paying $99 for a carry-on. No longer will its staff strike fear in the hearts of its penny-pinching clientele by wheeling out its unforgiving luggage sizer and subjecting the masses to its ritual of public humiliation. The airline truly had a global impact—the United Nations condemned such practices as cruel and unusual punishment in 1994.

Rumor has it that before its untimely demise, Spirit Airlines was flirting with a new even more economical option where they just ratchet-strap you to the side of the plane.

This momentous loss is felt particularly deeply by Spring Breakers, Las Vegas bachelorette parties, and the entire city of Fort Lauderdale. The passing of Spirit leaves a hole that will be near impossible to fill (I mean who else do we have, Frontier?)

Spirit is survived by its equally miserly cousins across the pond WizzAir, easyJet and Ryanair, the latter surpassing Spirit only in terms of sassy marketing. While no longer with us, the spirit of Spirit lives on in these companies (and in the hearts of cheapskates globally).

Goodbye, Spirit Airlines, you will be missed.

The Death of Spirit Airlines may not come as a shock to many, but it does shine a light on the global impact of low-cost airlines.

If you’ve ever flown a low cost carrier (LCC) before, chances are you’ve asked yourself the same question: If my flight across Europe only costs €12, how on Earth is the airline making any profit?

The answer is pretty straightforward. Basically, they make the majority of their money from the additional add-ons like baggage, food, and seat assignments.

The “low cost” bit of low cost carriers doesn’t actually refer to the low fares. Rather, it refers to the airlines cutting costs where they can. This boils down to things like: buying surplus planes in bulk from other airlines; operating out of smaller/less-popular airports; and forgoing any “excess” services like first class or complimentary in-flight beverage services.

LCCs tend to buy newer plane models (as these ones have less operational and maintenance costs) and fly these planes more frequently to recoup more of their upfront investment. They also tend to pay their pilots and their flight staff less than conventional airline companies (what a surprise!) which cuts down on labor costs.

LCCs actually tend to have lower carbon emissions per person than their conventional counterparts. This isn’t due to any benevolence or magic environmental ethos on the part of the carriers, though. LCCs tend to use newer, more fuel-efficient planes and pack more people into each flight. This makes the carbon emissions per person less simply because they can shove more passengers into each leg of the journey.

On a larger scale, however, LCCs tend to operate more flights, especially with shorter-distance or high-traffic routes. This has actually made the global emissions of the aviation industry go up, even if their carbon expenditures per-person are much less. Ultimately, if the cost and efficiency is making you fly more, any environmental benefit from using more fuel-efficient planes is immediately lost.

While LCCs might be more fuel-efficient than conventional commercial jets, there are many additional environmental and social consequences that go beyond simple carbon calculations that we must consider (I’ve previously touched on the rise of LCCs in my newsletter on the cheapening of tourism).

LCCs contributes to mass tourism by sending more people to one destination at a time. In Barcelona, for example, about 75% of all passengers used a low cost carriers to fly into the city in 2023. The number of passenger arrivals to Barcelona has been steadily increasing over the years, rising at an average of 3.4% year after year. Barcelona has been vocal in its struggle with over tourism, with many residents expressing that the tourism situation has made the city virtually unliveable. LCCs also have helped popularize certain destinations—after Ryanair opened a hub in Tirana, Albania for example, air traffic to the city rose by over 50%.

These low cost fares incentivize frivolous air travel. Because flights are so cheap, many might choose to fly shorter distances or for shorter time periods. This has led to the rather irresponsible practice of day-tripping, or flying to a destination in the morning and flying back out in the evening without spending the night. The day-trippers who might have otherwise taken a coach bus or train somewhere nearby can now hop on a LCC and fly from London to Madrid for less than the cost of an airport sandwich.

The social impact of these short-term visitors is wildly-felt by local communities. Destinations now have droves of people flying in for the day, filling up their most popular tourist hotspots, not spending money on local accommodations or at local businesses, and then leaving. They get all of the downsides of tourism (overcrowding, strain on resources) without any of the economic upsides.

Not everyone who flies with a LCC is engaging in excessive short-term travel— many choose to fly with them simply because they are the most cost-effective option. To their credit, low cost carriers have also democratized travel for people who otherwise may not have been able to afford it, which has an enormous social benefit for these individuals. When choosing between airlines, low cost carriers emit less carbon than their competitors, so they can be the more environmentally-conscious choice (so long as that does not make you fly more).

Something to keep in mind is that these low-cost tickets do not reflect the actual cost that flying has on the environment. While over the years flying has gotten exponentially cheaper, it is still the most environmentally damaging aspects of travel.

The problem does not lie with the specific type of airline carrier we take, but rather our relationship with flying as a whole. This is not to say we can’t ever fly somewhere or that you have to avoid airplanes altogether. Rather, it’s about being more conscious about our travel decisions, and ultimately flying less.

Buy me a coffee

Share