Because the customer loses. They're sentencing Spirit to bankruptcy. OTher airlines will buy the planes and get stronger...

> So it's a bad ruling because previous administrations didn't try to enforce anti monopoly laws?

Alaska Airlines literally just bought Hawaiian. It hasn't even been two months.

Framing the block of an attempted merger between two airlines that combined are worth less than Alaska (which is itself far from an industry titan) as "anti-monopoly" is simply inane.

It’s bad because the government is artificially manipulating market forces and prevents price discovery. Imagine you’re thinking of starting a small airline, like a Jetblue or Spirit, but investors know that if the business ever plans to exit through an acquisition, the government will intervene. Well, as an investor I’d be a lot less likely to invest.

As a result, you stifle the free market and prevent the emergence of competition. The knock on effect is less choice for the consumer and a less efficient market.

Yes. The oligopoly already exists, so allowing players to fold by preventing their merger only entrenches the oligopoly further. Who do you think is pick up the excess demand when Spirit goes under? Who will acquire all their assets and employees? Hint: not a new market entrant.