Q & A: What Led to Spirit Airlines’ Fall

Authored by:

Passengers across the country were left scrambling to make last-minute travel arrangements after Spirit Airlines abruptly ceased operations on May 2, stranding travelers and leaving thousands of employees without work. According to CNN, this marks the first shutdown of a major U.S. airline in 25 years.

Jungho Suh, a teaching assistant professor of management at the George Washington University School of Business, spoke with GW Today about the structural pressures that led to Spirit's collapse, the human consequences for workers and travelers and what other companies can learn from this crisis.

Q: What's most striking about a company of this size, and one that so many people, including thousands of employees and customers, relied on, experiencing a shutdown of its operations in such a manner?

A: For the general public, this felt sudden. For those of us who study the industry, it was shocking but not entirely surprising. Spirit's collapse is the final chapter of a structural story unfolding for years. When Spirit filed for its first bankruptcy in late 2024, I noted on CBS News that consumer preferences had already shifted decisively toward premium products. Travelers increasingly rejected unbundled pricing in favor of all-in, full-service offerings. That trend didn't reverse; it accelerated.

What is genuinely striking is the speed and totality of the shutdown. For an organization that at its peak carried over 5% of domestic air traffic and employed tens of thousands of people, going from operations to nothing overnight is both organizationally extraordinary and humanly devastating. With just a notice on a website telling customers not to come to the airport. The warning signs were visible well before the end, and while that makes this shocking in its human scale, it's not shocking in its structural logic.

Q: What are the repercussions of this that will be felt throughout the company, especially to the many employees? What responsibilities does a company have to its workforce in a situation like this?

A: The closure resulted in the loss of approximately 17,000 part-time and full-time jobs, and those losses were not evenly distributed. Pilots and mechanics, whose credentials are federally certified and highly transferable, will find new positions relatively quickly. United Airlines began recruiting Spirit's workforce almost immediately after the shutdown, citing sustained high demand for aviation professionals. But the workers who bear the sharpest burden are the ramp agents, gate staff and customer service crews. Workers whose skills are specialized, whose geographic concentration is heavily weighted toward Sun Belt leisure markets and who have fewer immediate options.

Legal compliance and ethical responsibility are not the same thing. In my research on mindfulness and empathy in organizational leadership, my co-authors (who are GW School of Business students) and I argue that the moral and business cases for empathetic leadership have converged into a single imperative: that doing right by employees is now inseparable from business success, and that sustainable profitability requires sustainable humanity. Spirit's abrupt shutdown, without advance notice or transition support, is a failure by that standard. Leaders who treat workforce obligations as secondary to creditor obligations cause human harm and signal exactly the kind of institutional culture that erodes trust long before a crisis arrives.

Q: To the many customers who were left in the lurch after last-minute flight cancellations, Spirit's troubles might have felt like a sudden event. But can something like this happen overnight or was it a cascade of multiple factors that led to this moment?

A: Context matters here. What felt like a sudden cancellation to stranded travelers was, analytically speaking, the terminal stage of a multi-year structural decline. The airline had been scaling back operations for years under the weight of high debt and intensifying competition from legacy carriers that had adopted basic economy fares, effectively undercutting Spirit's core value proposition on its own terms. Its domestic market share had fallen from over 5% in 2023 to just 1.8% at the time of closure. It had filed for bankruptcy twice in under two years. Half its fleet had been parked and sold off.

What customers experienced as sudden was actually the final triggering event landing on an organization that had no capacity left to absorb it. The Iran war-driven oil price surge pushed domestic airfares up 24% between January and late April, and for a carrier whose entire model depended on razor-thin margins at high volumes, that was unsurvivable.

The lesson here for consumers, and for business students, is that the warning signs of institutional fragility are often visible well before the collapse. They just aren't always legible to people outside the organization. The human cost of that collapse, however, is very legible. The ramifications of K-shaped economic trends will be evident here: Spirit's absence risks widening the gap in air travel accessibility between budget-conscious and higher-income travelers. After Spirit exited routes between Q2 2024 and Q2 2025, average fares increased by 23%, with passengers paying an average of $60 more per round trip - nearly $250 more for a family of four, according to Spirit's own data as reported by the WSJ. The losses are immediate and are disproportionately felt by lower-income fliers.

Q: Spirit faced a plethora of hurdles, including the COVID-19 pandemic, recent soaring jet fuel prices and its blocked merger with JetBlue Airways. How do disruptive and challenging events like that ripple through an organization? How might these events contribute to operational breakdowns?

A: Each disruption compounded Spirit's challenges, progressively depleting the organizational resilience needed to absorb the next shock. COVID devastated demand. Rising post-pandemic labor and fuel costs eroded margins. The blocked JetBlue merger removed what may have been the last viable path to scale.

But there is a deeper strategic lesson here. As Michael Porter and co-authors argued in their Harvard Business Review article on Creating Shared Value, companies that remain trapped in a narrow, shareholder-value-oriented model, optimizing short-term financial performance while missing broader stakeholder needs, become structurally brittle. Spirit's relentless focus on cost minimization left no slack for workers, communities or customers when conditions deteriorated. There were no buffers because the model never invested in building them.

The irony is that Spirit's collapse ultimately harmed its shareholders most. A broader conception of value creation, one that treated workforce stability and customer accessibility as strategic assets, might have produced an organization resilient enough to survive.

Q: What lessons are there for other companies, including industries outside of aviation that may be suffering from similar unprecedented challenges, to take away about crisis preparedness?

A: The lesson Spirit never fully absorbed is that crisis preparedness is not just about financial liquidity. It requires identifying where consumer behavior is moving before it moves and investing in the organizational capabilities to meet it there. Companies that treat disruption as a threat to be survived will always be behind. Those who treat it as a signal to be read will find opportunity in the same conditions that undid their competitors.

Q: From a crisis management standpoint, how would you assess the company's communication to customers? What should companies do in times of crisis to support and communicate effectively with customers?

A: I'd like to focus on what other companies can take away from this case. The best counterexample I can point to is Brian Chesky's letter to Airbnb employees in May 2020, when the company laid off approximately 1,900 people, 25% of its workforce, at the height of the pandemic. It has since become a case study in principled crisis communication.

Several elements stand out. Chesky led with radical transparency, explaining precisely how the decision was reached and what would happen next. He articulated the company's guiding principles before describing the reductions themselves, signaling a values-driven process. And the support offered was specific and substantive: fourteen weeks of severance, twelve months of healthcare, equity adjustments, a dedicated alumni placement team, and the option to keep company laptops.

What Chesky understood, and what Spirit's leadership did not demonstrate, is that crisis communication is a test of institutional character. Stakeholders are not primarily looking for information during a crisis; they are looking for evidence that the organization sees them as people, not liabilities. Crisis communication is not a reactive function. It is the culmination of how an organization has treated its stakeholders all along.