Elizabeth Warren hailed blocking the $3.8B Spirit-JetBlue merger as a 'Biden win for flyers.' Now Spirit is gone

[TimHauck]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

No one was wondering what Seafoam would say except you.

Don’t lie, you were thinking of saying it too.  I figured if I framed it as something peefoam would say (which it is) then others might shy away from saying it as well to not be lumped in with him.  But of course several posters here can’t contain their racism so maybe they still will.

[Hardcore troubadour]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Don’t lie, you were thinking of saying it too.  I figured if I framed it as something peefoam would say (which it is) then others might shy away from saying it as well to not be lumped in with him.  But of course several posters here can’t contain their racism so maybe they still will.

Spends his day wondering what Seafoam is going to say.  A valuable employee.  

[squistion]

 

[TBayXXXVII]

16 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

And Judge Young? What about him?

What about him?

[Caine Mutiny]

3 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

 

I’ve been warning of this for about a month now. Folks around here just laughed and called me a panic monger. This is one time I really wish I wasn’t right. 

[Caine Mutiny]

Spirit is only the beginning. A lot of businesses in this country, small and large, don’t have the margin for error that the new high prices for energy are going to impose on them. We will be seeing a ripple effect. If you want a model of what’s about to happen, read up on 1973 and 1979, the last two times we had an energy crisis this significant. Except this one is a lot worse. 

[seafoam1]

Just now, Caine Mutiny said:

Spirit is only the beginning. A lot of businesses in this country, small and large, don’t have the margin for error that the new high prices for energy are going to impose on them. We will be seeing a ripple effect. If you want a model of what’s about to happen, read up on 1973 and 1979, the last two times we had an energy crisis this significant. Except this one is a lot worse. 

So dumb. Only a liberal...

[SaintsInDome2006]

22 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

I’ve been warning of this for about a month now. Folks around here just laughed and called me a panic monger. This is one time I really wish I wasn’t right. 

Fwiw I’d been reading that Europe affordable airlines would be hit hardest & first.

[Hardcore troubadour]

1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Fwiw I’d been reading that Europe affordable airlines would be hit hardest & first.

They don’t have wind powered planes??

[SaintsInDome2006]

58 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

What about him?

He’s a Reagan appointed conservative. He’s the one who blocked this merger and what I said is pretty much in line with his POV.

[SaintsInDome2006]

6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

They don’t have wind powered planes??

Tell ya one thing, the only reason we don’t have them is Trump & his grubby children haven’t figured out a way to squeeze a profit for themselves out of it. If they did we’d all be flying Trump Aeroflot Gliders.

[Meglamaniac]

27 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Tell ya one thing, the only reason we don’t have them is Trump & his grubby children haven’t figured out a way to squeeze a profit for themselves out of it. If they did we’d all be flying Trump Aeroflot Gliders.

So sad

[Mark Davis]

Well that’s it guys. If ChrisO_Wiki on X says a global recession is coming I’m  selling all my equities. I’m not saying it can’t happen but if we are using randos on X now to predict markets, equity ownership might not be for you. 

[nobody]

1 hour ago, Caine Mutiny said:

Spirit is only the beginning. A lot of businesses in this country, small and large, don’t have the margin for error that the new high prices for energy are going to impose on them. We will be seeing a ripple effect. If you want a model of what’s about to happen, read up on 1973 and 1979, the last two times we had an energy crisis this significant. Except this one is a lot worse. 

You said oil would be an issue.  This issue is refined jet fuel.  Market will correct it.  In the meantime, they'll close down routes.  

[Caine Mutiny]

6 minutes ago, nobody said:

You said oil would be an issue.  This issue is refined jet fuel.  Market will correct it.  In the meantime, they'll close down routes.  

Of course “the market will correct it”. That will be painful for us. 
 

Why do you refuse to admit that Trump totally screwed us with this decision to go to war without being concerned about the consequences? He was incompetent and now we’re focked. Eventually you and everyone else is going to come around to this truth. Not that it helps us much. 

[TBayXXXVII]

1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

He’s a Reagan appointed conservative. He’s the one who blocked this merger and what I said is pretty much in line with his POV.

LOL, I was talking about you, not the bill.  Almost every post of yours is pro left-wing anti-right wing.  There's a 0% chance you're a conservative/Republican.

[nobody]

10 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

Of course “the market will correct it”. That will be painful for us. 
 

Why do you refuse to admit that Trump totally screwed us with this decision to go to war without being concerned about the consequences? He was incompetent and now we’re focked. Eventually you and everyone else is going to come around to this truth. Not that it helps us much. 

We're not focked.  That's my whole point.

And I don't know if trump screwed us or not.  I would rather not be at war, but I don't know if it's justified or not based on how big of a threat iran nuclear capability is. 

Any leader has to make a call.  Most would do nothing and hope it goes away.  You don't know if the decision is right untill years down the road, if ever.  I mean if Iran nukes israel in a few years, is that more or less focked than you think we are now?  I'd say much much much much more focked.

[Caine Mutiny]

1 minute ago, nobody said:

We're not focked.  That's my whole point.

And I don't know if trump screwed us or not.  I would rather not be at war, but I don't know if it's justified or not based on how big of a threat iran nuclear capability is. 

Any leader has to make a call.  Most would do nothing and hope it goes away.  You don't know if the decision is right untill years down the road, if ever.  I mean if Iran nukes israel in a few years, is that more or less focked than you think we are now?  I'd say much much much much more focked.

1. We are focked. Don’t take my word for it, pay attention to the economists, the energy experts. They will tell you what’s coming and what’s already happening now. 
 

2. You’re creating a fantasy set of alternatives in your mind. The strike on Iran in February did nothing to make their eventual use of nuclear weapons either less likely or more likely- it had no effect whatsoever on that question. At this point it’s not even relevant. 

[nobody]

6 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

1. We are focked. Don’t take my word for it, pay attention to the economists, the energy experts. They will tell you what’s coming and what’s already happening now. 
 

2. You’re creating a fantasy set of alternatives in your mind. The strike on Iran in February did nothing to make their eventual use of nuclear weapons either less likely or more likely- it had no effect whatsoever on that question. At this point it’s not even relevant. 

I am paying attention.  That's why I know we're not focked.  But you probably don't realize I've been reading financial news for 20 years while you just look for news that fits your opinion.  

No I'm not creating a fantasy set of alternatives.  The whole reason anyone pays attention to anything going on in iran is the belief if they get a nuke, they'll use it.  

 

[Caine Mutiny]

Also @nobody I agree with you that as a general rule it’s very unwise to try and evaluate Presidential decision-making in real time. It takes years, sometimes decades to decide if a move was good or bad. This is almost always the case. 
 

However I hold that Trump’s decision to bomb Iran in February is an exception. It’s probably the biggest exception I can think of in world history. It was very clearly a disastrous move, the worst decision of his Presidency, probably the worst decision of any Presidency. 

It was not an evil decision; Trump is not Hitler choosing to murder innocent people. It was a hubristic incompetent decision. It would not have been made during Trump’s first term, because he surrounded himself with grownups like Kelly who would have talked him out of it. This time around he surrounded himself with sycophants. I suspect that thru knew the consequences, but were afraid to speak out. Certainly Bibi Netanyahu knew thr consequences but he determined that taking out Iran’s leadership would be beneficial to Israel even if a Hormuz closure flattened our economy for years or decades. So Bibi assured Trump that there was no risk of a closure of the strait. Basically he lied. Trump, flush with victory in Venezuela, believed him: So here we are. 

[nobody]

Let me help you out because having the same conversation is boring.

First thing... Money always finds the truth.  When people have skin in the game, it's like a truth serum.

On the other hand, websites make money when you click on something, so they're incentivized to make inflammatory statements and sky scream. 

Just trust the people with skin in the game.  Don't trust the people that are paid when you panic.

[nobody]

3 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

Also @nobody I agree with you that as a general rule it’s very unwise to try and evaluate Presidential decision-making in real time. It takes years, sometimes decades to decide if a move was good or bad. This is almost always the case. 
 

However I hold that Trump’s decision to bomb Iran in February is an exception. It’s probably the biggest exception I can think of in world history. It was very clearly a disastrous move, the worst decision of his Presidency, probably the worst decision of any Presidency. 

It was not an evil decision; Trump is not Hitler choosing to murder innocent people. It was a hubristic incompetent decision. It would not have been made during Trump’s first term, because he surrounded himself with grownups like Kelly who would have talked him out of it. This time around he surrounded himself with sycophants. I suspect that thru knew the consequences, but were afraid to speak out. Certainly Bibi Netanyahu knew thr consequences but he determined that taking out Iran’s leadership would be beneficial to Israel even if a Hormuz closure flattened our economy for years or decades. So Bibi assured Trump that there was no risk of a closure of the strait. Basically he lied. Trump, flush with victory in Venezuela, believed him: So here we are. 

Definitely not the worst decision in history.  All the COVID overreactions were the worst in history because we knew in real time that it was stupid but you guys wouldn't listen.  That cost us trillions.

[Caine Mutiny]

10 minutes ago, nobody said:

Let me help you out because having them s same conversation is boring.

First thing... Money always finds the truth.  When people have skin in the game, it's like a truth serum.

On the other hand, websites make money when you click on something, so they're incentivized to make inflammatory statements and sky scream. 

Just trust the people with skin in the game.  Don't trust the people that are paid when you panic.

Look you seem like a smart dude and obviously there is little I can add to convince you of anything. Truth is I really want you to be right about this, and I’m rooting for it. In a way I feel like I’m arguing with a fellow Lakers fan going into tonight’s series who is telling me not to worry because we’re going to beat the Thunder- my heart wants me to believe him- but my head tells me otherwise. 
 

So as I suggested in the Iran thread- let’s table this discussion for a few months. If things improve or are not nearly as bad as I thought, I will acknowledge you were right. And very happily. 

[jerryskids]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Sure.  But we didn’t drop bombs on the 2020 rioters.

 

Wut?   

 

[seafoam1]

38 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

Also @nobody I agree with you that as a general rule it’s very unwise to try and evaluate Presidential decision-making in real time. It takes years, sometimes decades to decide if a move was good or bad. This is almost always the case. 
 

However I hold that Trump’s decision to bomb Iran in February is an exception. It’s probably the biggest exception I can think of in world history. It was very clearly a disastrous move, the worst decision of his Presidency was very clearly a disastrous move, the worst decision of his Presidency, probably the worst decision of any Presidency. 

It was not an evil decision; Trump is not Hitler choosing to murder innocent people. It was a hubristic incompetent decision. It would not have been made during Trump’s first term, because he surrounded himself with grownups like Kelly who would have talked him out of it. This time around he surrounded himself with sycophants. I suspect that thru knew the consequences, but were afraid to speak out. Certainly Bibi Netanyahu knew thr consequences but he determined that taking out Iran’s leadership would be beneficial to Israel even if a Hormuz closure flattened our economy for years or decades. So Bibi assured Trump that there was no risk of a closure of the strait. Basically he lied. Trump, flush with victory in Venezuela, believed him: So here we are. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

2 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

LOL, I was talking about you, not the bill.  Almost every post of yours is pro left-wing anti-right wing.  There's a 0% chance you're a conservative/Republican.

It’s a judge, not a bill. Alrightee then.

[Engorgeous George]

I find the question of the Iran Nuke interesting.  

 

When America set out to make an atomic bomb the possibility was an unknown, could it be done, and could it be done in secret, during a war, and in just a few years?  Theanswer was obviously yes.  Now Iran who does not have those doubts, those uncertainties, who in fact has a roadmap on precisely how to do so has not been able to do so in decades.  What is up with that?  And why strive for the Uranium based nuke?  I mean it is not as if the plutonium based Fat Man was not devastating.  I get that the size of a Fat Man makes missle delivery  more or less impractiable to impossible, but a smuggled atomic would be very devastating.  Also, I get producing their own would give them an ongoing source of nukes, but why have they not purchased one from say Russia or North Korea, their allies and friends?  I guess my question is, can we really prevent them from getting a nuke?  

[SUXBNME]

4 hours ago, Caine Mutiny said:

 read up on 1973 and 1979, the last two times we had an energy crisis this significant. 

Plus we were warned that we were about to be plunged into a new ice age. Scary times

[Hardcore troubadour]

16 minutes ago, SUXBNME said:

Plus we were warned that we were about to be plunged into a new ice age. Scary times

They also said rock and roll was dead. That didn’t happen for another 25 years. 

[SaintsInDome2006]

43 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I find the question of the Iran Nuke interesting.  

 

When America set out to make an atomic bomb the possibility was an unknown, could it be done, and could it be done in secret, during a war, and in just a few years?  Theanswer was obviously yes.  Now Iran who does not have those doubts, those uncertainties, who in fact has a roadmap on precisely how to do so has not been able to do so in decades.  What is up with that?  And why strive for the Uranium based nuke?  I mean it is not as if the plutonium based Fat Man was not devastating.  I get that the size of a Fat Man makes missle delivery  more or less impractiable to impossible, but a smuggled atomic would be very devastating.  Also, I get producing their own would give them an ongoing source of nukes, but why have they not purchased one from say Russia or North Korea, their allies and friends?  I guess my question is, can we really prevent them from getting a nuke?  

You’re right, they could, but they haven’t. Pakistan got theirs surreptitiously via a rogue scientist named IQ Khan. They just up & announced it one day. There was no ticking clock where we would pronounce them 6 months, no 6 weeks, no 1 week away. And they help Iran, they fund terrorism, they secreted OBL right under the wing of their military, & today their leadership are business partners with the Trump Family. And guess who gets to handle the negotiations.

Point is we can’t stop Iran, unless we get inspections (see Iraq, or Iran JCPOA) or we effect regime change (see Iraq, Libya).

[Engorgeous George]

26 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

You’re right, they could, but they haven’t. Pakistan got theirs surreptitiously via a rogue scientist named IQ Khan. They just up & announced it one day. There was no ticking clock where we would pronounce them 6 months, no 6 weeks, no 1 week away. And they help Iran, they fund terrorism, they secreted OBL right under the wing of their military, & today their leadership are business partners with the Trump Family. And guess who gets to handle the negotiations.

Point is we can’t stop Iran, unless we get inspections (see Iraq, or Iran JCPOA) or we effect regime change (see Iraq, Libya).

https://youtu.be/BeP9L0mYXBM

[SaintsInDome2006]

 

 

 

 

 

[jerryskids]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

I find the question of the Iran Nuke interesting.  

 

When America set out to make an atomic bomb the possibility was an unknown, could it be done, and could it be done in secret, during a war, and in just a few years?  Theanswer was obviously yes.  Now Iran who does not have those doubts, those uncertainties, who in fact has a roadmap on precisely how to do so has not been able to do so in decades.  What is up with that?  And why strive for the Uranium based nuke?  I mean it is not as if the plutonium based Fat Man was not devastating.  I get that the size of a Fat Man makes missle delivery  more or less impractiable to impossible, but a smuggled atomic would be very devastating.  Also, I get producing their own would give them an ongoing source of nukes, but why have they not purchased one from say Russia or North Korea, their allies and friends?  I guess my question is, can we really prevent them from getting a nuke?  

A little science FYI:  Fat Man was fat because plutonium requires a 360 degree implosion detonation scheme which is much more complex than uranium, which can detonate with a linear "gun" type action.  Essentially the entire structure of a nuclear bomb is the detonator.

The Trinity test was plutonium and intended to test the detonation mechanism.  Little Boy, the Uranium version, was never tested.  Which always struck me as pretty ballsy confidence in their calculations.

https://share.google/aimode/yUsNV5AWG5AU3Ck2F

All of which to say, it would be easier to start with uranium.   

[nobody]

2 hours ago, Engorgeous George said:

Can we really prevent them from getting a nuke?  

No.  It's an infinite game of kick of the can we'll eventually lose.  The hope has to be we kick the can long enough that other mitigating factors come in to play.

[TBayXXXVII]

17 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

It’s a judge, not a bill. Alrightee then.

Ok, let's just close this as, you're a far leftist and no one believes you're a conservative/Republican.  That was what my initial post was about, before you asked me about someone else.

[SaintsInDome2006]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Ok, let's just close this as, you're a far leftist and no one believes you're a conservative/Republican.  That was what my initial post was about, before you asked me about someone else.

My point was Judge Young was appointed by Reagan, he drew up a conservative opinion denying the merger. That’s what you responded to, you just isolated tge part where I said I understood it. Tampa, I don’t get into personal stuff. You’ve always seemed great to me & I don’t have any views about who you are or what you believe. I do think ‘conservative, republican, & Republican’ are all terms that have gotten twisted & I wish mags folks would stop using them. This is a good example. My point was it was a classically conservative opinion.

[TimHauck]

Delta eliminating drink and snack service on flights shorter than 350 miles.  Totally unrelated to the voluntary war with Iran I’m sure

https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/5864598-delta-ends-free-snacks-short-flights/

[SaintsInDome2006]

WSJ - Jet-Fuel Prices Are Spiking and Trump’s Advisers Are Worried ~~~ Administration officials have spoken to the airline industry, which has voiced concerns about the rising costs

<<<

Former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununudelivered a warning to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a recent visit to Washington: Already-high airfares will surge if the war in Iran doesn’t end soon.

Sununu, a Republican who represents some of the biggest airlines as the president of the industry group Airlines for America, has for weeks sounded the alarm to Trump administration officials about the economic fallout from high jet-fuel prices. The war, Sununu has argued, must come to a close soon, or things will get worse.>>>

[Hardcore troubadour]

Bidens top advisor, Neera Tanden, agrees stopping the merger should be reevaluated. 

[TimHauck]

On 5/4/2026 at 7:06 PM, TimHauck said:

I’d argue that any business that goes out of business because of a really bad month or two wasn’t in a good spot financially to begin with, as Spirit was here.  But it is absolutely undeniable that the voluntary war with Iran was the nail in the coffin for them.

Here’s a good article that lays out a lot of the points I’ve made (and more), which I’m sure the righties will dismiss as the author having TDS but this guy has been writing mostly non-political business stuff for awhile:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/who-killed-spirit-airlines

TL/DR on some of the key points:

1.  The sudden spike in oil prices due to the voluntary war with Iran was the nail in the coffin

2. Spirit’s CEO was very clear at the time that he didn’t think the deal with JetBlue would get approved, but the deal with Frontier would have. 

3.  If the merger went through, JetBlue predicted fares on routes Spirit flew would rise ~30%.

4.  JetBlue itself is in trouble and is at risk of going bankrupt themselves.  If they were already merged with Spirit that could have happened sooner.  This is actually part of the reason the deal was blocked in the first place.

5. Despite having the lion’s share of the market, the big airlines hated Spirit and wanted them to fail.  They urged the Trump admin not to bail them out, and in the past big airlines have engaged in predatory pricing trying to drive smaller airlines out of business.

Video form for the people that can’t read good