Summer camp: It’s for munching on s’mores, seizing victory in tug-of-war and making lifelong friends.

For this group of successful businesswomen, though, it’s also about trading tactical advice about managing boards of directors and selling companies. And fighting to get a piece of an investment world dominated by men.

Welcome to Camp Female Founders Fund, a coastal oasis in Montauk, New York, on eastern Long Island, where female business leaders broaden their networks, share their struggles and triumphs and have some fun.

From American Eagle to Swatch, brands appear to be making a lot of blunders lately.

When actress Sydney Sweeney’s jeans campaign came out last month, critics lambasted the wordplay of good “jeans” and “genes” as tone deaf with nefarious undertones.

More recently, an advert from Swiss watchmaker Swatch sparked backlash for featuring an Asian model pulling the corners of his eyes, in an offensive gesture.

Colgate-Palmolive’s ad for Sanex shower gel was banned in the U.K. for problematic suggestions about Black and white skin tones. And consumers derided Cracker Barrel’s decision to ditch its overalls-clad character for a more simplistic text-based logo as “sterile,” “soulless,” and “woke.”

Meanwhile, recent product launches from Adidas and Prada have raised allegations of cultural appropriation.

That has reignited the debate about when an ad campaign is effective and when it’s just plain offensive, as companies confront increased consumer scrutiny.

“Each brand had its own blind spot,” David Brier, brand specialist and author of “Brand intervention” and “Rich brand, poor brand” told CNBC via email.

He noted, however, that too many brands are attempting to respond to consumers with an outdated playbook.

“Modern brands are trying to navigate cultural complexity with corporate simplicity. They’re using 1950s boardroom thinking to solve 2025 human problems,” he continued.

“These aren’t sensitivity failures. They’re empathy failures. They viewed culture as something to navigate around rather than understand deeply.”

Some companies have had success in tapping into the zeitgeist — and, in some cases, seizing on other brands’ shortcomings.

Gap, for instance, this week sought to counter backlash against Sweeney’s advertisement with a campaign in which pop group Katseye lead a diverse group of dancers performing in denim against a white backdrop.

Brier said companies should consider how they can genuinely connect with consumers and be representative, rather than simply trying to avoid offense.

“No brand can afford to fake understanding. No brand can ‘committee its way’ to connection. No brand can focus-group its way to authenticity. In 2025, customers can smell the difference from a mile away,” he added.

Nevertheless, ads are meant to spark conversation, and at a time when grabbing and maintaining consumers’ attention — and share of wallet — is increasingly difficult, brands have a fine balance to tread.

“Brands live and die by standing out and grabbing attention. On top of that, iconic and culturally relevant brands want to stand for something and be recognized for it. Those are tough asks,” Jonathan A.J. Wilson, professor of brand strategy and culture at Regent’s University London.

In an age of social media and with ever more divided public opinions, landing one universal message can be difficult, Wilson noted. For as long as that remains the case, some brands may still see value in taking a calculated risk.

“It’s hard to land one universal message, and even if you try and tailor your message to various groups, others are watching,” he said.

“Controversy grabs attention and puts you at the front of people’s minds. It splits crowds and forces people to have a decision when otherwise they probably wouldn’t care. That can lead to disproportionate publicity, which could be converted into sales.”

The Trump administration said Friday that it had taken a 10% stake in Intel, the president’s latest extraordinary move to exert federal government control over private business.

The United States will not seek direct representation on Intel’s board and pledged to vote with the current Board of Directors on matters requiring shareholder approval, ‘with limited exceptions,’ according to a joint release from the Trump administration and Intel. The move also comes as the United States vies with China in the race to dominate the artificial intelligence industry.

President Donald Trump announced the deal on his Truth Social platform Friday, praising the company’s CEO just two weeks after he called on the executive to resign over alleged China ties.

‘It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future,’ he wrote. ‘I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL. Building leading edge Semiconductors and Chips, which is what INTEL does, is fundamental to the future of our Nation.’

While the U.S. held temporary stakes in firms at the center of the 2008-2009 global financial meltdown as part of a bailout, this move is unusual since the economy is not embroiled in a crisis. Congress published a study in 2003 that examined the impact of the federal government taking direct stakes in public companies, concluding that doing so would “not offer a free lunch” and expose taxpayers to “greater risk” alongside the upside potential.

The stake will be paid for through $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded to Intel under the 2022 U.S. CHIPS and Science Act, plus $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of a program called Secure Enclave. It’s a formerly classified initiative that Congress appropriated funds for in 2024 after lobbying by Intel, Politico reported in 2024.

Including $2.2 billion in CHIPs grants Intel has received so far, the total investment is $11.1 billion, or 9.9%. Intel is valued at about $108 billion on the stock market.

Trump continues to bulldoze through long-held norms regarding government and business, departing from the free-market ethos that has long prevailed in both major U.S. political parties.

This month, Trump persuaded the chipmakers Nvidia and AMD to pay the U.S. government 15% of their revenues from some sales to China in return for securing export licenses there.

While those firms have seen their fortunes rise amid the larger artificial intelligence boom, a windfall from any of them is no sure thing. In the case of California-based Intel, the company has struggled to keep up with rivals in recent years, with its shares down some 60% from the highs seen during the pandemic.

But amid the ongoing artificial intelligence arms race — and the goal of making computer chips a national security priority — Trump officials zeroed in on Intel as a means of leveling up U.S. control over semiconductor production.

Earlier this week, Japan’s SoftBank also announced it would invest $2 billion in Intel to “deepen their commitment to investing in advanced technology and semiconductor innovation in the United States.’

Some Democrats signaled they were on board with the move.

‘U.S. leadership is critical for both our economy and national security,’ U.S. Senator Mark Warner, D-Virginia, said in a statement Friday evening.

‘Taking an equity stake in Intel may or may not be the right approach, but one thing is clear: allowing cutting-edge chips to flow to China without restraint will erode the value of any investment we make here at home. We need a strategy that protects American innovation, strengthens our workforce, and keeps the technologies of the future firmly in American hands.’

U.S. taxpayers are now the largest shareholders in Intel. What comes next isn’t so clear.

The Trump administration announced Friday that the government had taken a 10% stake in the California-based computer chipmaker, which has fallen behind rivals Nvidia and AMD in the artificial intelligence race. Over the past five years, Intel’s share price has declined more than 50%.

The administration has not provided any details about when or under what circumstances it would sell the Intel shares — or whether it would sell them at all. Nor did it say whether the United States would benefit from any dividends, although Intel has not paid out any since last year. The administration does not plan to take any board seats and has said it will vote against the company only in “limited” circumstances.

While Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested Friday that national security was a key motivator for taking the stake, President Donald Trump focused Monday more on the prospect of financial gains.

“I will make deals like that for our Country all day long,” Trump said on Truth Social. “I love seeing their stock price go up, making the USA RICHER, AND RICHER. More jobs for America!” he added.

Intel’s shares have climbed about 4% since the transaction was announced. Some experts said that while there is a potential upside to the agreement, it represents another norm-shattering expansion of presidential authority by Trump into the business world — and most likely not the last.

Already, the Trump administration has taken a “golden share” in Japan’s Nippon Steel as part of a deal granting approval to that company’s bid for U.S. Steel and giving the government a say in future Nippon transactions. Last month, the Defense Department announced it had purchased $400 million in rare earth miner MP Materials, making it the company’s largest shareholder. The White House also plans to take a cut of the sales that chipmakers Nvidia and AMD make to China.

Trump told reporters Monday that he hopes to see “many more” deals like Intel’s, adding that nobody “realizes how great it will be.” Kevin Hassett, director of Trump’s National Economic Council, said similar deals could help form the basis of a sovereign wealth fund, an idea that the administration had floated earlier as a way of giving U.S. taxpayers direct stakes in companies but had yet to fully develop.

“At some point there’ll be more transactions, if not in this industry, in other industries,” Hassett said on CNBC.

The U.S. stake in Intel does not amount to a complete government takeover. While the federal government has assumed total control of private corporations before, such incidents have usually happened during times of crisis — and not with the direct intention of trying to play the markets.

“He’s doing all this in a spooky, controversial way,” said Clyde Wayne Marks, a fellow in regulatory studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank. “Right now there is no crisis.”

President Woodrow Wilson nationalized railroads, as well as the telegraph, telephone, radio and wireless stations, during World War I. Nearly two decades ago, the government bailed out a host of private firms during the 2008-09 global financial crisis.

While the bailout involved holding corporate assets on the U.S. government’s books with the goal of returning earnings to taxpayers, there was never any serious intention to own them over the long term. And a Government Accountability Office study concluded in 2023 that the program ultimately came at a net cost of about $31 billion.

The U.S. government has long provided subsidies to private corporations in the form of loans and grants, to varying degrees of success. Two high-profile examples came during the Obama administration, when the Energy Department provided loans to a solar power company called Solyndra and to electric vehicle maker Tesla. Solyndra ultimately went bankrupt, while today Tesla is worth $1.2 trillion on the stock market.

Some have argued that the United States would have benefited from having taken a stake in Tesla. Yet at the time Tesla received the loan, in 2010, beliefs about the free market and the need to limit the government’s role in it prevailed not just among Republicans, but among Democrats, as well, experts say.

“Our system has not typically been built that way — it’s not how free enterprise is typically run,” said Dan Reicher, a former Energy Department official under Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. “History has proven that the more free-market approach, making the bottom line the bottom line for the companies running these operations, is a smarter way to go.”

Intel’s fortunes have sagged. Its manufacturing segment lost $3.2 billion in the second quarter, and last month it said it would lay off 15% of its workforce by year’s end while canceling billions in planned investments and delaying the completion date for a $28 billion chip plant near Columbus, Ohio.

In a securities filing Monday, Intel warned investors of the potential risks involved in the U.S. investment, among them that the arrangement may actually limit its ability to secure grants down the road, depending on its future performance. It could also harm international sales and make Intel subject to additional regulations and restrictions, both at home and abroad, it said.

On Monday, Trump was asked whether the Intel investment represented a new way of doing industrial policy.

“Yeah. Sure it is,” Trump said. “I want to try to get as much as I can.”

Cracker Barrel tried to reassure customers Monday that its values have remained the same after it received criticism following a new logo reveal and general brand refresh.

The company promised customers in a statement that while its logo may be different, its values — “hard work, family, and scratch-cooked food made with care’ — are not.

“You’ve shown us that we could’ve done a better job sharing who we are and who we’ll always be,” the statement read, adding that Cracker Barrel will remain “a place where everyone feels at home, no matter where you’re from or where you’re headed.”

Last week, the company unveiled a new logo that no longer features a man leaning against a barrel or the words ‘Old Country Store.’ Instead, it featured the company’s name, in a color scheme that it said was inspired by the chain’s scrambled eggs and biscuits.

The change was part of a ‘strategic transformation’ that aimed to update the chain’s visual elements, spaces, food and retail offerings. The company’s shares are down about 8.5% since the reveal ignited criticism, especially from those in conservative circles.

Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, amplified a post Wednesday suggesting that the logo change was intended to erase the American traditions aspect of the branding and make it more general and lean into diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

On Monday, the chain also shared an update on the man in the original logo, Uncle Herschel, who is said is still featured on menus and road signs and in stores.

‘He’s not going anywhere — he’s family,’ the company said in the statement.

Cracker Barrel said its focuses remain country hospitality and generous portions of food at fair prices. The refresh, it said, was to ensure the restaurant will be there for the next generation.

‘That means showing up on new platforms and in new ways, but always with our heritage at the heart,’ it said.

‘We know we won’t always get everything right the first time, but we’ll keep testing, learning, and listening to our guests and employees.’

The U.S. government could take equity stakes in more companies, potentially through an American sovereign wealth fund, according to one of President Donald Trump’s top economic advisers.

National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett made the comments Monday, days after the United States took a nearly 10% stake in Intel. The government secured a piece of the semiconductor maker with money intended for grants as part of the CHIPS and Science Act, passed during the Biden administration.

Speaking about the new Intel position, Hassett told CNBC: “It’s like a down payment on a sovereign wealth fund, which many countries have.” Governments throughout Europe, Asia and the Middle East use such funds to invest in companies and other financial assets.

The federal government has taken ownership stakes in private companies before, but only under extraordinary circumstances, such as during the global financial crisis of 2008.

Hassett said the Intel investment was a ‘very, very special circumstance because of the massive amount of CHIPS Act spending that was coming Intel’s way.’

He added: “So I’m sure that at some point there’ll be more transactions, if not in this industry, in other industries.’

The CHIPS Act was established as a way for the government to provide financing and capital to foreign and domestic companies that manufactured semiconductors and related products in the United States.

Americans and the American economy received the benefit of more than $200 billion in private capital investments since the act was signed into law, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Many companies also announced plans to create new U.S. manufacturing and construction jobs.

Hassett has said the money was ‘going out and disappearing into the ether.’

He has also said, ‘We’re absolutely not in the business of picking winners and losers.’ However, the United States is now Intel’s largest single shareholder. The administration has also taken a ‘golden share’ in U.S. Steel as part of approving its merger with Japan’s Nippon Steel. Trump also said he negotiated with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang to take a 15% cut of the chipmaker’s revenue from some chips sold in China. He also has a similar deal with rival chipmaker AMD.

Later Monday, Trump said, ‘I want them to do well anyway, but I want them to do well in particular now.’

He added, ‘I hope I’m going to have many more cases like’ the Intel stake. Asked whether taking equity stakes in private companies was the new way of doing business in the United States, Trump responded: ‘So are tariffs.’

After Hassett’s interview, Trump said on Truth Social: ‘I PAID ZERO FOR INTEL, IT IS WORTH APPROXIMATELY 11 BILLION DOLLARS. All goes to the USA.’ He also said he would ‘help those companies that make such lucrative deals with the United States.’

It was unclear why Trump said the United States did not pay anything for the stake. The government purchased 433.3 million Intel shares at $20.47 each, which equates to $8.9 billion.

Trump has also pushed companies to change course on key products, such as when he pre-emptively announced that Coca-Cola would add cane sugar to an American version of its namesake product.

Trump has also threatened firms such as Amazon, Mattel, Hasbro and Walmart with retaliation for hiking prices as a result of his sweeping global tariff regime.

Trump intervention in private industry has sparked widespread criticism, some of it from Republicans. Trump’s former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, a former Boeing board member, said on X: ‘Intel will become a test case of what not to do.’

After the CNBC interview, NBC News asked Hassett about setting up a sovereign wealth fund.

‘As we acquire things like Intel, then there’s sort of a question of where it goes and it’s held by the U.S. Treasury. And if the U.S. Treasury has more of that stuff, that is starting to look like [a] sovereign wealth fund, whether an official sovereign wealth fund is established is another question,’ he said.

‘But it’s not unprecedented for the U.S. to own equity’ in private companies, he added.

The United States took equity stakes in private companies during the global financial meltdown of 2008 and 2009.

Then, it bought troubled assets and took equity stakes in the likes of JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG and other systemically important firms to stabilize the global financial system.

Trump has expanded his power over the business world, fueled by his view that the U.S. economy is like ‘a department store, and we set the price.’

‘I meet with the companies, and then I set a fair price, what I consider to be a fair price, and they can pay it, or they don’t have to pay it,’ Trump said in an April interview.

Keurig Dr Pepper said Monday it will buy Peet’s Coffee owner JDE Peet’s in a deal worth about $18 billion (15.7 billion euro).

When the acquisition is complete, the company plans to split into two separate companies, one focused on coffee and the other focused on beverages including Dr Pepper, Canada Dry, 7Up and energy drinks.

The coffee business will have about $16 billion in combined sales and the beverage business about $11 billion.

“Through the complementary combination of Keurig and JDE Peet’s, we are seizing an exceptional opportunity to create a global coffee giant,” said Tim Cofer, Keurig Dr Pepper’s CEO.

In addition to Peet’s, Amsterdam-based JDE Peet’s brands include L’OR, Jacobs, Douwe Egberts, Kenco, Pilao, OldTown, Super and Moccona.

Once the two companies are separated, Cofer will become CEO of the beverage business, which will be based in Frisco, Texas, and Keurig Dr Pepper CFO Sudhanshu Priyadarshi will lead the coffee business, which will be located in Burlington, Mass., with its international headquarters in Amsterdam.

Google has eliminated more than one-third of its managers overseeing small teams, an executive told employees last week, as the company continues its focus on efficiencies across the organization.

“Right now, we have 35% fewer managers, with fewer direct reports” than at this time a year ago, said Brian Welle, vice president of people analytics and performance, according to audio of an all-hands meeting reviewed by CNBC. “So a lot of fast progress there.”

At the meeting, employees asked Welle and other executives about job security, “internal barriers” and Google’s culture after several recent rounds of layoffs, buyouts and reorganizations.

Welle said the idea is to reduce bureaucracy and run the company more efficiently.

“When we look across our entire leadership population, that’s mangers, directors and VPs, we want them to be a smaller percentage of our overall workforce over time,” he said.

The 35% reduction refers to the number of managers who oversee fewer than three people, according to a person familiar with the matter. Many of those managers stayed with the company as individual contributors, said the person, who asked not to be named because the details are private.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai weighed in at the meeting, reiterating the need for the company “to be more efficient as we scale up so we don’t solve everything with headcount.”

Google eliminated about 6% of its workforce in 2023, and has implemented cuts in various divisions since then. Alphabet finance chief Anat Ashkenazi, who joined the company last year, said in October that she would push cost cuts “a little further.” Google has offered buyouts to employees since January, and the company has slowed hiring, asking employees to do more with less.

Regarding the buyouts, executives at the town hall said that a total of 10 product areas have presented “Voluntary Exit Program” offers. They’ve applied to U.S.-based employees in search, marketing, hardware and people operations teams this year.

Fiona Cicconi, Google’s chief people officer, said at last week’s meeting that between 3% and 5% of employees on those teams have accepted the buyouts.

“This has been actually quite successful,” she said, adding “I think we can continue it.”

Pichai said the company executed the voluntary buyouts after listening to employees, who said they preferred that route to blanket layoffs.

“It’s a lot of work that’s gone into implementing the VEP program, and I’m glad we’ve done it,” Pichai said. “It gives people agency, and I’m glad to see it’s worked out well.”

Cicconi said one of the main reasons employees are taking the buyouts is because they want to take time off from work.

“It’s actually quite interesting to see who’s taking a VEP, and it’s people sort of wanting a career break, sometimes to take care of family members,” she said.

CNBC previously reported that the layoffs hurt morale as the company was downsizing while at the same time issuing blowout earnings and seeing its stock price jump. Alphabet’s shares are up 10% this year after climbing 36% in 2024 and 58% the year prior.

At another point in the town hall, employees asked if Google would consider a policy similar to Meta’s “recharge,” a month-long sabbatical that employees earn after five years at the company.

“We have a lot of leaves, not least our vacation, which is there for exactly that — resting and recharging,” said Alexandra Maddison, Google’s senior director of benefits.

She said the company is not going to offer paid sabbatical.

“We’re very confident that our current offering is competitive,” Maddison said.

Meta didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Other executives jumped in to compare the two companies’ benefits.

“I don’t think they have a VEP at Meta by the way,” Cicconi said.

Pichai then asked, to some laughs from the audience, “Should we incorporate all policies of Meta while we’re at it? Or should we only pick and choose the few policies we like?”

“Maybe I should try running the company with all of Meta’s policies,” he continued. “No, probably not.”

Uncle Herschel is returning to the Cracker Barrel chair.

After online outrage by conservatives who accused the country-themed restaurant chain of changing its values or going “woke” when it rolled out a new logo, the company said Tuesday that it was returning to its old branding.

‘We thank our guests for sharing your voices and love for Cracker Barrel. We said we would listen, and we have. Our new logo is going away and our ‘Old Timer’ will remain,’ Cracker Barrel said on Facebook.

‘At Cracker Barrel, it’s always been — and always will be — about serving up delicious food, warm welcomes, and the kind of country hospitality that feels like family,’ the company said. ‘As a proud American institution, our 70,000 hardworking employees look forward to welcoming you to our table soon.’

Cracker Barrel, which has restaurants in 43 states, on Aug. 18 announced its new ‘All the More’ campaign and logo change, which removed the old man perched on a chair and the barrel from Cracker Barrel signs.

The new logo did not go over well in some spheres, and on social media, conservative critics accused the restaurant chain of abandoning its traditional values or of being ‘woke.’

President Donald Trump weighed in on the matter earlier Tuesday, writing on his social media platform, Truth Social, that the company should return to the old logo.

After Cracker Barrel announced the reversal Tuesday, Trump said on the platform: ‘Congratulations ‘Cracker Barrel’ on changing your logo back to what it was. All of your fans very much appreciate it.’ Trump also wished the company good luck.

Taylor Budowich, a deputy White House chief of staff, claimed on X that he’d spoken with people at Cracker Barrel by phone Tuesday about the issue and said, ‘They thanked President Trump for weighing in on the issue of their iconic ‘original’ logo.’

Cracker Barrel did not immediately respond to a request for comment about a White House call.

Shares of Cracker Barrel jumped sharply Tuesday night after it announced the reversal. Since the debut of the new logo on Aug. 18, shares are down nearly 13%.

Cracker Barrel tried to tamp down the controversy Monday by admitting ‘we could’ve done a better job sharing who we are and who we’ll always be’ and issuing reassurances that its values had not changed.

The change was part of a “strategic transformation” that started in 2024 to revitalize the brand, CNBC reported when the new logo was introduced. The company has said that the initiative included ‘refreshing the brand identity’ and making changes to its menu.

Other companies have been met with right-wing outrage for advertising or other business decisions, including when Bud Light had a branded content partnership with transgender TikToker Dylan Mulvaney.

Frontier Airlines is going after customers of Spirit Airlines, whose financial footing has gotten so shaky in recent weeks that it warned earlier this month it might not be able to survive another year without more cash.

Frontier on Tuesday announced 20 routes it plans to start this winter, many of them in major Spirit markets like its base at Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Florida. Frontier overlaps with Spirit on 35% of its capacity, more than any other airline, according to a Monday note from Deutsche Bank airline analyst Michael Linenberg.

Some of Frontier’s new routes from Fort Lauderdale include flights to Detroit, Houston, Chicago and Charlotte, North Carolina. It’s also rolling out routes from Houston to New Orleans; San Pedro Sula, Honduras; and Guatemala City.

Frontier had tried and failed to merge with its budget airline rival several times since 2022.

“I’m not here to talk about M&A,” Frontier CEO Barry Biffle said in an interview with CNBC on Tuesday when asked whether Frontier would buy Spirit. Biffle said he expects that Frontier would pick up the majority of Spirit’s market share if Spirit collapsed.

Both carriers have struggled from changing customer tastes for more upmarket seats and trips abroad, an oversupply of domestic capacity, and higher labor and other costs. Spirit’s situation has become more dire however, after it emerged from four months of bankruptcy protection in March facing many of the same problems.

Ultra-low-cost airlines are also challenged by larger rivals like United Airlines, American Airline and Delta Air Lines that have rolled out their own no-frills basic economy tickets but also offer customers bigger choices of destinations and other perks onboard like snacks and beverages.

Stock prices of rival airlines surged after Spirit’s warning earlier this month.

Biffle said the carrier wants to become the country’s largest budget airline and has rolled out loyalty matching programs to grab more customers. Frontier’s capacity was slightly smaller than Spirit’s in the second quarter, through the latter had slashed its flying by nearly 24% from a year earlier, while Frontier was down only 2%.

Spirit last week said it drew down the entire $275 million of its revolver and while it reached a two-year extension on its credit card processing agreement with U.S. Bank N.A., it agreed that it would hold back up to $3 million a day from the carrier.

The airline lost $245.8 million in the second quarter. Frontier lost $70 million.

Spirit has been looking for ways to slash costs, including furloughing and demoting hundreds more pilots and cutting unprofitable routes. Hundreds of flight attendants are on unpaid leaves of absence.

Spirit CEO Dave Davis said in an Aug. 12 staff memo after its “going concern” warning that “the team and I are confident that we can build a Spirit that will continue to provide consumers the unmatched value that they have come to expect for many years to come.”

The carrier reached a deal with bondholders who agreed to convert debt to equity in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but it didn’t cut other costs like renegotiating aircraft leases. Leasing firms have been reaching out to rivals in recent weeks to gauge whether competitors would take any of the Airbus planes that are in Spirit’s hands, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked to speak anonymously because the talks were private.

— CNBC’s Phil LeBeau contributed to this report.