I don't know where you live but in the US this is patently not true.
Airlines are an abusive oligopoly there, with landing slots and the like cementing control of certain markets for certain airlines.
Ticket prices are much higher than they used to be and are much higher than Europe (for instance).
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/most-profitable-airlines
I think there are lots of airlines that are propped up by governments that lose money leading to the meme you're quoting. Many industries were affected by the events you quoted, those sorts of things aren't specific to airlines.
1) Survivorship Bias: you are only looking at airlines that currently exist, and ignoring ones that have gone out of business.
2) Recency Bias: you're examining them at a time of relative prosperity and stability, ignoring their pasts.
You see an oligopoly, but the barrier to entry is as much defined by the thin margins and high capital cost as anything else.
Though I blame no one, if people want comfort they can pay more or travel less (if possible)
This entire article is about how airlines are unbundling their offerings and doing market segmentation through "optional" add-ons...
Average fares are skewed by low cost carriers entering the market.
>Average fares are skewed by low cost carriers entering the market.
The low cost carriers business model is to fly new routes (to secondary airports if required) at low prices, often creating new demand (Breeze is a classic example of this).
The math is very straight forward if you consider what each group is doing in the market.
Both statements could be true simultaneously, of course.