I agree with LuganoPirate here, but not completely.
I am pleased that LoCos provide travel opportunities for those who did not have them before, and employment and all sorts of other economic benefits.
But, “cheaper and adequate” is not everything we want from an airline. Diatribes against this or that airline on this forum show that many of us feel this.
I think there are some limited analogies between airlines and the two areas in which I work, health care and education. Of course, everything must be paid for, and while cutting costs safety can be protected – as it is in aviation. But a cheap and safe product may still not be a very good product. The universities of Cambridge and Harvard are more expensive per student than (insert the low-cost university of your choice). The student at the low cost university will get from admission to graduation safely, and if he or she is bright and works hard may be as well educated as the Cambridge or Harvard student, but do you want to drag Cambridge and Harvard down in the cause of making them cheaper?
Similarly, I know my heart attack will be perfectly well treated by my local NHS hospital, and the Mayo Clinic or the Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset are more expensive per patient: but they are also better. Those of us who spend some or most of our time in the UK know what penny-pinching (and perpetual political interference) has done to the NHS.