Spirit collapsed because they did not make enough money.
Most airlines don’t make money on flights, but on extras and credit cards.
How does this new spirit not have to raise its prices to be a premium airline with expensive pricing? I think people would pay for it if they got premium features, but the issue is, those features take money to implement.
Maybe they can cut enough costs to make them profitable? A lot of airlines don’t own their planes but lease them… budget airlines tend to buy “leftover” planes from after the United’s, American Airlines, etc of the world are done with them, so they have higher maintenance costs and their planes are less efficient.
I don’t really see a proposal above “let’s buy it”.
Buying it and giving everyone 1 voting share is pretty much how publicly traded companies work (except you can have more than 1 share).
Crowdfunding this is a risky proposition for a failed business.
If it can’t exist without being premium prices and offering, does that mean this is now a new thing the lower class cannot have? Ability to fly,
Digression, This feels like a disease of costs. They always have to climb, somebody has to be sacrificed to reach these new ever higher luxuries. I see the same in my industry. And I want to slam on the brakes and yell “not that fast”
Perhaps this gave me a glimmer of hope, can a company operate without all the overhead of middle men. As I believe you’re correctly pointing out, it can operate on marginally profits, but the risks are too high. When mistakes are made there’s no room in the books
The OP text claims that Spirit was burdened down by debt. I don’t know the exact circumstances, but these days aquisitions often happen by putting the debt on the company purchased, so even otherwise profitable businesses can be made unviable because the new owner leveraged the purchase too heavily.
So if those debts got a haircut in the insolvency process, or the sellers agree to cut them as part of a rescue purchase, that might make Spirit economically viable again.
Also, a normal shareholder company gives votes according to the number of shares owned. The proposed model in the OP text is explicitly only one vote per owner, which is a legal requirement for coops in the US afaik (the profit sharing is more flexible).
Last but not least, research shows that worker owned coops are significantly more resilient to economic down-turns and other shocks. This is partially because of the higher willingness of the workers to go without or lower pay for a while, so it can be seen as a form of self-exploitation, but regardless of that, a Spirit cooperative might be viable when Spirit Inc. was not.
Depends on what you mean by viability.
Spirit collapsed because they did not make enough money.
Most airlines don’t make money on flights, but on extras and credit cards.
How does this new spirit not have to raise its prices to be a premium airline with expensive pricing? I think people would pay for it if they got premium features, but the issue is, those features take money to implement.
Maybe they can cut enough costs to make them profitable? A lot of airlines don’t own their planes but lease them… budget airlines tend to buy “leftover” planes from after the United’s, American Airlines, etc of the world are done with them, so they have higher maintenance costs and their planes are less efficient.
I don’t really see a proposal above “let’s buy it”.
Buying it and giving everyone 1 voting share is pretty much how publicly traded companies work (except you can have more than 1 share).
Crowdfunding this is a risky proposition for a failed business.
good tidbit about high maintenance planes.
If it can’t exist without being premium prices and offering, does that mean this is now a new thing the lower class cannot have? Ability to fly,
Digression, This feels like a disease of costs. They always have to climb, somebody has to be sacrificed to reach these new ever higher luxuries. I see the same in my industry. And I want to slam on the brakes and yell “not that fast”
Perhaps this gave me a glimmer of hope, can a company operate without all the overhead of middle men. As I believe you’re correctly pointing out, it can operate on marginally profits, but the risks are too high. When mistakes are made there’s no room in the books
The OP text claims that Spirit was burdened down by debt. I don’t know the exact circumstances, but these days aquisitions often happen by putting the debt on the company purchased, so even otherwise profitable businesses can be made unviable because the new owner leveraged the purchase too heavily.
So if those debts got a haircut in the insolvency process, or the sellers agree to cut them as part of a rescue purchase, that might make Spirit economically viable again.
Also, a normal shareholder company gives votes according to the number of shares owned. The proposed model in the OP text is explicitly only one vote per owner, which is a legal requirement for coops in the US afaik (the profit sharing is more flexible).
Last but not least, research shows that worker owned coops are significantly more resilient to economic down-turns and other shocks. This is partially because of the higher willingness of the workers to go without or lower pay for a while, so it can be seen as a form of self-exploitation, but regardless of that, a Spirit cooperative might be viable when Spirit Inc. was not.