A similar large scale success in India decades ago:- AMUL is an Indian multinational dairy cooperative, founded on 19 December 1946. With a turnover of US$6.2 billion (2022) and 3.6 million farmer-members, it is the world's largest dairy cooperative and a household name for milk and milk products across India.

The cooperative was born out of exploitation: farmers in Kheda, Gujarat, were forced to supply milk to Polson Dairy, which held a monopoly and paid farmers unfairly through commission-taking agents.

AMUL returns 85% of every rupee earned back to farmers — far above the global average of 33% — and procures milk at rates 15–20% higher than private dairies.

AMUL's democratic governance ensures farmers elect board members who represent their interests, and the Managing Director of each unit is appointed by this farmer-led board — not the state government — preventing political interference and corruption.

AMUL demonstrates how a business can achieve large-scale commercial success while prioritising social justice and environmental care — through collective ownership, democratic governance, equitable profit-sharing, and community investment — offering a powerful model for cooperatives worldwide.

Seems like an interesting idea. Wish I could get some more information on who is behind this website for credibility purposes

Average pledge size is $666 (from 40k pledges). That strikes me as a lot. And obviously cursed.

Awesome, I hope we see a lot more of this. Co-ops do work, REI is one, Modo is another and we could have many more. Over and over again companies are slowly destroyed by extractive shareholders or PE firms, the current structure of a public company is not the only possible shape.

Reading from Wikipedia Spirit sounds like a horrible low-cost Airline like Ryanair. Why should we rescue something which hurts employees and passengers?

If it would be TWA or PanAm my reaction would be positive.

> The only thing missing is ownership that answers to the people — not to shareholders.

To be clear, the proposed Spirit Air 2.0 would also be answerable to shareholders. A structural difference is that each shareholder would have one vote regardless of capital contribution. But the real substantive difference is the spirit of what they’re fighting for: worker ownership, affordable fares, transparent operations, no golden parachutes, etc.

100% guarantee of years of uncertainty, so any large venture built on disposable income is a non starter. The Cruise Ship industry is precarious, and with a hanta virus outbreak on one ship pointing to just how shoddy the whole thing needs to be for profit, a surge of sick ships is likely. Fuel for planes and ships could cost much more, and then become unavailible in certain locations, which would be part of the recipie for a full crisis involving a sick ship or resort, some small country refusing (legitametly) a quarantiened ship, whatever scenario, the point is that running these huge tourist operations requires significant EXCESS capacity, not missing pieces and ultra slim margins.

Can someone help me understand the argument that the FTC blocking the merger was bad?

The argument I have seen is that blocking it resulted in Spirit dying and people losing their jobs and there being less competition.

Wouldn’t the same exact thing have happened regardless? Am i supposed to believe that Jet Blue would have kept all of those employees? There would be one less competitor anyway, and in the merger case they’re even more powerful now meaning competing is harder.

It seems to me it’s just that creditors want to be paid out by a merger rather than paid our for cents on the dollar when it died on it’s own.

Interesting, what will happen to the current planes and crews, why would I want to invest and bring back Spirit?

> PROPOSED ONLY: Profit shares would scale with pledge amount under the proposed structure. This is not a confirmed financial instrument. Nothing here constitutes an offer of securities.

There's no way they could get away with something significantly different, right? Like anything else they'd just be liable for being sued?