Remix.run Logo
amazingamazing 4 hours ago

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

Noble, but this will fail. Why would anyone do this? No incentive.

These sorts of initiatives forget the toil of actually operating a business. You might as well get more pledges given that you'd have more control and the same profit share. It will regress to the same as the status quo.

nerdsniper 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I pledged $1,000. I have been daydreaming about a customer-owned airline for years now, just about every time I walk through an airport. This might not have much chance of succeeding in its purchase of Spirit’s assets, but I’d love to watch things unfold if it did.

> These sorts of initiatives forget the toil of actually operating a business.

For most businesses the size of Spirit Airlines, the owners typically do not operate the business. They pay people to do that. I don’t operate REI, even though I’m one of its many owners.

rkagerer 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Thank you. There's a lot of criticism and skepticism here, and it's nice to see an optimistic comment.

I've no idea if the proponents of this plan are reputable, but the concept reminds me of the early years of WestJet, when they made a big fuss about being employee owned and had (back then) a markedly better customer experience. For US residents reading this, I'm told they were a bit like Southwest Airlines.

Even if the naysayers are correct and the probability of this panning out is low, you'll never hit the pitches you don't swing at, right?

iknowstuff 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

aren't there plenty of state owned airlines?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government-owned_airli...

nerdsniper 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Not in the USA. Also, the state’s interests often aren’t super well-aligned with the customers’ interests. Too many conflicts of interest for my taste.

mylifeandtimes 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Evidence? Isn't the state the expression of the people's will? That's the theory of democracy, isn't it?

Also, any evidence or reason to believe that an extraction-based capitalist model is more aligned with customer interests (where the customer is the thing value is extracted from, and where corporate leadership salaries are directly tied to how much they can grift from the customers) than a government where the incentive is to get the maximum number of happy fliers to vote for you?

nerdsniper 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

“citizens”, “customers” and “politicians” are three different groups. The government might want to use the airline as tax revenue, artificially increasing prices on customers to support non-customers.

Or the government may want to give their airline unfair advantages, which would decrease real competition and create a brittle industry. Or the government might want to strangle their own company, in order to declare that it is “bad and dumb” in order to manufacture popular support to privatize the public company.

MrBuddyCasino 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Isn't the state the expression of the people's will?

Just recently HN discussed the „ban anonymity on the internet“ initiatives of various governments and who was behind it because nobody wants that. Certainly not the citizens.

neonstatic an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

wow, it's almost like you will become... a shareholder?

corvad 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not sure that's even noble as by buying you would be a shareholder...

UqWBcuFx6NV4r 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes. Reminds me of the “anarchists” that don’t realise that they just want to recreate the government but with their people in charge.

mjevans 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Some of them want to create a monarchy with them in charge... Remember to be on the lookout for that trend too.

morkalork 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Co-ops don't exist at all, right?

tunapizza 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Few people know this, but Desjardins, a Canadian financial service cooperative, is hugely popular in the province of Quebec (and also Ontario), and has close to CAD $400 billions in total assets.

doubled112 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wouldn't say they are common.

MEC was the only co-op I have ever been part of. I'm pretty sure they stopped being a co-op and sold it to private equity.

throw0101c 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For the Americans in the audience: MEC ~ Canadian REI.

See perhaps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers%27_co-operative

bombcar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Vanguard is "kind of" like a co-op, in that it is owned by its mutual funds which are owned by its customers.

Fidelity is still better in some metrics, however.

amazingamazing 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I dont know of any with such high capex

tonyarkles 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is a really interesting thing, both from an ownership structure perspective and from a "there is nuance in the details" perspective. I did a bit of a deep dive into this a few years ago when there was a local refinery strike. The refinery is a co-op and is also part of a larger co-op system.

I'll lay out the specifics here from what I learned. I'm not convinced either way, yet, that it could work for an airline.

So here's the ownership structure:

- Co-op Refinery Complex (CRC) - produces fuel

- Federated Co-operatives (FCL) - owns the refinery, also owns food and agriculture distribution warehouses, negotiates bulk pricing

- 200-ish independent regional Co-ops jointly own FCL

The CRC is highly profitable. FCL is profitable. The independent regional co-ops are not, on their own, all individually profitable. Some of these exist in small rural centres, some of them exist in larger cities. The urban ones are generally profitable, the smaller ones not so much. The rural ones, though, are largely the lifebloods of their communities; it's not unusual for the Co-op Grocery Store and Co-op Gas Station to be the only sources of food and fuel for miles and miles. While these do sometimes run at a loss, they make up for it with their annual Patronage cheques from FCL: when the CRC makes a profit and when FCL makes a profit (from the CRC and from their distribution network), those profits get returned back to the member co-ops on a pro rata basis: buy more from FCL, get more at the end of the year.

At the far tail end, each of these independent co-ops is a member-owned co-op. At the end of the year I end up getting a patronage cheque based on how much fuel, food, and building supplies I bought that year. It's not large, but getting a $100 cheque in the mail is always nice :).

In this situation, though, it all works because the not-so-profitable pieces own both their upstream wholesalers and a crazy-profitable refinery. (The refinery sells to other customers outside of FCL as well).

One of the other critical pieces that the strike/lockout/overall "labour dispute" really made clear to everyone: the independent Co-ops, FCL, and the upstream CRC are all member-owned co-ops, not worker-owned co-ops.

---

So let's look at how an airline co-op might be structured. The first parallel that I could see would be flipping the regional airline model on its head; currently the big players like Delta and United run a bunch of their smaller routes through regionals (SkyWest, Republic, etc). If a bunch of them got together, they could in theory jointly one one of the majors. The wrinkle there, as others have pointed out, the majors aren't profitable as airlines, but rather through their credit cards and loyalty programs. Alternative, then? Do a bunch of regionals get together and buy a bank? Let the bank be profitable, let the major airline handle traffic between the regional hubs?

I know quite a bit less about worker-owned co-ops, but generally speaking aviation is incredibly capital intensive. Starting a worker-owned co-op airline is probably not possible. A single, say, 737 Max 8 costs $121M. That capital's gotta come from somewhere.

paulddraper 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

Like, all people in the world?

Customers? Employees?

What does this mean?

EDIT: It’s shareholders, but each person has one vote regardless of share count.

nerdsniper 4 hours ago | parent [-]

IMHO this should have been written “to the customers and employees”. To me, those are the people who compose a business enterprise.

JackFr an hour ago | parent | next [-]

But the customers and employees don’t actually put up the money for the enterprise.

If you assume there is an airplane — great, run the airline for the customers and employees. But the cost of the airplane can’t be handwaved away.

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’ve never seen that work. There is a fundamental tension between those groups. Hence, member-owned co-ops and employee-owned co-ops.

throw0101c 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> I’ve never seen that work. There is a fundamental tension between those groups. Hence, member-owned co-ops and employee-owned co-ops.

Focusing strictly on shareholders (value) has been en vogue since the 1970s:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine

Before that the general thinking was along the lines of:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory

Somehow companies managed to survive and grow before the 1970s.

JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent [-]

> Focusing strictly on shareholders (value) has been en vogue since the 1970s

It's been in vogue, in circles, since the 17th century. We're not talking about for-profit structures here.