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.