Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
California Pacific Closed Before Start UP (Rumor)  
User currently offlinesunking737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 8
Posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 24718 times:

I read on another web site that California Pacific has closed down before their first flight as they ran out of money.

Could their AOC be sold to Peoplexpress if they have shut down??


Just an MSPAVGEEK
141 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2127 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 24633 times:

Quoting sunking737 (Thread starter):
Could their AOC be sold to Peoplexpress if they have shut down??

They don't have a operating certificate as far as I am aware. They have until Feb. 25th to start operations or else their DOT authority is revoked-considering the DOT has already given them an extension to start I don't think they will allow any further extensions, so CP being dead would be no surprise.

[Edited 2013-02-01 06:59:46]

User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 24603 times:

Quoting sunking737 (Thread starter):
Could their AOC be sold to Peoplexpress if they have shut down??

I don't think so. PEX is looking for an AOC with the 737 in the operations specifications. It would not be worth it for PEX to buy CPA's AOC and then spend the money to get the 737 added to it.

BTW did CPA even have their AOC? I thought there was something that was holding up the AOC or am I thinking of something else? I know there has been several delays in CPA's startup.

Edit: It looks like polot answered my question while I was typing this.  

[Edited 2013-02-01 07:02:14]

[Edited 2013-02-01 07:02:51]

User currently offlinesunking737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 24571 times:

Quoting bohica (Reply 2):
BTW did CPA even have their AOC? I thought there was something that was holding up the AOC or am I thinking of something else? I know there has been several delays in CPA's startup.

I believe that they had the DOT blessing, but the FAA was the hold up in getting ops going.



Just an MSPAVGEEK
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24858 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 24161 times:

For years now they have been talking about launching private prospectus to generate the needed funding prior to start up. Looking back at old threads they even once hoped to have $32mil in place by October 2010 !
As of September 2012 they still seem to have been at square one, just having retained another NYC firm to walk around with the tin can trying to sell shares.

So besides Ted Vallas hawking his condo as collateral, and some locals throwing some trust fund money in, without the real dough in the bank there is no chance of flying.

In the mean time they took delivery on one E170 for PR sake that is burning a ~$175,000 monthly hole to cover lease rates and insurance.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 23798 times:

I've heard the same information as the above, and in addition I've heard that their operations team bailed out over the summer.

User currently offlinehOmsAR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 23666 times:

A photo of everyone who is surprised that this airline isn't going to fly:




I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlinePSAJet17 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 23472 times:

Quoting sunking737 (Thread starter):
I read on another web site that California Pacific has closed down before their first flight as they ran out of money.

Can you provide a link to this story you read on another website?


User currently offlinerduco From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 23333 times:

how much $$ should someone have to start an airline (regional). I remember someone about 10yrs ago that tried to start a regional carrier out or SRQ (think it was called FLair). they did start flying for a short time but I believe the carrier ran out of $$. Just curious, how much one should have to go from nothing to flying?


Loving it
User currently offlinebeeweel15 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1741 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 23138 times:

Just looked at their website it is still up and running.

Quoting rduco (Reply 8):
Just curious, how much one should have to go from nothing to flying

I would say $5 to $10 million minimum but I might be wrong


User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3061 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 23107 times:

No matter what kind of business you are thinking of starting up, you need cash and lots of it, lack of startup money is gotta be the number one cause of failure for any new business.

How much cash did B6 have when they started? It was quite a bit if I remember right.



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlinedxBrian From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 23019 times:

There are so many variables that it is hard to give a good answer. A large part of the costs is having enough money on hand to operate your proposed schedule for 90 days without any revenue. Shorter routes will have less fuel cost for a given airplane. Smaller airplanes use less fuel for a given route and the landing fees are also less. A low number of flights means you burn less fuel. Then you need to consider the monthly cost of the airplane? Some aircraft may have low acquisition cost but the parts may be expensive. How much flying are you going to do? More flights means more crews means higher costs. Are you going to do power by the hour? Are you going to operate under supplemental rules or domestic rules? Are you going to have your own maintenance or contract maintenance? Where is your headquarters- that will affect costs.

Morris Air was a pretty unique operation. Sierra Pacific and Ryan International operated the airplanes on routes chosen by Morris. Morris also provided the airplanes. The crews were hired with the understanding that if the venture worked they would ultimately work for Morris. So when they started to pursue their certificate, they already had all the manuals and procedures laid out. They had proven revenue. I think we got certified with only two or three airplanes, and then added crew and planes as quickly as we could get the crews trained as "Morris Air Service" crews instead of Ryan or Sierra Pacific crews.


User currently offlinePSAJet17 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 23022 times:

Listed on the FAA Air Carrier Operational Certificates

http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/Cert_Carrier_List_0912.pdf


CARRIER TYPE OPERATING
Carlsbad-Palomar Airlines, Inc. DS NO/NE
(DS Domestic/Scheduled)
(Operating-NO / NE Not Yet Effective)

In the list of applicants Carlsbad-Palomar Airlines, Inc. is listed with Theodore Vallas as President. (Last updated 08/2010).
The list of Certified Air Carriers also lists Carlsbad Palomar Airlines but with Lawrence Sittig as President (Last updated 09/2012).


User currently onlineatcsundevil From Germany, joined Mar 2010, 1143 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 22932 times:

Quoting beeweel15 (Reply 9):

Quoting rduco (Reply 8):
Just curious, how much one should have to go from nothing to flying

I would say $5 to $10 million minimum but I might be wrong

I seem to remember JetBlue reaching about $130mil in backing and $30mil cash on hand before beginning ops on Feb 11, 2000 (I only remember the date because it's my birthday!). B6 people may know the numbers better than I do, but they did a sh*tload of fundraising before they got going. Granted they were taking delivery of brand new airplanes out of JFK and wanted to make a real go of it, but $30mil in 2013 dollars is close to $40mil.

If I were starting a small airline with E170s, I wouldn't even look at leasing an airplane until I had about $15mil cash. Anything less and it's destined for failure, because most start-ups won't become profitable until 1-2 years after launch...that is, if they become profitable at all. Airlines need enough cash and backing to survive the first two years because they have to assume they'll be loss-making.



1954 1974 1990 2014 -- Los geht's!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24858 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 22882 times:

At the time (August 2011) the DOT financial fitness test determined they would $11.9 million free and clear in the bank prior to launching service in addition to about $7.4 million in pre-operating expenses they would need prior to commencing revenue operations. It was estimated they would incur $28.0mil in expenses within the first 12-months.

For this as I posted in Reply 4, they had indicated they were trying to drum up $32mil in equity.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 22810 times:

Quoting rduco (Reply 8):
how much $$ should someone have to start an airline (regional).

As much as possible. You can't buy success, only more time of being unsuccessful before becoming a failure. As far as airlines go, you cannot have too much capital, but no number can guarantee success.

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 10):
How much cash did B6 have when they started? It was quite a bit if I remember right.

I want to say somewhere in the $60 million range. It helped that they knew what they were doing, which had a lot to do with how they were able to find that kind of capital in the first place.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24858 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 22769 times:

Reference JetBlue, it was at the time the best capitalized start up in history.

David Neeleman managed to raise $130.2 million start-up capital much of it from venture capital or equity firms.

Chase Capital Partners $20 million
Multiple George Soros funds $40 million combined
Western Presidio - $30mil
Banc Boston Ventures - $10mil
Massachusetts Mutual Life - $10mil
Nationsbank Montgomery Securities -$10mil
David Neeleman invested $10.2 million.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 22753 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 10):
No matter what kind of business you are thinking of starting up, you need cash and lots of it, lack of startup money is gotta be the number one cause of failure for any new business.
Quoting dxBrian (Reply 11):
There are so many variables that it is hard to give a good answer. A large part of the costs is having enough money on hand to operate your proposed schedule for 90 days without any revenue.

Agreed, usually referred to in management as overcoming "barriers to entry". You need lots of $$$ to cover all your startup costs such as regulatory and so forth, your marketing, which needs to separate your product from the pack, and then as dxBrian says, operate for some period as though you are taking in no $$$. Anything brought in is gravy.

I was president of a golf course 97-01, and when we budgeted, we planned on zero April and October revenue,and put forth a budget to the membership on that basis that was in balance (this is Western Canada, where winter can last long and come early). Any April or October revenue was gravy. 1999, very favourable weather, we opened April 9, and our club pro put out a very nice incentive rate which brought in about $30k (this is a small club but challenging course). October was good as well. At the spring meeting the next year with an audited statement we were able to show not 'in balance", but a net of $200k, which went down very well with the members. Thank you, weather gods.

Seems like CalPac didn't factor this in.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4998 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 21870 times:

There was a CP exec that came here often. I have not heard from him since? Sunking, can you share which site you saw this at?


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 21525 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15):
It helped that they knew what they were doing, which had a lot to do with how they were able to find that kind of capital in the first place.

Yes, Neeleman had proven history at Southwest, Morris and WestJet. Plus unused capacity at JFK and a huge population base made for a good business case.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 21101 times:

Quoting cschleic (Reply 19):
Yes, Neeleman had proven history at Southwest, Morris and WestJet. Plus unused capacity at JFK and a huge population base made for a good business case.

Having groundwork laid during the height of venture capital didn't hurt either. Of course now people know better, especially when it comes to airlines.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinesunking737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 20922 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 18):
Sunking, can you share which site you saw this at?

A friend of mine who writes manuals for airlines. Very trusted person. (Through Facebook)



Just an MSPAVGEEK
User currently onlineatcsundevil From Germany, joined Mar 2010, 1143 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 18986 times:

Quoting sunking737 (Reply 21):
A friend of mine who writes manuals for airlines. Very trusted person. (Through Facebook)

Hopefully your friend isn't named Lennay Kekua..   



1954 1974 1990 2014 -- Los geht's!
User currently offlinePSAJet17 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 18026 times:

Quoting sunking737 (Thread starter):
I read on another web site that California Pacific has closed down before their first flight as they ran out of money.
Quoting sunking737 (Reply 21):
A friend of mine who writes manuals for airlines. Very trusted person.

Sunking737: I'm confused now. Did you see this story on another website as you stated in the first post or did you hear it from your friend who writes airline manuals?


User currently offlinesunking737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 17979 times:

Quoting PSAJet17 (Reply 23):
Quoting sunking737 (Thread starter):
I read on another web site that California Pacific has closed down before their first flight as they ran out of money.
Quoting sunking737 (Reply 21):
A friend of mine who writes manuals for airlines. Very trusted person.

Sunking737: I'm confused now. Did you see this story on another website as you stated in the first post or did you hear it from your friend who writes airline manuals?

There is no link as I was PM on my Facebook page by her. She is a very trusted source of information. She has to sign NDA with clients. She couldn't say anything unless they closed.



Just an MSPAVGEEK
User currently offlinePSAJet17 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 18121 times:

Quoting sunking737 (Reply 24):
There is no link as I was PM on my Facebook page by her. She is a very trusted source of information. She has to sign NDA with clients. She couldn't say anything unless they closed.

Thanks, Sunking737.

The last thing I saw about CPAir was a small piece in some smaller newspapers (Encinitas for one) that spoke about the plan to be operational early in 2013. Their website has no new information. I also saw somebody trying to contact their Corporate Communications Director asking him for a current email address (guess he is not answering his @flyCPAir.com address).

In March 2011, Lawrence Sittig (Western/Delta Airlines and also worked on startup of Skybus Airlines) was named as President and COO of CPAir, but is not listed on the FlyCPAir.com website in the management team section.


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 18036 times:

I don't think their aircraft ever flew after the delivery flight


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11432 posts, RR: 61
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 18388 times:

Quoting hOmsAR (Reply 6):
A photo of everyone who is surprised that this airline isn't going to fly:

Exactly. I realize there were a few people invested in this venture, but it was honestly a ridiculous concept from the start, and it's hardly unique (I'm looking at you, PeopleExpress). When are people going to learn that starting an airline isn't like starting a restaurant or shop?

Quoting rduco (Reply 8):
how much $$ should someone have to start an airline (regional).
Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 10):
No matter what kind of business you are thinking of starting up, you need cash and lots of it, lack of startup money is gotta be the number one cause of failure for any new business.

It's not just about having enough money. It's also about having a viable concept to begin with. There are surely plenty of ideas on earth that would go somewhere but for a lack of money, because they're just that good of ideas. And there are ideas, like this or PeopleExpress, where no amount of money thrown at it is going to compensate for outright stupidity. Flying large RJs configured in a low-density seating layout from a small regional airport is unlikely to be a long-term viable business. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25008 posts, RR: 85
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 18323 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting commavia (Reply 27):
I realize there were a few people invested in this venture, but it was honestly a ridiculous concept from the start, and it's hardly unique (I'm looking at you, PeopleExpress).

You may be right, but if they can find the money for it, go for it. Isn't that a function of capitalism?

Few people gave tuppence for Allegiant's chances when Maurice Gallagher first took it over, now everyone is wise - after the event.

I think California Pacific has a hard row to hoe, but I've been wrong before. In my (capital intensive) butts-on-seats business the rule of thumb is nine failures for every one success.

After all, American Airlines is only still flying by the grace of its creditors.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2127 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 18317 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 27):
Exactly. I realize there were a few people invested in this venture, but it was honestly a ridiculous concept from the start, and it's hardly unique (I'm looking at you, PeopleExpress). When are people going to learn that starting an airline isn't like starting a restaurant or shop?

I think PeopleExpress could succeed if they are careful and play their cards rights, but over all I agree with you. I had no faith in this project or its management the moment they initially announced they were going to equip their E jets with a 3(!) class cabin.


User currently offlineXEspecialist From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 18352 times:

Bret Ebaugh and his wife Lisa Ebaugh were previously listed as Chief Pilot and Manager of Inflight Training respectively.

Information on both of them has been removed from the California Pacific website, yet Bret still lists his job as Chief Pilot on several networking sites as 'presently'.

They both worked for EOS at one point, and Bret also worked at Bombardier previously as the primary CRJ900NG liaison with Pluna and we know how that ended.

I do hope this airline succeeds though even if only to beat the odds and because I like their paint scheme. They have an uphill battle though.



Ready. Set. Jet. XEspecialist
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11432 posts, RR: 61
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 18316 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 28):
You may be right, but if they can find the money for it, go for it. Isn't that a function of capitalism?

The function of a capitalist market is to maximize capital. I'm all for people taking risks - it is inherently necessary in a capitalist system - but they need to be realistic risks. This was a stupid thing to risk capital on. This project has eaten up at least a few million dollars that could have been allocated more efficiently in the economy to something actually worth investing in.

[Edited 2013-02-02 11:39:36]

User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25008 posts, RR: 85
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 18375 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting commavia (Reply 31):
The function of a capitalist market is to maximize capital. I'm all for people taking risks - it is inherently necessary in a capitalist system - but they need to be realistic risks.

I bought into Apple Computers when the shares were $12 each - and (everyone thought) headed for oblivion. I knew the ricks - and look at 'em now.

Quoting commavia (Reply 31):
This was a stupid thing to risk capital all, as this whole project has eaten up at least a few million dollars that could have been allocated more efficiently in the economy to something actually worth investing in.

That money goes into the economy anyway. It may or may not provide a return to the investors, but isn't that their business?

mariner

[Edited 2013-02-02 11:41:10]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11432 posts, RR: 61
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 18259 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 32):
I bought into Apple Computers when the shares were $12 each - and (everyone thought) headed for oblivion. And look at 'em now.

With respect, this idea bears no resemblance to Apple at any point in that company's history. Your investment in Apple was far better than any investment that was ever made in this venture.

Quoting mariner (Reply 32):
That money goes into the economy anyway.

The money ultimately goes into the economy, but it produces less return on its way through, and that is what is why this is suboptimal allocation of resources.

Quoting mariner (Reply 32):
It may or may not provide a return to the investors, but isn't that their business?

Well of course it's their business. Anybody is free to invest in whatever stupid idea they want. All I'm saying is that the net result of this particular stupid investment is that several million dollars was wasted when it could have been allocated elsewhere in the economy and ultimately produced greater returns overall.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25008 posts, RR: 85
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 18215 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting commavia (Reply 33):
With respect, this idea bears no resemblance to Apple at any point in that company's history. Your investment in Apple was far better than any investment that was ever made in this venture.

No one else thought so then. Although many are wise after the event now, of course.

Quoting commavia (Reply 33):
The money ultimately goes into the economy, but it produces less return on its way through, and that is what is why this is suboptimal allocation of resources.

Anyone could have said the same about Allegiant - and many did. Five years ago, Spirit was being damned on a.net.

Quoting commavia (Reply 33):
All I'm saying is that the net result of this particular stupid investment is that several million dollars was wasted when it could have been allocated elsewhere in the economy and ultimately produced greater returns overall.

And some of the more interesting companies would never have been able to raise money.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineXEspecialist From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 18164 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 31):
This was a stupid thing to risk capital on. This project has eaten up at least a few million dollars that could have been allocated more efficiently in the economy to something actually worth investing in.
Hold that thought...
Quoting mariner (Reply 34):
No one else thought so then. Although many are wise after the event now, of course.

I'm with Mariner on this one.

Commavia, using your values as to what constitutes an 'efficient' investment in the economy, FedEx shouldn't exist. Even at the time of its conception Fred Smith faced naysayers. In fact he received a 'C' on his paper outlining his concept from his professor at Yale. Little Rock Airport Authority thought he was nuts too, as he originally wanted to headquarters in Little Rock. This didn't stop him, and on April 17th, 1973, FedEx started operations. That first night, the fleet of 14 Dassault Falcon 20s carried the mind boggling load of 18 packages TOTAL!! Fred Smith could have thrown in the towel then but he didn't. Federal Express was losing a million dollars a month. It wasn't until 1976, 3 full years later that the new endeavor became profitable. With experts such as yourself calling the shots, Federal Express wouldn't have become the multimillion dollar powerhouse it is today.


Sure, the airline industry is a risky investment. So is the restaurant business. Thousands of restaurants close each year in the United States alone, yet that doesn't stop investors from opening new ones.

The bigger the risk, the greater the reward.

[Edited 2013-02-02 12:26:25]

-XEspecialist


[Edited 2013-02-02 12:27:14]


Ready. Set. Jet. XEspecialist
User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4998 posts, RR: 28
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 17709 times:

I was hopeful this airline would make it, and still hopeful at this point. I trust you Sunking! I just hate to see Vallas dream not come true.  


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5490 posts, RR: 28
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 17346 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 28):
After all, American Airlines is only still flying by the grace of its creditors.

As are Delta, United, USAirways, Frontier, etc., each having benefited from the cleansing touch of the bankruptcy judge's decrees.

...

I still entertained the notion (apparently, delusional, it appears) that the venture could succeed; the staggering burden of traffic in the area seemed like a good motivator, but the capital markets seem not so interested.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently onlineSocalApproach From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 16856 times:

Not to highjack the thread but I was also looking forward to this startup. It reminded me of LV Air also. What has happened to them?
http://flylvairnow.com/


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3107 posts, RR: 6
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 16796 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 28):
Quoting commavia (Reply 27):
I realize there were a few people invested in this venture, but it was honestly a ridiculous concept from the start, and it's hardly unique (I'm looking at you, PeopleExpress).

You may be right, but if they can find the money for it, go for it. Isn't that a function of capitalism?
Quoting commavia (Reply 31):
The function of a capitalist market is to maximize capital. I'm all for people taking risks - it is inherently necessary in a capitalist system - but they need to be realistic risks. This was a stupid thing to risk capital on. This project has eaten up at least a few million dollars that could have been allocated more efficiently in the economy to something actually worth investing in.

In your opinion, Commavia. A group of smart people -- we have no corner on the market here on A.net -- also thought it was not ridiculous, was possibly realistic, and worth taking. I grow very tired of the negative know-it-alls, who are no smarter than the rest of us but still find it necessary to point out they were right given the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. So? I'll hand you a gold star, plant it on your forehead, you'll stand out that way. If aviation remained as risk-averse as Commavia would prefer... well, we'd not be flying. Or we'd not be flying across an ocean. Or on a jet. Or connecting airports that never existed before. Or...

-Rampart


User currently offlinePSAJet17 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 16815 times:

I sent an email to Tom Morrow asking him about rumors that the airline was shutting down. Here is his reply:

Tom Morrow [tmorrow@flycpair.com]
Sent: Sun 2/3/2013 22:09

Rumors are untrue. We're still working on certification. We'll have more news soon.
Thanks for your interest.

(From the FlyCPAir.com website: Tom Morrow, who was the daily feature columnist for the Blade-Citizen/North County Times for 20 years and author of several novels and non-fiction books, is a CP Air board member and Vice President of Communications.)


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6712 posts, RR: 32
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 16682 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16):
Reference JetBlue, it was at the time the best capitalized start up in history.

David Neeleman

Neeleman's involvement was critical to getting funding in place for the venture, as he had been June Morris' right-hand man and a co-founder of WestJet afterward. If you've managed to start two successful airlines, the investors are going to want to be part of any similar future endeavors if the business plan seems credible.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
For years now they have been talking about launching private prospectus to generate the needed funding prior to start up. Looking back at old threads they even once hoped to have $32mil in place by October 2010 !
As of September 2012 they still seem to have been at square one, just having retained another NYC firm to walk around with the tin can trying to sell shares.

IMO the problem has always been a large presence of the 800-lb low-cost gorilla of the industry at an airport less than 45 minutes of driving away, with an existing schedule that would be superior to what CP could offer.

Don't get me wrong -- I think they identified an interesting niche at CRQ/CLD. There is some portion of the population for whom that airport is more convenient, and some of those folks have wealth. But I can't think of many examples of successful suburban alternate airports based on convenience rather than low fares -- HPN is the only one which comes to mind -- and you don't have to cross the Whitestone Bridge to get from North County to SAN. Perhaps SNA, but then it was really built up by OC which was a low-cost, low-fare operator.

Quoting rampart (Reply 39):
A group of smart people -- we have no corner on the market here on A.net -- also thought it was not ridiculous, was possibly realistic, and worth taking.

Except clearly they haven't found outside investors willing to venture enough capital to move the project forward. I'm not sure it was ever possible to make a business case for an outcome that was strong enough to justify the risk to the capital. Just "not losing money" isn't enough, and a business that realistically maxes out at a half-dozen planes to a similar number of destinations from CRQ/CLD isn't enough, either.


User currently offlinesunking737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 8
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 16721 times:

PSAJet thanks for the update. When pushed more my "friend" started to back peddle and said they laid off some folks.
I now feel that I was mislead by her statements about CPAir. I am truly sorry for misleading everyone. My source I see is now longer "trustworthy".

I am a firm believer in underdog airlines. I do wish CPAir all the luck in finally getting airborne, and would love to fly them at some point in time.



Just an MSPAVGEEK
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6785 posts, RR: 34
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 16661 times:

Vallas is a good man, but let it go.

He's accomplished much, but enjoy retirement already! This is a cockamamie scheme anyhow.


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5354 posts, RR: 12
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 16529 times:

Quoting PSAJet17 (Reply 40):
I sent an email to Tom Morrow asking him about rumors that the airline was shutting down. Here is his reply:

Thank you so much for doing that PSA'. It's nice to see something "real" expressed in a thread such as this rumor-based one full of lots of opinions.

Quoting sunking737 (Reply 42):
PSAJet thanks for the update. When pushed more my "friend" started to back peddle and said they laid off some folks. I now feel that I was mislead by her statements about CPAir. I am truly sorry for misleading everyone. My source I see is now longer "trustworthy".

Hey sunking', don't beat yourself up. At least you identified this thread as a rumor -- which is more than a lot of threads here on A.net bother to do -- and the lack of any news from the company for a long time could certainly make people wonder... (To say nothing of a very fast-approaching deadline.)

Maybe this thread will "encourage" the company to release some sort of info to the press about what is going on. The public has a short memory and most will forget about this endeavor if CPAir doesn't bother to keep their name out there.

This start-up certainly remains an uphill battle and I continue to hope Ted and his team can make it happen! Best of luck to everyone involved.

  
bb


User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3306 posts, RR: 9
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 16318 times:

Quoting XEspecialist (Reply 35):
Commavia, using your values as to what constitutes an 'efficient' investment in the economy, FedEx shouldn't exist. Even at the time of its conception Fred Smith faced naysayers. In fact he received a 'C' on his paper outlining his concept from his professor at Yale. Little Rock Airport Authority thought he was nuts too, as he originally wanted to headquarters in Little Rock. This didn't stop him, and on April 17th, 1973, FedEx started operations. That first night, the fleet of 14 Dassault Falcon 20s carried the mind boggling load of 18 packages TOTAL!! Fred Smith could have thrown in the towel then but he didn't. Federal Express was losing a million dollars a month. It wasn't until 1976, 3 full years later that the new endeavor became profitable. With experts such as yourself calling the shots, Federal Express wouldn't have become the multimillion dollar powerhouse it is today.
Quoting rampart (Reply 39):
If aviation remained as risk-averse as Commavia would prefer... well, we'd not be flying. Or we'd not be flying across an ocean. Or on a jet. Or connecting airports that never existed before. Or...

The reason we remember cases like FedEx are because those are the very rare exceptions. Every day, similar business plans fail and we don't even discuss them because we know this the norm. Commavia is simply stating the truth that the odds are against this particular venture. If they manage to overcome them, great, but if they don't, it's no surprise.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25008 posts, RR: 85
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 16260 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 45):
Every day, similar business plans fail and we don't even discuss them because we know this the norm. Commavia is simply stating the truth that the odds are against this particular venture. If they manage to overcome them, great, but if they don't, it's no surprise.

It is the function of the FAA to decide if the intended business meets all the legal, operational, technical and financial requirements.

It is a not a function of the FAA to decide on the merits of a the business plan itself.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 15975 times:

XEspecialist

"The bigger the risk, the greater the reward".

I fail to follow your logic.

AFAIK, there is no guarantee that if you take a crazy gamble, and it pays off then the rewards will be great.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25008 posts, RR: 85
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 15852 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 47):
AFAIK, there is no guarantee that if you take a crazy gamble, and it pays off then the rewards will be great.

There are no guarantees at all. Investing is a perpetual balance between risk and reward.

Cautious investors shun the big risks and thus miss out on the big rewards. BUT - they stand less chance of losing their money. The safest investments are called "widows and orphans" stocks - a good place to invest money for future protection of the capital, and thus the investor.

Daring investors (especially venture capitalists) will take enormous risks, knowing in advance that many of their bets will go down in flames.

But then, every so often, one risky investment takes off and gives them fabulous rewards.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24858 posts, RR: 46
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15734 times:

Quoting PSAJet17 (Reply 40):
Rumors are untrue. We're still working on certification. We'll have more news soon.

What we will need to hear soon, is another pleading to the DOT to extend their start-up authority timeframe.

They are already living on borrowed time and as the DOT previously stated they typically do grant further extensions unless they truly feel the applicant was making appropriate progress and things were indeed lining to launch service imminently.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineJA From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 563 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15698 times:

Quoting sunking737 (Reply 42):
When pushed more my "friend" started to back peddle and said they laid off some folks.

I do not think your friend is that off. An airline planning to fly on February 25 isn't this quiet. An airline not sure of flying by that date should be sending in an extension request this week.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2127 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15636 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 49):
They are already living on borrowed time and as the DOT previously stated they typically do grant further extensions unless they truly feel the applicant was making appropriate progress and things were indeed lining to launch service imminently.
Quoting JA (Reply 50):
I do not think your friend is that off. An airline planning to fly on February 25 isn't this quiet. An airline not sure of flying by that date should be sending in an extension request this week.

What is especially problematic for them is that any additional extension must have been filed by 45 days before expiration of the authority. As far as I can tell they haven't asked for an additional extension. They haven't updated the news section of their website since October, even if they miraculously get their FAA authority and start up they are going to lose tons of money just from the very fact that no one would know with sufficient notice.


User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4998 posts, RR: 28
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 15779 times:

Sunking, dont take it personal, or discredit your source. CP has been very quiet, and many wondered if they were going to throw in the towel. If anything, the post got us answers. I have posted plenty of similar things in the past. No worries buddy!  


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineJA From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 563 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15427 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 51):
What is especially problematic for them is that any additional extension must have been filed by 45 days before expiration of the authority. As far as I can tell they haven't asked for an additional extension. They haven't updated the news section of their website since October, even if they miraculously get their FAA authority and start up they are going to lose tons of money just from the very fact that no one would know with sufficient notice.

Yep. In addition, if people are being let go before certification is complete, that is a big flag. Typically, the personnel needs increase as one approaches the beginning of operations.


User currently offlineAirDance From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15108 times:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/...ornia-Pacific-FAA-airline-delayed/

According to this article from the San Diego Union-Tribune, "The airline — California Pacific — is in a dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration that has brought its licensing status back to the early stages of a complex process that can take months".


User currently offlineJamake1 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 14886 times:

It appears to me that CPA was perhaps, a bit too premature in taking delivery of an aircraft when all of their ducks were not in a row with the FAA...


United's B747-400. "She's a a cruel lover."
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24858 posts, RR: 46
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 14755 times:

So CP Air is;

- In a dispute with the regulator that is supposed to bless them and provide ongoing oversight.

- Has a E170 sitting on the ramp collecting dust while bank account bleeds

- Not reached halfway mark in securing minimum needed launch funding.

- Approaching 3rd anniversary since first formally laying out their plans.

 

=



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2127 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 14663 times:

Quoting Jamake1 (Reply 55):
It appears to me that CPA was perhaps, a bit too premature in taking delivery of an aircraft when all of their ducks were not in a row with the FAA...

I think it is pretty clear that management at CP has been poor to say the least, which does little to inspire people to invest much needed money into the company.


User currently offlinePSAJet17 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14431 times:

I'm at a point I don't know which tale to believe. Tom Morrow responded to my email with a "rumors are untrue" reply. Today's story in the San Diego paper seems to paint a picture of people sliding farther and farther down the hill they are trying to climb.

I would expect the Communications/PR department of a start up company to be flowing with upbeat stories about the new service, progress with certification, hiring expectations, etc. but instead we have heard almost nothing. It makes you think either no progress has been made or they are trying to hide the fact that things have gone backwards.

Earlier today on the FlyCPAir Facebook page, Tom Morrow commented on my post (same copy of his email to me that I posted here) with this statement: "We're still very much in business. We're still in the process of FAA certification. As with any organization, any former disgruntled employee can cause all sorts of unfounded rumors to fly." (I don't remember any of these rumors being attributed to former employees?)

Personally, I think that Ted Vallas may have surrounded himself with the wrong set of people. There was a big todo about Lawrence Settig joining the company but his last airline startup failed. Other board members were also part of failed airlines or in one case a former PSA director that was responsible for the decline in employee morale when he brought in his "henchmen" from his previous employer. Noted in this post is that the husband/wife team of Chief Pilot and Flight Attendant Training have both left CPAir (on their own or were they let go?) Were these people the best Vallas could find or were they just part of his circle of friends?

Guess we will have to wait and see what DOT/FAA do next with the CPAir Certification.


User currently offlineWarmNuts From United States of America, joined May 2006, 94 posts, RR: 4
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14284 times:

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 45):
The reason we remember cases like FedEx are because those are the very rare exceptions. Every day, similar business plans fail and we don't even discuss them because we know this the norm. Commavia is simply stating the truth that the odds are against this particular venture. If they manage to overcome them, great, but if they don't, it's no surprise.

Having read the thread top-to-bottom, Commavia didn't simply state that the "odds are against this particular venture" as you claim. To the contrary, he was explicitly declarative in his claim that it wasn't simply a high-risk venture, but rather that it wasn't even a viable comcept to begin with:

Quoting commavia (Reply 27):
it was honestly a ridiculous concept from the start
Quoting commavia (Reply 27):
It's not just about having enough money. It's also about having a viable concept to begin with.

As a resident of San Diego, and as someone who used to log tens of thousands of miles each year in business travel, I would appreciate a qualification (and quantification) of this claimed lack of viability, supported by demographics and historical data. At first glance IMO it would appear as if the potential - albeit limited - is there. I can't speak to OAK or PHX, but I have rarely (if ever) been on a flight between SAN and SJC, SMF, or LAS that wasn't nearly (if not compeltely) full. With just under 1/3 of the county's population (about 900K people) located significantly closer to CLD than SAN, there seems to be a business case that would justify the venture.

Speaking of which, any start-up is a risky venture, and of course, some are riskier than others. But Commavia's post(s) seem to state that there was never any potential for success to begin with, a rather eye-raising claim in the absence of qualification. To the contrary, it would seem that issues surrounding FAA certification and a possible inadequate amount of start-up cap pose far greater threats to the venture's success than the very concept itself.


User currently offlinexespecialist From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14302 times:

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 45):
The reason we remember cases like FedEx are because those are the very rare exceptions. Every day, similar business plans fail and we don't even discuss them because we know this the norm. Commavia is simply stating the truth that the odds are against this particular venture. If they manage to overcome them, great, but if they don't, it's no surprise.
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 47):
"The bigger the risk, the greater the reward".

I fail to follow your logic.

AFAIK, there is no guarantee that if you take a crazy gamble, and it pays off then the rewards will be great.
Quoting mariner (Reply 48):
Daring investors (especially venture capitalists) will take enormous risks, knowing in advance that many of their bets will go down in flames.

But then, every so often, one risky investment takes off and gives them fabulous rewar

Richard Branson is often credited for saying the following: "If you want to be a Millionaire, start with a billion dollars and launch a new airline."
"I became an entrepreneur by mistake. Ever since then I've gone into business, not to make money, but because I think I can do it better than it's been done elsewhere. And, quite often, just out of personal frustration about the way it's been done by other people."
"My philosophy is that if I have any money I invest it in new ventures and not have it sitting around."
And finally: "One thing is certain in business. You and everyone around you will make mistakes."

Yes, I do not have gobs of money burning holes in my pockets to start an airline. People who invest their money in low risk financial instruments like CDs (certificate of deposits not the shiny round things), or stable blue chip stocks aren't likely to wake up one day to discover they are millionaires.

The airline industry is perceived as prestigious, yet full of egos, and full of even more failures. How many second and third tier countries have thrown millions and millions of their local currency into a money losing venture all in the name of having 'bragging rights' to a 'national airline'?

I challenge anyone to name an airline that never took a risk or was always presumed a 'sure thing' during its lifetime.

The industry is fickle. It is highly susceptible to economic calamity. It is cash intensive requiring huge outlays for equipment, fuel, and labor. There is a reason people get stars in their eyes when talking about the airline industry. In many ways it is the gold rush of our time.

Many will try, few will succeed.

After all of that, why do we need to feed this need for negativity? It's a hard cruel market to crack without hundreds of armchair CEOs nay-saying. Enough with the Debbie downers. Grab some popcorn, get a good seat, and enjoy the show.



Ready. Set. Jet. XEspecialist
User currently offlineRaddek From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14093 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So if I want make a billion dollars, then I should start with a trillion then?  

User currently offlinehawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3188 posts, RR: 7
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 13677 times:

NBC San Diego has an article this morning about California Pacific. Nothing really new. Approval deadline is Feb 25, holdup is documentation.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loca...ia-Pacific-Airlines-191534921.html


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2127 posts, RR: 1
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 13543 times:

Quoting hawaiian717 (Reply 62):

Funny, in this article:

Quote:
A spokesperson for the airline told NBC 7 San Diego through email that the company has a great relationship with the regional FAA office and that "they're working with us to get through the certification process.

while in the article posted by AirDance in reply 54 dated Feb. 5 (11 days ago):

Quote:
Vallas argues that the San Diego FAA office — the Flight Standards District Office, or FSDO — acted with bias against California Pacific in 2011 when it revoked and then reinstated its certification to commercially fly the E170 out of Palomar. Vallas said the suspension stifled fundraising efforts, led to a loss of key employees and made it all but impossible to promote the business.

“Given the consistent biased tone from the local FSDO, we have no choice than to escalate this issue and request that the current team be removed from this process as we move forward,” he wrote.


[Edited 2013-02-16 13:22:30]

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 13530 times:

Quoting hawaiian717 (Reply 62):
Approval deadline is Feb 25, holdup is documentation.

The issue with these sorts of things is that they're always bureaucracy and documentation right up until they aren't.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePSAJet17 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 12769 times:

Tom Morrow, VP Communications CPAir, responded to a question on their Facebook page saying: "Tom Morrow FAA certification should be complete within the next four months and then we'll be off the runway and flying." (02/06/13)

Most of us have seen some reference to the must be operational date of Feb. 25, 2013. Did CPAir get another extension (and the websites are not updated) or is the PR department blowing smoke?


User currently offlineusxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1010 posts, RR: 5
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 12315 times:

Sometimes items don't get docketed as quickly as they should... keep an eye on airlineinfo.com


xx
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2127 posts, RR: 1
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 12284 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 66):
Sometimes items don't get docketed as quickly as they should... keep an eye on airlineinfo.com

Ignore airlineinfo.com (subscribe to see the dockets? HA!). Go directly to the source, regulations.gov. CP's docket number is DOT-OST-2010-0126.

They are usually very good at posting things quickly there...the fact that there is nothing is worrying.


User currently offlinesunking737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 8
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11742 times:

Here is a link to today's L.A. Times about California Pacific....

http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...extension-20130225,0,4287214.story



Just an MSPAVGEEK
User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 11661 times:

The managment team basically dismantled last summer, CP Air is STILL trying to find new managment. (I believe) They will never fly.


"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
User currently offlinePSAJet17 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 11369 times:

Quoting sunking737 (Reply 68):
Here is a link to today's L.A. Times about California Pacific....

http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...story

Emailed the author of this story and his reply was:
"Yes, the DOT told me yesterday that they had received an extension request that had yet to be posted. The DOT sent me a copy of the request via email."


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6785 posts, RR: 34
Reply 71, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 11103 times:

Quoting PSAJet17 (Reply 58):
Personally, I think that Ted Vallas may have surrounded himself with the wrong set of people.

Or, he's a well meaning old rich guy with the best intentions but is in way over his head. Vallas is a smart guy and I admire his work ethic and contributions, but he could just be grossly out of his element. Wouldn't be the first time--the airline graveyard is litered with names like that.

Quoting xespecialist (Reply 60):
Richard Branson is often credited for saying the following: "If you want to be a Millionaire, start with a billion dollars and launch a new airline."

I believe Sir Freddie Laker was originally attributed with that line, FYI.


User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3306 posts, RR: 9
Reply 72, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 10939 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 71):
I believe Sir Freddie Laker was originally attributed with that line, FYI.

And I heard it was from C.R. Smith. One day we should have a thread to find the origin of that quote once and for all.


User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4998 posts, RR: 28
Reply 73, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10802 times:

It has been a difficult process for CP. But.... They are still fighting, and show no signs of throwing in the towel. This airline will fly, and Vallas wont let his investment go without getting airborne. Dont count them out.


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5970 posts, RR: 14
Reply 74, posted (1 year 5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10762 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 73):

It has been a difficult process for CP. But.... They are still fighting, and show no signs of throwing in the towel. This airline will fly, and Vallas wont let his investment go without getting airborne. Dont count them out.

That airplane needed to be flying 2 weeks ago yesterday to meet even this new deadline.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 797 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10457 times:

The runway at that airport is 4897 feet in length with 300 feet of pavement and a cliff as a safety area at the primary runway end. This gives it an airline TORA, ASDA and LDA of 4197 feet for an E170/proposed E190 operation under optimal conditions. That is not enough runway.

You can't compare this to Key West as I read in another thread. Key West has 4800 feet fully available with a 340+35 foot EMAS at the departure end of the primary runway designed to stop an RJ/corporate jet. Carlsbad airport does not.

http://keysnews.com/node/32671

The FAA is not going to sign off on a high probability of this occurring with a 70 to 100 seat plane:

http://www.spas.signonsandiego.com/u...ib/20060125/news_1mc25palomar.html


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6785 posts, RR: 34
Reply 76, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10266 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 73):
It has been a difficult process for CP. But.... They are still fighting, and show no signs of throwing in the towel. This airline will fly, and Vallas wont let his investment go without getting airborne. Dont count them out.

Never underestimate the ability and desire of people to throw away money in a well intentioned cause.


User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5791 posts, RR: 15
Reply 77, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10280 times:

Quoting PSAJet17 (Reply 70):

Emailed the author of this story and his reply was:
"Yes, the DOT told me yesterday that they had received an extension request that had yet to be posted. The DOT sent me a copy of the request via email."

That extension request is now posted at regulations.gov. Document number is DOT-OST-2010-0126-0037.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24858 posts, RR: 46
Reply 78, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10191 times:

Its basically a pleading asking the DOT to give CP Air an opended ended startup timeframe, while trying to paint all the stumbling blocks to date in the most positive light possible.

Some critical points:

o On November 20, 2012 the San Diego FSDO suspended California Pacific's 121. application. The suspension was immediately appealed.
o In early December as a result of the appeal the FAA moved the handling of the 121 application from the San Diego FSDO to the regional office in Los Angeles.
o On January 9, 2013 a planning meeting was held between California Pacific Airlines and the regional office of the FAA. A target of March 10, 2013 was established to resubmit the certification package.
o The regional FAA office has committed to move the application through the review process as quickly as possible. Completion is expected sometime this summer.

= A very iffy venture.

They say they have burned through $10mil so far, and continue working on raising the required launch capital. (remember its 3-years now and they still have not secured the required funding onboard)

I find it pretty interesting also they failed to even suggest a revised target extension date for the DOT to consider in the letter, but instead essentially left it as an open ended request.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2127 posts, RR: 1
Reply 79, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10068 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 78):
They say they have burned through $10mil so far, and continue working on raising the required launch capital. (remember its 3-years now and they still have not secured the required funding onboard)

I thought that was the amount invested so far in the airline, not the amount that they have necessarily burned through yet. But your legalese might be better than mine.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 78):
I find it pretty interesting also they failed to even suggest a revised target extension date for the DOT to consider in the letter, but instead essentially left it as an open ended request.

I found it interesting that despite "A target of March 10, 2013 was established to resubmit the certification package" during a meeting with the FAA on January 9th they waited until February 22 to ask the DOT for an extension (hoping that the DOT will not make a decision until after March 10 when they think they will be in the clear- nah couldn't be    )

What a fine beacon of great airline management.


User currently offlineprost From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 920 posts, RR: 1
Reply 80, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9904 times:

I love this quote from the LA Times story: "Tom Morrow, a spokesman for the airline, said most of the delays so far are due to discrepancies over regulations."

I think we found the problem. Don't have have someone involved with the startup of an airline with a name that can be interpreted as 'tomorrow'.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11615 posts, RR: 60
Reply 81, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9721 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 75):
This gives it an airline TORA, ASDA and LDA of 4197 feet for an E170/proposed E190 operation under optimal conditions. That is not enough runway.

I can tell you for a fact that 4,197ft is plenty of runway for those E-Jets on the routes suggested.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 797 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 9580 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 81):


The issue with the certification is operational. They aren't just proposing 500 mile stages. They also have to contend with a 3.2 degree glideslope that increases the approach speed and landing distance requirements.

There is a reason the certification issue is "discrepancies over regulations". They are probably seeking a waiver and not getting what they want.

[Edited 2013-02-27 21:08:46]

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11615 posts, RR: 60
Reply 83, posted (1 year 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9425 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 82):
The issue with the certification is operational. They aren't just proposing 500 mile stages. They also have to contend with a 3.2 degree glideslope that increases the approach speed and landing distance requirements.

None of which are beyond the E-jet's capabilities. If there's an issue here it's not about the physical performance of the aircraft.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 797 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9213 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 83):

You can land a 737 in 4,200 feet with a 3.2 glideslope as well, but that doesn't mean the FAA will sign off on your operating certificate allowing you to do so.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11615 posts, RR: 60
Reply 85, posted (1 year 5 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8908 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 84):
You can land a 737 in 4,200 feet with a 3.2 glideslope as well, but that doesn't mean the FAA will sign off on your operating certificate allowing you to do so.

So as I've been saying, that would not be due to the performance of the aircraft but the discretion of the FAA. I find this interesting because in general the UK's CAA apply a higher benchmark than the FAA, and yet the CAA are happy to permit the E-jets to operate out of Code 2 airports. Why - because they can do so perfectly safely.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 797 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 8659 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 85):

This is a certification issue. I think your misinterpreting what I'm saying. Your looking at it from a raw aircraft performance standpoint. In terms of certification, it's more broad to include the performance, the likelihood of a fatal event, the history of the airport and whether the proposed operations poses undo risk to passengers.


User currently offlinersmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, RR: 2
Reply 87, posted (1 year 5 months 11 hours ago) and read 8500 times:

The problem is PERFORMANCE... There is no T/O and Land DATA at CSB at the current time in CPAs hands.

You could not fly that E-170 out of there fully loaded to OAK with LAX as an ALT.



Did You Ever Think Freedom Could Be this Bad
User currently offlinedxBrian From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 8440 times:

Why would you use LAX as an alternate for OAK? There are better choices, particularly SJC. but you also have SMF, SAC, STS and SFO (though I wouldn't use it for an operational alternate).

User currently offlinersmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, RR: 2
Reply 89, posted (1 year 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 8413 times:

Quoting dxBrian (Reply 88):
Why would you use LAX as an alternate for OAK? There are better choices, particularly SJC. but you also have SMF, SAC, STS and SFO (though I wouldn't use it for an operational alternate).

Why?? Because it is the only legal field in the area. They will have to prove that they can meet economics by being able to fly to destination then to most distant alternate and carry reserve. If they can not do that out of CSB they will not be allowed to fly the route..



Did You Ever Think Freedom Could Be this Bad
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11615 posts, RR: 60
Reply 90, posted (1 year 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 8238 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 86):
This is a certification issue. I think your misinterpreting what I'm saying. Your looking at it from a raw aircraft performance standpoint.

Not at all, I was replying to what you said below, regarding the Declared Distances not being sufficient for an E 170. They in themselves are sufficient - this is what I have been saying, if there are other problematic factors not relating to the performance of the ERJ 170 from those distances then it is irrelevant to my point.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 75):
This gives it an airline TORA, ASDA and LDA of 4197 feet for an E170/proposed E190 operation under optimal conditions. That is not enough runway.
Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 87):
The problem is PERFORMANCE... There is no T/O and Land DATA at CSB at the current time in CPAs hands.

I cannot for one minute believe that a detailed appraisal of the ERJ 170 and ERJ 190's performance was not carried out by Embraer and/or other parties at CLD before the deal was tied up. Sure it's not in service data, but that's an unavoidable problem of introducing a new type to an airport.

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 87):
You could not fly that E-170 out of there fully loaded to OAK with LAX as an ALT.

Other issues aside, from a runway with the aforementioned declared distances and particulars, then CLD-OAK-LAX, including holds, should be possible with max pax and bags. But the nature of the route/model means it is unlikely to be taking much in the hold.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinedxBrian From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 5 months 3 hours ago) and read 8071 times:

How many times have you had to use LAX as an alternate for OAK? There are so many other alternates available within 200 NM that the chances are pretty small that you would need to go almost 300 NM for an alternate airport. If the weather is that bad, you might not want to operate the flight anyway because of the disruption to the rest of your system which is a consideration when you are only operating a few aircraft.

If you can't carry alternate fuel for LAX based on your pax profile, and there is no closer alternate with legal mins, you don't operate. I don't think that would be a show stopper for the FAA

CSB is Cambridge, Nebraska. CLD is apparently the IATA airport identifier. The FAA 3 letter identifier for Carlsbad-Palomar airport is CRQ.


User currently offlinersmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (1 year 5 months 3 hours ago) and read 8145 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 90):
Other issues aside, from a runway with the aforementioned declared distances and particulars, then CLD-OAK-LAX, including holds, should be possible with max pax and bags. But the nature of the route/model means it is unlikely to be taking much in the hold.

I have done over 15K dispatch releases for the E-175 and I can tell you that this aircraft will not get off the ground at KCRQ doing CRQ OAK with LAX as an ALT you will not get this fully loaded with pax and bags out of CRQ without leaving a few grandmas at the gate especially on a day when the temp is 80F.

The max T/O weight is 79,300pds... I wouldn't be surprised the T/O PERF at 70F isnt any more than 72K. I had issues getting a 175 from BIS to MSP with MKE as ALT when temps at BIS were above 80F



Did You Ever Think Freedom Could Be this Bad
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11615 posts, RR: 60
Reply 93, posted (1 year 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 8138 times:

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 92):
I have done over 15K dispatch releases for the E-175 and I can tell you that this aircraft will not get off the ground at KCRQ doing CRQ OAK with LAX as an ALT you will not get this fully loaded with pax and bags out of CRQ without leaving a few grandmas at the gate especially on a day when the temp is 80F.

The max T/O weight is 79,300pds... I wouldn't be surprised the T/O PERF at 70F isnt any more than 72K. I had issues getting a 175 from BIS to MSP with MKE as ALT when temps at BIS were above 80F

Then you need to understand that an ERJ 170 has vastly superior performance compared to the ERJ 175, the two are not comparable like that. I cannot go into numbers but, put it this way, the two are considerably different in their performance. Also, I don't see such a route having high numbers of checked bags to contend with, even if LAX was the only alternative permissible.


Dan  

[Edited 2013-03-01 22:23:45]


...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinesunking737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 8
Reply 94, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7562 times:

Here is the latest news story about California Pacific......

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/...cific-airline-application-refiled/



Just an MSPAVGEEK
User currently offlinersmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, RR: 2
Reply 95, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7266 times:

Quoting sunking737 (Reply 94):
Here is the latest news story about California Pacific......

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/...cific-airline-application-refiled/

Sorry but this is not going to be a a gate near you...EVER..

Just the marketing cost to overcome all damage and the false starts and rumors will cost millions.

I would be interested in seeing how Ted is exploiting the IRS loopholes to cash in.



Did You Ever Think Freedom Could Be this Bad
User currently offlinejmc1975 From Israel, joined Sep 2000, 3253 posts, RR: 15
Reply 96, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7164 times:

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 95):
Quoting sunking737 (Reply 94):
Here is the latest news story about California Pacific......

Is that some kind of joke? It has no indication that it's CalPac, but the livery is somewhat indicative of it.



.......
User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5490 posts, RR: 28
Reply 97, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7100 times:

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 95):
I would be interested in seeing how Ted is exploiting the IRS loopholes to cash in.

Cash in on what? The opportunity to lose what little he has remaining of his personal assets?

What possible "IRS loopholes" could be of use here?



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2127 posts, RR: 1
Reply 98, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6927 times:

Quoting jmc1975 (Reply 96):
Is that some kind of joke? It has no indication that it's CalPac, but the livery is somewhat indicative of it.

Uhh, did you actually read the article at all?


User currently offlineflashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2900 posts, RR: 6
Reply 99, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6792 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jmc1975 (Reply 96):
Is that some kind of joke? It has no indication that it's CalPac, but the livery is somewhat indicative of it.

You mean other than them specifically mentioning California Pacific Airlines? Excerpt:

California Pacific Airlines is asking for extensions after both agencies' deadlines for the company ran out. The transportation department's deadline to begin flights expired on Feb. 25. That department's licensing is needed for FAA approval, and the FAA deadline passed on March 10.


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2992 posts, RR: 7
Reply 100, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6749 times:

Quoting dxBrian (Reply 88):
Why would you use LAX as an alternate for OAK? There are better choices, particularly SJC. but you also have SMF, SAC, STS and SFO (though I wouldn't use it for an operational alternate).

STS isn't suitable due to very short runway and lack of facilities. FAT is also sometimes used as an alternate for the Bay Area airports, like AA's DFW-SJC/SFO flights have diverted there. SAC is probably a poor choice too, again due to lack of facilities.

LAX is an alternate for SNA; and for SFO for overseas flights.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24858 posts, RR: 46
Reply 101, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6698 times:

I hope Mr. Vallas is planning on becoming a centenarian.

Frankly shame on these guys. In April it will be 3-years since they started their formal application process and they have managed to let the clock run out twice at the DOT, and now at the FAA also.

In the mean time a shiny E170 sits on the ramp and burning a $200,000 hole in the budget.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4567 posts, RR: 23
Reply 102, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6842 times:

Quoting jmc1975 (Reply 96):
Is that some kind of joke? It has no indication that it's CalPac, but the livery is somewhat indicative of it.

Huh? The entire article is about them. Not sure what article you were reading.


User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4998 posts, RR: 28
Reply 103, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6601 times:

The fact they are seeking extensions clearly shows ambition. Vallas is determined, and he will see to it that the airline does get airborne. The positions necessary have been filled, and the leadership continues to push forward. As for rushing through the process? Not gonna happen. Startups are no easy task anymore, and the FAA is very strict regarding the process. While they nay sayers are strong.... The believers remain supportive!  


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24858 posts, RR: 46
Reply 104, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6399 times:

No one is saying these guys don't have ambition. However seemingly they are not very organized in meeting DOT and FAA requirements in a timely matter.

Anyhow - for me the big question is - where is the launch financing?

Seemingly they have been trying drum up the $32mil in equity for ages now as ongoing expenses continue to pile up making the hurdle likely even higher.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinecoreyrust From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6342 times:

What is the FAA's biggest reservation in granting them the sought after approval? Is it the management team, Carlsbad as the airport, other?

User currently offlinePSA727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 974 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5851 times:

I'm not shocked about this at all. Their E170 has been parked at CLD for about half a year now. I'm more shocked that they ever intended one of those birds to make it off the ground there with 70 passengers and cargo on board. Can a CRJ or ERJ 50-seater take-off from there without any type of weight restrictions? BTW, I was looking at the USAirways website regarding the merger. And they had a map showing the routes flown by the combined carriers (US/AA). And it had CLD on it. But as a city served by AA not US. It's been over a decade since AA left there, and a few years since US did. But does anyone know if CLD is coming back? I can't find anything on the AA website that would suggest this.


fly high, pay low...Germanwings!
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5970 posts, RR: 14
Reply 107, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5794 times:

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 106):
Can a CRJ or ERJ 50-seater take-off from there without any type of weight restrictions?

Assuming optimal conditions taking off on runway 6, the performance king or the series, the CRJ-700, could maybe get to DFW without bumping in the dead of winter. In the dead of summer, though, it'd be lucky to get to LAS.

The CRJ-200, on the other hand, would be lucky to get to LAS in the dead of winter, and it goes downhill from there...



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineusxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1010 posts, RR: 5
Reply 108, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5566 times:

Mesa flew 4-5 Dash 8-Q200s a day to CLD from Phoenix.... maybe something else is going on....


xx
User currently offlineboeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 797 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5490 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 108):
Mesa flew 4-5 Dash 8-Q200s a day to CLD from Phoenix.... maybe something else is going on....

You can't compare the airfield performance of a turboprop with an RJ. Its apples to oranges. Its like saying a 747 should be able to launch off of an aircraft carrier because an F-18 can.

[Edited 2013-03-15 11:06:51]

User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 110, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5358 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 103):
The fact they are seeking extensions clearly shows ambition. Vallas is determined, and he will see to it that the airline does get airborne. The positions necessary have been filled, and the leadership continues to push forward. As for rushing through the process? Not gonna happen. Startups are no easy task anymore, and the FAA is very strict regarding the process. While they nay sayers are strong.... The believers remain supportive!  

I have been saying this from day one but I'll say it again, what exactly do the "believers" believe in?
Nothing about this airline is viable, NOTHING! If this kind of network would have ever worked it would have been done with the ExpressJet branded airline but they couldn't even get this kind of flying done with all the capital they needed. This airline is just someones expensive dream and will never work even if it does get off of the ground one day which I am 99% sure won't even happen.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12899 posts, RR: 100
Reply 111, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5386 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

California Pacific gains a new CEO:

http://carlsbad.patch.com/articles/c...esident-flights-hopeful-mid-summer




I'm enjoying following the airline partially as so many here want it to fail... Note: I won't invest a penny in them, but they are amusing to follow. Now where is that Popcorn smilie...  

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25008 posts, RR: 85
Reply 112, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5338 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 110):
This airline is just someones expensive dream and will never work even if it does get off of the ground one day which I am 99% sure won't even happen.

So it is someone's dream - let's call it Vanity Airlines. Many on a.net dream of starting an airline.

If he's got the money, if he can afford it, or persuade others to back him, go for it. If his dream comes crashing down - life sucks, sometimes.

Ryanair was someone's dream - their money - and was close to bankruptcy - until they brought Michael O'Leary on board.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 111):
I'm enjoying following the airline partially as so many here want it to fail... Note: I won't invest a penny in them, but they are amusing to follow.

  

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 939 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5314 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 103):
The positions necessary have been filled, and the leadership continues to push forward.

Are you sure about that? I think all they have now is a DoM and a Chief Inspector. If that's true, they still need a new DO, a new Director of Safety, and a Chief Pilot.



"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11615 posts, RR: 60
Reply 114, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5328 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 107):
Assuming optimal conditions taking off on runway 6, the performance king or the series, the CRJ-700, could maybe get to DFW without bumping in the dead of winter. In the dead of summer, though, it'd be lucky to get to LAS.

The CRJ-200, on the other hand, would be lucky to get to LAS in the dead of winter, and it goes downhill from there...


The CRJs and EMBs do not handle heat or short runway well - even a EMB135 would struggle come summer. They've got the right aircraft in the ERJ170, they just need to get it past the hurdles and get it flying.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineusxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1010 posts, RR: 5
Reply 115, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5199 times:

Quoting boeing717200 (Reply 109):
You can't compare the airfield performance of a turboprop with an RJ. Its apples to oranges. Its like saying a 747 should be able to launch off of an aircraft carrier because an F-18 can.

Where do you get that I'm comparing aircraft performance? I didn't see the previous post and was referring to the USAirways route map regarding the merger....



xx
User currently offlinerlwynn From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 1075 posts, RR: 1
Reply 116, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5141 times:

CLD does not get very hot in the summer. The August average high temp is 73° F.


I can drive faster than you
User currently offlineboeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 797 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5145 times:

Quoting usxguy (Reply 115):
Where do you get that I'm comparing aircraft performance? I didn't see the previous post and was referring to the USAirways route map regarding the merger....

This thread isn't about either company.


User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5970 posts, RR: 14
Reply 118, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5160 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 114):
The CRJs and EMBs do not handle heat or short runway well - even a EMB135 would struggle come summer. They've got the right aircraft in the ERJ170, they just need to get it past the hurdles and get it flying.

Conversely, how does the ERJ-170 handle hot and high from a 8,000 foot runway at 8,000 feet with a 10 knot tailwind, in a tight mountain valley, while trying to maintain FAR 121 climb requirements?



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11615 posts, RR: 60
Reply 119, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5177 times:

Quoting rlwynn (Reply 116):
CLD does not get very hot in the summer. The August average high temp is 73° F.

You surprise me, I mistakenly thought it was much hotter.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24858 posts, RR: 46
Reply 120, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5031 times:

They probably hope John Selvaggio lends a little credibility to CP Air.

However I'm not sure the guys the upstart entrepreneur type. He's been more of a corporate baby sitter.
Delta placed him to watch Song, then after that Comair and its fiascos. Since leaving airlines seems he's been with a medical technology firm.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinesunking737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 8
Reply 121, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4958 times:

Another news story out this afternoon....

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/...lsbad-palomar-cpair-vallas-newceo/



Just an MSPAVGEEK
User currently offlineusctrojan18 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 122, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4799 times:

This thread about whether CP will take off or not never seems to go away. I would love for CP to get off the ground, because it's always great to have more service to the San Diego Area. I'm flying out of CLD this summer (on UA), so I will finally be able to check out the new terminal. I really hope that CP Air gets off the ground, because CLD is a great little airport in between 2 major areas that could really do well. And even if CP does fail, hopefully another carrier will rival UA in CLD, maybe US to PHX (again), AA to LAX or even UA service to SFO. Either way good luck to CLD and good luck to CP Air.

User currently offlinethebyte From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4729 times:

Personally, I think they are banking on the hope that Palomar Airport will expand their runway. to 6000 feet. It's been planned for years now. Maybe they are banking on the runway expansion to happen?

User currently offlinePSA727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 974 posts, RR: 0
Reply 124, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4666 times:

Quoting thebyte (Reply 123):
Personally, I think they are banking on the hope that Palomar Airport will expand their runway. to 6000 feet. It's been planned for years now. Maybe they are banking on the runway expansion to happen?

Well, it sort of looks like there is some type of construction going on between the start of the runway and El Camino Real. That whole area has now been planed even, with some mounds of moved dirt to the sides of it. I don't know if that's simply a landscaping issue though. It's quite noticeable when you are heading toward the airport from the east on Palomar Airport road.



fly high, pay low...Germanwings!
User currently onlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2856 posts, RR: 30
Reply 125, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4650 times:

Quoting thebyte (Reply 123):

The current 4,897 ft runway at CLD is fine. CP never has to worry about sending its relatively low density E-170s westbound into prevailing headwinds, they'll all be headed north, south, or riding with the winds east.

For comparison's sake, EYW has an even shorter 4,801 ft runway; not to mention an even hotter, wetter environment. US is getting E-170s out of there to CLT (a route which also sees the larger and less capable E-175) and now DCA. DL is getting mainline aircraft off that runway to ATL and now all the way to LGA! WN's high density all-Y 737s are now flying west against the winds to MSY. Given that DL, US, and WN continue to expand from EYW, I can only assume these flights are taking profitable payloads!

LCY's 4,948 ft runway handles E-jets (including the E-190) all the time. Even Rio's SDU, with it's longest runway at a mere 4,341 feet, is successfully accommodating the E-175.

Of course, a longer runway can certainly help - they can always take on more pax and/or cargo, and of course they'd fare better on CLD's hottest days. They can also take on more fuel to fly farther. I'm merely pointing out that the runway today is not a particularly difficult challenge for the CP E-170, though.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11615 posts, RR: 60
Reply 126, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4524 times:

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 125):
LCY's 4,948 ft runway handles E-jets (including the E-190) all the time.

In fact it's 3,934ft for take off. The landing and accelerate stop distance is 4,327ft.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 118):
Conversely, how does the ERJ-170 handle hot and high from a 8,000 foot runway at 8,000 feet with a 10 knot tailwind, in a tight mountain valley, while trying to maintain FAR 121 climb requirements?

That's not something I'm able to answer I'm afraid. I'm interested though, is this a hypothetical situation, or an actual airport?


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5970 posts, RR: 14
Reply 127, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4328 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 126):
That's not something I'm able to answer I'm afraid. I'm interested though, is this a hypothetical situation, or an actual airport?

It's an actual airport.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 125):
LCY's 4,948 ft runway handles E-jets (including the E-190) all the time

CLD's main issue is meeting the climb gradient requirement, as the airport is (essentially) on a rising ridge, and the prevailing wind and traffic requires departing uphill.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11615 posts, RR: 60
Reply 128, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4279 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 127):
It's an actual airport.

I should imagine it's a fun ride in and out.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 129, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4274 times:

They'll need to send their plane back into maintenance before they ever fly it for revenue. It would need to be made current again on all the checks that are due


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlinediverdave From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 130, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4162 times:

Quoting thebyte (Reply 123):
Personally, I think they are banking on the hope that Palomar Airport will expand their runway. to 6000 feet. It's been planned for years now. Maybe they are banking on the runway expansion to happen?

There is an old landfill on the east end of the runway, which would pose some interesting challenges:

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/dec/14...problem-expanding-palomar-airport/

David


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3107 posts, RR: 6
Reply 131, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4154 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 127):
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 126):
That's not something I'm able to answer I'm afraid. I'm interested though, is this a hypothetical situation, or an actual airport?

It's an actual airport.

Why are we being so oblique? It's Aspen, Colorado, unless you are thinking of something in Asia or South America. There was some discussion of certifying the E-170 or E-190 there, not sure where it left off.

-Rampart


User currently onlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2856 posts, RR: 30
Reply 132, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4101 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 131):
Why are we being so oblique? It's Aspen, Colorado, unless you are thinking of something in Asia or South America. There was some discussion of certifying the E-170 or E-190 there, not sure where it left off.

-Rampart

Yes, back when F9 announced that it would be removing all Q400s from service, everyone's attention immediately turned to ASE. I believe even then it was clear that the E-170s would also all be leaving the F9 fleet. Although the E-190 was slightly over the ASE maximum aircraft specs, it was said to be the favored aircraft choice, and that ASE probably would have granted them a waiver or even changed their rules to accommodate it. However, the E-jet simply couldn't meet the necessary requirements, IIRC a one engine go-around, on the simulators. As was the case when NW retired the Avro fleet, F9 had no choice but to drop all service to ASE when it got rid of the only aircraft type it had that could serve the airport. With regard to NW, I believe it was said that they did look at continuing MSP-ASE on the E-175, but that they would only be able to take 30-some pax from ASE. Perhaps the E-jets could get in and out of ASE, but not with any kind of profitable payload.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24858 posts, RR: 46
Reply 133, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3739 times:

Quoting sunking737 (Reply 121):
Another news story out this afternoon....

Thanks for the link

This comment by Vallas struck me talking about the certification and start-up process.

“We used to fly by the seat of our pants many years ago. Today you’ve got to be very sophisticated in every part of the new industry.”

Is there some naivety here? Did Vallas and his team think the FAA was not going to require them to cross their T's and dot their I's?

Also the article provided insight as to the financial picture - they are still very much trying collect cash - having raised only $10mil so far.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineconcordegboad From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3356 times:

This was posted on their FB today:

Quote:
John Selvaggio, our new president and CEO, is taking us to the next level for FAA certification. To paraphrase Mark Twain, "Rumors of our demise are greatly exaggerated." We’re in business to stay; we’re proceeding with the certification process, and we plan on being able to start carrying passengers to our destinations by early fall. Over the past couple of years we’ve been on a roller-coaster, but for those who have dealt with the Federal government, little explanation is necessary.

1) Key points to know: the Palomar’s runway is more than sufficient to handle the Embraer 170; the proposed runway extension is not needed for our operations; and, once we begin service, we’ll be adding more than 100 new jobs to North County community.
2) We’ve signed a short-term contract with Honeywell to test equipment for Embraer, so our plane flying in and out of Palomar.
3) Going forward, we’ll release periodic reports on our website and Facebook. In the meantime, we’ll not be responding to Facebook posts while concentrating on the all-important certification process. Onward and upward.


https://www.facebook.com/FlyCPAir


User currently offlinersmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, RR: 2
Reply 135, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3276 times:

Quoting concordegboad (Reply 134):
This was posted on their FB today:

So they read airliners.net aye????



Did You Ever Think Freedom Could Be this Bad
User currently offlinecsturdiv From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1448 posts, RR: 3
Reply 136, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3262 times:

Quoting rsmith6621a (Reply 135):
So they read airliners.net aye????

Yes, http://www.airliners.net/profile/flycpair



Posting from somewhere between KORD and KRFD
User currently offlineusctrojan18 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 137, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

It's always great when the airline has an airliners.net page to help silence the rumors.

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 138, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

Quoting concordegboad (Reply 134):
John Selvaggio, our new president and CEO, is taking us to the next level for FAA certification. To paraphrase Mark Twain, "Rumors of our demise are greatly exaggerated." We’re in business to stay; we’re proceeding with the certification process, and we plan on being able to start carrying passengers to our destinations by early fall.

Or to paraphrase John Paul Jones, "We have not yet begun to lose money!"

Nothing against CP Air, and I really hope they succeed, but it's awfully hard to be optimistic about any airline startup.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWingtips56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 366 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2945 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 138):
Nothing against CP Air, and I really hope they succeed, but it's awfully hard to be optimistic about any airline startup.

And one focusing on a home airport that most people out of the area have never heard of. SAN is where most visitors want to end up, so I see most of CPA's traffic as Palomar-originating.



Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
User currently offlinePSAJet17 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 140, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2833 times:

Quoting csturdiv (Reply 136):
Yes, http://www.airliners.net/profile/flycpair

This is the profile for a person named Randy Brown. According to his LinkedIn profile he was Dir of Marketing at California Pacific Airlines but shows an end date of January 2013.

Quoting concordegboad (Reply 134):
3) Going forward, we’ll release periodic reports on our website and Facebook. In the meantime, we’ll not be responding to Facebook posts while concentrating on the all-important certification process. Onward and upward.

The VP of Communications did post on Facebook but now you say he will not respond to posts of Facebook. What else does he have to do? It took more than 2 weeks to formally announce the new CEO coming aboard.
It also looks like they went through their Facebook page and deleted many of the comments from others regarding their startup. (posts about the E-170 being the wrong airplane, CLD runway too short, many of the startup people leaving.)


User currently offlinehawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3188 posts, RR: 7
Reply 141, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2567 times:

The January departure date for Mr. Brown makes sense, as they've been pretty quiet on Facebook and Twitter since late December. Likely he left and with no replacement the accounts were ignored. It seems their new communications guy isn't as interested in cultivating a fan base via social media.

Cleaning up their Facebook page, removing the negative comments proclaiming the airline to be dead, does make sense.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up posted Tue Oct 2 2012 11:47:29 by LAXintl
California Pacific Asks DOT For Start-up Extension posted Wed Aug 8 2012 09:03:53 by LAXintl
Chances Of Success For Start Up Cal Jet @ Mazatlan posted Mon Nov 5 2012 22:46:42 by g500
Delta Moves Up JFK-IST Start Up Date In S13 posted Mon Nov 5 2012 16:56:23 by BDL757
Delta Asks To Further Delay Guangzhou Start-up posted Tue Aug 21 2012 16:08:24 by LAXintl
DOT Warns California Pacific - Fly Or Lose License posted Fri Jul 20 2012 09:56:12 by LAXintl
California Pacific Airlines' First Arrival Into CLD posted Thu Jul 5 2012 11:37:32 by flycpair
Potential New Rise Of Start-Up US Carriers? posted Fri Jun 22 2012 11:23:22 by airone1
California Pacific Airlines Receives First Acft. posted Mon Jun 18 2012 05:10:21 by freakyrat
Start-up FlyA Seeks A330s posted Fri Jun 15 2012 12:15:36 by Pe@rson