LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:47 pm

Some might recall that the DOT had issued a notice that California Pacific Airlines was required to start up operations by August 25, 2012 or have its authority revoked. ( California Pacific Asks DOT For Start-up Extension (by LAXintl Aug 8 2012 in Civil Aviation) )

Well, CP Air applied with the DOT for a 1-year extension of this start up deadline, and yesterday the DOT responded by giving CP Air till February 25, 2013 to commence service.

In its pleadings, CP Air had stated it continues to work with the FAA on achieving its operating certificate, and also continues down the path of securing $30-50mil in required funding from institutional investors.

In the DOT response, the department noted that its not common practice to grant extensions and the carrier must now meet departments fitness criteria and commence operations by February 25, 2013.
If CP seeks any further delays, it must do so atleast 45-days prior to the this extension deadline.


OST-2010-0126
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
clrd4t8koff
Posts: 440
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:57 am

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:14 pm

I'm not one to judge anybody and I admire people who go after their dream, but why would anyone think the US market would need yet another airline, and they would be anymore successful than the slew that's failed before them?   
 
diverdave
Posts: 450
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:00 am

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:40 pm

Quoting clrd4t8koff (Reply 1):
I'm not one to judge anybody and I admire people who go after their dream, but why would anyone think the US market would need yet another airline, and they would be anymore successful than the slew that's failed before them?

That would be a great question for Sir Branson and the investors in VX.  

More seriously, CP Air wants to operate unserved direct routes from a small airport in a populous area. There could be a niche market there.

If they are needing to raise $30 to $50 million in today's financial climate, that's going to be a challenge. And they have five months to get it done.

David
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:42 pm

Quoting diverdave (Reply 2):

I agree - I am very much a skeptic of start-up airlines here, but in this case they MAY have an untapped niche. I think the game's up if they get any meaningful competition, but it could be fun for a while.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:53 pm

I thought they were much closer than this. The aircraft is painted and delivered, is it not? I remember the airline's high-fiving thread about the delivery / open day. My Facebook page was spammed by all my SoCal spotter friends posting pics from their walk-through of the aircraft.

I agree the niche could work, lots of money and a very mobile population in Carlsbad. Then again United Express to San Fran or Delta Connection to Salt Lake and they're toast - frequent flier miles, global connections, and - cos it's that important - frequent flier miles again.

And just to get this off my chest, I think it's a dumb name. Eight syllables before you even get to Airlines or Air or whatever it is. But what irks me is how redundant it is. Pacific? Well, what else would it be, California Atlantic? California Arabian Sea? It's like saying "PIN number" or "ATM machine" - which is called RAS Syndrome (Redundant Acronym Syndrome Syndrome) btw. What's wrong with CalAir or Pacific Airlines? California Pacific Airlines is like a fake airline name from a disaster movie. No one would name a real airline with such a laborious tongue-twister of a name. Well let's hope it doesn't turn out to be a disaster movie for it's investors, or the next lot, which we hope will get it into the air at last.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
rampart
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:11 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
And just to get this off my chest, I think it's a dumb name. Eight syllables before you even get to Airlines or Air or whatever it is. But what irks me is how redundant it is. Pacific? Well, what else would it be, California Atlantic? California Arabian Sea? It's like saying "PIN number" or "ATM machine" - which is called RAS Syndrome (Redundant Acronym Syndrome Syndrome) btw. What's wrong with CalAir or Pacific Airlines? California Pacific Airlines is like a fake airline name from a disaster movie. No one would name a real airline with such a laborious tongue-twister of a name.

Good grief, what a rant!
Canadian Pacific? Canadian North? Cathay Pacific? British Mediterranean? Air Atlanta Icelandic? Pacific Coastal? All but BMed fit into the Department of Redundancy Department, but big deal! I personally like those kinds of names, harkens back to old descriptive railroad names, like Colorado and Southern, Burlington Northern, Lehigh and Hudson.

-Rampart
 
mtnwest1979
Posts: 1793
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:23 am

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:22 pm

Well , the name indicates the two areas hey want to serve: California, and a bit larger Pacific area of North America ( Baja, Arizona, future to PNW maybe). Whereas your examples ( California Atlantic, etc) would be for an LAX-BOS line for example. So I do not see a redundancy here.
I always was a fan of the Pacific Cal Air name from early '80s. Ill-conceived idea, but liked the name.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
 
User avatar
hhslax2
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:16 pm

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:24 pm

Quoting diverdave (Reply 2):
More seriously, CP Air wants to operate unserved direct routes from a small airport in a populous area. There could be a niche market there.

Many people in north San Diego county prefer CLD to SAN. I'm flying into CLD from BAH later this month. The terminal at CLD is better than the UA pier in terminal 1 at SAN.
 
ridgid727
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:58 am

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:43 pm

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 3):
And just to get this off my chest, I think it's a dumb name

Many would wager that "cedarjet" is a dumb name too, although they don't let it bother them publicly.
Many airlines have names assocaited with the area they are from or are operating service from.
 
diverdave
Posts: 450
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:00 am

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:36 pm

Quoting rampart (Reply 5):
Good grief, what a rant!
Canadian Pacific? Canadian North? Cathay Pacific? British Mediterranean? Air Atlanta Icelandic? Pacific Coastal? All but BMed fit into the Department of Redundancy Department, but big deal! I personally like those kinds of names, harkens back to old descriptive railroad names, like Colorado and Southern, Burlington Northern, Lehigh and Hudson.

Don't forget Pacific Southwest Airlines and their Super Smile.  http://www.jetpsa.com/radio/COS81.mp3

David

[Edited 2012-10-02 16:37:20]

[Edited 2012-10-02 16:39:28]
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18187
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Tue Oct 02, 2012 11:45 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
In its pleadings, CP Air had stated it continues to work with the FAA on achieving its operating certificate, and also continues down the path of securing $30-50mil in required funding from institutional investors.

I'm a bit confused, I don't understand the legalities here. I understand the money side, but if CP Air does not have its operating certificate from the FAA yet, how can the DOT insist that they fly?

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5450
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:57 am

California Pacific is long? Lol. Try Great Northern Pacific & Burlington Lines, which fortunately was tossed in favor of Burlington Northern.  

I don't think this bodes well for them. How many airlines get planes painted but never inaugurate service?

-Dave
-Dave
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:17 am

I'm interested to see our in-house CP Air member's opinion on this.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
In its pleadings, CP Air had stated it continues to work with the FAA on achieving its operating certificate, and also continues down the path of securing $30-50mil in required funding from institutional investors.

What's taking so long for them? What seems to be the issue?

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 3):
I agree - I am very much a skeptic of start-up airlines here, but in this case they MAY have an untapped niche. I think the game's up if they get any meaningful competition, but it could be fun for a while.

Yeah once they even get started up too, their service isn't used well and because of the costs and lack of fliers, they end up going under eventually.
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
ridgid727
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:58 am

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 2:25 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 12):

Yeah once they even get started up too, their service isn't used well and because of the costs and lack of fliers, they end up going under eventually.

or become an express or connection carrier for smeone else.
 
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:07 am

Quoting mariner (Reply 10):
I'm a bit confused, I don't understand the legalities here. I understand the money side, but if CP Air does not have its operating certificate from the FAA yet, how can the DOT insist that they fly?

Yes good question.

Basically the DOT requires that once the economic authority has been granted, a prospective air carrier has 12-months to satisfy remaining fitness conditions including achieving its FAA AOC, getting the required money in the bank and launching commercial services.

Failing to meet this 12-month criteria places the authority back into dormancy or essentially being revoked. Baring an extension, the carrier would then need to restart the process to earn its economic authority back.

Seems CP did not have its eggs lined up in the right order. It took them 15 months to achieve the economic authority, but its been going on 29 months now to get the AOC. Last I heard according to their filings they were looking at late Q1 2013 as a target for that.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
usxguy
Posts: 940
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:28 pm

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:09 am

Mariner, there are two parts of regulations for an air carrier.

First is operations - that's the FAA portion. And where you hear Part 91, 119, 121, 135 etc all come from -- those are the "rules" that each airline operates under.

Second part is economic authority - the US DOT reviews the business plan & financial fitness of an airline. The DOT has limitations for smaller carriers (up to 60 seats) and larger operators with set guidelines for both. This is also where DOT 380 operations come from - basicly ad-hoc/limited service that mocks scheduled service.

Both go hand-in-hand, but just because you have one doesn't mean you have the other.
xx
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:41 am

Quoting ridgid727 (Reply 13):
or become an express or connection carrier for smeone else.

Sadly that will probably be the eventual fate for these guys. I see this going in 3 phases:

-Phase 1- the honeymoon where it's a hip new carrier and things look bright

-Phase 2- the model begins to run out of steam as the independent revenue stream tops out and fails to support the envisioned level of service or future expansion. Somewhere along the line (years probably) they eventually have to link up with a larger carrier(s) to prop themselves up by bringing in that additional business from codeshare traffic.

-Phase 3- At some point, they begin a death spiral of becoming ever more dependent on these codeshare/alliance agreements to survive. Routes, planes, and crews get trimmed down as more and more routes that aren't sustainable without heavy codeshare traffic get axed. They eventually end up as another regional serving under the banner of a major carrier's connection brand, ceasing to exist as an independent carrier, save perhaps for a handful of OO-style at-risk flights on the side.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18187
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:43 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
Yes good question.
Quoting usxguy (Reply 15):
Mariner, there are two parts of regulations for an air carrier.

Thanks, both. I get it now. Or - I think I do.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
Jamake1
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 2:30 pm

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:17 am

Quoting rampart (Reply 5):
Good grief, what a rant!
Canadian Pacific? Canadian North? Cathay Pacific? British Mediterranean? Air Atlanta Icelandic? Pacific Coastal? All but BMed fit into the Department of Redundancy Department, but big deal! I personally like those kinds of names, harkens back to old descriptive railroad names, like Colorado and Southern, Burlington Northern, Lehigh and Hudson.

And my favorite name: British Caledonian
United's B747-400. "She's a a cruel lover."
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:01 pm

Quoting jamake1 (Reply 18):
And my favorite name: British Caledonian

  

Both name and logo/livery!
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:24 pm

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 16):

-Alternative phase 3:

Instead of becoming another regional carrier, I could see them get bought out by another regional to either a) get rid of competition by merging them into an existing carrier, or b) dissolving them for the assets.

[Edited 2012-10-03 06:27:13]
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:46 pm

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 20):

-Alternative phase 3:

Instead of becoming another regional carrier, I could see them get bought out by another regional to either a) get rid of competition by merging them into an existing carrier, or b) dissolving them for the assets.

Yep that too! I was just getting at the fact that I believe they are destined to get co-opted or swallowed up eventually. This whole small, independent airline business is just not sustainable IMHO.
 
ScottB
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:12 pm

Quoting usxguy (Reply 15):
Second part is economic authority - the US DOT reviews the business plan & financial fitness of an airline. The DOT has limitations for smaller carriers (up to 60 seats) and larger operators with set guidelines for both. This is also where DOT 380 operations come from - basicly ad-hoc/limited service that mocks scheduled service.

Both go hand-in-hand, but just because you have one doesn't mean you have the other.

This is basically why I'm still puzzled that California Pacific didn't go the route of having an existing regional carrier (most likely Republic/Shuttle America if they wanted the E170) operate the service. Obviously they'd be stuck with paying a profit margin to the regional carrier, but then a small operation with a handful of jets carries some significant overhead.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18974
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:04 pm

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 21):
This whole small, independent airline business is just not sustainable IMHO.

Reminds me of Baltia which was first granted route authority more than 21 years ago and still hasn't started service.
http://www.baltia.com/

1991 news item re approval of their route authority.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/06/bu...t-union.html?ref=baltiaairlinesinc

When they first announced their launch, Russia was still the Soviet Union and their planned primary destination, St. Petersburg, was still known as Leningrad.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 1790
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:59 pm

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 4):
California Pacific Airlines is like a fake airline name from a disaster movie.

Any airline sounds like that if you try hard enough...

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 11):
I don't think this bodes well for them. How many airlines get planes painted but never inaugurate service?

Well, there was this disaster...
Be A Perfectionst, You're Nothing If You're Just Another; Something Material, This Isn't Personal...
 
ridgid727
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:58 am

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:37 pm

Quoting ScottB (Reply 22):
This is basically why I'm still puzzled that California Pacific didn't go the route of having an existing regional carrier (most likely Republic/Shuttle America if they wanted the E170) operate the service. Obviously they'd be stuck with paying a profit margin to the regional carrier, but then a small operation with a handful of jets carries some significant overhead.

Actually if they had pulled a page out of the Morris Air Handbook, and contracted with another carrier to operate the service until they got their own certificate, they would allready have built a customer base while their certification is being prosecuted.

Another one that baffles me as to why they haven't done something similar to what Morris did, is the new People Express.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18187
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: California Pacific Given Till Feb 2013 To Start-up

Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:49 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 11):
California Pacific is long? Lol. Try Great Northern Pacific & Burlington Lines, which fortunately was tossed in favor of Burlington Northern.

I suspect that given the age (and fortune) of the founder it should really be called Vanity Airlines.

But that's okay - it's his seed money, he can call it what he wants. If I won the lottery, I might do something similar, but with a different name and differently conceived and structured..

mariner
aeternum nauta

Who is online