Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
LAXintl wrote:Good luck
LAXintl wrote:Bit more news.
Miami based investment firm says it now formally acquired the intellectual property of World Airways, and say they indeed seek to launch a low cost, long haul airline flying Boeing 787 and are in talks with Boeing for 10-frames.
Press release:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 51714.html
They also have a website now
https://worldairways.com/
=
Good luck
"Today, we are proud to begin preparations to launch scheduled operations from the US to Asia and Latin America. We will be partnering with low cost, short haul carriers in the US and in the regions we serve to provide connecting traffic to and from our initial planned gateways. We plan to announce our new brand look and feel within the next few weeks, under the direction of our Founding CMO, Freddie Laker."
jimbo737 wrote:I'm sure all the LCC's and ULCC's are already begging to feed the latest paper airline.
Who dreams this nonsense up?
flyingphil wrote:“..under the direction of our Founding CMO, Freddie Laker..”
Err what? Trying to use Freddie Laker legacy as well? I doubt if that many people now remember the original Freddie Laker, Laker Airlines and Skytrain. What is a CMO anyway?
jnev3289 wrote:Also interesting they're choosing Asia and LATAM instead of ME or Europe
jnev3289 wrote:It's basically what the 787 was made for.
Nicoeddf wrote:jnev3289 wrote:It's basically what the 787 was made for.
What does the 787, or any other modern widebody for that matter, offer that corrects the fundamental problem of achieving sustainable yields with non-feeded P2P flights?
No, the 787 is not made for LHLC, neither is any other modern widebody.
jnev3289 wrote:Nicoeddf wrote:jnev3289 wrote:It's basically what the 787 was made for.
What does the 787, or any other modern widebody for that matter, offer that corrects the fundamental problem of achieving sustainable yields with non-feeded P2P flights?
No, the 787 is not made for LHLC, neither is any other modern widebody.
Really?
Some quotes from other articles:
"When US manufacturer Boeing first introduced the Boeing 787 Dreamliner it was marketed as a hub-buster, an aircraft that would enable airlines to fly non-stop point-to-point services between non-hub airports"
“It will allow some more hub to smaller point flying than perhaps was possible before, or perhaps earlier than before because the market size required to make a route profitable has reduced."
Nicoeddf wrote:jnev3289 wrote:Nicoeddf wrote:
What does the 787, or any other modern widebody for that matter, offer that corrects the fundamental problem of achieving sustainable yields with non-feeded P2P flights?
No, the 787 is not made for LHLC, neither is any other modern widebody.
Really?
Some quotes from other articles:
"When US manufacturer Boeing first introduced the Boeing 787 Dreamliner it was marketed as a hub-buster, an aircraft that would enable airlines to fly non-stop point-to-point services between non-hub airports"
“It will allow some more hub to smaller point flying than perhaps was possible before, or perhaps earlier than before because the market size required to make a route profitable has reduced."
I am sorry, but your choice of quotes are not substantiating your claim. "It was marketed as" is not exactly what I would need to read. Also, "it will allow SOME more hub to smaller point" flying...sorry to say, by far not sufficient to either make the claim that the 787 was, marketing aside, made for P2P or made for any LHLC in particular. All but very few todays 787 are flying the exact same routes 767s were flying before.
No, the 787 wasn't made for LHLC and neither is it used for it, anywhere. As I said, the fundamental problem of filling widebody sized A/C without feeding LHLC style hasn't been solved.
aviationjunky wrote:I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a US LHLC airline yet. With bases in main hubs in JFK, MIA, and LAX, and focus cities in ATL, SEA, LAS, HOU, and ORD, I think they could do amazing things! Look at what DU is doing! With the right support and pricing, I think they could do great!
jnev3289 wrote:Yea those idiots at Boeing have no idea what they're talking about. Too bad you weren't on the job market when they hired the people who marketed the 787
Nicoeddf wrote:jnev3289 wrote:Nicoeddf wrote:
What does the 787, or any other modern widebody for that matter, offer that corrects the fundamental problem of achieving sustainable yields with non-feeded P2P flights?
No, the 787 is not made for LHLC, neither is any other modern widebody.
Really?
Some quotes from other articles:
"When US manufacturer Boeing first introduced the Boeing 787 Dreamliner it was marketed as a hub-buster, an aircraft that would enable airlines to fly non-stop point-to-point services between non-hub airports"
“It will allow some more hub to smaller point flying than perhaps was possible before, or perhaps earlier than before because the market size required to make a route profitable has reduced."
I am sorry, but your choice of quotes are not substantiating your claim. "It was marketed as" is not exactly what I would need to read. Also, "it will allow SOME more hub to smaller point" flying...sorry to say, by far not sufficient to either make the claim that the 787 was, marketing aside, made for P2P or made for any LHLC in particular. All but very few todays 787 are flying the exact same routes 767s were flying before.
No, the 787 wasn't made for LHLC and neither is it used for it, anywhere. As I said, the fundamental problem of filling widebody sized A/C without feeding LHLC style hasn't been solved.
Nicoeddf wrote:jnev3289 wrote:Yea those idiots at Boeing have no idea what they're talking about. Too bad you weren't on the job market when they hired the people who marketed the 787
Sensitive much about the Dreamliner? No worries, the plane is an excellent piece of carbon. Proudly all Boeing? No worries again, I have a soft spot for the products.
But Boeing knew the 787 is the perfect P2P plane just as much as Airbus knew 4engines4Longhaul is the way to into the future...
Go World Airways though...not hoping for much, but wish them every success with whatever state-of-the-art plane they chose of which none gives them any better chance of overcoming missing feed and low yields for a large plane.
LAXintl wrote:A story out of CAPA. A320 family may be in the cards initially.
World Airways director of business development Adam Weiss, speaking on CAPA TV, stated (Mar-2018) the Boeing 787 is the carrier's "target" aircraft, however its unit economic costs are too prohibitive for a startup. Mr Weiss pointed out it is "almost three times" more expensive to operate a 787 on London-Boston service compared to a A321LR, stressing "we're trying to be really thoughtful about our equipment selection".
World Airways ultimately plans to migrate its fleet to 787 aircraft and anticipates operating "20 or so" aircraft within five years, which will "probably" comprise mostly 787, Bombardier Dash 8 and Dash 9 equipment. He stressed "we're not set" on any specific aircraft yet, as it consider various options. World will "probably" start with two aircraft and increase to five "within a year". Mr Weiss noted it may start with A320 aircraft, explaining: "We haven't identified anything specifically yet. But, to us, that's the entry point into the market".
https://centreforaviation.com/news/worl ... ies-773912
Keith2004 wrote:jnev3289 wrote:Also interesting they're choosing Asia and LATAM instead of ME or Europe
here
US to Europe LCC market is kinda crowded at the moment (WOW, Norwegian, Level among others) LATAM does not have much LCC competition to US
ME they would have to compete with ME3, and ME is not really a big US destination as it is more of a Transit region for ME3
As for Asia, flights are consistently found between $400-$500 to Asia from US, not sure how they go lower than that
RJNUT wrote:They probably have it confused with the Q400.what's a Bombardier Dash -9?
LAXintl wrote:A story out of CAPA. A320 family may be in the cards initially.
World Airways director of business development Adam Weiss, speaking on CAPA TV, stated (Mar-2018) the Boeing 787 is the carrier's "target" aircraft, however its unit economic costs are too prohibitive for a startup. Mr Weiss pointed out it is "almost three times" more expensive to operate a 787 on London-Boston service compared to a A321LR, stressing "we're trying to be really thoughtful about our equipment selection".
World Airways ultimately plans to migrate its fleet to 787 aircraft and anticipates operating "20 or so" aircraft within five years, which will "probably" comprise mostly 787, Bombardier Dash 8 and Dash 9 equipment. He stressed "we're not set" on any specific aircraft yet, as it consider various options. World will "probably" start with two aircraft and increase to five "within a year". Mr Weiss noted it may start with A320 aircraft, explaining: "We haven't identified anything specifically yet. But, to us, that's the entry point into the market".
https://centreforaviation.com/news/worl ... ies-773912
flymco753 wrote:RJNUT wrote:They probably have it confused with the Q400.what's a Bombardier Dash -9?
strfyr51 wrote:Keith2004 wrote:jnev3289 wrote:Also interesting they're choosing Asia and LATAM instead of ME or Europe
here
US to Europe LCC market is kinda crowded at the moment (WOW, Norwegian, Level among others) LATAM does not have much LCC competition to US
ME they would have to compete with ME3, and ME is not really a big US destination as it is more of a Transit region for ME3
As for Asia, flights are consistently found between $400-$500 to Asia from US, not sure how they go lower than that
Here is the diference between any new World Airways and Norwegian or any other NON- American carriers, Once Worlds has their FAA opperarting Certificate. They can get feed from any City in the USA and take passengers to any city IN the USA unlike Norwegian or the ME3 Carriers. This is an advantage NONE of the foreign LCC'S will EVER have or Acquire. The USA has few Holiday airlines in operation Unlike Europe. So this Idea No matter how Suspect Could actually become a winner if properly Funded Managed and operated. And? The CEO and the BOD will have to be primarily American.
