ORH could be a decent "Boston" alternative.

I would think the Port Authority could be his best friend after what he did with jetBlue at JFK - Come build your airline at SWF and we will help you.

PVD757 wrote:

Pretty neat that PVD was cited as an airport example!
Not sure of the seat capacity or range of the CS300 but there are definite route opportunities from PVD like:
Dallas
Houston
Minneapolis
Saint Louis
Kansas City
Jacksonville
Norfolk
West Palm Beach
Buffalo
Milwaukee
Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Indianapolis
Columbus
Bahamas
Bermuda

Especially if it is a good product at a low price.

Buffalo would be perfect for a northeast mini hub ....... But I feel like Cleveland / Pitt are way better suited.

freakyrat wrote:

Suggested Hubs: TEB, HPN, MMU or SWF for the New York Area. KPU for Atlanta. MCI or MKC for the Midwest, AUS or SAT for the Southwest, ONT for the Los Angelas area and OAK for the San Francisco area. COS for the Denver area. Not sure fr the Seattle area. MDW and ORD are to congested. I would look to RFD for Chicago.

Teterboro? Absolutely not. Not only are aircraft over 100,000 lbs banned from the airport by federal law (and have been banned for about 50 years), but the airport is already well over capacity from the bizjet traffic it already handles. MMU wouldn't be any better, because all EWR satellite airports (TEB, MMU, CDW) are treated as the same airport for departures and arrivals. Overcapacity at one affects them all. Even if they could create a hub at one of those airports, their flights would be delayed into oblivion on a daily basis. HPN could be an option, but there are still plenty of issues there. SWF wouldn't make for a very good hub.

They'd be better off looking airports with excess facilities, particularly in cities that have fallen victim to mergers over the past decade. Many of these cities have incentives to offer, which is good for a start-up carrier. It's unlikely they'll win a slot jackpot like they did with JFK and LGB, but those two airports are successful today due in no small part to JetBlue. JFK was all but dead as a domestic hub, and JetBlue led its revival.

David Neeleman is pretty sharp when it comes to finding hidden gems, but he'll need to find airports that are "plug and play". PIT, CLE, CVG, MEM, etc. fit that bill. They aren't sexy cities, but they have space and they aren't congested. The trick is being able to capture enough O&D so they aren't purely connection hubs, which is why they were dumped in the first place. Even IAD is potentially ripe for the picking, since UA has spent years neglecting their domestic ops. Independence Air had a pretty good run; with an actual business plan and a less neurotic CEO, this start-up could work even better at IAD.

If Neeleman is able to get this going, and there's little to doubt he won't, it'll be interesting to see how Allegiant, Frontier and even Spirit respond. Because you know Neeleman won't be William Franke and won't play with pissing off the passenger at nearly every touchpoint. It could create real headaches for those carriers as there DNA would be inferior to the expected look of this new airline. But at this point it's all conjecture too...

I know the article mentioned PVD as an example of the airports they want to serve, but PVD is actually quite well served when compared to say MHT, which would be a great gateway to the Boston area.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Wow, David Neeleman, born in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The same guy that ordered a bunch of Embraer 190/195s (at JetBlue and at Azul). To say the least, he must have an in-depth knowledge of the E195E2 performance.

And he ended up picking the CS300 as the best aircraft for the job...

IFLC most likely picked the airframe.

atcsundevil wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

Suggested Hubs: TEB, HPN, MMU or SWF for the New York Area. KPU for Atlanta. MCI or MKC for the Midwest, AUS or SAT for the Southwest, ONT for the Los Angelas area and OAK for the San Francisco area. COS for the Denver area. Not sure fr the Seattle area. MDW and ORD are to congested. I would look to RFD for Chicago.

Teterboro? Absolutely not. Not only are aircraft over 100,000 lbs banned from the airport by federal law (and have been banned for about 50 years), but the airport is already well over capacity from the bizjet traffic it already handles. MMU wouldn't be any better, because all EWR satellite airports (TEB, MMU, CDW) are treated as the same airport for departures and arrivals. Overcapacity at one affects them all. Even if they could create a hub at one of those airports, their flights would be delayed into oblivion on a daily basis. HPN could be an option, but there are still plenty of issues there. SWF wouldn't make for a very good hub.

They'd be better off looking airports with excess facilities, particularly in cities that have fallen victim to mergers over the past decade. Many of these cities have incentives to offer, which is good for a start-up carrier. It's unlikely they'll win a slot jackpot like they did with JFK and LGB, but those two airports are successful today due in no small part to JetBlue. JFK was all but dead as a domestic hub, and JetBlue led its revival.

David Neeleman is pretty sharp when it comes to finding hidden gems, but he'll need to find airports that are "plug and play". PIT, CLE, CVG, MEM, etc. fit that bill. They aren't sexy cities, but they have space and they aren't congested. The trick is being able to capture enough O&D so they aren't purely connection hubs, which is why they were dumped in the first place. Even IAD is potentially ripe for the picking, since UA has spent years neglecting their domestic ops. Independence Air had a pretty good run; with an actual business plan and a less neurotic CEO, this start-up could work even better at IAD.

MEM could have the whole Southwest wing of the consolidated B concourse with mothballed A and C in reserve for an enterprising airline start up(Both actually recieved a decent amount of work just for the B Concourse clousure for renovation). While not offering any connecting, MEM would be nice for some long range milk runs like SEA-MEM-FLL and has some obvious holes in directs like MEM-BOS with around a 100 PDEW without a direct (screams CS100) MEM lines up pretty well with the Boston area and SAT/AUS.

xdlx wrote:

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Wow, David Neeleman, born in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The same guy that ordered a bunch of Embraer 190/195s (at JetBlue and at Azul). To say the least, he must have an in-depth knowledge of the E195E2 performance.

And he ended up picking the CS300 as the best aircraft for the job...

IFLC most likely picked the airframe.

Even better. With the A230, dare we hope for an ALC order too?

Lightsaber

xdlx wrote:

IFLC most likely picked the airframe.

That would be even better then.
It would mean the CSeries achieved a critical mass to make it attractive to leasing corps. (ie resale value, and diversity of costumers) .

TWA772LR wrote:

Anyone else notice in the article that theyre looking to fly to Fort Worth?

I'm excited! Neeleman is great at starting airlines and he has a good team with him! Plus more CSeries orders! I cant wait for the base announcement and livery release!

FTW! (no pun intended)

gatibosgru wrote:

ORH could be a decent "Boston" alternative.

MHT now that WN has drawn down service and it seems emptier....

CobaltScar wrote:

Hmmmm, so he wants to build a B6 in the midwest with cheaper non-unionized zero seniority staff and use the CS300 to do it.

Sounds like a nice cheap and covert way for B6 to grow the mid-west and then (re)absorb them in a few years once Moxie's labor costs go up and they have plucked all the neglected low hanging fruit left.

If B6 goes CS100/300 , then you have their future acquisition partner in this airline, and it would not surprise me one bit if its being planned that way from now.

You have some analyst qualities in you with this statement...

ua900 wrote:

Runway28L wrote:

Well that’s one way Bombardier could’ve secured a decent NA order for the C Series that I would’ve never predicted

Indeed, Air Baltic's success against FR and WW must have impressed him.

enilria wrote:

lowfareair wrote:

Agreed, and Andrew continues to list himself as UA EVP & CFO, going strong, almost at his 2 year anniversary with the company. Maybe they'll get him a $10 plastic gold watch to commemorate that.

Well, if Andrew Levy joins Moxy somehow, perhaps they can do a marketing agreement. UA gives out Marriott status for 1Ks, so it's been done before and Andrew didn't kill that. If Moxy becomes a true ULCC then Marriott's Moxy will be the perfect natural fit from a brand perspective.

Can confirm he is still alive and kicking at UA. Just saw him recently as I was taking an elevator to my floor in the building...

freakyrat wrote:

Suggested Hubs: TEB, HPN, MMU or SWF for the New York Area. KPU for Atlanta. MCI or MKC for the Midwest, AUS or SAT for the Southwest, ONT for the Los Angelas area and OAK for the San Francisco area. COS for the Denver area. Not sure fr the Seattle area. MDW and ORD are to congested. I would look to RFD for Chicago.

Why not ISP? SWF is a decent idea, HPN is congested, TEB is a nonstarter.

Thought KPU was restricted from having airlines in there?

COS 100% for DEN... bring back the Western Airlines network.

Like ONT, maybe service to San Bernardino also?

SAT would be a interesting one.

MCI has those terrible terminals... but is growing.

OAK might be too congested in terms of competition... but not sure where else they could go.

I think Chicago will be RFD or GYY. GYY's catchment is much better than RFDs.

sunking737 wrote:

I'm surprised he didn't talk with the NEW Midwest Express, ONEjet, or any other small carrier, That is looking for cash to start/continue ops.

Same.

zakuivcustom wrote:

To be fair E195E2 is the size of CS100. The plan is to order CS300, which is closer to a MAX7/A319neo than E195E2.

I don't know about being P2P, though. There's G4-esque operation that connect small airports to major tourist destinations like LAS and SFB/Florida Beaches; there's the "business-jet" like operation that the like of Onejet is trying right now. To connect all the dots you simply need too many flights left and right, though.

G4 is missing a large chunk of the market that they are looking at but dragging their feet on. International. Moxy could come in and kick G4's butt for Carribean/Latin American point to point. The money is there.

MIflyer12 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Southwest started as that alternative airports airline, and Neeleman likely thinks the time is ripe for another to try it. Fort Worth, Concord Regional, Gary, or a dozen others have potential in growing urban areas. And someone needs to take on the political monopoly Delta has bought in Atlanta.

Secondary airports are great when primary airports are capacity-constrained for long periods. Some of that is by politics (gate limits at LAX due to a noise control suit), stupidity (lack of investment at LHR and LGW) and some by function of timing (I'll suggest BOS). But look at how MHT and PVD cratered as BOS got better facilities. I don't know how one builds a comprehensive network around a secondary airports strategy. When WN went big into BWI, DEN and entered LGA/EWR/SFO, we see that they gave up on it as a strategy.

I'd like to see what average fares Neeleman can get on routes like Gary to Sanford, or Rockford to Mesa.

I would suggest that they don't poke the bear with their initial routes. Name a big city that this airline can announce as a hub of operations that would not draw massive retaliation from airlines already competing there. They probably need to get their feet wet and build their market in places that would be excited about their service and then expand into larger places.

LotsaRunway wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Southwest started as that alternative airports airline, and Neeleman likely thinks the time is ripe for another to try it. Fort Worth, Concord Regional, Gary, or a dozen others have potential in growing urban areas. And someone needs to take on the political monopoly Delta has bought in Atlanta.

Secondary airports are great when primary airports are capacity-constrained for long periods. Some of that is by politics (gate limits at LAX due to a noise control suit), stupidity (lack of investment at LHR and LGW) and some by function of timing (I'll suggest BOS). But look at how MHT and PVD cratered as BOS got better facilities. I don't know how one builds a comprehensive network around a secondary airports strategy. When WN went big into BWI, DEN and entered LGA/EWR/SFO, we see that they gave up on it as a strategy.

I'd like to see what average fares Neeleman can get on routes like Gary to Sanford, or Rockford to Mesa.

I would suggest that they don't poke the bear with their initial routes. Name a big city that this airline can announce as a hub of operations that would not draw massive retaliation from airlines already competing there. They probably need to get their feet wet and build their market in places that would be excited about their service and then expand into larger places.

They said it was going to be a point to point carrier.

It's conceivable that David Neeleman starts this carrier to access and promote markets B6 would like in order to later sell the airline to B6. For example, secondary markets in the west like Burbank so that B6 can flourish on both coasts.

lostsound wrote:

It's conceivable that David Neeleman starts this carrier to access and promote markets B6 would like in order to later sell the airline to B6. For example, secondary markets in the west like Burbank so that B6 can flourish on both coasts.

Why?

People have to remember David Neeleman has no current connection to JetBlue. He was pushed out of the carrier. His life and business decisions are not revolving around B6.

It is conceivable that he starts an airline with the intention of later selling it for a profit. But he will chase and go after the highest bidder, and give his airline as much broad appeal as possible (to increase possible number of bidders) if that is his ultimate goal. Again, his life and business decisions are not revolving around B6.

ilovelamp wrote:

Something inside me thinks Neeleman stalks these A.net boards because this is the perfect wet dream for a lot of posters here.

Seriously, I’ll say it again, I have major doubts this is the right time to launch any new carrier unless acquisitions or mergers are in the near future. The next 5-10 years is a major problem for pilot supply. The US is past due for our next economic recession and the C Series wage rates have already been set way above what this new carrier would be able to pay on the open market. Good luck getting the best talent with that in mind.

Historically, opinions like yours have been proven wrong over and over again.
Now is probably as good a time than ever. Capital is available. It's all about "talent" now. What sets this venture apart from others. How will it "rock the boat", so to speak.
Based on track record, I'd be concerned if I were an established player in the market and Neeleman wants to join the party...

He has a proven track record of success.

peanuts wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

Something inside me thinks Neeleman stalks these A.net boards because this is the perfect wet dream for a lot of posters here.

Seriously, I’ll say it again, I have major doubts this is the right time to launch any new carrier unless acquisitions or mergers are in the near future. The next 5-10 years is a major problem for pilot supply. The US is past due for our next economic recession and the C Series wage rates have already been set way above what this new carrier would be able to pay on the open market. Good luck getting the best talent with that in mind.

Historically, opinions like yours have been proven wrong over and over again.
Now is probably as good a time than ever. Capital is available. It's all about "talent" now. What sets this venture apart from others. How will it "rock the boat", so to speak.
Based on track record, I'd be concerned if I were an established player in the market and Neeleman wants to join the party...

I agree it is a good time to start.

The pilot shortage is only for low paid Jobs. It is a political problem that, if small markets lose service, will have a political solution. The C-series is incredibly economical for maintenance and fuel. This is why they went for the CS300, it has enough passengers to pay the new rates.

I state again pilots won't be a problem. Not for Neeleman. Threads here had it as an issue for JetBlue's startup and it wasn't an issue.

Who it will be an issue for is RJs with half the people paying to support two ATPs.

There are still many underemployed people. The US job market does lack surplus skilled people, but unskilled are begging for training.

I was a bubble blogger in 2005-2009. I knew a bad recession was coming. I don't see it now.

Lightsaber

ua900 wrote:

Runway28L wrote:

Well that’s one way Bombardier could’ve secured a decent NA order for the C Series that I would’ve never predicted

Indeed, Air Baltic's success against FR and WW must have impressed him.

enilria wrote:

lowfareair wrote:

The biggest question mark I see here isn't the use of smaller airports, but rather the lack of connecting flights. The cost of providing them has gone down considerably over the years and it will be tough to fill the planes without that, especially if they want to get more than the leisure traveler going to Orlando or Vegas.

Allegiant is in trouble if this gets launched. You guys ever figure out where Andrew Levy went?

Agreed, and Andrew continues to list himself as UA EVP & CFO, going strong, almost at his 2 year anniversary with the company. Maybe they'll get him a $10 plastic gold watch to commemorate that.

TWA302 wrote:

william wrote:

There is an airline that does that already, its called Allegiant.

Nothing better than some healthy competition! If they do target G4 they better have their ducks in a row.

I wonder how Marriott will take this as Moxy is one of the brands in their hotel property arsenal?

Well, if Andrew Levy joins Moxy somehow, perhaps they can do a marketing agreement. UA gives out Marriott status for 1Ks, so it's been done before and Andrew didn't kill that. If Moxy becomes a true ULCC then Marriott's Moxy will be the perfect natural fit from a brand perspective.

Levy announced his departure. I guess his last day hasn't come yet. I guess that's why he hasn't announced a new spot.

The whole concept reminds me a bit of Volotea in Europe. Connecting small and medium sized cities with aircraft with up to 150 seats. Volotea isnt the cheapest, and doesn't have the most frequecy - but do have an eye for operating underserved markets.

LuxuryTravelled wrote:

The whole concept reminds me a bit of Volotea in Europe. Connecting small and medium sized cities with aircraft with up to 150 seats. Volotea isnt the cheapest, and doesn't have the most frequecy - but do have an eye for operating underserved markets.

I'm planning on using Volotea to fly Nantes to Strasbourg next summer ( Puy du Fou to Europa Park).

Bold prediction: They will dominate LGB after B6 leaves.

gregn21 wrote:

Bold prediction: They will dominate LGB after B6 leaves.

With WN moving in and with a cap well under 50 flights/day iirc, that will not be something all that spectacular.

Timing is wrong for a new US airline. The problem with getting started in US airliner business. Is much larger companies can make you lose massive amounts of money. JetBlue launched when the industry was bleeding to death and as a result those larger companies weren't able to put the screws to the new guy. At this time US airline industry is very healthy and if they wish to they can make any new airline fail by simply under cutting it on price. With the consolidation that has occurred in past decade it would be really easy for an airline with close a thousand plane to operate around a hundred planes at loss. In order to bankrupt any new entrant into the market.

There is a massive supply( that becomes oversupply) of new planes coming into the market. Maybe he uses the position of cash to buy cheap assets in the next downturn. Might be a great way to get planes.

Siddar wrote:

Timing is wrong for a new US airline. The problem with getting started in US airliner business. Is much larger companies can make you lose massive amounts of money. JetBlue launched when the industry was bleeding to death and as a result those larger companies weren't able to put the screws to the new guy. At this time US airline industry is very healthy and if they wish to they can make any new airline fail by simply under cutting it on price. With the consolidation that has occurred in past decade it would be really easy for an airline with close a thousand plane to operate around a hundred planes at loss. In order to bankrupt any new entrant into the market.

Just as the industry out the screws on NK, G4 and others? The idea is start up with a plane with such a low cost per flight that one jumps around like Volotea. Then one is established and to costly to squeeze out.

Right now is the best pricing for narrowbody aircraft. Airbus has sucked the oxygen out of the market with their outsize backlog. Bombardier and Embraer are hungry and Moxie took advantage of that.

I'm certain this as E2-195 vs. CS-300.
As it will be at UA, B6, and NK.

I fully expect a large Asia order to take advantage of the price war.

Lightsaber

Siddar wrote:

Timing is wrong for a new US airline.

The timing was pretty lousy for JetBlue too! They started ops exactly 19 months before 9/11, and the years that followed weren't exactly fun times for US airlines. There must have been at least four or five major bankruptcies in the years that followed, yet JetBlue was one of the few airlines that consistently remained profitable. Yes, the airlines that filed for bankruptcy had a lot of baggage going into the economic downturn (no pun intended!) — issues that JetBlue didn't have to contend with — but JetBlue was founded with sufficient capital and a strong business plan, so they were set up to succeed despite adverse conditions.

I agree that the ideal time to start a new airline was probably about three or four years ago, but JetBlue is a good case study that solid planning means it's not only possible for companies to weather a poor economy, but even thrive. If a poor(er) economy is where we're headed, it'll impact the existing carriers more substantially than an upstart with lots of money behind it, particularly one with a very efficient fleet and lower staffing costs.

Siddar wrote:

With the consolidation that has occurred in past decade it would be really easy for an airline with close a thousand plane to operate around a hundred planes at loss. In order to bankrupt any new entrant into the market.

I would actually argue that consolidation leads to significant gaps in the market. All three legacies have entrenched themselves at their hubs, and even though they've got large fleets and a lot of resources, I don't think they'd try too hard to fight off a small fish. Even if they did, Neeleman has some experience with fending off competition. Delta started Song purely to defend the lucrative snowbird routes, and lost an absolute ton of money in the process. Song is a case study in what not to do, and was one of the bigger flops in US aviation history (it didn't help that their branding did nothing to advertise that they were an airline). Seat dumping has rarely worked in the past 20 years, and I'd like to think they've learned their lesson. Not only that, but if this airline is a breath of fresh air for passengers fed up with legacies (as they were when JetBlue started), seat dumping will make for a fairly ineffective strategy when passengers may be inclined to pay somewhat of a premium for a better experience. Their profit margins will be much lower too, so even if they're forced to lower fares to compete, they could remain profitable (or at least break even) at the same fare a legacy might be hemorrhaging cash.

AirFiero wrote:

MCIRNO wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

How about MKC as a hub, when the terminal is improved?

As much as I'd like to see an airline restarting service to the downtown airport in Kansas City, I just don't see it. Maybe they could have a starting hub at MCI with easy access to all corners of the US.

Oops, sorry. I meant MCI.

Selfishly, 40,000 of my friends and I that live downtown would love to have air service at an airport that we can literally walk to (more like a $5 Uber). I always thought a less than daily LAS flight from MKC would capture those of us with a decent amount of disposable income that live downtown. If you think about it, all the interstates/highways lead to MKC; I70, I35, I29, I44, Highway 169 which means you can get almost anywhere in 20 minutes or less. I know it’s probably is not realistic but one can always dream!
P.S. I would fly the heck out of Jetsuite X and Ultimate if they flew from MKC.

If Moxy sticks with secondary cities, it might have a chance. SW did that years ago and never had an unprofitable year. Also stick with one frame although the order should include some CS-100's as that would allow a better match to market fit.

It'll be interesting if the secondary airport strategy can work for someone beyond Allegiant. I think it can, but they have to be based in at least a major city, like Ryanair is, even if it is a secondary city. Then they can fly to touristy destinations, like primary hub in Fort Worth, and 4x week to the Grand Canyon, or 3x daily to AZA, 4 daily to Rockford, IL, etc...

Point to Point non major markets is going to require some good one-stop and coordinated transfers such as

PVD-ORF-JAX (navy shuttle)
SWF/ISP/HPN-ORF-PNS

PVD-MCI-BUR
SWF/ISP/HPN-MCI-SJC

MSY-FTW-BUR
BHM-FTW-SJC

PVD-CMH-MSY
SWF/ISP-CMH-MEM

40-50 O&D (each of those routes could support an RJ), 30-40 through pax and 30-40 coordinated transfers/connecting.

A lot of this model also has to assume that BOS/LGA/JFK/EWR/DCA and soon PHL are maxed out on gates.

No gates = less low fare competition = secondary airports are more attractive.

RL757PVD wrote:

Point to Point non major markets is going to require some good one-stop and coordinated transfers such as

PVD-ORF-JAX (navy shuttle)
SWF/ISP/HPN-ORF-PNS

PVD-MCI-BUR
SWF/ISP/HPN-MCI-SJC

MSY-FTW-BUR
BHM-FTW-SJC

PVD-CMH-MSY
SWF/ISP-CMH-MEM

40-50 O&D (each of those routes could support an RJ), 30-40 through pax and 30-40 coordinated transfers/connecting.

A lot of this model also has to assume that BOS/LGA/JFK/EWR/DCA and soon PHL are maxed out on gates.

No gates = less low fare competition = secondary airports are more attractive.

MEM has a PDEW of around 60 for RDU, There's the Delta abandon mentioned of CVG with it's Kroger traffic.

MEM once had a PDEW in 2008 to San Francisco of 128. The Bay market can be developed again, Allegiant just started it's OAK service.

hz747300 wrote:

It'll be interesting if the secondary airport strategy can work for someone beyond Allegiant. I think it can, but they have to be based in at least a major city, like Ryanair is, even if it is a secondary city. Then they can fly to touristy destinations, like primary hub in Fort Worth, and 4x week to the Grand Canyon, or 3x daily to AZA, 4 daily to Rockford, IL, etc...

And... there's the booming North Metro Plex and McKinney just waiting for exploitation.

enilria wrote:

ua900 wrote:

Runway28L wrote:

Well that’s one way Bombardier could’ve secured a decent NA order for the C Series that I would’ve never predicted

Indeed, Air Baltic's success against FR and WW must have impressed him.

enilria wrote:

Allegiant is in trouble if this gets launched. You guys ever figure out where Andrew Levy went?

Agreed, and Andrew continues to list himself as UA EVP & CFO, going strong, almost at his 2 year anniversary with the company. Maybe they'll get him a $10 plastic gold watch to commemorate that.

TWA302 wrote:

Nothing better than some healthy competition! If they do target G4 they better have their ducks in a row.

I wonder how Marriott will take this as Moxy is one of the brands in their hotel property arsenal?

Well, if Andrew Levy joins Moxy somehow, perhaps they can do a marketing agreement. UA gives out Marriott status for 1Ks, so it's been done before and Andrew didn't kill that. If Moxy becomes a true ULCC then Marriott's Moxy will be the perfect natural fit from a brand perspective.

Levy announced his departure. I guess his last day hasn't come yet. I guess that's why he hasn't announced a new spot.

Levy's departure from United was effective immediately as of the announcement.

Polot wrote:

lostsound wrote:

It's conceivable that David Neeleman starts this carrier to access and promote markets B6 would like in order to later sell the airline to B6. For example, secondary markets in the west like Burbank so that B6 can flourish on both coasts.

Why?

People have to remember David Neeleman has no current connection to JetBlue. He was pushed out of the carrier. His life and business decisions are not revolving around B6.

It is conceivable that he starts an airline with the intention of later selling it for a profit. But he will chase and go after the highest bidder, and give his airline as much broad appeal as possible (to increase possible number of bidders) if that is his ultimate goal. Again, his life and business decisions are not revolving around B6.

Not because of his (non)connection to B6. Because B6 is clearly interested in West Coast operations (ie the Virgin America fiasco), it would be smart to target them as a buyer.

Several companies these days only start up with the intention of being purchased, including airlines.

I see a future tie up of JetBlue, MOXY (JetNAME to be decided later) and JetSuiteX.

Why not use an airport that's underutilized like Mid-America Airport. Being in the Midwest you could reach most airports in the country, north mexico, & Canada. My that's my guess. Is it still open?

Another thing to consider is where will they get their pilots from? Most of the regionals are paying 70-80 first year, that’s a big difference from 15 years ago. Granted part of that is a bonus. Plus, most regionals are offering some sort of flow. Will crewing these planes be an issue?

If pilots are in demand, who needs flow? Just pay 80 with no bonus, and you'll spread the cost of the pilot over 2x as many passengers.
I wonder how much they'd charge for SWF-RFD.

ODwyerPW wrote:

I see a future tie up of JetBlue, MOXY (JetNAME to be decided later) and JetSuiteX.

Perhaps, but that is many, many steps down the road from a startup that’s barely off the drawing board.

This should be interesting if this gets off the ground. Hopefully they can set up a hub in CLT (Someone needs to give AA a run for their money on a larger scale here).

lostsound wrote:

Polot wrote:

lostsound wrote:

It's conceivable that David Neeleman starts this carrier to access and promote markets B6 would like in order to later sell the airline to B6. For example, secondary markets in the west like Burbank so that B6 can flourish on both coasts.

Why?

People have to remember David Neeleman has no current connection to JetBlue. He was pushed out of the carrier. His life and business decisions are not revolving around B6.

It is conceivable that he starts an airline with the intention of later selling it for a profit. But he will chase and go after the highest bidder, and give his airline as much broad appeal as possible (to increase possible number of bidders) if that is his ultimate goal. Again, his life and business decisions are not revolving around B6.

Not because of his (non)connection to B6. Because B6 is clearly interested in West Coast operations (ie the Virgin America fiasco), it would be smart to target them as a buyer.

Several companies these days only start up with the intention of being purchased, including airlines.

Why do you think Moxy will be heavy in West Coast operations?

If the focus is on smaller markets Moxy will likely be focusing more on east coast/transcon travel which is larger than intra west coast.

Anybody have a copy of the Powerpoint he put up on the wall at this road show? It must be floating around.

In each of his prior airlines (not sure about Azul) he was not very accurate about the route network during the fund raising stage. I don't know if that was purposeful subterfuge to confuse competitors or just an evolution of the business plan. There is an excellent chance this whole small city focus thing is simply meant to avoid irking the big airlines that could throw up roadblocks.

Another note, I don't think in any of his launches has he ever really created a ULCC, arguably not even a true LCC. WestJet, JetBlue, Azul, and Morris were LCCs at first, but they all quickly went after a more premium market. I would say he launches wannabe legacies. Spirit has basically been an ULCC/LCC it's whole life and never even really sniffed at being more than a discount carrier. Yes, they have toyed around with a very small front cabin a couple of times, but the entire culture was never one of being a wannabe legacy. All Neeleman's creations quickly headed that way after using the LCC concept just to get started and get customers flying.

Bottom line, I think the legacies have more to fear from this than a carrier flying SWF-PGD. And that's a good thing...

Another irony. He will struggle to get $100m to start this, and the US4 (AA/DL/UA/WN) would probably gladly give him $100m not to. That's at the core of the competition problem. They will be attempting to buy and shut down this thing from day 1. Not unlike IAG and Norwegian, although it took a while for that realization in Europe.

tsra wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

MCIRNO wrote:

As much as I'd like to see an airline restarting service to the downtown airport in Kansas City, I just don't see it. Maybe they could have a starting hub at MCI with easy access to all corners of the US.

Oops, sorry. I meant MCI.

Selfishly, 40,000 of my friends and I that live downtown would love to have air service at an airport that we can literally walk to (more like a $5 Uber). I always thought a less than daily LAS flight from MKC would capture those of us with a decent amount of disposable income that live downtown. If you think about it, all the interstates/highways lead to MKC; I70, I35, I29, I44, Highway 169 which means you can get almost anywhere in 20 minutes or less. I know it’s probably is not realistic but one can always dream!
P.S. I would fly the heck out of Jetsuite X and Ultimate if they flew from MKC.

I didn't think about that. I can definitely see JetsuiteX flying out of MKC (along with OJC or IXD); I actually think it would be very popular and profitable.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Wow, David Neeleman, born in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The same guy that ordered a bunch of Embraer 190/195s (at JetBlue and at Azul). To say the least, he must have an in-depth knowledge of the E195E2 performance.

And he ended up picking the CS300 as the best aircraft for the job...

Weren't three of the early E190s at Azul fleet transfers from JetBlue (2 owned E190ARs leased from B6 before being sold by B6 to Avolon, plus a JetBlue NTU lease transferred to Azul)?

As for this airline, I could see it ultimately becoming a part of his old friend down the line if this Midwest network can work out.

eraugrad02 wrote:

Why not use an airport that's underutilized like Mid-America Airport. Being in the Midwest you could reach most airports in the country, north mexico, & Canada. My that's my guess. Is it still open?

Neeleman and his minions see STL/BLV as fly-over. Highly doubt BLV/STL will be served. BUT I have been wrong before. Once.

enilria wrote:

Bottom line, I think the legacies have more to fear from this than a carrier flying SWF-PGD. And that's a good thing...

Another irony. He will struggle to get $100m to start this, and the US4 (AA/DL/UA/WN) would probably gladly give him $100m not to. That's at the core of the competition problem. They will be attempting to buy and shut down this thing from day 1. Not unlike IAG and Norwegian, although it took a while for that realization in Europe.

#RootsAir

PlanesNTrains wrote:

enilria wrote:

Bottom line, I think the legacies have more to fear from this than a carrier flying SWF-PGD. And that's a good thing...

Another irony. He will struggle to get $100m to start this, and the US4 (AA/DL/UA/WN) would probably gladly give him $100m not to. That's at the core of the competition problem. They will be attempting to buy and shut down this thing from day 1. Not unlike IAG and Norwegian, although it took a while for that realization in Europe.

#RootsAir

Yup. That's exactly it. Pathetic.

He to this day still flys regularly on jetBlue, and for free. His family too. To think all the blue dust is kicked off his heels is a mistake. Besides what I said above about using a upstart shadowy airline with cheap labor costs to build out the midwest, there is the whole new entrant angle at airports and with politicians. Lull and convince them to give you slots, tax breaks, whatever. The advantages of being the plucky upstart.

jetBlue gets 3 new entrant slots at SNA , Moxie gets another three, jetSuitex gets another 3 and then ........ rinse/repeat all over the country, then merge when costs justify it.

CobaltScar wrote:

He to this day still flys regularly on jetBlue, and for free. His family too. To think all the blue dust is kicked off his heels is a mistake. Besides what I said above about using a upstart shadowy airline with cheap labor costs to build out the midwest, there is the whole new entrant angle at airports and with politicians. Lull and convince them to give you slots, tax breaks, whatever. The advantages of being the plucky upstart.

jetBlue gets 3 new entrant slots at SNA , Moxie gets another three, jetSuitex gets another 3 and then ........ rinse/repeat all over the country, then merge when costs justify it.

Sure, that could happen. However, nobody in their right mind would build a business plan based on that. JetBlue could be out of the picture by then. That is not a basket that you'd want to put your eggs in.