Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24822
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:55 pm

A few of you are talking about the opportunity for connections/transfers, however, per revealed business plan the model will be strictly P2P, with no planned connections.

More from the Airline Weekly story:

And Moxy’s plan for keeping its unit costs low includes, for starters, flying from cheaper airports charging lower fees, similar to what Ryanair largely does in Europe or what Southwest once exclusively did in the U.S. Using secondary airports, furthermore, should make Moxy a more reliable airline, enabling it to avoid the delays typical at big airports—this will help save money too. The new airline will schedule its flight crews to minimize costly overnight stays. It won’t sell connecting itineraries— just point to point—joining only Allegiant, among notable U.S. airlines, in this regard. Planes won’t have seatback screens. Moxy will rely heavily on digital self-service passenger tools, thereby reducing labor costs. Most distribution will be online. The new airline will have an all-junior workforce and won’t be burdened with legacy costs and contracts. JetBlue surged to near-instant profitability by producing, at far lower costs than its then-bloated legacy competitors.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 765
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:30 pm

So basically Allegiant 2.0

From a labor perspective, I hope this venture gets strangled in its crib or shortly afterwards. Its a blatant attempt at creating a "B" payscale.

The new airline will have an all-junior workforce and won’t be burdened with legacy costs and contracts. JetBlue surged to near-instant profitability by producing, at far lower costs than its then-bloated legacy competitors.



"Burdended and Bloated" with what? With fair paying jobs and work rules?

Oh well, let the cycle continue.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:43 pm

CobaltScar wrote:
So basically Allegiant 2.0

From a labor perspective, I hope this venture gets strangled in its crib or shortly afterwards. Its a blatant attempt at creating a "B" payscale.

The new airline will have an all-junior workforce and won’t be burdened with legacy costs and contracts. JetBlue surged to near-instant profitability by producing, at far lower costs than its then-bloated legacy competitors.



"Burdended and Bloated" with what? With fair paying jobs and work rules?

Oh well, let the cycle continue.


How is this different than Jetblue? Or any other new airline? They ALL start with a junior workforce.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:51 pm

LAXintl wrote:
A few of you are talking about the opportunity for connections/transfers, however, per revealed business plan the model will be strictly P2P, with no planned connections.

More from the Airline Weekly story:

And Moxy’s plan for keeping its unit costs low includes, for starters, flying from cheaper airports charging lower fees, similar to what Ryanair largely does in Europe or what Southwest once exclusively did in the U.S. Using secondary airports, furthermore, should make Moxy a more reliable airline, enabling it to avoid the delays typical at big airports—this will help save money too. The new airline will schedule its flight crews to minimize costly overnight stays. It won’t sell connecting itineraries— just point to point—joining only Allegiant, among notable U.S. airlines, in this regard. Planes won’t have seatback screens. Moxy will rely heavily on digital self-service passenger tools, thereby reducing labor costs. Most distribution will be online. The new airline will have an all-junior workforce and won’t be burdened with legacy costs and contracts. JetBlue surged to near-instant profitability by producing, at far lower costs than its then-bloated legacy competitors.


I've thought that the CS300 would have been a great plane for Allegiant but obviously they have gone with the A32X and usually buy used.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 765
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:54 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
CobaltScar wrote:
So basically Allegiant 2.0

From a labor perspective, I hope this venture gets strangled in its crib or shortly afterwards. Its a blatant attempt at creating a "B" payscale.

The new airline will have an all-junior workforce and won’t be burdened with legacy costs and contracts. JetBlue surged to near-instant profitability by producing, at far lower costs than its then-bloated legacy competitors.



"Burdended and Bloated" with what? With fair paying jobs and work rules?

Oh well, let the cycle continue.


How is this different than Jetblue? Or any other new airline? They ALL start with a junior workforce.


Its not different. And this is why Airline work forces unionize. Management needs to come up with a better game plan for profits than "lets pay our work force less and/or just dissolve the airline and make a new airline so we can reset everyone to the bottom of the pay scale again".

They have the right to found new airlines, and others have the right to hope they get bought out quickly so their labor does not have to work at a steep discount longer than necessary (like poor Virgin America did). jetBlue labor took matters into their own hands and are now unionized, though they too would of been better off if swallowed up by a legacy a few years into their existence. Heck, they would be better off if it happens now too.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:55 pm

CobaltScar wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
CobaltScar wrote:
So basically Allegiant 2.0

From a labor perspective, I hope this venture gets strangled in its crib or shortly afterwards. Its a blatant attempt at creating a "B" payscale.




"Burdended and Bloated" with what? With fair paying jobs and work rules?

Oh well, let the cycle continue.


How is this different than Jetblue? Or any other new airline? They ALL start with a junior workforce.


Its not different. And this is why Airline work forces unionize. Management needs to come up with a better game plan for profits than "lets pay our work force less and/or just dissolve the airline and make a new airline so we can reset everyone to the bottom of the pay scale again".

They have the right to found new airlines, and others have the right to hope they get bought out quickly so their labor does not have to work at a steep discount longer than necessary (like poor Virgin America did). jetBlue labor took matters into their own hands and are now unionized, though they too would of been better off if swallowed up by a legacy a few years into their existence. Heck, they would be better off if it happens now too.


They are starting up. Of course they will have lower wages. People are new. This gives them the chance to actually succeed and pay people more. You know, like JetBlue.

I'm curious, though, if you believe it'd be better to have fewer carriers, with fewer employees, charging higher fares, and paying employees more? If so, then maybe instead of wishing JetBlue get's bought out, why not just wish they were dead?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:44 pm

Aliqiout wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:
It would have been, but he hasn't expressed any interest in secondary citites.


"According to trade publication Airline Weekly, Neeleman is looking to form a low-cost service called Moxy Airlines. The company is expected to officially commence in 2020, and will be aimed at smaller secondary airports, such as New York Stewart International Airport."

Secondary airports are not secondary cities. All the airports he mentioned are in the biggest metropolitan areas of the country. BUR, for example is a secondary airport in the second largest metro area in the country. He will have 18.7 million people to draw from for transcons. That's very different than a secondary city, like CMH with only about 2 million to draw from.


AA and WN:

"Note to self: Max out BUR before 2020"
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
Aliqiout
Posts: 390
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:10 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:46 pm

cheapgreek wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:
cheapgreek wrote:
For secondary cities the choice should have been CS100. Better suited for small loads and better off shorter runways.

It would have been, but he hasn't expressed any interest in secondary citites.


"According to trade publication Airline Weekly, Neeleman is looking to form a low-cost service called Moxy Airlines. The company is expected to officially commence in 2020, and will be aimed at smaller secondary airports, such as New York Stewart International Airport."

Secondary airports are not secondary cities. All the airports he mentioned are in the biggest metropolitan areas of the country. BUR, for example is a secondary airport in the second largest metro area in the country. He will have 18.7 million people to draw from for transcons. That's very different than a secondary city, like CMH with only about 2 million to draw from.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7357
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:51 pm

If there's no connections, will there be through flights ala Southwest?
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5473
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:55 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
CobaltScar wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:

How is this different than Jetblue? Or any other new airline? They ALL start with a junior workforce.


Its not different. And this is why Airline work forces unionize. Management needs to come up with a better game plan for profits than "lets pay our work force less and/or just dissolve the airline and make a new airline so we can reset everyone to the bottom of the pay scale again".

They have the right to found new airlines, and others have the right to hope they get bought out quickly so their labor does not have to work at a steep discount longer than necessary (like poor Virgin America did). jetBlue labor took matters into their own hands and are now unionized, though they too would of been better off if swallowed up by a legacy a few years into their existence. Heck, they would be better off if it happens now too.


They are starting up. Of course they will have lower wages. People are new. This gives them the chance to actually succeed and pay people more. You know, like JetBlue.

I'm curious, though, if you believe it'd be better to have fewer carriers, with fewer employees, charging higher fares, and paying employees more? If so, then maybe instead of wishing JetBlue get's bought out, why not just wish they were dead?


Guys, there is no need to get in a fight about this. The FAs working for airlines are just looking for better pay and work condition. And the employees that Moxy hire are most likely those that can't get jobs with mainline airlines these days. And if moxy is successful, they will get higher pays. More airlines will mean more competition and more jobs. Great for everyone.
 
UpNAWAy
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:34 pm

P2P Makes no sense. It is not cheaper to operate it is more expensive. There is no great shortage of undeserved P2P markets in the US especially in large urban catchments. Now a hub and spoke at little underused airports makes sense.
 
UPNYGuy
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:14 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:44 pm

UpNAWAy wrote:
P2P Makes no sense. It is not cheaper to operate it is more expensive. There is no great shortage of undeserved P2P markets in the US especially in large urban catchments. Now a hub and spoke at little underused airports makes sense.


Certain posters here think this might be a David Copperfield act. Neeleman is likely not making his *actual* plans public until he has to, so the retaliatory response won’t be as great.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:57 pm

tphuang wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
CobaltScar wrote:

Its not different. And this is why Airline work forces unionize. Management needs to come up with a better game plan for profits than "lets pay our work force less and/or just dissolve the airline and make a new airline so we can reset everyone to the bottom of the pay scale again".

They have the right to found new airlines, and others have the right to hope they get bought out quickly so their labor does not have to work at a steep discount longer than necessary (like poor Virgin America did). jetBlue labor took matters into their own hands and are now unionized, though they too would of been better off if swallowed up by a legacy a few years into their existence. Heck, they would be better off if it happens now too.


They are starting up. Of course they will have lower wages. People are new. This gives them the chance to actually succeed and pay people more. You know, like JetBlue.

I'm curious, though, if you believe it'd be better to have fewer carriers, with fewer employees, charging higher fares, and paying employees more? If so, then maybe instead of wishing JetBlue get's bought out, why not just wish they were dead?


Guys, there is no need to get in a fight about this. The FAs working for airlines are just looking for better pay and work condition. And the employees that Moxy hire are most likely those that can't get jobs with mainline airlines these days. And if moxy is successful, they will get higher pays. More airlines will mean more competition and more jobs. Great for everyone.


Fighting?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:25 pm

TWA302 wrote:
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. :-)

First priority needs to be B6 haha. They don't even fly to the midwest besides bare-bones service to the megacities, the opportunist add in CLE and just started BNA now that it is "cool and trendy" BLV has actually been doing pretty well, they have like 6 flights a day on G4 in the summer which is huge for G4
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
nine4nine
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:37 pm

https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com ... s-details/

Originally reported by Airline Weekly, Neeleman hopes to form a new lost-cost airline called Moxy Airways that will offer point-to-point service between secondary airports including:

Providence, Rhode Island (PVD)
Fort Worth, Texas (FTW)
Burbank, California (BUR)
That list is not exhaustive, but meant to emphasize that Moxy will be avoiding major hubs like Boston, Dallas, and Los Angeles.

In an investor presentation leaked to Airline Weekly, the goal of Moxy will not be to compete on the level of Spirit and Frontier. Rather, Moxy will be a hybrid model with complimentary wi-fi and more spacious seats, but charges for seat assignments and snacks onboard. The carrier plans only to sell point-to-point tickets.




I know “Moxy” is more than absolute to be the project name until the actual brand is launched, and I can’t wait to hear what that would be!
717, 727-100, 727-200, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 742, 748, 752, 753, 762, 763, 772, 77W, 787-10, DC9, MD80/88/90, DC10, 319, 220-300, 320, 321, 321n, 332, 333, CS100, CRJ200, Q400, E175, E190, ERJ145, EMB120
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:37 pm

UpNAWAy wrote:
P2P Makes no sense. It is not cheaper to operate it is more expensive. There is no great shortage of undeserved P2P markets in the US especially in large urban catchments. Now a hub and spoke at little underused airports makes sense.

Why? What advantage will he have vs the US3 or even WN and AS? People pay double for subpar service on G4 because it's ptp and the only nonstop. G4's operation, however, is relatively limited and I'm assuming he wants to be another player in this market.
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:38 pm

The letdown in all this may be that what a lot of us imagine - COSMKE or PVDCMH - will instead be Everywhere-LAS and Everywhere-SFB. I still believe that the ideal model would be a hybrid of G4 and F9. A few smaller connecting hubs combined with massive p2p.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24822
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:02 pm

Aliqiout wrote:
Secondary airports are not secondary cities. All the airports he mentioned are in the biggest metropolitan areas of the country. BUR, for example is a secondary airport in the second largest metro area in the country. He will have 18.7 million people to draw from for transcons. That's very different than a secondary city, like CMH with only about 2 million to draw from.


Lets keep in mind secondary airports have their limited catchment areas or in other words market accessibility. BUR in no shape or form can serve more than a fraction of that 18million people in LA basin. It simply won't draw many outside its catchment area due to distance and time constraints along with other competing airports.

For BUR specifically per their own marketing studies - in 2015 they estimated their catchment area represents mere 17.7 percent of the region's population. In otherwords BUR is more a community airport, than a more broadly accessible airport for the region.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
winginit
Posts: 3051
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:10 pm

CobaltScar wrote:
Its not different. And this is why Airline work forces unionize. Management needs to come up with a better game plan for profits than "lets pay our work force less and/or just dissolve the airline and make a new airline so we can reset everyone to the bottom of the pay scale again".


Correct me if you think I'm off base here, but it would seem to me that, aside from the pilots admittedly, Delta has found that balance you speak of in treating their working groups fairly without the necessity of union representation?
 
User avatar
Geminijets101
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:42 am

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:22 pm

will the airline fly to MIA, or FLL?
Cíao
 
nine4nine
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:24 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:
Secondary airports are not secondary cities. All the airports he mentioned are in the biggest metropolitan areas of the country. BUR, for example is a secondary airport in the second largest metro area in the country. He will have 18.7 million people to draw from for transcons. That's very different than a secondary city, like CMH with only about 2 million to draw from.


Lets keep in mind secondary airports have their limited catchment areas or in other words market accessibility. BUR in no shape or form can serve more than a fraction of that 18million people in LA basin. It simply won't draw many outside its catchment area due to distance and time constraints along with other competing airports.

For BUR specifically per their own marketing studies - in 2015 they estimated their catchment area represents mere 17.7 percent of the region's population. In otherwords BUR is more a community airport, than a more broadly accessible airport for the region.


Well actually BUR is ranked the 4th largest growing secondary market in the US in 2018. WN is expanding, B6 is expanding, AS is expanding, and UA has brought back a portion of mainline service.

Obviously Neeleman sees something you don’t. He’s been successful in all his ventures to date. All the naysayers said the same thing when he skipped LAX to start this little boutique start up hub in LGB called JetBlue.

It’s apparent your constant bias everything not LAX in the LA area but unfortunately LAX is a mess and terminals are basically maxed out at least until T0 is built.
717, 727-100, 727-200, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 742, 748, 752, 753, 762, 763, 772, 77W, 787-10, DC9, MD80/88/90, DC10, 319, 220-300, 320, 321, 321n, 332, 333, CS100, CRJ200, Q400, E175, E190, ERJ145, EMB120
 
User avatar
flyPIT
Posts: 1926
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:21 am

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:50 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Lets keep in mind secondary airports have their limited catchment areas or in other words market accessibility. BUR in no shape or form can serve more than a fraction of that 18million people in LA basin. It simply won't draw many outside its catchment area due to distance and time constraints along with other competing airports.
That's what the majors assumed of JFK about its appeal to serve domestic passengers. The 5 million people living on JFK's doorstep were overlooked until B6 arrived.

LAXintl wrote:
For BUR specifically per their own marketing studies - in 2015 they estimated their catchment area represents mere 17.7 percent of the region's population.
Which is over 3 million people. I'm not suggesting BUR could provide the success B6 has had at JFK, but I wouldn't assume there is little opportunity there either.
FLYi
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:06 pm

nine4nine wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:
Secondary airports are not secondary cities. All the airports he mentioned are in the biggest metropolitan areas of the country. BUR, for example is a secondary airport in the second largest metro area in the country. He will have 18.7 million people to draw from for transcons. That's very different than a secondary city, like CMH with only about 2 million to draw from.


Lets keep in mind secondary airports have their limited catchment areas or in other words market accessibility. BUR in no shape or form can serve more than a fraction of that 18million people in LA basin. It simply won't draw many outside its catchment area due to distance and time constraints along with other competing airports.

For BUR specifically per their own marketing studies - in 2015 they estimated their catchment area represents mere 17.7 percent of the region's population. In otherwords BUR is more a community airport, than a more broadly accessible airport for the region.


Well actually BUR is ranked the 4th largest growing secondary market in the US in 2018. WN is expanding, B6 is expanding, AS is expanding, and UA has brought back a portion of mainline service.

Obviously Neeleman sees something you don’t. He’s been successful in all his ventures to date. All the naysayers said the same thing when he skipped LAX to start this little boutique start up hub in LGB called JetBlue.

It’s apparent your constant bias everything not LAX in the LA area but unfortunately LAX is a mess and terminals are basically maxed out at least until T0 is built.


First, B6 hasn't been successful at LGB. At least not in the way that most people would dub "successful". They picked an airport with limited slots and reduced popularity as their LA strategy, and have all but retreated from that in favor of LAX.

BUR has the additional challenge of not having tons of capacity, and even then "Moxy" is going to be up against WN (in particular) and B6 as well. JetBlue didn't have those issues at LGB.

I'd just add that LAXIntl didn't say there was no demand at BUR. He said it wasn't like LA's second airport. For better or worse (I'd say worse), LAX is where carriers and passengers want to be. Otherwise, why would BUR, LGB, and ONT be languishing relative to their big brother? JetBlue has offered all of them arguably the best domestic product available, yet they just haven't been able to be as successful until they entered LAX.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:07 pm

I'll add that I'm actually excited to see what "Moxy" does at BUR if they go in there. I personally think there is unmet potential there.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
nine4nine
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:23 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I'll add that I'm actually excited to see what "Moxy" does at BUR if they go in there. I personally think there is unmet potential there.



According to the proposal BUR is on the list of the first 3 planned destinations.
https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com ... s-details/
717, 727-100, 727-200, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 742, 748, 752, 753, 762, 763, 772, 77W, 787-10, DC9, MD80/88/90, DC10, 319, 220-300, 320, 321, 321n, 332, 333, CS100, CRJ200, Q400, E175, E190, ERJ145, EMB120
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:39 pm

nine4nine wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I'll add that I'm actually excited to see what "Moxy" does at BUR if they go in there. I personally think there is unmet potential there.



According to the proposal BUR is on the list of the first 3 planned destinations.
https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com ... s-details/


Well, that's why I mentioned it. :-) But yes, excited by the sudden interest in BUR (and moreso, FTW). We'll see what they do, of course. There's this little issue of gates and/or slots at some of the airports around the country that might make it a challenge to build scale.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
nine4nine
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:56 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
LAXintl wrote:

Lets keep in mind secondary airports have their limited catchment areas or in other words market accessibility. BUR in no shape or form can serve more than a fraction of that 18million people in LA basin. It simply won't draw many outside its catchment area due to distance and time constraints along with other competing airports.

For BUR specifically per their own marketing studies - in 2015 they estimated their catchment area represents mere 17.7 percent of the region's population. In otherwords BUR is more a community airport, than a more broadly accessible airport for the region.


Well actually BUR is ranked the 4th largest growing secondary market in the US in 2018. WN is expanding, B6 is expanding, AS is expanding, and UA has brought back a portion of mainline service.

Obviously Neeleman sees something you don’t. He’s been successful in all his ventures to date. All the naysayers said the same thing when he skipped LAX to start this little boutique start up hub in LGB called JetBlue.

It’s apparent your constant bias everything not LAX in the LA area but unfortunately LAX is a mess and terminals are basically maxed out at least until T0 is built.


First, B6 hasn't been successful at LGB. At least not in the way that most people would dub "successful". They picked an airport with limited slots and reduced popularity as their LA strategy, and have all but retreated from that in favor of LAX.

BUR has the additional challenge of not having tons of capacity, and even then "Moxy" is going to be up against WN (in particular) and B6 as well. JetBlue didn't have those issues at LGB.

I'd just add that LAXIntl didn't say there was no demand at BUR. He said it wasn't like LA's second airport. For better or worse (I'd say worse), LAX is where carriers and passengers want to be. Otherwise, why would BUR, LGB, and ONT be languishing relative to their big brother? JetBlue has offered all of them arguably the best domestic product available, yet they just haven't been able to be as successful until they entered LAX.




I think LGB could still be considered a somewhat success up to the last year or so for B6. They proved that LGB does actually have the potential that many airlines shied away since the demise of JetAmerica or couldn’t survive because of poor business models. All the start ups and public charters (presidential, carnival, Winair and many more) that tried to make a base from LGB and just couldn’t make it work. The majors pulled out and AS popped in and out a few times.

B6 came in during a time with tons of competitors pre-merger days (Alaska, Frontier, Allegiant, Access Air, Spirit, Midwest Express, America West, USAir, American, Northwest, Continental, American, United, and Delta) and with 9/11 only a little more after a year of ops and they survived and thrived during a time when the airline biz got hit hard.

Granted LGB is the lowest yielding airport in the LA area, the biggest reason LGB failed B6 is due to its extremely fierce nimby population and city council members who established very strict enforcement of noise,slots, and airport growth. It allowed B6 to not grow its west coast ops to the size they would have liked to create a true HUB. The final nail in the coffin was the NO vote on FIS facilities last year. Take those issues out of the equation and I think B6 would have done quite well in the end at LGB.

I wouldn’t really say BUR is languishing any longer. The pax numbers did drop quite a bit starting around the recession of 09’. 4th largest growing secondary airport now.l and Airlines are adding capacity and new destinations. I read that it has one of AS highest load factors in they’re system. As far as capacity goes BUR has the potential to accommodate up to another 100 daily flights at the minimum. The only disservice to BUR is the name. Many people east of the Rockies don’t know where the city of Burbank is. The name change to Hollywood-Burbank has helped some but LA-Burbank would have been much better especially given part of the airport property lies within the city limits of LA. Booking flights online and seeing it marked as LA-Burbank would deffinately draw more fliers. ONT languished for quite sometime and gradually starting to show signs of life again. The airline industry is an ebb and flow and will always be, and the secondary airports will always be the first to show proof of that.

But we Southern Californians need alternatives to LAX and the growth at all LA area airports gives point to that. I think Neeleman sees a big potential with BUR and a lot other secondary cities across the US. After all that’s how WN became such a success.
717, 727-100, 727-200, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 742, 748, 752, 753, 762, 763, 772, 77W, 787-10, DC9, MD80/88/90, DC10, 319, 220-300, 320, 321, 321n, 332, 333, CS100, CRJ200, Q400, E175, E190, ERJ145, EMB120
 
User avatar
sunking737
Posts: 1650
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:10 am

Well, if anything he is getting free PR. I still think he should buy a small carriers AOC and rebuild it to how he wants Save time
"Don't believe it unless its parked on the ramp, or printed in the schedule...SUBJECT TO CHANGE"

I'm a SUNDUCK......Worked for RC & SY @ MSP
 
Fixinthe757
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:48 am

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:37 am

Hopefully this will finally be some good news for Mobile! Since the C-series will begin being produced here in Mobile once the FAL is complete, and the fact that it now looks like the current airline served airport, MOB, is gonna be moved to downtown, BFM, hoping that will be a good thing and we can see our second new airline when it starts up! Crossing fingers on this one. Seems like anything he starts up turns to gold in a short time. Hope it works
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:48 am

No one is saying there is no opportunity at BUR or other secondary airports, but the fact is for BUR that it is very much a local community airport tucked in a corner of mega greater LA. It simply will not draw people from all over (nor does it want to).
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24822
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:24 am

My point is that no secondary airport can be a proxy for greater LA. This is most obvious at BUR for no other reason the airport's location makes it unattractive for bulk of the basin and why the airport itself says its catchment area is only 17.7 percent of the potential 60-minute drive population.

LGB, on the other hand, has much more attractive location and larger catchment area, though barrier to entry is far more difficult than at BUR.

Ultimately serving secondary can certainly have benefits on cost and time, but many downsides do also exist.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
FromGSPtoChi
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 4:44 am

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:30 am

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.


With the competition in Chicago(Spirit, Frontier, Southwest, UA, and AA) can GYY/Gary support flights to the "usual" vacation spots like MIA/FLL, MCO/SFB, TPA/PIE, or RSW? The airport location makes it hard to pull from most of IL with the regular routes. Spirit made a nice move when they started ORD-MYR and ran a large number of commercial to let people know about Myrtle Beach. Maybe GYY-SAV to could compete for the golf crowd. Maybe GYY-ORF for the Virginia beach area. You can get people looking for change in vacation.
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 598
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:36 am

As long time on/off SoCal resident, I also concur that an airport like BUR will simply not be an option for a huge portion of the population simply due distance/time involved. Same reason why many would never consider using ONT, LGB, or SNA either. BUR is largely at the northern periphery of the basin, too far for many.

So I also concur with idea that all these airports, are largely local community airports, that serve their immediate area, but are not locations that can pull from far and wide. Do they have a place in the market, absolutely, but to say they can somehow can mirror the market attractiveness of a primary airport like LAX is nonsense.
I fly your boxes
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:10 am

FromGSPtoChi 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.


With the competition in Chicago(Spirit, Frontier, Southwest, UA, and AA) can GYY/Gary support flights to the "usual" vacation spots like MIA/FLL, MCO/SFB, TPA/PIE, or RSW? The airport location makes it hard to pull from most of IL with the regular routes. Spirit made a nice move when they started ORD-MYR and ran a large number of commercial to let people know about Myrtle Beach. Maybe GYY-SAV to could compete for the golf crowd. Maybe GYY-ORF for the Virginia beach area. You can get people looking for change in vacation.


I think GYY would take some work, but for a carrier that truly wanted a Chicagoland hub it might be an ok option. The problem is of course that most people will be driving past Midway just to get there - that is hard to overcome. That's why I think some sort of convenient and ticketed connecting motorcoach service to a few intra-city hubs might be beneficial. It would need to be part of the itinerary and purchased as part of the booking process. That might be a little too much for a more professional carrier like Moxy to want to deal with, but I'd think it's doable. Maybe.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:14 am

mtnwest1979 wrote:
So who says that BUR would be the only LA area airport served? I bet they could serve all of them with success.
I really do not see FTW as a starter. IS that even possible with the restrictions in the Dallas area airport service agreements there?
Mobile? Seriously doubt that would be a success from anywhere. Just because a plane is built there doesn't breed any need to have an airline fly there. LOL don't see many 787 operators in CHS.
Finally, earlier someone stated Morris Air as one of his carriers that evolved into a more elite carrier than from its start. It really stayed the same from the Morris Air start .


Ya, I flew Morris Air SEA-ANC-SEA (PDX) in I think 1993. We didn't even get a jetbridge in Anchorage, and we landed at midnight in -10 degree temps. lol Flying back, we had to divert to Portland due to fog. They dropped us in the terminal - practically in the dark - and the crew left. Someone showed up a little bit later but we had already just went ahead and rented a car. Had we stayed, they did charter buses to take people back to SEA but it was clear that they really weren't prepared to explain anything to us or tell us what to expect. So no - not very elite. lol
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
mtnwest1979
Posts: 2211
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:23 am

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:14 am

So who says that BUR would be the only LA area airport served? I bet they could serve all of them with success.
I really do not see FTW as a starter. IS that even possible with the restrictions in the Dallas area airport service agreements there?
Mobile? Seriously doubt that would be a success from anywhere. Just because a plane is built there doesn't breed any need to have an airline fly there. LOL don't see many 787 operators in CHS.
Finally, earlier someone stated Morris Air as one of his carriers that evolved into a more elite carrier than from its start. It really stayed the same from the Morris Air start .
Riddle: Which lasts longer, a start-up airline or a start-up football league?
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4450
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:10 am

VS11 wrote:
Maybe Sir Richard Branson will team up with him this time. Branson passed on being part of JetBlue and regretted it so after the VX acquisition, this might be a good opportunity for the two of them to join forces - they have similar visions .


That would be awesome!!! Imagine Neeleman and Branson would be epic!
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
nine4nine
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:45 pm

How is AS doing at DAL? Any chance they would return to DFW and maybe relinquish the 2 gates possibly to this start up since they are secondary airport centric? I can’t imagine DAL being a good fit for AS.
717, 727-100, 727-200, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 742, 748, 752, 753, 762, 763, 772, 77W, 787-10, DC9, MD80/88/90, DC10, 319, 220-300, 320, 321, 321n, 332, 333, CS100, CRJ200, Q400, E175, E190, ERJ145, EMB120
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2531
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:56 pm

F9Animal wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Maybe Sir Richard Branson will team up with him this time. Branson passed on being part of JetBlue and regretted it so after the VX acquisition, this might be a good opportunity for the two of them to join forces - they have similar visions .


That would be awesome!!! Imagine Neeleman and Branson would be epic!


I agree
 
jplatts
Posts: 3804
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:58 pm

UPlog wrote:
As long time on/off SoCal resident, I also concur that an airport like BUR will simply not be an option for a huge portion of the population simply due distance/time involved. Same reason why many would never consider using ONT, LGB, or SNA either. BUR is largely at the northern periphery of the basin, too far for many.

So I also concur with idea that all these airports, are largely local community airports, that serve their immediate area, but are not locations that can pull from far and wide. Do they have a place in the market, absolutely, but to say they can somehow can mirror the market attractiveness of a primary airport like LAX is nonsense.


ONT is close enough to the eastern LA suburbs for ONT to be a viable alternative to LAX for many of the eastern suburbs of LA, including some of the suburbs that are only 10 to 15 miles east of Downtown LA.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:19 pm

nine4nine wrote:
How is AS doing at DAL? Any chance they would return to DFW and maybe relinquish the 2 gates possibly to this start up since they are secondary airport centric? I can’t imagine DAL being a good fit for AS.


AS could relinquish the slots but it's not up to them who gets them.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:35 am

lavalampluva wrote:
A lot of airlines tried to fly in/out of GYY. None of them lasted long. I just don't know. I guess it's worth a try.

None have tried since the runway extension was completed. The runway length was a huge deterrent to LR services to LAS, and even Florida in the summer.

The state is rebuilding the Cline Avenue bridge, and unlike in the past, the state would likely build a new 4th Street ramp off of I-90 should the need arise.

If someone made the big investments required to male GYY work, I could easily see the state funding a South Shore access, as well. All of that has been talked about in the past, but the friction over the Peotone fiasco prevented any moves forward.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:42 am

Alias1024 wrote:
Sounds like another Skybus. P2P from secondary airports already failed once in the US, but maybe this has a better chance. I see two things going for them beyond an experienced group of leaders.

1) Their timing is unlikely to be as bad as Skybus. They had a tanking economy and sharply rising fuel costs to contend with. I could happen again, but odds are one or both will be better for this startup.

2) Rideshare apps. One of the problems with the Ryanair model in the US is lack of decent public transportation options to those secondary airports. While not as cheap as public transit, they certainly make it easier to get to and from secondary airports.


Skybus was doomed from the start for a whole host of reasons, but primarily because they forgot that CUSTOMER SERVICE is still the most important thing, even in the computer age.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:54 am

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.


Mmy could be an any area option. MKC is restricted by legislation, isn’t it?
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:04 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
mtnwest1979 wrote:
So who says that BUR would be the only LA area airport served? I bet they could serve all of them with success.
I really do not see FTW as a starter. IS that even possible with the restrictions in the Dallas area airport service agreements there?
Mobile? Seriously doubt that would be a success from anywhere. Just because a plane is built there doesn't breed any need to have an airline fly there. LOL don't see many 787 operators in CHS.
Finally, earlier someone stated Morris Air as one of his carriers that evolved into a more elite carrier than from its start. It really stayed the same from the Morris Air start .


Ya, I flew Morris Air SEA-ANC-SEA (PDX) in I think 1993. We didn't even get a jetbridge in Anchorage, and we landed at midnight in -10 degree temps. lol Flying back, we had to divert to Portland due to fog. They dropped us in the terminal - practically in the dark - and the crew left. Someone showed up a little bit later but we had already just went ahead and rented a car. Had we stayed, they did charter buses to take people back to SEA but it was clear that they really weren't prepared to explain anything to us or tell us what to expect. So no - not very elite. lol


Operational difficulties like surprise late-night diversions don’t really reflect on how an Airlines customer service is, they just happen. You do the best you can, and scramble to cover them.
I could tell you stories.....

I flew Morris a couple of times right before the merger. It wasn’t a superior product, but it was reasonable foe the price.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13095
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:25 am

alfa164 wrote:
Moxy?


In Norway this is a Moxy!

Image
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 582
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:05 am

Kiwirob wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
Moxy?


In Norway this is a Moxy!

Image




I can't wait to see one of these yellow moxies with wings added and flying in the air. :veryhappy:
 
xdlx
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:41 am

Secondary Airports from major markets? One of the toughest problems of our transportation system is how close "enactment" areas are to each other. If within a 200nm of an established market, syphoning might prove more costly than competing directly! Just saying.....
 
freakyrat
Posts: 2091
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:04 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:04 am

In the case of GYY you already have Allegiant with an established clientele for their flights out of SBN. F9 could easily move back into SBN with DEN-SBN-MCO and cover the main Orlando airport on days that G4 doesn't fly to SFB with a likewise operation to what they are starting back up at BMI and then that would cut into Moxy's GYY operation if they were considering GYY-MCO. On second thought would SBN try to lure Moxy?
 
freakyrat
Posts: 2091
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:04 pm

Re: David Neeleman Raising Funds for New U.S. Airline

Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:15 am

nmdrdh787 wrote:
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.


We have a nice US Customs facility at SBN and are working on twice weekly flights to Cancun but Allegiant isn't ready for those yet. The money is there. According to statistical data 15,000 trips a year are made to Cancun from MIchiana.

I checked on the distance and it's only 1238 NM between both airports, well within the range of the CS300.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos