rbavfan
Posts: 3502
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Moxy - News and Discussion Thread

Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:42 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Looks like “Moxy/Breeze” is starting to heat the pan as they ink deal to sublease up to 28 E195s from Azul to get service up and going until the 220’s arrive.


How ironic ...


Even worse they will be getting the old E195's as Azul is replacing them with E2-195's. So far fewer seats to start. At least he's leasing from his other company.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3502
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Moxy - News and Discussion Thread

Sun Feb 02, 2020 5:54 pm

EMBSPBR wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Looks like “Moxy/Breeze” is starting to heat the pan as they ink deal to sublease up to 28 E195s from Azul to get service up and going until the 220’s arrive.


How ironic ...


Even worse they will be getting the old E195's as Azul is replacing them with E2-195's. So far fewer seats to start. At least he's leasing from his other company.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: Moxy - News and Discussion Thread

Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:05 pm

rbavfan wrote:
EMBSPBR wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Looks like “Moxy/Breeze” is starting to heat the pan as they ink deal to sublease up to 28 E195s from Azul to get service up and going until the 220’s arrive.


How ironic ...


Even worse they will be getting the old E195's as Azul is replacing them with E2-195's. So far fewer seats to start. At least he's leasing from his other company.

Why is that worse? Older planes equals lower capital costs. Lower capital costs enables lower utilization to turn a profit. I’m guessing that having a fleet that can fly with lower utilization fits into their business plan somehow.
 
sunking737
Posts: 1513
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Sun Feb 02, 2020 7:38 pm

Could Breeze have already purchased an AOC, without disclosing who it was brought from?? Remember back in the day, mergers went unannounced for months before being made public. I read stories in airline history books how that Ms Jones, Mr Smith assistant was included, while the boss was not. "Trust Issues" Only a hand full know
"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
 
lessredtape
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:57 am

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:09 am

sunking737 wrote:
Could Breeze have already purchased an AOC, without disclosing who it was brought from?? Remember back in the day, mergers went unannounced for months before being made public. I read stories in airline history books how that Ms Jones, Mr Smith assistant was included, while the boss was not. "Trust Issues" Only a hand full know
makes sense. So how do you invest in Breeze ?
 
wrongwayup
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:36 pm

lessredtape wrote:
So how do you invest in Breeze ?


You talk to David.
 
trexel94
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 10:44 pm

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:45 am

Leaked rendering for Breeze livery via Yahoo article. I don’t know how to extract the photo and place it here so if someone could, we would be grateful.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/founder-jetb ... 00788.html
 
797
Posts: 1434
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:51 am

Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:31 am

David Neeleman's fifth startup airline, known so far as 'Moxy,' will become Breeze Airways when it launches domestic point-to-point flights between underserved US markets with a fleet of 60 Airbus A220-300s.

The new airline is currently applying for its Air Operating Certificate with the FAA and the DOT, hoping to launch its first flight by the end of 2020 with an initial fleet of 30 Embraer E195 jets.

Link to the story and photos here: https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/breeze-airways-launch/

That livery is quite something! I can't wait to see the A220 rolling out of the paint shop wearing those colors.
Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!
 
L0VE2FLY
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:54 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:54 am

Great livery indeed, hope to see their beautiful birds at SAN one day.
 
Someone83
Posts: 4684
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:10 am

The check mark on the tail ruins it
 
BNAMealer
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:03 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:18 am

Looks great! I really hope this is successful. I wonder what routes will be launched first?
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1457
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:40 am

Someone83 wrote:
The check mark on the tail ruins it


I first thought Twitter

Intereat that map shows Memphis, Birmingham, Little Rock, Wichita and Tulsa for some but doesn't show up and coming ones like Northwest Arkansas (XNA) the continued growth of O&D at Memphis to a point that it is now great than it's peak when MEM was a hub shows it's potential, especially when you see other markets like OMA ahead of it

The changing layouts of planes overnight seems a bit much but goes to a possible Redeye strategy and TATL/ South America routes on a less than daily basis.
 
maddogjt8d
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:42 am

Anyone know where they are getting their aircraft from?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10162
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:48 am

maddogjt8d wrote:
Anyone know where they are getting their aircraft from?

As the article states the E195s are coming from Azul.
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 3148
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:50 am

Mid sized unserved markets could be good for PVD

Previously served now unserved:
PVD-RDU
PVD-CLE
PVD-PIT
PVD-BNA
PVD-MCI

Good potential
PVD-JAX (Navy connection)
PVD-ORF/PHF (navy connection and minimal service at BOS to help)
PVD-LA basin (red eye for utilization in high O&D market)
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
Delta28L
Posts: 310
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:00 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:23 pm

So what’s the first routes going to be? Any ideas?
 
trexel94
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 10:44 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:13 pm

About time the livery was disclosed but can’t say I’m a fan. It looks somewhat dated and even cartoonish, like a fictional airline from a sim tycoon game.
 
Antarius
Posts: 1945
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:31 pm

trexel94 wrote:
About time the livery was disclosed but can’t say I’m a fan. It looks somewhat dated and even cartoonish, like a fictional airline from a sim tycoon game.


It's interesting, but yes, looks like it was put together for a movie .

Moxy had some intrigue to it too. Breeze also sounds like a generic pan-caribbean airline.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
HNLSLCPDX
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:40 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:37 pm

Love it it! Breeze is an awesome name and the ‘ez’ emphasis is perfect. Can’t wait to see Breeze flying in SLC. Neeleman sure loves his blue airplanes.
 
HNLSLCPDX
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:40 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:45 pm

Delta28L wrote:
So what’s the first routes going to be? Any ideas?

My guess would be something like FTW-SWF/ GSO/MCO/SLC/ONT/AZA/BWI or BNA-AZA/OAK/JAX/MKE/PVD
 
BNAMealer
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:03 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:51 pm

HNLSLCPDX wrote:
Delta28L wrote:
So what’s the first routes going to be? Any ideas?

My guess would be something like FTW-SWF/ GSO/MCO/SLC/ONT/AZA/BWI or BNA-AZA/OAK/JAX/MKE/PVD


I don’t expect to see much of Breeze in BNA, considering it’s not an underserved market due to the large WN/G4 presence.
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1761
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:52 pm

Nice to see something that isn't white! Still a little boring and corporate though.
@DadCelo
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:55 pm

797 wrote:
hoping to launch its first flight by the end of 2020 with an initial fleet of 30 Embraer E195 jets.
Consider me skeptical.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
EMB170
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:56 pm

It looks like he copied it from La Compagnie.
IND ORD ATL MCO PIT EWR BUF CVG DEN RNO JFK DTW BOS BDL BWI IAD RDU CLT MYR CHS TPA CID MSP STL MSY DFW IAH AUS SLC LAS
 
FlyingSicilian
Posts: 1625
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:10 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
797 wrote:
hoping to launch its first flight by the end of 2020 with an initial fleet of 30 Embraer E195 jets.
Consider me skeptical.


Why? Do you think the FAA will drag its feet on approving the AOC pushing to 2021?
“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
 
User avatar
VS4ever
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:03 am

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:14 pm

FlyingSicilian wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
797 wrote:
hoping to launch its first flight by the end of 2020 with an initial fleet of 30 Embraer E195 jets.
Consider me skeptical.


Why? Do you think the FAA will drag its feet on approving the AOC pushing to 2021?


Maybe i don't understand the process, so I stand to be corrected, but my understanding he has the AOC for the 220, but the 195 was a later decision, so he needs to add the type to it? Is that right? If so, that's got to be a relatively quick decision even for the FAA?
That feeling when you sit at the end of a runway, brakes are released and the raw power takes over. Now that is a thing of beauty and it never gets old.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3281
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:18 pm

Allegiant is mentioned a lot in the article.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2144
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:19 pm

Will they use the major airports like MCO or will they utilize smaller ones like SFB?
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5518
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:20 pm

Brett Snyder, aka The Cranky Flier has a good interview with David Neelman here:

https://crankyflier.com/2020/02/07/davi ... the-aisle/
"True, I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain." -Mercutio
 
User avatar
Astrojet727
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:39 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:22 pm

Sponsored by Degree for Men®
 
Blerg
Posts: 3221
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:24 pm

Good luck to them, the livery is interesting, at least it's not boring. It also doesn't scream cheap like Spirit's does.

Anyone know how long it takes to get an AOC in the US?
 
tphuang
Posts: 4156
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:27 pm

https://crankyflier.com/2020/02/07/davi ... the-aisle/

From CrankyFlier, this interview with DN is quite fascianting. On the operating side of things, he is says E195 has trip cost 15 to 20% lower than A320. That seems to match what JetBlue has told the investors, which is E90 has trip cost approximately 20% lower than A320 (i guess E95 would be slightly higher)

The part that is quit eye-dropping is what he said about A220.
David: Yeah, but that’s different. [The 220] has 7-hour range. We can fly Salt Lake to Maui or Denver to Kahului. That’s a whole different bird. It’s not a “cheap” thing in that case. What you can do [with] premium, you can’t really put economically on the 195s. But we could pull out a bunch of coach seats [overnight] and put first class seats in the 220s. So that plane will be flying long-haul and we’ll be flying thin markets where…

I’ve done this before. We’ve got [A]330s flying on Azul to the US. And an eight-hour flight on that airplane costs, call it, $100,000 for a flight. And if you can put an [A321]LR on it — a little range-challenged so you need an [A321]XLR — but if you have an XLR you’d probably be $50,000 to $60,000. And then [the A220] is under $30,000. So it’s just a whole different thing where you can actually fly city pairs that nobody has been able to fly before…. Usually range is equated with widebodies.

Cranky: You mentioned a western US to Hawaii market, but what other types of markets are are you interested in?

David: Transcon, secondary transcon, Northeast [US] to Europe, Florida to South America… particularly in Brazil and Azul’s network to some of the capitals they don’t fly and makes no sense to fly with a widebody. So, just all kinds of stuff that works, and we’re even talking about putting on some auxiliary fuel tanks a couple years later. It would give us another 500 miles on top of that; it would take us over four thousand miles. That would take us almost anywhere in Brazil from Florida, for example.

I'm not sure if that's the base version or the speculated A220XLR. But SLC/DEN-OGG is already longer than the current narrowbody technology with MAX/NEO allows. The route flexibility with additional fuel tanks is pretty impressive. Basically many of the markets by A321XLR could be operated much more cheaply than A220XLR.

His total trip cost seems to good to be true. He is basically saying A321LR has a little over half of the total operating cost of A330. That I can believe. It's been mentioned many places. But he is also saying that A220's total operating cost is 50 to 60% of A321LR. Even if we assume the high end of that, it's significantly lower than what I had been estimating (about 71%). That seems too good to be true. There is no reason for anyone to operating A321XLR for long thin routes if A220XLR economics is that good.

This next point is also illustrating
David: The 195 works good at about 2 hours. Once you start getting to 3 hours, the fuel consumption per seat is… I mean the E2 has the same engines as the 220 and it’s burning 20% less fuel than the 195s are. So you can imagine if we have 145 seats on a 220 — that’s the coach configuration — and it’s burning less fuel than the 195s and you fly the thing on three-hour, four-hour, five-hour stage lengths… there are a lot of three, four-hour transcons in the US as well.

I don’t think we’ll have any routes for the 195 that are over 2 hours, maybe 2 hours 15 minutes. The fuel doesn’t make sense. It burns 600 gallons an hour and the 220 will burn maybe you know, 560, or something. But the [acquisition] cost of the 220s is a lot more, obviously. So you have to fly it more but if you’re flying it losing money on certain days of the week, then that doesn’t work either, so [the 195 and 220] work good together.

JetBlue has said the same thing. Basically, E90 trip cost really goes up when it the flight time increases. To the point where a trip from BOS-AUS might have same operating cost as a A320. Not surprising that E95 would have the same issues. Also not surprising that A220 would burn 20% less fuel than E95 since JetBlue have said total operating cost of A220 is about same as E90 (I calculated it to be even lower).

Other point about the older Embraer aircraft
The lower trip cost airplanes you can get, exponentially more markets you can fly especially if your seat mile cost is down. It’s not like a 74-seat airplane that’s a scope airplane like the 175. It’s a fine airplane, but it’s not optimally sized for [unit cost] CASM because their pilots make the same, their maintenance is the same. Their capital cost isn’t more, burns a little less fuel because it’s lighter but they have basically 50 less seats than we do. That allows us to charge lower fares and stimulate the market.
[/quiote]
Exactly, if E90/95 cost no money to keep around. There is no reason to get rid of them when legacies are still buying new E75 for probably higher cost (since E90/95 costs practically nothing to acquire).

David: No, no it’s not. You know, if you’d have said to me, when we started Azul that we’d buy a bunch of 195s, and then you said, “10 years from now you’re gonna be flying five aircraft types,” I’d have said you’re crazy. But there’s a market there; we exploited it. So we went and got ATRs and then we went and got 330s and started flying international. And we saw the [A320]neos coming on. We needed those so we bought a bunch of 320neos and 321neos.

I think there’s actually a play with these airplanes, with 195s, also…. We’re talking to some real estate people too in areas that have almost no air service [about] bringing in air service and either them subsidizing it or us making money off the real estate. Because every time we fly into a market where there’s no air service, real estate values go up, so how’s that for distractions?

This part is also interesting. Sure it makes sense to start with a single fleet type. But there is no reason not to have additional fleet types if the market justify it. No need to religiously stick with one fleet type like WN.
 
lowfareair
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:40 pm

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:53 pm

tphuang wrote:
David: Yeah, but that’s different. [The 220] has 7-hour range. We can fly Salt Lake to Maui or Denver to Kahului. That’s a whole different bird. It’s not a “cheap” thing in that case. What you can do [with] premium, you can’t really put economically on the 195s. But we could pull out a bunch of coach seats [overnight] and put first class seats in the 220s. So that plane will be flying long-haul and we’ll be flying thin markets where…

I’ve done this before. We’ve got [A]330s flying on Azul to the US. And an eight-hour flight on that airplane costs, call it, $100,000 for a flight. And if you can put an [A321]LR on it — a little range-challenged so you need an [A321]XLR — but if you have an XLR you’d probably be $50,000 to $60,000. And then [the A220] is under $30,000. So it’s just a whole different thing where you can actually fly city pairs that nobody has been able to fly before…. Usually range is equated with widebodies.

I'm not sure if that's the base version or the speculated A220XLR. But SLC/DEN-OGG is already longer than the current narrowbody technology with MAX/NEO allows. The route flexibility with additional fuel tanks is pretty impressive. Basically many of the markets by A321XLR could be operated much more cheaply than A220XLR.

His total trip cost seems to good to be true. He is basically saying A321LR has a little over half of the total operating cost of A330. That I can believe. It's been mentioned many places. But he is also saying that A220's total operating cost is 50 to 60% of A321LR. Even if we assume the high end of that, it's significantly lower than what I had been estimating (about 71%). That seems too good to be true. There is no reason for anyone to operating A321XLR for long thin routes if A220XLR economics is that good.


Agreed. As a way to think of it, you can fly 3 A223s each configured around 12J115Y (lie flat J) for 10% less than a single A330-300 configured at 30J279Y (BR's config, and one of the densest I can find with lie flat seats for a full service airline). While there are other aspects to consider like slots, cargo, acquisition costs/timeframe, etc., those numbers have to be off a good amount as otherwise many other airlines would be scrambling to provide 20-25% more seats across 3x the schedule options for 10% less.
 
User avatar
Jamake1
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:56 pm

I think this is exciting.
Come fly the sun.
 
User avatar
dabpit
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 10:19 am

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:11 pm

Image

Well, the Logo is definitely correct, emphasis on the "ez" part of Breeze.
Carpe Diem
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1457
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:13 pm

BNAMealer wrote:
HNLSLCPDX wrote:
Delta28L wrote:
So what’s the first routes going to be? Any ideas?

My guess would be something like FTW-SWF/ GSO/MCO/SLC/ONT/AZA/BWI or BNA-AZA/OAK/JAX/MKE/PVD


I don’t expect to see much of Breeze in BNA, considering it’s not an underserved market due to the large WN/G4 presence.



But I can easily see it down the road to the west by about 3hrs.
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 457
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:36 pm

It sounds and looks like a deodorant brand
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:41 pm

Is it me or is this B6 version 2.0???

I know from some interviews I've listened to that DN holds some bitterness over how he was ousted from B6, there is no sweeter revenge than success. Everything he wants to do on long thin routes , especially international, is what B6 is trying to get their act together to do too.

I said this months or years ago and I'll say it again: This is a psuedo-regional airline FOR B6 that will use its newness to scoop up new entrant slots and stimulate marketshare while their labor costs are all year zero. This airline will end up with B6 one way or the other. Preferably for David, as the white horse that comes riding in to save the day for B6. This whole airline is a vehicle for revenge and personal legacy.
Last edited by CobaltScar on Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:41 pm

tphuang wrote:
https://crankyflier.com/2020/02/07/david-neelemans-new-airline-is-officially-called-breeze-heres-everything-he-told-me-about-it-across-the-aisle/

From CrankyFlier, this interview with DN is quite fascianting. On the operating side of things, he is says E195 has trip cost 15 to 20% lower than A320. That seems to match what JetBlue has told the investors, which is E90 has trip cost approximately 20% lower than A320 (i guess E95 would be slightly higher)

The part that is quit eye-dropping is what he said about A220.
David: Yeah, but that’s different. [The 220] has 7-hour range. We can fly Salt Lake to Maui or Denver to Kahului. That’s a whole different bird. It’s not a “cheap” thing in that case. What you can do [with] premium, you can’t really put economically on the 195s. But we could pull out a bunch of coach seats [overnight] and put first class seats in the 220s. So that plane will be flying long-haul and we’ll be flying thin markets where…

I’ve done this before. We’ve got [A]330s flying on Azul to the US. And an eight-hour flight on that airplane costs, call it, $100,000 for a flight. And if you can put an [A321]LR on it — a little range-challenged so you need an [A321]XLR — but if you have an XLR you’d probably be $50,000 to $60,000. And then [the A220] is under $30,000. So it’s just a whole different thing where you can actually fly city pairs that nobody has been able to fly before…. Usually range is equated with widebodies.

Cranky: You mentioned a western US to Hawaii market, but what other types of markets are are you interested in?

David: Transcon, secondary transcon, Northeast [US] to Europe, Florida to South America… particularly in Brazil and Azul’s network to some of the capitals they don’t fly and makes no sense to fly with a widebody. So, just all kinds of stuff that works, and we’re even talking about putting on some auxiliary fuel tanks a couple years later. It would give us another 500 miles on top of that; it would take us over four thousand miles. That would take us almost anywhere in Brazil from Florida, for example.

I'm not sure if that's the base version or the speculated A220XLR. But SLC/DEN-OGG is already longer than the current narrowbody technology with MAX/NEO allows. The route flexibility with additional fuel tanks is pretty impressive. Basically many of the markets by A321XLR could be operated much more cheaply than A220XLR.

His total trip cost seems to good to be true. He is basically saying A321LR has a little over half of the total operating cost of A330. That I can believe. It's been mentioned many places. But he is also saying that A220's total operating cost is 50 to 60% of A321LR. Even if we assume the high end of that, it's significantly lower than what I had been estimating (about 71%). That seems too good to be true. There is no reason for anyone to operating A321XLR for long thin routes if A220XLR economics is that good.

This next point is also illustrating
David: The 195 works good at about 2 hours. Once you start getting to 3 hours, the fuel consumption per seat is… I mean the E2 has the same engines as the 220 and it’s burning 20% less fuel than the 195s are. So you can imagine if we have 145 seats on a 220 — that’s the coach configuration — and it’s burning less fuel than the 195s and you fly the thing on three-hour, four-hour, five-hour stage lengths… there are a lot of three, four-hour transcons in the US as well.

I don’t think we’ll have any routes for the 195 that are over 2 hours, maybe 2 hours 15 minutes. The fuel doesn’t make sense. It burns 600 gallons an hour and the 220 will burn maybe you know, 560, or something. But the [acquisition] cost of the 220s is a lot more, obviously. So you have to fly it more but if you’re flying it losing money on certain days of the week, then that doesn’t work either, so [the 195 and 220] work good together.

JetBlue has said the same thing. Basically, E90 trip cost really goes up when it the flight time increases. To the point where a trip from BOS-AUS might have same operating cost as a A320. Not surprising that E95 would have the same issues. Also not surprising that A220 would burn 20% less fuel than E95 since JetBlue have said total operating cost of A220 is about same as E90 (I calculated it to be even lower).

Other point about the older Embraer aircraft
The lower trip cost airplanes you can get, exponentially more markets you can fly especially if your seat mile cost is down. It’s not like a 74-seat airplane that’s a scope airplane like the 175. It’s a fine airplane, but it’s not optimally sized for [unit cost] CASM because their pilots make the same, their maintenance is the same. Their capital cost isn’t more, burns a little less fuel because it’s lighter but they have basically 50 less seats than we do. That allows us to charge lower fares and stimulate the market.
[/quiote]
Exactly, if E90/95 cost no money to keep around. There is no reason to get rid of them when legacies are still buying new E75 for probably higher cost (since E90/95 costs practically nothing to acquire).

David: No, no it’s not. You know, if you’d have said to me, when we started Azul that we’d buy a bunch of 195s, and then you said, “10 years from now you’re gonna be flying five aircraft types,” I’d have said you’re crazy. But there’s a market there; we exploited it. So we went and got ATRs and then we went and got 330s and started flying international. And we saw the [A320]neos coming on. We needed those so we bought a bunch of 320neos and 321neos.

I think there’s actually a play with these airplanes, with 195s, also…. We’re talking to some real estate people too in areas that have almost no air service [about] bringing in air service and either them subsidizing it or us making money off the real estate. Because every time we fly into a market where there’s no air service, real estate values go up, so how’s that for distractions?

This part is also interesting. Sure it makes sense to start with a single fleet type. But there is no reason not to have additional fleet types if the market justify it. No need to religiously stick with one fleet type like WN.

I got to admit, I just read the article, and a lot of it seems pie in the sky. If it weren't for Neelman being behind it, I wouldn't be taking it seriously at all.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1663
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:43 pm

CobaltScar wrote:
Is it me or is this B6 version 2.0???

I know from some interviews I've listened to that DN holds some bitterness over how he was ousted from B6, there is no sweeter revenge than success. Everything he wants to do on long thin routes , especially international, is what B6 is trying to get their act together to do too.

No. B6 is hubbed in JFK, BOS, and FLL and want to fly to places like LHR and CDG. Nothing about that says "thin".
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1761
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:56 pm

RL757PVD wrote:
Mid sized unserved markets could be good for PVD

Previously served now unserved:
PVD-RDU
PVD-CLE
PVD-PIT
PVD-BNA
PVD-MCI

Good potential
PVD-JAX (Navy connection)
PVD-ORF/PHF (navy connection and minimal service at BOS to help)
PVD-LA basin (red eye for utilization in high O&D market)


Wouldn't shock me to see PVD-LIS once the A220s come in.
@DadCelo
 
User avatar
LaunchDetected
Posts: 302
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:42 pm

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:36 pm

Really disappointing branding. As said above, it looks like a deodorant brand. Even worse than that: a deodorant brand from 2003.
Caravelle lover
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:07 pm

Astrojet727 wrote:
Sponsored by Degree for Men®

Was hoping for a Unilever sponsorship for that catchy 'By Mennen' jingle.

It's recognizable and clever... as in it's a breeze... love the way they highlight the EZ as in it's easy. I imagine you will book a flight on the web and 'Check Off' your options and adders.... Very clever marketing. It's actually quite amazing no one has capitalized on flying is a breeze before this....

not super fond of the dark silver paint as I picture the finish looking quite worn in a few years.... however, being it's the startup E195s being painted, they'll be replaced by the A220s before the paint dulls out too much. I imagine we will see a slightly evolved livery when the A220s launch....

jetBlue, Azul, We should have counted on the accent color being blue....

Good on David... Now get that airline flying out of TUS or HMO! :D

Peter
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
heretothere
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:50 pm

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:10 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
tphuang wrote:
https://crankyflier.com/2020/02/07/david-neelemans-new-airline-is-officially-called-breeze-heres-everything-he-told-me-about-it-across-the-aisle/

From CrankyFlier, this interview with DN is quite fascianting. On the operating side of things, he is says E195 has trip cost 15 to 20% lower than A320. That seems to match what JetBlue has told the investors, which is E90 has trip cost approximately 20% lower than A320 (i guess E95 would be slightly higher)

The part that is quit eye-dropping is what he said about A220.
David: Yeah, but that’s different. [The 220] has 7-hour range. We can fly Salt Lake to Maui or Denver to Kahului. That’s a whole different bird. It’s not a “cheap” thing in that case. What you can do [with] premium, you can’t really put economically on the 195s. But we could pull out a bunch of coach seats [overnight] and put first class seats in the 220s. So that plane will be flying long-haul and we’ll be flying thin markets where…

I’ve done this before. We’ve got [A]330s flying on Azul to the US. And an eight-hour flight on that airplane costs, call it, $100,000 for a flight. And if you can put an [A321]LR on it — a little range-challenged so you need an [A321]XLR — but if you have an XLR you’d probably be $50,000 to $60,000. And then [the A220] is under $30,000. So it’s just a whole different thing where you can actually fly city pairs that nobody has been able to fly before…. Usually range is equated with widebodies.

Cranky: You mentioned a western US to Hawaii market, but what other types of markets are are you interested in?

David: Transcon, secondary transcon, Northeast [US] to Europe, Florida to South America… particularly in Brazil and Azul’s network to some of the capitals they don’t fly and makes no sense to fly with a widebody. So, just all kinds of stuff that works, and we’re even talking about putting on some auxiliary fuel tanks a couple years later. It would give us another 500 miles on top of that; it would take us over four thousand miles. That would take us almost anywhere in Brazil from Florida, for example.

I'm not sure if that's the base version or the speculated A220XLR. But SLC/DEN-OGG is already longer than the current narrowbody technology with MAX/NEO allows. The route flexibility with additional fuel tanks is pretty impressive. Basically many of the markets by A321XLR could be operated much more cheaply than A220XLR.

His total trip cost seems to good to be true. He is basically saying A321LR has a little over half of the total operating cost of A330. That I can believe. It's been mentioned many places. But he is also saying that A220's total operating cost is 50 to 60% of A321LR. Even if we assume the high end of that, it's significantly lower than what I had been estimating (about 71%). That seems too good to be true. There is no reason for anyone to operating A321XLR for long thin routes if A220XLR economics is that good.

This next point is also illustrating
David: The 195 works good at about 2 hours. Once you start getting to 3 hours, the fuel consumption per seat is… I mean the E2 has the same engines as the 220 and it’s burning 20% less fuel than the 195s are. So you can imagine if we have 145 seats on a 220 — that’s the coach configuration — and it’s burning less fuel than the 195s and you fly the thing on three-hour, four-hour, five-hour stage lengths… there are a lot of three, four-hour transcons in the US as well.

I don’t think we’ll have any routes for the 195 that are over 2 hours, maybe 2 hours 15 minutes. The fuel doesn’t make sense. It burns 600 gallons an hour and the 220 will burn maybe you know, 560, or something. But the [acquisition] cost of the 220s is a lot more, obviously. So you have to fly it more but if you’re flying it losing money on certain days of the week, then that doesn’t work either, so [the 195 and 220] work good together.

JetBlue has said the same thing. Basically, E90 trip cost really goes up when it the flight time increases. To the point where a trip from BOS-AUS might have same operating cost as a A320. Not surprising that E95 would have the same issues. Also not surprising that A220 would burn 20% less fuel than E95 since JetBlue have said total operating cost of A220 is about same as E90 (I calculated it to be even lower).

Other point about the older Embraer aircraft
The lower trip cost airplanes you can get, exponentially more markets you can fly especially if your seat mile cost is down. It’s not like a 74-seat airplane that’s a scope airplane like the 175. It’s a fine airplane, but it’s not optimally sized for [unit cost] CASM because their pilots make the same, their maintenance is the same. Their capital cost isn’t more, burns a little less fuel because it’s lighter but they have basically 50 less seats than we do. That allows us to charge lower fares and stimulate the market.
[/quiote]
Exactly, if E90/95 cost no money to keep around. There is no reason to get rid of them when legacies are still buying new E75 for probably higher cost (since E90/95 costs practically nothing to acquire).


This part is also interesting. Sure it makes sense to start with a single fleet type. But there is no reason not to have additional fleet types if the market justify it. No need to religiously stick with one fleet type like WN.

I got to admit, I just read the article, and a lot of it seems pie in the sky. If it weren't for Neelman being behind it, I wouldn't be taking it seriously at all.


Thank you for saying it. I’m not sure he truly believes everything he’s saying, but wants to hype up the launch. To recap:

-They’re going to start by flying a plane no one wants (E95)
-They’re going to fly them in markets that nobody else has found worth trying
-They’re going to make money flying 50% LFs on less than daily routes
-They’re going to be able to profitably push the A223 beyond its current limits
-They’re going to do all this while avoiding a significant competitive response

I’m skeptical to say the least.
 
DCA-ROCguy
Posts: 4202
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 5:03 am

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:16 pm

It'll be interesting to see where Breeze starts. In the Cranky Flier interview, DN notes that Breeze will fly primarily leisure routes and are willing to fly less than daily. Allegiant is already doing subweekly flights from smaller markets to big 'sun spots' and LAS, I wonder if we'll see a lot of that. Also, I wonder if there will be a hub something like Frontier at DEN somewhere, maybe with subdaily flights.

For my home town ROC, there seem to me any number of routes that might work less-than-daily with smaller aircraft like the E190 and A220. Frontier hasn't entered ROC while serving BUF and SYR, so I think there may be an opening.

ROC-FLL 2x-4x weekly; I think it can take more than the 1x weekly WN offers in winter.
ROC-DEN 2x weekly
ROC-PHX 2x weekly
ROC-LAX 2x weekly.
Maybe ROC-MYR 2x weekly seasonal.
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
 
Gulfstream500
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:30 am

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:26 pm

The livery looks very, eh, blue...

If they start on the east coast, I think they’ll go for DC or PHL as one of their major markets... it’s a big gap in B6’s network, with it being the major area on the northeast corridor without a B6 focus city. If they start on the west coast, SLC or PDX are pretty good opportunities - both don’t have a ton of ULCC action compared to DEN, LAS, or LAX.
So... when will the Northwest DC-9s be retired?
 
Jungleneer
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:56 am

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:39 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Astrojet727 wrote:
Sponsored by Degree for Men®

Was hoping for a Unilever sponsorship for that catchy 'By Mennen' jingle.

It's recognizable and clever... as in it's a breeze... love the way they highlight the EZ as in it's easy. I imagine you will book a flight on the web and 'Check Off' your options and adders.... Very clever marketing. It's actually quite amazing no one has capitalized on flying is a breeze before this....

not super fond of the dark silver paint as I picture the finish looking quite worn in a few years.... however, being it's the startup E195s being painted, they'll be replaced by the A220s before the paint dulls out too much. I imagine we will see a slightly evolved livery when the A220s launch....

jetBlue, Azul, We should have counted on the accent color being blue....

Good on David... Now get that airline flying out of TUS or HMO! :D

Peter


Actually, according to David Neeleman interview, A220 and E195 will co-exist. E195 for 2h routes, and A220 for >2h routes.
https://crankyflier.com/2020/02/07/david-neelemans-new-airline-is-officially-called-breeze-heres-everything-he-told-me-about-it-across-the-aisle/
 
User avatar
dennypayne
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

Re: Official: Moxy Becomes Breeze Airways (Livery Photos)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:57 pm

WaywardMemphian wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:

I don’t expect to see much of Breeze in BNA, considering it’s not an underserved market due to the large WN/G4 presence.

But I can easily see it down the road to the west by about 3hrs.


I'm hoping they come east to TYS as well and break some of the high prices here. Allegiant has helped some, but I'm still shocked at some of the fares the legacies command.

heretothere wrote:
-They’re going to start by flying a plane no one wants (E95)


Only because of scope clauses - Breeze won't have to contend with that.

heretothere wrote:
-They’re going to fly them in markets that nobody else has found worth trying


I think because in these smaller markets it's generally much more profitable to route everyone to the hub. Again, if they aren't going for that model, they don't have to contend with that.

I agree with the skepticism on the rest of your points though.
A300/310/319/320/321/332/333/343/380 AN24/28/38/148 AT7 B190
B717/722/732/3/4/5/7/8/9 742/744/752/753/762/763/764/772/773/788/789
CR2/7/9 D8S D93/4/5 DHC2/3/7/8 D28/38 EMB/EM2/ER3/D/4/E70/75/90
F50/100 J31 L10 L410 M11/80/90 RJ85 SF3 SU9 T134/154 Y42
 
nine4nine
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:57 pm

I love the livery, a nice deviation from euro whites. Love “EZ” highlighted in the name because that’s what this brand is centered around. The ease of using tech for the entire experience.

I wonder how long until we start hearing initial route announcements since they plan on flying before years end.
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
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Breeze - News and Discussion Thread

Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:23 pm

I liked MOXY better.... NOT!

It’s a competition industry! Don’t think for a moment other airlines will stand idly by.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!

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