Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
32andBelow wrote:So is there strategy just to fly to a bunch of destinations 2-3 time’s a week with 2 airplanes?
32andBelow wrote:So is there strategy just to fly to a bunch of destinations 2-3 time’s a week with 2 airplanes?
MarkATL wrote:wedgetail737 wrote:It looks like AS will provide direct competition to Avelo's BUR-STS service.
Judging from the fares out of STS I've seen. I'm pretty sure the yields are pretty good*. As such, I could see AS wanting to protect their "turf" and not let an ULCC get a foot or even a toe hold there. Some people in Sonoma, Napa or Marin (to a point) Counties I'm sure are willing to (and do) pay a premium to use this very convenient airport. It beats the hell out of the drive to SFO or OAK.
* No, I do not have any official data except every time I've tried to book myself or anybody else to/from STS, the fares have always commanded a premium. So If someone wants to flame me with a "show me your data" reply....save your keystrokes.
Polot wrote:32andBelow wrote:So is there strategy just to fly to a bunch of destinations 2-3 time’s a week with 2 airplanes?
Yes. Avelo’s founder/CEO (Andrew Levy) was one of Allegiant’s cofounders/COO (when they transformed to their modern day scheduled ULCC operation) and is obviously following a similar business plan.
nine4nine wrote:32andBelow wrote:So is there strategy just to fly to a bunch of destinations 2-3 time’s a week with 2 airplanes?
I believe there are 4 now, 2 more very soon and more coming following that.
AirportEngineer wrote:I was on the inaugural BUR - AZA flight this morning. There were about 16 passengers on the flight (with probably 4 of those being Avelo staff members).
DKNEF wrote:So are they an ULCC or a regular mainline carrier?
DKNEF wrote:So are they an ULCC or a regular mainline carrier?
wedgetail737 wrote:AirportEngineer wrote:I was on the inaugural BUR - AZA flight this morning. There were about 16 passengers on the flight (with probably 4 of those being Avelo staff members).
Ouch! Probably not the kind inaugural the folks at Avelo wanted to see, unlike STS. The honeymoon over already? I wonder how the BUR-PSC and BUR-BZN were on their inaugural. And how are the STS loads after the inaugural?
FLYKTPA wrote:The Avelo CEO mentioned how they are trying to get on Google Flights. I imagine that will greatly help out bookings.
travelin man wrote:AA and WN already fly BUR-PHX, so I'm not sure now long AZA will stick around. It doesn't mean that their other destinations won't be more successful.
32andBelow wrote:travelin man wrote:AA and WN already fly BUR-PHX, so I'm not sure now long AZA will stick around. It doesn't mean that their other destinations won't be more successful.
Are they trying to make connections or all p2p?
Blueknows wrote:Hope they add more flights. The more airlines in US the better. Americans should start embracing the European Holiday mantra
Blueknows wrote:Hope they add more flights. The more airlines in US the better. Americans should start embracing the European Holiday mantra
wedgetail737 wrote:32andBelow wrote:travelin man wrote:AA and WN already fly BUR-PHX, so I'm not sure now long AZA will stick around. It doesn't mean that their other destinations won't be more successful.
Are they trying to make connections or all p2p?
I think their model is similar to G4...all P2P, centered around BUR...at least, for now.
wedgetail737 wrote:I hope Avelo lasts long enough for me to try them in a month or so.
joeblow10 wrote:The real issue I have with the startup was the velocity ... they gave people a month to buy tickets on an airline nobody has ever heard of before. And they have no presence on OTAs at the moment - which makes it next to impossible to reach the average customer who has yet to hear of them.
The concept makes total sense... but the execution has been iffy to say the least, at least from my perspective. Seems to me like they should have held off a few more months and really gone all out on marketing
jetmatt777 wrote:joeblow10 wrote:The real issue I have with the startup was the velocity ... they gave people a month to buy tickets on an airline nobody has ever heard of before. And they have no presence on OTAs at the moment - which makes it next to impossible to reach the average customer who has yet to hear of them.
The concept makes total sense... but the execution has been iffy to say the least, at least from my perspective. Seems to me like they should have held off a few more months and really gone all out on marketing
Iffy to you or them?
While low initial load factors may not excite the average a.netter or travel blog, it does allow a “soft opening” of sorts. A chance to test the model under lower stress and lower risk scenarios. These aren’t just new routes, they are the first flights of a new airline. While it would look good for the press to have standing room only in the gate area, that can be a problem when those people have been standing there for 3 hours waiting on a delay.
There’s a reason most service industry operators open quietly under soft openings. There are always kinks to iron out, and it’s better to have your service failures under low-load.
While it’s not great for the short term, opening slow is better for the long term. A new name, in new markets is always going to be tough. Most network mainline carriers (with great brand recognition) have a 12 month time frame for domestic routes to develop, and 18-36 months for long haul/international markets. Even the big boys don’t except profitable flying on any new market in the first few weeks. Be patient.
jetmatt777 wrote:joeblow10 wrote:The real issue I have with the startup was the velocity ... they gave people a month to buy tickets on an airline nobody has ever heard of before. And they have no presence on OTAs at the moment - which makes it next to impossible to reach the average customer who has yet to hear of them.
The concept makes total sense... but the execution has been iffy to say the least, at least from my perspective. Seems to me like they should have held off a few more months and really gone all out on marketing
Iffy to you or them?
While low initial load factors may not excite the average a.netter or travel blog, it does allow a “soft opening” of sorts. A chance to test the model under lower stress and lower risk scenarios. These aren’t just new routes, they are the first flights of a new airline. While it would look good for the press to have standing room only in the gate area, that can be a problem when those people have been standing there for 3 hours waiting on a delay.
There’s a reason most service industry operators open quietly under soft openings. There are always kinks to iron out, and it’s better to have your service failures under low-load.
While it’s not great for the short term, opening slow is better for the long term. A new name, in new markets is always going to be tough. Most network mainline carriers (with great brand recognition) have a 12 month time frame for domestic routes to develop, and 18-36 months for long haul/international markets. Even the big boys don’t except profitable flying on any new market in the first few weeks. Be patient.
joeblow10 wrote:The real issue I have with the startup was the velocity ... they gave people a month to buy tickets on an airline nobody has ever heard of before. And they have no presence on OTAs at the moment - which makes it next to impossible to reach the average customer who has yet to hear of them.
The concept makes total sense... but the execution has been iffy to say the least, at least from my perspective. Seems to me like they should have held off a few more months and really gone all out on marketing
MIflyer12 wrote:jetmatt777 wrote:joeblow10 wrote:The real issue I have with the startup was the velocity ... they gave people a month to buy tickets on an airline nobody has ever heard of before. And they have no presence on OTAs at the moment - which makes it next to impossible to reach the average customer who has yet to hear of them.
The concept makes total sense... but the execution has been iffy to say the least, at least from my perspective. Seems to me like they should have held off a few more months and really gone all out on marketing
Iffy to you or them?
While low initial load factors may not excite the average a.netter or travel blog, it does allow a “soft opening” of sorts. A chance to test the model under lower stress and lower risk scenarios. These aren’t just new routes, they are the first flights of a new airline. While it would look good for the press to have standing room only in the gate area, that can be a problem when those people have been standing there for 3 hours waiting on a delay.
There’s a reason most service industry operators open quietly under soft openings. There are always kinks to iron out, and it’s better to have your service failures under low-load.
While it’s not great for the short term, opening slow is better for the long term. A new name, in new markets is always going to be tough. Most network mainline carriers (with great brand recognition) have a 12 month time frame for domestic routes to develop, and 18-36 months for long haul/international markets. Even the big boys don’t except profitable flying on any new market in the first few weeks. Be patient.
You're working awfully hard to rationalize an embarrassing start. What, exactly, is so much harder about carrying 80 people rather than fifteen on a 175-seat 738? If they can't scale check-in, on-board service and baggage handling at 50% on Day 1, they will fail quickly.
iAvgeek737 wrote:Based off of some Instagram stories I saw of todays inaugural. OGD - BUR also looked pretty empty. I do agree that they should sort out mass kinks first, find out where they are fail prone and eliminate those possibilities and then ramp up.
Boiler905 wrote:Any guesses on where Avelo's 2nd base(s) will be?
From CrankyFlier, CEO Andrew Levy said:
"There’s actually a couple places that we’re looking at, and I’d say certainly one of them there’s an opportunity that may not have been there before, and the other one is something that’s just a little bit different. But both of those markets were airports that we were very much focused on from day one. And Burbank was too.""
Since they're based in Houston, I can't help but think HOU/IAH or even EFD might be one of them.
In terms of opportunities which weren't there before the pandemic, I'll guess TUS or BOI.
Wneast wrote:Boiler905 wrote:Any guesses on where Avelo's 2nd base(s) will be?
From CrankyFlier, CEO Andrew Levy said:
"There’s actually a couple places that we’re looking at, and I’d say certainly one of them there’s an opportunity that may not have been there before, and the other one is something that’s just a little bit different. But both of those markets were airports that we were very much focused on from day one. And Burbank was too.""
Since they're based in Houston, I can't help but think HOU/IAH or even EFD might be one of them.
In terms of opportunities which weren't there before the pandemic, I'll guess TUS or BOI.
I would love to see BOI but Alaska will for sure response to them there but what do you see adding from there if the do add BOI ?
Coronado990 wrote:BUR-OGD is a shocker. They should at least serve PVU as well to book end the valley. An opportunity airport that wasn't there before...I'll throw in San Diego Brown Field (SDM) just a stones throw from the popular CBX at TIJ airport. Serve to the San Joaquin Valley, the Bay Area and LAS all come to mind. But boy that airport would need a lot of work. Also, I bet SBD is of some interest to them to expand their SoCal presence. Lastely, I wish someone would give BFL some love.
MaxTrimm wrote:BUR-AZA was advertised and ticketed as a daily flight, but has not operated since the inaugural on Monday. Read a post saying there was 16 people on the inaugural, maybe half of which are non-airline personnel. Could this be a reason, or something more technical?
sprxUSA wrote:They should serve Stockton, CA (SCK) and market it as Sacramento/Modesto/East Bay Area LOL. Sure they could get into there for a song....
MaxTrimm wrote:BUR-AZA was advertised and ticketed as a daily flight, but has not operated since the inaugural on Monday. Read a post saying there was 16 people on the inaugural, maybe half of which are non-airline personnel. Could this be a reason, or something more technical?
Boiler905 wrote:Any guesses on where Avelo's 2nd base(s) will be? .