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?

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.

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.

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.

Try a dummy booking on the Alaska Air app starting in May and ending in June to see the price difference RT travel on BUR-STS.

Pretty eye-popping.

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.

Won’t someone from Reddit or arcada just what to go to LA for like less than 2 days? Seems kinda weird. Idk

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.

STS and AZA are two of Avelo's destinations are supposed to be daily flights. But I think other city-pairs will get at least 3X weekly like PSC and RDD...at least to start.

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).

So are they an ULCC or a regular mainline carrier?

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?

DKNEF wrote:

So are they an ULCC or a regular mainline carrier?

They are ULCC.

DKNEF wrote:

So are they an ULCC or a regular mainline carrier?

Very much so a ULCC

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?

I said from the beginning Avelo will only last a few months as a commercial airline.

IIRC don't you know folks at Breeze too...What are their chances??

The Avelo CEO mentioned how they are trying to get on Google Flights. I imagine that will greatly help out bookings.

FLYKTPA wrote:

The Avelo CEO mentioned how they are trying to get on Google Flights. I imagine that will greatly help out bookings.

I don't know how aggressive they are with advertising and getting their name out. But I think they need to advertise more than Social Media. I know they're just starting up, but the name isn't getting out if your first day only boards 16 pax out of 189.

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.

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?

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.

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

I'm still waiting for Breeze to take the next step...same with Expressjet.

But I don't think we'll see anything like it was back in the 1980's and 1990's.

Blueknows wrote:

Hope they add more flights. The more airlines in US the better. Americans should start embracing the European Holiday mantra

I don't know that "the more the better" is 100% true - competitive quality airlines are better than a higher quantity of noncompetitive ones. I'm not sure the US really needed another all-Y ULCC. I give Avelo props for choosing BUR but it'll be interesting to see how they continue to grow/differentiate themselves.

Probl is Americans need to travel. You can fly from London to faro(Portugal) round trip under 100 US. Americans want to rake the lawn, and sit on a porch. We need to start experiencing world outside our bubble

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.

Seems like it would make more sense to try to get Medford/resident type people to Phoenix than LA people who are just gonna drive

I hope Avelo lasts long enough for me to try them in a month or so.

wedgetail737 wrote:

I hope Avelo lasts long enough for me to try them in a month or so.

I'm sure they will. Even if they do fail (which I do doubt, with the talent at the airline) they raised much more than Breeze has and lease deals on 738s are great right now. Again, if they do fail, they will be around for more than just a year.

I do believe snagging the BUR slots was a great choice, but at the same time, I didn't expect such a big ramp-up of routes that had a fair amount of indirect competition, (BUR-AZA) nor did I expect them to be on such thin routes (PSC, OGD, etc) - at least, not so early in the operation.

I am sure they will grow into their operation, but they have always said - BUR was purely opportunistic - the real deal is way out east. Having a presence at BUR is a great long-term strategy as the LA Basin keeps expanding. It's already very convenient anyway. I owe the rough start purely to the fact that A) We are still in a pandemic and B) travel levels in the west are way depressed compared to SE, Midwest, etc.

Again, I think BUR is a great long-term play. Doesn't matter if things aren't turning out well at all in the short run since they have the summer season to fall back on... and they'll be announcing their first East Coast base this month. I look forward to seeing Avelo make an imprint in the market, especially out west, where there is little LCC/ULCC presence.

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

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.

Great insight! One of these days, I can try them perhaps out of PSC or EUG...basically, I can get there using AS. I flew on a well-disorganized airline, CA Pacific, on their inaugural service between CLD and SJC. Flying on an inaugural flight for a new airline is a very unique experience.

For the price just buy a ticket and have some fun. It’s a great model and cheap for a quick getaway.

[photoid][/photoid]

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.

At 5 thousand dollar an hour operating cost (or whatever theirs is) I wouldn’t call a “soft opening” low risk

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.

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

What you're suggesting is exactly what Independence Air did. Perhaps there are some takeaways the current Avelo leadership is utilizing, though we're going to find out if starting up in this current economic climate is worth it.

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.

Why force-scale? Open it up and see how it works. As I said, any reputable airline doesn’t expect full flights on any new route for close to a year, or more. Why go on a mass advertising blitz? You need to make sure you can run the schedule as posted, you need to make sure you can handle irregular operations, etc. Walk before running. It’s not working hard to justify anything, it’s a sign of decent leadership. Trying a new business model takes some baby steps. Getting a schedule together, selling a few seats, and keeping all of that together for a few months is a great place to begin scaling up. After a few months, where the system is reliable, then add some more flights and start advertising.

An embarrassing start would be running huge advertising campaigns, getting every local news outlet on the west coast to cover the launch of the airline, only to have the first flight get canceled because of a maintenance issue.

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.

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.

Like some others mentioned here. Avelo needs to develop the market more...hopefully, they'll see a general, upward trend in their bookings as time goes on.

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 ?

From looking at their route map, and thinking back to a Levy interview in which he noted secondary airports, destinations such as IAH / HOU, or other primary airports seem unlikely. I know HOU isn't the largest in the area but it's significant compared to some other secondary facilities across the country. Currently they fly to the L.A. area (BUR), Phoenix area (Mesa) and Salt Lake area (Ogden), but not the major airport in any case. Boise maybe because there isn't a secondary. Tucson maybe although Mesa isn't a terribly far drive given the airport is on the southern side of the Phoenix area.

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.

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?

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.

G4 has got PVU covered and out of the five cities they do from there, all but DEN is doing quite well. I think PVU is a airport Breeze will eventually serve down the road to airports unserved from G4

As far as Avelo is concerned, I think the BUR-OGD route isn’t going to last long. G4 tried LAX- OGD and that only lasted a couple months. Overall I don’t think Avelo will last long as a commercial airline.

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?

I am booked on the BUR-AZA and return flights tomorrow, and have not been notified of any cancellation. Will report back on the load.

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....

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....

If they advertise and include Stockton as a Bay Area alternative then they should also include the LA areas specifically the valley and the inland empire. They could market it as the Stockton/Sacramento/Anaheim/Bay Area/Modesto/Fresno/Valley/Inland Empire/Los Angeles-Jerry Springer Regional Airport.

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?

The return AZA-BUR flight was delayed an hour on the inaugural. From what I heard, once passengers deboarded the plane from BUR-AZA, they taught their ground crew how to push back the aircraft. During the actual deboarding in AZA, it took 15 minutes to open the door because the ground crew couldn't get the ramp to the aircraft door. On top of that, they needed to actually borrow a tug from Allegiant to perform their push back. Maybe AZA wasn't ready resulting in the cancellation of Tuesday and Wednesday's flights?

Avelo to create a base later this summer at HVN, using 737-700 aircraft. Being discussed here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1460551

29pax on today’s BUR-AZA flight. About to push back, will report the return flights load later.

Boiler905 wrote:

Any guesses on where Avelo's 2nd base(s) will be? .

737-700 base at HVN was announced today. That was def a surprising announcement

Mixing fleet up with -700s yes bit of surprise.

Obviously will be lots of winter Florida flying from HVN.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0tLGJmWUAA ... ame=medium

A lot of people speculating that Gary/Chicago airport is in talks with Avelo about a Aug start date for airline service returning to airport.

Flyguy