I could imagine that assuming the concept works out that the 757s operating into Asia could be replaced with A330-200s. They would offer deeper connectivity, opens up the cargo market, and they're likely to remain pretty cheap in the near term. The 757s (or a narrowbody replacement) could then be used to provide the Stateside connections. But they have to prove the model and the market first, and of that I am skeptical.

Cardude2 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

There’s a reason why Allegiant’s 757 Hawaii experiment failed and it’s not because there wasn’t a market for low fares to Hawaii…

Getting old planes and choosing destinations based on the range of those airplanes is a recipe for disappointment.

Unless your operating a hotel at Erickson air station

or your name is icelandair

Completely different. The vast majority of mainland Europe is within easy reach of 757s from KEF, and most of the major cities in the US and Canada are within reach of the 757s. You can’t say that about Asian cities from ANC. Icelandair doesn’t have to choose destinations based on range.

flyoregon wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Unless your operating a hotel at Erickson air station

or your name is icelandair

Completely different. The vast majority of mainland Europe is within easy reach of 757s from KEF, and most of the major cities in the US and Canada are within reach of the 757s. You can’t say that about Asian cities from ANC. Icelandair doesn’t have to choose destinations based on range.

oooooh yes, they do. "most of the major cities" yes the east coast and the midwest can, BUT not the west. SFO is 4204 miles, LAX is 4313 miles, and MEX is 4611 miles. all out of the range of the 757. As for Northern Pacific, the only key market out of its range is china. Because the rest is too far period for a narrowbody.

Cardude2 wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

or your name is icelandair

Completely different. The vast majority of mainland Europe is within easy reach of 757s from KEF, and most of the major cities in the US and Canada are within reach of the 757s. You can’t say that about Asian cities from ANC. Icelandair doesn’t have to choose destinations based on range.

oooooh yes, they do. "most of the major cities" yes the east coast and the midwest can, BUT not the west. SFO is 4204 miles, LAX is 4313 miles, and MEX is 4611 miles. all out of the range of the 757. As for Northern Pacific, the only key market out of its range is china. Because the rest is too far period for a narrowbody.

So Iceland air connects dozens of cities on each side. NP says they want like 40 planes. So where are they going to fly?

Also if they somehow prove this concept Alaska has max’s and can just take it over lol

32andBelow wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

Completely different. The vast majority of mainland Europe is within easy reach of 757s from KEF, and most of the major cities in the US and Canada are within reach of the 757s. You can’t say that about Asian cities from ANC. Icelandair doesn’t have to choose destinations based on range.

oooooh yes, they do. "most of the major cities" yes the east coast and the midwest can, BUT not the west. SFO is 4204 miles, LAX is 4313 miles, and MEX is 4611 miles. all out of the range of the 757. As for Northern Pacific, the only key market out of its range is china. Because the rest is too far period for a narrowbody.

So Iceland air connects dozens of cities on each side. NP says they want like 40 planes. So where are they going to fly?

Also if they somehow prove this concept Alaska has max’s and can just take it over lol

yes but that would require buying ravn and having a domestic network in Alaska, which they don't want. They just want other people to do it for them, hence the codeshare. There willing to thake some hit like to LAX, as long as NPA doesn't put their greasy hands on SEA and just allows codeshares

Cardude2 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

oooooh yes, they do. "most of the major cities" yes the east coast and the midwest can, BUT not the west. SFO is 4204 miles, LAX is 4313 miles, and MEX is 4611 miles. all out of the range of the 757. As for Northern Pacific, the only key market out of its range is china. Because the rest is too far period for a narrowbody.

So Iceland air connects dozens of cities on each side. NP says they want like 40 planes. So where are they going to fly?

Also if they somehow prove this concept Alaska has max’s and can just take it over lol

yes but that would require buying ravn and having a domestic network in Alaska, which they don't want. They just want other people to do it for them, hence the codeshare. There willing to thake some hit like to LAX, as long as NPA doesn't put their greasy hands on SEA and just allows codeshares

i don’t believe Alaska has a codeshare currently with ravn. Alaska is already the largest airline within Alaska. They already took over akn and DLG. They have operated CDB before.

But my question remains. Where are these 20-40 757s going after Seoul and Tokyo.

Cardude2 wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

Completely different. The vast majority of mainland Europe is within easy reach of 757s from KEF, and most of the major cities in the US and Canada are within reach of the 757s. You can’t say that about Asian cities from ANC. Icelandair doesn’t have to choose destinations based on range.

oooooh yes, they do. "most of the major cities" yes the east coast and the midwest can, BUT not the west. SFO is 4204 miles, LAX is 4313 miles, and MEX is 4611 miles. all out of the range of the 757. As for Northern Pacific, the only key market out of its range is china. Because the rest is too far period for a narrowbody.

Actually, before Icelandair dropped SFO in January 2020, they downgraded KEF-SFO to seasonal with a 757. They flew the 757 on SFO-KEF from around September/October until January. So the 757 actually can fly to KEF-SFO. Longest 757 route at the time.

You are right though about anything beyond China being too far for a narrowbody (unless you count TPE and HKG as separate markets). Even the XLR cannot reach large markets such as Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. I think that's why they're looking at 787s. Of course, if 767s free up, maybe they'll just end up buying those cheap like they did with the 75s to reduce costs. Honestly, I think the 767 is a great option for them since the ~5900nmi of range it provides is enough to get to basically all of Asia including India, Pakistan, etc. The only place it can't go is Indonesia and that's not a large O&D market to the US.

32andBelow wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

So Iceland air connects dozens of cities on each side. NP says they want like 40 planes. So where are they going to fly?

Also if they somehow prove this concept Alaska has max’s and can just take it over lol

yes but that would require buying ravn and having a domestic network in Alaska, which they don't want. They just want other people to do it for them, hence the codeshare. There willing to thake some hit like to LAX, as long as NPA doesn't put their greasy hands on SEA and just allows codeshares

i don’t believe Alaska has a codeshare currently with ravn. Alaska is already the largest airline within Alaska. They already took over akn and DLG. They have operated CDB before.

But my question remains. Where are these 20-40 757s going after Seoul and Tokyo.

yes they do have a codeshare: https://www.alaskaair.com/content/milea ... s/ravn-air https://www.ktoo.org/2021/08/17/ravn-al ... -airlines/

Rob McKinney admitted in this interview that he would probably only be able to get at most about 20 752's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoVAWsWbM6s

for routes: Definitely Nagoya (on launch), Osaka (on launch), Sapporo (it can probably even be flown by an a220-300 with a bigger fuel tank like what breeze is doing), Busan, Possibly Shenyang, Changchun, Dalian, and Harbin. There is also A lot of other North American routes they can fly along with Mexico City.

for the rest of the expected aircraft that would make the fleet total to 40 would probably smaller aircraft like A223's, cargo aircraft, or widebodies.

video interview with rob McKinney https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoVAWsWbM6s

Cardude2 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

yes but that would require buying ravn and having a domestic network in Alaska, which they don't want. They just want other people to do it for them, hence the codeshare. There willing to thake some hit like to LAX, as long as NPA doesn't put their greasy hands on SEA and just allows codeshares

i don’t believe Alaska has a codeshare currently with ravn. Alaska is already the largest airline within Alaska. They already took over akn and DLG. They have operated CDB before.

But my question remains. Where are these 20-40 757s going after Seoul and Tokyo.

yes they do have a codeshare: https://www.alaskaair.com/content/milea ... s/ravn-air https://www.ktoo.org/2021/08/17/ravn-al ... -airlines/

Rob McKinney admitted in this interview that he would probably only be able to get at most about 20 752's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoVAWsWbM6s

for routes: Definitely Nagoya (on launch), Osaka (on launch), Sapporo (it can probably even be flown by an a220-300 with a bigger fuel tank like what breeze is doing), Busan, Possibly Shenyang, Changchun, Dalian, and Harbin. There is also A lot of other North American routes they can fly along with Mexico City.

for the rest of the expected aircraft that would make the fleet total to 40 would probably smaller aircraft like A223's, cargo aircraft, or widebodies.

Doesn’t sound very low cost. 2-5 fleet types?

They have a mileage agreement. I don’t think Alaska is actually putting their code and pricing those markets are they?

And I don’t think the assumption this agreement will go over to NP is correct.

Is there demand for those cold Chinese cities like Harbin?

32andBelow wrote:

Where are these 20-40 757s going after Seoul and Tokyo.

They are never, ever going to get to 40 757s. I think the most they could possibly get before fleet replacement is 20 or so, maybe mid 20s. They are having trouble even finding the 12 they want to start (currently own 6 and getting 3 more).

There is definitely more than just Tokyo and Seoul, after all, the whole point of this is to try to connect the thinner markets over ANC.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-nrt%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

There are quite a few options here. Yes, many are questionable, and that's why I have little confidence in this being successful, but there are definitely cities they could fly to.
Secondary Japan is a great option; secondary Korea seems like a decent option, and the secondary Chinese markets just seem downright sketchy.

China is closed shut for now though and it doesn't look like they are going to change that at all. So while I could see this working on a somewhat smaller scale, operating only to NE Asia (Japan and Korea), I don't see this as being very scalable. Maybe they will be able to fill widebodies chock full of cargo though, so who knows... All very confusing and risky to me though. Excited to see what happens regardless.

Another option is that they could keep the network smaller and scale frequency-wise instead of destination-wise. Maybe they will double up, even triple up on certain trunk routes such as Tokyo. That's the only way I see this really working out, because their US and Asia networks will be pretty unbalanced. More routes to the US and less to Asia probably allows them to add frequency on those key Asian routes.

The good news is that there are many US markets that they can introduce that they haven't earmarked yet. Here are the options that they have said they are looking at:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-sfo%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

What about all those US markets that keep whining about not having service to Asia?? Here is where they and other markets can factor in:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-sfo%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

They should also be able to fill the bellies full of cargo when there aren't enough pax to fill the cabin. I guess they would have to want network breadth on the US side and schedule depth on the Asia side in order to balance things out...

PS Please don't mock me for including IND, CVG, STL... I just couldn't think of anything else, lol

sfojvjets wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Where are these 20-40 757s going after Seoul and Tokyo.

They are never, ever going to get to 40 757s. I think the most they could possibly get before fleet replacement is 20 or so, maybe mid 20s. They are having trouble even finding the 12 they want to start (currently own 6 and getting 3 more).

There is definitely more than just Tokyo and Seoul, after all, the whole point of this is to try to connect the thinner markets over ANC.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-nrt%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

There are quite a few options here. Yes, many are questionable, and that's why I have little confidence in this being successful, but there are definitely cities they could fly to.
Secondary Japan is a great option; secondary Korea seems like a decent option, and the secondary Chinese markets just seem downright sketchy.

China is closed shut for now though and it doesn't look like they are going to change that at all. So while I could see this working on a somewhat smaller scale, operating only to NE Asia (Japan and Korea), I don't see this as being very scalable. Maybe they will be able to fill widebodies chock full of cargo though, so who knows... All very confusing and risky to me though. Excited to see what happens regardless.

Another option is that they could keep the network smaller and scale frequency-wise instead of destination-wise. Maybe they will double up, even triple up on certain trunk routes such as Tokyo. That's the only way I see this really working out, because their US and Asia networks will be pretty unbalanced. More routes to the US and less to Asia probably allows them to add frequency on those key Asian routes.

The good news is that there are many US markets that they can introduce that they haven't earmarked yet. Here are the options that they have said they are looking at:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-sfo%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

What about all those US markets that keep whining about not having service to Asia?? Here is where they and other markets can factor in:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-sfo%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

They should also be able to fill the bellies full of cargo when there aren't enough pax to fill the cabin. I guess they would have to want network breadth on the US side and schedule depth on the Asia side in order to balance things out...

PS Please don't mock me for including IND, CVG, STL... I just couldn't think of anything else, lol

The huge problem is that no matter what market they add in the L48 that customer can probably already get a 1 stop to Japan or Korea. I think in the winter they should try to corner the budget conscious the ski market. They can get a lot of skiers out of Alaska too.

sfojvjets wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

Completely different. The vast majority of mainland Europe is within easy reach of 757s from KEF, and most of the major cities in the US and Canada are within reach of the 757s. You can’t say that about Asian cities from ANC. Icelandair doesn’t have to choose destinations based on range.

oooooh yes, they do. "most of the major cities" yes the east coast and the midwest can, BUT not the west. SFO is 4204 miles, LAX is 4313 miles, and MEX is 4611 miles. all out of the range of the 757. As for Northern Pacific, the only key market out of its range is china. Because the rest is too far period for a narrowbody.

Actually, before Icelandair dropped SFO in January 2020, they downgraded KEF-SFO to seasonal with a 757. They flew the 757 on SFO-KEF from around September/October until January. So the 757 actually can fly to KEF-SFO. Longest 757 route at the time.

You are right though about anything beyond China being too far for a narrowbody (unless you count TPE and HKG as separate markets). Even the XLR cannot reach large markets such as Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. I think that's why they're looking at 787s. Of course, if 767s free up, maybe they'll just end up buying those cheap like they did with the 75s to reduce costs. Honestly, I think the 767 is a great option for them since the ~5900nmi of range it provides is enough to get to basically all of Asia including India, Pakistan, etc. The only place it can't go is Indonesia and that's not a large O&D market to the US.

Pakistan and India is cool but do they have Russian overflight rights?

If they can get enough cargo contracts, the 767 may prove to be the more superior plane for their model with the 757s primarily doing the CONUS routes.

32andBelow wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Where are these 20-40 757s going after Seoul and Tokyo.

They are never, ever going to get to 40 757s. I think the most they could possibly get before fleet replacement is 20 or so, maybe mid 20s. They are having trouble even finding the 12 they want to start (currently own 6 and getting 3 more).

There is definitely more than just Tokyo and Seoul, after all, the whole point of this is to try to connect the thinner markets over ANC.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-nrt%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

There are quite a few options here. Yes, many are questionable, and that's why I have little confidence in this being successful, but there are definitely cities they could fly to.
Secondary Japan is a great option; secondary Korea seems like a decent option, and the secondary Chinese markets just seem downright sketchy.

China is closed shut for now though and it doesn't look like they are going to change that at all. So while I could see this working on a somewhat smaller scale, operating only to NE Asia (Japan and Korea), I don't see this as being very scalable. Maybe they will be able to fill widebodies chock full of cargo though, so who knows... All very confusing and risky to me though. Excited to see what happens regardless.

Another option is that they could keep the network smaller and scale frequency-wise instead of destination-wise. Maybe they will double up, even triple up on certain trunk routes such as Tokyo. That's the only way I see this really working out, because their US and Asia networks will be pretty unbalanced. More routes to the US and less to Asia probably allows them to add frequency on those key Asian routes.

The good news is that there are many US markets that they can introduce that they haven't earmarked yet. Here are the options that they have said they are looking at:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-sfo%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

What about all those US markets that keep whining about not having service to Asia?? Here is where they and other markets can factor in:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-sfo%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

They should also be able to fill the bellies full of cargo when there aren't enough pax to fill the cabin. I guess they would have to want network breadth on the US side and schedule depth on the Asia side in order to balance things out...

PS Please don't mock me for including IND, CVG, STL... I just couldn't think of anything else, lol

The huge problem is that no matter what market they add in the L48 that customer can probably already get a 1 stop to Japan or Korea. I think in the winter they should try to corner the budget conscious the ski market. They can get a lot of skiers out of Alaska too.

Sure, those cities could 1-stop out of a legacy hub but not cheaply. Unless you live in a large coastal city, good luck finding decent affordable flights (without multiple layovers, undesirable connection times or anything at all). Even here in Denver with our nonstop to NRT on UA it’s at least $2000 for the cheapest seat. I “could” get to NRT for $700 but that includes a 6 hr layover in YVR.

The main criticism I have is the (already stated) foray into large hubs with well established Asian networks.

Cheap flights to Asia (under $1000) is simply not a reality for many Americans and never has been. If NP can at least offer affordable flights ($1000 or less) and decently timed connections to midsized markets, then they at least have a reasonable shot for success although I do believe such a business model would be more successful out of the likes of HNL and I’ve always wondered why HA never went full steam with becoming the Icelandair of the Pacific.

Just my take as some a.netters here sometimes forget that not everyone lives near a large global hub.

32andBelow wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

i don’t believe Alaska has a codeshare currently with ravn. Alaska is already the largest airline within Alaska. They already took over akn and DLG. They have operated CDB before.

But my question remains. Where are these 20-40 757s going after Seoul and Tokyo.

yes they do have a codeshare: https://www.alaskaair.com/content/milea ... s/ravn-air https://www.ktoo.org/2021/08/17/ravn-al ... -airlines/

Rob McKinney admitted in this interview that he would probably only be able to get at most about 20 752's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoVAWsWbM6s

for routes: Definitely Nagoya (on launch), Osaka (on launch), Sapporo (it can probably even be flown by an a220-300 with a bigger fuel tank like what breeze is doing), Busan, Possibly Shenyang, Changchun, Dalian, and Harbin. There is also A lot of other North American routes they can fly along with Mexico City.

for the rest of the expected aircraft that would make the fleet total to 40 would probably smaller aircraft like A223's, cargo aircraft, or widebodies.

Doesn’t sound very low cost. 2-5 fleet types?

They have a mileage agreement. I don’t think Alaska is actually putting their code and pricing those markets are they?

And I don’t think the assumption this agreement will go over to NP is correct.

Is there demand for those cold Chinese cities like Harbin?

Definitely no AS/7H codeshare. You can earn AS miles on Ravn and that’s it…can’t even book award travel as of yet. I believe you can book a paid AS/7H interline ticket through a travel agency but no Ravn destinations even show up on alaskaair.com. Ravn also just pulled the plug on DLG and AKN is now seasonal for them.

Chugach wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

yes they do have a codeshare: https://www.alaskaair.com/content/milea ... s/ravn-air https://www.ktoo.org/2021/08/17/ravn-al ... -airlines/

Rob McKinney admitted in this interview that he would probably only be able to get at most about 20 752's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoVAWsWbM6s

for routes: Definitely Nagoya (on launch), Osaka (on launch), Sapporo (it can probably even be flown by an a220-300 with a bigger fuel tank like what breeze is doing), Busan, Possibly Shenyang, Changchun, Dalian, and Harbin. There is also A lot of other North American routes they can fly along with Mexico City.

for the rest of the expected aircraft that would make the fleet total to 40 would probably smaller aircraft like A223's, cargo aircraft, or widebodies.

Doesn’t sound very low cost. 2-5 fleet types?

They have a mileage agreement. I don’t think Alaska is actually putting their code and pricing those markets are they?

And I don’t think the assumption this agreement will go over to NP is correct.

Is there demand for those cold Chinese cities like Harbin?

Definitely no AS/7H codeshare. You can earn AS miles on Ravn and that’s it…can’t even book award travel as of yet. I believe you can book a paid AS/7H interline ticket through a travel agency but no Ravn destinations even show up on alaskaair.com. Ravn also just pulled the plug on DLG and AKN is now seasonal for them.

Wow that’s really bad for Bristol bay. AS is really gonna have to step it up during the summer

Thanks sfojvjets for the possible route map. I combined the 2 and added Mexico city

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-nrt%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

for context here's Icelandair's route map:

https://www.icelandair.com/about/routemap/

How come those NA cities were chosen?

32andBelow wrote:

How come those NA cities were chosen?

what do you mean? on the map, I chose the Asian ones based on population.

Cardude2 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

How come those NA cities were chosen?

what do you mean? on the map, I chose the Asian ones based on population.

The North American ones. It would be weird to skip places like Seattle and Portland when they already have high O and D to Alaska

32andBelow wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

How come those NA cities were chosen?

what do you mean? on the map, I chose the Asian ones based on population.

The North American ones. It would be weird to skip places like Seattle and Portland when they already have high O and D to Alaska

they're not bad routes but Alaska currently flies them and I think there ultimate goal is to get a codeshare

here though I fixed the map http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-nrt%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

Cardude2 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

what do you mean? on the map, I chose the Asian ones based on population.

The North American ones. It would be weird to skip places like Seattle and Portland when they already have high O and D to Alaska

they're not bad routes but Alaska currently flies them and I think there ultimate goal is to get a codeshare

Then LAX and PHX should be removed, and if NP were to ever add SFO, SAN, LAS, and several more of these routes, Alaska will run them out of town in a hurry. There’s no chance in hell Alaska establishes a codeshare with this place. MAYBE an interline agreement, but definitely not a code share. This will be viewed as competitive operations by Alaska, not complimentary operations.

alright how about this http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-nrt%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

Cardude2 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

what do you mean? on the map, I chose the Asian ones based on population.

The North American ones. It would be weird to skip places like Seattle and Portland when they already have high O and D to Alaska

they're not bad routes but Alaska currently flies them and I think there ultimate goal is to get a codeshare

They have zero chance of a codeshare since Alaska
Joined one world.

They need to figure out a codeshare on the Asian side

Cardude2 wrote:

alright how about this http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-nrt%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

A hypothetical route map can be made over and over again, it still doesn't make this idea any better...especially with the issues that have been brought up already:

1) An unreliable, aged/aging fleet of airplanes right out the gate.
2) Most of Asia that is within reach from ANC on a 752 is closed due to COVID and probably will be for the foreseeable future.
3) Small chance of any sort of strategic alliance on the North American side.
4) Two other "startups" being run by the same people at the same time.

Here's the thing, I love Alaska and love visiting there, I love 757's, and I love rooting for underdogs, but this proposed operation has a lot holes in the plan. Cheap airplanes work for an airline like Allegiant 10-15 years ago, but when you start doing longer legs like they did with their old 752's, it was a disaster. These would be even longer flights to/from ANC, and they're going to burn through money just on maintenance.

I have serious doubts, and would love to be wrong, but this is a tough model to make work, even with newer airframes. You can compare this to Icelandair all you want, but it should be compared to WOW as well...and they had newer airplanes and a much easier network to make work and they still failed.

Not to mention the alternates out that way are rough if the plan has a mechanical issue. Dropping 150+ passengers into Adak or cold bay is not pretty.

32andBelow wrote:

Not to mention the alternates out that way are rough if the plan has a mechanical issue. Dropping 150+ passengers into Adak or cold bay is not pretty.

Excellent point. Geographically it might be sort of similar to KEF, but operationally it's worlds apart.

Would Ulaan Baatar (ULN) work?

flyoregon wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

Not to mention the alternates out that way are rough if the plan has a mechanical issue. Dropping 150+ passengers into Adak or cold bay is not pretty.

Excellent point. Geographically it might be sort of similar to KEF, but operationally it's worlds apart.

I was just looking at flight aware. KEF to Paris was only like a 3.5 hour flight today. Europe is just so much closer

RalXWB wrote:

I wonder what happens when one of those Fossils gets tech...

Meh... plenty of carriers are still using aircraft from the mid 90s/early 00's. LH comes to mind and they seem to get by their "Fossils".

However, a big established carrier has the expertise and infrastructure in place to take care of an older fleet.

flyoregon wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

alright how about this http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-nrt%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

A hypothetical route map can be made over and over again, it still doesn't make this idea any better...especially with the issues that have been brought up already:

1) An unreliable, aged/aging fleet of airplanes right out the gate.
2) Most of Asia that is within reach from ANC on a 752 is closed due to COVID and probably will be for the foreseeable future.
3) Small chance of any sort of strategic alliance on the North American side.
4) Two other "startups" being run by the same people at the same time.

Here's the thing, I love Alaska and love visiting there, I love 757's, and I love rooting for underdogs, but this proposed operation has a lot holes in the plan. Cheap airplanes work for an airline like Allegiant 10-15 years ago, but when you start doing longer legs like they did with their old 752's, it was a disaster. These would be even longer flights to/from ANC, and they're going to burn through money just on maintenance.

I have serious doubts, and would love to be wrong, but this is a tough model to make work, even with newer airframes. You can compare this to Icelandair all you want, but it should be compared to WOW as well...and they had newer airplanes and a much easier network to make work and they still failed.

rebuttal:
1) The 757's are supposed to be temporary, permanently would be max or xlr which their already in talks for
2) At least South Korea wont be closed for much longer as they're 2 dose vaccination rates are extremely high (84% 2 dose, 48% booster), compare that to the san fransisco bay area (68% 2 dose, Booster unknown, its on NYT and I don't have access on the computer I'm using) and japan in a surprising turn of events has 79.2% of there population vaccinated. The prospects for launch are starting to turn in favor of opening but it will take a good part of the year, especially since both still need to give children the vaccine. thankfully Norhtern Pacific has already said they wont be launching till Q3 or Q4, which the Q4 possibility could happen. China will need a lot more time though.
3) with a mainline or Alaska is a lost hope, but for others like Southwest, JetBlue, Spirit or Allegiant there a serious possibility.

Other things to think about are.

If they prove the market Alaska already has Max’s and could just start.

Also I would say to add a year more then you think to add any type to your cert for an airline their size.

South Korea is still open to US passport holders (including for tourism) although there is a mandatory 10-day quarantine at a hotel (approx $1,500USD). It's a barrier for sure, but it's still possible for an American to visit as a tourist if you're really determined. Several YouTubers have actually done so during the pandemic.

That is not the case for Japan. So perhaps they'll launch ICN before any Japanese cities.

Cardude2 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

So why launch the airline with an obsolete fleet? Why not just wait and do it right with the correct aircrafts?

He also told DJ he’s gonna get super sonic airplanes from boom. He also signed a LOI for like 200 electric airplanes for ravn. He’s all over the place

China will likely be off limits for a good while. Remember that unless you're willing to take aircraft from a leasing company's order book, you can't get an A321neo until 2027. That said, I'm surprised that ICN isn't a consideration (the distance is 3310 nmi). CTS is also well in reach of ANC (2825 nmi)...but is there enough demand to the USA to support a route there bypassing Tokyo?

ICN will be one of the launch routes. As for the airbuses, he's looking for the cheapest aircraft, and the MAXes are under consideration, soooo yeah but airbus just dropped Qatar's A321 order (consisted of 40 321neos and 10 LR's).

I wouldn’t count on that cancellation standing up in court.

Cardude2 wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

alright how about this http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=anc-nrt%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

A hypothetical route map can be made over and over again, it still doesn't make this idea any better...especially with the issues that have been brought up already:

1) An unreliable, aged/aging fleet of airplanes right out the gate.
2) Most of Asia that is within reach from ANC on a 752 is closed due to COVID and probably will be for the foreseeable future.
3) Small chance of any sort of strategic alliance on the North American side.
4) Two other "startups" being run by the same people at the same time.

Here's the thing, I love Alaska and love visiting there, I love 757's, and I love rooting for underdogs, but this proposed operation has a lot holes in the plan. Cheap airplanes work for an airline like Allegiant 10-15 years ago, but when you start doing longer legs like they did with their old 752's, it was a disaster. These would be even longer flights to/from ANC, and they're going to burn through money just on maintenance.

I have serious doubts, and would love to be wrong, but this is a tough model to make work, even with newer airframes. You can compare this to Icelandair all you want, but it should be compared to WOW as well...and they had newer airplanes and a much easier network to make work and they still failed.

rebuttal:
1) The 757's are supposed to be temporary, permanently would be max or xlr which their already in talks for
2) At least South Korea wont be closed for much longer as they're 2 dose vaccination rates are extremely high (84% 2 dose, 48% booster), compare that to the san fransisco bay area (68% 2 dose, Booster unknown, its on NYT and I don't have access on the computer I'm using) and japan in a surprising turn of events has 79.2% of there population vaccinated. The prospects for launch are starting to turn in favor of opening but it will take a good part of the year, especially since both still need to give children the vaccine. thankfully Norhtern Pacific has already said they wont be launching till Q3 or Q4, which the Q4 possibility could happen. China will need a lot more time though.
3) with a mainline or Alaska is a lost hope, but for others like Southwest, JetBlue, Spirit or Allegiant there a serious possibility.

It’s a lost hope with Southwest, JetBlue, Spirit, and Allegiant as well.

All of this is going to be a massive uphill battle for them and it’s going to be extremely difficult to make money on any of these proposed routes as a low cost carrier with rising fuel prices, a lot of uncertainty for travel to Asia, and again, an old unreliable fleet.

There is a reason why LCCs don’t do well on flights to ANC. Allegiant has their seasonal flight to BLI, Southwest doesn’t fly there, Spirit doesn’t fly there, JetBlue doesn’t fly there, and Sun Country and Frontier only fly there seasonally. It’s a very tough market to be successful in.

flyoregon wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

A hypothetical route map can be made over and over again, it still doesn't make this idea any better...especially with the issues that have been brought up already:

1) An unreliable, aged/aging fleet of airplanes right out the gate.
2) Most of Asia that is within reach from ANC on a 752 is closed due to COVID and probably will be for the foreseeable future.
3) Small chance of any sort of strategic alliance on the North American side.
4) Two other "startups" being run by the same people at the same time.

Here's the thing, I love Alaska and love visiting there, I love 757's, and I love rooting for underdogs, but this proposed operation has a lot holes in the plan. Cheap airplanes work for an airline like Allegiant 10-15 years ago, but when you start doing longer legs like they did with their old 752's, it was a disaster. These would be even longer flights to/from ANC, and they're going to burn through money just on maintenance.

I have serious doubts, and would love to be wrong, but this is a tough model to make work, even with newer airframes. You can compare this to Icelandair all you want, but it should be compared to WOW as well...and they had newer airplanes and a much easier network to make work and they still failed.

rebuttal:
1) The 757's are supposed to be temporary, permanently would be max or xlr which their already in talks for
2) At least South Korea wont be closed for much longer as they're 2 dose vaccination rates are extremely high (84% 2 dose, 48% booster), compare that to the san fransisco bay area (68% 2 dose, Booster unknown, its on NYT and I don't have access on the computer I'm using) and japan in a surprising turn of events has 79.2% of there population vaccinated. The prospects for launch are starting to turn in favor of opening but it will take a good part of the year, especially since both still need to give children the vaccine. thankfully Norhtern Pacific has already said they wont be launching till Q3 or Q4, which the Q4 possibility could happen. China will need a lot more time though.
3) with a mainline or Alaska is a lost hope, but for others like Southwest, JetBlue, Spirit or Allegiant there a serious possibility.

It’s a lost hope with Southwest, JetBlue, Spirit, and Allegiant as well.

All of this is going to be a massive uphill battle for them and it’s going to be extremely difficult to make money on any of these proposed routes as a low cost carrier with rising fuel prices, a lot of uncertainty for travel to Asia, and again, an old unreliable fleet.

There is a reason why LCCs don’t do well on flights to ANC. Allegiant has their seasonal flight to BLI, Southwest doesn’t fly there, Spirit doesn’t fly there, JetBlue doesn’t fly there, and Sun Country and Frontier only fly there seasonally. It’s a very tough market to be successful in.

I thought allegiant cancelled. Jet blue flew to anc for years then quit

32andBelow wrote:

flyoregon wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

rebuttal:
1) The 757's are supposed to be temporary, permanently would be max or xlr which their already in talks for
2) At least South Korea wont be closed for much longer as they're 2 dose vaccination rates are extremely high (84% 2 dose, 48% booster), compare that to the san fransisco bay area (68% 2 dose, Booster unknown, its on NYT and I don't have access on the computer I'm using) and japan in a surprising turn of events has 79.2% of there population vaccinated. The prospects for launch are starting to turn in favor of opening but it will take a good part of the year, especially since both still need to give children the vaccine. thankfully Norhtern Pacific has already said they wont be launching till Q3 or Q4, which the Q4 possibility could happen. China will need a lot more time though.
3) with a mainline or Alaska is a lost hope, but for others like Southwest, JetBlue, Spirit or Allegiant there a serious possibility.

It’s a lost hope with Southwest, JetBlue, Spirit, and Allegiant as well.

All of this is going to be a massive uphill battle for them and it’s going to be extremely difficult to make money on any of these proposed routes as a low cost carrier with rising fuel prices, a lot of uncertainty for travel to Asia, and again, an old unreliable fleet.

There is a reason why LCCs don’t do well on flights to ANC. Allegiant has their seasonal flight to BLI, Southwest doesn’t fly there, Spirit doesn’t fly there, JetBlue doesn’t fly there, and Sun Country and Frontier only fly there seasonally. It’s a very tough market to be successful in.

I thought allegiant cancelled. Jet blue flew to anc for years then quit

It was on their route map not long ago, but I’m not 100% sure

Here’s some more details in an interview https://youtu.be/qCCoM0YjVbU

Looks like they will be operating out of the ‘north terminal’ at ANC which there currently renovating. Also Icelandair sent their president of sales marketing to the event.

Cardude2 wrote:

Here’s some more details in an interview https://youtu.be/qCCoM0YjVbU

Looks like they will be operating out of the ‘north terminal’ at ANC which there currently renovating. Also Icelandair sent their president of sales marketing to the event.

Interesting that an FI big wig was there for that. Are they looking at flying to the new terminal or perhaps an investment and/or codeshare in the new airline?

TWA772LR wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

Here’s some more details in an interview https://youtu.be/qCCoM0YjVbU

Looks like they will be operating out of the ‘north terminal’ at ANC which there currently renovating. Also Icelandair sent their president of sales marketing to the event.

Interesting that an FI big wig was there for that. Are they looking at flying to the new terminal or perhaps an investment and/or codeshare in the new airline?

They’re defiantly looking to use the north terminal. They already started working on it. Part of the reason people have doubts or concerns is that they are using taxpayer money to remodel that terminal for them

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

China will likely be off limits for a good while. Remember that unless you're willing to take aircraft from a leasing company's order book, you can't get an A321neo until 2027. That said, I'm surprised that ICN isn't a consideration (the distance is 3310 nmi). CTS is also well in reach of ANC (2825 nmi)...but is there enough demand to the USA to support a route there bypassing Tokyo?

ICN will be one of the launch routes. As for the airbuses, he's looking for the cheapest aircraft, and the MAXes are under consideration, soooo yeah but airbus just dropped Qatar's A321 order (consisted of 40 321neos and 10 LR's).

I wouldn’t count on that cancellation standing up in court.

Do you know the contracts between Airbus and Qatar Airways ? Please share with us or is it a wild guess or whatever !? Do you really believe a company the size like Airbus ( or any other big company ) don`t know what they are doing ?

32andBelow wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

Here’s some more details in an interview https://youtu.be/qCCoM0YjVbU

Looks like they will be operating out of the ‘north terminal’ at ANC which there currently renovating. Also Icelandair sent their president of sales marketing to the event.

Interesting that an FI big wig was there for that. Are they looking at flying to the new terminal or perhaps an investment and/or codeshare in the new airline?

They’re defiantly looking to use the north terminal. They already started working on it. Part of the reason people have doubts or concerns is that they are using taxpayer money to remodel that terminal for them

Everyone (except for possibly Alaska airlines and the big 3) is betting on them in the state. Politics politics politics, rob mkinny is there airline Elon musk there

Cardude2 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Interesting that an FI big wig was there for that. Are they looking at flying to the new terminal or perhaps an investment and/or codeshare in the new airline?

They’re defiantly looking to use the north terminal. They already started working on it. Part of the reason people have doubts or concerns is that they are using taxpayer money to remodel that terminal for them

Everyone (except for possibly Alaska airlines and the big 3) is betting on them in the state. Politics politics politics, rob mkinny is there airline Elon musk there

I disagree. Most people don’t even know about it

I will never forget laughing when JetBlue started, and giving them less than a year. I even had lost faith that Frontier was on its way out. Never thought Spirit had a chance either.

With that said, I sincerely hope this airline proves the nay sayers wrong. It's happening, and it appears they are moving along to get it going. McKinney is no rookie either, so I am confident in his ability and his teams ability. Would also love to be on their first flight when it happens.

F9Animal wrote:

I will never forget laughing when JetBlue started, and giving them less than a year. I even had lost faith that Frontier was on its way out. Never thought Spirit had a chance either.

With that said, I sincerely hope this airline proves the nay sayers wrong. It's happening, and it appears they are moving along to get it going. McKinney is no rookie either, so I am confident in his ability and his teams ability. Would also love to be on their first flight when it happens.

What have they done besides buy an airplane? I’ll feel more confident when you can buy a ticket. Buying an airplane is the easiest part

32andBelow wrote:

So they are gonna have a mixed engine fleet. First class, a lounge, supersonic airplanes and they are low cost.

I don’t believe so. There aren’t many PW powered 757’s that are viable. Maybe some ex UA however Fed Ex picked the ones they wanted. And doubt they want ex DL frames. There are always low time RR powered 757’s that bounced around from carrier to carrier. And RR was the most popular engine choice.If they were smart they would buy as many aircraft with the lowest hours available. Some of the newer AA aircraft were snapped up for cargo conversion.

F9Animal wrote:

I will never forget laughing when JetBlue started, and giving them less than a year. I even had lost faith that Frontier was on its way out. Never thought Spirit had a chance either.

With that said, I sincerely hope this airline proves the nay sayers wrong. It's happening, and it appears they are moving along to get it going. McKinney is no rookie either, so I am confident in his ability and his teams ability. Would also love to be on their first flight when it happens.

I used to hate Jet Blue. However the Airbus products they fly are more comfortable than any 737/757 and free wifi/sat tv. The 320/21 to me seems like a wider seat than Boeing . I don’t need leg room I need shoulder space. JetBlue has won me over.

F9Animal wrote:

I will never forget laughing when JetBlue started, and giving them less than a year. I even had lost faith that Frontier was on its way out. Never thought Spirit had a chance either.

With that said, I sincerely hope this airline proves the nay sayers wrong. It's happening, and it appears they are moving along to get it going. McKinney is no rookie either, so I am confident in his ability and his teams ability. Would also love to be on their first flight when it happens.

McKinney is no David Neeleman. His track record is less than stellar

F9Animal wrote:

I will never forget laughing when JetBlue started, and giving them less than a year. I even had lost faith that Frontier was on its way out. Never thought Spirit had a chance either.

With that said, I sincerely hope this airline proves the nay sayers wrong. It's happening, and it appears they are moving along to get it going. McKinney is no rookie either, so I am confident in his ability and his teams ability. Would also love to be on their first flight when it happens.

What exactly does he have that has proven his ability to operate and run a successful airline? Ravn was a restart, plus literal millions of dollars in COVID funding from the federal government. Their finances are not public, we have no idea how they are performing financially.