Flair is expanding. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-rele ... tions.html

Flair Airlines is entering the U.S. market, part of an ambitious five-year expansion plan for the low-cost carrier. It will launch service from Canada to six U.S. vacation destinations on Oct. 31.

The new destinations are Fort Lauderdale; Orlando; Phoenix; Hollywood-Burbank, Calif.; Palm Springs, Calif.; and Las Vegas.

Flair will offer its new U.S. routes out of Halifax, Montreal, Kitchener-Waterloo, Ont., Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa and Abbotsford, B.C.

CEO Stephen Jones aiming to take market share from mainline carriers Air Canada and WestJet Airlines along with discount rival Swoop by offering unbundled, bare-bones fares to budget-conscious travellers. The new U.S. routes will start between C$79 and $109 one-way.

Good for them and wishing them success in their endeavour, there definitely is room in the vacation us-canada trans border market.

Wishing them success too! Regarding YYZ operations, is there any latitude for fee negotiation
between the GTAA and airlines? It’s so hard to
imagine any worthwhile margin with such low domestic fares and high airport costs. Do some tenants have preferred rates? How can they absorb those plus the USCBP pre-clearance fees to the US?

Another Canadian carrier for SFB. That's two in a months time that announced service there

This is Flair's second attempt in the US market, originally I believe in 2018/2019 and pulled out after 6 months

To be the best, you have to beat the best! Woooo!

Flair will start its expansion into the US this fall. FLL, PHX, Hollywood-Burbank, Palm Springs, and Vegas. These routes will be flown from YHZ, YUL, Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, YYZ, YVR, YYC, YOW and Abbotsford

3 new MAX will arrive this fall.

Fares will start at $79-$109CAD one way.

Most notably they want to have 50 a/c in the next 5 years. Isn't that a little too aggressive? We've seen that tried and failed. Repeatedly

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/discount-ca ... -1.1626663

They want to have 50 a/c in 5 years yikes, anyone else think that's been done before and failed. Repeatedly

777luver wrote:

They want to have 50 a/c in 5 years yikes, anyone else think that's been done before and failed. Repeatedly

Very true points.

It was winter 2018 when Flair first started US operations to MIA/AZA/LAS/PSP/MCO/PIE

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-rele ... e-USA.html

Flying to FLL instead of MIA bucks the recent trend which has seen LCC's and ULCC's launch or focus on MIA. Flair as noted above flew to MIA in the last US experiment.

Also another big win for Burbank it appears.

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

Also another big win for Burbank it appears.

With what ramp space?

AWACSooner wrote:

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

Also another big win for Burbank it appears.

With what ramp space?

There's room at A9 in the morning and then again after the B6 afternoon flight until the red-eye. United still is way down with just 1 flight to DEN, so there's some slack on the B gates as well.

AWACSooner wrote:

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

Also another big win for Burbank it appears.

With what ramp space?

Avelo may be gone by October.

Thought for a second this meant Flair was going to fly Halifax-Burbank which would have been crazy lucky for a Newfoundlander like myself living in North Hollywood lol. Alas this is not the case. The routing to Vancouver is much appreciated however seeing half my family lives in BC. Excited to see some Canadian birds here locally!

DLASFlyer wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

Also another big win for Burbank it appears.

With what ramp space?

Avelo may be gone by October.

Definitely not. They raised roughly 40% more than Breeze in seed funding IIRC. They are also close to announcing a new set of western destinations, one of which will reportedly be a "big market" in direct competition with WN. They aren't going out anytime in the near future, and BUR will just continue to reap the rewards of new F9 service, increased AA, Avelo, and now Flair.

Good luck on Burbank. Could be the same fiasco as with Alaska during their planned YVR-SNA with the aircraft taking off and realizing the airport cant handle international arrivals.

Even with pre-clearance, airports need a plan to hold and segregate international arrivals incase rescreening is required and needs CBP approval. BUR is not even a CBP fee for service airport, let alone a port of entry to the U.S..

https://www.cbp.gov/contact/ports/CA
https://www.cbp.gov/bulletins/41genno46.pdf

DLASFlyer wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

Also another big win for Burbank it appears.

With what ramp space?

Avelo may be gone by October.

Fake news. Avelo has good financial backing. They are as expected trimming underperforming experimental routes and testing new ones soon to be announced. Everything both NK and G4 have done. I’ve flown 3 times and all flights were at least 85-90% full. They have a massive marketing and advertising campaign going on in LA so the name is getting out there.

phllax wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

Also another big win for Burbank it appears.

With what ramp space?

There's room at A9 in the morning and then again after the B6 afternoon flight until the red-eye. United still is way down with just 1 flight to DEN, so there's some slack on the B gates as well.

Along with UA’s reduction, WN isn’t pushing close to 70 flights a day like they did pre-covid. Gate space is still readily available especially in B gates which are all mostly 738 capable.

When is the border opening?

johns624 wrote:

When is the border opening?

Who knows. July 21st is when the current extension is due to expire

Does anyone know how loads have been on Flair's new Canadian flights? I am sure they can fill YYZ-YVR, but how about routes like YKF-YYJ or YYZ-YQT?

Although i wish them well; the "dream" of $49.00 fares is already starting to turn in to a nightmare for those wearing rose coloured glasses. Friends of my parents booked those cheap fares to visit family and ended up paying well over $400.00 with the extras for the two of them. As well; unbeknownst to them the security of knowing that WestJet or Air Canada could provide a way home in the case of irregular operations, was hardly one of their considerations upon purchase. Nothing is free. Everything comes with a price. Bon chance!

LAXintl wrote:

Good luck on Burbank. Could be the same fiasco as with Alaska during their planned YVR-SNA with the aircraft taking off and realizing the airport cant handle international arrivals.

Even with pre-clearance, airports need a plan to hold and segregate international arrivals incase rescreening is required and needs CBP approval. BUR is not even a CBP fee for service airport, let alone a port of entry to the U.S..

https://www.cbp.gov/contact/ports/CA
https://www.cbp.gov/bulletins/41genno46.pdf

This is what immediately came to mind.

Was gonna ask "what's changed at BUR" that would allow this.... but apparently, the answer is nothing? Yikes.

tofur wrote:

Although i wish them well; the "dream" of $49.00 fares is already starting to turn in to a nightmare for those wearing rose coloured glasses. Friends of my parents booked those cheap fares to visit family and ended up paying well over $400.00 with the extras for the two of them. As well; unbeknownst to them the security of knowing that WestJet or Air Canada could provide a way home in the case of irregular operations, was hardly one of their considerations upon purchase. Nothing is free. Everything comes with a price. Bon chance!

And that's exactly how they are "profitable" if they even are. People don't realize that they aren't that cheap, all the time.

Worth noting, the Phoenix service will be to AZA not PHX according to the press release.

LAXintl wrote:

Good luck on Burbank. Could be the same fiasco as with Alaska during their planned YVR-SNA with the aircraft taking off and realizing the airport cant handle international arrivals.

Even with pre-clearance, airports need a plan to hold and segregate international arrivals incase rescreening is required and needs CBP approval. BUR is not even a CBP fee for service airport, let alone a port of entry to the U.S..

https://www.cbp.gov/contact/ports/CA
https://www.cbp.gov/bulletins/41genno46.pdf

Hasn't AC flown YVR or YYZ-SNA before? How could that be if what you say is true.

Also, if ever there is a rescreening requirement by US CBP mid flight, flair can simply turn the plane around and head back to YVR.

I don’t see why it can’t be doable. Not ideal, but should work. Rescreening shouldn't happen very often on a pre-cleared flight.

LAXintl wrote:

Good luck on Burbank. Could be the same fiasco as with Alaska during their planned YVR-SNA with the aircraft taking off and realizing the airport cant handle international arrivals.

Even with pre-clearance, airports need a plan to hold and segregate international arrivals incase rescreening is required and needs CBP approval. BUR is not even a CBP fee for service airport, let alone a port of entry to the U.S..

https://www.cbp.gov/contact/ports/CA
https://www.cbp.gov/bulletins/41genno46.pdf

WS operated YVR-SNA pre pandemic, and had no issues.

cirrusdragoon wrote:

WS operated YVR-SNA pre pandemic, and had no issues.

Both AC and WS service to SNA was years later. Airport even built a FIS facility.

AS tried to run the route prior and had it's inaugural YVR-SNA diverted once they realized it was not legal to operate!

UPlog wrote:

cirrusdragoon wrote:

WS operated YVR-SNA pre pandemic, and had no issues.

AS tried to run the route prior and had it's inaugural YVR-SNA diverted once they realized it was not legal to operate!

Now that's a story I would like to hear......

Yes that Alaska SNA oversight was something. The route was suspended after the first day.

Just because a flight is pre-screened does not mean is can operate into any random U.S. airport. The airport and CBP require a contingency plan on how to isolate and rescreen those passengers and how CBP is able to staff for such an event.

This was even an issue a few years ago at LGA with some previously designated holding areas not being available due to construction which was endangering existing service. Ultimately the airport and airline had to come up with an alternative plan which was satisfactory to the CBP.

So for the sake of Flair and their customers, hopefully, they did their homework and not just throw a dart that landed on BUR without properly researching the operational realities at the airport.

tofur wrote:

Although i wish them well; the "dream" of $49.00 fares is already starting to turn in to a nightmare for those wearing rose coloured glasses. Friends of my parents booked those cheap fares to visit family and ended up paying well over $400.00 with the extras for the two of them. As well; unbeknownst to them the security of knowing that WestJet or Air Canada could provide a way home in the case of irregular operations, was hardly one of their considerations upon purchase. Nothing is free. Everything comes with a price. Bon chance!

The $400 cost (or is it $200 each?) is meaningless without knowing what others are charging. If the alternative is double the price, then they’d still be better off flying Flair and buying flight delay insurance instead.

Nobody knows what the future holds for them, but they’re entering a market in which “mainline” carriers provide ULCC products/ “Basic” fares at mainline prices. Can’t imagine the actual Flair Y seat being any different to AC or WS (going to assume they’re actually roomier/more comfortable than AC Rouge Y with its 29” pitch but correct me if I’m wrong). If they price cheaper for an identical product, and, over time, lose the odd plane load willing to pay more to avoid Flair IRROPs, who knows - they might have a fighting chance.

Will note that Flair might have a couple of things going for it:

- VFR demand is (allegedly) going to go up in the next few months and they’re in a good position to go after the price sensitive market. Not least because AC and WS handling of that same price sensitive/non-refundable fare crowd during the pandemic will have told them exactly what these carriers think of them. In a world of variants and uncertainty, the less they’re out-of-pocket for an extended period of time, the better. (Parting with $200 for 3+ months is better than parting with $400 etc)

- The AC/WS ULCC model means Canadian travellers are better “educated” about ULCC service.They’re familiar with unbundling (so no real sticker shock there). They’re used to bottom-of-the-barrel / no service in Y. They’re used to poor handling of IRROPs across-the-board (so much so, that Air Passenger Rights actually managed to gain political traction - a notion that would have been laughed off by Canadian a.netters here a decade ago).

At the end of the day, Flair doesn’t need to take all of AC and WS’ pax to be viable. Just some of them. And offering a very similar product at a lower price isn’t the worst way to go about it.

As an aside, AC and WS IRROPs handling of lowest fare pax may well be better than Flair (at least in theory), but APR could level the field a lot here. It would make it a lot less worthwhile for Flair to stoop to this level, for example:

“WestJet violated Canada's Air Transportation Regulations when it told passengers in late 2017 that it cancelled flights to Turks and Caicos and Santa Clara, Cuba, due to airport closures, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) says. At the time, each region's international airport was fully operational.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/westje ... -1.5149512

Here is the news story about AS YVR-SNA and CBP requirements at the U.S. end.


Orange County-Vancouver Nonstops will not resume at this time
Posted May 15, 2002

Alaska Airlines will not be flying nonstop this summer between Vancouver and Orange County.

U.S. Customs officials, after reviewing the airline's request to provide the seasonal service, told the airline that permission to fly between the two cities could not be granted at this time.

Although all passengers clear customs in Vancouver, there is a technical hang up that defies quick resolution: U.S. Customs does not have its own officials at Orange County. That's because the airport has never been formally designated an "international" facility. Without agents on location, Customs cannot conduct spot inspections and that makes international flights impossible. For now, anyway.

Gregg Saretsky, executive vice president of marketing and planning, said that John Wayne Airport in Orange County could apply to be so certified for international flights at a later date. "That doesn't help in the near term since this could be a lengthy process," said Saretsky. "So, we are continuing to accommodate customers by working with Horizon to provide connecting service between the two cities via Seattle and Portland and with same-plane service between Orange County and Vancouver on weekends." Meanwhile, Saretsky said airplane time freed by discontinuing the Vancouver-Orange County nonstop flying will be used to provide one more Orange County-Seattle flight, beginning June 10. That will bring the total departures between those two markets to 9 daily flights.

Alaska initiated the Vancouver-Orange County service April 28 until realizing it had made an incorrect assumption about passenger clearance in Canada permitting international arrivals and departures at Orange County; it does not.

LAXintl wrote:

Here is the news story about AS YVR-SNA and CBP requirements at the U.S. end.


Orange County-Vancouver Nonstops will not resume at this time
Posted May 15, 2002

Alaska Airlines will not be flying nonstop this summer between Vancouver and Orange County.

U.S. Customs officials, after reviewing the airline's request to provide the seasonal service, told the airline that permission to fly between the two cities could not be granted at this time.

Although all passengers clear customs in Vancouver, there is a technical hang up that defies quick resolution: U.S. Customs does not have its own officials at Orange County. That's because the airport has never been formally designated an "international" facility. Without agents on location, Customs cannot conduct spot inspections and that makes international flights impossible. For now, anyway.

Gregg Saretsky, executive vice president of marketing and planning, said that John Wayne Airport in Orange County could apply to be so certified for international flights at a later date. "That doesn't help in the near term since this could be a lengthy process," said Saretsky. "So, we are continuing to accommodate customers by working with Horizon to provide connecting service between the two cities via Seattle and Portland and with same-plane service between Orange County and Vancouver on weekends." Meanwhile, Saretsky said airplane time freed by discontinuing the Vancouver-Orange County nonstop flying will be used to provide one more Orange County-Seattle flight, beginning June 10. That will bring the total departures between those two markets to 9 daily flights.

Alaska initiated the Vancouver-Orange County service April 28 until realizing it had made an incorrect assumption about passenger clearance in Canada permitting international arrivals and departures at Orange County; it does not.

This is from 2002 though. Everything has since been functioning fine .

LAXintl wrote:

Here is the news story about AS YVR-SNA and CBP requirements at the U.S. end.


Orange County-Vancouver Nonstops will not resume at this time
Posted May 15, 2002

Alaska Airlines will not be flying nonstop this summer between Vancouver and Orange County.

U.S. Customs officials, after reviewing the airline's request to provide the seasonal service, told the airline that permission to fly between the two cities could not be granted at this time.

Although all passengers clear customs in Vancouver, there is a technical hang up that defies quick resolution: U.S. Customs does not have its own officials at Orange County. That's because the airport has never been formally designated an "international" facility. Without agents on location, Customs cannot conduct spot inspections and that makes international flights impossible. For now, anyway.

Gregg Saretsky, executive vice president of marketing and planning, said that John Wayne Airport in Orange County could apply to be so certified for international flights at a later date. "That doesn't help in the near term since this could be a lengthy process," said Saretsky. "So, we are continuing to accommodate customers by working with Horizon to provide connecting service between the two cities via Seattle and Portland and with same-plane service between Orange County and Vancouver on weekends." Meanwhile, Saretsky said airplane time freed by discontinuing the Vancouver-Orange County nonstop flying will be used to provide one more Orange County-Seattle flight, beginning June 10. That will bring the total departures between those two markets to 9 daily flights.

Alaska initiated the Vancouver-Orange County service April 28 until realizing it had made an incorrect assumption about passenger clearance in Canada permitting international arrivals and departures at Orange County; it does not.

I’m sure this instance is pretty well known with airport and airlines at this point and am pretty sure there’s a plan in accordance with regulations in place to negate any issue.

At least one shareholder is concerned enough by expansion to sue both Flair and 777 Partners
https://biv.com/article/2021/07/lawsuit ... nsion-plan

ElPistolero wrote:

tofur wrote:

Although i wish them well; the "dream" of $49.00 fares is already starting to turn in to a nightmare for those wearing rose coloured glasses. Friends of my parents booked those cheap fares to visit family and ended up paying well over $400.00 with the extras for the two of them. As well; unbeknownst to them the security of knowing that WestJet or Air Canada could provide a way home in the case of irregular operations, was hardly one of their considerations upon purchase. Nothing is free. Everything comes with a price. Bon chance!

The $400 cost (or is it $200 each?) is meaningless without knowing what others are charging. If the alternative is double the price, then they’d still be better off flying Flair and buying flight delay insurance instead.

Nobody knows what the future holds for them, but they’re entering a market in which “mainline” carriers provide ULCC products/ “Basic” fares at mainline prices. Can’t imagine the actual Flair Y seat being any different to AC or WS (going to assume they’re actually roomier/more comfortable than AC Rouge Y with its 29” pitch but correct me if I’m wrong). If they price cheaper for an identical product, and, over time, lose the odd plane load willing to pay more to avoid Flair IRROPs, who knows - they might have a fighting chance.

Will note that Flair might have a couple of things going for it:

- VFR demand is (allegedly) going to go up in the next few months and they’re in a good position to go after the price sensitive market. Not least because AC and WS handling of that same price sensitive/non-refundable fare crowd during the pandemic will have told them exactly what these carriers think of them. In a world of variants and uncertainty, the less they’re out-of-pocket for an extended period of time, the better. (Parting with $200 for 3+ months is better than parting with $400 etc)

- The AC/WS ULCC model means Canadian travellers are better “educated” about ULCC service.They’re familiar with unbundling (so no real sticker shock there). They’re used to bottom-of-the-barrel / no service in Y. They’re used to poor handling of IRROPs across-the-board (so much so, that Air Passenger Rights actually managed to gain political traction - a notion that would have been laughed off by Canadian a.netters here a decade ago).

At the end of the day, Flair doesn’t need to take all of AC and WS’ pax to be viable. Just some of them. And offering a very similar product at a lower price isn’t the worst way to go about it.

As an aside, AC and WS IRROPs handling of lowest fare pax may well be better than Flair (at least in theory), but APR could level the field a lot here. It would make it a lot less worthwhile for Flair to stoop to this level, for example:

“WestJet violated Canada's Air Transportation Regulations when it told passengers in late 2017 that it cancelled flights to Turks and Caicos and Santa Clara, Cuba, due to airport closures, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) says. At the time, each region's international airport was fully operational.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/westje ... -1.5149512

Air Canada matched those fares and would have come out the better deal in the end.

Perhaps I live in an alternate universe and have been imagining things:

How can one call Air Canada's economy service ULCC? Free IFE seatback entertainment on all aircraft (bring your own earphones except overseas where they are provided free), free carry on bag, free soft drinks coffee tea, accumulation of frequent flyer miles that can be used worldwide. For those grannies and grandads that use affiliated credit cards to purchase groceries, petrol and yes even their rent get valuable Aeroplan miles. Which ULCC offers this?

As for no service in "Y". You are speaking to the wrong person here!!!! Toronto-Calgary/Edmonton/Vancouver, the first combined buy on board/beverage service takes 90 to 120 minutes to complete. For those sitting in the first few rows ringing the call button after having received a drink and BOB, please understand that we will happily refill your vodka soda or rye and ginger but the people at row 20 have still not had their first drink. Pick up the used service items, do a water service, a very short break if you are lucky. A second BOB/beverage service is then offered, then time to land. Sales figures are most often in the four digits. Bring back inflight meals and make us all happier, it takes far less time. If you are getting no service, I suggest you contact customer relations because those crews are not performing their service duties and should be reported, we do not want them amongst our ranks thank you very much!

I would love to see smaller carriers and new entrants thrive. I root for the little guys! I started with Wardair before all the mergers, no airline ever could even come close to the service we provided in economy class.

tofur wrote:

Air Canada matched those fares and would have come out the better deal in the end.

AC matched those fares? In that case, maybe they just felt apprehensive - or burned - by the whole year-long refund saga.

Like I said, there seem to be a few factors at play that give Flair a fighting chance this time round - certainly more than 2 years ago.

tofur wrote:

Perhaps I live in an alternate universe and have been imagining things:

How can one call Air Canada's economy service ULCC? Free IFE seatback entertainment on all aircraft (bring your own earphones except overseas where they are provided free), free carry on bag, free soft drinks coffee tea, accumulation of frequent flyer miles that can be used worldwide.

A free seatback PTV + a soft drink on a transcontinental flight do not a full-service carrier make. And then there’s AC Rouge and it’s WS equivalent.

Worth noting that there are plenty of real full-service carriers around the world that offer free meals on flights shorter than the 5hr YUL-YVR run. And more generous/ complimentary baggage allowances (QF comes to mind for both). If we start stretching out the meaning of FSC to include AC or WS domestic Y, we might as well argue that F9 is a FSC.

That aside, all the “free” stuff comes at a higher unbundled price; as you note, the prices when everything’s factored in are the same. As such, none of its “free”. Just very similar/substitutable or identical.

tofur wrote:

For those grannies and grandads that use affiliated credit cards to purchase groceries, petrol and yes even their rent get valuable Aeroplan miles. Which ULCC offers this?

Odd one. Basic fares earn 10% within Canada. Standard fares net 25%. Probably get more credit card points for buying a YVR-YYZ basic fare than for flying the route.

No doubt the grannies and grandpas enjoy their “free” toasters, but they’re going to take an awful long time using AE points to fly … would have to fly 25-30 YUL-YVR round trips on basic fares just to get close to 15,000 miles for YUL-YYZ.

Doesnt amount to much, at least insofar as grannie and grandpa can fly Flair and still earn roughly the same amount of AE points over the same period - after all YYZ-YVR only nets … 250 points @10%? They’d probably earn more AE points on a weekly grocery run.

And then there’s the small matter of the Y seat being the same as AC or WS 737s, and probably better than the Rouge 29” ones.

tofur wrote:

As for no service in "Y". You are speaking to the wrong person here!!!! Toronto-Calgary/Edmonton/Vancouver, the first combined buy on board/beverage service takes 90 to 120 minutes to complete. For those sitting in the first few rows ringing the call button after having received a drink and BOB, please understand that we will happily refill your vodka soda or rye and ginger but the people at row 20 have still not had their first drink. Pick up the used service items, do a water service, a very short break if you are lucky. A second BOB/beverage service is then offered, then time to land. Sales figures are most often in the four digits. Bring back inflight meals and make us all happier, it takes far less time. If you are getting no service, I suggest you contact customer relations because those crews are not performing their service duties and should be reported, we do not want them amongst our ranks thank you very much!

Apologies - I should have clarified that “no service” =\= cabin crew not doing its job. They can only work with what they’re given - no complaints about AC or WS cabin crew work ethic from me.

That doesn’t, however, deflect from the reality that FR also offers BoB. Doesn’t make them “not a ULCC”. I don’t know about Flair, maybe they do too. Whats the qualitative difference then? A half can of coke/ a small cup of coffee that costs cents on a dollar?

That other NA carriers are offering similar ULCC type products doesn’t change the age old dictum: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Should note that this isn’t a criticism of AC or WS per se - merely pointing out that the two airlines have chosen to gut their Y products to LCC/ULCC levels and have succeeded at “educating” travellers about it - and inuring them to it. No more sticker shock. No more surprise at nickel and dining. No more ignorance about unbundled fares.

Throw in high prices in the absence of any actual ULCC competition pre-Flair (unlike in the US, where UA/AA etc have had to cut prices to compete with F9 etc for a while now) and you can understand why some sense an opening here.

And maybe for a little while - however long Flair lasts - AC/WS will have to actually charge lower prices that reflect what the product is worth, instead of subjecting everyone to the cognitive dissonance of “customers aren’t paying enough for better products, but we’re booking record profits”.

tofur wrote:

I would love to see smaller carriers and new entrants thrive. I root for the little guys! I started with Wardair before all the mergers, no airline ever could even come close to the service we provided in economy class.

It would be good for Canadians, no doubt, but the Competition Bureau is currently investigating WS for predatory pricing targeting Flair. Given how long it took for them to confirm predatory pricing in the AC-WS case, Flair may be long gone by the time we find out. Last I saw on that was this from 2019:

“Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton has ordered WestJet corporate planning manager Michael Claeren to be examined by Canada's commissioner of competition, citing Claeren's former role as a "senior leader" of revenue and pricing at Swoop.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.5115687

Perhaps there’s been some developments since.

ElPistolero wrote:

tofur wrote:

Air Canada matched those fares and would have come out the better deal in the end.

AC matched those fares? In that case, maybe they just felt apprehensive - or burned - by the whole year-long refund saga.

Like I said, there seem to be a few factors at play that give Flair a fighting chance this time round - certainly more than 2 years ago.

tofur wrote:

Perhaps I live in an alternate universe and have been imagining things:

How can one call Air Canada's economy service ULCC? Free IFE seatback entertainment on all aircraft (bring your own earphones except overseas where they are provided free), free carry on bag, free soft drinks coffee tea, accumulation of frequent flyer miles that can be used worldwide.

A free seatback PTV + a soft drink on a transcontinental flight do not a full-service carrier make. And then there’s AC Rouge and it’s WS equivalent.

Worth noting that there are plenty of real full-service carriers around the world that offer free meals on flights shorter than the 5hr YUL-YVR run. And more generous/ complimentary baggage allowances (QF comes to mind for both). If we start stretching out the meaning of FSC to include AC or WS domestic Y, we might as well argue that F9 is a FSC.

That aside, all the “free” stuff comes at a higher unbundled price; as you note, the prices when everything’s factored in are the same. As such, none of its “free”. Just very similar/substitutable or identical.

tofur wrote:

For those grannies and grandads that use affiliated credit cards to purchase groceries, petrol and yes even their rent get valuable Aeroplan miles. Which ULCC offers this?

Odd one. Basic fares earn 10% within Canada. Standard fares net 25%. Probably get more credit card points for buying a YVR-YYZ basic fare than for flying the route.

No doubt the grannies and grandpas enjoy their “free” toasters, but they’re going to take an awful long time using AE points to fly … would have to fly 25-30 YUL-YVR round trips on basic fares just to get close to 15,000 miles for YUL-YYZ.

Doesnt amount to much, at least insofar as grannie and grandpa can fly Flair and still earn roughly the same amount of AE points over the same period - after all YYZ-YVR only nets … 250 points @10%? They’d probably earn more AE points on a weekly grocery run.

And then there’s the small matter of the Y seat being the same as AC or WS 737s, and probably better than the Rouge 29” ones.

tofur wrote:

As for no service in "Y". You are speaking to the wrong person here!!!! Toronto-Calgary/Edmonton/Vancouver, the first combined buy on board/beverage service takes 90 to 120 minutes to complete. For those sitting in the first few rows ringing the call button after having received a drink and BOB, please understand that we will happily refill your vodka soda or rye and ginger but the people at row 20 have still not had their first drink. Pick up the used service items, do a water service, a very short break if you are lucky. A second BOB/beverage service is then offered, then time to land. Sales figures are most often in the four digits. Bring back inflight meals and make us all happier, it takes far less time. If you are getting no service, I suggest you contact customer relations because those crews are not performing their service duties and should be reported, we do not want them amongst our ranks thank you very much!

Apologies - I should have clarified that “no service” =\= cabin crew not doing its job. They can only work with what they’re given - no complaints about AC or WS cabin crew work ethic from me.

That doesn’t, however, deflect from the reality that FR also offers BoB. Doesn’t make them “not a ULCC”. I don’t know about Flair, maybe they do too. Whats the qualitative difference then? A half can of coke/ a small cup of coffee that costs cents on a dollar?

That other NA carriers are offering similar ULCC type products doesn’t change the age old dictum: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Should note that this isn’t a criticism of AC or WS per se - merely pointing out that the two airlines have chosen to gut their Y products to LCC/ULCC levels and have succeeded at “educating” travellers about it - and inuring them to it. No more sticker shock. No more surprise at nickel and dining. No more ignorance about unbundled fares.

Throw in high prices in the absence of any actual ULCC competition pre-Flair (unlike in the US, where UA/AA etc have had to cut prices to compete with F9 etc for a while now) and you can understand why some sense an opening here.

And maybe for a little while - however long Flair lasts - AC/WS will have to actually charge lower prices that reflect what the product is worth, instead of subjecting everyone to the cognitive dissonance of “customers aren’t paying enough for better products, but we’re booking record profits”.

tofur wrote:

I would love to see smaller carriers and new entrants thrive. I root for the little guys! I started with Wardair before all the mergers, no airline ever could even come close to the service we provided in economy class.

It would be good for Canadians, no doubt, but the Competition Bureau is currently investigating WS for predatory pricing targeting Flair. Given how long it took for them to confirm predatory pricing in the AC-WS case, Flair may be long gone by the time we find out. Last I saw on that was this from 2019:

“Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton has ordered WestJet corporate planning manager Michael Claeren to be examined by Canada's commissioner of competition, citing Claeren's former role as a "senior leader" of revenue and pricing at Swoop.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.5115687

Perhaps there’s been some developments since.

Thank you for the litany, I am sure many will appreciate it!

tofur wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

tofur wrote:

Air Canada matched those fares and would have come out the better deal in the end.

AC matched those fares? In that case, maybe they just felt apprehensive - or burned - by the whole year-long refund saga.

Like I said, there seem to be a few factors at play that give Flair a fighting chance this time round - certainly more than 2 years ago.

tofur wrote:

Perhaps I live in an alternate universe and have been imagining things:

How can one call Air Canada's economy service ULCC? Free IFE seatback entertainment on all aircraft (bring your own earphones except overseas where they are provided free), free carry on bag, free soft drinks coffee tea, accumulation of frequent flyer miles that can be used worldwide.

A free seatback PTV + a soft drink on a transcontinental flight do not a full-service carrier make. And then there’s AC Rouge and it’s WS equivalent.

Worth noting that there are plenty of real full-service carriers around the world that offer free meals on flights shorter than the 5hr YUL-YVR run. And more generous/ complimentary baggage allowances (QF comes to mind for both). If we start stretching out the meaning of FSC to include AC or WS domestic Y, we might as well argue that F9 is a FSC.

That aside, all the “free” stuff comes at a higher unbundled price; as you note, the prices when everything’s factored in are the same. As such, none of its “free”. Just very similar/substitutable or identical.

tofur wrote:

For those grannies and grandads that use affiliated credit cards to purchase groceries, petrol and yes even their rent get valuable Aeroplan miles. Which ULCC offers this?

Odd one. Basic fares earn 10% within Canada. Standard fares net 25%. Probably get more credit card points for buying a YVR-YYZ basic fare than for flying the route.

No doubt the grannies and grandpas enjoy their “free” toasters, but they’re going to take an awful long time using AE points to fly … would have to fly 25-30 YUL-YVR round trips on basic fares just to get close to 15,000 miles for YUL-YYZ.

Doesnt amount to much, at least insofar as grannie and grandpa can fly Flair and still earn roughly the same amount of AE points over the same period - after all YYZ-YVR only nets … 250 points @10%? They’d probably earn more AE points on a weekly grocery run.

And then there’s the small matter of the Y seat being the same as AC or WS 737s, and probably better than the Rouge 29” ones.

tofur wrote:

As for no service in "Y". You are speaking to the wrong person here!!!! Toronto-Calgary/Edmonton/Vancouver, the first combined buy on board/beverage service takes 90 to 120 minutes to complete. For those sitting in the first few rows ringing the call button after having received a drink and BOB, please understand that we will happily refill your vodka soda or rye and ginger but the people at row 20 have still not had their first drink. Pick up the used service items, do a water service, a very short break if you are lucky. A second BOB/beverage service is then offered, then time to land. Sales figures are most often in the four digits. Bring back inflight meals and make us all happier, it takes far less time. If you are getting no service, I suggest you contact customer relations because those crews are not performing their service duties and should be reported, we do not want them amongst our ranks thank you very much!

Apologies - I should have clarified that “no service” =\= cabin crew not doing its job. They can only work with what they’re given - no complaints about AC or WS cabin crew work ethic from me.

That doesn’t, however, deflect from the reality that FR also offers BoB. Doesn’t make them “not a ULCC”. I don’t know about Flair, maybe they do too. Whats the qualitative difference then? A half can of coke/ a small cup of coffee that costs cents on a dollar?

That other NA carriers are offering similar ULCC type products doesn’t change the age old dictum: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Should note that this isn’t a criticism of AC or WS per se - merely pointing out that the two airlines have chosen to gut their Y products to LCC/ULCC levels and have succeeded at “educating” travellers about it - and inuring them to it. No more sticker shock. No more surprise at nickel and dining. No more ignorance about unbundled fares.

Throw in high prices in the absence of any actual ULCC competition pre-Flair (unlike in the US, where UA/AA etc have had to cut prices to compete with F9 etc for a while now) and you can understand why some sense an opening here.

And maybe for a little while - however long Flair lasts - AC/WS will have to actually charge lower prices that reflect what the product is worth, instead of subjecting everyone to the cognitive dissonance of “customers aren’t paying enough for better products, but we’re booking record profits”.

tofur wrote:

I would love to see smaller carriers and new entrants thrive. I root for the little guys! I started with Wardair before all the mergers, no airline ever could even come close to the service we provided in economy class.

It would be good for Canadians, no doubt, but the Competition Bureau is currently investigating WS for predatory pricing targeting Flair. Given how long it took for them to confirm predatory pricing in the AC-WS case, Flair may be long gone by the time we find out. Last I saw on that was this from 2019:

“Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton has ordered WestJet corporate planning manager Michael Claeren to be examined by Canada's commissioner of competition, citing Claeren's former role as a "senior leader" of revenue and pricing at Swoop.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.5115687

Perhaps there’s been some developments since.

Thank you for the litany, I am sure many will appreciate it!

*shrug*

When confronted with complaints about these ULCC products, a certain Canadian CEO said that Canadians need to be “educated” about the benefits of this ULCC product for them.

Evidently forgot to “educate” Canadian airline employees, including his own, about these products.

Just helping him out - one person at a time.

You’re welcome .

Last time I saw them at LAS they operated a 737-400. Looks like they are all gone now. When did they retire their last frame?

Veigar wrote:

Last time I saw them at LAS they operated a 737-400. Looks like they are all gone now. When did they retire their last frame?

August 2020

yyztpa wrote:

At least one shareholder is concerned enough by expansion to sue both Flair and 777 Partners
https://biv.com/article/2021/07/lawsuit ... nsion-plan

The interest rate being reported for the loan from 777 Partners is very much of a concern; it's 18% on a loan of $140 million.

Flair is effectively paying credit card interest rates on $140 million.

This is going to drain Flair's coffers really quickly, and with the fares Flair is offering, one can easily do the math to see what sort of risk is involved here. If Flair can't get that loan rate down, or generate enough revenue to cover the loan interest, they will go bankrupt very quickly and passengers will be left stranded.

And if the other allegation that Flair never sought approval from the Canadian Transportation Agency for their 737 MAX leases, with the allegation that the lease structure could run afoul of Canadian ownership rules is true, that could also shut Flair down.

Burbank no longer listed as a new destination.

https://flights.flyflair.com/en-ca/us-routes

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Burbank no longer listed as a new destination.

https://flights.flyflair.com/en-ca/us-routes

I still found it here:
https://flyflair.com/where-we-fly
That being said if they took it off the main page of the website that doesn't sound very good.

IceCream wrote:

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Burbank no longer listed as a new destination.

https://flights.flyflair.com/en-ca/us-routes

I still found it here:
https://flyflair.com/where-we-fly
That being said if they took it off the main page of the website that doesn't sound very good.

Yeah I saw in the Burbank thread someone posted the wrong places it’s not there anymore which isn’t surprising they probably couldn’t get the pre-clearance figured out

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Burbank no longer listed as a new destination.

https://flights.flyflair.com/en-ca/us-routes

That wasn’t well thought out. I wonder if they will now pick LAX instead? The only other option is ONT - which is the cheaper choice but not a well known airport for Canadians. Kinda key when F8 will probably be around 90% Canada point-of-sale.

Dominion301 wrote:

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Burbank no longer listed as a new destination.

https://flights.flyflair.com/en-ca/us-routes

That wasn’t well thought out. I wonder if they will now pick LAX instead? The only other option is ONT - which is the cheaper choice but not a well known airport for Canadians. Kinda key when F8 will probably be around 90% Canada point-of-sale.

Are there new entrant slots available at SNA?

Dominion301 wrote:

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Burbank no longer listed as a new destination.

https://flights.flyflair.com/en-ca/us-routes

That wasn’t well thought out. I wonder if they will now pick LAX instead? The only other option is ONT - which is the cheaper choice but not a well known airport for Canadians. Kinda key when F8 will probably be around 90% Canada point-of-sale.

Not to mention that ONT feels light years away from anywhere anyone actually wants to visit in the LA metro area. Certainly nothing touristy. Rancho Cucamonga anyone?

RTWin10 wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Burbank no longer listed as a new destination.

https://flights.flyflair.com/en-ca/us-routes

That wasn’t well thought out. I wonder if they will now pick LAX instead? The only other option is ONT - which is the cheaper choice but not a well known airport for Canadians. Kinda key when F8 will probably be around 90% Canada point-of-sale.

Are there new entrant slots available at SNA?

Aren't those only awarded once a year?