aklak wrote:

You're fundamentally misunderstanding Swoop's business model. They didn't set up on the routes because someone at WestJet route planning went "Oh! Those are fantastic city pairs! Why didn't we think of that?!" The whole purpose of Swoop is to undermine LCCs, and it doesn't matter if they actually make a profit; they aren't following Flair because those are great routes and they can make money, they're doing it to wreck the competition, even if they run a loss. The fact that Swoop has followed Flair is absolutely NOT evidence that Flair has some genius outsiders who can see parts of the Canadian market that no one else could before. As soon as there are no more ULCCs left, Swoop will cut low-margin routes and raise prices almost to where WestJet's are. Swoop is a knife meant to bleed Flair dry.

I’m flattered that you’re only reading my posts, and evidently not the posts I’m responding to. That’s resulted in an understandable lack of context. So let me summarize it for you.

- Literally everyone knows Swoop is out to bleed F8 dry. It’s not rocket science. It fits with WS’ long history of imitating others; now it’s doing what AC did to it in the early 2000s (which it complained about to everyone and their dog).

- The Canadian aviation market doesn’t function normally. Normally functioning markets don’t increase by 20% in a 5 year period (4 times faster than population growth). That matters here insofar as we don’t know what demand on many of these routes is; we only know that AC/WS have no interest in serving them. Ergo, dismissing odd city pairings is as daft as calling them ingenious. Which nobody has; benefit of doubt =/= “ingenuity”.

- The self-evident stupidity of WS burning cash on routes it’s “insiders” claim are loss makers, to put a “ponzi scheme” airline out of business … is simply to rich to pass up on.

aklak wrote:

WestJet and Air Canada have been run by foreigners for a long time, and quite profitably until 2020, so I'm not sure why you're so adamant about Flair's management being better because they're not Canadian. Why do you have so much contempt for Canadians anyway? Why do you care about the Canadian aviation industry if you think Canadians are so terrible and short-sighted? And for someone who purports not to care about Flair, you sure do spend a lot of time arguing in their favour and hand-waving away all the indications that Flair management doesn't know what they're doing.

Again, flattered that you’re reading my posts, not what they’re in response to, so allow me:

- I don’t have contempt for “Canadians” (I am one); I have nothing but the purest contempt for that xenophobic notion of “Canadian experience” - one that’s caused significant unemployment and underemployment of skilled immigrants in Canada. (Google it on your own time). Various posters here have pushed that theme.

- For what it’s worth, the Swoop thesis you’ve laid out (drive competition out/ raise prices to mainline) above is an excellent example of “contempt for Canadians” - burning money to deprive Canadians of low cost options to visit other parts of the country, and to deprive the Canadian tourism industry of these tourists. Would it be unfair to call Canadian proponents/supporters of this approach “short-sighted”?

- I don’t think F8’s management is the best there was, and ever will be. I think they deserve a chance, instead of being dismissed straight off the bat. They have some decent and experienced ULCC talent in there. And they’re certainly a breath of fresh air compared to the “Canadian” talent who previously dominated a lot of the Canadian ULCC paper tiger domain. The ones that the WS “insider” refers to as ponzi schemers - who still haven’t flown one Canadian 5-6 years later.

- The discussion of the Deer Lake - Kitchener route sums it up nicely. Someone here pops up with the route without any context. Others pile in to inform us that F8 has a dartboard approach. And then it transpires that F8 is actually working with a provincial government at the provincial governments request: the closest you can get to a charter flight that, we are reliably informed here, worked so well for F8 before it ventured into the ULCC world.

I don’t particularly care if you think I’m affiliated with F8.

cirrusdragoon wrote:

Even if it means WS outwits F8? Ahhh the classic arch nemesis story arc.

Depends on whether one believes one can outwit a Ponzi scheme by burning their own money . Wit is a funny thing that way.

But yes, I stand by the notion that WS is more vulnerable to (any) ULCC because it got too cozy being the “slightly cheaper” carrier in a duopoly, and now has to expend more resources to “outwit” ULCCs, than it would have had to if it had updated its strategy and joined an alliance years ago. That’s not an intangible cost.

cirrusdragoon wrote:

By the way , what is the root of your disdain for the carrier? What happened?

Oh, you know, the self-congratulatory preening on becoming the junior partner in a duopoly by focusing exclusively on price sensitive pax, instead of putting its big boy pants on and becoming a real competitor (FF, intercon, premium) 6-7 years ago.

I remember rooting for WS to join an alliance years ago. But it didn’t, and still hasn’t. Based on WS insiders contributions here, I’m beginning to think that the alliances weren’t willing to indulge WS’ sense of self-importance. And I can’t blame them.

I don’t know if I would characterize it as disdain though - it’s more like the sentiment one feels when Rogers or Bell pretend they’re in the same league as AT&T, Vodafone, Deutsche Telekom etc. You know?

Aresxerexade wrote:

In your opinion.

Amen.

Hello all - hate to interrupt the debate but I was wondering if anyone had some insight as to what happened to YYZ-YOW…flew the route some months ago and went to book it again for January, but it doesn’t seem to be offered any longer?

Wow, its a lot of fun to read people's heads exploding on this thread when they see an actual point to point ULCC start in Canada. I can't believe the level of vitriol when we should be wishing this new venture every success. Flair has the potential to massively transform the Canadian aviation landscape a la Ryanair in Europe. Bring on the 50 planes!

[*]

brodeurprice wrote:

Hello all - hate to interrupt the debate but I was wondering if anyone had some insight as to what happened to YYZ-YOW…flew the route some months ago and went to book it again for January, but it doesn’t seem to be offered any longer?

I believe it was summer seasonal , have you tried booking it for s22?

cirrusdragoon wrote:

[*]

brodeurprice wrote:

Hello all - hate to interrupt the debate but I was wondering if anyone had some insight as to what happened to YYZ-YOW…flew the route some months ago and went to book it again for January, but it doesn’t seem to be offered any longer?

I believe it was summer seasonal , have you tried booking it for s22?

Looks like YOWYYZ was pulled for S22 as well.

Flair has suspended (or cancelled) all routes out of SFB starting in January except for YKF

14 more 737 MAX - Up to 30 by 2023

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/flair-ai ... 32896-QnjQ

foxalphazulu wrote:

14 more 737 MAX - Up to 30 by 2023

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/flair-ai ... 32896-QnjQ

With what money? Lol good lord

777luver wrote:

foxalphazulu wrote:

14 more 737 MAX - Up to 30 by 2023

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/flair-ai ... 32896-QnjQ

With what money? Lol good lord

Lease? I don't see them specifying outright ownership on these.

This was always part of their F50 plan; they are just now giving a better timeline of when these tails are coming on line.

Most likely just a "positive spin" story timed after a few negative headlines over the last few weeks. I would agree with 777luver - "what money?" - you still need $$ for a lease.

Looks like they are hiring for Director, Network Development & Strategy - with an office address in downtown Vancouver of all places. Wonder if that is office space available thru Prescott Investments or not. Otherwise, seems like a pricey address for a company trying to keep costs low.

Wonder what happened to that Mr.Tanner from JetBlue?

https://ca.indeed.com/jobs?q=airline&l=Vancouver%2C%20BC&fromage=last&radius=25&sort=date&vjk=5b0905206b30aff5

CFWAD wrote:

Looks like they are hiring for Director, Network Development & Strategy - with an office address in downtown Vancouver of all places. Wonder if that is office space available thru Prescott Investments or not. Otherwise, seems like a pricey address for a company trying to keep costs low.

Wonder what happened to that Mr.Tanner from JetBlue?

https://ca.indeed.com/jobs?q=airline&l=Vancouver%2C%20BC&fromage=last&radius=25&sort=date&vjk=5b0905206b30aff5

Oh he is still there . Rather Mr Tanner is director of network planning and scheduling. https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-tanner-258a9325

According to an email from Flair, they are starting YYC-YUL on July 5 and YYC-YLW on March 31.

Well-YYC to YUL is usually 7 daily (AC x 5/WS x 2) during a normal summer so there's room for sure.

foxalphazulu wrote:

14 more 737 MAX - Up to 30 by 2023

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/flair-ai ... 32896-QnjQ

Surely any sensible organization would wait until its passed a federal probe into its financing before making yet another major capital commitment?

The phrase 'running before it can walk' comes to mind, but in case it seems more like 'attempting to win a marathon before it can crawl'

Inaugural YEG-BUR is in the air!

TexasAirCorp wrote:

foxalphazulu wrote:

14 more 737 MAX - Up to 30 by 2023

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/flair-ai ... 32896-QnjQ

Surely any sensible organization would wait until its passed a federal probe into its financing before making yet another major capital commitment?

The phrase 'running before it can walk' comes to mind, but in case it seems more like 'attempting to win a marathon before it can crawl'

CTA’s looking into it, but they haven’t passed anything on to “a panel”.

Given that they took nearly 2 years to figure out how airlines should be applying the air passenger rights it itself wrote… its anyones guess if or when they’re going to move on that; could be tomorrow, could be three years from now.

In that context, it would be a bit silly for F8 to put everything on the back burner.

Anyway, they’re all leases, and it looks like F8 is going to go in for the Ryanair version - the 737 Max 200 - as soon as it’s available.

https://skiesmag.com/news/flair-airline ... leet-2023/

ElPistolero wrote:

In that context, it would be a bit silly for F8 to put everything on the back burner.

Anyway, they’re all leases, and it looks like F8 is going to go in for the Ryanair version - the 737 Max 200 - as soon as it’s available.

In my humble opinion, I disagree. In that context, there seems to be far too many anomalies that could screw over Flair's ability to come up with the cash for these new airframes.

I'm sure the CTA will take their sweet time getting around to looking into Flair's relationship with 777, there's certainly far more important things going on in the world for any government to think about than whether someone is breaking an ancient, stupid protectionist law. However, seeing as the 14 orders in question are being delivered in late 2022-2023, that leaves some time for the CTA to get around to taking a look. The Canadian Government is protective of its airlines, and I'm sure it won't leave this in the to-do pile for more than a couple of years, most likely around the time Flair needs to begin paying for these new orders. Any active federal investigation will at least have some impact on 777's ability to keep bailing Flair out.

Forgetting about the CTA for a second, I think the bigger issue is the seemingly-growing question surrounding Flair's aircraft utilization and network planning, and whether it can actually profitably support adding extra aircraft to its fleet. I'm perfectly aware every airline, especially startups, cut and change their route networks all the time, however I think the consensus on here is that Flair seems to drop routes at a rather alarming rate, and most of its new routes seem to make very little sense in terms of success. There's no denying the potential for low-frequency, point-to-point service, however I think I can say with confidence that everyone on here agrees routes like YOW-YVR, YUL-YYZ, YVR-SFO and YYZ-DEN don't make much sense for an LCC. On top of this, you've got the fact a good chunk of Flair's new winter US network has already been temporarily cut (SFB), and I'm sure this trend will continue as Omnicron continues to raise its ugly head. With this in mind, the last thing Flair needs is more aircraft, when it seems to be struggling to utilize its current fleet effectively. If this remains the case, these new planes will simply sit on the ground for a while, or fly yet more hopeless routes, which will then lead to Flair needing another liquidity top-up. If its largest investor isn't able to provide this, then I'm afraid Flair will simply go pop.

The industry is full of airlines that became overstretched through the mentality of thinking they can keep taking on new aircraft since they're just leasing and subsequently committing less capital as opposed to buying them outright. Pick an airline that's recently gone belly-up at random, and there's an almost guaranteed chance that it had an overflowing order book full of commitments for brand-new leased aircraft.

I like to think I'm slightly more optimistic towards an LCC's chances in Canada than some people on here, considering the fact its such a large country with a spread-out population which has good disposable income. I have previously said there's a bit too much doom-and-gloom on this thread. However, I simply fail to see how any fully-competent airline management board could sign off committing a fair amount of its already-stretched capital to taking on more aircraft it might not even need at such an uncertain time; it just seems incredibly reckless.

If Flair sees such promise in the MAX 200, wouldn't it simply hold off obtaining more MAX 8s until it get its hands on some planes it actually wants?

I don't profess to be an expert but I would venture to say that there's enough "low yield" passengers that can be picked off to make it work if they do it correctly. I look at their performance in my local market (YUL). They are flying a couple of times a week to Ft. Lauderdale and Orlando (no brainers) as well as a few times per week to YYZ and YVR (also no brainers). If their costs truly are below AC and WS for sure there are enough "cost conscious" people on these high volume routes to be poached. I would suspect that it is a similar situation in other markets across Canada.
The unknown factor is what are their real cash costs? They have the luxury of no pensions, cheap leases, hiring a bunch of desperate laid off people in the middle of a pandemic, aggresive profit sharing if it works, low maintenance costs for new frames and so on. Fuel/airport fees are the same for everybody but the other factors I pointed out could be important. The more I think about it the more I think there's a reason there's 14 more aircraft coming on board. If the cost structure is actually better than many of those here believe then ramping up only increases the economies of scale (i.e. spreading fixed costs such as management over a larger fleet).
Of course I might be wrong but would you commit 14 super expensive aircraft to a lost cause?

BTW-don't hold your breath waiting for any CTA decision. Why would they make the effort?

Skywatcher wrote:

I don't profess to be an expert but I would venture to say that there's enough "low yield" passengers that can be picked off to make it work if they do it correctly. I look at their performance in my local market (YUL). They are flying a couple of times a week to Ft. Lauderdale and Orlando (no brainers) as well as a few times per week to YYZ and YVR (also no brainers). If their costs truly are below AC and WS for sure there are enough "cost conscious" people on these high volume routes to be poached. I would suspect that it is a similar situation in other markets across Canada.

I had previously mentioned the possibility of ULCC's (including some U.S.-based ones such as G4 or NK) adding service out of Canadian airports such as YYC, YEG, and YQB that aren't near any U.S. commercial airports as these kind of markets differ from that of YXX, YHM, YUL, YYZ/YTZ, YVR, or YWG with
(a) YYC, YEG, and YQB not being near any U.S. commercial airports whereas YXX, YHM, YUL, YYZ, YVR, and YWG are closer to U.S. commercial airport,
(b) YYC, YEG, and YQB likely do not have significant leakage to U.S. airports (due to these airports being far enough from any U.S. commercial airports) whereas YVR/YXX have some leakage to BLI, YHM/YYZ/YTZ have some leakage to BUF/IAG, YWG has some leakage to GFK, and YUL has some leakage to PBG/BTV, and
(c) the majority of those traveling to U.S. leisure destinations from YYC, YEG, or YQB are likely going to be flying out of a Canadian airport (with YYC, YEG, and YQB not near any U.S. commercial airports) whereas more of those traveling to U.S. leisure destinations from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Southern Ontario, Greater Montreal, or Greater Winnipeg are willing to make the drive to U.S. commercial airports.

nine4nine wrote:

Inaugural YEG-BUR is in the air!

The return cancelled!

TexasAirCorp wrote:

In my humble opinion, I disagree. In that context, there seems to be far too many anomalies that could screw over Flair's ability to come up with the cash for these new airframes.

I'm sure the CTA will take their sweet time getting around to looking into Flair's relationship with 777, there's certainly far more important things going on in the world for any government to think about than whether someone is breaking an ancient, stupid protectionist law. However, seeing as the 14 orders in question are being delivered in late 2022-2023, that leaves some time for the CTA to get around to taking a look. The Canadian Government is protective of its airlines, and I'm sure it won't leave this in the to-do pile for more than a couple of years, most likely around the time Flair needs to begin paying for these new orders. Any active federal investigation will at least have some impact on 777's ability to keep bailing Flair out.

Forgetting about the CTA for a second, I think the bigger issue is the seemingly-growing question surrounding Flair's aircraft utilization and network planning, and whether it can actually profitably support adding extra aircraft to its fleet. I'm perfectly aware every airline, especially startups, cut and change their route networks all the time, however I think the consensus on here is that Flair seems to drop routes at a rather alarming rate, and most of its new routes seem to make very little sense in terms of success. There's no denying the potential for low-frequency, point-to-point service, however I think I can say with confidence that everyone on here agrees routes like YOW-YVR, YUL-YYZ, YVR-SFO and YYZ-DEN don't make much sense for an LCC. On top of this, you've got the fact a good chunk of Flair's new winter US network has already been temporarily cut (SFB), and I'm sure this trend will continue as Omnicron continues to raise its ugly head. With this in mind, the last thing Flair needs is more aircraft, when it seems to be struggling to utilize its current fleet effectively. If this remains the case, these new planes will simply sit on the ground for a while, or fly yet more hopeless routes, which will then lead to Flair needing another liquidity top-up. If its largest investor isn't able to provide this, then I'm afraid Flair will simply go pop.

The industry is full of airlines that became overstretched through the mentality of thinking they can keep taking on new aircraft since they're just leasing and subsequently committing less capital as opposed to buying them outright. Pick an airline that's recently gone belly-up at random, and there's an almost guaranteed chance that it had an overflowing order book full of commitments for brand-new leased aircraft.

I like to think I'm slightly more optimistic towards an LCC's chances in Canada than some people on here, considering the fact its such a large country with a spread-out population which has good disposable income. I have previously said there's a bit too much doom-and-gloom on this thread. However, I simply fail to see how any fully-competent airline management board could sign off committing a fair amount of its already-stretched capital to taking on more aircraft it might not even need at such an uncertain time; it just seems incredibly reckless.

If Flair sees such promise in the MAX 200, wouldn't it simply hold off obtaining more MAX 8s until it get its hands on some planes it actually wants?

I don’t think they’re acting as irrationally as they’re made out to.

- Starting in a pandemic is inherently risky, but it has some benefits - more available aircraft and aircrew at cheaper prices, and possibly a more cost-conscious market. In theory, they can - or should - wait it out, but at what point does that just become opportunity cost? It’s reflected in the Max 200 issue - should they pass up on cheap 7M8s for the next 2 years so that they can get possibly more expensive Max 200s at some unspecified date?

- which leads to a broader question - is there ever a good time for a disrupter to enter the market? Three years ago, they’d be struggling to find cheap aircraft and crew - and possibly slots, for that matter.

- Why wouldn’t a ULCC work on YVR- YYZ? They don’t have to be dirt cheap - just cheaper. And with a Y offering that’s very similar to AC/WS Y, they’re viable substitutes. They don’t have high speed rail snapping at their heels, so they don’t need to worry on that front.

All of which is to say, we need these types of disrupters to test prevailing assumptions. Worst case - they create a veritable list of lessons learned (and what routes not to operate - for Lynx.

phllax wrote:

nine4nine wrote:

Inaugural YEG-BUR is in the air!

The return cancelled!

Yes I noticed yesterday the inbound YVR cancelled while the inbound YEG did not. But the outbound YEG cancelled and the outbound YVR went out.

Flair will add JFK and ORD from YYZ beginning April 7th and May 17th respectively. Flights are loaded in the GDS and bookable on Flair’s website.

Wow... Who on earth would fly a ULCC YYZ-ORD/JFK? And the costs associated with those airports? This is becoming borderline comical.

They cannot even maintain their own domestic network. Best of luck!

*Just to add to this, a friend of mine (against my advice) recently booked Flair and surprise (!) flight got cancelled. When they tried to get a refund, Flair requested a void check in order to deposit the refund into their account. This is by far the strangest way of operating an airline I have seen.

CFWAD wrote:

Wow... Who on earth would fly a ULCC YYZ-ORD/JFK? And the costs associated with those airports? This is becoming borderline comical.

They cannot even maintain their own domestic network. Best of luck!

*Just to add to this, a friend of mine (against my advice) recently booked Flair and surprise (!) flight got cancelled. When they tried to get a refund, Flair requested a void check in order to deposit the refund into their account. This is by far the strangest way of operating an airline I have seen.

1. I can see the appeal of a getaway deal to Chicago. I agree, ORD is a bit of a weird one out there as MDW would have been a better bet. I made a test booking and see the fares begin at 109 CAD one way.
2. For JFK, with AA dropping this route beginning next month, I understand there is a gap to be filled. Again cheap getaways to NYC are popular and I remember years ago I flew TAM which operated this flight between JFK and YYZ and was filled with folks heading back on a quick getaway. I paid a ridiculously cheap fare fairly last minute.

As to your point re: void cheque, yeah this is weird. I note a few folks have complained about this. While complaints tend to get more attention than comments from satisfied folks, I assume if this continues flair will end up on an episode of CBC marketplace .

Safe Travels

I wonder, how United and Air Canada will respond to this at ORD and JFK? I also wonder would Flair be open to forming a cross border JV with Allegiant?

CFWAD wrote:

Wow... Who on earth would fly a ULCC YYZ-ORD/JFK?

Lots of people. They just need to be a little cheaper. With no U.S. LCC/ULCC on those routes there should be plenty of passengers to pick off.

MIflyer12 wrote:

CFWAD wrote:

Wow... Who on earth would fly a ULCC YYZ-ORD/JFK?

Lots of people. They just need to be a little cheaper. With no U.S. LCC/ULCC on those routes there should be plenty of passengers to pick off.

Its true lost of people will, but they will need their name out there (on both ends) and amazing promotional fares. I mean I don't think many people realize that C6 flew YYZ-MDW, loads were atrocious - but of course there was not a lot of name branding out there.

IMO, Flair will continue to attract groups of friends desperate for a quick getaway, maybe pack a shared bag, pass on the inflight amenities and "just get to the destination" type of folks. Time will tell if these promotional fares will last. (109 to ORD is one thing, the same to LAS is another).

Their destinations don't need to make sense, in that they don't need to build loyalty to any particular base. ORD doesn't work out? they'll probably just switch to BOS. For people looking for a mini vacation, the accessibility (through low fares) is enough.

Lots of expansion lately, but I don't know if it's going to work out. I feel like they're expanding too fast. They should focus domestically first and once built up a bit more start US expansion.

IceCream wrote:

Lots of expansion lately, but I don't know if it's going to work out. I feel like they're expanding too fast. They should focus domestically first and once built up a bit more start US expansion.

Especially with COVID still lingering about, many Canadian provinces starting to lock down again, and the Feds reimposing mandatory PCR testing before arrival.

ThePointblank wrote:

IceCream wrote:

Lots of expansion lately, but I don't know if it's going to work out. I feel like they're expanding too fast. They should focus domestically first and once built up a bit more start US expansion.

Especially with COVID still lingering about, many Canadian provinces starting to lock down again, and the Feds reimposing mandatory PCR testing before arrival.

Yeah the pandemic really isn't the best time to go on an expansion spree.

The dartboard expansion continues.

No domestic network, no chance.

crosscheckyyz wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

CFWAD wrote:

Wow... Who on earth would fly a ULCC YYZ-ORD/JFK?

Lots of people. They just need to be a little cheaper. With no U.S. LCC/ULCC on those routes there should be plenty of passengers to pick off.

Its true lost of people will, but they will need their name out there (on both ends) and amazing promotional fares. I mean I don't think many people realize that C6 flew YYZ-MDW, loads were atrocious - but of course there was not a lot of name branding out there.

I remember C6 flying YYZ-MDW as I worked for them. The loads were indeed horrible. 30 pax was a big load. It didn't last long. C6's YYZ-LGA route, even though it was only 1x/day with a midday LGA departure, actually performed quite well. Now on the flip side PD's been flying YTZ-MDW multiple daily for almost 15 years. But it's a lot easier to fill 78 seats with connections than 189 with zero connections. Time will tell.

There’s a very good reason why after 26 years and a good connecting network out of YYZ that WS had never bothered with YYZ to Chicago.

The dartboard crew at Flair have yet to figure much of anything out.

jimbo737 wrote:

There’s a very good reason why after 26 years and a good connecting network out of YYZ that WS had never bothered with YYZ to Chicago.

The dartboard crew at Flair have yet to figure much of anything out.

On the other hand, we might be around 2-3 weeks away from Swoop announcing YYZ-ORD .

Or maybe that new Austrian guy who’s just taken over at WS will start asking obvious questions about how good WS’ “very good reasons” actually are - the ones that have left WS as a bit player in QC 26 years on, and outside of global alliances etc. (FWIW, both are excellent appointments but I wonder how they’re being received by the WS’ “knowledge of Canadian market” crowd).

Think there’s merit in assuming WS’ “very good reasons” are partly a function of WS’ ideology, and may not necessarily apply to ULCCs. F8 is only looking for the equivalent of 81 price conscious/timing flexible YYZ-ORD pax/day (567/week), which should be doable at their prices.

ElPistolero wrote:

jimbo737 wrote:

There’s a very good reason why after 26 years and a good connecting network out of YYZ that WS had never bothered with YYZ to Chicago.

The dartboard crew at Flair have yet to figure much of anything out.

F8 is only looking for the equivalent of 81 price conscious/timing flexible YYZ-ORD pax/day (567/week), which should be doable at their prices.

Well only time will tell . Good luck to them.

Dominion301 wrote:

crosscheckyyz wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Lots of people. They just need to be a little cheaper. With no U.S. LCC/ULCC on those routes there should be plenty of passengers to pick off.

Its true lost of people will, but they will need their name out there (on both ends) and amazing promotional fares. I mean I don't think many people realize that C6 flew YYZ-MDW, loads were atrocious - but of course there was not a lot of name branding out there.

I remember C6 flying YYZ-MDW as I worked for them. The loads were indeed horrible. 30 pax was a big load. It didn't last long. C6's YYZ-LGA route, even though it was only 1x/day with a midday LGA departure, actually performed quite well. Now on the flip side PD's been flying YTZ-MDW multiple daily for almost 15 years. But it's a lot easier to fill 78 seats with connections than 189 with zero connections. Time will tell.

Didn't C6 operate with the 735s rather than the 8s? But besides that, yeah the loads were horrible. It was a good idea but without the publicity it didn't really do well at all.

Was C6 Canjet?

Skywatcher wrote:

Was C6 Canjet?

Yes. I still don't think this expansion spree is stable. They're too small to be expanding left right and center during a pandemic.

crosscheckyyz wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

crosscheckyyz wrote:

Its true lost of people will, but they will need their name out there (on both ends) and amazing promotional fares. I mean I don't think many people realize that C6 flew YYZ-MDW, loads were atrocious - but of course there was not a lot of name branding out there.

I remember C6 flying YYZ-MDW as I worked for them. The loads were indeed horrible. 30 pax was a big load. It didn't last long. C6's YYZ-LGA route, even though it was only 1x/day with a midday LGA departure, actually performed quite well. Now on the flip side PD's been flying YTZ-MDW multiple daily for almost 15 years. But it's a lot easier to fill 78 seats with connections than 189 with zero connections. Time will tell.

Didn't C6 operate with the 735s rather than the 8s? But besides that, yeah the loads were horrible. It was a good idea but without the publicity it didn't really do well at all.

Considering that the current players are flying YYZ to ORD with smaller RJ's, such as CRJ-700's and E175's, with the associated lower cost structures (regional jet pay rates), this won't end well for Flair.

What if they partnered with Spirit or Allegiant or Frontier?

Who is on this route now? Is it UA, AC and AA? If so there's what, 15 or so RJ's daily between them?

If so, it's likely all pretty high fares (UA and AC codeshare) so Flair might have an edge.

This is exactly the type of cushy market that needs to be disrupted. Just not sure Flair has the means to specifically pull it off.

Assuming their costs are as low as I suspect they do have a few cards to play but it's tough to break up the existing duopoly in Canada.

WS and AC gobble up newcomers and then feast on anti-competition once the upstart is interned. WS simply replaced CP Air and AC has been doing it since the beginning of time.

On a BASIC round trip ticket on 17MAY-21MAY YYZ-ORD r/t:

Total Cost: 218.00 CAD
What Flair Gets (after all taxes and charges): 85.48 CAD

Imagine what Flair actually pockets. Especially after Ground Delay Programs and Passenger compensation requests thru the CTA. I don't think the hype of "priority boarding" and extra legroom for such a stage length is going to cushion your expenses. And if you are marketing towards cost conscious travelers looking for a weekend getaway - how much checked luggage do you actually anticipate they bring?

MIflyer12 wrote:

CFWAD wrote:

Wow... Who on earth would fly a ULCC YYZ-ORD/JFK?

Lots of people. They just need to be a little cheaper. With no U.S. LCC/ULCC on those routes there should be plenty of passengers to pick off.

Sorry, I was referring to what airline would fly that route. People will most always flock towards the cheaper fares - but how does a "ULCC" attempt to operate this profitably with:

-No connectivity past origin/destination.
-Limited marketing (assuming most is being sold through GDS and Google Flights).
-No to extremely limited exposure in the U.S. market - and no visible ties to any resort/holiday marketing thus far.
-All 3 extremely high cost airports that I could almost guarantee gave Flair close to zero commercial benefits.
-Operating at international flight expenses (associated customs fees and foreign exchange).

Sorry SJ, GL T7 and company but this ain't Europe. Grow and earn the domestic market first.

cirrusdragoon wrote:

What if they partnered with Spirit or Allegiant or Frontier?

Established operators have no interest in partnering with outfits that will cause them nothing but commercial grief.

Flair has absolutely no strategic planning. They have no clue, nor the pockets, nor the patience required to develop a sustainable operation in the tiny Canadian marketplace.

Toronto to Chicago is a business market. There's virtually no VFR traffic. It's a UAL / Star Hub. The only way it works is with high frequency, high yield, low trip cost equipment with at least 40% of traffic connecting or through both directions. Unless you commit to 3x daily or more, and offer up a good FF plan that allows road warriors their near free flights to Fort Myers in January, you're pi$$ing in the wind.

Flair has none of those things going for it. They'll blow their brains out and hemmorage even more precious equity for a few weeks before pulling out.

Had Flair done any homework, they'd have noticed that after nearly 20 years, Porter rarely achieved loads over 60% on their service to MDW, operating a 78 seat aircraft. Sure, their fares were higher, but even a $59 fare to Chicago will appeal to few when there's no fundamental reason to go to Chicago in the first place. And judging by Porter's current legal battles, they haven't exactly been a commercial success since day one, (though they had huge success in the real estate development game).

This is what happens when your route planning guy understands nothing about Canadian travel patterns and communities of interest.

jimbo737 wrote:

cirrusdragoon wrote:

What if they partnered with Spirit or Allegiant or Frontier?

Established operators have no interest in partnering with outfits that will cause them nothing but commercial grief.

Flair has absolutely no strategic planning. They have no clue, nor the pockets, nor the patience required to develop a sustainable operation in the tiny Canadian marketplace.

Toronto to Chicago is a business market. There's virtually no VFR traffic. It's a UAL / Star Hub. The only way it works is with high frequency, high yield, low trip cost equipment with at least 40% of traffic connecting or through both directions. Unless you commit to 3x daily or more, and offer up a good FF plan that allows road warriors their near free flights to Fort Myers in January, you're pi$$ing in the wind.

Flair has none of those things going for it. They'll blow their brains out and hemmorage even more precious equity for a few weeks before pulling out.

Had Flair done any homework, they'd have noticed that after nearly 20 years, Porter rarely achieved loads over 60% on their service to MDW, operating a 78 seat aircraft. Sure, their fares were higher, but even a $59 fare to Chicago will appeal to few when there's no fundamental reason to go to Chicago in the first place. And judging by Porter's current legal battles, they haven't exactly been a commercial success since day one, (though they had huge success in the real estate development game).

This is what happens when your route planning guy understands nothing about Canadian travel patterns and communities of interest.

Hmmm?

According to Chicago, ~1,490 Canadians visited the city per day / 10,432 per week in 2019 (544K). I expect tourism will be summer seasonal (as will the route), hard to believe that 0.05% of that isn’t price sensitive leisure traffic originating in the YYZ catchment area.

If it runs for only 6 months, it’s ~15,000 seats. To put that in perspective, 18,000 Australians travelled to Chicago in 2021 (down from 55,000 in 2019). Chicago is not exactly a tourism backwater. Throw in some price stimulation … we’ve seen some weird routes throw up some interesting leisure traffic surprises (Iceland comes to mind)

https://www.redlineproject.org/tourism2021.php

All of which is to say, dismissing it out of hand seems a bit premature. We can probably agree that certain other Canadian airlines would never be able to make this route work, but thats as much a function of their unique characteristics as it is a function of the actual market. F8 appears to be adopting the more traditional ULCC model; it doesn’t seem to be too keen on becoming Canada’s newest overpriced LCC masquerading as a “premium” airline.

And to be fair to the guy who doesn’t understand “Canadian travel patterns and communities of interest”, there are established airlines in Canada that still haven’t figured out the second largest province in the country (or FF programs for that matter). Maybe it really is that tough. Or not.

Well, you have it all figured out.

We'll see how long YYZ - ORD lasts for the mighty Flair with no feed, no flow and 189 seats to fill with a fully allocated BELF in the 90% or higher range. Good luck with getting any utilization on the route. A 436 mile sector blocked at 1:53 mins in a high capital cost aircraft that needs 12 hours daily utilization to make the economics work. But you're a clever boy. You've probably already figured that one out. On the bright side, with 25% loads, you should be able to turn the aircraft in 30 mins.

Have you ever considered that after 26 years, they might actually have forgotten more about the Quebec market than you'll ever know? Last time I checked, they pulled out of YUL-FLL operating loads in the mid 90% range according to US DoT data with stage length adjusted unit costs at least 25% lower than the dominant airline in the market.

There's no point chasing market share at a loss, especially when they're already 2 players active and known players in the n/s market. Any guesses how many airlines operate PHX - SAN n/s, with an enormous community of interest? What does Flair plan on bringing to the table other than $19 fares and insolvency?

There's no intra Quebec market worth chasing so other than network feed to hubs, and the odd O&D route, the market is well served. If Flair or others want to go in there and operate Montreal to Saskatoon or Victoria, KW or Florida, (and PBG), and blow their brains out even more than is already the case, fill yer boots.

Once again, it shows a complete lack of understanding of market dynamics in Canada.

By the way, how's BUR doing?