YEGFlyer wrote:

I wonder if they've actually ever taken a F8 flight

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. 189-seat 737 ULCC onboard experience is pretty much the same. I of course have flown F8, it's pretty much the same as Sunwing, Lynx, and Transat's old 737 when they had them. None really stand out as having some stellar product, nor should they as low cost carriers and no one is faulting them for that.

Loads on a small portion of the network are interesting, but not conclusive. Trying new routes and pulling out if they failed is not problematic either.

None of the airplanes are purchased or owned by Flair.

Again, interesting comments and opinions that may not support a conclusion.

Loads on a small portion of the network are interesting, but not conclusive. Trying new routes and pulling out if they failed is not problematic either.

None of the airplanes are purchased or owned by Flair.

Again, interesting comments and opinions that may not support a conclusion.[/quote]
How do you know, or why are you convinced that the planes aren't owned/purchased by flair? Multiple people have brought up that Boeing lists the customer as Flair, and that apparently they did in fact take delivery.
I believe Texasaircorp brought up some data on a few domestic Flair loads up. While it is the lower winter season having 15 or 30 or 50 or 70 pax on a 189 seater MAX at low fares is not exactly a huge success. And this low season lasts for at least a good 5-6 months.

While it's not the entire network it has been brought up how bad loads are for the vast majority of transborder operations and apparently some domestic runs in the winter.

I have no evidence if they are profitable or not. Accountants can make books say anything anyway…. But based on evidence, I doubt they are. And the ability to maintain operations is tied exactly to how long someone wants to shovel cash into the operation. This smells like JetsGo all over again - anyone want to dispute how that turned out?

YEGFlyer wrote:

Interesting that many commenters don't live here and I wonder if they've actually ever taken a F8 flight.

You mean… one commenter, me.

No, I have never taken a Flair flight (have some business in Toronto however in a few months, may look and see if there’s any possibility I could try them out). My residence nor the fact I’ve never sat in a Flair seat does not prevent my knowledge and involvement in the industry being useful. Anyone can look up the story of JetsGo or People Express and draw the conclusion that an airline following their same model is likely not going to succeed.

sxf24 wrote:

None of the airplanes are purchased or owned by Flair.

The 13 original MAXs are subleased from 777 Partners on apparently some pretty nasty lease rates. The rest are leased directly to Flair from AerCap, I believe a couple from Air Lease Corp (new username perhaps?). They have some shared pain on the 777 ones, however they ultimately hold responsibility for their entire fleet, and it’s the directly leased ones that are being put into storage.

Loads on a small portion of the network are interesting, but not conclusive. Trying new routes and pulling out if they failed is not problematic either.

None of the airplanes are purchased or owned by Flair.

Again, interesting comments and opinions that may not support a conclusion.[/quote]
How do you know, or why are you convinced that the planes aren't owned/purchased by flair? Multiple people have brought up that Boeing lists the customer as Flair, and that apparently they did in fact take delivery.
I believe Texasaircorp brought up some data on a few domestic Flair loads up. While it is the lower winter season having 15 or 30 or 50 or 70 pax on a 189 seater MAX at low fares is not exactly a huge success. And this low season lasts for at least a good 5-6 months.

While it's not the entire network it has been brought up how bad loads are for the vast majority of transborder operations and apparently some domestic runs in the winter.[/quote]

TexasAirCorp wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

None of the airplanes are purchased or owned by Flair.

The 13 original MAXs are subleased from 777 Partners on apparently some pretty nasty lease rates. The rest are leased directly to Flair from AerCap, I believe a couple from Air Lease Corp (new username perhaps?). They have some shared pain on the 777 ones, however they ultimately hold responsibility for their entire fleet, and it’s the directly leased ones that are being put into storage.

Flair is not listed as a customer on Boeing’s website, either for orders or deliveries.

For example, there were 4 deliveries in Sept-Oct to 777 Partners.

Having followed this saga for years I'm at the point where I'll bet "when" they fail not "will" they fail. I would prefer that they succeed of course as a consumer but nothing adds up. Accountants don't just "make up" numbers. The underlying facts dictate survival or not. The facts don't look good at all.
I'll bet they fail in Apr'23.

sxf24 wrote:

Flair is not listed as a customer on Boeing’s website, either for orders or deliveries.

For example, there were 4 deliveries in Sept-Oct to 777 Partners.

I can only see one frame being delivered to 777 in October, which is going to Bonza. Media press releases will have the Flair birds as being delivered to AerCap/Air Lease Corp as they're NTU frames. The latter's own reporting, plus Boeing's customer specifications that get privately released, show the frames as going to 'Flair Airlines', whereas the original 13 were labelled as '777 Partners Inc'.

TexasAirCorp wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

Interesting that many commenters don't live here and I wonder if they've actually ever taken a F8 flight.

You mean… one commenter, me.

YEGFlyer's logic is the equivalent of saying...

"You can't use logic and reason to bet on the failure of Bitcoin if you've never bought crypto."

Well shucks...

TexasAirCorp wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Flair is not listed as a customer on Boeing’s website, either for orders or deliveries.

For example, there were 4 deliveries in Sept-Oct to 777 Partners.

I can only see one frame being delivered to 777 in October, which is going to Bonza. Media press releases will have the Flair birds as being delivered to AerCap/Air Lease Corp as they're NTU frames. The latter's own reporting, plus Boeing's customer specifications that get privately released, show the frames as going to 'Flair Airlines', whereas the original 13 were labelled as '777 Partners Inc'.

Such media releases don’t exist.

Buy ‘em or lease ‘em.

The dollars are still going out the door.

The going rate for a 737 Max these days is us$315k a month. That’s for a triple A financial covenant. Lessors will take their pound of flesh for outfits they perceive as weak. 2 guesses as to where Flair falls in that discussion.

If they’re leased, they’re probably paying a higher level of reserves to pay for checks down the road.

There’s no such thing as a “free” us$40m + asset.

A duck with a lawn chair in its back can make money in the airline business in the third quarter in Canada. It’s nothing to brag about. It’s a given.

It’s not enough to carry the business through the subsequent 270 days though. Not even close.

It’s those pesky other 220+ days that are the problem. Outside roughly 2 weeks at Xmas, 3-4 weeks rolling spring breaks across the country in March and a half dozen long weekends, it’s no easy task, and harder still when you’ve proactively avoided every proven strategy to ensure profitability every month of the year.

People forget that WS’s most profitable quarter was obviously #3, but after that, it was 1Q, 4Q and then 2Q.

The company was always, verifiably profitable through and beyond its first 20 years of business and they didn’t do it by ordering / acquiring high capital cost iron, (someone’s paying for it), and then immediately parking it in the sagebrush in Southern Arizona.

Tuscon is operating YEG-TUS-YMM-TUS (overnight) TUS-YQG-TUS (overnight) TUS-YXS-TUS-YEG and then TUS-YXU-TUS-YEG ((https://simpleflying.com/flair-airlines ... n-flights/) - wondering if this counts as a "Base" at TUS?

They have a partnership with TUS airport. Flair gets free hotel stays for their crew as well as no parking fees for the plane overnight, and probably more incentives we don't know about. It's not really a base since the crew is based at YEG.

It's a compensatory deal to prevent another aircraft being put into storage. If it was a deal with AZA or LAS I think it would be a winner, TUS is a bit iffy.

It's a compensatory deal to prevent another aircraft being put into storage. If it was a deal with AZA or LAS I think it would be a winner, TUS is a bit iffy.[/quote]
Yeah, well unfortunately LAS, and even AZA are not nearly desperate enough to throw incentives at Flair. Doesn't Flair already fly to AZA?

Yeah, well unfortunately LAS, and even AZA are not nearly desperate enough to throw incentives at Flair. Doesn't Flair already fly to AZA?[/quote]
I think Lynx is only Canadian ULCC startup in history to have not even attempted AZA service.

TexasAirCorp wrote:

IceCream wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

It's a compensatory deal to prevent another aircraft being put into storage. If it was a deal with AZA or LAS I think it would be a winner, TUS is a bit iffy.

Yeah, well unfortunately LAS, and even AZA are not nearly desperate enough to throw incentives at Flair. Doesn't Flair already fly to AZA?

I think Lynx is only Canadian ULCC startup in history to have not even attempted AZA service.

They're going to PHX instead.

Source?

Did the YQB routes get dropped less than a week after they made their announcement???
Not available for booking anymore

Seems like a bug cause the prices were already climbing so that indicates they are popular. Or maybe they're changing the schedule...

Juju2004 wrote:

Seems like a bug cause the prices were already climbing so that indicates they are popular. Or maybe they're changing the schedule...

You're right. The flights are back, but it's odd for flights to disappear and come back. I think they'll launch it

Not surprising, they should of focused on TUS-YVR/YYC/YEG routings

YEGFlyer wrote:

IceCream wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

It's a compensatory deal to prevent another aircraft being put into storage. If it was a deal with AZA or LAS I think it would be a winner, TUS is a bit iffy.

Yeah, well unfortunately LAS, and even AZA are not nearly desperate enough to throw incentives at Flair....

Source?

What for?

https://www.flytucson.com/articles/nons ... xt-winter/

Also mentioned by Mr Stephen Jones on: https://crankyflier.com/2022/11/01/the- ... hen-jones/

Starting march with the introduction of the new schedule with revamped flight numbers, the standard turnaround time will go down from 55 mins to 45 mins.

Every round trip to TUS costs roughly $36,000 to operate.

Just how many tax dollars do you think the good citizens of Tucson are prepared to throw at a subsidy to an airline offering flights to places that 99% of taxpayers have never even heard of, let alone have any reason to travel to.

And what sort of reaction do you think the long term, fee paying airlines that have operated into Tucson for decades will think about paying higher than necessary fees to underwrite such nonsense?

Somebody at Tucson city hall better start looking for a new job out of state. Anyone associated with this idiotic decision to waste tax dollars will be run out of town.

https://www.flytucson.com/articles/nons ... xt-winter/

Also mentioned by Mr Stephen Jones on: https://crankyflier.com/2022/11/01/the- ... hen-jones/[/quote]

Thanks for those links, I see now he was asking for proof that LAS and AZA are not offering Flair incentives to fly there. The Alberta-LAS market is huge and well-served, LAS would have no reason to pay Flair to fly empty planes when Rouge and WestJet already fly full ones in with no subsidy. The pre-pandemic unsubsidized YYC-LAS for Flair failed miserably and was pulled, as has been mentioned.

The only question at this point is how low is too low for TUS to continue paying for this. There obviously would have been market analysis, and 25 pax flying YXS-TUS has to be roughly what they were expecting so I guess they're just... happy to throw money down the drain all winter so they can boast that they have service to multiple Canadian destinations? It really is somewhat bizarre.

Juju2004 wrote:

Starting march with the introduction of the new schedule with revamped flight numbers, the standard turnaround time will go down from 55 mins to 45 mins.

45 min turns with 189 seat aircraft?

WS struggled with 35 min turns with 120 seat aircraft, ground loading through two doors, whilst averaging l/f’s in the low 80’s.

Unless Flair pads block times by 15 mins or so, or unless loads are about 30%, (ie transborder), as well as building in about 45 mins a day “catch up time”, their OTP is going to go south so fast it’ll make heads spin.

jimbo737 wrote:

Every round trip to TUS costs roughly $36,000 to operate.

Just how many tax dollars do you think the good citizens of Tucson are prepared to throw at a subsidy to an airline offering flights to places that 99% of taxpayers have never even heard of, let alone have any reason to travel to.

And what sort of reaction do you think the long term, fee paying airlines that have operated into Tucson for decades will think about paying higher than necessary fees to underwrite such nonsense?

Somebody at Tucson city hall better start looking for a new job out of state. Anyone associated with this idiotic decision to waste tax dollars will be run out of town.

The incentives offered by TUS are about bringing tourists that contribute to taxes to the city. Most airports offer waived or reduced fees for new service. If TUS is actually giving cash to F8 with no metrics for success, shame on TUS and bravo to F8 management for negotiating such a deal.

jimbo737 wrote:

Juju2004 wrote:

Starting march with the introduction of the new schedule with revamped flight numbers, the standard turnaround time will go down from 55 mins to 45 mins.

45 min turns with 189 seat aircraft?

WS struggled with 35 min turns with 120 seat aircraft, ground loading through two doors, whilst averaging l/f’s in the low 80’s.

Unless Flair pads block times by 15 mins or so, or unless loads are about 30%, (ie transborder), as well as building in about 45 mins a day “catch up time”, their OTP is going to go south so fast it’ll make heads spin.

One advantage they have is that they don't really groom. Here at YYC when they're late sometimes there's pax going down the bridge 3 or 4 min after the stragglers are coming up.

Gotta do what you gotta do.

Juju2004 wrote:

Starting march with the introduction of the new schedule with revamped flight numbers, the standard turnaround time will go down from 55 mins to 45 mins.

I'm used to 25/30 minute turns on EU/US LCCs, in theory a step in the right direction. Perhaps I'm being a bit nitpicky but wouldn't going to and from deicing pads at busy airports eat into this?

sxf24 wrote:

The incentives offered by TUS are about bringing tourists that contribute to taxes to the city. Most airports offer waived or reduced fees for new service. If TUS is actually giving cash to F8 with no metrics for success, shame on TUS and bravo to F8 management for negotiating such a deal.

From what Mr Jones has said it seems more about having a base somewhere in Arizona from which it can try US service from smaller Canadian airports, it's being sold as just a means of accessing Arizona rather than Tucson itself. I guess pax going through TUS will always generate some revenue for the city, and there's always the chance that some pax will purely be going to Tucson, however I don't think Flair really sees much value in the area, hence I'd lean towards agreeing Flair just managed to strike a very preferential deal. If Flair seriously saw the Tucson area as viable, why aren't they trying routes like YVR/YYC/YYZ from TUS? When AZA was pretty poor for Flair last year (yes, I'm aware COVID was more of a thing at the time), why would TUS be considered such a winner?

It seems more like two desperate people getting married. TUS has been desperate for Canadian service for years, and Flair is desperate for a reason to not put another plane into storage.

TexasAirCorp wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

The incentives offered by TUS are about bringing tourists that contribute to taxes to the city. Most airports offer waived or reduced fees for new service. If TUS is actually giving cash to F8 with no metrics for success, shame on TUS and bravo to F8 management for negotiating such a deal.

From what Mr Jones has said it seems more about having a base somewhere in Arizona from which it can try US service from smaller Canadian airports, it's being sold as just a means of accessing Arizona rather than Tucson itself. I guess pax going through TUS will always generate some revenue for the city, and there's always the chance that some pax will purely be going to Tucson, however I don't think Flair really sees much value in the area, hence I'd lean towards agreeing Flair just managed to strike a very preferential deal. If Flair seriously saw the Tucson area as viable, why aren't they trying routes like YVR/YYC/YYZ from TUS? When AZA was pretty poor for Flair last year (yes, I'm aware COVID was more of a thing at the time), why would TUS be considered such a winner?

It seems more like two desperate people getting married. TUS has been desperate for Canadian service for years, and Flair is desperate for a reason to not put another plane into storage.

I'm moreso wondering why airports where landing fees and other overhead is low while in major metro areas (Like YKF) weren't the winning airports for this type of service. YEG might be an okay shot but Alberta traffic isn't even that high. At least YKF has the benefit of being in the metro area of Toronto (Whereas London and especially Windsor clearly are not).
Ever since the 767s left AC (and Rouge), capacity to Phoenix has been way down. The number of snowbirds is clearly not decreasing. I do wonder whether they're all shifting to florida (which was massively up gauged since the 767 retirement with daily A330s, 787s and 777s to 2-3 of 5 major florida airports) or if there's truly a capacity shortage in Arizona. Judging by load factors (and more importantly, city pair choices), the former seems more likely.

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Juju2004 wrote:

Starting march with the introduction of the new schedule with revamped flight numbers, the standard turnaround time will go down from 55 mins to 45 mins.

I'm used to 25/30 minute turns on EU/US LCCs, in theory a step in the right direction. Perhaps I'm being a bit nitpicky but wouldn't going to and from deicing pads at busy airports eat into this?

Deice doesn't count against the turn time, it's part of the block time and blocks are extended in the winter to compensate. F8 thinks they can shorten their turns with... magic? Their limiting factor currently is just deplaning and boarding, there's hardly any time to be gained. That said, they don't really care if their already trash OTP gets worse because connections are pretty much zero.

Deice times in Calgary are horrible, but you can't really massively extend blocks because sometimes you don't have to spray.

Lamp1009 wrote:

I'm moreso wondering why airports where landing fees and other overhead is low while in major metro areas (Like YKF) weren't the winning airports for this type of service. YEG might be an okay shot but Alberta traffic isn't even that high. At least YKF has the benefit of being in the metro area of Toronto (Whereas London and especially Windsor clearly are not).
Ever since the 767s left AC (and Rouge), capacity to Phoenix has been way down. The number of snowbirds is clearly not decreasing. I do wonder whether they're all shifting to florida (which was massively up gauged since the 767 retirement with daily A330s, 787s and 777s to 2-3 of 5 major florida airports) or if there's truly a capacity shortage in Arizona. Judging by load factors (and more importantly, city pair choices), the former seems more likely.

You raise a good point, I also wonder whether Arizona is a tad swamped with Canadian LCCs to Alberta/British Columbia with neither Flair or Swoop seemingly making massive inroads in AZA, plus now with Lynx to PHX on top. Flair already serves FLL/SFB from YKF and as far as I know that's doing... okayish, so maybe a good idea to not try and fix something that isn't broken in and add TUS on top. Surely there must've been at least one Florida airport willing to do a similar deal, RSW I know has offered some folks good packages in attempts to bring in more international service, and plus you've got places like SFB/MLB/PIE that would surely crave what Flair could've potentially offered them. Perhaps they'd already figured there's a good chance you're just going to be subsidising empty seats, however.

In terms of low landing fees, I guess the idea is to reward whoever's willing to give Flair the best deal, same as what Ryanair does in Europe with little airports. YMM though on paper is one of the most expensive airports in Canada, perhaps Flair's getting a nice discount.

Acey wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Juju2004 wrote:

Starting march with the introduction of the new schedule with revamped flight numbers, the standard turnaround time will go down from 55 mins to 45 mins.

I'm used to 25/30 minute turns on EU/US LCCs, in theory a step in the right direction. Perhaps I'm being a bit nitpicky but wouldn't going to and from deicing pads at busy airports eat into this?

Deice doesn't count against the turn time, it's part of the block time and blocks are extended in the winter to compensate. F8 thinks they can shorten their turns with... magic? Their limiting factor currently is just deplaning and boarding, there's hardly any time to be gained. That said, they don't really care if their already trash OTP gets worse because connections are pretty much zero.

Deice times in Calgary are horrible, but you can't really massively extend blocks because sometimes you don't have to spray.

Ahh I see. To be fair, if Ryanair can deplane and board a 738 in 25 minutes, I don't see why Flair can't do it in 45.

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Acey wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

I'm used to 25/30 minute turns on EU/US LCCs, in theory a step in the right direction. Perhaps I'm being a bit nitpicky but wouldn't going to and from deicing pads at busy airports eat into this?

Deice doesn't count against the turn time, it's part of the block time and blocks are extended in the winter to compensate. F8 thinks they can shorten their turns with... magic? Their limiting factor currently is just deplaning and boarding, there's hardly any time to be gained. That said, they don't really care if their already trash OTP gets worse because connections are pretty much zero.

Deice times in Calgary are horrible, but you can't really massively extend blocks because sometimes you don't have to spray.

Ahh I see. To be fair, if Ryanair can deplane and board a 738 in 25 minutes, I don't see why Flair can't do it in 45.

2 entrances/exits being utilized. I wonder if flair ever considered leasing their 737s with the built in stairs, at least on the rear door. Would be useless at major airports and most US airports but could have been useful at small locations like YKF

Acey wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Juju2004 wrote:

Starting march with the introduction of the new schedule with revamped flight numbers, the standard turnaround time will go down from 55 mins to 45 mins.

I'm used to 25/30 minute turns on EU/US LCCs, in theory a step in the right direction. Perhaps I'm being a bit nitpicky but wouldn't going to and from deicing pads at busy airports eat into this?

Deice doesn't count against the turn time, it's part of the block time and blocks are extended in the winter to compensate. F8 thinks they can shorten their turns with... magic? Their limiting factor currently is just deplaning and boarding, there's hardly any time to be gained. That said, they don't really care if their already trash OTP gets worse because connections are pretty much zero.

Deice times in Calgary are horrible, but you can't really massively extend blocks because sometimes you don't have to spray.

People at AC or WS are in no position to point fingers at F8’s OTP. WS in particular sucks bad and is getting worse.

sxf24 wrote:

Acey wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

I'm used to 25/30 minute turns on EU/US LCCs, in theory a step in the right direction. Perhaps I'm being a bit nitpicky but wouldn't going to and from deicing pads at busy airports eat into this?

Deice doesn't count against the turn time, it's part of the block time and blocks are extended in the winter to compensate. F8 thinks they can shorten their turns with... magic? Their limiting factor currently is just deplaning and boarding, there's hardly any time to be gained. That said, they don't really care if their already trash OTP gets worse because connections are pretty much zero.

Deice times in Calgary are horrible, but you can't really massively extend blocks because sometimes you don't have to spray.

People at AC or WS are in no position to point fingers at F8’s OTP. WS in particular sucks bad and is getting worse.

Maybe it's just my own experiences but besides the outage a few weeks ago is WS really that much worse compared to AC? Like the past few days they seem to be doing fine (granted there are certainly some noticeable delays, but for example an hour-and-a-half delay on a flight to YQU I think isn't really outrageous, lol)

Either way Acey never brought in WS or AC so I don't really see why we're comparing them. Just because other airlines have bad OTP themselves doesn't make Flair not have bad issues themselves...

Turning a 738/7M8 is 45 minutes is tight but doable. The airline I was with way back when, but still well post-9/11, routinely did 30 minute turns on the 732 & 735. There was even one 25 minute turn on one leg. It was madness for that one, but doable, even with a full load. It had the benefit of being a thru flight though...remember those, lol.

If Flair were handed a guaranteed briefcase full of cash for TUS, congrats to them. Still seems nuts though from YXS or airstair deprived YQL. Even YQG makes no sense as nobody from Detroit is going to cross to YQG for a transborder flight...even though 20% of traffic at YQG is from the American side, but those are sensible itineraries like YQG-YTZ-YOW or YQG-YYZ-MAN. Apart from YEG, only YXU makes marginal sense for a city of 1/2 million with minimal sun service.

IceCream wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

Acey wrote:

Deice doesn't count against the turn time, it's part of the block time and blocks are extended in the winter to compensate. F8 thinks they can shorten their turns with... magic? Their limiting factor currently is just deplaning and boarding, there's hardly any time to be gained. That said, they don't really care if their already trash OTP gets worse because connections are pretty much zero.

Deice times in Calgary are horrible, but you can't really massively extend blocks because sometimes you don't have to spray.

People at AC or WS are in no position to point fingers at F8’s OTP. WS in particular sucks bad and is getting worse.

Maybe it's just my own experiences but besides the outage a few weeks ago is WS really that much worse compared to AC? Like the past few days they seem to be doing fine (granted there are certainly some noticeable delays, but for example an hour-and-a-half delay on a flight to YQU I think isn't really outrageous, lol)

Either way Acey never brought in WS or AC so I don't really see why we're comparing them. Just because other airlines have bad OTP themselves doesn't make Flair not have bad issues themselves...

I suspect some of the posters complaining about F8’s OTP performance work for competitors…. It doesn’t justify delays and cancellations, but I don’t think people in glass houses should throw stones.

When I say deice times in Calgary are terrible, that's not a shot at Flair. It's a central deice facility, and their incompetence equally kills everyone's OTP across the board.

WS OTP is increasingly horrific due to massive ground shortage... you are letting the fact that WestJet sucks distract you from the fact that Flair sucks worse.[/quote]

Source for YYC OTP?

Not trying to derail the thread but that sounds very concerning considering WS wants to increase capacity by more than 25% next year, lol...

When you lose Frontier, Allegiant, Avelo all in 3 months with no ULCC service left -- and you're still trailing your 2019 numbers (since made up) while most other sun stations saw increases vs Pre-Covid, you do desperate things.

Flair reeks of desperate...and it is.

sxf24 wrote:

jimbo737 wrote:

Every round trip to TUS costs roughly $36,000 to operate.

Just how many tax dollars do you think the good citizens of Tucson are prepared to throw at a subsidy to an airline offering flights to places that 99% of taxpayers have never even heard of, let alone have any reason to travel to.

And what sort of reaction do you think the long term, fee paying airlines that have operated into Tucson for decades will think about paying higher than necessary fees to underwrite such nonsense?

Somebody at Tucson city hall better start looking for a new job out of state. Anyone associated with this idiotic decision to waste tax dollars will be run out of town.

The incentives offered by TUS are about bringing tourists that contribute to taxes to the city. Most airports offer waived or reduced fees for new service. If TUS is actually giving cash to F8 with no metrics for success, shame on TUS and bravo to F8 management for negotiating such a deal.

sxf24, Flair leads YYC in average delay minutes per sector. Nobody, not even Flair's biggest fanboys, would deny this. It's partly because they are more likely to take a 12 hour hit where AC or WS would cancel and rebuild. The point is that in YYC's current state, nobody should be slashing turn times... the only ones doing it are Flair.[/quote]

I would like to see a link to the very specific factual claim you are making.

I have no public document for you. You can parse public flight trackers and get a pretty good idea of what goes on here, or you can ask anyone who has ever flown Flair to reiterate to you that it isn't a flawless operation.

These numbers are very easily publicly derived, which I know you're not interested in finding, but to share them will get the post deleted as all of my post sharing actual numbers have been deleted thus far in this thread.

For some reason you are of the mindset that cutting turn time will not worsen Flair's OTP, so I'm not sure there's any statistic that would change your mind anyway. It's delay minutes per sector, which puts you at a disadvantage by having a smaller operation, but is also not an incredibly critical metric. Think about it. Have you been at YYC recently and seen what goes on here?

Look at flight 2602 YYC -YXX tonight, literally one of the most delayed flights in the country. It takes at LEAST an hour delay almost every single night. Average delay over the last 7 flights is 100 minutes. Flair only operates ~8 flights a day here so when these late departures take gigantic delays every night it really destroys your average.

I have no public document for you. You can parse public flight trackers and get a pretty good idea of what goes on here, or you can ask anyone who has ever flown Flair to reiterate to you that it isn't a flawless operation.

These numbers are very easily publicly derived, which I know you're not interested in finding, but to share them will get the post deleted as all of my post sharing actual numbers have been deleted thus far in this thread.

For some reason you are of the mindset that cutting turn time will not worsen Flair's OTP, so I'm not sure there's any statistic that would change your mind anyway. It's delay minutes per sector, which puts you at a disadvantage by having a smaller operation, but is also not an incredibly critical metric. Think about it. Have you been at YYC recently and seen what goes on here?[/quote]

I see delayed F8 flights, but I also see (and experience) chronic and embarrassing WS delays. That’s why if you’re going to state a FACT that F8 is the most delayed airline at YYC, you need to post a source in accordance with forum rules.

sxf24 wrote:

I see delayed F8 flights, but I also see (and experience) chronic and embarrassing WS delays. That’s why if you’re going to state a FACT that F8 is the most delayed airline at YYC, you need to post a source in accordance with forum rules.

Sources: flightradar24.com and flightaware.com

The data is all there in its entirety. Have fun. In accordance with forum rules, I am stating facts that can be derived from public data.