Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
BOSman wrote:So according to PVD's Facebook page, David Neeleman is visiting PVD today:
https://www.facebook.com/IFlyRhodeIsland
Does he routinely visit all of the stations in the network, or is this a sign of something more to come?
Unfortunately PVD-JAX got suspended due to the A220 delays.
sfojvjets wrote:SANFan wrote:sfojvjets wrote:I disagree here... I'm well aware that their SFO and LAX routes were announced pretty early on, but their networks from the two cities seems largely based on inbound traffic. For SFO, I would think that more passengers are flying from PVU/SBD/SDF/RIC/CHS/HPN into SFO as opposed to passengers traveling from SFO to those destinations. But in any case, I don't think they need to be restricted to just one Bay Area airport. You may have a point... but with 80 220s on the way with a focus on low-frequency routes, I think SJC could have a place in their strategy...i just saying that's a lot of unserved routes and many have potential for either the 190 and 220 MX fleets
I personally would love to see Breeze consider other large cities out west instead of multiple airports in an area they already serve, such as the Bay Area. Now that they've committed to LAX and SFO, let's see them try additional west coast cities... There are other popular destinations in the far west than just SFO and LAX, just saying...
bb
That's fair. You'd think that SAN would have been announced alongside SFO/LAX or at least soon after. I guess a significant factor could be issues with A220 certification–I heard somewhere that MX will be leasing GlobalX A320s for their initial transcons but have not seen anything concrete supporting that yet.
As for other large west coast cities... well I don't think we'll ever see Breeze entering SEA. The threat of Alaska jumping on ex-SEA routes is just far too real. There's no reason for Breeze to invite unnecessary competition onto their own routes. I think PDX would be a good option though... PDX, SJC, SAN, etc. Hoping for MRY and SBA down the road.
PVD523 wrote:BOSman wrote:So according to PVD's Facebook page, David Neeleman is visiting PVD today:
https://www.facebook.com/IFlyRhodeIsland
Does he routinely visit all of the stations in the network, or is this a sign of something more to come?
Unfortunately PVD-JAX got suspended due to the A220 delays.
Sign of something to come. Breeze is floating the possibility of investing $160 million at PVD.
https://pbn.com/breeze-airways-looks-to-open-160m-base-at-t-f-green/
flightsimer wrote:luv2cattlecall wrote:Interesting... N204BZ had a few flight plans to SJC filed in April.
Likely just Test flight plans that either were filed for certification or on accident. But the 220’s will be spotted out west during proving runs.
altairF28 wrote:flightsimer wrote:luv2cattlecall wrote:Interesting... N204BZ had a few flight plans to SJC filed in April.
Likely just Test flight plans that either were filed for certification or on accident. But the 220’s will be spotted out west during proving runs.
According to somebody on the TPA Spotters Facebook page SJC is still on the schedule either this week or next week as are PHX and SLC.
sfojvjets wrote:altairF28 wrote:flightsimer wrote:Likely just Test flight plans that either were filed for certification or on accident. But the 220’s will be spotted out west during proving runs.
According to somebody on the TPA Spotters Facebook page SJC is still on the schedule either this week or next week as are PHX and SLC.
Why exactly do they plan on doing test flights to airports they don't currently plan on serving? Is there a reason they don't use PVU instead of SLC and SFO instead of SJC?
Flflyer83 wrote:Anyone know what’s up with the Breeze aircraft parked in FLL at the Jetscape hangar with engine covers on? It’s been parked there for a few weeks now…
sfojvjets wrote:altairF28 wrote:flightsimer wrote:Likely just Test flight plans that either were filed for certification or on accident. But the 220’s will be spotted out west during proving runs.
According to somebody on the TPA Spotters Facebook page SJC is still on the schedule either this week or next week as are PHX and SLC.
Why exactly do they plan on doing test flights to airports they don't currently plan on serving? Is there a reason they don't use PVU instead of SLC and SFO instead of SJC?
altairF28 wrote:flightsimer wrote:luv2cattlecall wrote:Interesting... N204BZ had a few flight plans to SJC filed in April.
Likely just Test flight plans that either were filed for certification or on accident. But the 220’s will be spotted out west during proving runs.
According to somebody on the TPA Spotters Facebook page SJC is still on the schedule either this week or next week as are PHX and SLC.
BOSman wrote:PVD523 wrote:BOSman wrote:So according to PVD's Facebook page, David Neeleman is visiting PVD today:
https://www.facebook.com/IFlyRhodeIsland
Does he routinely visit all of the stations in the network, or is this a sign of something more to come?
Unfortunately PVD-JAX got suspended due to the A220 delays.
Sign of something to come. Breeze is floating the possibility of investing $160 million at PVD.
https://pbn.com/breeze-airways-looks-to-open-160m-base-at-t-f-green/
What a weird announcement! So they're saying, "we'll open a base as long as these conditions are met". Why announce anything until it's actually happening? I'm excited that they want to open a base at PVD and I hope they will, but I want to see the announcement first.
luv2cattlecall wrote:Here's something I found interesting: quite a few of the TPA-SFO Breezethrough flights are $745 next month. The flights seem over half full, although for awhile the fares were a good bit lower.
If they're able to capture that sort of revenue this summer, I could see some growth acceleration with the extra funds.
It is odd to me that it's cheaper to book both legs of the Breezethrough separately and save quite a bit, even after accounting for duplicate seat and bag fees.
As an example, June 19 is $745 if booked as a Breezethrough.
However, the TPA-CHS leg is $139 and the CHS-SFO leg is $355, for a total of $494.
For comparison, UA has a TPA-SFO nonstop on the same day for $513 that leaves TPA 2 hours later and arrives a little before the Breeze flight.
lightsaber wrote:I worry about Breeze. While it was one of the network airlines, I just booked a round trip coast to coast trip for $450 (and then used miles to upgrade). A few weeks ago, the fares were far higher. What is happening (July 4th departure albeit at an odd time, mid-week return). While this is booking on a Tuesday almost 2 months out, I was expecting fares to stay higher this summer. Is there any hint of Breeze yield?
Lightsaber
Bluegrass60 wrote:Hello Mr Platts. My guesses: ECP, BHM
Delta28L wrote:Bluegrass60 wrote:Hello Mr Platts. My guesses: ECP, BHM
They have SWA service
jplatts wrote:Here are the top remaining markets in the contiguous U.S. not currently served by any ULCC's (by number of domestic passengers in 2019):
BHM*, MAF*, CAE, ECP*, JAN*, LBB*, TLH, BTR, CHO, DAB, AGS, MOB, ASE, AVP, GNV
* (markets already served by WN)
Is MX likely to add service to any of the above markets? If so, which of the above markets is likely to see MX service added?
GSPSPOT wrote:Any ideas of how Breeze is doing at XNA?
jplatts wrote:Here are the top remaining markets in the contiguous U.S. not currently served by any ULCC's (by number of domestic passengers in 2019):
BHM*, MAF*, CAE, ECP*, JAN*, LBB*, TLH, BTR, CHO, DAB, AGS, MOB, ASE, AVP, GNV
* (markets already served by WN)
Is MX likely to add service to any of the above markets? If so, which of the above markets is likely to see MX service added?
Scoots71 wrote:jplatts wrote:Here are the top remaining markets in the contiguous U.S. not currently served by any ULCC's (by number of domestic passengers in 2019):
BHM*, MAF*, CAE, ECP*, JAN*, LBB*, TLH, BTR, CHO, DAB, AGS, MOB, ASE, AVP, GNV
* (markets already served by WN)
Is MX likely to add service to any of the above markets? If so, which of the above markets is likely to see MX service added?
BHM would still be a perfect fit. No ULCC's, and WN's pricing there is not even good for a LCC.
In addition, there are many current Breeze destinations that have a very strong PDEW from BHM with zero competition. LAX (213), SFO (108), SAT (79), PIT (58), ORF (43), and CHS (39). In addition, TPA, MCO, and LAS all pull more than 200 PDEW from BHM and are only served by WN, most only once daily (MCO sometimes twice).
That opposed to the HSV routes, which TPA has 76 PDEW and LAS 54, with CHS not even cracking 30.
*Numbers based on Q4 2021.
ATLgaUSA wrote:Scoots71 wrote:jplatts wrote:Here are the top remaining markets in the contiguous U.S. not currently served by any ULCC's (by number of domestic passengers in 2019):
BHM*, MAF*, CAE, ECP*, JAN*, LBB*, TLH, BTR, CHO, DAB, AGS, MOB, ASE, AVP, GNV
* (markets already served by WN)
Is MX likely to add service to any of the above markets? If so, which of the above markets is likely to see MX service added?
BHM would still be a perfect fit. No ULCC's, and WN's pricing there is not even good for a LCC.
In addition, there are many current Breeze destinations that have a very strong PDEW from BHM with zero competition. LAX (213), SFO (108), SAT (79), PIT (58), ORF (43), and CHS (39). In addition, TPA, MCO, and LAS all pull more than 200 PDEW from BHM and are only served by WN, most only once daily (MCO sometimes twice).
That opposed to the HSV routes, which TPA has 76 PDEW and LAS 54, with CHS not even cracking 30.
*Numbers based on Q4 2021.
I’d also add that BHM-MSY has strong PDEW numbers when nonstop service exists between the two cities.
ahj2000 wrote:ATLgaUSA wrote:Scoots71 wrote:
BHM would still be a perfect fit. No ULCC's, and WN's pricing there is not even good for a LCC.
In addition, there are many current Breeze destinations that have a very strong PDEW from BHM with zero competition. LAX (213), SFO (108), SAT (79), PIT (58), ORF (43), and CHS (39). In addition, TPA, MCO, and LAS all pull more than 200 PDEW from BHM and are only served by WN, most only once daily (MCO sometimes twice).
That opposed to the HSV routes, which TPA has 76 PDEW and LAS 54, with CHS not even cracking 30.
*Numbers based on Q4 2021.
I’d also add that BHM-MSY has strong PDEW numbers when nonstop service exists between the two cities.
BHM-MSY is one of those markets that only works with a nonstop. It's an easy-ish five hour drive. A connecting flight that makes it 5/6 hours, plus parking/security is not competitive at all. (Neither is 8 hr Amtrak, but that's a different story)
AVLAirlineFreq wrote:Is F9 out of JAN permanently?
LBBflyer wrote:Any rumors on the status of the A220 certification? Now less than a week away from the first (re)scheduled flight. N203BZ is the only A220 that seems to be doing any of the test flights. Can the initial A220 schedule be done with a single aircraft or will 204, 206, and 208 be called into service quickly?
luv2cattlecall wrote:LBBflyer wrote:Any rumors on the status of the A220 certification? Now less than a week away from the first (re)scheduled flight. N203BZ is the only A220 that seems to be doing any of the test flights. Can the initial A220 schedule be done with a single aircraft or will 204, 206, and 208 be called into service quickly?
206 just made it from FLL to TPA about 10 minutes ago, and I think 208 has had it's transponder on and taxied a bit around TPA over the past week I think.
I have tickets on the first day of flying and it felt like the Customer service person was being a bit evasive with whether or not everything is all set, but in the end as of about a week ago confirmed it is, in a slightly indirect way.
I'm guessing everything is lining up so they don't want to scare anyone from booking, but at the same time no way be to know what could pop up in the next week, so they don't want to over promise.
luv2cattlecall wrote:LBBflyer wrote:Any rumors on the status of the A220 certification? Now less than a week away from the first (re)scheduled flight. N203BZ is the only A220 that seems to be doing any of the test flights. Can the initial A220 schedule be done with a single aircraft or will 204, 206, and 208 be called into service quickly?
206 just made it from FLL to TPA about 10 minutes ago, and I think 208 has had it's transponder on and taxied a bit around TPA over the past week I think.
I have tickets on the first day of flying and it felt like the Customer service person was being a bit evasive with whether or not everything is all set, but in the end as of about a week ago confirmed it is, in a slightly indirect way.
I'm guessing everything is lining up so they don't want to scare anyone from booking, but at the same time no way be to know what could pop up in the next week, so they don't want to over promise.
luv2cattlecall wrote:LBBflyer wrote:Any rumors on the status of the A220 certification? Now less than a week away from the first (re)scheduled flight. N203BZ is the only A220 that seems to be doing any of the test flights. Can the initial A220 schedule be done with a single aircraft or will 204, 206, and 208 be called into service quickly?
206 just made it from FLL to TPA about 10 minutes ago, and I think 208 has had it's transponder on and taxied a bit around TPA over the past week I think.
I have tickets on the first day of flying and it felt like the Customer service person was being a bit evasive with whether or not everything is all set, but in the end as of about a week ago confirmed it is, in a slightly indirect way.
I'm guessing everything is lining up so they don't want to scare anyone from booking, but at the same time no way be to know what could pop up in the next week, so they don't want to over promise.
nickflightx wrote:luv2cattlecall wrote:LBBflyer wrote:Any rumors on the status of the A220 certification? Now less than a week away from the first (re)scheduled flight. N203BZ is the only A220 that seems to be doing any of the test flights. Can the initial A220 schedule be done with a single aircraft or will 204, 206, and 208 be called into service quickly?
206 just made it from FLL to TPA about 10 minutes ago, and I think 208 has had it's transponder on and taxied a bit around TPA over the past week I think.
I have tickets on the first day of flying and it felt like the Customer service person was being a bit evasive with whether or not everything is all set, but in the end as of about a week ago confirmed it is, in a slightly indirect way.
I'm guessing everything is lining up so they don't want to scare anyone from booking, but at the same time no way be to know what could pop up in the next week, so they don't want to over promise.
I have a ticket as well on day one, flying from SFO-RIC-TPA. I would hope if the airline knew they weren't going to get the certificate for the aircraft in time for next week that they would say something to those who have paid for a ticket.
I messaged them over some rumors that the A220 launch was delayed and they said yes, but also I am booked on an A220 for May 25th. They did also say they had a delay with some of the A220 aircraft, so hopefully, one will be certified for day one. Definitely felt like they were skirting around saying no definitively, but also not completely saying yes it will be ready.
PVD523 wrote:luv2cattlecall wrote:LBBflyer wrote:Any rumors on the status of the A220 certification? Now less than a week away from the first (re)scheduled flight. N203BZ is the only A220 that seems to be doing any of the test flights. Can the initial A220 schedule be done with a single aircraft or will 204, 206, and 208 be called into service quickly?
206 just made it from FLL to TPA about 10 minutes ago, and I think 208 has had it's transponder on and taxied a bit around TPA over the past week I think.
I have tickets on the first day of flying and it felt like the Customer service person was being a bit evasive with whether or not everything is all set, but in the end as of about a week ago confirmed it is, in a slightly indirect way.
I'm guessing everything is lining up so they don't want to scare anyone from booking, but at the same time no way be to know what could pop up in the next week, so they don't want to over promise.
According to Neeleman during a recent press conference, certification is in the FAA’s hands. They have 80 pilots that have completed training and the aircraft are ready, but staff shortages and absences caused by illnesses have left the FAA with only one inspector capable of signing off on the planes.
PVD523 wrote:staff shortages and absences caused by illnesses have left the FAA with only one inspector capable of signing off on the planes.
teachpdx wrote:PVD523 wrote:staff shortages and absences caused by illnesses have left the FAA with only one inspector capable of signing off on the planes.
The same thing happened with the DL introduction of the A220, it was postponed a week or two because of issues with FAA staffing. I was booked on the first DFW-LGA flight but I had to reschedule… luckily even flying in basic they allowed me to change without charge to keep on the first flight.
luv2cattlecall wrote:teachpdx wrote:PVD523 wrote:staff shortages and absences caused by illnesses have left the FAA with only one inspector capable of signing off on the planes.
The same thing happened with the DL introduction of the A220, it was postponed a week or two because of issues with FAA staffing. I was booked on the first DFW-LGA flight but I had to reschedule… luckily even flying in basic they allowed me to change without charge to keep on the first flight.
The original A220 inagural was scheduled on May 4th, so this would be the second delay, fwiw
luv2cattlecall wrote:Perhaps they only need 50 hours of proving runs?
§ 121.163 Aircraft proving tests.
(a) Initial airplane proving tests. No person may operate an airplane not before proven for use in a kind of operation under this part or part 135 of this chapter unless an airplane of that type has had, in addition to the airplane certification tests, at least 100 hours of proving tests acceptable to the Administrator, including a representative number of flights into en route airports. The requirement for at least 100 hours of proving tests may be reduced by the Administrator if the Administrator determines that a satisfactory level of proficiency has been demonstrated to justify the reduction. At least 10 hours of proving flights must be flown at night; these tests are irreducible.
(b) Proving tests for kinds of operations. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, for each type of airplane, a certificate holder must conduct at least 50 hours of proving tests acceptable to the Administrator for each kind of operation it intends to conduct, including a representative number of flights into en route airports.
XRadar98 wrote: