Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
airlinepeanuts wrote:Don’t they have pretty strict hiring standards? I wonder if they did this to themselves by being selective in hiring.
ASFlyer wrote:airlinepeanuts wrote:Don’t they have pretty strict hiring standards? I wonder if they did this to themselves by being selective in hiring.
"strict hiring standards"? Are you serious? For what they're offering, they're lucky to have applicants at all. They did this to themselves by creating a schedule that they didn't have planes and people signed off by the FAA to operate.
diverdave wrote:Looks like CHS-HSV ends on September 5th.
Flflyer83 wrote:Cubsrule wrote:ASFlyer wrote:
It seems like the question has been answered several times now, and someone seemingly from the inside (until recently anyway?) has acknowledged that the entire operation is a "dumpster fire" (their words, not mine). Are you willing to acknowledge that Breeze should probably have approached this major expansion with a little less urgency?
Absolutely. What I didn’t really understand was this sense that the issues were all their fault or were unique to them when we hear almost daily about some other carrier facing a meltdown. This summer, unfortunately, has shades of 2000 for me and I expect for a lot of other folks who have been working in or following the industry for too long.
It does to me that MX has finally (and tardily) made a big push to schedule realistically and otherwise do right by passengers. I got another apology email from them yesterday.
Other carriers can rebook passengers relatively quickly on flights the same day or next day. Breeze cancelled successive flights on a point for point route last week that only flies twice a week… and they don’t rebook on other carriers. Not everyone can just go buy a 1200 ticket on another carrier at the last minute. That’s a big deal, especially when it is happening over and over and over. They have full control of their schedule. Period.
Bluegrass60 wrote:Can the finger ultimately be pointed at the FAA/DOT and Pete Buttigieg U.S. Secretary of Transportation?
Flflyer83 wrote:Cubsrule wrote:ASFlyer wrote:
It seems like the question has been answered several times now, and someone seemingly from the inside (until recently anyway?) has acknowledged that the entire operation is a "dumpster fire" (their words, not mine). Are you willing to acknowledge that Breeze should probably have approached this major expansion with a little less urgency?
Absolutely. What I didn’t really understand was this sense that the issues were all their fault or were unique to them when we hear almost daily about some other carrier facing a meltdown. This summer, unfortunately, has shades of 2000 for me and I expect for a lot of other folks who have been working in or following the industry for too long.
It does to me that MX has finally (and tardily) made a big push to schedule realistically and otherwise do right by passengers. I got another apology email from them yesterday.
Other carriers can rebook passengers relatively quickly on flights the same day or next day. Breeze cancelled successive flights on a point for point route last week that only flies twice a week… and they don’t rebook on other carriers. Not everyone can just go buy a 1200 ticket on another carrier at the last minute. That’s a big deal, especially when it is happening over and over and over. They have full control of their schedule. Period.
SurfandSnow wrote:Oh dear.. Breeze sounds just like Norwegian and Wow Air. I flew both of those carriers back in 2018, and both honestly offered a great product - even then, $325 for a nonstop LAX-MAD and $299 for a BCN-KEF-LAX return seemed like excellent value, especially for an early August visit to Spain. However, both expanded far too rapidly, and seemed to suffer from all kinds of delays and other issues. Lest we not forget that Norwegian's brand new 787s and 737 MAX planes faced all kinds of teething issues, just like the Breeze A220s.
Hopefully by drastically scaling back the network and growth plans, this "nice" new carrier can focus on the basics and achieve success.
airlinepeanuts wrote:ASFlyer wrote:airlinepeanuts wrote:Don’t they have pretty strict hiring standards? I wonder if they did this to themselves by being selective in hiring.
"strict hiring standards"? Are you serious? For what they're offering, they're lucky to have applicants at all. They did this to themselves by creating a schedule that they didn't have planes and people signed off by the FAA to operate.
Exactly! I thought they were like requiring degrees for flight attendants at first?
MILakes wrote:Currently a 1-stop (Breeze thru) thru TPA. HSV-LAS also delayed until Sept. So current HSV schedule is 2x week TPA, with good load factors I'm told. Nearly all of us on this site are aviation enthusiasts and/or professionals with insight into the nuances inherent with a start up that operates less than daily service. However the PR trouble comes from the majority of the flying public who were/are/will be surprised when a flight is canx and they are left to figure out another way to their destination (or wait 3/4 days for the next MX flight). And passengers trying to get back to or from a place like HSV, a mid-market with limited capacity and schedule, may find few options on any airline for a day or so.
Babyshark wrote:SurfandSnow wrote:Oh dear.. Breeze sounds just like Norwegian and Wow Air. I flew both of those carriers back in 2018, and both honestly offered a great product - even then, $325 for a nonstop LAX-MAD and $299 for a BCN-KEF-LAX return seemed like excellent value, especially for an early August visit to Spain. However, both expanded far too rapidly, and seemed to suffer from all kinds of delays and other issues. Lest we not forget that Norwegian's brand new 787s and 737 MAX planes faced all kinds of teething issues, just like the Breeze A220s.
Hopefully by drastically scaling back the network and growth plans, this "nice" new carrier can focus on the basics and achieve success.
they may need the scale to fund their operation and without it they won’t make it
The interesting question would be if it was cheaper to use used 737 or 320s from day 1 instead of boutique E190/220s?
And I’m talking strictly cheaper, not even considering seat miles. Just airframes.
But it would have been more asms, more revenue, more qualified FAA, more pilots applying, more everything.
Seems their product was the airplanes then the routes. Their product needed to be the routes first.
FLALEFTY wrote:The A220 is a great aircraft, but it is still in its very early stages of airline use and the type rated pilot pool is shallow. No type-rated A220 captains with either DL or B6 would resign their more stable gigs to go direct entry into the left seat with MX for substantially less money.
ASFlyer wrote:airlinepeanuts wrote:ASFlyer wrote:
"strict hiring standards"? Are you serious? For what they're offering, they're lucky to have applicants at all. They did this to themselves by creating a schedule that they didn't have planes and people signed off by the FAA to operate.
Exactly! I thought they were like requiring degrees for flight attendants at first?
no, they were trying to create some weird cult like airline where Flight Attendants were all temporarily employed part time at dirt poor wages and required to be enrolled in the college in Utah that David Neeleman received an honorary degree from. When nobody wanted any part of that they decided to just go the usual route and hire people for a job, but still offering basement wages and lousy work conditions.
diverdave wrote:FLALEFTY wrote:The A220 is a great aircraft, but it is still in its very early stages of airline use and the type rated pilot pool is shallow. No type-rated A220 captains with either DL or B6 would resign their more stable gigs to go direct entry into the left seat with MX for substantially less money.
Come July 15th, this aircraft has been in service for six years. The pilot pool may be shallow, but the aircraft is not a fledgling at this point in time.
David
LBBflyer wrote:Flflyer83 wrote:Cubsrule wrote:
Absolutely. What I didn’t really understand was this sense that the issues were all their fault or were unique to them when we hear almost daily about some other carrier facing a meltdown. This summer, unfortunately, has shades of 2000 for me and I expect for a lot of other folks who have been working in or following the industry for too long.
It does to me that MX has finally (and tardily) made a big push to schedule realistically and otherwise do right by passengers. I got another apology email from them yesterday.
Other carriers can rebook passengers relatively quickly on flights the same day or next day. Breeze cancelled successive flights on a point for point route last week that only flies twice a week… and they don’t rebook on other carriers. Not everyone can just go buy a 1200 ticket on another carrier at the last minute. That’s a big deal, especially when it is happening over and over and over. They have full control of their schedule. Period.
I think that anyone who thinks that Breeze is taking too much blame for this situation should pull up Twitter and take a look at the replies that Breeze staff have had to make of the past few days. Numerous passengers who were planning to get home on Breeze now having to spend multiple hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars on replacement flights. Additionally, it appears that you have to manually request a full refund (instead of BreezePoints) and their on-line service is backed up for days. This is holding people's cash hostage when they need it to book flights on another airline.
B747forever wrote:LBBflyer wrote:Flflyer83 wrote:
Other carriers can rebook passengers relatively quickly on flights the same day or next day. Breeze cancelled successive flights on a point for point route last week that only flies twice a week… and they don’t rebook on other carriers. Not everyone can just go buy a 1200 ticket on another carrier at the last minute. That’s a big deal, especially when it is happening over and over and over. They have full control of their schedule. Period.
I think that anyone who thinks that Breeze is taking too much blame for this situation should pull up Twitter and take a look at the replies that Breeze staff have had to make of the past few days. Numerous passengers who were planning to get home on Breeze now having to spend multiple hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars on replacement flights. Additionally, it appears that you have to manually request a full refund (instead of BreezePoints) and their on-line service is backed up for days. This is holding people's cash hostage when they need it to book flights on another airline.
Nope, one is able to request either refund to original form of payment or breezepoints for refund. Very straightforward process.
Also, got an email this morning that they will credit $100 to my account for all the cancellations.
Cubsrule wrote:B747forever wrote:LBBflyer wrote:
I think that anyone who thinks that Breeze is taking too much blame for this situation should pull up Twitter and take a look at the replies that Breeze staff have had to make of the past few days. Numerous passengers who were planning to get home on Breeze now having to spend multiple hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars on replacement flights. Additionally, it appears that you have to manually request a full refund (instead of BreezePoints) and their on-line service is backed up for days. This is holding people's cash hostage when they need it to book flights on another airline.
Nope, one is able to request either refund to original form of payment or breezepoints for refund. Very straightforward process.
Also, got an email this morning that they will credit $100 to my account for all the cancellations.
Requiring a choice between credit and a refund isn't customer friendly, but it also isn't inconsistent with what the Big 4 US carriers do. It's been a while since I had a cancelation on DL or UA, but my memory is that they require a choice and AA and WN definitely do.
B747forever wrote:LBBflyer wrote:Flflyer83 wrote:
Other carriers can rebook passengers relatively quickly on flights the same day or next day. Breeze cancelled successive flights on a point for point route last week that only flies twice a week… and they don’t rebook on other carriers. Not everyone can just go buy a 1200 ticket on another carrier at the last minute. That’s a big deal, especially when it is happening over and over and over. They have full control of their schedule. Period.
I think that anyone who thinks that Breeze is taking too much blame for this situation should pull up Twitter and take a look at the replies that Breeze staff have had to make of the past few days. Numerous passengers who were planning to get home on Breeze now having to spend multiple hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars on replacement flights. Additionally, it appears that you have to manually request a full refund (instead of BreezePoints) and their on-line service is backed up for days. This is holding people's cash hostage when they need it to book flights on another airline.
Nope, one is able to request either refund to original form of payment or breezepoints for refund. Very straightforward process.
Also, got an email this morning that they will credit $100 to my account for all the cancellations.
LBBflyer wrote:B747forever wrote:LBBflyer wrote:
On another note, it appears that the E190 does not have the range to make the LAS flights as speculated. MX244 from RSW-LAS, appears to be making a fuel stop in TUL. I wonder if it will need one back eastbound later today.
MEA-707 wrote:LBBflyer wrote:B747forever wrote:
The E190 has decent range, I flew on an Air Canada E190 YYZ-SEA without problems. What happened here was probably due to hot weather, maybe they didn't fuel up enough and then were caught in a detour or disappointing head wind. Eastwards it should definitely pose no problems.
Polot wrote:MEA-707 wrote:LBBflyer wrote:
The E190 has decent range, I flew on an Air Canada E190 YYZ-SEA without problems. What happened here was probably due to hot weather, maybe they didn't fuel up enough and then were caught in a detour or disappointing head wind. Eastwards it should definitely pose no problems.
RSW-LAS might be a bit more of a struggle because I’m not sure the planes are properly equipped to cut across the Gulf of Mexico, meaning they have to take a longer more northernly route staying near the coast.
N383SW wrote:Polot wrote:MEA-707 wrote:The E190 has decent range, I flew on an Air Canada E190 YYZ-SEA without problems. What happened here was probably due to hot weather, maybe they didn't fuel up enough and then were caught in a detour or disappointing head wind. Eastwards it should definitely pose no problems.
RSW-LAS might be a bit more of a struggle because I’m not sure the planes are properly equipped to cut across the Gulf of Mexico, meaning they have to take a longer more northernly route staying near the coast.
Also IIRC the MX cabins are more dense that AC's. Hopefully they can use the EMB's without a lot of problems and somewhat smooth out the operation for everyone involved.
LBBflyer wrote:N383SW wrote:Polot wrote:RSW-LAS might be a bit more of a struggle because I’m not sure the planes are properly equipped to cut across the Gulf of Mexico, meaning they have to take a longer more northernly route staying near the coast.
Also IIRC the MX cabins are more dense that AC's. Hopefully they can use the EMB's without a lot of problems and somewhat smooth out the operation for everyone involved.
Looks like the first E190 visit to LAS is not going too smoothly. It arrived basically on-time after only spending 30 minutes on the ground in TUL, pretty good. However, it is not also scheduled for a stop in TUL on the return leg, and is scheduled to depart (at least) 2.5 hours late. They can't seem to catch a break.
FLALEFTY wrote:Babyshark wrote:SurfandSnow wrote:Oh dear.. Breeze sounds just like Norwegian and Wow Air. I flew both of those carriers back in 2018, and both honestly offered a great product - even then, $325 for a nonstop LAX-MAD and $299 for a BCN-KEF-LAX return seemed like excellent value, especially for an early August visit to Spain. However, both expanded far too rapidly, and seemed to suffer from all kinds of delays and other issues. Lest we not forget that Norwegian's brand new 787s and 737 MAX planes faced all kinds of teething issues, just like the Breeze A220s.
Hopefully by drastically scaling back the network and growth plans, this "nice" new carrier can focus on the basics and achieve success.
they may need the scale to fund their operation and without it they won’t make it
The interesting question would be if it was cheaper to use used 737 or 320s from day 1 instead of boutique E190/220s?
And I’m talking strictly cheaper, not even considering seat miles. Just airframes.
But it would have been more asms, more revenue, more qualified FAA, more pilots applying, more everything.
Seems their product was the airplanes then the routes. Their product needed to be the routes first.
This is a good point. There is a larger supply of type-rated B737 & A32X pilots and flight attendants. There were literally hundreds of these aircraft sitting in the deserts and available from lessors during the peak years of COVID. Had Breeze taken the path similar to Avelo going with established planes like the B738 or A320, then finding pilots to fly them would have been much easier. The A220 is a great aircraft, but it is still in its very early stages of airline use and the type rated pilot pool is shallow. No type-rated A220 captains with either DL or B6 would resign their more stable gigs to go direct entry into the left seat with MX for substantially less money.
I really hope MX finds their way out of this mess and better establishes themselves in the market.
ATLgaUSA wrote:Looks like Breeze convinced HSV to pay them $10k/month to not pull out.
https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2022/06/huntsville-willing-to-pay-10000-a-month-to-land-low-cost-airline-service.html
diverdave wrote:ATLgaUSA wrote:Looks like Breeze convinced HSV to pay them $10k/month to not pull out.
https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2022/06/huntsville-willing-to-pay-10000-a-month-to-land-low-cost-airline-service.html
Wow that's pretty small change. After all, AirTran extracted in excess of a million dollars for service that was eventually pulled down by WN.
Also note that Breeze does not qualify for this subsidy with their current schedule of two flights weekly to TPA. I do not think the breeze through flights to CHS would qualify.
The subsidy would start in September with the addition of HSV-LAS. There would be 7 flights to LAS and 9 to TPA, which would bring them to the 16 flight threshold.
(We'll overlook the current operational crisis which makes it seem unlikely that HSV-LAS will start as scheduled.)
The article also says there is another $10K for a third destination. Not enough detail to know if the breeze through to CHS would qualify for that
David
ASFlyer wrote:diverdave wrote:ATLgaUSA wrote:Looks like Breeze convinced HSV to pay them $10k/month to not pull out.
https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2022/06/huntsville-willing-to-pay-10000-a-month-to-land-low-cost-airline-service.html
Wow that's pretty small change. After all, AirTran extracted in excess of a million dollars for service that was eventually pulled down by WN.
Also note that Breeze does not qualify for this subsidy with their current schedule of two flights weekly to TPA. I do not think the breeze through flights to CHS would qualify.
The subsidy would start in September with the addition of HSV-LAS. There would be 7 flights to LAS and 9 to TPA, which would bring them to the 16 flight threshold.
(We'll overlook the current operational crisis which makes it seem unlikely that HSV-LAS will start as scheduled.)
The article also says there is another $10K for a third destination. Not enough detail to know if the breeze through to CHS would qualify for that
David
A “breeze-through” is what every other airline calls a direct flight. I can’t imagine they’re going to subsidize an airline for flights that make stops unless the first stop is a completely new destination. A direct flight to CHS isn’t providing anything Delta or American don’t provide except you get to sit in the plane while it’s on the ground at the intermediate stop.
N0dak wrote:FLALEFTY wrote:Babyshark wrote:
A larger “pool” of type rated pilots wouldn’t have helped anything. A type rated pilot would be required to go through the same training as a non-typed one.
You’re correct that there would be little incentive for someone to leave a carrier like DL or stay at Breeze any longer than necessary. The pay or QOL don’t even compare.
Bluegrass60 wrote:ASFlyer wrote:diverdave wrote:
Wow that's pretty small change. After all, AirTran extracted in excess of a million dollars for service that was eventually pulled down by WN.
Also note that Breeze does not qualify for this subsidy with their current schedule of two flights weekly to TPA. I do not think the breeze through flights to CHS would qualify.
The subsidy would start in September with the addition of HSV-LAS. There would be 7 flights to LAS and 9 to TPA, which would bring them to the 16 flight threshold.
(We'll overlook the current operational crisis which makes it seem unlikely that HSV-LAS will start as scheduled.)
The article also says there is another $10K for a third destination. Not enough detail to know if the breeze through to CHS would qualify for that
David
A “breeze-through” is what every other airline calls a direct flight. I can’t imagine they’re going to subsidize an airline for flights that make stops unless the first stop is a completely new destination. A direct flight to CHS isn’t providing anything Delta or American don’t provide except you get to sit in the plane while it’s on the ground at the intermediate stop.
"There are very few "direct" flights on the Legacy Carriers. Their idea of direct is a connection thru a hub. Even WN has fewer directs opting to connect via a "focus city" (aka a hub)"
ASFlyer wrote:airlinepeanuts wrote:Don’t they have pretty strict hiring standards? I wonder if they did this to themselves by being selective in hiring.
"strict hiring standards"? Are you serious? For what they're offering, they're lucky to have applicants at all. They did this to themselves by creating a schedule that they didn't have planes and people signed off by the FAA to operate.
Polot wrote:Bluegrass60 wrote:ASFlyer wrote:
A “breeze-through” is what every other airline calls a direct flight. I can’t imagine they’re going to subsidize an airline for flights that make stops unless the first stop is a completely new destination. A direct flight to CHS isn’t providing anything Delta or American don’t provide except you get to sit in the plane while it’s on the ground at the intermediate stop.
"There are very few "direct" flights on the Legacy Carriers. Their idea of direct is a connection thru a hub. Even WN has fewer directs opting to connect via a "focus city" (aka a hub)"
“Direct” has nothing to do with the status of the connection point in an airline’s network. Breezethru flights are just same plane connections. Same plane HSV-ATL-JFK (for example) on DL would still be considered a direct flight even though ATL is a DL hub.
Offering connections that require plane changes increases operational complexity and costs (airlines are liable for connection, so if first flight is delayed and passenger misses second flight MX has to get pax to final destination or pay out compensation) so for now Breeze only offers same plane connections. If you want otherwise you have to self connect (in which case MX is not liable if you miss your second flight).
Polot wrote:Bluegrass60 wrote:ASFlyer wrote:
A “breeze-through” is what every other airline calls a direct flight. I can’t imagine they’re going to subsidize an airline for flights that make stops unless the first stop is a completely new destination. A direct flight to CHS isn’t providing anything Delta or American don’t provide except you get to sit in the plane while it’s on the ground at the intermediate stop.
"There are very few "direct" flights on the Legacy Carriers. Their idea of direct is a connection thru a hub. Even WN has fewer directs opting to connect via a "focus city" (aka a hub)"
“Direct” has nothing to do with the status of the connection point in an airline’s network. Breezethru flights are just same plane connections. Same plane HSV-ATL-JFK (for example) on DL would still be considered a direct flight even though ATL is a DL hub.
Offering connections that require plane changes increases operational complexity and costs (airlines are liable for connection, so if first flight is delayed and passenger misses second flight MX has to get pax to final destination or pay out compensation) so for now Breeze only offers same plane connections. If you want otherwise you have to self connect (in which case MX is not liable if you miss your second flight).
ATLgaUSA wrote:Looks like Breeze convinced HSV to pay them $10k/month to not pull out.
https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2022/06/huntsville-willing-to-pay-10000-a-month-to-land-low-cost-airline-service.html
ATLgaUSA wrote:Looks like Breeze convinced HSV to pay them $10k/month to not pull out.
https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2022/06/huntsville-willing-to-pay-10000-a-month-to-land-low-cost-airline-service.html
FLALEFTY wrote:N0dak wrote:FLALEFTY wrote:
A larger “pool” of type rated pilots wouldn’t have helped anything. A type rated pilot would be required to go through the same training as a non-typed one.
You’re correct that there would be little incentive for someone to leave a carrier like DL or stay at Breeze any longer than necessary. The pay or QOL don’t even compare.
Interesting that you say that type-rated pilot availability "wouldn't have helped anything". Global Crossing Airlines, a start-up that is roughly the same age as MX, has been hiring in direct-entry A32X captains. Here's an ad from their webpage:
https://www.globalairlinesgroup.com/careers.html
Another start-up airline, Avelo has been hiring in direct-entry captains for their 737 fleet, too. Here's the job description & requirements:
https://www.airlineapps.com/jobs/detail ... ry-Captain
And before you quibble over the "Type rating preferred" wording, I imagine very few of their direct-entry captains hired so far lacked an appropriate type rating for the aircraft those airlines were operating.
Jgsushi wrote:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RdKMSLelMBwYkJPLfYudRRbY6MEfSQJqzJIZ11WRgs4/edit?usp=sharing
A cool spreadsheet by Seth Miller from Paxex.aero
Jgsushi wrote:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RdKMSLelMBwYkJPLfYudRRbY6MEfSQJqzJIZ11WRgs4/edit?usp=sharing
A cool spreadsheet by Seth Miller from Paxex.aero
yyztpa2 wrote:I don't know. I think they have gotten past some of the earlier turmoil and flights are more consistent now. The shared document is two weeks old
Flflyer83 wrote:yyztpa2 wrote:I don't know. I think they have gotten past some of the earlier turmoil and flights are more consistent now. The shared document is two weeks old
They cancelled so much of their network that they HAVE to be doing better… much better than the thousands of passengers that had their travel plans cancelled last minute.
luv2cattlecall wrote:Flflyer83 wrote:yyztpa2 wrote:I don't know. I think they have gotten past some of the earlier turmoil and flights are more consistent now. The shared document is two weeks old
They cancelled so much of their network that they HAVE to be doing better… much better than the thousands of passengers that had their travel plans cancelled last minute.
At the very least, for currently booked passengers and those looking to book flights, it feels like things are more dependable.
Babyshark wrote:SurfandSnow wrote:Oh dear.. Breeze sounds just like Norwegian and Wow Air. I flew both of those carriers back in 2018, and both honestly offered a great product - even then, $325 for a nonstop LAX-MAD and $299 for a BCN-KEF-LAX return seemed like excellent value, especially for an early August visit to Spain. However, both expanded far too rapidly, and seemed to suffer from all kinds of delays and other issues. Lest we not forget that Norwegian's brand new 787s and 737 MAX planes faced all kinds of teething issues, just like the Breeze A220s.
Hopefully by drastically scaling back the network and growth plans, this "nice" new carrier can focus on the basics and achieve success.
they may need the scale to fund their operation and without it they won’t make it
The interesting question would be if it was cheaper to use used 737 or 320s from day 1 instead of boutique E190/220s?
And I’m talking strictly cheaper, not even considering seat miles. Just airframes.
But it would have been more asms, more revenue, more qualified FAA, more pilots applying, more everything.
Seems their product was the airplanes then the routes. Their product needed to be the routes first.