Welcome to the Avelo Airlines News and Discussion thread - 2023 edition.

Please continue to post your news and discussions below.

Link to the previous (locked) edition:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1419485

Does Avelo keep any spare planes in HVN? Looks like none of them made into HVN last night (3 in BDL and 1 in ACY). Probably going to be a rough day for them.

I’ve been looking for this answer. I’ve see conflicting info as to whether there are minimum 6 in HVN based, or 7? However, they show at max only 5 scheduled to fly out daily in early morning before they start return flying back. So it seems at minimum there’s 1 extra.

I drove by Tweed yesterday while two planes were circling (both diverted to BDL). There were no planes at the airport, so I'd assume all of them were being used.

Smarcus wrote:

I’ve been looking for this answer. I’ve see conflicting info as to whether there are minimum 6 in HVN based, or 7? However, they show at max only 5 scheduled to fly out daily in early morning before they start return flying back. So it seems at minimum there’s 1 extra.

I think really its only 5 that are "based" at HVN. The 3 spots at the "gates" and 2 other parking stands close to the terminal and the smallest parking lot.

What caused all the diversions? Weather in Connecticut wasn't extreme yesterday unless there was fog locally.

Happy New Year all!

Avelo is starting the year off with some East Coast frequency increases: PHF-MCO/FLL up to 3x weekly and ILG-MCO up to 4x weekly from May.

spinkid wrote:

What caused all the diversions? Weather in Connecticut wasn't extreme yesterday unless there was fog locally.

There was heavy fog down there. BDL took diversions from HVN, HPN, and EWR.

And now today national news is reporting that Florida fights are having big delays due to computer air traffic control issues down there.

ZMA (Miami Center ) ran out of of data block CID’s so they weren’t able to accept any more aircraft. Definitely a first for me.

Slightly OTish, but I drove through Durham this past weekend, and saw a huge billboard on I-85 advertising Avelo at RDU

Looks like Avelo will be operating two flights TPA-HVN today. Monday's which was delayed 19 hours and today's regularly scheduled

Departed 19h 14m late
2:04 PM
Tue Jan 03, 2023
Scheduled:Mon Jan 02, 2023 6:50 PM
Delayed 19h 19m
4:54 PM
Tue Jan 03, 2023
Scheduled:Mon Jan 02, 2023 9:35 PM
TPA
Tampa, FL
HVN
New Haven, CT

Yes I saw that about the TPA flight. Even without crazy delays, I see that often Avelo has been running 2x daily from HVN to TPA, FLL, and PBI, and sometimes 3x daily to MCO. On another note, HVN is still trying to squeeze in more parking. Today's NH Register gives a good overview on the parking issue and that HVN is again proposing to add the final 34 spots that did not get approved last month. IMO, HVN should use all their new parking revenue and subsidize CT Transit to make all their bus trips actually stop in the airport and also adjust/add trip times. This is a no-brainer. But that is not in the article, here is the link: https://www.nhregister.com/news/article ... 692232.php

Heavy fog at HVN again today may disrupt schedule.

eastwood6 wrote:

Heavy fog at HVN again today may disrupt schedule.

Avelo #370 TPA-HVN has already diverted to BDL.

eastwood6 wrote:

Heavy fog at HVN again today may disrupt schedule.

From a passenger perspective, a majority of the flying public will understand service disruptions because of fog and most weather in general. But it’s another infrastructure shortcoming at HVN that the facility cannot support CAT II and III operations. Obviously Avelo knew this going in and can manage the side effects. If I were in HVN planning, however, I’d be pushing this as an issue that needs addressing during runway extension design phase.

PVD523 wrote:

eastwood6 wrote:

Heavy fog at HVN again today may disrupt schedule.

From a passenger perspective, a majority of the flying public will understand service disruptions because of fog and most weather in general. But it’s another infrastructure shortcoming at HVN that the facility cannot support CAT II and III operations. Obviously Avelo knew this going in and can manage the side effects. If I were in HVN planning, however, I’d be pushing this as an issue that needs addressing during runway extension design phase.

I wonder how many flights have had to divert since starting service at HVN, I am guessing at least a few dozen have diverted to BDL over the past year alone.

Once the runway is extended at HVN, how much is the additional cost on average to add CAT II/III and is there process for getting things certified by the FAA once it is installed?

uconn99 wrote:

Once the runway is extended at HVN, how much is the additional cost on average to add CAT II/III and is there process for getting things certified by the FAA once it is installed?

Would need to be done in tandem before/during/after the extension, and it’d be a hefty price tag with investment from HVN and the FAA. HVN to install centerline and touchdown zone light systems in the runway and the FAA to add and maintain an ALSF system. Plus all other work under applicable ACs.

PVD523 wrote:

uconn99 wrote:

Once the runway is extended at HVN, how much is the additional cost on average to add CAT II/III and is there process for getting things certified by the FAA once it is installed?

Would need to be done in tandem before/during/after the extension, and it’d be a hefty price tag with investment from HVN and the FAA. HVN to install centerline and touchdown zone light systems in the runway and the FAA to add and maintain an ALSF system. Plus all other work under applicable ACs.

CAT III installation by Massport at ORH cost $32m, which I can't find out if it covered both runways or just their main 7,000ft, but I will assume both (2nd runway is 5.000ft) and was implemented almost 5 years ago now.

So I am guessing closer to $40m now. Assuming all other things being equal.

XP720 MCO-HVN also diverted to BDL tonight.

VS4ever wrote:

PVD523 wrote:

uconn99 wrote:

Once the runway is extended at HVN, how much is the additional cost on average to add CAT II/III and is there process for getting things certified by the FAA once it is installed?

Would need to be done in tandem before/during/after the extension, and it’d be a hefty price tag with investment from HVN and the FAA. HVN to install centerline and touchdown zone light systems in the runway and the FAA to add and maintain an ALSF system. Plus all other work under applicable ACs.

CAT III installation by Massport at ORH cost $32m, which I can't find out if it covered both runways or just their main 7,000ft, but I will assume both (2nd runway is 5.000ft) and was implemented almost 5 years ago now.

So I am guessing closer to $40m now. Assuming all other things being equal.

Not only was the $32m for only one runway, it was for only one side. Only runway 11 at ORH has CAT II/III approaches down to 50ft for certified airlines, aircraft, and crew.

VS4ever wrote:

PVD523 wrote:

uconn99 wrote:

Once the runway is extended at HVN, how much is the additional cost on average to add CAT II/III and is there process for getting things certified by the FAA once it is installed?

Would need to be done in tandem before/during/after the extension, and it’d be a hefty price tag with investment from HVN and the FAA. HVN to install centerline and touchdown zone light systems in the runway and the FAA to add and maintain an ALSF system. Plus all other work under applicable ACs.

CAT III installation by Massport at ORH cost $32m, which I can't find out if it covered both runways or just their main 7,000ft, but I will assume both (2nd runway is 5.000ft) and was implemented almost 5 years ago now.

So I am guessing closer to $40m now. Assuming all other things being equal.

Look at Airnav for that answer.

BENAir01 wrote:

VS4ever wrote:

PVD523 wrote:

Would need to be done in tandem before/during/after the extension, and it’d be a hefty price tag with investment from HVN and the FAA. HVN to install centerline and touchdown zone light systems in the runway and the FAA to add and maintain an ALSF system. Plus all other work under applicable ACs.

CAT III installation by Massport at ORH cost $32m, which I can't find out if it covered both runways or just their main 7,000ft, but I will assume both (2nd runway is 5.000ft) and was implemented almost 5 years ago now.

So I am guessing closer to $40m now. Assuming all other things being equal.

Not only was the $32m for only one runway, it was for only one side. Only runway 11 at ORH has CAT II/III approaches down to 50ft for certified airlines, aircraft, and crew.

Fog was always a problem at ORH, many diversions to BOS in the past. It's elevation was mentioned as a cause of the fog at ORH. .https://www.columbusceo.com/story/busin ... 914798007/

PVD523 wrote:

uconn99 wrote:

Once the runway is extended at HVN, how much is the additional cost on average to add CAT II/III and is there process for getting things certified by the FAA once it is installed?

Would need to be done in tandem before/during/after the extension, and it’d be a hefty price tag with investment from HVN and the FAA. HVN to install centerline and touchdown zone light systems in the runway and the FAA to add and maintain an ALSF system. Plus all other work under applicable ACs.

CAT III at HVN is virtually impossible. The type of GS that is required for the CAT III systems (capture effect GS) cannot be supported at HVN due to its height, capture effect tower mast heigts are greater than 40 ft. vs. its current sideband reference GA which is at ~25 ft. They dont have the real estate to push the GS further from the rwy (currently ~260 ft.) because of the area there and to the south of the RWY is a wetlands protected area. They would need to push it further to be in accordance with part 77 surfaces.

Also, they wouldnt be able to install the appropriate lighting system because of the same reason (wetlands). It will be quite a challange to even get a CAT I system to work (EDIT: with the extended RWY) given the conditions at the site without tweaking either the glide path angle, TCH or displacing the threshold.

That all applies to rwy 02 of course but there are similar constrains on 20 and the cost would be a lot larger.

Is Avelo (aircraft equipment and crew training) CAT III -capable, for landings at other (CAT III) airports now, or is the HVN specific issue moot?

It looks like the one that diverted from TPA -BDL was the same flight that had the 19hr delay from Monday. Same tail number.
(N803XT)

If no practical, easy fixes at HVN, doesn’t that make the 737-700 more preferred there as the 737-800 was recently added due to good passenger #s? If 737-800 is more likely to divert there (in certain conditions) could Avelo plan to only use them certain times of year, for example?

The loads for DBQ-MCO look horrendous, unsurprisingly. A random flight in April had 14 seats booked.

uconn99 wrote:

PVD523 wrote:

eastwood6 wrote:

Heavy fog at HVN again today may disrupt schedule.

From a passenger perspective, a majority of the flying public will understand service disruptions because of fog and most weather in general. But it’s another infrastructure shortcoming at HVN that the facility cannot support CAT II and III operations. Obviously Avelo knew this going in and can manage the side effects. If I were in HVN planning, however, I’d be pushing this as an issue that needs addressing during runway extension design phase.

I wonder how many flights have had to divert since starting service at HVN, I am guessing at least a few dozen have diverted to BDL over the past year alone.

How do they get pax back to KHVN? Charter bus perhaps? I would be unhappy if I was on the flight that diverted to ALB this week.

KCaviator wrote:

The loads for DBQ-MCO look horrendous, unsurprisingly. A random flight in April had 14 seats booked.

To be fair, there's still three months left for loads to improve.

Inaugural flight as of now according to the seat map has 79 pax with fares at $75. Fares across the board seem to hover around $70-$140 on average. Not great, however potentially a sign that some word-of-mouth from people flying on the first flights may help push loads up. I wouldn't say it's totally horrendous, however I wouldn't go as far as saying the route is safe once incentives run out.

KCaviator wrote:

The loads for DBQ-MCO look horrendous, unsurprisingly. A random flight in April had 14 seats booked.

If you are looking at their website and are seeing what seats are booked, remember that you aren't required to purchase a seat, one can be assigned. So I am not sure if that's a good indicator of loads.
Then again, I could be very wrong about that as well. Just a anecdotal observation. I was on one flight that had many seats unbooked, but way more people on it than I thought.

If we're gonna start talking about potential horror story loads, take a look at the inaugural RDU flights at the moment.

Other than sold out flights, any publicly accessible data purporting to show future loads should not be considered anything close to being accurate.

VS4ever wrote:

PVD523 wrote:

uconn99 wrote:

Once the runway is extended at HVN, how much is the additional cost on average to add CAT II/III and is there process for getting things certified by the FAA once it is installed?

Would need to be done in tandem before/during/after the extension, and it’d be a hefty price tag with investment from HVN and the FAA. HVN to install centerline and touchdown zone light systems in the runway and the FAA to add and maintain an ALSF system. Plus all other work under applicable ACs.

CAT III installation by Massport at ORH cost $32m, which I can't find out if it covered both runways or just their main 7,000ft, but I will assume both (2nd runway is 5.000ft) and was implemented almost 5 years ago now.

So I am guessing closer to $40m now. Assuming all other things being equal.

At ORH, only 11-29 has an ILS and only the approach to 11 is CAT II/III. There are only non-precision approaches to the other runway.

TexasAirCorp wrote:

If we're gonna start talking about potential horror story loads, take a look at the inaugural RDU flights at the moment.

I played around with some dummy bookings from HVN for early January the other night. the SW debacle had them sold out or charging $399 one way on almost everything to/from Florida that first week along with extra flights on Tuesday the 3rd. Judging on prices booking still looked strong.

However, BNA, BWI, MDW have just their 2X weeklies in the $59-$79 range. I was surprised to seats still open for this week.

As someone else said, word of mouth is how you build name recognition.
When I hear my coworkers discussing a new airline, that's how I know they have achieved name recognition.

Usually its me mentioning it, and them looking at me puzzled asking 'never heard of them. I hope the wings aren't duct taped on" or some other quip.

Avelo has great word of mouth in CT between radio ads, giveaways at UConn games, TV news promotions, and billboards. They're the go to for southern CT, although I think they could do with somewhat more in the way of amenities given that it's a heavy family crowd.

Glad to see the HVN to MDW flight has been moved to earlier in the day from 5:30 to 3:30 starting in May Would be even better if they had a morning flight but its progress.

ctavgeek33 wrote:

Avelo has great word of mouth in CT between radio ads, giveaways at UConn games, TV news promotions, and billboards. They're the go to for southern CT, although I think they could do with somewhat more in the way of amenities given that it's a heavy family crowd.

They are missing out on quite a bit of Buy on Board

spinkid wrote:

ctavgeek33 wrote:

Avelo has great word of mouth in CT between radio ads, giveaways at UConn games, TV news promotions, and billboards. They're the go to for southern CT, although I think they could do with somewhat more in the way of amenities given that it's a heavy family crowd.

They are missing out on quite a bit of Buy on Board

I think that will come in time.

KCaviator wrote:

The loads for DBQ-MCO look horrendous, unsurprisingly. A random flight in April had 14 seats booked.

And now the inaugural flights from DBQ have been postponed due to an issue with the security plan at the airport. Avelonis currently looking for airports to fly DBQ passengers from amd they've rolled out a compensation plan for those who booked flights.
https://www.telegraphherald.com/news/br ... 2c3b93.htm

Mexicana757 wrote:

satanly1 wrote:

Glad to see the HVN to MDW flight has been moved to earlier in the day from 5:30 to 3:30 starting in May Would be even better if they had a morning flight but its progress.

On Wednesdays starting in May the flight leaves at 2pm from HVN. I notice they have the flight blocked for 3 hours going eastbound.

I wonder if a glitch is including the one hour time change in the block time? There's no way that should be a 3 hour flight, especially eastbound.

HVNandrew wrote:

Mexicana757 wrote:

satanly1 wrote:

Glad to see the HVN to MDW flight has been moved to earlier in the day from 5:30 to 3:30 starting in May Would be even better if they had a morning flight but its progress.

On Wednesdays starting in May the flight leaves at 2pm from HVN. I notice they have the flight blocked for 3 hours going eastbound.

I wonder if a glitch is including the one hour time change in the block time? There's no way that should be a 3 hour flight, especially eastbound.

May have factored in the time spent in the take off line.

Forgetting about the time change... the site is deceiving however because what is normally the duration is shown as the scheduled time (HVN-MDW shown as 1 hr 30 min)

Thad MDW flight duration error was happening on the schedule for some of the HVN - MCO trips last year,too. It’s an error.

Avelo in time needs to upgrade these old interiors to a SKY style interior, offer WI/FI for a price, and BOB. Can you imagine the only IFE on these planes is the person next to you to start some type of dialogue with? Also i think Avelo should stick with the -700 so that you can get in markets other air carriers will overlook because of runway length issues. Trust me Avelo, you'll get more with a plane that will carry 149 pax and is able to depart from a 6000ft runway fully loaded. Get rid of the -800's. Remember when there was an ULLC that only flew 737-200/-300/-500's? It's because it's the perfect size for them. What do you think about this?

eraugrad02 wrote:

Avelo in time needs to upgrade these old interiors to a SKY style interior, offer WI/FI for a price, and BOB. Can you imagine the only IFE on these planes is the person next to you to start some type of dialogue with? Also i think Avelo should stick with the -700 so that you can get in markets other air carriers will overlook because of runway length issues. Trust me Avelo, you'll get more with a plane that will carry 149 pax and is able to depart from a 6000ft runway fully loaded. Get rid of the -800's. Remember when there was an ULLC that only flew 737-200/-300/-500's? It's because it's the perfect size for them. What do you think about this?

I prefer the old interiors, much more comfortable. And I don't actually mind the lack of IFE, it's a short flight and it's easy to download stuff beforehand.

ctavgeek33 wrote:

eraugrad02 wrote:

Avelo in time needs to upgrade these old interiors to a SKY style interior, offer WI/FI for a price, and BOB. Can you imagine the only IFE on these planes is the person next to you to start some type of dialogue with? Also i think Avelo should stick with the -700 so that you can get in markets other air carriers will overlook because of runway length issues. Trust me Avelo, you'll get more with a plane that will carry 149 pax and is able to depart from a 6000ft runway fully loaded. Get rid of the -800's. Remember when there was an ULLC that only flew 737-200/-300/-500's? It's because it's the perfect size for them. What do you think about this?

I prefer the old interiors, much more comfortable. And I don't actually mind the lack of IFE, it's a short flight and it's easy to download stuff beforehand.

Really not sure why Americans are so hung up on wifi and IFE, only 1 or 2 low cost carriers in Europe offer Wi-Fi and to my knowledge there is no free IFE on any LCC/ULCC. Do you really need Wi-Fi on an airplane? Especially since none of Avellos flight exceed 4hrs.
Even more so with avello being vfr/tourism focused. Then again it does all fit with the American work culture of never being unavailable…

Swed3120 wrote:

ctavgeek33 wrote:

eraugrad02 wrote:

Avelo in time needs to upgrade these old interiors to a SKY style interior, offer WI/FI for a price, and BOB. Can you imagine the only IFE on these planes is the person next to you to start some type of dialogue with? Also i think Avelo should stick with the -700 so that you can get in markets other air carriers will overlook because of runway length issues. Trust me Avelo, you'll get more with a plane that will carry 149 pax and is able to depart from a 6000ft runway fully loaded. Get rid of the -800's. Remember when there was an ULLC that only flew 737-200/-300/-500's? It's because it's the perfect size for them. What do you think about this?

I prefer the old interiors, much more comfortable. And I don't actually mind the lack of IFE, it's a short flight and it's easy to download stuff beforehand.

Really not sure why Americans are so hung up on wifi and IFE, only 1 or 2 low cost carriers in Europe offer Wi-Fi and to my knowledge there is no free IFE on any LCC/ULCC. Do you really need Wi-Fi on an airplane? Especially since none of Avellos flight exceed 4hrs.
Even more so with avello being vfr/tourism focused. Then again it does all fit with the American work culture of never being unavailable…

With WI/FI, pax can continue with work or just catch-up with a show, movie, or the news. This is why most airports have LCD's and WI/FI as well. If not for the business community, you'd def want these options available for the kids/teens flying to stay occupied... In Europe, your trips aren't as long as our trips can get in the USA. Avelo's trips are getting longer. Example HVN to MCO, TPA, FLL are all almost 3 hours.
WI/FI is convenient and a good additional cash cow for bringing in more money into the airline. The old interior of early build 737's cant carry as many carry-ons as the SKY interior. The mood lighting does help with jet lag once the airline starts heading from west to east on redeye flights. If UNITED and some others are now putting WI/FI in their large regional jets then Avelo should as well.