TexasAirCorp wrote:

flyaa757 wrote:

Has there been any communication whatsoever about financials? Given the lack of success on the 220 long hauls - would really be interested to see what this looks like.

As they're a private company there isn't much public info about their finances, but they still have to file financial results with the DOT. Various articles suggest these filings show Breeze lost $116 million between Q4 2021 and Q3 2022, with losses widening each quarter. That's the most up-to-date info on their finances that I'm able to find as of now.

https://eu.cantonrep.com/story/news/loc ... 978670007/

trueblew wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

flyaa757 wrote:

Has there been any communication whatsoever about financials? Given the lack of success on the 220 long hauls - would really be interested to see what this looks like.

As they're a private company there isn't much public info about their finances, but they still have to file financial results with the DOT. Various articles suggest these filings show Breeze lost $116 million between Q4 2021 and Q3 2022, with losses widening each quarter. That's the most up-to-date info on their finances that I'm able to find as of now.

https://eu.cantonrep.com/story/news/loc ... 978670007/

It certainly makes one wonder when Neeleman will run out of other peoples' money, and, after that point, what happens to the sizeable fleet Breeze have accrued despite their relative lack of flying. Perhaps Breeze can transition into a charter airline as they have found relative success in that business it would seem.

Not all good ideas make good business plans. This appears to be an example of one which does not.

Bluegrass60 wrote:

trueblew wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

As they're a private company there isn't much public info about their finances, but they still have to file financial results with the DOT. Various articles suggest these filings show Breeze lost $116 million between Q4 2021 and Q3 2022, with losses widening each quarter. That's the most up-to-date info on their finances that I'm able to find as of now.

https://eu.cantonrep.com/story/news/loc ... 978670007/

It certainly makes one wonder when Neeleman will run out of other peoples' money, and, after that point, what happens to the sizeable fleet Breeze have accrued despite their relative lack of flying. Perhaps Breeze can transition into a charter airline as they have found relative success in that business it would seem.

Not all good ideas make good business plans. This appears to be an example of one which does not.

"MX and Neeleman have successfully built MX to where it is today...a national route structure with lots of opportunity to "mature" 34 destinations with existing and new routes/flight times. You forget the success of the 220 long hauls (and there are successful 220 long hauls)....If it weren't for "other people's money...there would be zero new airlines. Refreshing to see the MX naysayers."

Bluegrass60 wrote:

"MX and Neeleman have successfully built MX to where it is today...a national route structure with lots of opportunity to "mature" 34 destinations with existing and new routes/flight times. You forget the success of the 220 long hauls (and there are successful 220 long hauls)....If it weren't for "other people's money...there would be zero new airlines. Refreshing to see the MX naysayers."

runningonempty wrote:

Looks like there is a new route drop on the horizon... seeing some fresh new nonstops being loaded in as we speak. Totally unscientific means of checking bookable flights on their website showing the following:

ISP - RDU (Begins 6/29, Sun/Thurs, ends in fall)
ISP - PWM (Begins 6/28, Wed/Sat, continues through fall)
PWM - MCO (Begins Fall, 2x Weekly - was this previously announced?)

Likely missing some, we'll probably see an official announcement in the morning.

MavyWavyATR wrote:

One route I would've liked to see is ISP-LAX. Could have the potential of doing well there.

Bluegrass60 wrote:

"MX and Neeleman have successfully built MX to where it is today...a national route structure with lots of opportunity to "mature" 34 destinations with existing and new routes/flight times. You forget the success of the 220 long hauls (and there are successful 220 long hauls)....If it weren't for "other people's money...there would be zero new airlines. Refreshing to see the MX naysayers."

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

"MX and Neeleman have successfully built MX to where it is today...a national route structure with lots of opportunity to "mature" 34 destinations with existing and new routes/flight times. You forget the success of the 220 long hauls (and there are successful 220 long hauls)....If it weren't for "other people's money...there would be zero new airlines. Refreshing to see the MX naysayers."

Yes, airline startups nearly always rely on "other people's money", and it's not uncommon for startups in any money to burn cash in their initial years, however the operational and strategy side of Breeze represents a business that's 'maturing' like rotting cheese. Neeleman and his crew have 'successfully' built MX into an airline with a poor reputation for reliability, a route network that now resembles more of a revolving door, and a company that's already eaten through half of its launch capital after less than two years of operation. I don't see much success on the A220 long haul side, as shown by the rather alarming number of routes being cut either before or soon after launch, and backed up by the fact A220 expansion this summer seems to largely consist of short-haul flying rather than the transcon routes the aircraft was originally intended for.

My personal bugbear with Breeze is the fact it doesn't seem to have any kind of consistent strategy, instead it lurches from niche to niche seemingly in the hope it might strike gold somewhere. Its network is beginning to resemble Elite Airways on steroids; a collection of rather random routes that might possibly make some sense, but with no cohesive synergy or any long-term network development aims. Its initial bases, mainly ORF/MSY but also CHS/TPA, seem to have been largely forgotten about in favour of thinly-spread W-routes, many of which make little logistical sense from summer-orientated destinations like Charleston or Norfolk, resulting in potentially lucrative markets being held back performance-wise by the required positioning flight (CHS-CRW is a brilliant example of this).

I also think it's pretty embarrassing that the airline with the slogan 'nice, new, nonstop' now seems to operate quite a significant number of flights that aren't nonstop; it might make sense schedule wise, however it's nowhere near Breeze's initial business plan, and seems to be a rather desperate attempt to fill otherwise empty seats. That, combined with the fact MX is now having to chase well-service markets like MCO, just shows whatever strategy they've has adopted isn't working and is slowly being scrapped. Does that mean Breeze is at death's door? No, but it doesn't show success either.

Gulfstream500 wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

"MX and Neeleman have successfully built MX to where it is today...a national route structure with lots of opportunity to "mature" 34 destinations with existing and new routes/flight times. You forget the success of the 220 long hauls (and there are successful 220 long hauls)....If it weren't for "other people's money...there would be zero new airlines. Refreshing to see the MX naysayers."

Yes, airline startups nearly always rely on "other people's money", and it's not uncommon for startups in any money to burn cash in their initial years, however the operational and strategy side of Breeze represents a business that's 'maturing' like rotting cheese. Neeleman and his crew have 'successfully' built MX into an airline with a poor reputation for reliability, a route network that now resembles more of a revolving door, and a company that's already eaten through half of its launch capital after less than two years of operation. I don't see much success on the A220 long haul side, as shown by the rather alarming number of routes being cut either before or soon after launch, and backed up by the fact A220 expansion this summer seems to largely consist of short-haul flying rather than the transcon routes the aircraft was originally intended for.

My personal bugbear with Breeze is the fact it doesn't seem to have any kind of consistent strategy, instead it lurches from niche to niche seemingly in the hope it might strike gold somewhere. Its network is beginning to resemble Elite Airways on steroids; a collection of rather random routes that might possibly make some sense, but with no cohesive synergy or any long-term network development aims. Its initial bases, mainly ORF/MSY but also CHS/TPA, seem to have been largely forgotten about in favour of thinly-spread W-routes, many of which make little logistical sense from summer-orientated destinations like Charleston or Norfolk, resulting in potentially lucrative markets being held back performance-wise by the required positioning flight (CHS-CRW is a brilliant example of this).

I also think it's pretty embarrassing that the airline with the slogan 'nice, new, nonstop' now seems to operate quite a significant number of flights that aren't nonstop; it might make sense schedule wise, however it's nowhere near Breeze's initial business plan, and seems to be a rather desperate attempt to fill otherwise empty seats. That, combined with the fact MX is now having to chase well-service markets like MCO, just shows whatever strategy they've has adopted isn't working and is slowly being scrapped. Does that mean Breeze is at death's door? No, but it doesn't show success either.

One thing that I will say is that Allegiant has a less-than-stellar reputations for reliability, but is still highly profitable. Spirit has a terrible reputation as far as comfort is concerned, yet they are highly profitable too. And Frontier is frequently mocked for their dartboard strategy. Ultimately, what I am going at is that people couldn't care less about the brand they're flying on when it is their own money - they care about convenience (how quickly they can get from point a to point b) and price, and a lot of people I know have no idea who half of the major US airlines even are.

However, I do very much agree that some of their routes make little sense in terms of present demand, though I definitely appreciate that there is a ULCC that is willing to fly me to somewhere other than Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, or Vegas.

ATLgaUSA wrote:

Gulfstream500 wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Yes, airline startups nearly always rely on "other people's money", and it's not uncommon for startups in any money to burn cash in their initial years, however the operational and strategy side of Breeze represents a business that's 'maturing' like rotting cheese. Neeleman and his crew have 'successfully' built MX into an airline with a poor reputation for reliability, a route network that now resembles more of a revolving door, and a company that's already eaten through half of its launch capital after less than two years of operation. I don't see much success on the A220 long haul side, as shown by the rather alarming number of routes being cut either before or soon after launch, and backed up by the fact A220 expansion this summer seems to largely consist of short-haul flying rather than the transcon routes the aircraft was originally intended for.

My personal bugbear with Breeze is the fact it doesn't seem to have any kind of consistent strategy, instead it lurches from niche to niche seemingly in the hope it might strike gold somewhere. Its network is beginning to resemble Elite Airways on steroids; a collection of rather random routes that might possibly make some sense, but with no cohesive synergy or any long-term network development aims. Its initial bases, mainly ORF/MSY but also CHS/TPA, seem to have been largely forgotten about in favour of thinly-spread W-routes, many of which make little logistical sense from summer-orientated destinations like Charleston or Norfolk, resulting in potentially lucrative markets being held back performance-wise by the required positioning flight (CHS-CRW is a brilliant example of this).

I also think it's pretty embarrassing that the airline with the slogan 'nice, new, nonstop' now seems to operate quite a significant number of flights that aren't nonstop; it might make sense schedule wise, however it's nowhere near Breeze's initial business plan, and seems to be a rather desperate attempt to fill otherwise empty seats. That, combined with the fact MX is now having to chase well-service markets like MCO, just shows whatever strategy they've has adopted isn't working and is slowly being scrapped. Does that mean Breeze is at death's door? No, but it doesn't show success either.

One thing that I will say is that Allegiant has a less-than-stellar reputations for reliability, but is still highly profitable. Spirit has a terrible reputation as far as comfort is concerned, yet they are highly profitable too. And Frontier is frequently mocked for their dartboard strategy. Ultimately, what I am going at is that people couldn't care less about the brand they're flying on when it is their own money - they care about convenience (how quickly they can get from point a to point b) and price, and a lot of people I know have no idea who half of the major US airlines even are.

However, I do very much agree that some of their routes make little sense in terms of present demand, though I definitely appreciate that there is a ULCC that is willing to fly me to somewhere other than Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, or Vegas.

Allegiant had a bad reputation for reliability. Its reliability has improved dramatically over the past few years.

yoshoward12 wrote:

I think in theory, their routes are interesting but as some have stated earlier, there is no clear strategy, instead they are just picking random routes that “should” work. Its all fun and games until the money runs dry. Personally, I think if they picked a handful of bases and had simple operations from there, choosing underserved routes, they could be ok. It would simplify the schedule, get planes back to their bases, help maintenance, and decrease costs. Avelo is doing a good job at this for the most part and their simple (relatively speaking) operation seems built to last longer.

Bluegrass60 wrote:

If losing $23.8M is a "good job" then Avelo is doing ok.

Bluegrass60 wrote:

Good luck with Avelo. MX is not really comparable and you obviously hold them in low regard.

On other post suggested CRW might be speculative choice for MX...today MX announced 2x CRW-MCO for 4 flights per week and some on 220. Reverts back to 2 per week in mid August.

Bluegrass60 wrote:

yoshoward12 wrote:

I think in theory, their routes are interesting but as some have stated earlier, there is no clear strategy, instead they are just picking random routes that “should” work. Its all fun and games until the money runs dry. Personally, I think if they picked a handful of bases and had simple operations from there, choosing underserved routes, they could be ok. It would simplify the schedule, get planes back to their bases, help maintenance, and decrease costs. Avelo is doing a good job at this for the most part and their simple (relatively speaking) operation seems built to last longer.

If losing $23.8M is a "good job" then Avelo is doing ok.

I do think they are experimenting with random routes in the West (PVU/SBD) along with the CRW selection in the East. Aside from those...not sure the balance are "just picking routes at random". Specific to CRW....MX received lots of incentive money that should mitigate the risk for a year or two.

Manderson12 wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

If losing $23.8M is a "good job" then Avelo is doing ok.

That’s a fantastic job compared to MX’s $100 million loss. Load wise XP is doing far better than MX.

I tell you what, there is a lot more cities and flyers clamoring for MX to come to their airport than Avelo. MX and and Avelo are two different types of airlines, with different strategies, and so its meaningless to compare the two.

yoshoward12 wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

yoshoward12 wrote:

I think in theory, their routes are interesting but as some have stated earlier, there is no clear strategy, instead they are just picking random routes that “should” work. Its all fun and games until the money runs dry. Personally, I think if they picked a handful of bases and had simple operations from there, choosing underserved routes, they could be ok. It would simplify the schedule, get planes back to their bases, help maintenance, and decrease costs. Avelo is doing a good job at this for the most part and their simple (relatively speaking) operation seems built to last longer.

If losing $23.8M is a "good job" then Avelo is doing ok.

I do think they are experimenting with random routes in the West (PVU/SBD) along with the CRW selection in the East. Aside from those...not sure the balance are "just picking routes at random". Specific to CRW....MX received lots of incentive money that should mitigate the risk for a year or two.

I mean both carriers receive incentive packages that help with risk, but my main issue is the lack of clear strategy from Breeze. It creates complexities with maintenance and scheduling with bases all over the place. I’m not saying they will be an abject failure but I feel like they are too aggressive and not as calculated as Avelo in terms of expansion.

stlgph wrote:

The number of social media followers and the potential number of those solely based off of combined populations of cities served by said airline is a moot point.

Bluegrass60 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

The number of social media followers and the potential number of those solely based off of combined populations of cities served by said airline is a moot point.

Huh? It is totally relevant. A city with 1M people will have 2x the number of social media users than a 500k city. The only way that would no make sense is if the smaller city had bots posting on its behalf.

Bluegrass60 wrote:

yoshoward12 wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

If losing $23.8M is a "good job" then Avelo is doing ok.

I do think they are experimenting with random routes in the West (PVU/SBD) along with the CRW selection in the East. Aside from those...not sure the balance are "just picking routes at random". Specific to CRW....MX received lots of incentive money that should mitigate the risk for a year or two.

I mean both carriers receive incentive packages that help with risk, but my main issue is the lack of clear strategy from Breeze. It creates complexities with maintenance and scheduling with bases all over the place. I’m not saying they will be an abject failure but I feel like they are too aggressive and not as calculated as Avelo in terms of expansion.

MX has 7 bases; Avelo has 5 bases. MX has 15 E-Jets and 22 A220s; Avelo has 737 only; MX flies to 34 destinations including cross country; Avelo flies to 33 destinations and longest route is not cross country. MX is building a national airline; Avelo is building a regional airline.

Both carriers could be successful if they stick to their strategies....but think Avelo might need to adjust strategy for longer term....

proudavgeek wrote:

Any idea when they will come to Philadelphia/South NJ/Delaware area? If they don't want to fly from PHL, they can fly from ACY, Trenton NJ or ILG airports. All three offer lower competition than PHL.

Cheers!

TerminalD wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

yoshoward12 wrote:

I mean both carriers receive incentive packages that help with risk, but my main issue is the lack of clear strategy from Breeze. It creates complexities with maintenance and scheduling with bases all over the place. I’m not saying they will be an abject failure but I feel like they are too aggressive and not as calculated as Avelo in terms of expansion.

MX has 7 bases; Avelo has 5 bases. MX has 15 E-Jets and 22 A220s; Avelo has 737 only; MX flies to 34 destinations including cross country; Avelo flies to 33 destinations and longest route is not cross country. MX is building a national airline; Avelo is building a regional airline.

Both carriers could be successful if they stick to their strategies....but think Avelo might need to adjust strategy for longer term....

According to the most recent Form 41 filings, Breeze's expenses are 2x their revenues, while Avelo's expenses are about 1.5x their revenues. Both aren't good, but Breeze is massively worse. So if anybody needs a strategy change it is Breeze.

stlgph wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

The number of social media followers and the potential number of those solely based off of combined populations of cities served by said airline is a moot point.

Huh? It is totally relevant. A city with 1M people will have 2x the number of social media users than a 500k city. The only way that would no make sense is if the smaller city had bots posting on its behalf.

It's not relevant at all.

Right now, Breeze has 10.1K followers on Twitter.
Avelo has 6.957 followers on Twitter.

Together that's 17,057 users which are doing one thing....benefitting Elon Musk.

Breeze can have 100 million followers and Avelo can still be at 6.957 ....but if 0 of them from the Breeze page are coming over to the website and purchasing Breeze products and just 1 one of Avelo's followers comes off the page and buys a ticket, guess what.....

Bluegrass60 wrote:

yoshoward12 wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

If losing $23.8M is a "good job" then Avelo is doing ok.

I do think they are experimenting with random routes in the West (PVU/SBD) along with the CRW selection in the East. Aside from those...not sure the balance are "just picking routes at random". Specific to CRW....MX received lots of incentive money that should mitigate the risk for a year or two.

I mean both carriers receive incentive packages that help with risk, but my main issue is the lack of clear strategy from Breeze. It creates complexities with maintenance and scheduling with bases all over the place. I’m not saying they will be an abject failure but I feel like they are too aggressive and not as calculated as Avelo in terms of expansion.

MX has 7 bases; Avelo has 5 bases. MX has 15 E-Jets and 22 A220s; Avelo has 737 only; MX flies to 34 destinations including cross country; Avelo flies to 33 destinations and longest route is not cross country. MX is building a national airline; Avelo is building a regional airline.

Both carriers could be successful if they stick to their strategies....but think Avelo might need to adjust strategy for longer term....

TerminalD wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

yoshoward12 wrote:

I mean both carriers receive incentive packages that help with risk, but my main issue is the lack of clear strategy from Breeze. It creates complexities with maintenance and scheduling with bases all over the place. I’m not saying they will be an abject failure but I feel like they are too aggressive and not as calculated as Avelo in terms of expansion.

MX has 7 bases; Avelo has 5 bases. MX has 15 E-Jets and 22 A220s; Avelo has 737 only; MX flies to 34 destinations including cross country; Avelo flies to 33 destinations and longest route is not cross country. MX is building a national airline; Avelo is building a regional airline.

Both carriers could be successful if they stick to their strategies....but think Avelo might need to adjust strategy for longer term....

According to the most recent Form 41 filings, Breeze's expenses are 2x their revenues, while Avelo's expenses are about 1.5x their revenues. Both aren't good, but Breeze is massively worse. So if anybody needs a strategy change it is Breeze.

TonyClifton wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

yoshoward12 wrote:

I mean both carriers receive incentive packages that help with risk, but my main issue is the lack of clear strategy from Breeze. It creates complexities with maintenance and scheduling with bases all over the place. I’m not saying they will be an abject failure but I feel like they are too aggressive and not as calculated as Avelo in terms of expansion.

MX has 7 bases; Avelo has 5 bases. MX has 15 E-Jets and 22 A220s; Avelo has 737 only; MX flies to 34 destinations including cross country; Avelo flies to 33 destinations and longest route is not cross country. MX is building a national airline; Avelo is building a regional airline.

Both carriers could be successful if they stick to their strategies....but think Avelo might need to adjust strategy for longer term....

I would say Breeze having a split fleet rather than “737 only” is probably not an advantage. Twice the cost for fewer seats.

Bigant0408 wrote:

proudavgeek wrote:

Any idea when they will come to Philadelphia/South NJ/Delaware area? If they don't want to fly from PHL, they can fly from ACY, Trenton NJ or ILG airports. All three offer lower competition than PHL.

Cheers!

As a PHL native, I would love for MX to start service at Philly or surrounding airports. Since Florida is basically covered by all four airports with low fares and LLCs I just don't know what other routes they could serve unless it's transcontinental like LAX, PHX, SFO ect.

Bluegrass60 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

Huh? It is totally relevant. A city with 1M people will have 2x the number of social media users than a 500k city. The only way that would no make sense is if the smaller city had bots posting on its behalf.

It's not relevant at all.

Right now, Breeze has 10.1K followers on Twitter.
Avelo has 6.957 followers on Twitter.

Together that's 17,057 users which are doing one thing....benefitting Elon Musk.

Breeze can have 100 million followers and Avelo can still be at 6.957 ....but if 0 of them from the Breeze page are coming over to the website and purchasing Breeze products and just 1 one of Avelo's followers comes off the page and buys a ticket, guess what.....

Huh? All things equal....a city with 1M people will use more Social media than a city with 500,000

tsra wrote:

sldispatcher wrote:

I would think MCI would be a viable spot? Maybe not with new terminal costs?

If they come to Kansas City MKC would be better.

Bluegrass60 wrote:

If you are providing stats that show how many social media actually go to buy a Tix on Mx or Avelo....I stand corrected....otherwise...you are majoring in the minors

ASFlyer wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

If you are providing stats that show how many social media actually go to buy a Tix on Mx or Avelo....I stand corrected....otherwise...you are majoring in the minors

You’ve provided no stats either

flyPIT wrote:

Scoots71 wrote:

And BHM is 75% larger than Greensboro. People have a bad habit of looking at just the city of Birmingham (which is 205,000 people) instead of the entire Birmingham-Hoover MSA plus Tuscaloosa MSA (which for some unknown reason is not considered part of the Birmingham MSA).

Actually BHM is only 75% the size of GSO (not 75% larger lol), since you take the liberty of adding the outlying areas.

BHM CSA: 1,350,646
GSO CSA: 1,720,328

yoshoward12 wrote:

I think in theory, their routes are interesting but as some have stated earlier, there is no clear strategy, instead they are just picking random routes that “should” work. Its all fun and games until the money runs dry. Personally, I think if they picked a handful of bases and had simple operations from there, choosing underserved routes, they could be ok. It would simplify the schedule, get planes back to their bases, help maintenance, and decrease costs. Avelo is doing a good job at this for the most part and their simple (relatively speaking) operation seems built to last longer.

SurfandSnow wrote:

ISP-LAX?!? Surely after HPN-LAX failed, Breeze will stick with more logical choices from ISP like JAX, RSW, perhaps even VRB rather than losing money on something that would never make sense when a plethora of LAX services are available and established from nearby JFK.

As with HPN, most pax will not hesitate to drive/ride to the nearby major airport for their longer haul travels. It's really only for shorter haul stuff where the convenience of the local airport is appreciated and supported. WN certainly doesn't bother to serve LAS or even MDW nonstop from ISP anymore, after all. LAX would never work.

usflyer msp wrote:

MX is supposed to cater to leisure travellers with frequencies and non-stop flights but how much leisure traffic is there between Islip and Pittsburgh or Providence and Columbus? There has to be some volume for their model to have a chance.

aerace wrote:

I'm not sure the strategy is there. The focus on the eastern side of the country seems to be avoid the major cities. No service to PHL, BOS, LGA/JFK/EWR, BWI/DCA/IAD, MIA/FLL, ATL, ORD/MDW, etc. It would be nice but I think it would have to be reactionary, like the mid-tier cities aren't cutting it for them and they decide to go all in on couple larger metros (kinda like what WN did at PHL in the early/mid 00s).

Bluegrass60 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

If you are providing stats that show how many social media actually go to buy a Tix on Mx or Avelo....I stand corrected....otherwise...you are majoring in the minors

You’ve provided no stats either

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area - here are the 172 largest consolidated statistical areas in the USA

Bluegrass60 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

If you are providing stats that show how many social media actually go to buy a Tix on Mx or Avelo....I stand corrected....otherwise...you are majoring in the minors

You’ve provided no stats either

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area - here are the 172 largest consolidated statistical areas in the USA

Bluegrass60 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

If you are providing stats that show how many social media actually go to buy a Tix on Mx or Avelo....I stand corrected....otherwise...you are majoring in the minors

You’ve provided no stats either

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area - here are the 172 largest consolidated statistical areas in the USA

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

You’ve provided no stats either

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area - here are the 172 largest consolidated statistical areas in the USA

You wanna know how I know that list is trash.

NWA is 560k and not listed at all. Add in McDolnald Co. just across the Missouri line and its nearly 600k.

This also gives a better look at the more realistic catchment area for MEM(not yet a Breeze City)

The Memphis–City Combined Statistical Area, TN–MS–AR (CSA) is the commercial and cultural hub of The Mid-South or Ark-Miss-Tenn. The census-defined combined statistical area covers ten counties in three states – Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas. As of census 2010 the MSA had a population of 1,324,108.[2] The Forrest City Micropolitan area was added to the Memphis area in 2012 to form the Memphis–Forrest City Combined Statistical area and had a population of 1,369,548 according to census estimates.[3] The greater Mid-South area as a whole has a population of 2.4 million according to 2013 census estimates.[4] This area is covered by Memphis local news channels and includes the Missouri Bootheel, Northeast Arkansas, West Tennessee, and North Mississippi.[