Looks like Breeze is getting some competition on MCO-SNA. WN is starting MCO-LGB soon. Yeah it's not SNA but Southwest is definitely seeing the value of being the big fish in LGB and the biggest in slot-constrained SNA and is now throwing it's weight around. WN must view MX as a credible threat especially considering this is their first MCO-SoCal flight.

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/southwe ... 66KWJE66E/

TWA772LR wrote:

Looks like Breeze is getting some competition on MCO-SNA. WN is starting MCO-LGB soon. Yeah it's not SNA but Southwest is definitely seeing the value of being the big fish in LGB and the biggest in slot-constrained SNA and is now throwing it's weight around. WN must view MX as a credible threat especially considering this is their first MCO-SoCal flight.

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/southwe ... 66KWJE66E/

Breeze would still have the advantage based on aircraft and onboard product.

MavyWavyATR wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Looks like Breeze is getting some competition on MCO-SNA. WN is starting MCO-LGB soon. Yeah it's not SNA but Southwest is definitely seeing the value of being the big fish in LGB and the biggest in slot-constrained SNA and is now throwing it's weight around. WN must view MX as a credible threat especially considering this is their first MCO-SoCal flight.

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/southwe ... 66KWJE66E/

Breeze would still have the advantage based on aircraft and onboard product.

But no advantage at all when the flight cancels and they have nothing to protect someone on as opposed to Southwest who probably has tens of connecting options. Additionally, southwest offers free bags and free drinks and snacks.

PVD523 wrote:

trueblew wrote:

deltadudejg wrote:

Unfortunately, you have to blame the ground handler for the bag delay and lack of representation in baggage claim rather than the Airline.

This doesn't seem to occur with all the other airlines which contract out their ground handling (e.g., all of them). I can imagine Breeze have signed a bare bones contract with their ground handler in the interest of saving on labour cost at their passengers' great expense. If Breeze, for example, have only paid for the minimum staff to handle the aircraft it isn't their contractor's job to make up the difference to ensure bags are delivered in a timely fashion.

But like any other airline it’s going to be station-dependent. MX uses Unifi at PVD but so does DL and F9. So it’s a disservice to say this doesn’t happen with all other airlines when other airlines use the same ground handlers, regardless of if MX truly is experiencing more frequent issues or not.

Unifi handles Breeze in TPA as well, however, Unifi also handles a few other Airlines like Spirit but at least at this station Breeze Unifi only does Breeze, Spirit Unifi only does Spirit. Not quite sure why they segregate the staffing like that but ultimately I do agree with everyone it is ultimately up to Breeze to rectify it as Unifi represents them. May be base specific but just seems like the quality of ramp worker has gone down with some of these ground handlers. Not like the days when I used to work for a few of them.

MavyWavyATR wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Looks like Breeze is getting some competition on MCO-SNA. WN is starting MCO-LGB soon. Yeah it's not SNA but Southwest is definitely seeing the value of being the big fish in LGB and the biggest in slot-constrained SNA and is now throwing it's weight around. WN must view MX as a credible threat especially considering this is their first MCO-SoCal flight.

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/southwe ... 66KWJE66E/

Breeze would still have the advantage based on aircraft and onboard product.

Not if you’re in regular Y.

WN gives you far more leg room, free drinks and snacks, and no carry on bag fees. Plus if the flight cancels, you won’t be stuck until the next day.

PVD523 wrote:

trueblew wrote:

deltadudejg wrote:

Unfortunately, you have to blame the ground handler for the bag delay and lack of representation in baggage claim rather than the Airline.

This doesn't seem to occur with all the other airlines which contract out their ground handling (e.g., all of them). I can imagine Breeze have signed a bare bones contract with their ground handler in the interest of saving on labour cost at their passengers' great expense. If Breeze, for example, have only paid for the minimum staff to handle the aircraft it isn't their contractor's job to make up the difference to ensure bags are delivered in a timely fashion.

But like any other airline it’s going to be station-dependent. MX uses Unifi at PVD but so does DL and F9. So it’s a disservice to say this doesn’t happen with all other airlines when other airlines use the same ground handlers, regardless of if MX truly is experiencing more frequent issues or not.

I fly a lot, I have several million miles flown. I’m Ex Plat on AA, but will fly pretty much anyone that has non-stop service to make trips easier, so the feedback isn’t coming from someone who does leisure travel a couple times a year.

I have to check luggage with me on most flights due to the nature of my job. With that said my 1 1/2 hour wait for luggage was something I have never seen before, ever in all of my years of flying. I don’t care if it’s the contractor, the airline themselves or whoever, but another wait like that and I won’t be flying breeze again.

I enjoyed flying Breeze and want to continue to give them business to grow competition, but they have to get their crap together or people like myself will walk away from them without thinking twice.

I had the same experience with United, so it is not the first time it has happened. Breeze like any other airline will have bad experience's, people have to choose what works for them. Some people complain MX is the worst experience, others claim it is the best flying experience in the U.S. I would believe most people feel that way about all the other airlines they fly. So, if people are trying to compare Breeze with airlines that have been in business for over 50 yrs., then maybe MX may not be the best choice.

deltadudejg wrote:

PVD523 wrote:

trueblew wrote:

This doesn't seem to occur with all the other airlines which contract out their ground handling (e.g., all of them). I can imagine Breeze have signed a bare bones contract with their ground handler in the interest of saving on labour cost at their passengers' great expense. If Breeze, for example, have only paid for the minimum staff to handle the aircraft it isn't their contractor's job to make up the difference to ensure bags are delivered in a timely fashion.

But like any other airline it’s going to be station-dependent. MX uses Unifi at PVD but so does DL and F9. So it’s a disservice to say this doesn’t happen with all other airlines when other airlines use the same ground handlers, regardless of if MX truly is experiencing more frequent issues or not.

Unifi handles Breeze in TPA as well, however, Unifi also handles a few other Airlines like Spirit but at least at this station Breeze Unifi only does Breeze, Spirit Unifi only does Spirit. Not quite sure why they segregate the staffing like that but ultimately I do agree with everyone it is ultimately up to Breeze to rectify it as Unifi represents them. May be base specific but just seems like the quality of ramp worker has gone down with some of these ground handlers. Not like the days when I used to work for a few of them.

Unifi offered a friend of mine $12.00/hr as a Passenger Service Agent at TPA in 2021. Things may have changed, but it shows what kind company they are, or are forced to be.

11725Flyer wrote:

deltadudejg wrote:

PVD523 wrote:

But like any other airline it’s going to be station-dependent. MX uses Unifi at PVD but so does DL and F9. So it’s a disservice to say this doesn’t happen with all other airlines when other airlines use the same ground handlers, regardless of if MX truly is experiencing more frequent issues or not.

Unifi handles Breeze in TPA as well, however, Unifi also handles a few other Airlines like Spirit but at least at this station Breeze Unifi only does Breeze, Spirit Unifi only does Spirit. Not quite sure why they segregate the staffing like that but ultimately I do agree with everyone it is ultimately up to Breeze to rectify it as Unifi represents them. May be base specific but just seems like the quality of ramp worker has gone down with some of these ground handlers. Not like the days when I used to work for a few of them.

Unifi offered a friend of mine $12.00/hr as a Passenger Service Agent at TPA in 2021. Things may have changed, but it shows what kind company they are, or are forced to be.

All the vendors are like that. I worked for vendor M and vendor H back in 2014-2015. Pay sucked. Benefits all but non-existent. Neither the passengers nor the few airline direct staff gave a rats ass about you. Contractors came and went and for the account I worked on, vendor A was taking over and they were even more of a hack outfit so I jumped to vendor H and took a pay cut to do so for the slightly less toxic environment.

But hey, that experience lead me to where I am today. I remember talking to the intern recruiter during my internship at a major US carrier what made me in particular stand out. He said I was one of the few interns that actually had airline experience. And that sent me in to the airlines full time.

But to your original point, the airlines get what they pay for and if that means paying next to nothing that means your going to have a crap shoot of getting any talent and can more than likely end up with someone not caring about anything and a screwed up operation that makes a bad reputation. Contractors come and go all the time as a result, which is a strength that WN actually has. They're minimally reliant on vendors for airport staff which means they have better control over the brand and operation with employees that are motivated to do their job well even if it isn't "keeping costs low" because the philosophy is to offer a little more pay to keep the operation as smooth as possible.

A few days ago I took my second SFO-SBD flight with Breeze/MX (the first being the inaugural in August 2022) and was generally impressed (still at a friend's place in east LA as I type this). Assuming one books early before the Nicer fares evaporate, the $25 upsell for Nicer on the route is cheaper than anything it includes individually (extra legroom seat choice, carry-on/cabin bag, and checked/hold bag, each of which can start at $30 or more by themselves).

The E195 that is listed to take over PVU-SFO-SBD in May only has 22 Extra Legroom seats compared to the E190's 48 Extra Legroom seats, so I imagine that will factor into the number of Nicer fares available, as I otherwise find the Nicer fares competitive enough where they are comparable to Basic fares on SFO-LAX/SNA/ONT/LGB/BUR with DL/B6/AS/AA/UA, which include fewer bags if any, impose change/seat selection fees, and can't be cancelled to credit. Even SBD being way out east wasn't a factor as the friend who'd picked me up would say the drive to SBD and back is comparable in time to fighting the traffic to LAX (although I imagine more gas in the car is used, and time of day permitting traffic-wise). If anything this makes WN being the only comparison where even its cheapest fares offer comparable flexibility and include two checked bags, while also being able to utilize various airports in both the bay or basin.

Other than that my flight last Friday on the 17th was very full, having counted 12 open seats on the map or so the morning before (which may have filled by closer to boarding), and had even appeared as sold out earlier in the week, with flights on Friday and Sunday this month being particularly full being spring break. On the inaugural they offered a single granola bar to pax seated in Extra Legroom but on my recent flight they only offered water before any purchase options. I also had issues connecting to the IFE streaming (as in I didn't at all), and the seat belt sign was never turned off, although it was a smooth flight.

I have several TRs to catch up on that date to 2018, but that should suffice for now for my recent experience, and I filled out the survey they emailed out if even just to say any feedback I have went through more proper channels.

I look forward to MX either offering more flights out here or even eventually getting the A223 on short hops in this region! Shame the SBD-SMF flights I'd heard of being pursued from my SBD employee seatmate on the inaugural SFO-SBD haven't materialized, although LAS-SBD as part of the 2x weekly BDL-LAS-SBD starting recently on the A223 was nice to see still being advertised with signs at SBD.

The one thing I've left to try is booking at the SFO check-in counter to skip the Tech fee (imposed when using the app or website) which is mentioned on articles online; when I booked my recent flight, this fee was $24 out of a total fare that started at $39 or $44, but looks to be only $14 checking today. Whenever I was at SFO for family travel or having a meeting at a nearby hotel, MX's check-in counter wasn't open or staffed for me to ask. But with that fee being only $14 now it's not as much of a priority even with my discounted BART fares to SFO.

SunsetLimited wrote:

MavyWavyATR wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Looks like Breeze is getting some competition on MCO-SNA. WN is starting MCO-LGB soon. Yeah it's not SNA but Southwest is definitely seeing the value of being the big fish in LGB and the biggest in slot-constrained SNA and is now throwing it's weight around. WN must view MX as a credible threat especially considering this is their first MCO-SoCal flight.

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/southwe ... 66KWJE66E/

Breeze would still have the advantage based on aircraft and onboard product.

Not if you’re in regular Y.

WN gives you far more leg room, free drinks and snacks, and no carry on bag fees. Plus if the flight cancels, you won’t be stuck until the next day.

I agree WN will have more options to get you to your final destination if a flight is canceled however the seats on the A220 are over an inch wider than the 737, all have power, and are only an inch less seat pitch at 31''. Also the 2x3 seating is better IMO if you are traveling with someone on the left side.

Edit: I haven't flown WN in years, do they have power at seats now across the fleet?

uconn99 wrote:

SunsetLimited wrote:

MavyWavyATR wrote:

Breeze would still have the advantage based on aircraft and onboard product.

Not if you’re in regular Y.

WN gives you far more leg room, free drinks and snacks, and no carry on bag fees. Plus if the flight cancels, you won’t be stuck until the next day.

I agree WN will have more options to get you to your final destination if a flight is canceled however the seats on the A220 are over an inch wider than the 737, all have power, and are only an inch less seat pitch at 31''. Also the 2x3 seating is better IMO if you are traveling with someone on the left side.

Edit: I haven't flown WN in years, do they have power at seats now across the fleet?

Not yet but starting in June yes.

mooseofspruce wrote:

The one thing I've left to try is booking at the SFO check-in counter to skip the Tech fee (imposed when using the app or website) which is mentioned on articles online; when I booked my recent flight, this fee was $24 out of a total fare that started at $39 or $44, but looks to be only $14 checking today. Whenever I was at SFO for family travel or having a meeting at a nearby hotel, MX's check-in counter wasn't open or staffed for me to ask. But with that fee being only $14 now it's not as much of a priority even with my discounted BART fares to SFO.

So wait, what? They charge a $14 fee to book your own ticket and do all the work yourself using their app or website? What's so nice about that?

ASFlyer wrote:

mooseofspruce wrote:

The one thing I've left to try is booking at the SFO check-in counter to skip the Tech fee (imposed when using the app or website) which is mentioned on articles online; when I booked my recent flight, this fee was $24 out of a total fare that started at $39 or $44, but looks to be only $14 checking today. Whenever I was at SFO for family travel or having a meeting at a nearby hotel, MX's check-in counter wasn't open or staffed for me to ask. But with that fee being only $14 now it's not as much of a priority even with my discounted BART fares to SFO.

So wait, what? They charge a $14 fee to book your own ticket and do all the work yourself using their app or website? What's so nice about that?

Especially for a company that talked so much about being a tech-focused and tech-positive company before launch. What an odd move.

ASFlyer wrote:

mooseofspruce wrote:

The one thing I've left to try is booking at the SFO check-in counter to skip the Tech fee (imposed when using the app or website) which is mentioned on articles online; when I booked my recent flight, this fee was $24 out of a total fare that started at $39 or $44, but looks to be only $14 checking today. Whenever I was at SFO for family travel or having a meeting at a nearby hotel, MX's check-in counter wasn't open or staffed for me to ask. But with that fee being only $14 now it's not as much of a priority even with my discounted BART fares to SFO.

So wait, what? They charge a $14 fee to book your own ticket and do all the work yourself using their app or website? What's so nice about that?

Making it an ancillary charge allows Breeze to avoid paying (and charging) the federal excise tax on that portion of the ticket's cost. That's really NICE! This is the same game Spirit and Frontier play with their passenger usage charge and carrier interface charge, respectively. The upside is you can get really cheap tickets by purchasing at the airport.

Wneast wrote:

uconn99 wrote:

SunsetLimited wrote:

Not if you’re in regular Y.

WN gives you far more leg room, free drinks and snacks, and no carry on bag fees. Plus if the flight cancels, you won’t be stuck until the next day.

I agree WN will have more options to get you to your final destination if a flight is canceled however the seats on the A220 are over an inch wider than the 737, all have power, and are only an inch less seat pitch at 31''. Also the 2x3 seating is better IMO if you are traveling with someone on the left side.

Edit: I haven't flown WN in years, do they have power at seats now across the fleet?

Not yet but starting in June yes.

But it will not be fleet wide, and will only be on new deliveries. A very small percentage of the fleet for at least several years.

jjbiv wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

mooseofspruce wrote:

The one thing I've left to try is booking at the SFO check-in counter to skip the Tech fee (imposed when using the app or website) which is mentioned on articles online; when I booked my recent flight, this fee was $24 out of a total fare that started at $39 or $44, but looks to be only $14 checking today. Whenever I was at SFO for family travel or having a meeting at a nearby hotel, MX's check-in counter wasn't open or staffed for me to ask. But with that fee being only $14 now it's not as much of a priority even with my discounted BART fares to SFO.

So wait, what? They charge a $14 fee to book your own ticket and do all the work yourself using their app or website? What's so nice about that?

Making it an ancillary charge allows Breeze to avoid paying (and charging) the federal excise tax on that portion of the ticket's cost. That's really NICE! This is the same game Spirit and Frontier play with their passenger usage charge and carrier interface charge, respectively. The upside is you can get really cheap tickets by purchasing at the airport.

That's great for Breeze but how is that nice for anyone else? Breeze knows that most people aren't going to drive to the airport, pay for parking and stand in line simply to try to get some contract agent to process a ticket purchase for you - especially given that, in most stations, their hours are extremely limited as they have one or two flights a day (or less) from most stations that aren't bases. But instead, they'll charge you a fee to go online and do the work yourself. Not really very nice.

Breeze PVU updates. LAS-PVU ends April 2. It was originally announced as 6x weekly flight then dropped to twice weekly. PHX-PVU was supposed to be daily but now is 4-5 times weekly depending on the month (also a downguage on the route). LAX-PVU was already dropped last month and that route was announced as a daily flight before cutting back to 2x weekly then cut completely. SFO-PVU is still around going 6x weekly. SNA-PVU started last month going daily so it’s too early to tell what happens with that route. But if I were a betting man I would guess it’ll start to get reduced sooner than later.

I think these reductions and cuts show that MX cannot compete with G4 in PVU. The only route that is still at its original level is SFO and G4 doesn’t go from PVU to the bay. IMO, if Breeze wants to make PVU work and a successful base then they need to add routes that will not compete directly with G4 such as PVU-SEA/CHS/SBD/Dallas/MSY.

Part of the problem is also the airport. SLC built a world class facility 30 miles north and PVU is barely a regional airport pulling from a much smaller market. SLC is currently very much gate constrained (NK is using a common use gate for their 4 daily departures), but it wouldn't surprise me if MX moved north. Breeze has their training facility 1 mile from SLC and could easily build support there. PVU is a novel idea for a rapidly growing state, but Utah is not quite ready for two airports that close together. G4 has done well in PVU as the only game in town, but they've been mostly operating out of an FBO.

mesasurf wrote:

Breeze PVU updates. LAS-PVU ends April 2. It was originally announced as 6x weekly flight then dropped to twice weekly. PHX-PVU was supposed to be daily but now is 4-5 times weekly depending on the month (also a downguage on the route). LAX-PVU was already dropped last month and that route was announced as a daily flight before cutting back to 2x weekly then cut completely. SFO-PVU is still around going 6x weekly. SNA-PVU started last month going daily so it’s too early to tell what happens with that route. But if I were a betting man I would guess it’ll start to get reduced sooner than later.

I think these reductions and cuts show that MX cannot compete with G4 in PVU. The only route that is still at its original level is SFO and G4 doesn’t go from PVU to the bay. IMO, if Breeze wants to make PVU work and a successful base then they need to add routes that will not compete directly with G4 such as PVU-SEA/CHS/SBD/Dallas/MSY.

ASFlyer wrote:

jjbiv wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

So wait, what? They charge a $14 fee to book your own ticket and do all the work yourself using their app or website? What's so nice about that?

Making it an ancillary charge allows Breeze to avoid paying (and charging) the federal excise tax on that portion of the ticket's cost. That's really NICE! This is the same game Spirit and Frontier play with their passenger usage charge and carrier interface charge, respectively. The upside is you can get really cheap tickets by purchasing at the airport.

That's great for Breeze but how is that nice for anyone else? Breeze knows that most people aren't going to drive to the airport, pay for parking and stand in line simply to try to get some contract agent to process a ticket purchase for you - especially given that, in most stations, their hours are extremely limited as they have one or two flights a day (or less) from most stations that aren't bases. But instead, they'll charge you a fee to go online and do the work yourself. Not really very nice.

This is the blog post/article (singular rather than plural) that I was referring to; as noted, the fee used to actually be even higher. It describes that fees can be free of taxes but in order to be, must be optional: https://viewfromthewing.com/one-airline ... t-the-fee/

Although in contrast to other airlines I was usually under the impression that booking at an airport counter was usually surcharged, in a similar manner as using their respective call center if they have one.

One of my friends previously staffed SFO's help desks pre-pandemic and did an experiment asking the different domestic airlines on their procedure/policy on booking tickets over the counter, and it varied between offering the service at no cost (AA and B6), referring you to call or go online and not even providing this as an option (AS, UA, and presumably DL and WN), or described as "you're on your own" (F9).

mesasurf wrote:

Breeze PVU updates. LAS-PVU ends April 2. It was originally announced as 6x weekly flight then dropped to twice weekly. PHX-PVU was supposed to be daily but now is 4-5 times weekly depending on the month (also a downguage on the route). LAX-PVU was already dropped last month and that route was announced as a daily flight before cutting back to 2x weekly then cut completely. SFO-PVU is still around going 6x weekly. SNA-PVU started last month going daily so it’s too early to tell what happens with that route. But if I were a betting man I would guess it’ll start to get reduced sooner than later.

I think these reductions and cuts show that MX cannot compete with G4 in PVU. The only route that is still at its original level is SFO and G4 doesn’t go from PVU to the bay. IMO, if Breeze wants to make PVU work and a successful base then they need to add routes that will not compete directly with G4 such as PVU-SEA/CHS/SBD/Dallas/MSY.

For routes like SFO or SNA from PVU I imagine that part of the pull is just as if not much more important for the beyond/tag-on, specifically SBD and MCO. Without crew or aircraft based in California, the PVU base operates those flights and I imagine that SNA-MCO or SFO-SBD could carry/pull most of the weight with their respective PVU-originating sectors if it came to it. PHX, LAS and LAX don't have any beyond tags from PVU (to my knowledge, the former and latter were done at the end of an SBD run as PVU-SFO-SBD-SFO-PVU-LAX/PHX) so that's part of why this is my guess.

On a side note, I have a question. Why has Breeze and it's new competitors like Avelo, not entered into the N.Y.C, Chicago, or Atlanta markets. I know Breeze serves some outlying N.Y. markets but not the closer in airports, like JFK, LGA, or Newark. They are in L.A and S.F but not these markets...Why..

Manderson12 wrote:

On a side note, I have a question. Why has Breeze and it's new competitors like Avelo, not entered into the N.Y.C, Chicago, or Atlanta markets. I know Breeze serves some outlying N.Y. markets but not the closer in airports, like JFK, LGA, or Newark. They are in L.A and S.F but not these markets...Why..

Breeze's destinations in the west (LAX, SFO, PHX, and LAS) seem to mainly focus on vacation-type destinations from mid-size cities that are outside of the range of an E170 aircraft (RIC, SDF, CAK, etc.). I agree that NYC, BOS, and DC have some level of vacation demand, but I'm not sure you have the same density of mid-sized metro areas out west that is outside of E170 range. You would need to be west of OKC, MCI, OMA, etc. With the exception of maybe ABQ (which has seasonal JFK flights), I believe most other cities out west are either sufficiently sized to serve the major northeast cities and currently have service, or they are too small. Maybe COS, TUS, ELP, FAT, and BOI could fall into that category, but I can't think of many others.

Manderson12 wrote:

On a side note, I have a question. Why has Breeze and it's new competitors like Avelo, not entered into the N.Y.C, Chicago, or Atlanta markets. I know Breeze serves some outlying N.Y. markets but not the closer in airports, like JFK, LGA, or Newark. They are in L.A and S.F but not these markets...Why..

The easiest way to describe this is with most of MX's routes not in direct competition (I think PVD-MCO is the only recent one that is?), they can get away with using airports like SFO or LAX (which aren't as slot or time-restricted either) if one of the ends on a given route is a secondary or smaller market. The armchair analysis remarks I recall was that MX may have been looking at OAK or SJC but chose SFO, whereas in the LA basin they have differing routes offered between LAX/SBD/SNA and had previously looked at LGB.

Thus a route like LAX-HPN or SNA-CMH/CVG rather than LAX-JFK/CMH/CVG, or routes like SFO-RIC/CVG/SDF but not SFO-JFK (SFO-HPN was cancelled before launch), or anything between two large primary airports/markets. I imagine something into JFK/LGA/EWR would need something smaller or secondary on the other end farther west but getting into any of those NYC airports may have been taller orders than SFO/LAX.

I can't speak for or can only make vague guesses on ATL but I imagine DL and to an extent WN having a lot covered from there is a factor.

For XP I think it's similar where only STS-BUR was in competition (started by AS in response, while AA upgauged PHX-BUR so XP dropped BUR-AZA) but that status or "count" of routes in competition may have changed as I haven't paid as much attention (I think RDU-MCO is another actually). XP has MDW-HVN if that means anything but otherwise G4 has presence at RFD, and then someone like MX getting into ORD would be its own task.

They need to try XNA/PVU. I'd book it first chance. Thursdays/Sundays would be ideal. Ot isn't SLC but it is close enough.

[photoid][/photoid]

WaywardMemphian wrote:

They need to try XNA/PVU. I'd book it first chance. Thursdays/Sundays would be ideal. Ot isn't SLC but it is close enough.

I doubt there’s much demand for XNA-PVU. I feel this is the beginning of the end for MX in PVU. Moving their operations to SLC makes more sense.

Article on Breeze from the mobile site of SF Chronicle SFO-CHS, including travel changes, cancellations. Interesting re: $600 travel funds provided due to cancellation!

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/f ... 845911.php

Would really like to see Breeze jump into the new MCI terminal with service to CHS. There is for sure a market for it and space waiting for them in the new terminal.

Charleston, WV with service to CHS and MCO will be announced today. Odd one if you ask me. We will see how it plays out.

Lilj4425 wrote:

Charleston, WV with service to CHS and MCO will be announced today. Odd one if you ask me. We will see how it plays out.

I mean they are essentially taking NK’s old routes, switching airports on the coast of SC, then reducing frequency and gauge. I see it as a relatively easy way to break into the WV market if Breeze thinks it might be successful by just doing what Spirit did, on a smaller scale.
Plus, there is the essential neatness of a Charleston-Charleston flight, which you don’t see much of, not that that is a reason to operate a flight.

Can see MCO-CRW work. Not sure about CRW-CHS unless Breeze thru

Bluegrass60 wrote:

Can see MCO-CRW work. Not sure about CRW-CHS unless Breeze thru

Looks like no Breeze-thru's according to their website, just MCO and CHS.

Flight Details

CHS-CRW

MX214 CHS 08.00 - 09.35 CRW E195 3,6
MX215 CRW 15.45-17.20 CHS E195 3,6

MCO-CRW

MX216 CRW 10.15- 12.20 MCO E195, 3,6
MX217 MCO 13.00- 15.05 CRW E195, 3,6

Well if there was ever obvious scheduling, this one is it. CHS-CRW-MCO-CRW-CHS for this one. I don't know how others feel, but a 40 minute turn at MCO seems a little optimistic, even for 118 potential seats.

In marketing news Breeze is the new presenting sponsor of the Macaw Flyover at ZooTampa
https://twitter.com/ZooTampa/status/1636178842044727296
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jsYayh00ss

Lilj4425 wrote:

Charleston, WV with service to CHS and MCO will be announced today. Odd one if you ask me. We will see how it plays out.

This feels like an Avelo type route addition. I wonder if Breeze wanted to try something different from what they usually do.

A couple other things I’m noticing in the Breeze network. BNA is down to one route and I’m hearing Breeze might pull out of BNA completely. Out west Breeze doesn’t seem to be as successful compared to back east. Making PVU a base from the beginning was an odd choice and has been seeing mixed results. The PHX flights have been reduced along with LAS (LAS-HPN never started). SBD was always an odd route and not sure how popular that route has been from there. I think more of an emphasis on the Midwest would be smart.

mesasurf wrote:

Lilj4425 wrote:

Charleston, WV with service to CHS and MCO will be announced today. Odd one if you ask me. We will see how it plays out.

This feels like an Avelo type route addition. I wonder if Breeze wanted to try something different from what they usually do.

A couple other things I’m noticing in the Breeze network. BNA is down to one route and I’m hearing Breeze might pull out of BNA completely. Out west Breeze doesn’t seem to be as successful compared to back east. Making PVU a base from the beginning was an odd choice and has been seeing mixed results. The PHX flights have been reduced along with LAS (LAS-HPN never started). SBD was always an odd route and not sure how popular that route has been from there. I think more of an emphasis on the Midwest would be smart.

You never say anything positive about Breeze. Delta fan?

Not sure but it looks like MX pulled PVU-LAS… I guess G4 is better at Provo than MX after all.

SLCaviation wrote:

Not sure but it looks like MX pulled PVU-LAS… I guess G4 is better at Provo than MX after all.

Correct April 2 is the last PVU-LAS flight. PVU-PHX has been reduced to 3-4x weekly this summer. It was supposed to be daily. Not sure if MX has a long term plan or place at PVU going forward. G4 is still running PVU-LAS 4x weekly. G4 is stiffer competition than MX was expecting.

I wish Breeze would fly into ILM.

They need to stop playing games and come to GSP like Avelo has done.

PVD base opened today:

https://www.wpri.com/business-news/breeze-airways-opens-base-of-operations-in-rhode-island/

mesasurf wrote:

SLCaviation wrote:

Not sure but it looks like MX pulled PVU-LAS… I guess G4 is better at Provo than MX after all.

Correct April 2 is the last PVU-LAS flight. PVU-PHX has been reduced to 3-4x weekly this summer. It was supposed to be daily. Not sure if MX has a long term plan or place at PVU going forward. G4 is still running PVU-LAS 4x weekly. G4 is stiffer competition than MX was expecting.

Really thought MX would’ve gave G4 a fight on that route; especially with Breeze having a better product onboard.

MavyWavyATR wrote:

mesasurf wrote:

SLCaviation wrote:

Not sure but it looks like MX pulled PVU-LAS… I guess G4 is better at Provo than MX after all.

Correct April 2 is the last PVU-LAS flight. PVU-PHX has been reduced to 3-4x weekly this summer. It was supposed to be daily. Not sure if MX has a long term plan or place at PVU going forward. G4 is still running PVU-LAS 4x weekly. G4 is stiffer competition than MX was expecting.

Really thought MX would’ve gave G4 a fight on that route; especially with Breeze having a better product onboard.

MX used the E190 on the PVU-LAS route while G4 used the A320. Not much was different as far as onboard product was offered. G4 has better frequency options and brand loyalty and recognition in its favor in Provo than Breeze has.

MX has untapped potential in the Midwest starting up routes like MCI-CHS that SWA dropped for COVID and still only operated once a week.

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

Lilj4425 wrote:

They need to stop playing games and come to GSP like Avelo has done.

Just curious (I'm too lazy to look it up)...outside of Florida, how much overlap exists between Avelo and Breeze markets? How many airports are they both serving?

LAS
CHS
RDU
BNA( I believe breeze is done after may)?

I'm seeing A220 flights with just 12 First Class seats with extra legroom 2-3 seats taking up the bulk of the former F cabin.

jspams20 wrote:

I'm seeing A220 flights with just 12 First Class seats with extra legroom 2-3 seats taking up the bulk of the former F cabin.

Yes, they are converting all the A220s to this configuration. The announcement was made a few month ago but they did not give a date for the conversion of the old A220s. All new deliveries come with 12 First Class seats.