It’s all a function of how much cash investors are prepared to pump in to keep things afloat.

You’d be amazed at just how long jetsgo was able to stay afloat, literally on a wing and a prayer, by dragging payments and endless seat sales using unearned revenue to pay current bills.

Anyone who’s been around the industry a long time knows that the demise of an airline is rarely rational.

They drag things out until, quite literally, the bank account is completely dry.

The nature of the business is that cash coming in doesn’t cover the cash coming out, but it’s close, so it generates a false sense of hope amongst management / investors. It also results in a slow, but inevitable emptying of the coffers.

Put it this way.

If a bucket empties 10 gallons an hour, but refills at 9.5 gallons an hour, it takes quite a while for the bucket to be dry but that’s what’s gonna happen.

jimbo737 wrote:

Put it this way.

If a bucket empties 10 gallons an hour, but refills at 9.5 gallons an hour, it takes quite a while for the bucket to be dry but that’s what’s gonna happen.

Loving the illustration.

YEGFlyer wrote:

Juju2004 wrote:

I think the three planes are GFOF, FLQO and another one. Anyways quite surprising they're still flying and we didn't see the anticipated death spiral yet...

Its not that surprising. I can't even remember how many times on Airliners.net it was predicted Flair would be going bankrupt or stopping flying, etc. None of those predictions have been accurate.

On the contrary, much of the 'predictions' on this thread during its existence have been around the idea that Flair was rapidly burning cash and likely struggling with liquidity. The talk of this commencing in October at least has been proven accurate by the dirty laundry that's been pulled out during this whole process.

I remember a very early post on this thread saying 'when the money stops coming from Miami, that will be the day Flair dies,' and from the sounds of it, that very nearly happened because 777 balked and threw another $1 million into the well. As soon as that pipeline gets cut off, either through 777's own decision or someone in govt realising Flair/777 haven't kept their promises, Flair will simply be left to watch its accounts dry up. That point is most certainly on its way.

Flair's booking system seems to show no further YYZ-YUL flights after 24th March. Unable to find any other route cuts. Anyone know if this was planned before or after the aircraft seizures?

The fact that's all that seems to be gone, and that all the planned new routes for this summer are still open for reservation, seems like an awfully big red flag to me. Jones seems to be firm that he won't have as many aircraft as he'd originally planned for summer this year, and he's said route cuts will have to come in light of that. When a good chunk of these new routes, plus a few frequency upgauges, are set to occur in just over a months time, surely any decent organisation would tackle this immediately and either have already made decisions on full schedule changes, or simply hold off taking new bookings on flights they're not sure they will be able to operate?

Any business that is willing to accept payment for a service it isn't totally confident it will be able to provide is one who's moral compass has been lost somewhere. If I'm again to speculate, I wonder if the firm decision is being held off in favour of gaining more liquidity from phony bookings, or because even they don't think they won't be around to deal with the consequences. The news on pilot schools and hiring being suspended may line up with that...

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Flair's booking system seems to show no further YYZ-YUL flights after 24th March. Unable to find any other route cuts. Anyone know if this was planned before or after the aircraft seizures?

It was planned since a few months.

YEGFlyer wrote:

people are liking the service

...but bookings are taking a serious hit, as per the CEO.

The chief executive officer of the airline says bookings have taken a sizable hit. It seems positive TikToks are not enough to negate the fear people have of their travel plans being ruined by further seizures. We have interestingly reached a point that your outlooks are actually more optimistic than Jones himself.

Juju2004 wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Flair's booking system seems to show no further YYZ-YUL flights after 24th March. Unable to find any other route cuts. Anyone know if this was planned before or after the aircraft seizures?

It was planned since a few months.

That's interesting, Wikipedia hasn't heard that since it's not listed there.

Think that was an expected one to disappear, going twice daily was actually a good move on their part, but Flair just isn't a brand that can properly sink into an almost all-business market in the Canada. It would be like Ryanair going on MAD-BCN or FCO-MXP. There's reasons they don't do it.

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Juju2004 wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Flair's booking system seems to show no further YYZ-YUL flights after 24th March. Unable to find any other route cuts. Anyone know if this was planned before or after the aircraft seizures?

It was planned since a few months.

That's interesting, Wikipedia hasn't heard that since it's not listed there.

Think that was an expected one to disappear, going twice daily was actually a good move on their part, but Flair just isn't a brand that can properly sink into an almost all-business market in the Canada. It would be like Ryanair going on MAD-BCN or FCO-MXP. There's reasons they don't do it.

One year on , boy does has this quote not aged well.
from ElPistolero.

Another harsh reality:

- The ULCC model is successful worldwide. (Rinse. Repeat.)

To deflect from this, we now see the advent of silly and self-contradictory caricatures of Canadian consumers. Ergo:

- Canadians are both “notoriously cheap” and not price sensitive. However that works.
- AC and WS pax received $2B in ancillary fees in 2018 (AC - $1.5B, WS - $0.5B). But ULCCs with lower base fares are going to struggle with ancillary fees.

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5223012

Said it before and will say it again (and again, and again, daily if need be):

- Canadian ULCCs don’t need to be dirt cheap; just relatively cheaper, all in. There are no high speed trains imposing a de facto price ceiling.
- AC and WS have “educated” Canadian air travellers about unbundling and ULCC products a little too well, and demonstrated it works. Too much eating and having cake going on from some.
- F8 and Lynx aren’t going after every passenger profile in Canada; only the price sensitive ones. Doesn’t hurt them that the major airline that previously catered to this crowd isn’t well-positioned to not bleed some of them. The 2010 iteration of Tweedle Dumber really goofed up there, and it’s coming to fruition, a decade later.

Let these guys get off the ground first before claiming that they’re just out to bleed their investors dry.

Flair is advertising on Facebook they are growing and hiring. Saw a couple ads show up today. I wouldn’t feel confident in applying.

Acey wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

people are liking the service

...but bookings are taking a serious hit, as per the CEO.

The chief executive officer of the airline says bookings have taken a sizable hit. It seems positive TikToks are not enough to negate the fear people have of their travel plans being ruined by further seizures. We have interestingly reached a point that your outlooks are actually more optimistic than Jones himself.

You know just how bad things are for Flair when the likes of Narcity or other similar FB pages post Flair "articles (adverts for cheap backpacker seats)" and the top answers talk about the seizures. The typical reader of those types of pages barely know how to tie their own shoelaces.

I'm not sure if the damage is ultimately done, but seems it's very close to it. Flair needs to find a way to profitability, if that's at all possible considering the debt and how bad of an impact the seizures have had on their reputation both for consumers and business partners.

For every "positive" social media post about Flair right now there are 10,000 negative ones. Social media is never the friend of an airline who made international headlines for being broke.

It's been almost a week and a half since the seizures and no sign of a shut down yet. However I think the biggest problem they're gonna face is the massive decline in sales from this news. Considering their previously precarious financial position can they survive that??

Flair/777 are apparently trying to renegotiate their existing orders with Boeing

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... e-balance/

That article is a great read, love Dominic Gates. Absolutely roasting Flair and 777 beyond what's even necessary.

If 777 partners has been making payments....the government won't be happy. And it must've been a last ditch effort to pay the leases...yikes

I love how Jones talks about the plane seizures helping margins by removing unprofitable flying LOL

Why even mention the dinner incident in the article

Weiss (777 partners CEO) sounds like a piece of work. Wow.
Just because of him being such a dick I won't be too bothered if the whole thing implodes.

There are plenty of stories floating around the industry stateside about 777 Partners.

None of them would incorporate the word “classy”.

That’s not the first story I’ve heard about 777 execs misbehaving in public dining situations and treating staff very poorly.

The word used by someone who was there to describe them ended in “bags” and refers to the layer of filth that often sits upon small stagnant bodies of water.

Double post.

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Flair/777 are apparently trying to renegotiate their existing orders with Boeing

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... e-balance/

Hmm hmm seems the relationship with Boeing is on eggshells.

The Seattle Times story by Dominic Gates, a long established and respected industry reporter, will simply destroy 777 / Flair’s access to capital markets to finance future orders. Only the most dodgy of sources will go anywhere near this mess and the rates will be usurious.

Meanwhile, there’s still no joy in Mudville.

https://calgary.citynews.ca/2023/03/21/ ... lgary/amp/

jimbo737 wrote:

Meanwhile, there’s still no joy in Mudville.

https://calgary.citynews.ca/2023/03/21/ ... lgary/amp/

'“I talked to one of the supervisors, and she said the information we are getting from higher-ups is telling us that other airlines will not take bookings from us. They won’t take our payment,” Truba said.'

That doesn't sound good.

After this summer I imagine Flair will be able to largely self finance. Cashflow will be quite strong based on all market indications.

YEGFlyer wrote:

After this summer I imagine Flair will be able to largely self finance. Cashflow will be quite strong based on all market indications.

How? What market indications?

YEGFlyer wrote:

After this summer I imagine Flair will be able to largely self finance. Cashflow will be quite strong based on all market indications.

This is a blatantly false and unsourced claim.

TexasAirCorp wrote:

That doesn't sound good.

From my personal observations, Flair agents at YYC just seem generally ill-equipped to handle irrop situations in general which isn't really their fault, and unfortunate given that F8 at YYC is in a perpetual state of irrops. I personally don't see it as indicative that the sky is falling, though there are obviously other indicators of that in the Gates article.

The problem with the sky is falling narrative for Flair is the complete lack of credibility of those who told us with certainty that Flair would stop flying two weeks ago. It just didn't happen. There's simply no credibility left after so many incorrect predictions.

TexasAirCorp wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

After this summer I imagine Flair will be able to largely self finance. Cashflow will be quite strong based on all market indications.

How? What market indications?

Any industry publication, for example, IATA's magazine Airlines, has done numerous articles on the unprecedented demand for air travel this summer. In short he (or she) who has the capacity will win.

YEGFlyer wrote:

The problem with the sky is falling narrative for Flair is the complete lack of credibility of those who told us with certainty that Flair would stop flying two weeks ago. It just didn't happen. There's simply no credibility left after so many incorrect predictions.

I personally have never said a collapse of Flair is imminent or that Flair would stop flying.

Both sides of this are taking it to extremes. You are going to one extreme, saying thousands of stranded Canadians and being broke and unable to pay leases is positive PR for Flair, which is an absurd take. The other side saying that Flair would stop flying 2 weeks ago, even though nobody has really said that, is also perhaps an unnecessarily aggressive take.

It would appear to me that most have taken a more conservative stance, which is that this does not bode well for Flair going forward. Period. I would again invite you to read the Gates article as his analysis is worth more than everything in this thread combined. Spoiler: the prognosis is not good.

YEGFlyer wrote:

Any industry publication, for example, IATA's magazine Airlines, has done numerous articles on the unprecedented demand for air travel this summer. In short he who has the capacity will win.

Your reasoning that Flair will thrive is because demand for air travel this summer is high? You mean the season for which many have already purchased airfare now and in the last month yet Flair still couldn't pay leases?

"He who has the capacity will win" is a horrendously inaccurate over-simplification that Flair's transborder operation has already proven to be false. Flair is throwing 189-seat airplanes on routes that can't support it... and Flair is not winning. Funny how that works.

Nah, the conservative view is to recognize the ULCC model and costs it drives as very competitive and the globally the most profitable model in the industry. Period. Anything else is noise/ maneuvering/ vested interests.

YEGFlyer wrote:

Nah, the conservative view is to recognize the ULCC model and costs it drives as very competitive and the globally the most profitable model in the industry. Period. Anything else is noise/ maneuvering/ vested interests.

The conservative view is that having airplanes repossessed, a rarity in the industry, bodes poorly for the airline. Just because you refuse to acknowledge this doesn't mean it's not true. Flair is broke, and your reasoning for them not being broke is that elsewhere in the world the ULCC model is the most profitable in the industry. Sound reasoning to be sure.

Acey wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

The problem with the sky is falling narrative for Flair is the complete lack of credibility of those who told us with certainty that Flair would stop flying two weeks ago. It just didn't happen. There's simply no credibility left after so many incorrect predictions.

I personally have never said a collapse of Flair is imminent or that Flair would stop flying.

Both sides of this are taking it to extremes. You are going to one extreme, saying thousands of stranded Canadians and being broke and unable to pay leases is positive PR for Flair, which is an absurd take. The other side saying that Flair would stop flying 2 weeks ago, even though nobody has really said that, is also perhaps an unnecessarily aggressive take.

It would appear to me that most have taken a more conservative stance, which is that this does not bode well for Flair going forward. Period. I would again invite you to read the Gates article as his analysis is worth more than everything in this thread combined. Spoiler: the prognosis is not good.

YEGFlyer wrote:

Any industry publication, for example, IATA's magazine Airlines, has done numerous articles on the unprecedented demand for air travel this summer. In short he who has the capacity will win.

Your reasoning that Flair will thrive is because demand for air travel this summer is high? You mean the season for which many have already purchased airfare now and in the last month yet Flair still couldn't pay leases?

Nope. It was winter which was slow. Not spring. That's why it was so shocking, Flair has stated it was basically fully caught up and in process of making the last payment when the lessor took action. As far as I heard the legal filing backs this up but please provide alternative evidence if you have it.

Acey wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

Nah, the conservative view is to recognize the ULCC model and costs it drives as very competitive and the globally the most profitable model in the industry. Period. Anything else is noise/ maneuvering/ vested interests.

The conservative view is that having airplanes repossessed, a rarity in the industry, bodes poorly for the airline. Just because you refuse to acknowledge this doesn't mean it's not true. Flair is broke, and your reasoning for them not being broke is that elsewhere in the world the ULCC model is the most profitable in the industry. Sound reasoning to be sure.

Here's that credibility problem creeping in again. So you're saying they are "broke". Simply no credibility left at this point. Time will tell as to what happens!!

YEGFlyer wrote:

Nope. It was winter which was slow. Not spring. That's why it was so shocking, Flair has stated it was basically fully caught up and in process of making the last payment when the lessor took action. As far as I heard the legal filing backs this up but please provide alternative evidence if you have it.

The leesor has completely and utterly refuted Flair's timeline of both the number of payments that have been delinquent, and the dollar value owed. You are taking CEO Jones' statements as evidence, which is understandable... but you'll have to wait till F8's suit is successful (lol) before you can use the statements as evidence for the purpose of this debate.

YEGFlyer wrote:

Here's that credibility problem creeping in again. So you're saying they are "broke". Simply no credibility left at this point. Time will tell as to what happens!!

Airlines that aren't broke don't spend 5 months begging lessors to re-negotiate payments because they can't afford to pay them.

It's just easier to say "broke" than "Flair spent 5 months in arrears on multiple aircraft and couldn't afford to pay the leases ultimately resulting in them being embarrassingly repossessed at the start of a busy Spring Break period."

I don't think that Flair is doing everything perfectly right now, far from that... of course I would love to see some light hubbing happening maybe a few through flights to start and growth to US eastern seaboard, Atlantic provinces, and Quebec.

I also think they would find value in doing a form of frequent flyer.

For those who say they need to stop growing so fast, it looks like the fleet will basically remain steady for the next year if I were betting.

One can offer constructive feedback without the underlying tone of wishing Flair (and all of its employees, customers, suppliers, routes) to go bust.

A lot of us either presently work in this industry or are retired from it. I don't want to see my colleagues lose their jobs, nor does anyone else in here.

Acknowledging that Flair is in a precarious financial situation does not mean I wish for anyone to be fired. The very people you're defending from our attacks probably have a more negative outlook on F8's finances than you do. I know at least a few do, as I speak to them regularly.

ThePointblank wrote:

Don't forget Flair has shed 8 brand new leased aircraft in December to February alone, based upon Transport Canada's registry entries:

Mark |Common Name |Model Name |Serial Number |Service |Date Updated |Owner |Owner Regist. Since
C-FLQP Boeing 737-8 43566 Cancel C of R 2023-02-15 Flair Airlines Ltd 2022-12-13
C-FLKZ Boeing 737-8 62883 Cancel C of R 2023-02-09 Flair Airlines Ltd 2022-11-02
C-FLQF Boeing 737-8 43300 Cancel C of R 2023-02-09 Flair Airlines Ltd 2022-11-23
C-FLQG Boeing 737-8 43619 Cancel C of R 2023-02-09 Flair Airlines Ltd 2022-11-29
C-FLER Boeing 737-8 62874 Cancel C of R 2023-02-09 Flair Airlines Ltd 2022-11-21
C-FLBG Boeing 737-8 60135 Cancel C of R 2023-01-18 Flair Airlines Ltd 2022-12-19
C-FLGD Boeing 737-8 43564 Cancel C of R 2023-01-18 Flair Airlines Ltd 2022-12-19
C-FLKS Boeing 737-8 62881 Cancel C of R 2022-12-19 Flair Airlines Ltd 2022-08-31

https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... RchHs.aspx

Flair took delivery of these aircraft and registered them in November and December, but placed them in storage for about 2 months before cancelling the registrations, with the aircraft re-marketed to other carriers. These are all aircraft that were painted and configured in Flair's configuration and paint scheme.

My suspicion: Flair likely either shed these leases during the winter due to their cash crunch, or lessors repossessed these jets while they were in storage.

One of the ex-Flair MAXs that was never used in revenue service is now flying with a Sunwing mark and flight number.
Just registered today: C-FZXI, MSN 62883, formerly C-FLKZ
https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... RchHs.aspx

Flying from MZJ to KRME today:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWG ... /KMZJ/KRME

And I just noticed it was flying at 41000 ft and now it is as 15000 ft and not at its' destination yet. Hmmm...

Any possible Flair employee redundancies would be snapped up by other, labour hungry carriers virtually immediately. In fact for all we know Flair employees are already bailing to AC/WS etc.

Part of the death spiral?

What concerns me is how cheap these leases were yet they still couldn’t pay them. And if 777 partners paid for the leases then the CTA won’t be happy

IceCream wrote:

What concerns me is how cheap these leases were yet they still couldn’t pay them. And if 777 partners paid for the leases then the CTA won’t be happy

Just curious what were the leases cost wise? 777 Partners seems a bit shady to say the least.

YEGFlyer wrote:

After this summer I imagine Flair will be able to largely self finance. Cashflow will be quite strong based on all market indications.

IceCream wrote:

What concerns me is how cheap these leases were yet they still couldn’t pay them. And if 777 partners paid for the leases then the CTA won’t be happy

At least 11 aircraft were behind in payments. The Investor/smuggler stepped in to save 7 of them. Yet 4 still got yanked from the fleet. That's either a financial line in the sand due to ownership laws or 777 not having the cash themselves to keep floating the broken business model.

CTA is without a doubt, already involved.

Not to worry though, somehow after this summer Flair itself will be able to self finance.

YEGFlyer wrote:

I don't think that Flair is doing everything perfectly right now, far from that... of course I would love to see some light hubbing happening maybe a few through flights to start and growth to US eastern seaboard, Atlantic provinces, and Quebec.

I also think they would find value in doing a form of frequent flyer.

For those who say they need to stop growing so fast, it looks like the fleet will basically remain steady for the next year if I were betting.

One can offer constructive feedback without the underlying tone of wishing Flair (and all of its employees, customers, suppliers, routes) to go bust.

The suggestion that a frequent flyer program would benefit them is questionable- I am curious of your rationale? Flair's customers are likely almost exclusively booking based on cheapest price, meaning the day Flair is $1 more they will go elsewhere. There is a reason beyond the low margin that AC does not allow any Aeroplan elite accruals (SQM, SQS, SQD) on basic economy tickets- these are not customers you retain with a loyalty program- you earn them each time they search and you are the lowest price (and secondary fits their schedule).

I do not think anyone here wishes Flair ill- but the current situation suggests they are quite ill. Can they make it- maybe. Is more sustainable competition good for Canada- absolutely. I admire your optimism but if history is any indicator, it may be misplaced.

Re WJV04.
Sure sounds good and and snappy but.. credibility. Like I said. Here's a thought, stop making such bold, outlandish claims so you don't have to keep being wrong...

I don't know anything about 777 partners other than that they are a minority owner of Flair. I don't think you ought to conflate issues 777 partners may or may not have had in the past with Flair, a company that by all appearances is much older than 777 partners, employs way more people and has a variety of stakeholders and investors.

YYZ757RWY23 wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

I don't think that Flair is doing everything perfectly right now, far from that... of course I would love to see some light hubbing happening maybe a few through flights to start and growth to US eastern seaboard, Atlantic provinces, and Quebec.

I also think they would find value in doing a form of frequent flyer.

For those who say they need to stop growing so fast, it looks like the fleet will basically remain steady for the next year if I were betting.

One can offer constructive feedback without the underlying tone of wishing Flair (and all of its employees, customers, suppliers, routes) to go bust.

The suggestion that a frequent flyer program would benefit them is questionable- I am curious of your rationale? Flair's customers are likely almost exclusively booking based on cheapest price, meaning the day Flair is $1 more they will go elsewhere. There is a reason beyond the low margin that AC does not allow any Aeroplan elite accruals (SQM, SQS, SQD) on basic economy tickets- these are not customers you retain with a loyalty program- you earn them each time they search and you are the lowest price (and secondary fits their schedule).

I do not think anyone here wishes Flair ill- but the current situation suggests they are quite ill. Can they make it- maybe. Is more sustainable competition good for Canada- absolutely. I admire your optimism but if history is any indicator, it may be misplaced.

When you talk to people flying Flair a lot of them have said they have actually taken Flair numerous times. Just an anecdotal observation. On top of that these can often become profit centers for airlines, essentially a form of ancillary revenue which would help Flair.

YEGFlyer wrote:

I don't know anything about 777 partners other than that they are a minority owner of Flair.

In that case, something else you should know about 777 is that they are the only reason Flair still exists. Your implication that 777 is completely out of the picture seems to be negated by the Gates article:

According to an interview Jones gave to the Globe & Mail in Toronto, the other seven planes were saved from that fate only when 777 Partners finally made the lease payments.

A reminder that this is CEO Jones saying that, since you deem any other source to be unreliable and everyone else to have lost all credibility. It's become quite easy to refute your posts when Jones himself has already done so in various articles over the last year.

Acey wrote:

YEGFlyer wrote:

Nope. It was winter which was slow. Not spring. That's why it was so shocking, Flair has stated it was basically fully caught up and in process of making the last payment when the lessor took action. As far as I heard the legal filing backs this up but please provide alternative evidence if you have it.

The leesor has completely and utterly refuted Flair's timeline of both the number of payments that have been delinquent, and the dollar value owed. You are taking CEO Jones' statements as evidence, which is understandable... but you'll have to wait till F8's suit is successful (lol) before you can use the statements as evidence for the purpose of this debate.

YEGFlyer wrote:

Here's that credibility problem creeping in again. So you're saying they are "broke". Simply no credibility left at this point. Time will tell as to what happens!!

Airlines that aren't broke don't spend 5 months begging lessors to re-negotiate payments because they can't afford to pay them.

It's just easier to say "broke" than "Flair spent 5 months in arrears on multiple aircraft and couldn't afford to pay the leases ultimately resulting in them being embarrassingly repossessed at the start of a busy Spring Break period."

No, Airborne has not completely and utterly refuted Flair’s timeline. They said delinquencies first started last year, had totaled several million at points, and that the leases were not current when terminated. I don’t think we have the full story from either side.

sxf24 wrote:

No, Airborne has not completely and utterly refuted Flair’s timeline. They said delinquencies first started last year, had totaled several million at points, and that the leases were not current when terminated. I don’t think we have the full story from either side.

Airborne says they've been chasing Flair for 5 months. Flair said,

Flair claims that Airborne only delivered the first default notices on February 22, 2023, for two amounts of USD2.1 million and USD2 million, respectively. It demanded that the amounts be paid before 1200 EST (1600Z) on March 6, 2023. In the default notice, the lessors said they had the right to repossess the aircraft but allegedly made it clear that they had no intention to do so. By March 6, Flair had paid the total amount of USD4.2 million, believing it had paid all outstanding dues.

Sounds like complete and utter refusal of the timeline to me. There's also, you know... the whole $50 million lawsuit that is strictly based on the two parties having a complete and utter disagreement on the timeline of events.

Exactly.

Most want to assume Flair is entirely in the wrong.

It's our own little version of Q anon, except that this is a real company with real employees and real customers you're taking about.

This is nothing new for Flair, I mean, look back at the past discussions. At any given time arguments similar to those being made now were being made.

At this point I think everyone should cool it.

YEGFlyer wrote:

It's our own little version of Q anon, except that this is a real company with real employees and real customers you're taking about.

You keep mentioning Flair's customers as if they are somehow the target of vitriol by posters in here. You realize that when we say people would be wise not to fly Flair because of their financial situation, that it is out of concern for said customers? If anything, you're the one showing disregard for the well being of customers by telling people they should play roulette with their money and fly Flair to support them, as if money is not real.

YEGFlyer wrote:

This is nothing new for Flair

When was the last time they had 4 aircraft repossessed?

YEGFlyer wrote:

Exactly.

Most want to assume Flair is entirely in the wrong.

It's our own little version of Q anon, except that this is a real company with real employees and real customers you're taking about.

This is nothing new for Flair, I mean, look back at the past discussions. At any given time arguments similar to those being made now were being made.

At this point I think everyone should cool it.

Yikes. Apparently saying that airlines not paying for their cheap planes on time for months on end and getting them repossessed, being a bad thing, is Q anon now. What's the connection? Absolutely no idea. Did you just throw that word out there as if it means something to this conversation?

If anything some people on here cannot see the truth about Flair. I'm not saying they're 100% going under but their financial position is pretty damn bad if they cannot make payments on planes that are being leased at 1/2 the current market rate

YEGFlyer wrote:

Re WJV04.
Sure sounds good and and snappy but.. credibility. Like I said. Here's a thought, stop making such bold, outlandish claims so you don't have to keep being wrong...

I don't know anything about 777 partners other than that they are a minority owner of Flair. I don't think you ought to conflate issues 777 partners may or may not have had in the past with Flair, a company that by all appearances is much older than 777 partners, employs way more people and has a variety of stakeholders and investors.

Where are the other stakeholders and investors to save the day then? Why is the minority/previous majority coming in to save the day? This is exactly why the CTA will be involved once again.

I could reference a few dozen of Jimbo737's posts explaining how this all works. A few million in the Canadian airline investment circles isn't that hard to come by when you have a functioning business model. I would even argue that a one time "we are going to be late" wouldn't have resulted in repossession by ANY lessor. Its several months over on over 50% of the aircraft Flair were operating. Lessors have a obligation to their stakeholders to ensure they to remain profitable. A customer is using aircraft accumulating hours and cycles while consistently not paying for them. Lessors shopping them around should be expected. I look forward to this conspiracy and law suit playing out in court.

I took a jab at your claim, however Its not about right or wrong or A.net bragging rights. As someone connected to this industry for over 20 years, I want unprofitable and unrealistically ambitious corporations to stop taking airline specific employees and the general population for a ride. Sure some careers will land else where, but at the bottom of pay scales and seniority lists if your lucky enough to have qualifications specific to airlines (Pilots, Maintenance, Dispatchers etc.)

I am very interested in hearing how you think they will be self sustaining financially within a 4-5 month time frame, I cant imagine lessors are going to be bending over backwards to give them aircraft to expand with. Give high value asset, don't get paid, then get sued.

He earlier said his evidence that Flair is going to do well this summer is:

YEGFlyer wrote:

In short he (or she) who has the capacity will win.

So Flair will succeed and thrive just by virtue of the fact that they exist. Seems like flawless logic to me. There are so few markets in which they have the most capacity so by his own logic they will in fact lose, but different rules apply to Flair I guess.