Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
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.
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?
YEGFlyer wrote:people are liking the service
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.
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.
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.
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.
TexasAirCorp wrote:Flair/777 are apparently trying to renegotiate their existing orders with Boeing
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... e-balance/
jimbo737 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.
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.
TexasAirCorp wrote:That doesn't sound good.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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
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
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.
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.
YEGFlyer wrote:I don't know anything about 777 partners other than that they are a minority owner of Flair.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
YEGFlyer wrote:This is nothing new for Flair
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.
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.
YEGFlyer wrote:In short he (or she) who has the capacity will win.