DanWEC wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:25 am
Wasn't it part of the CTA's requirement that Flair can't maintain an exclusive relationship with 777 in regards to leasing, financing, and board occupancy?
Perhaps these tails going elsewhere and replaced with other lessors were part of that compliance.
No.
The CTA is more than happy to allow third party lessors buy 777’s aircraft and lease them to Flair. The only restriction is that 777 can’t directly lease to Flair.
For example, C-FLKO is an aircraft from 777’s Boeing order book that was inducted in Flair’s fleet after the CTA decision. 777 brokered a sale-leaseback of its aircraft to a third party lessor to lease to Flair.
If a Flair branded aircraft is going to someone other than Flair, it means that something has seriously gone wrong financially. It has nothing to do with the CTA.
I don't pretend to know everything going on in top management or business decisions made by the company or its partners/lessors.
Is it possible that 777 Partners have changed their mind? Completely. Is it likely? Maybe. Is it what's happening? I can't tell you, I don't have the answer. But more to the point, flair is flying very good load factors right now with maybe the exception of a couple of routes that have yet to pick up. Plus, it's not exactly the high season right now. That should at the very least tell you that, with the current business model of the company, things are working out. What I mean by that is, if it didn't work out I think we could have prices going up a bit, still being competitive, and making ends meet better. Just look at other carriers and you'll see that the current business model at flair is within acceptable parameters. By comparison, porter (yes I know, not the same market but economics are based on the same variables regardless) is now flying E2s and Q4s both with casm higher than flair's Max's. Fuel burn on the E2s is roughly the same, landing costs, handling, gates are all just about the same. Yet you have way less seats. Porter also has more expenses when it comes to crewing the flight decks (don't get me started, I covered contract stuff in another thread and made very clear my views on our current contract and how it came to pass, look it up), and is currently having a little harder time flying a full schedule because of crew shortage, like everyone else I guess. So take all this into account, and flying a Max with cheaper tickets, no layovers therefore less expenses, lower crew costs, high dispatch reliability and very high loads not to mention added costs to the tickets (because who really travels without a luggage?) makes a little more sense.
Now to the aircraft orders missing out of Boeing's website, assuming this means something went wrong with 777 could make sense in a world where aviation is a straight forward business. It isn't though. Have 777 backed out of a high value deal where they had really good prices especially right now when the planes are in higher demand than ever? Very unlikely. I cannot explain where the orders went, but I can tell you this: somewhere for a good price. As a business, 777 is looking at making money. They don't care if it's with flair, or not. They could have simply and quickly sold their options and orders to other lessors or airlines just to make a quick, large profit. I know I would have done exactly that if I was in their position.
So if the problem is not 777, is it that Flair is not respecting its obligations? Again, very unlikely. If it was the case, you would not see a growing number of aircraft on property. Yes, some came and went. But we also added whitetails destined to other airlines. And moreover, the fleet is growing in numbers right now as we speak. If we had solvency issues, a lessor would go somewhere else where money isn't a problem.
All that to say, no one can say exactly what's going on. There's simply to many moving pieces, and not enough info. 777 is not disclosing everything, Flair is not a publicly traded company so you won't have details of its financial situation nor will you get access to its current dealings.
What's for sure is what you can actually see: an upward trend. Growing fleet, and at least as importantly I think, on schedule. We meet the targets set forth.
There's lots of speculation as we all love to do, but there's only a few key factors at everyone's disposal and I stated them.
I won't be picking a fight with anyone, you do what you want with that info I'm not a babysitter.
TFTMB heavy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 4:28 am
Any truth to Flair having a number of slots revoked by the GTAA?
I happen to be one of the unluckys flying out of that mess of an airport, and no there's no truth to that. Same flying, increasing as a matter of fact.
If a Flair branded aircraft is going to someone other than Flair, it means that something has seriously gone wrong financially. It has nothing to do with the CTA.
Sunwing just picked up two - in full Flair colors, but they were never Canadian registered...still with N numbers. They were flown directly from Boeing down to Tucson. I guess someone changed their mind somewhere. Could be that 777 had less to do with Flair and sold them to another lessor.
C-FLRS is still listed as a Flair aircraft at the moment, but appears to have done it's last revenue flight Dec 31 before sitting in YKF until Feb 24 when it was flown to TUC as a non-rev flight.
indieadventurer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:10 am
C-FLRS is still listed as a Flair aircraft at the moment, but appears to have done it's last revenue flight Dec 31 before sitting in YKF until Feb 24 when it was flown to TUC as a non-rev flight.
If that's what some here are basing their opinions on regarding the active fleet, just keep an eye on it. Let me know next week where that aircraft is.
Further more, keep an eye on the active number of aircraft in flair's fleet over the next few months.
GRK2 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:22 pm
It's actually quite entertaining watching the naysayers struggle with their hopes that Flair fails. But hey, why let the truth cloud a good story?
What’s equally as funny is watching members assume other pilots got PFO’d just because they’re critical of Flair.
Can you definitively say that Flair will be here in a couple years? Of course you can not. We are all too familiar with the inflated costs of operating an airline in Canada and with the price of fuel today, one has to raise an eyebrow at an airline selling seats for 9 bucks. I don’t care if you’re charging extra for bags, you’re not making money. I’ve never heard of a lease showing up on property in our colours, only to be shipped off somewhere else. If it did, I wouldn’t brush it off as a non-event and would in fact, find it quite alarming. That being said, perhaps there’s a logical explanation for it as already stated.
Between Flair, Lynx, Jetlines, Sunwing, Transat… a couple years or a few years from now, not all of them will be here. I can’t see it anyway. We simply do not have the population to support this many aircraft with their current expansion plans.
I don’t think it’s right for pilots to root for Flair’s failure, but it’s also a real possibility they will fail. And anyone who joined them not thinking or knowing that is either in denial, is too young to care (the I just want to fly a jet crowd) or they don’t know their own industry.
---------- ADS -----------
Twenty years from now you'll be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the things you did do.
So throw off the bowlines.
Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover.
the_new_guy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:16 pm
If that's what some here are basing their opinions on regarding the active fleet, just keep an eye on it. Let me know next week where that aircraft is.
GRK2 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:22 pm
It's actually quite entertaining watching the naysayers struggle with their hopes that Flair fails. But hey, why let the truth cloud a good story?
The same could be said about the ones steadfastly hoping it's not the end.
I'm hoping it all works out, but let's not pretend it's all hunky dory.
It's all fine, just a bump in the road.
Arguments go both ways.
In the end I hope that wherever they might end up, the employees achieve their career and life goals.
the_new_guy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:16 pm
If that's what some here are basing their opinions on regarding the active fleet, just keep an eye on it. Let me know next week where that aircraft is.
It's one of the four that was repossessed.
It happens to be. At the time of my posting though it was in Tucson being repainted after ground crew damaged it. And, should I add, that plane operated flights since. So, to the point I made then, basing "concerns" on that plane being on the ground was quite the stretch. Too bad it is one of the planes repoed though.
tbaylx wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 9:32 amThe thing about lessors is when you stop paying them they take their aircraft back and then you aren't flying anymore.
All our aircraft in our fleet are operating when they haven't been hit by ground service equipment and we already have the first 3 additional spring aircraft on the property. Believe whoever you'd like, but the fact that we're operating our fleet and continuing to onboard additional aircraft would seem to indicate that we're paying our lessors and that you're posting rumors to drive an agenda.
and we already have the first 3 additional spring aircraft on the property. Believe whoever you'd like, but the fact that we're operating our fleet and continuing to onboard additional aircraft would seem to indicate that we're paying our lessors and that you're posting rumors to drive an agenda.
