Canada Jetlines

[boeingboy]

What amazing to me is the difference in business models companies need to have now to then. WJ was able to make a profit running relatively small aircraft with 120 ish seats and only have a 70% load factor.
The low capital acquisition cost due to a low demand for the type vs what a start up now has to contend with in a market of aircraft scarcity and huge demand must have played a big factor.

Nobody can make money now running around with a 70% load factor even with much more high density aircraft configs like a 189 seat 737-800/ max 8 like Flair. That would mean they would have over 50 seats open on average.

You cant compare Westjet in 1996 to Flair now. They started smart and ran smart - Flair is the complete opposite. Flair could make money if they ran it with any sort of common sense.

[CaptDukeNukem]

What amazing to me is the difference in business models companies need to have now to then. WJ was able to make a profit running relatively small aircraft with 120 ish seats and only have a 70% load factor.
The low capital acquisition cost due to a low demand for the type vs what a start up now has to contend with in a market of aircraft scarcity and huge demand must have played a big factor.

Nobody can make money now running around with a 70% load factor even with much more high density aircraft configs like a 189 seat 737-800/ max 8 like Flair. That would mean they would have over 50 seats open on average.

You cant compare Westjet in 1996 to Flair now. They started smart and ran smart - Flair is the complete opposite. Flair could make money if they ran it with any sort of common sense.

I’m curious as to what you think could improve flair’s “common sense” operating. What would you suggest if you were in the hotseat? I’m not disagreeing with you, I just find it difficult to see flair doing anything but status quo and hoping to survive.

[boeingboy]

What amazing to me is the difference in business models companies need to have now to then. WJ was able to make a profit running relatively small aircraft with 120 ish seats and only have a 70% load factor.
The low capital acquisition cost due to a low demand for the type vs what a start up now has to contend with in a market of aircraft scarcity and huge demand must have played a big factor.

Nobody can make money now running around with a 70% load factor even with much more high density aircraft configs like a 189 seat 737-800/ max 8 like Flair. That would mean they would have over 50 seats open on average.

You cant compare Westjet in 1996 to Flair now. They started smart and ran smart - Flair is the complete opposite. Flair could make money if they ran it with any sort of common sense.

I’m curious as to what you think could improve flair’s “common sense” operating. What would you suggest if you were in the hotseat? I’m not disagreeing with you, I just find it difficult to see flair doing anything but status quo and hoping to survive.

At this point - admittedly - there's probably not much they could do...they have a massive debt load approaching $500 million, making anything they do probably pointless. However - to start they need to start charging more.....cover your basic operating costs FCOL. If they continue to stick to the (absurd) ULCC model they desperately need to start upping the cycles on the aircraft. Frequency is one of the keys to ULCC success....something Flair lacks badly. That also means focusing your market and not trying to be everywhere at the same time. They are flopping around like a fish out of water - desperately trying to make a quick buck in whatever market happens to be selling at this moment. That strategy also alienates customers - who were counting on flying them on certain routes - only to have them suddenly cancel them in order to make money somewhere else. Loyal customers will help ones success.

To do what they are doing - their fleet is too small, route network is not established, and the capital is not there. It's been proven time and time again for decades that if you go too big too quick - you will fail. There will be other troubles and issues ahead, however Flair - like many others - will only be able to bail themselves out so many times before it all collapses. The model is unsustainable and is probably not recoverable at this point.

[CaptDukeNukem]

You cant compare Westjet in 1996 to Flair now. They started smart and ran smart - Flair is the complete opposite. Flair could make money if they ran it with any sort of common sense.

I’m curious as to what you think could improve flair’s “common sense” operating. What would you suggest if you were in the hotseat? I’m not disagreeing with you, I just find it difficult to see flair doing anything but status quo and hoping to survive.

At this point - admittedly - there's probably not much they could do...they have a massive debt load approaching $500 million, making anything they do probably pointless. However - to start they need to start charging more.....cover your basic operating costs FCOL. If they continue to stick to the (absurd) ULCC model they desperately need to start upping the cycles on the aircraft. Frequency is one of the keys to ULCC success....something Flair lacks badly. That also means focusing your market and not trying to be everywhere at the same time. They are flopping around like a fish out of water - desperately trying to make a quick buck in whatever market happens to be selling at this moment. That strategy also alienates customers - who were counting on flying them on certain routes - only to have them suddenly cancel them in order to make money somewhere else. Loyal customers will help ones success.

To do what they are doing - their fleet is too small, route network is not established, and the capital is not there. It's been proven time and time again for decades that if you go too big too quick - you will fail. There will be other troubles and issues ahead, however Flair - like many others - will only be able to bail themselves out so many times before it all collapses. The model is unsustainable and is probably not recoverable at this point.

Great answer. You may be on point here. Overreach and going all in with a losing hand is failure for sure. Customer base is important. I do believe there is still to right the ship from its list to port.

[boeingboy]

I’m curious as to what you think could improve flair’s “common sense” operating. What would you suggest if you were in the hotseat? I’m not disagreeing with you, I just find it difficult to see flair doing anything but status quo and hoping to survive.

At this point - admittedly - there's probably not much they could do...they have a massive debt load approaching $500 million, making anything they do probably pointless. However - to start they need to start charging more.....cover your basic operating costs FCOL. If they continue to stick to the (absurd) ULCC model they desperately need to start upping the cycles on the aircraft. Frequency is one of the keys to ULCC success....something Flair lacks badly. That also means focusing your market and not trying to be everywhere at the same time. They are flopping around like a fish out of water - desperately trying to make a quick buck in whatever market happens to be selling at this moment. That strategy also alienates customers - who were counting on flying them on certain routes - only to have them suddenly cancel them in order to make money somewhere else. Loyal customers will help ones success.

To do what they are doing - their fleet is too small, route network is not established, and the capital is not there. It's been proven time and time again for decades that if you go too big too quick - you will fail. There will be other troubles and issues ahead, however Flair - like many others - will only be able to bail themselves out so many times before it all collapses. The model is unsustainable and is probably not recoverable at this point.

Great answer. You may be on point here. Overreach and going all in with a losing hand is failure for sure. Customer base is important. I do believe there is still to right the ship from its list to port.

Maybe - but it would take a massive change in direction of the business in order to do that....and from all SJ's comments - as well as the ones from all those he's brainwashed to the party line of "There's nothing to see here. This happens all the time" - I don't hold out any hope for real change to right the ship.

[fish4life]

What amazing to me is the difference in business models companies need to have now to then. WJ was able to make a profit running relatively small aircraft with 120 ish seats and only have a 70% load factor.
The low capital acquisition cost due to a low demand for the type vs what a start up now has to contend with in a market of aircraft scarcity and huge demand must have played a big factor.

Nobody can make money now running around with a 70% load factor even with much more high density aircraft configs like a 189 seat 737-800/ max 8 like Flair. That would mean they would have over 50 seats open on average.

You cant compare Westjet in 1996 to Flair now. They started smart and ran smart - Flair is the complete opposite. Flair could make money if they ran it with any sort of common sense.

Oh very different times but in general I don’t think even the best managed start up company right now could make money with a 70% LF even if they absolutely nailed the perfect yield on that month after month.
It just shows me how much higher of an initial hurdle a start up airline would have now. An 80% LF would probably be on the low side of what’s required and the ability to fill 10% more seats gets exponentially harder as you get closer to 100%.

[boeingboy]

What amazing to me is the difference in business models companies need to have now to then. WJ was able to make a profit running relatively small aircraft with 120 ish seats and only have a 70% load factor.
The low capital acquisition cost due to a low demand for the type vs what a start up now has to contend with in a market of aircraft scarcity and huge demand must have played a big factor.

Nobody can make money now running around with a 70% load factor even with much more high density aircraft configs like a 189 seat 737-800/ max 8 like Flair. That would mean they would have over 50 seats open on average.

You cant compare Westjet in 1996 to Flair now. They started smart and ran smart - Flair is the complete opposite. Flair could make money if they ran it with any sort of common sense.

Oh very different times but in general I don’t think even the best managed start up company right now could make money with a 70% LF even if they absolutely nailed the perfect yield on that month after month.
It just shows me how much higher of an initial hurdle a start up airline would have now. An 80% LF would probably be on the low side of what’s required and the ability to fill 10% more seats gets exponentially harder as you get closer to 100%.

Sure you could. Charge enough and fly the shit out of your plane.

[rookiepilot]

I willingly paid more to fly Cathay to Asia on my last trip there. And Singapore the flight before that. Why? Cause AC has gone total cattle class. Even their higher classes suck. Really. Try someone else someday international.

The other direction, I like Turkish. On their 777, they stuck with 9 across. AC pushed it to 10, and made the seats thinner. Doesn’t matter too much for 2-3 hours. Try 10 hours, though.

There is a nice little market in my OP for a premium product in Canada and the US. Premium Economy and Business only class, flying between major cities only. YYZ , YVR, LGA, LAX, SFO, ORD, MCO, say. Maybe LHR, CDG. Include priority security lane, attentive service, fine meals, everything included. Easy boarding.

And charge really nice $$$$ for it.

Would be a small market that makes really nice money IMO.

Which should be the point. Keep it small.

[plhought]

....

And charge really nice $$$$ for it.

Would be a small market that makes really nice money IMO.

Which should be the point. Keep it small.

Been tried time & time again. Never works. I remember many moons ago a short lived Fokker 100 operator (gold plated lavs & all) that never got off the ground trying to cater to such a business. Not to mention the countless tries for such a LHR service.

Ultimately as a small carrier you can offer all the value in the fancier services and comfort that may benefit the business/affluent traveller - but without a large-market loyalty programme they just flock back to the big players.

True affluent professionals and executives got their CC's and mainline loyalty programmes that garner them significant status with the large carriers. Couple free J class personal trips abroad and they stick with the big carriers.

Never will work.

[SpyPilot]

But it worked once before, a long time ago.
Wardair was then, the industry is what it is now.

[rookiepilot]

https://www.cntraveler.com/story/la-com ... ine-review

[goingnowherefast]

Lots of people focus only on the price of the airplane ticket. They go to one of those cheap flight sites and pick the cheapest option. But people also pay attention to brand. A friend had bad experience on Flair or whoever, and they'll spend the $20 more because they don't want their vacation ruined like what happened to their friend.

Flair's operational reliability has damaged the brand severely. People would rather pay more to fly AC/WJ/Porter to avoid Flair's reputation.

Can Flair remain in business? I don't know, sure hope so. It sucks to loose one's job. Flair management has to figure out what to do about their airline's reputation.

[fish4life]

I willingly paid more to fly Cathay to Asia on my last trip there. And Singapore the flight before that. Why? Cause AC has gone total cattle class. Even their higher classes suck. Really. Try someone else someday international.

The other direction, I like Turkish. On their 777, they stuck with 9 across. AC pushed it to 10, and made the seats thinner. Doesn’t matter too much for 2-3 hours. Try 10 hours, though.

There is a nice little market in my OP for a premium product in Canada and the US. Premium Economy and Business only class, flying between major cities only. YYZ , YVR, LGA, LAX, SFO, ORD, MCO, say. Maybe LHR, CDG. Include priority security lane, attentive service, fine meals, everything included. Easy boarding.

And charge really nice $$$$ for it.

Would be a small market that makes really nice money IMO.

Which should be the point. Keep it small.

There is a few problems with that;
First of all you need lots of frequency on those routes to attempt to win over traffic and that means low loads at times because you won’t have connecting traffic to fill it.
Secondly lots of business travellers have a particular airline they like and use lots because of the status it give them not only for when they are flying for business but also for the points to bring their family on the European vacation in the summer or going to Hawaii in the winter.

[fish4life]

You cant compare Westjet in 1996 to Flair now. They started smart and ran smart - Flair is the complete opposite. Flair could make money if they ran it with any sort of common sense.

Oh very different times but in general I don’t think even the best managed start up company right now could make money with a 70% LF even if they absolutely nailed the perfect yield on that month after month.
It just shows me how much higher of an initial hurdle a start up airline would have now. An 80% LF would probably be on the low side of what’s required and the ability to fill 10% more seats gets exponentially harder as you get closer to 100%.

Sure you could. Charge enough and fly the shit out of your plane.

Sure you can charge enough but how are you going to fill those seats if you are a newer company? Start ups / smaller airlines need to charge less than the competition to try win the customers over due to less reliability/ frequency etc

[Old fella]

Lots of people focus only on the price of the airplane ticket. They go to one of those cheap flight sites and pick the cheapest option. But people also pay attention to brand. A friend had bad experience on Flair or whoever, and they'll spend the $20 more because they don't want their vacation ruined like what happened to their friend.

Flair's operational reliability has damaged the brand severely. People would rather pay more to fly AC/WJ/Porter to avoid Flair's reputation.

Can Flair remain in business? I don't know, sure hope so. It sucks to loose one's job. Flair management has to figure out what to do about their airline's reputation.

Exactly. Dependability is the issue re: Flair. We have been predicting their demise on a regular basis here but to date still holding on, perhaps by their finger nails, who knows. Having said that I don’t recommend them(for now) to those I represent especially any type of destination travel ie south resort wedding or family type Disney trip or a cruise departure. Still kinda risky as I see it.

[330heavy]

La Compagnie seems to be doing fine. Could something similar be done here? Less likely due to taxation/fees. That aside, aviation could be much better/profitable if it's not treated as a tax cow

[pelmet]

I willingly paid more to fly Cathay to Asia on my last trip there. And Singapore the flight before that. Why? Cause AC has gone total cattle class. Even their higher classes suck. Really. Try someone else someday international.

Include priority security lane, attentive service, fine meals, everything included. Easy boarding.

Off topic I know, but seeing as you bring it up......

Lufthansa on occasion dumps first class seat availability on to partner frequent flyer programs including Aeroplan where I have been able to accumulate a fair number of points through various means.

So why not skip business class and fly both ways on First Class. It is only out of the US(for North American flights) and only on the 747-8 and A380. I don't eat for quite a while before flights like this as you will arrive at destination with a very full stomach. One gets a full three course meal in any of their first class lounges. In Frankfurt, one can use one of several first-class lounges or their own completely separate terminal with both fantastic meals to order and buffet, showers, sleeping area, and full bar. It was morning but the chef made a delicious dinner meal for me.

The separate terminal has its own check-in, security, departure customs, and a Porsche ride onto the airport ramp at the base of the aircraft where you are whisked up an elevator to bypass the line-up. Then the on-board luxury starts. I chose row 1 in the 747 nose which is only 2 seats across, each with three windows curving in at the front of the fuselage and very attentive service. Caviar, very good steak, great desserts, and champagne.

You can see it here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92Zd5niD2KQ

LH First is so much more civilized than the zoo's known as the Air Canada Maple Leaf lounge in YYZ(AC had me standing for ten minutes to get in one time as the lounge was too crowded) or United in ORD. With LH First Class you have peace and quiet with some European wine and cheese while making your AvCanada posts instead of being shoved aside by someone to get some meatballs in the North American business class lounges.

Singapore Airlines/Emirates/Qatar next.


As for Jetlines, hopefully, they can make some good money with wet-leases in this time of delivery shortages to cross-subsidize the growth of their North American network until it reaches a sustainable point.

[goingnowherefast]

ULCCs today are using A320s and 737s. As a comparison, WJ (LCC) used a very different version of the 737. Back in the 90s, the 737 was a ~130 seater. Today, the 737 has ~180 seats. That's a much larger airplane to fill.

Should the likes of Flair and Jetlines be using Embraer jets or CS100s? Much easier to sell a profitable number of tickets when they aren't trying to pay the operation cost of a 180+ seat jet.

[IJNShiroyuki]

ULCCs today are using A320s and 737s. As a comparison, WJ (LCC) used a very different version of the 737. Back in the 90s, the 737 was a ~130 seater. Today, the 737 has ~180 seats. That's a much larger airplane to fill.

Should the likes of Flair and Jetlines be using Embraer jets or CS100s? Much easier to sell a profitable number of tickets when they aren't trying to pay the operation cost of a 180+ seat jet.

How much extra does it cost to operate a jet that's just a little bit smaller? I doubt it would be much. If they can fill the plane up, it would certainly be more profitable with 737

[goingnowherefast]

Well, a 737 NG burns 35% more fuel than an Embraer 190, so...

Sure a full 737 is more profitable, but if they're only going to sell 100 seats, the Embraer/CS100 is by far the better choice. It's why Delta and AC both bought the C Series. They don't want to send a 180+ seat jet on a route that has 120 passengers.

[sullecpt]

What's jetlines paying anyway? I'm curious how they compare to Transat and AC for same type.

[Stable_Approach]

What's jetlines paying anyway? I'm curious how they compare to Transat and AC for same type.

I believe FOs hourly $72 and captains $147, 76 MMG.

[rookiepilot]

Lots of people focus only on the price of the airplane ticket. They go to one of those cheap flight sites and pick the cheapest option.

Incredibly stupid way to live IMO, when in the event of any issue, you’re stranded. Maybe for days. Whats that worth?

All to save 50 bucks.

AC doesn’t compare to almost any major international carrier you could name, but for flights in Canada at least, if there is a problem, they have lots of planes to sort things out with.

You couldn’t pay me to book a flight on some of these ULCC’s, to each his own I suppose.

[co-joe]

Lots of people focus only on the price of the airplane ticket. They go to one of those cheap flight sites and pick the cheapest option.

Incredibly stupid way to live IMO, when in the event of any issue, you’re stranded. Maybe for days. Whats that worth?

All to save 50 bucks.

AC doesn’t compare to almost any major international carrier you could name, but for flights in Canada at least, if there is a problem, they have lots of planes to sort things out with.

You couldn’t pay me to book a flight on some of these ULCC’s, to each his own I suppose.

Yeah because AC and WS never strand anyone ever.

[goingnowherefast]

Lots of people focus only on the price of the airplane ticket. They go to one of those cheap flight sites and pick the cheapest option.

Incredibly stupid way to live IMO, when in the event of any issue, you’re stranded. Maybe for days. Whats that worth?

All to save 50 bucks.

AC doesn’t compare to almost any major international carrier you could name, but for flights in Canada at least, if there is a problem, they have lots of planes to sort things out with.

You couldn’t pay me to book a flight on some of these ULCC’s, to each his own I suppose.

I completely agree with you. You and I are more knowledgeable about this industry than Jonny Q. Public. When choosing an airline, I look at things like route frequency, and the ability of that airline to recover from IROPS. Sure AC will strand someone, but 3x daily service means I'm delayed until tomorrow. 3x weekly service means I'm delayed till next week. The general public doesn't understand this.