![[Breeze] Airways](/iconimages/breeze/breeze-airways_ltr.gif)
[Breeze] Airways
02-14-2020, 07:15 AM
#601
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Position: B777 Captain
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by David Puddy
Your seating assumptions are off. You are looking at the smaller A220-100. The bigger A220-300 can seat up to 150 in an all economy layout (Breeze may offer a flexible/changeable seating arrangement including all economy on some routes) and the geared turbofan engine yields at least a 20% improvement in efficiency than the legacy 737NG and A320. The CASM for the A220-300 is far lower than the typical 737-800.
With all of the legacy 737-800s coming off lease and becoming available (and now going to cargo operators like Southern Air and even Mesa Airlines), why didn’t Dave Neeleman just order cheap, used 737-800s for Breeze? Used 737-800s might be cheaper than a volume order for the A220-300. Because they aren’t designed/optimized and flexible enough for “ultra-low” cost operations. Have you not read his article about why he chose the A220-300? It’s a long article but he has a good section on why he chose the A220-300:
https://crankyflier.com/2020/02/07/d...oss-the-aisle/
If/when Airbus offers the proposed bigger A220-500 with even more seats (Air France and other airlines have expressed interest in it), watch the CASM become even more competitive with more seats to spread costs over.
With all of the legacy 737-800s coming off lease and becoming available (and now going to cargo operators like Southern Air and even Mesa Airlines), why didn’t Dave Neeleman just order cheap, used 737-800s for Breeze? Used 737-800s might be cheaper than a volume order for the A220-300. Because they aren’t designed/optimized and flexible enough for “ultra-low” cost operations. Have you not read his article about why he chose the A220-300? It’s a long article but he has a good section on why he chose the A220-300:
https://crankyflier.com/2020/02/07/d...oss-the-aisle/
If/when Airbus offers the proposed bigger A220-500 with even more seats (Air France and other airlines have expressed interest in it), watch the CASM become even more competitive with more seats to spread costs over.
BTW, Mesa will not be flying 800's but CL's (300's and/or 400's) instead and 737NG cargo conversions have proven to be cost prohibitive.
Interesting discussion though,
Chop
02-14-2020, 07:23 AM
#602
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Left
Posts: 1,807
Originally Posted by ChopperHopper
If DN wants to fly longer routes with an A220-300, I highly doubt they would configure them with 150 seats. That would dig into their range instantly, specially out of secondary Airports which would have shorter runways. How about cargo capacity?Still doesn't answer the question. How is an A220-300 more cost effective than an B738? How about the E-195's? How is this gas guzzler going to compete with an 800? Have you made the cost to operate difference between the ERJ's and 800's? Not to mention that ERJ's would pretty much make Breeze less attractive for pilots. The "Regional Airline" stigma. Why leave a Regional with a flow to a Major Airline for a start-up? Something needs to be offered upfront to the pilot group otherwise it will prove to be a difficult to recruit qualified Airmen. If I had 2.000 hours and were looking for a job, after applying to all the Majors (of course), I would look at these 2 start-ups and would rather have a B737 type than a ERJ, assuming they oth offered me a position. I've read those articles and DN has a plan. AL has his own plan. Similar but still very different. Great. And I wish Levy and Neeleman the best. The Industry does need a Breeze of Xtra fresh air.
BTW, Mesa will not be flying 800's but CL's (300's and/or 400's) instead and 737NG cargo conversions have proven to be cost prohibitive.
Interesting discussion though,
Chop
BTW, Mesa will not be flying 800's but CL's (300's and/or 400's) instead and 737NG cargo conversions have proven to be cost prohibitive.
Interesting discussion though,
Chop
Personally I would focus on A220-300s and bigger 500s to keep the average CASM low but DN seems to want to take advantage of the market opportunity now.
02-14-2020, 08:05 AM
#603
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by David Puddy
I don’t disagree about the E195s. Not as efficient as the A220-300. I think DN probably wanted to get started sooner and his Azul connection allowed him to access “cheap” E195s sooner than the A220-300s could come off the assembly line in Mobile (especially with some production delays). It’s a trade off - the E195s must be cheap which means the low financing cost maybe partially makes up for the higher operating costs per seat. Plus, there are plenty of E175/190 pilots out there to facilitate a quicker start up.
Personally I would focus on A220-300s and bigger 500s to keep the average CASM low but DN seems to want to take advantage of the market opportunity now.
Personally I would focus on A220-300s and bigger 500s to keep the average CASM low but DN seems to want to take advantage of the market opportunity now.
Also, for the 195s, DN has said he won’t fly them more than 2 hours. For a 1-2 hour flight, the economics of the 195 aren’t that bad...20% more seats over the 190 and only slightly higher fuel costs.
Also, getting an initial cadre group of regional E175 check airmen wasn’t very hard for him to do. I think having a bunch of seasoned 175 pilots will help the initial operation get off the ground before the 220s get there.
02-14-2020, 08:52 AM
#604
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 63
Tell that to operators In Europe like Ryan air and Jet2 who are extremely profitable with the 737
Originally Posted by David Puddy
Sounds like Sun Country. The 737 is not optimized for super low cost travel - the A220-300 is.
02-14-2020, 09:04 AM
#605
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Posts: 229
Originally Posted by jamesholzhauer
With the extremely low capital cost of the 195s, he has no need to fly it with high utilization, unlike a brand new plane which will need high utilization to make money. It’s no different than Allegiant (or cargo companies) buying old planes...lower acquisition costs work for low utilization operations, even if they aren’t as fuel efficient. This mix will allow Breeze to have some low utilization bases/routes and mix that with higher utilization A220s.
Also, for the 195s, DN has said he won’t fly them more than 2 hours. For a 1-2 hour flight, the economics of the 195 aren’t that bad...20% more seats over the 190 and only slightly higher fuel costs.
Also, getting an initial cadre group of regional E175 check airmen wasn’t very hard for him to do. I think having a bunch of seasoned 175 pilots will help the initial operation get off the ground before the 220s get there.
Also, for the 195s, DN has said he won’t fly them more than 2 hours. For a 1-2 hour flight, the economics of the 195 aren’t that bad...20% more seats over the 190 and only slightly higher fuel costs.
Also, getting an initial cadre group of regional E175 check airmen wasn’t very hard for him to do. I think having a bunch of seasoned 175 pilots will help the initial operation get off the ground before the 220s get there.
02-14-2020, 09:41 AM
#606
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,067
You guys crack me up with this my airplane is better than your airplane stuff.
there are many line items that drive CASM. Getting an airframe for a steal can make up for lots of shortcomings in fuel efficiency etc.
the other thing is not to get too myopic on cost. Yes - lower cost is better than higher cost. But you also have to drive revenue and customer experience.
thats where DL drives differentiation. It seems that this is also Breeze’s angle. Offer a good/innovative product in markets with relative little to no competition while not let cost run out of control.
It is all about market segmentation and the overall mix.
I think they have a really good **** at it.
there are many line items that drive CASM. Getting an airframe for a steal can make up for lots of shortcomings in fuel efficiency etc.
the other thing is not to get too myopic on cost. Yes - lower cost is better than higher cost. But you also have to drive revenue and customer experience.
thats where DL drives differentiation. It seems that this is also Breeze’s angle. Offer a good/innovative product in markets with relative little to no competition while not let cost run out of control.
It is all about market segmentation and the overall mix.
I think they have a really good **** at it.
02-14-2020, 09:53 AM
#607
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by David Puddy
Really? You think Ryanair would be just as profitable if it paid current SWA wage levels (assuming normal flying with the MAX back in operation and more open flying time for pilots)? I know SWA Captains earning $300K+ and I doubt any Ryanair pilots come close.
02-14-2020, 10:19 AM
#608
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Left
Posts: 1,807
Originally Posted by TFAYD
You guys crack me up with this my airplane is better than your airplane stuff.
there are many line items that drive CASM. Getting an airframe for a steal can make up for lots of shortcomings in fuel efficiency etc.
the other thing is not to get too myopic on cost. Yes - lower cost is better than higher cost. But you also have to drive revenue and customer experience.
thats where DL drives differentiation. It seems that this is also Breeze’s angle. Offer a good/innovative product in markets with relative little to no competition while not let cost run out of control.
It is all about market segmentation and the overall mix.
I think they have a really good **** at it.
there are many line items that drive CASM. Getting an airframe for a steal can make up for lots of shortcomings in fuel efficiency etc.
the other thing is not to get too myopic on cost. Yes - lower cost is better than higher cost. But you also have to drive revenue and customer experience.
thats where DL drives differentiation. It seems that this is also Breeze’s angle. Offer a good/innovative product in markets with relative little to no competition while not let cost run out of control.
It is all about market segmentation and the overall mix.
I think they have a really good **** at it.
02-14-2020, 01:22 PM
#610
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2019
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by Bluedriver
Caution, there's another airline he started in the US that constantly tells it's staff they are well taken care of, but it simply isn't true. It's a mind trick that largely works on a significant proportion of the population.
Just keep telling them they are well paid, and keep sending happy emails, and people will work for less for decades.
Also, people keep saying "what were F9, Spirit, JB, Allegiant pay rates x years ago?"... Those companies STILL pay WELL below market leading rates, some of them dramatically well below, after decades. And UAL and DL (and I think AA) are currently in negotiations and will likely pull even further ahead in the next couple of years.
And some dude has suggested an airline should have 30 year pay steps? That's a terrible idea. Pilots should negotiate for the best top rate possible, and then hope to achieve that rate in the shortest time possible. Postponing top rate for 20-30 years is a terrible idea, and the hope that a 30 year rate would be higher than a 12 year rate, that money has to come from somewhere, and it will come out of the 12 year rate... Simply a terrible idea.
Just keep telling them they are well paid, and keep sending happy emails, and people will work for less for decades.
Also, people keep saying "what were F9, Spirit, JB, Allegiant pay rates x years ago?"... Those companies STILL pay WELL below market leading rates, some of them dramatically well below, after decades. And UAL and DL (and I think AA) are currently in negotiations and will likely pull even further ahead in the next couple of years.
And some dude has suggested an airline should have 30 year pay steps? That's a terrible idea. Pilots should negotiate for the best top rate possible, and then hope to achieve that rate in the shortest time possible. Postponing top rate for 20-30 years is a terrible idea, and the hope that a 30 year rate would be higher than a 12 year rate, that money has to come from somewhere, and it will come out of the 12 year rate... Simply a terrible idea.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Frisky Pilot
Regional
20
01-01-2022 05:02 PM
