BearX220

Nonstops. Unmatched range of destinations. Vast choice of airlines. Larger, more comfortable aircraft. Speedy transit to city (via HEx). For business class passengers, excellent lounges.

Any such airports -- and I can't think of many -- will invariably be in remote areas, unable to support an independent non-networked airline. There is a reason small and remote airports, when they have commercial service, normally only have regional CRJ connections to network hubs.

Not true, and Southwest has been the most consistently profitable airline in US aviation history.

General thought: you place a lot of stock in the A220 as a distinctive customer-attracting game changer. In truth VERY few customers pay any attention to aircraft type. They are influenced by price and schedule, then brand reputation / past experience, then -- much more weakly nowadays -- frequent flyer / loyalty factors. Aircraft type is typically a non-factor. I may hate the CRJ-200, but if it's flying the right route at the right time at the right price, I still book it.

tmiw

Actually, I can see a bunch of people avoiding the 737MAX even after it's allowed to return to service. Boeing hasn't really handled the bad PR around that type well.

84fiero

Indeed, I'm skeptical that Moxy will have the bandwidth at every destination to consistently and adeptly handle IRROPS. And if some of the airports have no other carriers, it's even worse. The OP claims Moxy will have a bunch of frequencies where it would provide service, but I haven't seen evidence yet that this will actually be the case.

I'm trying to think of a small, remote, airport that would be reasonably popular enough for Moxy, that couldn't physically handle a 737. Probably a few but I don't think it's a significant factor such that the A220 would be such a game change as the OP imagines.

I've had more flights in the CRJ-200 than any other single type. I absolutely hate the Devils' Chariot so it wasn't out of love that I ever chose it!

Yeah that's probably one of the rare exceptions. Some surveys have already shown a fair percentage of passengers expecting to avoid it for some time.

Steve M

Yet, somehow, they're making gobs of money these days. ULCC's such as Allegiant and Spirit lose money.

... nor do they want to drive to a small airport in the middle of a cornfield (to borrow from another poster) when business takes them to a CBD in another city.

I think the big boys have it figured out a bit more than you give them credit for.

OZFLYER86, you seem really angry about something in this thread. Did one of the big carriers lose your luggage recently?

BearX220

Boeing has done a shameful job, both building the Max and talking about it in public, but chances are this will all fade away, and sooner than we might expect. It was only a few years ago that the 787 was suffering battery fires and groundings and people called it permanently snakebit; today everyone's forgotten. Heck, Volkswagen was a global villain in 2015 for the diesel emissions scandal, and people predicted VW would have to exit the US market; today VW sales are up and folks can't remember what the fuss was about just three or four years ago. Most brands or products that suffer PR crises bounce back. The public has a short memory and shorter attention span, and, oh, hey... cat videos! Bye!

tmiw

The 787 was also grounded far more quickly and more importantly, had no further major issues since returning to service. It also hasn't killed anyone in fatal crashes.

Meanwhile, the 737MAX had two fatal crashes due to the same flaw within a very short amount of time. Plus, there's a lack of confidence in Boeing's supposed solution to said flaw among the public and possibly among the various aviation regulators. Maybe people will forget eventually, but I suspect it'll be longer than what happened with other crashes.

pinniped

Because I can fly from almost any major business center in the world non-stop to LHR. Getting to LCY from most big Asian or North American cities would require a 2nd flight.

I love the *idea*, and I guess that's what I'd do if I owned a private jet. But short of that, a nonstop to LHR and slightly longer surface travel is always going to be better than a flight connection - no matter where the flight connection is.

lhrsfo

This, of course, is absolutely correct and, depending upon where in London, or even the City of London, you are headed, flying into LGW will often be better than LCY and LHR, with its direct trains to London Bridge and Blackfriars.

BearX220

Absolutely. Think of journey minutes, not radius miles. If you are headed to the west side of London, minutes spent ex-LCY on the DLR probably make Gatwick look more proximate.

mrcool1122

Noise and air pollution is a necessary evil of air travel. Part of the reason large commercial airports are built out away from urban centers is to mitigate those negative side effects. I live in an urban area two city blocks from the threshold of the runway of a small airport serving private aviation. The noise level is just at the threshold of tolerable. You are going to get major and deserved pushback from local stakeholders at the prospect of adding commercial-level flight operations in what could be dense commercial or residential areas. The local airport authority may just prefer the airport closed rather than deal with the consequences of commercial service, however small-scale.

The dream of a life free from the inconveniences and burdens of living in a world shared with other people is just that—a fantasy, and usually an unsustainable one. International and long-haul domestic flights exist for us to use because there is a large market to support them. It's a form of shared transportation. It's most efficient—economically, ecologically, and other wise—when these transportation resources are consolidated. Yes, that means you will have to wait in some lines, and you may have to drive more than 20 minutes to get there. You're part of that line, mind. The fantasy of a low-density world where you are insulated from the impacts created by your own existence is necessarily exclusionary and bad for all of us.

If you don't like the experience of going to a hub airport, maybe advocate for the airport authorities to improve the facilities. Call for better mass transit to and from the airport to ameliorate the car traffic problem. Push for improvements to the security screening process. But to think that the solution is to decamp and distribute air service to myriad smaller facilities is not sustainable and will probably lead to a greater use of precious resources in the aggregate. The goal of a global air transport network is not to make the individual traveler's experience completely free from minor discomfort or inconvenience; it's to move the greatest amount of people as efficiently as possible. Sorry.

JY1024

Housekeeping notes:

- PLEASE use the multi-quote feature if you are going to be quoting multiple posts. This helps with thread readability (and reduces the workload for the volunteer moderators). Simply click the “multi-quote” button for posts you want to cite, and click “quote” for the last post of your set.

- If you would like to amend a previous post, please use the edit feature instead of adding consecutive posts.

- A reminder that disagreements and differing opinions are just fine; however, personal attacks are not.

- If this thread starts to devolve into circular arguments where the same points are simply being rehashed, we will close the discussion as it is no longer helpful for the community.

Thanks for your attention and cooperation.

/Moderator

OZFLYER86

WN aren't an LCC like Spirit or Frontier. The A220 is apparently much cheaper per seat to operate than a B737/A319-20, which means it can go into an airport that other airlines can't see enough demand for these bigger aircraft. Business people on their own dime, don't want to swan around lounges, they want to get from a to b fast & not spend any time in airports. Surf Air model with bigger aircraft, shorter TSA queues at smaller airports, sounds great to me. Have you looked at what surf air does ?

doubt if Moxy will spread itself out too thinly to start with. It will surely want many departures per day from one airport before looking for another route. CRJs from what I know are incredibly expensive to operate.

The interesting thing, will be where Delta deploy their A220s ? On existing routes or ?

not angry at all, just don't agree with you.

Why do you keep saying airport in middle of cornfield ?

It think Moxy have nailed something. I for one, hate big airports like disfunctional DEN, where EGE is perfect. Moxy has found what I believe is a great niche market between the Surf Airs of this world & the big boys. If I can save 4 hours on a day trip by avoiding big airports, I almost don't care what I pay, but paying less would be a huge bonus.

737 max is yesterdays news.

DenverBrian

EGE is 120 miles as the crow files from DEN; about 150 miles by car over two mountain passes that are often closed in winter. Surely you're not comparing the two as one being more "convenient" than the other?!?

I'm also curious if Moxy looked at used MD83s instead of new A220s - $10M or less vs. $80M.

tmiw

Sprit and Frontier are ULCCs. There is actually a difference.

However, WN is probably no longer as low cost as they used to be, at least on the customer side.

Sounds like it's replacing existing routes to start as it's supposed to replace E175s and CRJs.

IMO, DEN isn't dysfunctional.

Anyway, it sounds like your main complaint is the distance from downtown to the airport. I'm not sure there are really all that many closer airports in the US they could use. Going back to SAN as an example, the other possible airports (CLD, MYF, SDM, SEE) either can only realistically support general aviation and/or are less convenient to downtown San Diego.

Considering it's still grounded, I disagree. That said, it was a tangent to the main conversation.

jrl767