GLO "Pauses" Operations

hook_dupin said:
GLO, a New Orleans airline, is taking a pause.

http://www.al.com/business/index.ssf/2017/07/glo_airlines_suspends_flights.html

Airline is a bit of a misnomer... they are a Part 380 operation.
Click to expand...

This sucks. I don't know why you have to fly to Atlanta or Charlotte to go from Little Rock to New Orleans. Beyond not being one of the big 3, SW, JB or Alaska, it seems that maybe these kind of companies have a marketing issue? There has to be some way to connect midsized markets without requiring a connection and turning what would be a 45 minute flight into 5 hours of travel with the connection and really only saving an hour over driving.
 
Soku39 said:
This sucks. I don't know why you have to fly to Atlanta or Charlotte to go from Little Rock to New Orleans. Beyond not being one of the big 3, SW, JB or Alaska, it seems that maybe these kind of companies have a marketing issue? There has to be some way to connect midsized markets without requiring a connection and turning what would be a 45 minute flight into 5 hours of travel with the connection and really only saving an hour over driving.
Click to expand...

I do not believe it has to deal with marketing or the routes, but rather how the airline operates internally. I believe the GLO brand already went into bankruptcy in April. These guys are operated by CFM/Contour - not sure how well the other side(s) are doing.
 
n57flyguy said:
I do not believe it has to deal with marketing or the routes, but rather how the airline operates internally. I believe the GLO brand already went into bankruptcy in April. These guys are operated by CFM/Contour - not sure how well the other side(s) are doing.
Click to expand...

What I'm speaking of isn't GLO specific, it seems that the only folks who can operate smaller planes, not in Alaksa and not night freight, and still make a profit are Cape Air. Companies that are making money don't go into bankruptcy, not sure if it's marketing, route structure or general mismanagement, but something prevents this model from being successful in the lower 48.
 
Soku39 said:
What I'm speaking of isn't GLO specific, it seems that the only folks who can operate smaller planes, not in Alaksa and not night freight, and still make a profit are Cape Air. Companies that are making money don't go into bankruptcy, not sure if it's marketing, route structure or general mismanagement, but something prevents this model from being successful in the lower 48.
Click to expand...
I think there is a niche for 30 seat turboprop operators, but not a big one.
 
Soku39 said:
What I'm speaking of isn't GLO specific, it seems that the only folks who can operate smaller planes, not in Alaksa and not night freight, and still make a profit are Cape Air. Companies that are making money don't go into bankruptcy, not sure if it's marketing, route structure or general mismanagement, but something prevents this model from being successful in the lower 48.
Click to expand...
My theory is the basic problem is that the overhead in a 121 airline operation is so high anymore that it's difficult if not impossible to make a profit running less than about 50 seats. Related question: why do you think there is nothing new being built in the 1900/Saab 340 class? Anymore there are Caravans/Pilatus at 9 seats, a couple 50-ish seat props (ATR and Q) and then the jets, and even those aren't being built in 50 seat variants anymore.
 
As Boris mentioned, the demographics in that area are very poor and probably don't travel away from the house/ ranch/ doublewide very often.


Sent from my Startac using Tapatalk.
 
Soku39 said:
What I'm speaking of isn't GLO specific, it seems that the only folks who can operate smaller planes, not in Alaksa and not night freight, and still make a profit are Cape Air. Companies that are making money don't go into bankruptcy, not sure if it's marketing, route structure or general mismanagement, but something prevents this model from being successful in the lower 48.
Click to expand...

Alaska flying is heavily subsidized and also offers very little alternative.

Despite being horribly run and with significant cost disadvantages, US Air was a fairly profitable carrier for along time in the North East. Lots of money up there. Not so much down south.

As far as the hub/spoke system, it's the most efficient way to move people from A->B on a large scale. In the days of cheap pilots and gas, 1900's ruled the sky on those odd routes. But not anymore.
 
Roger Roger said:
My theory is the basic problem is that the overhead in a 121 airline operation is so high anymore that it's difficult if not impossible to make a profit running less than about 50 seats. Related question: why do you think there is nothing new being built in the 1900/Saab 340 class? Anymore there are Caravans/Pilatus at 9 seats, a couple 50-ish seat props (ATR and Q) and then the jets, and even those aren't being built in 50 seat variants anymore.
Click to expand...

You're probably right, but these guys are making it work at Ultimate Air Shuttle. https://ultimateairshuttle.com/

I think it has more to do with the market and that they're offering flights out of smaller airports and a more upscale experience. I'm anxious to see how they continue to grow and wish their business model the best of success.
 
Roger Roger said:
My theory is the basic problem is that the overhead in a 121 airline operation is so high anymore that it's difficult if not impossible to make a profit running less than about 50 seats. Related question: why do you think there is nothing new being built in the 1900/Saab 340 class? Anymore there are Caravans/Pilatus at 9 seats, a couple 50-ish seat props (ATR and Q) and then the jets, and even those aren't being built in 50 seat variants anymore.
Click to expand...
Meh.

It sounds like, between the brand and their contract operator (seriously? doesn't anyone want to actually run an airline by their little selves anymore?), there's a major disconnect.
 
wheelsup said:
Alaska flying is heavily subsidized and also offers very little alternative.

Despite being horribly run and with significant cost disadvantages, US Air was a fairly profitable carrier for along time in the North East. Lots of money up there. Not so much down south.

As far as the hub/spoke system, it's the most efficient way to move people from A->B on a large scale. In the days of cheap pilots and gas, 1900's ruled the sky on those odd routes. But not anymore.
Click to expand...
None of our routes in AK are subsidized and most of our routes in the Lower 48 are subsidized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top