Forget Breeze, Avatar Airways the Promising Start Up From 1992 (Family Airlines)

fsxflyhigh

Well-Known Member
Joking of course. It does appear though that they are trying to take advantage of BA's 747 retirement to get their hands on some aircraft per a DOT filed Letter of Intent to British Airways:


I find this completely laughable. Avatar will "Purchase" BA's 26 747-400 aircraft. For compensation BA will get 22% stake in Avatar, will be a code share partner, and BA will get the "privilege" to work the maintenance on the 747s. To think how many investors will flock to a startup airline that has a fleet without any debt!
 

Luigi

Well-Known Member
Geeze. What jokers are behind this half brained stunt? I can’t believe the guy who signed that letter is a lawyer. He just cheapened the entire profession. It read like a high school essay.
 

dispatchguy

Well-Known Member
I want what they are toking. I love the part "and this is the part where I need you to have an open mind..."

I also love their office space, right across from the UHaul dealership in BCT... nothing screams aviation like a u-haul
 

FlyNKD

Well-Known Member
I read through their application on the DOT website out of morbid curiosity and this caught my eye:

"By joining Avatar's Fly "Free" club and paying a one-time registration fee of $49, plus $249 a year, you're set to fly 'free' on any available Avatar flight. Think of it as flying stand-by without a charge."

How is that a lucrative marketing strategy on a 747?
 

SlumTodd_Millionaire

Evil Landlord Capitalist
I have to say, the subscription model isn't a bad idea, as long as you get your numbers right and restrict it to space-available standby. Business travelers wouldn't use it, because they need to be sure they're getting where they're going and can't risk standby. So you'd only be selling it to leisure travelers, and most of them will pay the fee thinking they're going to fly all over the place, but then won't fly anywhere all year. And the ones who do fly, you slam them with ancillary fees for checked bags, internet, food, etc.

Somebody is going to make a fortune on that idea. Just a matter of time.
 

paincorp

Well-Known Member
I have to say, the subscription model isn't a bad idea, as long as you get your numbers right and restrict it to space-available standby. Business travelers wouldn't use it, because they need to be sure they're getting where they're going and can't risk standby. So you'd only be selling it to leisure travelers, and most of them will pay the fee thinking they're going to fly all over the place, but then won't fly anywhere all year. And the ones who do fly, you slam them with ancillary fees for checked bags, internet, food, etc.

Somebody is going to make a fortune on that idea. Just a matter of time.
I’d buy it, since I can’t non-rev anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

killbilly

Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
I have to say, the subscription model isn't a bad idea, as long as you get your numbers right and restrict it to space-available standby. Business travelers wouldn't use it, because they need to be sure they're getting where they're going and can't risk standby. So you'd only be selling it to leisure travelers, and most of them will pay the fee thinking they're going to fly all over the place, but then won't fly anywhere all year. And the ones who do fly, you slam them with ancillary fees for checked bags, internet, food, etc.

Somebody is going to make a fortune on that idea. Just a matter of time.
This is a variant of the business model that WheelsUp uses - and it's a good one.
 

FlyNKD

Well-Known Member
I have to say, the subscription model isn't a bad idea, as long as you get your numbers right and restrict it to space-available standby. Business travelers wouldn't use it, because they need to be sure they're getting where they're going and can't risk standby. So you'd only be selling it to leisure travelers, and most of them will pay the fee thinking they're going to fly all over the place, but then won't fly anywhere all year. And the ones who do fly, you slam them with ancillary fees for checked bags, internet, food, etc.

Somebody is going to make a fortune on that idea. Just a matter of time.
Thats a good point, most people have high expectations that they will use it all the time but the reality is they wont, plus it depends on where they plan on taking these 747s - the initial map was showing MIA to LAX then LAS and back as their starting routes.
 

manniax

Well-met in the Ka-tet
Thats a good point, most people have high expectations that they will use it all the time but the reality is they wont, plus it depends on where they plan on taking these 747s - the initial map was showing MIA to LAX then LAS and back as their starting routes.
"...this is the part where I need you to have an open mind..."
 

autosave36

Well-Known Member
"Dear Mr. Speedbird, sir. Please consider our offer to purchase these multi million dollar aircraft. We obviously have no real cash to offer, but you can have 22% equity in our valueless company. Yes we know it's difficult to make even a minor profit these days with a 747 aircraft, but you can take comfort in knowing that we are offsetting these massive fuel bills and growing maintenance costs with 79 dollar airfares. You can also take comfort in knowing your investment will get you a codeshare partner for your "local lift" which is absolutely massive because you also already have OneWorld. An alliance of real airlines with real airplanes that fly to real cities and are not named after some movie."

Idk how this plan can fail.
 
Top