/n/ has an airline

All 737's, 777's, and 787's, based out of Raleigh, operate it as a hub to Europe because fuck Atlanta

>>1074799
More details, we operate flights out of Raleigh to all west coast and east coast cities, and have flights to airports right outside of major European cities, like LGW instead of LHR cause fuck Heathrow. Then we partner with local European rail lines to get our passengers to their destination

Like the 737's will mostly be used for domestic, 777 for high traffic, and 787 for long distance/medium traffic

wait can i get a quick rundown

>>1075097
Me too

>>1074786
>>1075097
>>1076408
Think he abandoned the thread.

>>1074800
Why Raleigh? The city's population is relatively small.

Hub traffic is in relative decline - airlines will always have their operational bases, but relying heavily on interlining passengers to fill your aircraft makes progressively less sense as more direct routes become available.
(Note: direct doesn't necessarily mean non stop)

If I were operating an airline out of Raleigh, I'd probably opt for an all A321 fleet. The long range version can easily reach Europe, yet can also perform well on the shorter range flights.

Widebodies would be too much of a commercial risk from so small a base IMO. But if a major international airline were willing to try it, I'd try to do a codeshare deal and run some feeder routes.

>>1076443
how about charlotte?

>>1076443
The Raleigh CSA is the 29th largest in the country.

File: europe.png (564KB, 1803x587px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 1803x587px

Tear this route map up.

I originally thought about connecting medium-sized cities without any direct flights to Eurpoe via Raliegh, but the major airlines would most certainly be able to connect passengers to Eurpoe via major US cities at the same price, since airlines want to incentivize people to connect.

Running passengers from major cities at least ensures we would have the massive feed we would need to make a raliegh hub work, as long as the prices could be kept low.

I made thinking we flew from primary airports, but we could serve secondary airports in markets (OAK, TIJ, Phoenix Mesa, Fort Worth Mecham, etc.) to keep prices down.

>>1076584
Have you considered flights to multiple destinations? Having an intermediate stop might make more West Coast destinations viable. And most European airports have others beyond them on the same great circle.

Also, from another thread it seems direct flights from Montreal to Washington DC are particularly lucrative.

>>1076584

Legacies will eat your lunch on all those routes because you're touching their hubs.

Also, would love to hear in what universe you think there's enough traffic to fill RDU-MAD and RDU-FRA.

>>1076584
>RDU-RKV
What's the point of this if you aren't connecting to other European cities

>>1076702
It's difficult to imagine a situation where RDU is a profitable hub that can support flights to Europe, and intermediate stops could work. I just wonder if it would make these routes too undesirable

>>1076722
F E E D. But really, the only way this hub would ever work is if you could connect a massive amount of passengers. You could siphon passengers that's wouldn't want to pay for pricey direct flights from hubs. But given the parameters in the thread, it was hard to imagine a lot

>>1076725
Heard it was a big tourist destination? Idk. It was also one of the cities an A321 could feasibly make it to.

Having PDEW numbers for any of these may make the route map a little more scientific, but I'm not sure how to get those. Any ideas on how to make this airline work?

>>1076732
I'll accept Reykjavik but why are there no Canadian or Midwestern Destinations?

>>1076732
I don't know about hub status, but plenty of secondary/medium airports on the east coast can sustain direct flights to Europe. If they are secondary airports in a major metro area with a larger primary airport, then they definitely can support the flights (e.g. Oakland & San Jose relative to SFO). If they are medium sized airports and are the only notable commercial airport in metro area (as is the case with RDU), then they could very well still support non-stop flights to Europe but it would certainly be more challenging.

I know for example that Norwegian Air Shuttle's model has them flying into a lot of secondary metro airports (like Oakland) and into smaller overall metros.

>>1076738
Quoting the earlier anon

>>1074800
>More details, we operate flights out of Raleigh to all west coast and east coast cities, and have flights to airports right outside of major European cities

>>1076742
Yeah with craft like the 787 and A350 hub and spoke is becoming less necessary
>>1076443
Because if we went into Atlanta we'd be fucked by pricing and slot availability
>Raleigh is such a small City
Same could be said about Atlanta in a way, a vast vast majority of people going through there are transferring, not actually visiting.
If we went into Raleigh we could basically own the airport, pass laws in our favor, get expansions and subsidiaries in our favor, and even boost the local economy. This plan of course would require us to Brute-force the airport, ie several hundred flights per day, but it could be done.

>>1074799
CRJs for short hops please.

Also second hand MD11s for things please.

>>1074800
There should be a thrice daily MKE flight set. That way Chicagofags could still utilize our airline without buying a ticket from another airport.

>>1077055
It's like you're actively trying to drive a business into the ground.

>>1077060
>tfw you will never be a higher-up in a major airline that allows you to buy an MD11 just to fly around in and have fun in

But in all reality the ATL rout could be done by a fleet of CRJs so long as we don't have a massive number of passengers on that route.

>>1077055
>MD-11
If we want second hand aircraft then the 767 would be better.
>>1077058
This.
Connect to STL,DTW and MSP as well.

>>1077062
Delta uses an MD-80 and Southwest utilizes a 737 for that route.

>>1077061
>Dash 8
Honestly I'd prefer some CRJ's

>>1077064
They also have more customers.

>>1077061
>non-driveside pic

File: IMG_1690.jpg (67KB, 796x582px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 796x582px

Are you not serving the northeast at all?

Shit, I'd be a /n/iggerlover™ in no time

You should let me do your marketing.

>>1077001
The problem lies with how to create our customer base. I don't know about the american market tho but we need to have a strategy on how to make us look attractive.

shall we go low cost? (ie: easyjet/virgin atlantic)

>>1077086
"don't be a faggot. Ride /n/igger today"

>>1077088
Low cost competition here would be jetblue primarily, which is owned by delta, though with every airline and their mother going a la cartel its a fairly saturated market already.

I'd focus on limited offerings but outstanding service. Do a la cart with a few bonus items, freebies like a few gigs wifi etc. don't gouge the fees.

Basically the opposite of delta.

>>1077001
Could the same really be said about Atlanta? I was under the impression that it had a population of six million.

At this point it might be worth considering the differences between the airlines of the USA and Australia:

In the USA, if what I read here is anything to go by, it's often cheaper to make connections. But in Australia it's always cheaper to fly direct, as the cost of flying indirect is the combined cost of each flight. No resources are wasted subsidising interlining passengers!

So I suggest the following:

• Flights to converge on Raleigh hub three times a day: early morning, mid afternoon and late evening.
• Our Europe flights depart from afternoon and evening convergence; arrive back for morning and afternoon convergences. That way more of the aircraft are in the country at times when demand is high, and fewer when demand is low.
• Each of our Europe flights serves up to 3 destinations.
• Also try to get overseas based airlines to take advantage of the connections we provide three times a day (as it would help fill our aircraft)
• The rest of the day, try a completely different strategy: direct flights between city pairs that don't have many direct flights.
• Operate like a low cost airline. Use ULDs to speed baggage loading, and have passengers board through front and rear doors simultaneously.
• But have conformable seats with decent spacing, and a few business class seats at the front.
• If Raleigh hub strategy is successful, try to replicate it with a West Coast hub.

In addition to the above...

I'd try to chase subsidies for European destinations. I understand that's one of the tactics Ryanair used to keep its fares low. A direct service to the USA is something that regional governments could be willing to pay for.

Of course direct doesn't necessarily mean non stop, and at least one of the three European destinations on each route would be a capital city or major business centre.

>>1077188
Jetblue ain't owned by Delta, Einstein

>>1074786
Base a brunch of Saab 340 and Saab 2000 at Anchorage and start flying. Connect to the world with Boeing's upcoming MoM

>>1079716
This guy gets it, but before the saabs we need to do inter islands with Cessna twins. Gotta do it azores express/sata style.

>>1074786

I live in Raleigh, I can help.

>>1076584

holy shit wait are we actually serious we're gonna start an airline wtf

>>1076533

Getting transceivers in Charlotte Douglas would be difficult. RDU is versatile and easy to work with.

>>1079760
I'm the one who originally queried Raleigh.
But subsequently I realised that if /n/ has an airline, of course it's going to be based in a city that shares its name with a bicycle brand!

>>1079716

Do they come with free in-flight collisions? I really miss dying in a plane flight due to in-flight crashes.

What about MEM for a hub? Can definitely support an airline and is positioned strategically geographically

>>1081997
A second alternative for a hub would be good, as we could play them off against each other.

I don't know how suitable Memphis would be - it's further from Europe, and it's already a FedEx hub. How much spare capacity does it have?

Remember, most of our flights would be point to point, but they would converge on the hub three times a day.

>literally based in NA

are you fucking serious

fly seaplanes in southeast asia

no FAA or any other meaningful government
"pilots" for nothing
no regs
no maintenance
pure profit
final destination

they don't call it "fly by night" for nothing.

>>1083921
I don't think you can beat those SEA LCCs with seaplane...

>>1083921
North America has its advantages. It seems to be where a lot of the posters here live, and people there have a high propensity to fly. And it's still dominated by legacy carriers with inefficient hub and spoke networks.

Europe, Arabia, South East Asia, Australia and NZ are too competitive for the airline to have much chance of success based there. Japan, China and India have too many restrictions on foreign owned businesses. Russia and Iran are too risky politically.

Africa has great long term potential, but at the moment the propensity to fly is too low. Likewise with Central Asia. I'm not sure about South America, but I expect a North American airline could expand southwards if the market is there.

No new US airline can survive solely based on a hub-and-spoke model. Air /N/ will have to come up with routes opportunistically, based on demand that's not being met by other carriers. See Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant etc.

>>1084266
For Japan, you would be good to go if you cooperate with a local partner. Example being AirAsia Japan and Spring Airlines Japan. Plus why are we talking about ownership restrictions when we are still on thr drawing board

>>1084395
For India and China, ownership restrictions would prevent us getting off the drawing board. But I accept you're right about Japan; I shouldn't've included them in that group.

Do you think Japan has a big gap in the market?

>>1084326
It would not be solely based on a hub and spoke model. Indeed the vast majority of flights would be point to point. But three times a day, flights would converge on our hub:
Early Morning (to connect with flights from Europe)
Mid Afternoon (to connect with flights to and from Europe)
Late Evening (to connect with flights to Europe)

Flights to Europe would be to strings of two or three destinations (for example Raleigh-Inverness-Billund-Warsaw) stopping at the same places on the way back.

File: CRJ.jpg (175KB, 3050x731px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 3050x731px

Any ideas for a logo?

if you fucks actually pull this off you should post like 10% off coupons on /n/, phrased in a manner that menas douchebags on google can't find it and rotating every week

>>1084876
I've used Caerion Airlines in the past as a name, what do you guys think?

>>1084993
Bretty gud

>>1084994
Also a white background with light-blue shades in a wavy form seem like they'd be an "in" style, maybe a silver ribbon in there too

>>1084995
I'd keep the"blue board " color scheme to relate to it's /n/ roots

File: Screenshot_4.png (179KB, 569x714px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 569x714px

>>1083919
the FedEx ramp is pretty far away from the terminal and would have most of it's activity happening during the airline traffic downtime (11pm - 5am)

MEM was a pretty solid hub for delta before they pulled out due to the NW merger

Since the primary purpose of our hub is to fill flights to Europe, are there any good hub locations available further NE?

>>1084797
KIX-originated longhaul service using new generation light planes?

>>1087822
I presume you mean medium planes, as light planes are generally uneconomic for commercial aviation.

And why do you think there's a gap in the market? KIX already has lots of long haul routes. Doubtless you can think of others you'd like it to have, but the same can be said for any airport with spare capacity.

>>1087903
ah, I mean lighter widebodies

>>1087903
Specific about KIX, Osaka get lots of European and American routes in its 80s, but as Japanese economic downturn and the new KIX pushed airport fee up together with the bankruptcy of Japanese carrier, now it only have about 3 NA destination and 4 European destinations. The current Japanese economy doesn't seems to be that bad so I think it should be able to support some more long haul routes.

>>1074799
I can pilot the 737's