This Route Does Not Thrill Me
Certainly, the upstart airline wants to fly the route with (one or a pair?) of expected 738 Max aircraft and KPVD wants the route that no US carrier will fly. It looks like the interested carrier and do it and will accept the weight limits. That said, it IS a bit of a stretch for a RWY of that length and yes, they are pushing the 738-Max to the absolute limit. Push that hard and bank on some unexpected and expensive fuel diversions, especially west bound. When/if they rack up more than a few such fuel diversions, they too may quickly lose interest in the route. Such unplanned fuel events can and will affect their bottom line - quickly. That is a difficult position for a supposedly ULCC wishing to retain their operating certificate. Pushing performance to the absolute limits of any variable is simply not smart. Are they sure that they can fly the proposed route, or are they experimenting and fishing? I also note that this carrier may open a new route with genuine ULCC fares, but they quickly migrate up the scale and lose any real claim to ULCC status. IMO, they are experimenting, but without a proven commitment to the trans-con route. As we know, the RWY at KPVD is simply not long enough for a 738-Max at MTOW. They cannot cut fuel, so they will be forced to cut seats and cargo weight. I guess I wish them well, but... Cutting corners on the TO run and/or a couple of west bound landings that turn out to be even a tablespoon under minimum reserves WILL get their route certificate yanked very quickly.