They may well have an ATOL advertised on their website - but the number given is licensed only for 1501 fully bonded passengers - nowhere near enough for the number of pax I assume they hope to carry!

LGWAlan, agree with you, also nowhere near enough to cover the launch costs or future operating costs. I imagine they've gone for a very low bonded number in case is doesn't work out and they won't have spent money on a large atol bond. The majority of clients will have paid by credit card, many card issuers include insurance to cover airline bankruptcy (which I'm sure flywho are aware of and counting on!!!)
want2fly, I assume your remark - "I cant beleive not one of the "planespotters - company directors - airline guru's" is aimed at me and others that have difficulty supporting flywho. I base my comments on what in my view makes good business sense, based on actual facts as they are known (or not know in flywho's case), not on a notion of a cabin service that has been presented to me at an interview.

come on -
 

Oh please - how long did it take you to think that little ditty up !!!

Lets face it mate - you and your cronnies have never had anything good to say and whatever positive news come from this or any other start up carrier you just trash it !!. No Doubt if the FW ATOL was for 50,000 you would have someting negative to say about that too - they cant win really with you all can they ?

I really do hope it takes off ( but then if it does you will say it wont last !) I would love to welcome you on board and have a conversation about it.

For your info by the way - FW have been in constant contact with all employees throughout its start up - Given every bit of info possible on whas happening next and you may be surprised to hear that it was not all about how to serve a meal or give a hot towel out.

Your all full of opinions and I dont doubt you know something about aviation but "gees" - its so boring - negative negative negative. If its so easy to start an airline where is yours?.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but repeating the same one is tiresome.

Hey, it's not worth falling out over this, we are simply looking at it from different angles, lets try to respect each others point of view.

Could you advise though, the employees you refer to being kept up to date, are they the one's currently working for the company or the one's that were successful in being offered positions last year or the year before but have yet to be employed by flywho? If it is the later, they are not employees as they are not on the payrole or hold flywho contracts. If you are being kept up to date with developments, would you be in a position to advise the operator of the aircraft and the type? It's now around 2 months before the first flight is due to operate and I would imagine this has been agreed with an ACMI operator.

As I've said before, I admire your confidence in flywho and I sincerely hope they are successful, if they are I will be the first to accept the I told you so comments.

Let's face it, with a stupid name like FLY WHO it's hardly going to inspire future punters.
They have a choice
British Airways
Virgin Atlantic
Fly Who ???
Which one would you choose.

Epsilon minus

That would depend on service, cost and if you want to travel up the M6 or down the M40 to catch a flight or pop to your local airport. Now if Virgin or BA offered a service from BHX or NEMA that would be different but that is not going to happen is it.

Centre cities

I don't think the name is an issue, there are several examples of airline names that don't really sound as though they have any connection with the airline industry -

First Choice
My Travel
Thomsonfly
Virgin

All well known names and brands now but that wasn't always the case.

The trend for several years now has been for the marketing guys and image makers to come up with a name that is trendy, funky and sexy. In the right hands the flywho name could become as well known as any of the above!!!

Come on, come on.
Of course brand names don't have to be self-explanatory in terms of the business they relate to. eBay, Nike, Oracle, Google, the list is literally endless.
But that doesn't make FlyWho okay. Oh no. The problem with FlyWho is not that it has no meaning, it's the precise opposite - namely that it has a weird and unhelpful meaning:confused:. "FlyWho" is a question, and therefore the wrong part of speech for such a name - it conveys uncertainty:confused: :confused: . Unconvinced? Okay, how does "Atlantic Who" or "EasyWho" sound to you? Crazy? Yep, big time barmy in fact. Is FlyWho any different? Nope. I rest my case.:yuk:

Thunderball, understand totally where you're coming from. However, with clever and targeted marketing the flywho name (however meaningless) could be it's unique selling point.

Take Virgin for example. Prior to RB setting up his empire the word had a totally different meaning. The word (once regarded as one you wouldn't say too loudly) is now associated with quality, innovation, fashion and glamour. Thomsonfly......Thomson, thats the name of my local telephone directory, doesn't sound remotely exciting! My Travel, sounds like a folder in the in box of my computer!! Do any of these names have any kind of meaning?

My original point was that with clever marketing aimed at your target audience, you can sell anything to anyone. Get that right and you're onto a winner, the word flywho could be the new buzzword. As you've already said, the word is a question, by saying the name/word it stimulates interest and curiosity and with the right marketing, a sale. It doesn't convey uncertainty to me in itself however given the background of flywho so far, enough said!

OMG
 

Come On - Am I reading this correctly - you have actually said something positive !!!! ha ha ?

Seriously tho - The Flywho name is rather unusual and when I found out what it had changed from and to I was like errrrrrr thats a bit strange - However when I heard the marketing and thought behind it I have grown to like it - EG - Who gives you the best leg room - Who flies direct from BHX etc etc - this is not only a question but also a statement - so yeah I think its quite clever - it does take a little time to grow on you tho.

In answer to your question above re - who is operating routes etc - Im afraid I cant tell you just yet - not that I dont know but FW have asked crew not to mention anything and I will respect that. The aircraft type is 762.

What I will say is that the crew are a great bunch of people and everyone of us believe in the FW product - Im really excited about it and yeah this is the biggest risk I have taken. I dont usually take risks Im more of a play it safe person - but nothin ventured nothin gained eh??.

Im working my notice with my current airline.

Yes, how about that eh!!! Seriously, I don't think I've been negative, just putting my opinion forward and from my point of view which is different to yours. That's what makes for a good debate!!

Hope it all goes well and good luck.

Is it me or is the name of this start-up airline slightly
daft???I know that names should not put you off but
who the hell thought that 'Flywho' was a catchy
name?They must have paid at least a fiver for that
one!!

MM

FLYWHO - laugh my ass off. Bring back NOW, all is forgiven :uhoh: At least they stood a chance of getting airborne at one point !!

So its May any chance that FlyWho are actually going to fly this June? Do they have an aircraft really? or are these people that are working notices at the moment to join them really making a big mistake! Worked with a crewmember last week who has a "job" with them well actually had a job with them last 2 years, she is going to give up a full time contract and thinks that FlyWho are the future!!!!!! is she being naive or are they really going to happen this year?

Marlowe

Had she been drinking?

MM

Fly Who is a stupid name, on a Gerald Ratner scale of commercial suicide, I'd give it 8. Crash Airways getting a 10.

Fly Who is a question of uncertainty and given the Fly Blu to Who history, is quite apt.
Clever marketing may overcome this silly self induced obstacle but at what cost?

Some other equally daft names for an airline:
Fly Maybe
Fly Possibly
Dodgy Air
Fly Soon
the list is endless
EM

FlybyNight Tours
FlyNever
WhoRthey Airways
Start
FlyAway
Stop

:eek:

Names cont'd...

How about the following:

Flysometime/maybe?

Flymetothemoon....

Have 'Flywho' got any money to spend on
marketing? - when are they going to spend it -
perhaps they cant spend what they hav'nt got!!

Perhaps like that minute popster named squiggle
or Prince they could be re-named .......

???????


MM

Just like FlyWho,
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d9...57/seenme2.jpg you ain't seen me, right ?

FlyWHO is a very appropriate name at the moment. Reason being that if you book a ticket with them you haven't got a clue WHO you will actually be flying with! Either:

1) FlyWHO have appointed a carrier to operate the flights but are not telling anyone WHO it is. Can't see why they would do this, its no benefit to anyone, if anything announcing WHO the operating airline is would only increase their credibility.

2) FlyWHO are yet to appoint a carrier. Considering we're approaching mid May and they fly in July then this scenario would be very worrying.

I wouldn't hand over any of my hard earned cash until they tell me who's aircraft I'll be sitting in.