Emerald A350-900

Weird flex, but ok

Seriously though I hope you meant California cause the farthest Sacramento has actual service to is like...Mexico with A320s

Weird flex, but ok

 

 

Seriously though I hope you meant California cause the farthest Sacramento has actual service to is like...Mexico with A320s

Guess I kinda forgot to say exactly what the business model of this airline would be. It would use airports in cities that aren't mega-hubs, but are in fast-growing cities (Kansas City, Philadelphia, Raleigh-Durham, Austin, Orlando, Seattle, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, and Honolulu). Sacramento would function as the equivalent to SFO, Austin instead of DFW or Houston, Kansas City instead of Chicago, Orlando instead of Miami, RDU instead of Charlotte/Atlanta, Philadelphia instead of NYC, SLC instead of Denver, etc. This would save money for the airline, so it would be able to offer direct flights to long-haul destinations at a low price without skimping of passenger amenities. Emerald would still offer connecting flights to/from places like Los Angeles (Ontario), New York (MacArthur), Chicago (Midway), etc. For example, to get from Chicago to Melbourne on Emerald, you would take a flight from Midway to either Austin, Sacramento, or Seattle, and then from one of those 3 onto Melbourne. San Jose could be used instead of Sacramento, though, so it could be at least using an airport in the Bay Area. In summary, Emerald provides international service and domestic connections to cities in the U.S. that are (mostly, not all of them are) underserved by long-haul flights, but are fast-growing cities that will become more "global" in the future. So it would be from Sacramento/San Jose to Australia, but using this A350-900 (smaller plane than the 777/A380/A350-1000/etc) since Sacramento is still not as large of a city as San Francisco or L.A. This might be confusing so quote this with questions if you have some. 

Emerald's fleet includes A330-900neo's, A350-900's, A321neo's, and A319neo's. 

Also, what about the livery itself? What's good/bad about it (specifically)? It's a little bit simple, but the point of the colors are to make it stand out at an airport. There aren't many airlines with green liveries (Aer Lingus and EVA are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head), so it would stand out at an airport without needing some super flashy (expensive) design. 

Also, what about the livery itself? What's good/bad about it (specifically)? It's a little bit simple, but the point of the colors are to make it stand out at an airport. There aren't many airlines with green liveries (Aer Lingus and EVA are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head), so it would stand out at an airport without needing some super flashy (expensive) design. 

None of the shapes look right. It looks like you tried to make straight edges using the pencil tool and your own hand, and as a result, it just looks messy. Also, the lack of a proper logo makes it look like it was slapped together in 5 minutes.

Also, what about the livery itself? What's good/bad about it (specifically)? It's a little bit simple, but the point of the colors are to make it stand out at an airport. There aren't many airlines with green liveries (Aer Lingus and EVA are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head), so it would stand out at an airport without needing some super flashy (expensive) design. 

Honestly, I do see a decent bit of potential in the livery, but yeah, as GJ said, bad execution. The shapes look to be hand-drawn and the font isn't that good.

Work on that and it won't be too bad

*long quote explaining business model*

Sorry no, that doesn't make sense. Sacramento (which can't handle A350s by the way) is really far from SF/LA, Austin is far from Dallas/Houston, Kansas City is far from Chicago, Orlando is far from Miami. Like...we're talking up to a six hour drive in some of those cases. There's a difference between using secondary airports like Stansted and just flying to a different city altogether. If you say you're gonna have flights from the larger city to the smaller one, then think about this:

 - 350 people want to get from LA to Melbourne.

 - They all want to fly Emerald (for some reason), so they have to get on a plane to Sacramento first.

 - Emerald therefore has to fly an A350 between Los Angeles and Sacramento, then another one from there to Melbourne.

 - This means that you've got an A350 landing and taking off in Los Angeles anyway, with all the expensive handling and landing fees involved with that, which means it would be a lot cheaper to have that plane go straight to Melbourne than take a stupid detour through Sacramento!

Do you get what I mean? This business model you're describing makes absolutely no sense. It's made even worse by saying you'll 'serve larger cities anyway but through airports like Ontario and MacArthur' - apart from from the fact that neither of those airport can actually handle large aircraft, and I think Midway which you also mention might actually have a route range limit on it, they're (apart from maybe Midway) too far from their cities to make sense. MacArthur even has Long Island in its full name. It takes like two hours to drive there from NYC or like an hour and a half by train. Come on man.

Are you trying to get 0% loadfactors?

Cause this is how you get 0% loadfactors.

*basically POTKC's message here*

In addition, I do not care whether it is at a fast growing city or smth.

It is way more convenient to just go to a major airport and fly all your big routes there. If your airline is an LCC, then to a certain degree, that is acceptable but we are talking about trans-Pacific routes. And this business model doesn't have any sense. 

All your works and business model makes Emerald look like a p**** in the eyes of the legacy carriers here in the ae galleries.