Norwegian Inaugural Gatwick-Austin

tkoenig95 · Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:38 pm

Today marks the day of the inaugural flight for Norwegian between Gatwick and Austin, TX. Very much so welcomed into Austin, as we love to see international traffic grow!

Any insights on pax loads to/from?

Cheers

787NOR · Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:04 pm

DI7181/27.GCKOF.C56Y282.PAX/44/273
SI AUS BAG 4035

DarthLobster · Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:12 pm

The Hipster Clipper

tkoenig95 · Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:14 pm

DarthLobster wrote:
The Hipster Clipper

Haha, hopefully this name sticks!

LHUSA · Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:26 pm

Looks like DY left about 2 hours late, so it's basically right behind BA. Two London arrivals at AUS within 20 mins.

smallvoyageur · Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:42 pm

tkoenig95 wrote:
DarthLobster wrote:
The Hipster Clipper

Haha, hopefully this name sticks!

With Svalbard Bryggeri's Spitsbergen Pale Ale the "bière de vol"

L0VE2FLY · Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:08 pm

Who would've thought they'd start AUS before SAN?! I'm still hopeful though, with their ambitious expansion plan we should see them in SAN in the not so distant future.

LAX772LR · Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:39 pm

L0VE2FLY wrote:
Who would've thought they'd start AUS before SAN?!

ANSWER: anyone paying attention.

Over the last year and half, they've announced multiple times and in multiple media that Chicago, New Orleans, and "Texas" were the expansion markets they were most closely eyeing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinen ... b3c369162c

ADrum23 · Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:40 pm

Now it's time for DY to get to DFW. They badly need some competition on the AA/BA duopoly.

L0VE2FLY · Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:36 pm

Norwegian should consider flights to the US via Canada with 5th freedom rights, e.g. LGW/CDG-YYZ/YUL-SAN, it shouldn't be hard to fill a 737 on such a flight especially in the high season, the only hindrance I can think of are the high airport fees in Canada.

LAX772LR wrote:
L0VE2FLY wrote:
Who would've thought they'd start AUS before SAN?!

ANSWER: anyone paying attention.

Over the last year and half, they've announced multiple times and in multiple media that Chicago, New Orleans, and "Texas" were the expansion markets they were most closely eyeing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinen ... b3c369162c

I don't think anyone here expected Austin to happen before Houston & Dallas.

Mortyman · Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:54 pm

L0VE2FLY wrote:
Norwegian should consider flights to the US via Canada with 5th freedom rights, e.g. LGW/CDG-YYZ/YUL-SAN, it shouldn't be hard to fill a 737 on such a flight especially in the high season, the only hindrance I can think of are the high airport fees in Canada.

LAX772LR wrote:
L0VE2FLY wrote:
Who would've thought they'd start AUS before SAN?!

ANSWER: anyone paying attention.

Over the last year and half, they've announced multiple times and in multiple media that Chicago, New Orleans, and "Texas" were the expansion markets they were most closely eyeing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinen ... b3c369162c

I don't think anyone here expected Austin to happen before Houston & Dallas.

Well, they have already applied for flights from Europe to Canada. Don't know if they plan to continue from Canada into the US though.

Mortyman · Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:20 am

Norwegian cabin crew with Austin-based singer and songwriter, Julian Acosta

The new year-round three weekly service from London Gatwick to Austin International Airport breaks the monopoly on direct flights to Austin with fares available from £169 one-way, offering passengers more choice and lower fares.

Music was in the air today at London Gatwick as passengers on the inaugural flight experienced the sounds of Austin before they took off. The Live Music Capital of the World is famed for its live music and to celebrate the first flight from London Gatwick to Austin, passengers enjoyed a live acoustic performance from local Austin artist Julian Acosta on the ground and in the skies before landing in Austin.

Norwegian Chief Commercial Officer, Thomas Ramdahl said:“We are excited to offer passengers the only direct route from London Gatwick to Austin, the Live Music Capital of the World. Our high-quality flights give both leisure and business travellers the chance to explore this vibrant city.”

https://media.norwegian.com/uk/?_ga=2.2 ... as-2459819

CHI2DFW · Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:31 am

Mortyman wrote:

Norwegian cabin crew with Austin-based singer and songwriter, Julian Acosta

The new year-round three weekly service from London Gatwick to Austin International Airport breaks the monopoly on direct flights to Austin with fares available from £169 one-way, offering passengers more choice and lower fares.

Music was in the air today at London Gatwick as passengers on the inaugural flight experienced the sounds of Austin before they took off. The Live Music Capital of the World is famed for its live music and to celebrate the first flight from London Gatwick to Austin, passengers enjoyed a live acoustic performance from local Austin artist Julian Acosta on the ground and in the skies before landing in Austin.

Norwegian Chief Commercial Officer, Thomas Ramdahl said:“We are excited to offer passengers the only direct route from London Gatwick to Austin, the Live Music Capital of the World. Our high-quality flights give both leisure and business travellers the chance to explore this vibrant city.”

https://media.norwegian.com/uk/?_ga=2.2 ... as-2459819

Just missing Willie and his “Products.”

Hipster Clipper! Classic!

khowaga · Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:55 am

L0VE2FLY wrote:
Norwegian should consider flights to the US via Canada with 5th freedom rights, e.g. LGW/CDG-YYZ/YUL-SAN, it shouldn't be hard to fill a 737 on such a flight especially in the high season, the only hindrance I can think of are the high airport fees in Canada.

LAX772LR wrote:
L0VE2FLY wrote:
Who would've thought they'd start AUS before SAN?!

ANSWER: anyone paying attention.

Over the last year and half, they've announced multiple times and in multiple media that Chicago, New Orleans, and "Texas" were the expansion markets they were most closely eyeing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinen ... b3c369162c

I don't think anyone here expected Austin to happen before Houston & Dallas.

Dallas is ripe, but with both FI and WW launching DFW shortly they’ll probably let that play out first. (WW had been looking at AUS but DY beat them to it).

I am surprised they went for AUS over IAH, though. It’s an untapped market for low cost TATL. Maybe the fact that AUS could be launched with just 3x weekly was a factor?

khowaga · Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:57 am

CHI2DFW wrote:

https://media.norwegian.com/uk/?_ga=2.2 ... as-2459819

Just missing Willie and his “Products.”

Hipster Clipper! Classic![/quote]

Don’t forget the “nerd bird” (AUS-SJC)!

JBLUA320 · Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:00 am

Plane was late leaving Gatwick bc it was hit by ground equipment and had to be inspected.

dcajet · Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:23 am

Mortyman wrote:

Norwegian cabin crew with Austin-based singer and songwriter, Julian Acosta

The new year-round three weekly service from London Gatwick to Austin International Airport breaks the monopoly on direct flights to Austin with fares available from £169 one-way, offering passengers more choice and lower fares.

Music was in the air today at London Gatwick as passengers on the inaugural flight experienced the sounds of Austin before they took off. The Live Music Capital of the World is famed for its live music and to celebrate the first flight from London Gatwick to Austin, passengers enjoyed a live acoustic performance from local Austin artist Julian Acosta on the ground and in the skies before landing in Austin.

Norwegian Chief Commercial Officer, Thomas Ramdahl said:“We are excited to offer passengers the only direct route from London Gatwick to Austin, the Live Music Capital of the World. Our high-quality flights give both leisure and business travellers the chance to explore this vibrant city.”

https://media.norwegian.com/uk/?_ga=2.2 ... as-2459819

The F/A on the left, is he wheeled out for every inaugural? He was on the EZE inaugural as well.

ADrum23 · Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:33 am

khowaga wrote:
L0VE2FLY wrote:
Norwegian should consider flights to the US via Canada with 5th freedom rights, e.g. LGW/CDG-YYZ/YUL-SAN, it shouldn't be hard to fill a 737 on such a flight especially in the high season, the only hindrance I can think of are the high airport fees in Canada.

LAX772LR wrote:
ANSWER: anyone paying attention.

Over the last year and half, they've announced multiple times and in multiple media that Chicago, New Orleans, and "Texas" were the expansion markets they were most closely eyeing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinen ... b3c369162c

I don't think anyone here expected Austin to happen before Houston & Dallas.

Dallas is ripe, but with both FI and WW launching DFW shortly they’ll probably let that play out first. (WW had been looking at AUS but DY beat them to it).

I am surprised they went for AUS over IAH, though. It’s an untapped market for low cost TATL. Maybe the fact that AUS could be launched with just 3x weekly was a factor?

While I agree IAH is due for ULCC TATL, they have BA/AF/KL to compete with the UA hub. DFW only has AA/BA on most European routes (though they do have LH) and AA’s DFW hub is larger than UA at IAH. Therefore, AA has more monopolistic pricing power at DFW and the airport could use DY coming in and “disrupting the market” as they like to put it.

AUS was/is a head scratcher for me because of the limited service to Europe to begin with (currently only daily BA and summer seasonal DE). What is there to “disrupt” at AUS?

LupineChemist · Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:22 am

ADrum23 wrote:
AUS was/is a head scratcher for me because of the limited service to Europe to begin with (currently only daily BA and summer seasonal DE). What is there to “disrupt” at AUS?

I get the impression that they think they're FR where they can just make demand for a destination by serving it. But the thing is, it's one thing to book a 30€ weekend away trip and something completely different to fly long haul. People aren't just going to grab a 10 hour flight just because "why not?" and the taxes and cost structure means there's not that much difference to be had on a competitive route.

You're right that DFW with the AA/BA JV is ripe for competition but....I don't know, logic doesn't seem to be the point in much anything they do.

I'm still really confused by MAD-JFK, a route already served by 4 (3 if you put IB/AA together) airlines plus UA to EWR. Y yields are trash on that route. Same for LGW-JFK, for that matter.

L0VE2FLY · Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:44 am

TedToToe wrote:
For large markets like LON-SFO/OAK, ORD or JFK/EWR, it is easy to see that Norwegian will be able to claim a slice of the market and, given their low prices, generate some fresh demand. But AUS, is it really sustainable? I have my doubts.

The 789 is too big for AUS considering BA is already there, if they offer connections beyond London at low enough prices they might have a chance though.

Mortyman · Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:47 am

L0VE2FLY wrote:
TedToToe wrote:
For large markets like LON-SFO/OAK, ORD or JFK/EWR, it is easy to see that Norwegian will be able to claim a slice of the market and, given their low prices, generate some fresh demand. But AUS, is it really sustainable? I have my doubts.

The 789 is too big for AUS considering BA is already there, if they offer connections beyond London at low enough prices they might have a chance though.

They can always switch to one of their Boeing 787-8's ;-)

L0VE2FLY · Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:59 am

Mortyman wrote:
They can always switch to one of their Boeing 787-8's

Do they operate 788s out of LGW? Norwegian Air UK only have 789s.

Mortyman · Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:30 am

L0VE2FLY wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
They can always switch to one of their Boeing 787-8's

Do they operate 788s out of LGW? Norwegian Air UK only have 789s.

No, not currently. However I'm sure they can if they feel the need to.

khowaga · Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:43 am

L0VE2FLY wrote:
TedToToe wrote:
For large markets like LON-SFO/OAK, ORD or JFK/EWR, it is easy to see that Norwegian will be able to claim a slice of the market and, given their low prices, generate some fresh demand. But AUS, is it really sustainable? I have my doubts.

The 789 is too big for AUS considering BA is already there, if they offer connections beyond London at low enough prices they might have a chance though.

It’s a 3x weekly route. They’re compensating for high capacity with low frequency.

The flight is badly timed for connections beyond LGW, especially on the return (there’s only a handful of destinations available for booking). IMO, that’s going to be the limiting factor on success. BA carries a lot of connecting traffic, which, along with cargo, helps keeps the flight successful. I’m not sure AUS-LON O/D can support two flights, and if not DY is the clear loser.

Mortyman · Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:33 pm

Norwegian Air starts Austin-London nonstop flight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsOVx6rBPGE

skipness1E · Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:44 pm

With so many new routes, will they make any money this summer at all? And if not, how are they going to get through the winter?

LHUSA · Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:46 pm

Mortyman wrote:
Norwegian Air starts Austin-London nonstop flight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsOVx6rBPGE

Wow, an aviaiton News piece that actually has it's facts correct - correct aircraft footage and details. Well done

wedgetail737 · Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:58 pm

Wow! I didn't realize BA is going to use a 747-400 on the LHR-AUS route.

ADrum23 · Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:52 am

wedgetail737 wrote:
Wow! I didn't realize BA is going to use a 747-400 on the LHR-AUS route.

Yes, and it is way too much capacity if you ask me. Even a 777 is a stretch on this route. Why not keep it at a 789 to keep it profitable?

NYCVIE · Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:01 am

ADrum23 wrote:
wedgetail737 wrote:
Wow! I didn't realize BA is going to use a 747-400 on the LHR-AUS route.

Yes, and it is way too much capacity if you ask me. Even a 777 is a stretch on this route. Why not keep it at a 789 to keep it profitable?

I hear the cargo market on this route is strong.

Matt6461 · Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:02 am

dcajet wrote:

https://media.norwegian.com/uk/?_ga=2.2 ... as-2459819

The F/A on the left, is he wheeled out for every inaugural? He was on the EZE inaugural as well.

Can he be on every flight? Not bad on the eyes...

LAX772LR · Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:41 am

LHUSA wrote:
Wow, an aviaiton News piece that actually has it's facts correct

No it doesn't... she screwed up the date. BA began AUS in March 2014.

ADrum23 wrote:
wedgetail737 wrote:
Wow! I didn't realize BA is going to use a 747-400 on the LHR-AUS route.

Yes, and it is way too much capacity if you ask me. Even a 777 is a stretch on this route. Why not keep it at a 789 to keep it profitable?

The route is already scheduled to go back to a 787 after peak summer season.

Matt6461 wrote:
dcajet wrote:
The F/A on the left, is he wheeled out for every inaugural? He was on the EZE inaugural as well.

Can he be on every flight? Not bad on the eyes.

EvanWSFO · Thu Mar 29, 2018 9:45 pm

L0VE2FLY wrote:
Who would've thought they'd start AUS before SAN?! I'm still hopeful though, with their ambitious expansion plan we should see them in SAN in the not so distant future.

I think you are going to have to accept that the international services from SAT ARare going to be limited to Mexico and AC's flight to YYZ.

ADrum23 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:04 am

NYCVIE wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
wedgetail737 wrote:
Wow! I didn't realize BA is going to use a 747-400 on the LHR-AUS route.

Yes, and it is way too much capacity if you ask me. Even a 777 is a stretch on this route. Why not keep it at a 789 to keep it profitable?

I hear the cargo market on this route is strong.

But is it enough to justify an upgauge to a 747? I bet the pax loads on AUS-LHR will be in the 50-65% range when the 747 is on the route.

maverick4002 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:17 am

Matt6461 wrote:
dcajet wrote:

https://media.norwegian.com/uk/?_ga=2.2 ... as-2459819

The F/A on the left, is he wheeled out for every inaugural? He was on the EZE inaugural as well.

Can he be on every flight? Not bad on the eyes...

Isnt he? He is a babe

khowaga · Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:18 am

ADrum23 wrote:
NYCVIE wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

Yes, and it is way too much capacity if you ask me. Even a 777 is a stretch on this route. Why not keep it at a 789 to keep it profitable?

I hear the cargo market on this route is strong.

But is it enough to justify an upgauge to a 747? I bet the pax loads on AUS-LHR will be in the 50-65% range when the 747 is on the route.

BA’s 772s have all of 6 more seats than the 789, so it’s not *quite* the stretch on the route it might seem to be.

They’re short on 789 frames (the one that normally operates AUS is going to operate the new SEZ flight). The strong cargo demand will keep the flight in the black for the summer. BA ships cargo via ground between AUS, IAH, and DFW when one of them is backed up to get cargo out faster, which (apparently) is fairly common.

Like you, I seriously doubt they think they’re going to fill the back of the plane - but a full belly outdoes empty discounted Y seats every time! And if not, it switches back to the 789 in fall anyway.

khowaga · Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:27 am

maverick4002 wrote:
Matt6461 wrote:
dcajet wrote:

https://media.norwegian.com/uk/?_ga=2.2 ... as-2459819

The F/A on the left, is he wheeled out for every inaugural? He was on the EZE inaugural as well.

Can he be on every flight? Not bad on the eyes...

Isnt he? He is a babe

A.net thirst posts? I am *here* for this.

stl07 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:20 am

LAX772LR wrote:
L0VE2FLY wrote:
Who would've thought they'd start AUS before SAN?!

ANSWER: anyone paying attention.

Over the last year and half, they've announced multiple times and in multiple media that Chicago, New Orleans, and "Texas" were the expansion markets they were most closely eyeing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinen ... b3c369162c

Which is Norweigan for everywhere that BA is expanding

LAX772LR · Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:37 am

NYCVIE wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
wedgetail737 wrote:
Wow! I didn't realize BA is going to use a 747-400 on the LHR-AUS route.

Yes, and it is way too much capacity if you ask me. Even a 777 is a stretch on this route. Why not keep it at a 789 to keep it profitable?

I hear the cargo market on this route is strong.

Doubt that has much to do with it. What cargo can a pax 747 carry that a 789 can't?

Arion640 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:19 am

khowaga wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
NYCVIE wrote:

I hear the cargo market on this route is strong.

But is it enough to justify an upgauge to a 747? I bet the pax loads on AUS-LHR will be in the 50-65% range when the 747 is on the route.

BA’s 772s have all of 6 more seats than the 789, so it’s not *quite* the stretch on the route it might seem to be.

They’re short on 789 frames (the one that normally operates AUS is going to operate the new SEZ flight). The strong cargo demand will keep the flight in the black for the summer. BA ships cargo via ground between AUS, IAH, and DFW when one of them is backed up to get cargo out faster, which (apparently) is fairly common.

Like you, I seriously doubt they think they’re going to fill the back of the plane - but a full belly outdoes empty discounted Y seats every time! And if not, it switches back to the 789 in fall anyway.

I can't see how the 789 is being taken off AUS to operate SEZ considering SEZ is twice weekly and AUS is daily.

L0VE2FLY · Fri Mar 30, 2018 10:43 am

EvanWSFO wrote:
L0VE2FLY wrote:
Who would've thought they'd start AUS before SAN?! I'm still hopeful though, with their ambitious expansion plan we should see them in SAN in the not so distant future.

I think you are going to have to accept that the international services from SAT ARare going to be limited to Mexico and AC's flight to YYZ.

Looks like someone doesn't know the difference between SAN & SAT! :smile:

Besides Canada & Mexico, we have non-stops to LHR, NRT, FRA and seasonal to ZRH. San Antonio isn't exactly a small city, I think SAT's shortish runway is the reason why they don't have any TATL flights.

ADrum23 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:13 am

L0VE2FLY wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:
L0VE2FLY wrote:
Who would've thought they'd start AUS before SAN?! I'm still hopeful though, with their ambitious expansion plan we should see them in SAN in the not so distant future.

I think you are going to have to accept that the international services from SAT ARare going to be limited to Mexico and AC's flight to YYZ.

Looks like someone doesn't know the difference between SAN & SAT! Besides Canada & Mexico, we have non-stops to LHR, NRT, FRA and seasonal to ZRH. San Antonio isn't exactly a small city, I think SAT's shortish runway is the reason why they don't have any TATL flights.

And it’s relatively close proximity to AUS is another reason SAT doesn’t have any TATL flights.

I think the best bet at this point would be to deploy a high speed rail line between AUS and San Antonio for better connectivity, since a joint regional airport is dead in the water.

khowaga · Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:24 am

Arion640 wrote:
khowaga wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

But is it enough to justify an upgauge to a 747? I bet the pax loads on AUS-LHR will be in the 50-65% range when the 747 is on the route.

BA’s 772s have all of 6 more seats than the 789, so it’s not *quite* the stretch on the route it might seem to be.

They’re short on 789 frames (the one that normally operates AUS is going to operate the new SEZ flight). The strong cargo demand will keep the flight in the black for the summer. BA ships cargo via ground between AUS, IAH, and DFW when one of them is backed up to get cargo out faster, which (apparently) is fairly common.

Like you, I seriously doubt they think they’re going to fill the back of the plane - but a full belly outdoes empty discounted Y seats every time! And if not, it switches back to the 789 in fall anyway.

I can't see how the 789 is being taken off AUS to operate SEZ considering SEZ is twice weekly and AUS is daily.

That was the explanation offered at the time the equipment swap was announced <shrug>.

mcdu · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:28 pm

Why is this not in Travel Polls and Preferences? That is where threads about Norwegian operations get moved.

Was this flight operated by NOrwegian or one of the airlines filling the gap for them? Are they sacrificing their service to the non “new” locations with their own metal? Would not be great to have a launch operated by HI Fly, but it is okay to run JFK with sub service....

Mortyman · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:50 pm

mcdu wrote:
Why is this not in Travel Polls and Preferences? That is where threads about Norwegian operations get moved.

Was this flight operated by NOrwegian or one of the airlines filling the gap for them? Are they sacrificing their service to the non “new” locations with their own metal? Would not be great to have a launch operated by HI Fly, but it is okay to run JFK with sub service....

This was a Norwegian flight on own metal as you can see from the pictures. The flight was delayed, because the aircraft was apparently hit by ground equipment in London and needless to say therefore had to go through an inspection. It was two hours delayed from London.

Arion640 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:15 pm

khowaga wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
khowaga wrote:

BA’s 772s have all of 6 more seats than the 789, so it’s not *quite* the stretch on the route it might seem to be.

They’re short on 789 frames (the one that normally operates AUS is going to operate the new SEZ flight). The strong cargo demand will keep the flight in the black for the summer. BA ships cargo via ground between AUS, IAH, and DFW when one of them is backed up to get cargo out faster, which (apparently) is fairly common.

Like you, I seriously doubt they think they’re going to fill the back of the plane - but a full belly outdoes empty discounted Y seats every time! And if not, it switches back to the 789 in fall anyway.

I can't see how the 789 is being taken off AUS to operate SEZ considering SEZ is twice weekly and AUS is daily.

That was the explanation offered at the time the equipment swap was announced <shrug>.

I'm not saying anyone on this forum is wrong, it's just how the BA PR guys have put a spin on it.

FriscoHeavy · Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:33 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
wedgetail737 wrote:
Wow! I didn't realize BA is going to use a 747-400 on the LHR-AUS route.

Yes, and it is way too much capacity if you ask me. Even a 777 is a stretch on this route. Why not keep it at a 789 to keep it profitable?

BA and their research disagree with you. They wouldn't have upguaged to a 747 if they didn't plan on it being profitable. So it's not too much capacity -- from a passenger and/or cargo perspective.

winginit · Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:48 pm

skipness1E wrote:
With so many new routes, will they make any money this summer at all? And if not, how are they going to get through the winter?

This. I'd love to start every Norwegian expansion thread with a recap of their financial predicament, which is nothing short of dire. Raising equity a week ago that's equal to a quarter of its total on a share price that's down 40% over the past year.

Routes like Gatwick - Austin will continue to burn through their $529 equity cushion that sits atop $2.8 billion in net debt that will be stacked with their lease liabilities that need to go on the books next year. I'll be shocked if they make it a year before they're selling off assets.

To keep things relevant to this thread - can anyone say with a straight face that they think DY will make money on this route sitting atop BA? Why on earth have they launched this flight?

ADrum23 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:37 pm

FriscoHeavy wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
wedgetail737 wrote:
Wow! I didn't realize BA is going to use a 747-400 on the LHR-AUS route.

Yes, and it is way too much capacity if you ask me. Even a 777 is a stretch on this route. Why not keep it at a 789 to keep it profitable?

BA and their research disagree with you. They wouldn't have upguaged to a 747 if they didn't plan on it being profitable. So it's not too much capacity -- from a passenger and/or cargo perspective.

Did they really "research" the possibility, or is it simply a response to DY entering the market? How much cargo can they realistically fill up the belly with to make a 747 profitable? Again, I would be shocked if the pax LF's are higher than the 60-70% range.

usflyer msp · Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:41 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
FriscoHeavy wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

Yes, and it is way too much capacity if you ask me. Even a 777 is a stretch on this route. Why not keep it at a 789 to keep it profitable?

BA and their research disagree with you. They wouldn't have upguaged to a 747 if they didn't plan on it being profitable. So it's not too much capacity -- from a passenger and/or cargo perspective.

Did they really "research" the possibility, or is it simply a response to DY entering the market? How much cargo can they realistically fill up the belly with to make a 747 profitable? Again, I would be shocked if the pax LF's are higher than the 60-70% range.

I concur, I think the 747 upgauge is meant to force DY out by temporarily destroying yields with overcapacity. I don't know that this will work however as DY is generally not rational...

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net