Norwegian CCO Ramdahl has given a German business weekly (Wirtschaftswoche) a lengthy interview about the airline's return to Dusseldorf. While they will start with some run of the mill European routes in 2017, they plan to launch long-hauls in 2018 as the airport, as he says, has the largest catchment area in Europe together with London and Paris. In 2018, Norwegian wants to serve US destinations and is primarily looking at the already existing US destinations - incl. Puerto Rico -, but also at new ones. high on the list and explicitly mentioned at a recent press conference apparently is Baltimore/Washington. At a later point and once established, Norwegian will look at Asia. Ramdahl points out that the A321LR is an ideal aircraft for long-haul routes from Dusseldorf, so we are probably not looking at a 787 operation initially. He is also taking some shots at Eurowings which he does not regard as low cost, too complex and operating an outdated fleet for longhauls. Another interesting detail: Ramdahl apparently sees more potential in the A321LR as he points out that Norwegian is optimistic to find work for both the 737MAXs and the A32Xneos ordered, but will lease out 737s if that will not be the case.

Full interview (in German): http://app.wiwo.de/unternehmen/dienstle ... 056-2.html

Let's see how Eurowings will respond to this. Norwegian A321 vs Eurowings A332

Good luck. I consider it a nightmare to sit in an A321 with 239 other passengers for 8 or 10 hours. His prime ztarget will be AB which by then either got it's act together or not. If nt, EUW and LH will be after AB passengers as well..

PanHAM wrote:

Good luck. I consider it a nightmare to sit in an A321 with 239 other passengers for 8 or 10 hours. His prime ztarget will be AB which by then either got it's act together or not. If nt, EUW and LH will be after AB passengers as well..

You won't have to. There is such a thing as payload vs range. At 8 hrs the A321LR is good for about 180 pax, and a lot less for 10 hrs. Probably 130ish (max fuel range). But a lot of people here do not seem to grasp those things.

Eurowings longhaul does not serve DUS and Eurowings does not serve most of the US destinations Norwegian serves, so only limited overlap. As per Norwegian, the main appeal of DUS is the catchment are to the west and northeast, so they will be overall better positioned than Eurowings at CGN if they throw in dirt-cheap fares.

Norwegian will compete on price as they claim that their production costs are 40 per cent lower than those of Eurowings - partly because, as they claim, Eurowings is using older, kerosene-guzzling A330-200s whereas Norwegian will use factory-fresh A321neos.

I have yet to read a confirmation that Norwegian plans to operate A321s with max. seating (Y240) on long-haul flights. I think we will see 180 seats incl. premium seating like in the 787 fleet. That will allow flights to the US east coast, just like on TATL 757-200s. How is Norwegian's air freight operation doing? Can we expect a lot of belly cargo that would eat into range - or are belly loads on TATL flight generally light?

They smell blood.... AB's blood.

vfw614 wrote:

Norwegian will use factory-fresh A321neos.

Norwegian will not get their first A321neo untill 2019, so if they are to start DUS it will be with another aircraft. Probably 787

Maybe they could bring back DTW-DUS

I'd love to have a direct DUS-CPT or JNB flight. But it seems that Africa is not on Norwegian's map yet.

Natflyer wrote:

PanHAM wrote:

Good luck. I consider it a nightmare to sit in an A321 with 239 other passengers for 8 or 10 hours. His prime ztarget will be AB which by then either got it's act together or not. If nt, EUW and LH will be after AB passengers as well..

You won't have to. There is such a thing as payload vs range. At 8 hrs the A321LR is good for about 180 pax, and a lot less for 10 hrs. Probably 130ish (max fuel range). But a lot of people here do not seem to grasp those things.

I am reflecting on the interview and that's where I picked up the Information. I do not have to make weight and Balance calculations. Cmmon sense indeed tells me that an single aisle aircraft Needs to be packed in order to be profitable but that's not my Problem either.

As to freight - Norwegian sells freight on their Long hauls through Brokers. It would be another waste to fly the 787 belly caverns filled with Pax cargo only. If they make a Profit on belly freight after broker's fees, handling and trucking is paid is another question.

PanHAM wrote:

I am reflecting on the interview and that's where I picked up the Information. I do not have to make weight and Balance calculations. Cmmon sense indeed tells me that an single aisle aircraft Needs to be packed in order to be profitable but that's not my Problem either.

.

And therein lies another erroneous assumption on your part.

Natflyer wrote:

PanHAM wrote:

Good luck. I consider it a nightmare to sit in an A321 with 239 other passengers for 8 or 10 hours. His prime ztarget will be AB which by then either got it's act together or not. If nt, EUW and LH will be after AB passengers as well..

You won't have to. There is such a thing as payload vs range. At 8 hrs the A321LR is good for about 180 pax, and a lot less for 10 hrs. Probably 130ish (max fuel range). But a lot of people here do not seem to grasp those things.

Norweigian seems to think TATL at 220 is doable. Maybe there is a special TATL configuration they haven't announce with less than that with with premium ecomony seating but I imagine that sits ov3r 200 as well. Do they know something about the A321 LR that's not common knowledge? Baltimore/Dusseldorf is a little more than 3,900nm. This is why I have theorized this is the plan than also hits Middle America.

From an article earlier this year:

The carrier plans a Dreamliner fleet of 42 aircraft by 2020, while it will start taking delivery of the A321neo LRs in 2019. The Airbus planes will carry 220 seats in a single class. Norwegian estimated in a presentation that the single-aisle models will be 40 percent cheaper per trip to operate than wide-body airliners.

Sorry a little off topic but how have ANA and CX been doing at DUS? I'm very curious. And do they codeshare with LH and AB respectively? Thanks

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Natflyer wrote:

PanHAM wrote:

Good luck. I consider it a nightmare to sit in an A321 with 239 other passengers for 8 or 10 hours. His prime ztarget will be AB which by then either got it's act together or not. If nt, EUW and LH will be after AB passengers as well..

Norweigian seems to think TATL at 220 is doable. Do they know something about the A321 LR that's not common knowledge, Baltimore/Dusseldorf is a little more than 3,900nm. This is why I have theorized this is the plan than also hits Middle America.
.

It is doable, but not really from DUS (maybe only a few NE destinations). Norwegian has/will have long haul bases much closer to the US in Europe than DUS.

Note that even Norwegian recognizes that a 220 seat A320LR will not fly as far as Airbus's ~190? seat A320LR and only touts their A321LRs as having 3500nm range vs Airbus's 4000nm.

Polot wrote:

Note that even Norwegian recognizes that a 220 seat A320LR will not fly as far as Airbus's ~190? seat A320LR and only touts their A321LRs as having 3500nm range vs Airbus's 4000nm.

Quite obvious, more seats = heavier aircraft.

Polot wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Natflyer wrote:

Norweigian seems to think TATL at 220 is doable. Do they know something about the A321 LR that's not common knowledge, Baltimore/Dusseldorf is a little more than 3,900nm. This is why I have theorized this is the plan than also hits Middle America.
.

It is doable, but not really from DUS (maybe only a few NE destinations). Norwegian has/will have long haul bases much closer to the US in Europe than DUS.

Note that even Norwegian recognizes that a 220 seat A320LR will not fly as far as Airbus's ~190? seat A320LR and only touts their A321LRs as having 3500nm range vs Airbus's 4000nm.

That does not reconcile this statement from the German article the OP linked:

In the end, the A321LR is also a small long-haul aircraft for routes from Düsseldorf to the middle west of the USA or to India.

Maybe Norweigian has a TATL version that's more in line with the 180 Airbus figure but is sitting on it till launch.

As for long-haul operations with the A321LR, Norwegian believes the plane would be up to 20% more efficient than a 787.

http://www.aero.de/news-25651/Norwegian ... rf-an.html

That shouldn't come as a surprise, a narrowbody jet is much cheaper to operate.

KarelXWB wrote:

As for long-haul operations with the A321LR, Norwegian believes the plane would be up to 20% more efficient than a 787.

http://www.aero.de/news-25651/Norwegian ... rf-an.html

That shouldn't come as a surprise, a narrowbody jet is much cheaper to operate.

Which makes the notion these airports are doable in Norweigian's eyes.

In 5 years we may see Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Indy, louisville, OkC/Tulsa, Cincy, Raleigh Durham, Nashville, and Memphis with some form of TATL flight via Norweigian via the A321 LR.

Quote from Handelsblatt Interview:

Die meisten Fluglinien denken zu konventionell. Sie nutzen die Ersparnis von 20 Prozent beim Treibstoffverbrauch nur dafür, um bisherige Routen günstiger zu fliegen. Wir hingegen nutzen die Ersparnis, um weiter zu fliegen. Am Ende ist besonders die A321LR auch ein kleines Langstreckenflugzeug für Routen von Düsseldorf bis in den mittleren Westen der USA oder nach Indien. Wie mit Abstrichen die Boeing 737MAX ist die A321LR pro Flug nochmal 20 Prozent effizienter als ein Dreamliner. Mit bis zu 240 Plätzen ist sie so klein, dass sich auch Nebenstrecken lohnen, auf denen sich Großraumflugzeuge mit bis zu 300 Sitzen nur schwer füllen lassen. Damit starten wir die wahre Revolution auf der Low-Cost-Langstrecke
unquote

The interviewed Person clearly says that" with up to 240 seats it (the A321LR) is so small that thin routes become viable as well. There is no mis-understanding on my side when I Quote from an interview. I do not Need to challenge the numbers, although I did by mentioning that it could be a nightmare to be jammed into a cabin for any trip lenght, especially over a couple of hours.
I could have challenged the Quotation that Norwegian would be able to fly passengers for as Little as 200€. I doubt that with a yield of € 48K the costs are paid, but challenging that calculation was not needed in a short rreply.

[quote="vfw614"]
How is Norwegian's air freight operation doing? Can we expect a lot of belly cargo that would eat into range - or are belly loads on TATL flight generally light?[/quote]

Their Boeing 787s are almost full of cargo. Mostly fish.

Dont know how this will be with the Airbus 321neo LR

I guess they use the available AKH Containers for Pax baggage which yields much more than cargo. Pax baggage is self delivered to the Airport and self picked up at the Destination, there are no additional costs in handling except the Airport fees. From the concept, the A320 series is not a Long haul aircraft and cannot compete with the wide bodies on freight capacity.
Nice to hear that they carry lots of fish from Norway, what do they bring back?

Mortyman wrote:

Dont know how this will be with the Airbus 321neo LR

A A321LR with all the ACTs and 220 pax will have basically zero room for any revenue cargo. Getting all the pax's bags in the plane may be a challenge on particularly baggage heavy routes (although I'm not sure if any TATL routes would qualify for that).

DUS is not cargo heavy. No beely cargo is no drawback from there.

adamh8297 wrote:

They smell blood.... AB's blood.

...and with AB's current state - why not? Increasingly AB's strategy is weakened, they are no longer part of a code-share agreement with AA, and are essentially 'leasing' the short-haul fleet to LH.

I agree with the conjecture, that the 787s should come first. Direclty, they could compete with AB - however, some of the primed DY U.S. cities are not currently served by AB. Case in point, DUS-FLL, or DUS-BOS would be decent adds with no AB competition. As the A321NEOLRs, adds within the range of that aircraft would allow DUS-BOS to shift to the A321NEOLR and then add other cities within the range that would capture revenue. Growing DUS in the same manner that they have grown ever other hub in their network - is exactly what I expect here. Grow both (even at the same time, if necessary) - and enter the market, to become intractable.

Polot wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Dont know how this will be with the Airbus 321neo LR

A A321LR with all the ACTs and 220 pax will have basically zero room for any revenue cargo. Getting all the pax's bags in the plane may be a challenge on particularly baggage heavy routes (although I'm not sure if any TATL routes would qualify for that).

Ach, don't you come here spoiling things with some facts. The A321LR Wunderflieger and the 737 WunderMAX are capable of carrying 220/189 pax and full bellies of goodies wherever they go, TATL or not. From central Europe into the Mid West. At least according to a.net

Polot wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Dont know how this will be with the Airbus 321neo LR

A A321LR with all the ACTs and 220 pax will have basically zero room for any revenue cargo. Getting all the pax's bags in the plane may be a challenge on particularly baggage heavy routes (although I'm not sure if any TATL routes would qualify for that).

Ach, don't you come here spoiling things with some facts. The A321LR Wunderflieger and the 737 WunderMAX are capable of carrying 220/189 pax and full bellies of goodies wherever they go, TATL or not. From central Europe into the Mid West. At least according to a.net

Rajahdhani wrote:

adamh8297 wrote:

They smell blood.... AB's blood.

...and with AB's current state - why not? Increasingly AB's strategy is weakened, they are no longer part of a code-share agreement with AA, and are essentially 'leasing' the short-haul fleet to LH.

I agree with the conjecture, that the 787s should come first. Direclty, they could compete with AB - however, some of the primed DY U.S. cities are not currently served by AB. Case in point, DUS-FLL, or DUS-BOS would be decent adds with no AB competition.

AB serves DUS-BOS seasonally and DUS-MIA year-round.

Natflyer wrote:

Polot wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Dont know how this will be with the Airbus 321neo LR

A A321LR with all the ACTs and 220 pax will have basically zero room for any revenue cargo. Getting all the pax's bags in the plane may be a challenge on particularly baggage heavy routes (although I'm not sure if any TATL routes would qualify for that).

Ach, don't you come here spoiling things with some facts. The A321LR Wunderflieger and the 737 WunderMAX are capable of carrying 220/189 pax and full bellies of goodies wherever they go, TATL or not. From central Europe into the Mid West. At least according to a.net

That was a statement rom the article with the Norweigian CCO. I'd suggest the sarcasm be redirected there.

seahawk wrote:

DUS is not cargo heavy. No beely cargo is no drawback from there.

don't be fooled by the statistics. They do not include the thousands of tonnes which are trucked to FRA, LUX. LGG, AMS, etc. An additional wide Body Operators would make an Impact on the statistics.

klm617 wrote:

Maybe they could bring back DTW-DUS

The only reason Northwest started that route was due to connecting traffic... If they couldn't make a B757 work, I doubt Norwegian could.

PanHAM wrote:

seahawk wrote:

DUS is not cargo heavy. No beely cargo is no drawback from there.

don't be fooled by the statistics. They do not include the thousands of tonnes which are trucked to FRA, LUX. LGG, AMS, etc. An additional wide Body Operators would make an Impact on the statistics.

Yes, but due to the well developed truck connections to FRA, LUX and AMS the yield for cargo in the region is limited.

DariusBieber wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Maybe they could bring back DTW-DUS

The only reason Northwest started that route was due to connecting traffic... If they couldn't make a B757 work, I doubt Norwegian could.

That was a whole different stage compared to now, a once weekly flight would certainly work, I personally know several families in this area from Düsseldorf who find it too expensive to connect on other carriers and could use a lower cost option.

adamh8297 wrote:

AB serves DUS-BOS seasonally and DUS-MIA year-round.

DUS-BOS year-round on DY would make a more compelling argument, for a passenger - than seasonal. While you are correct, that AB current do serve BOS, I expect that to change.

DUS-MIA and DUS-FLL are different markets, and considering DY's strong presence at FLL already - adding another city pair might be easy. Stuck at MIA (and now without AA), AB will compete against much more concentrated competition. I don't blame them, their previous AA partnership made them keep up, that said - FLL could have been a decent city for them (instead of MIA) and increasingly so in future, if they chose to code-share with almost any other carrier than AA.

seahawk wrote:

PanHAM wrote:

seahawk wrote:

DUS is not cargo heavy. No beely cargo is no drawback from there.

don't be fooled by the statistics. They do not include the thousands of tonnes which are trucked to FRA, LUX. LGG, AMS, etc. An additional wide Body Operators would make an Impact on the statistics.

Yes, but due to the well developed truck connections to FRA, LUX and AMS the yield for cargo in the region is limited.

But that Tonnage is not shown in the statistics under DUS. If the freight forwarders have another Option o fly their freight direct from DUS they will use that. SQ, CX, NH as well as EK belly capacity boosted the flown Tonnage figures at DUS

Yes, because it is available. However EK did replace the 777W with all A380 and surely lost a lot of belly cargo with it. Imho cargo yield from DUS is not good enough to warrant using a 787 when a A321LR would fit the pax demand.

"Cargo yield" is the revenue, what we are talking about here is the Tonnage which Shows, amongst others, in the monthly ADV statistics. The Change from 777 to 380s can be seen in the Tonnage statistics. Available capacity must not necessarily be filled from DUS loco freight. Cargo tendered at HAM can be trucked to DUS instead of FRA to fill uup available space there. That's hw it works in that Business.

A new day, a new DY thread?
DY is counting on their daily dose of media talk to shed free lights on their so called low-cost operations.
The day before yesterday it's a new base in New York, yesterday it was Argentina, today it was Dusseldorf.
For the rest, they are a loss-making operation with only 12 long-haul aircraft, many on order but I'll believe it when they are delivered.
They lure customers in with the occasional cheap fares, but most pay quite high fares, only to have their butt stuck in a 9-abreast B787.

Between AB and DY, I think that AB will outlive DY.

Not after this week's news that...

- Lufthansa top brass (former Eurowings CEO Winkelmann) is parachuted into AB HQ to replace the incumbent CEO Pichler on an 18 month contract
- Lufthansa has signed a cooperation agreement with Etihad.

As rumour has it that these developments are paving the way for a full merger between AB und EW, DUS will be an interesting market for DY as it has massive AB und EW operations that will be consolidated and open up opportunities for new entrants.

Rajahdhani wrote:

adamh8297 wrote:

AB serves DUS-BOS seasonally and DUS-MIA year-round.

DUS-BOS year-round on DY would make a more compelling argument, for a passenger - than seasonal. While you are correct, that AB current do serve BOS, I expect that to change.

DUS-MIA and DUS-FLL are different markets, and considering DY's strong presence at FLL already - adding another city pair might be easy. Stuck at MIA (and now without AA), AB will compete against much more concentrated competition. I don't blame them, their previous AA partnership made them keep up, that said - FLL could have been a decent city for them (instead of MIA) and increasingly so in future, if they chose to code-share with almost any other carrier than AA.

How do you consider MIA and FLL to be different markets? The airports are 30 minutes apart and I would imagine most, if not all, traffic from DUS is O&D.

Waterbomber wrote:

A new day, a new DY thread?
DY is counting on their daily dose of media talk to shed free lights on their so called low-cost operations.
The day before yesterday it's a new base in New York, yesterday it was Argentina, today it was Dusseldorf.
For the rest, they are a loss-making operation with only 12 long-haul aircraft, many on order but I'll believe it when they are delivered.
They lure customers in with the occasional cheap fares, but most pay quite high fares, only to have their butt stuck in a 9-abreast B787.

Between AB and DY, I think that AB will outlive DY.

Please let me know which airline doesn't have a 9-abreast in Y on their 787s.

ushermittwoch wrote:

Waterbomber wrote:

A new day, a new DY thread?
DY is counting on their daily dose of media talk to shed free lights on their so called low-cost operations.
The day before yesterday it's a new base in New York, yesterday it was Argentina, today it was Dusseldorf.
For the rest, they are a loss-making operation with only 12 long-haul aircraft, many on order but I'll believe it when they are delivered.
They lure customers in with the occasional cheap fares, but most pay quite high fares, only to have their butt stuck in a 9-abreast B787.

Between AB and DY, I think that AB will outlive DY.

Please let me know which airline doesn't have a 9-abreast in Y on their 787s.

JL does 2-4-2 but they are not in the Transatlantic game.