SelseyBill
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:30 pm

arcticcruiser wrote:
SelseyBill wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Can the A321LR even make it from BUD to North America?


......well clearly not; its not a 757 after all.

All joking aside, BUD-BOS = 4,185m gcm. Looking at what WOW are getting out of their non-LR NEO's in terms of range right now, I personally think a LR will be able to easily cover 4,200m missions year round at full weight, and clearly the folks at Airbus and Norwegian think so too.

BUD-JFK is 4,371 m gcm which might be more challenging, but eminently doable.

Time will tell, but folks here on a-net generally are underestimating the capabilities of the A321LR IMO.


Unfortunately incorrect. WOW air, in an attempt to reduce their loss flew 118 pax on KEF-LAX rather than using the A333. Limited by max fuel capacity.


What was incorrect ?

The fact that WOW flew 118 pax 4,314m westbound KEF-LAX with a 'regular' A321NEO in itself is of huge significance.

Kinda suggests the LR will be able manage BUD-BOS with a much heavier load doesn't it ?
 
arcticcruiser
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 2:16 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:57 pm

SelseyBill wrote:
arcticcruiser wrote:
SelseyBill wrote:

......well clearly not; its not a 757 after all.

All joking aside, BUD-BOS = 4,185m gcm. Looking at what WOW are getting out of their non-LR NEO's in terms of range right now, I personally think a LR will be able to easily cover 4,200m missions year round at full weight, and clearly the folks at Airbus and Norwegian think so too.

BUD-JFK is 4,371 m gcm which might be more challenging, but eminently doable.

Time will tell, but folks here on a-net generally are underestimating the capabilities of the A321LR IMO.


Unfortunately incorrect. WOW air, in an attempt to reduce their loss flew 118 pax on KEF-LAX rather than using the A333. Limited by max fuel capacity.


What was incorrect ?

The fact that WOW flew 118 pax 4,314m westbound KEF-LAX with a 'regular' A321NEO in itself is of huge significance.

Kinda suggests the LR will be able manage BUD-BOS with a much heavier load doesn't it ?


Er, GC dist KEF-LAX is 3748nm. Just over 100nm longer than BUD-BOS which has worse average westbound headwinds. And consequently higher ESAD and less payload.
 
lat41
Posts: 572
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:23 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:54 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
What cities will realistically get DY A321LR service? Could we see LGW added from mid-sized markets?

LGW from Providence PVD for Southern New England population and commerce as an alternative to BOS
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 2884
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:55 am

For medium sides markets to work is has to meet one of the following criteria:

1) Large city - London, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, maybe Madrid
2) Hub/Connecting opportunities (i.e. BDL-DUB), DY only has this at OSL and LGW (slot constrained)
3) Significant ethnic connections (i.e PVD to Ireland or Portugal/Azores)

That's why BDL-EDI and PVD-BGO didn't work.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4130
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:03 am

Oh good lord, you physically cannot land anything the size of an A321 at LCY. Even the CS100 looks enormous on the ramp. And no, there are no plans for the new ramp to take them either. Furthermore, Norwegian are not based at City but at Gatwick, an airport with a big long runway......
What is this airliners.net obsession with LCY and random long haul?? Crossrail is going to put the nail in the coffin of the BA Babybus operation and it won’t be replaced by an A321 anything from LCY-mybackyard !
 
User avatar
acreinholz
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:29 pm

How about B3 Flying out of FLL to Europe, once, from all it has priorly said, the A321LR could reach many main cities/capitals? Or even TAP, flying out of LIS to US east coast??? Huuummmmm
[threeid][/threeid]A319, A320 A321 A330 A340 B727 B737 B747 B757 B767 B777 DC9 DC10 MD88 MD11 ATR42 ATR72 EMB E175 E190 E195 F100 CRJ700
RG VP KK JJ UA DL AA NW TR AR MJ LH BA AF AL AU AD T4 AZ SC CM G3 FF TW EK O6 TK

"Verba Volant, Scripta Manent"
 
ual763
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 11:46 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:34 pm

Midwestindy wrote:
"

"Washington DC is one US market that the airline is considering for the A321LR. Ramdahl says service to either Baltimore/Washington, which Norwegian dropped in early 2017"


Ummm, I was just at BWI Wednesday evening when the Norwegian 787 came in. Am I missing something here?
From flying to the NOTAM office
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 3943
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:39 pm

The 321 also seems like the perfect plane to fish for incentives and offers. If CMH or CLE or PIT or some city offers you good money, they could make the most cents. I can see cities wanting LGW service or city that benefits their local business community and willing to find money for incentives.

Will they install a small premium section on the 321s? I would hope the answer is yes.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10246
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:01 pm

The A321 is not a viable aircraft for LCY. I'm staggered that I've even had to say that.

Aside of the obvious runway performance issues, manoeuvring and parking the thing would be close to impossible - it's substantially longer than the largest aircraft LCY is currently designed for. Even looking at accommodating the CS300 is proving difficult as there is so little space. Then there is the physical infrastructure; because LCY was designed for regional aircraft, it has a low bearing strength, meaning even a completely empty A321 would be right at it's limit - add fuel and payload and you'll be way over that limit.

Oh and one more minor thing... the CAA. Enough said on that one.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
BWIAirport
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:29 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:52 pm

acreinholz wrote:
How about B3 Flying out of FLL to Europe, once, from all it has priorly said, the A321LR could reach many main cities/capitals? Or even TAP, flying out of LIS to US east coast??? Huuummmmm

B6 (JetBlue)? B3 is the Nigerian Bellview Airlines. And I think many people see JetBlue service to Europe in the future, but much more likely from JFK, BOS, or even BUF.
Next flight: AY5466/BAW66 PHL-LHR B744
SWA, UAL, DAL, AWE, ASA, TRS, DLH, CLH, AFR | E190 DC9 712 733 737 738 739 752 762 77W A319 A320 A321 A333 A343 A388 MD88
 
User avatar
BWIAirport
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:29 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:55 pm

ual763 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
"

"Washington DC is one US market that the airline is considering for the A321LR. Ramdahl says service to either Baltimore/Washington, which Norwegian dropped in early 2017"


Ummm, I was just at BWI Wednesday evening when the Norwegian 787 came in. Am I missing something here?

Wow, I must have missed this. What was it doing there?
Next flight: AY5466/BAW66 PHL-LHR B744
SWA, UAL, DAL, AWE, ASA, TRS, DLH, CLH, AFR | E190 DC9 712 733 737 738 739 752 762 77W A319 A320 A321 A333 A343 A388 MD88
 
ual763
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 11:46 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 6:56 pm

BWIAirport wrote:
ual763 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
"

"Washington DC is one US market that the airline is considering for the A321LR. Ramdahl says service to either Baltimore/Washington, which Norwegian dropped in early 2017"


Ummm, I was just at BWI Wednesday evening when the Norwegian 787 came in. Am I missing something here?

Wow, I must have missed this. What was it doing there?


Wait a minute.... I'm an idiot, it was the BA 787. Forgot they bring the 787 in now instead of the 767. I was spotting at the 33L viewing area, and saw it on flightradar24. Last time I was there, it was the Norwegian 787 that stood out, guess I was so used to the Norwegian 787, that I mixed them up. Disregard my stupidity.
From flying to the NOTAM office
 
efpmeneses
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:39 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:42 pm

acreinholz wrote:
How about B3 Flying out of FLL to Europe, once, from all it has priorly said, the A321LR could reach many main cities/capitals? Or even TAP, flying out of LIS to US east coast??? Huuummmmm


In fact TAP plans to do it from LIS to some US and Canada Eastern cities

There are plans to use the A321 Neo Lr to:
    Open some new destinations
    Replace some daily A330 flights with double daily A321 Neo Lr (offering more schedule options for customers)
    Replace some 3 weekly A330 fllights with daily A321 Neo Lr flights.

There have been talks about TAP opening YUL and IAD with the plane.
Besides that, there have been talks about TAP using A321 Neo Lr to Natal and Belem, that have nowadays 3 weekly A330 fllights
Also, it is not transatlantic, but it espected that they are used to some destinations in Africa
 
AAvgeek744
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:08 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:11 pm

SelseyBill wrote:
zeke wrote:
The A321neo (for that matter any NEO data) has not been included in any of the airport planning documents, however the ACAPS does show the A321 can takeoff and land in 4000 ft with reduced payload. For takeoff the ACAPS shows the A321 will carry 25,000 lb more on takeoff compared to the A318.


Per wiki; (so it must be right); LCY runway is 4,948 ft.

Wonder if BA/Airbus might try an empty A321NEO one day as a trial. That would be really interesting........


I suspect LCY service from the U.S. will quietly go away. BA has long since dropped the second flight, not sure the other is needed.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 25423
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:12 pm

ual763 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
"

"Washington DC is one US market that the airline is considering for the A321LR. Ramdahl says service to either Baltimore/Washington, which Norwegian dropped in early 2017"


Ummm, I was just at BWI Wednesday evening when the Norwegian 787 came in. Am I missing something here?


Norwegian does not fly to Baltimore. It was a charter or diversion.
a.
 
User avatar
LuxuryTravelled
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:06 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:03 pm

I think Norwegian used it for their Caribbean routes.
 
User avatar
varsity
Posts: 419
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 1999 4:51 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:08 pm

So is the principal limitation of BA0001/03 LCY-JFK with A318 MTOW, range or a combination of the two? The idea that someone would rather endure a technical stop in Ireland than just train it out to LHR kind of mystified me, but I don't know how long this takes.
AB3, DC8, DC9, DH7, D10, E90, M80, M88, 320, 321, 330, 722, 737, 733, 734, 738, 747, 744, 757, 752, 753, 772
AA, AF, B6, CO, DL, EA, EI, FI, HP, KM, LX, MS, NW, OP, PA, TW, UA, US, VS, W9, WO, YX
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:33 pm

gatibosgru wrote:
Blerg wrote:
Can the A321LR even make it from BUD to North America?


BUD-BOS/JFK are comfortably within range. BWI/IAD is on the limits.


Yes, with 120 pax and bags for BOS and 110 pax and bags to JFK.

Flying TATL, you have to keep in mind that there are strong prevailing westerly winds, plus NAT OS track detour, suboptimum flight levels need to be maintained and potential holding into JFK.

How efficient is a 127 million USD list price A321NEO LR carrying 160 pax compared to a B757 in a similar configuration?
Also, how much of a discount can you get from Airbus knowing that there is no similar alternative?
You could probably get a brand new A330 for the same money today.

So it's not all gold and glitter IMHO.

In fact I will go one step further and predict a failure for Norwegian.
TATL is already a battlefield low yield market. You can make money in the summer but you're going to lose money in the winter.
SN is losing money as it is on JFK and IAD despite low fares and feed at both ends.
IMO the only potential is in and out of London, where yields are sustained all year long.

BUD is insane to even talk about.

Norwegian is going to run out of money really fast operating these long routes.
Last edited by Waterbomber on Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2478
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:47 pm

Norwegian ends service to Hartford from Edinburgh in March. Norwegian said its the high UK's passenger taxes. I mean, does anyone really believe this? Like they didn't know this when they were in the planning stages for this route?
 
rbavfan
Posts: 2446
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:06 am

Midwestindy wrote:
"You will see more A321LR routes coming in to medium-size airports in the USA, connecting to different capitals in Europe," says Ramdahl, adding that Berlin, Brussels, Budapest and Prague are possible European gateways.

"Washington DC is one US market that the airline is considering for the A321LR. Ramdahl says service to either Baltimore/Washington, which Norwegian dropped in early 2017, or Washington Dulles needs frequency that they are unable to provide with the Boeing 787, and is just too far for the 737-8."

Since when is DC a medium-sized market?


International traffic from Dulles and domestic are two different things. I would agree Dulles can support frequency over size much better.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:36 am

With the success out of SWF, I do wonder if service out of SWF on the MAX 8 might get up-gauged to the A321LR, especially to Dublin. Norwegian markets the hell out of the Short Line shuttle from Stewart to the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan. (Remember, Norwegian is going 14x weekly between SWF and DUB.) I also wonder if it's possible that a thinner destination like Bergen (which was tried for a while out of JFK) might go on the A321LR.

As for configuration, I'm predicting a 200-seat configuration with 16 W seats, 38"/19", 2-2, and 184 Y seats, 31"/17.2". The predicted range for the A321LR of 4000 nmi is with 206 passengers.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:47 am

jumbojet wrote:
Norwegian ends service to Hartford from Edinburgh in March. Norwegian said its the high UK's passenger taxes. I mean, does anyone really believe this? Like they didn't know this when they were in the planning stages for this route?


True, but route planning isn't their strongest side. I think they underestimated it. They were looking at local demand only. That local demand certainly may have been there, but there was also the possibility of a self-transfer in Dublin and therefor undercutting the fare of a direct flight. I think a lot of British people just fly Ryanair to Dublin and then self-transfer to Norwegian. That goes for Edinburgh as well. A direct flight from the UK can never be as cheap as a direct flight from Ireland because of the APD.

Just think of what would happen if Norwegian decides to make Dublin a long haul base. It would be an instant success, however it would kill their Gatwick operations. Nobody would fly long haul from Gatwick anymore, they'd all self-transfer in Dublin.
 
Pe@rson
Posts: 16533
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:29 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:35 am

PatrickZ80 wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
Norwegian ends service to Hartford from Edinburgh in March. Norwegian said its the high UK's passenger taxes. I mean, does anyone really believe this? Like they didn't know this when they were in the planning stages for this route?


True, but route planning isn't their strongest side. I think they underestimated it. They were looking at local demand only. That local demand certainly may have been there, but there was also the possibility of a self-transfer in Dublin and therefor undercutting the fare of a direct flight. I think a lot of British people just fly Ryanair to Dublin and then self-transfer to Norwegian. That goes for Edinburgh as well. A direct flight from the UK can never be as cheap as a direct flight from Ireland because of the APD.


I think very few will travel to Dublin on Ryanair to self-connect to Norwegian flights. By the time you add the Ryanair flights plus the added time plus the inconvenience plus the added likelihood of things going wrong plus any baggage charges, etc., there's little point even for very price-conscious people.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
 
jomur
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:40 am

Pe@rson wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
Norwegian ends service to Hartford from Edinburgh in March. Norwegian said its the high UK's passenger taxes. I mean, does anyone really believe this? Like they didn't know this when they were in the planning stages for this route?


True, but route planning isn't their strongest side. I think they underestimated it. They were looking at local demand only. That local demand certainly may have been there, but there was also the possibility of a self-transfer in Dublin and therefor undercutting the fare of a direct flight. I think a lot of British people just fly Ryanair to Dublin and then self-transfer to Norwegian. That goes for Edinburgh as well. A direct flight from the UK can never be as cheap as a direct flight from Ireland because of the APD.


I think very few will travel to Dublin on Ryanair to self-connect to Norwegian flights. By the time you add the Ryanair flights plus the added time plus the inconvenience plus the added likelihood of things going wrong plus any baggage charges, etc., there's little point even for very price-conscious people.


No, they all fly Aer Lingus instead...me included.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 420
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:26 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
With the success out of SWF, I do wonder if service out of SWF on the MAX 8 might get up-gauged to the A321LR, especially to Dublin. Norwegian markets the hell out of the Short Line shuttle from Stewart to the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan. (Remember, Norwegian is going 14x weekly between SWF and DUB.) I also wonder if it's possible that a thinner destination like Bergen (which was tried for a while out of JFK) might go on the A321LR.

As for configuration, I'm predicting a 200-seat configuration with 16 W seats, 38"/19", 2-2, and 184 Y seats, 31"/17.2". The predicted range for the A321LR of 4000 nmi is with 206 passengers.


I predict a slightly lower number of seats, due to exit limits on the updated A321 fuselage (the ACF has over-wing exits). By keeping the number of seats at 195 (or lower), previously doors pair three can be plugged, thus saving cabin space and an attendant seat at that door pair.

If we presume Norwegian wants to have a similar long range product on the A321LR as on the 787, I think we will see the same seats on both aircraft. Maybe we would see their premium economy seats at five abreast on the A321? Using the same standard Y seats as on the 787, would mean a very wide aisle on the A321 (25 inches wide), something that allows passengers to easily pass each other and the trolleys.

My prediction:
30 premium economy recliner seats at 5 abreast @ 46 pitch
165 standard economy seats at 6 abreast @ 31 pitch (with an extra wide aisle)
= 195 passengers

165 standard seats is 27 rows at 6 abreast, and one row with three seats abreast, thus enabling a mid-cabin toilette. For long haul operation I would think it would be smart to have one toilette in the rear, one toilette mid-cabin, and one in the front of the cabin. This is less than 50 passengers per toilette, which is good.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:27 pm

Pe@rson wrote:
I think very few will travel to Dublin on Ryanair to self-connect to Norwegian flights. By the time you add the Ryanair flights plus the added time plus the inconvenience plus the added likelihood of things going wrong plus any baggage charges, etc., there's little point even for very price-conscious people.


I do not agree. Those Ryanair flights are dirt cheap and they cover the entire United Kingdom (and more) instead of just London. If you have to transfer anyhow and you get to choose between transfer at Gatwick and transfer at Dublin, I know what I would choose. Baggage charges? Yes, travelling with baggage is always another story but I think by far most price-conscious air travelers (including me) travel without. Time added? Yes, but it doesn't matter. When you got plenty of time, those few hours extra travel time are well worth their money. And yes, there is a theoretical chance that a self-transfer can go wrong but out of all the self-transfers I've ever made they've all gone fluently. None of them have ever gone wrong. Out of all the money I've saved by using self-transfers so far I can easily buy a last-minute ticket if needed, but so far I never had to.

Keep in mind the way price-sensitive people look for flight tickets. They won't just book the first offer they can find even if it's reasonably cheap, they keep searching until they've found the very lowest possible opportunity. Norwegian doesn't seem to realise this. They focus on convenience whilst their customers don't care about convenience and just focus about the lowest price.

jomur wrote:
No, they all fly Aer Lingus instead...me included.


Aer Lingus is also reasonably cheap, but I think Norwegian can undercut them.
 
Pe@rson
Posts: 16533
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:29 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:39 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Pe@rson wrote:
I think very few will travel to Dublin on Ryanair to self-connect to Norwegian flights. By the time you add the Ryanair flights plus the added time plus the inconvenience plus the added likelihood of things going wrong plus any baggage charges, etc., there's little point even for very price-conscious people.


I do not agree. Those Ryanair flights are dirt cheap and they cover the entire United Kingdom (and more) instead of just London. If you have to transfer anyhow and you get to choose between transfer at Gatwick and transfer at Dublin, I know what I would choose. Baggage charges? Yes, travelling with baggage is always another story but I think by far most price-conscious air travelers (including me) travel without. Time added? Yes, but it doesn't matter. When you got plenty of time, those few hours extra travel time are well worth their money. And yes, there is a theoretical chance that a self-transfer can go wrong but out of all the self-transfers I've ever made they've all gone fluently. None of them have ever gone wrong. Out of all the money I've saved by using self-transfers so far I can easily buy a last-minute ticket if needed, but so far I never had to..


While I have self-connected a lot in years past, I think you are really overstating it regarding DUB-US v. from EDI/LGW/wherever to save APD. In practice, I think very few - overall - would do it.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
 
jomur
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:03 pm

Pe@rson wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
Pe@rson wrote:
I think very few will travel to Dublin on Ryanair to self-connect to Norwegian flights. By the time you add the Ryanair flights plus the added time plus the inconvenience plus the added likelihood of things going wrong plus any baggage charges, etc., there's little point even for very price-conscious people.


I do not agree. Those Ryanair flights are dirt cheap and they cover the entire United Kingdom (and more) instead of just London. If you have to transfer anyhow and you get to choose between transfer at Gatwick and transfer at Dublin, I know what I would choose. Baggage charges? Yes, travelling with baggage is always another story but I think by far most price-conscious air travelers (including me) travel without. Time added? Yes, but it doesn't matter. When you got plenty of time, those few hours extra travel time are well worth their money. And yes, there is a theoretical chance that a self-transfer can go wrong but out of all the self-transfers I've ever made they've all gone fluently. None of them have ever gone wrong. Out of all the money I've saved by using self-transfers so far I can easily buy a last-minute ticket if needed, but so far I never had to..


While I have self-connected a lot in years past, I think you are really overstating it regarding DUB-US v. from EDI/LGW/wherever to save APD. In practice, I think very few - overall - would do it.


You are probably right, most do it to get Pre-Clearance..
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:26 pm

reidar76 wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
With the success out of SWF, I do wonder if service out of SWF on the MAX 8 might get up-gauged to the A321LR, especially to Dublin. Norwegian markets the hell out of the Short Line shuttle from Stewart to the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan. (Remember, Norwegian is going 14x weekly between SWF and DUB.) I also wonder if it's possible that a thinner destination like Bergen (which was tried for a while out of JFK) might go on the A321LR.

As for configuration, I'm predicting a 200-seat configuration with 16 W seats, 38"/19", 2-2, and 184 Y seats, 31"/17.2". The predicted range for the A321LR of 4000 nmi is with 206 passengers.


I predict a slightly lower number of seats, due to exit limits on the updated A321 fuselage (the ACF has over-wing exits). By keeping the number of seats at 195 (or lower), previously doors pair three can be plugged, thus saving cabin space and an attendant seat at that door pair.

If we presume Norwegian wants to have a similar long range product on the A321LR as on the 787, I think we will see the same seats on both aircraft. Maybe we would see their premium economy seats at five abreast on the A321? Using the same standard Y seats as on the 787, would mean a very wide aisle on the A321 (25 inches wide), something that allows passengers to easily pass each other and the trolleys.

My prediction:
30 premium economy recliner seats at 5 abreast @ 46 pitch
165 standard economy seats at 6 abreast @ 31 pitch (with an extra wide aisle)
= 195 passengers

165 standard seats is 27 rows at 6 abreast, and one row with three seats abreast, thus enabling a mid-cabin toilette. For long haul operation I would think it would be smart to have one toilette in the rear, one toilette mid-cabin, and one in the front of the cabin. This is less than 50 passengers per toilette, which is good.


Does Europe practice the FA per door, or is it 50 pax to one FA? If the latter, it makes the aircraft more marketable to a third party later on (as a lessor). In the USA, one could put 200 seats on an A21N without requiring a fifth FA.
 
User avatar
acreinholz
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:58 am

I still think there will be more flights using the current HUBs, such as LIS (with TAP) and FLL, JFK, BOS and MCO (with JetBlue). They currently have the passengers flying in to the HUBs and with the A321LR can fly nonstop to interesting cities such as:

In Europe for JetBlue
LIS
MAD
CDG
ORY
LHR

In the USA (with TAP)
MIA
FLL
MCO
IAD
JFK
EWR
BOS
DTW?
ORD? => These last two might be out of range

And more
TAP may even be able to Fly out LIS to NE Brazil (FOR, REC)
and Azul (AD) can Fly to FLL from VCP and CNF non stop with A321LR...

It makes too much sense, or am I just crazy?
[threeid][/threeid]A319, A320 A321 A330 A340 B727 B737 B747 B757 B767 B777 DC9 DC10 MD88 MD11 ATR42 ATR72 EMB E175 E190 E195 F100 CRJ700
RG VP KK JJ UA DL AA NW TR AR MJ LH BA AF AL AU AD T4 AZ SC CM G3 FF TW EK O6 TK

"Verba Volant, Scripta Manent"
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:19 am

rj777 wrote:
I would love to see TATL service from MKE. Planning on going to the UK sometime in 2020. Would like to avoid driving to ORD to go across the pond.

Why don't you take a train from Milwaukee to Chicago? Flights to Europe usually leave in the late afternoon, so you'll have plenty of time to arrive at the airport. A great way to start your journey, if you ask me.

Almost every flight I take from Amsterdam Airport Schiphol starts with a 2,5 hour train ride. Personally I prefer this to driving there myself (not that I own a car). No need to mind the road, time to read a book or magazine, watch the world go by while drinks and snacks are served at your seat. What more to ask for?
 
efpmeneses
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:39 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:08 am

acreinholz wrote:
I still think there will be more flights using the current HUBs, such as LIS (with TAP) and FLL, JFK, BOS and MCO (with JetBlue). They currently have the passengers flying in to the HUBs and with the A321LR can fly nonstop to interesting cities such as:

In Europe for JetBlue
LIS
MAD
CDG
ORY
LHR

In the USA (with TAP)
MIA
FLL
MCO
IAD
JFK
EWR
BOS
DTW?
ORD? => These last two might be out of range

And more
TAP may even be able to Fly out LIS to NE Brazil (FOR, REC)
and Azul (AD) can Fly to FLL from VCP and CNF non stop with A321LR...

It makes too much sense, or am I just crazy?
I think MIA, FLL and MCO are more out of range for the A321 Neo Lr than DTW and ORD... at least it is what great circle map says.

Enviado do meu ASUS_Z00AD através do Tapatalk
 
Geoff1947
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:28 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sun Mar 04, 2018 12:31 pm

Could I have LGW-STL please ?!!

Geoff
 
Andy33
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:28 pm

varsity wrote:
So is the principal limitation of BA0001/03 LCY-JFK with A318 MTOW, range or a combination of the two? The idea that someone would rather endure a technical stop in Ireland than just train it out to LHR kind of mystified me, but I don't know how long this takes.

The MTOW restriction brought about by the short runway and lightweight runway and apron structure is what limits the range - a fully fuelled A318 in BA's configuration could make the journey non-stop (and does eastbound) but couldn't take off from LCY.
But "enduring" the technical stop in Ireland allows the passengers to go through US preclearance at SNN - which is really quick as there are a maximum of 32 passengers on the flight. This means they arrive in JFK as domestic passengers instead of lining up at US CBP behind the people off whatever widebody just arrived, so the overall time from entering the terminal at LCY to walking out of the terminal at JFK is no worse and may well be better.

In terms of timing it would take at least 90 minutes to get from LCY to LHR at the moment either by road or by rail with one or possibly two changes. This will reduce significantly when the Elizabeth Line of Crossrail opens in December this year, which is why UK based posters don't see the route surviving much past 2019.
People who live or work in the immediate area will still find LCY more convenient, but enough of those who already have to travel to get there will be lured away by the high frequency and alternative timings from LHR once it becomes easier to get there, making the route potentially non-viable.
 
Jshank83
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:51 pm

Geoff1947 wrote:
Could I have LGW-STL please ?!!

Geoff


I think you are going to be waiting awhile on that one.
 
capitalflyer
Posts: 452
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:43 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:24 pm

I would think that between IAD and BWI, BWI would have the advantage cost wise. No doubt the state of Maryland could be brought in to provide subsidies like it did with BA. And IAD costs I believe are much higher than BWI because of their large amount of capital spending recently.

Don't count out DUB-SBN a couple time a week either.
 
User avatar
varsity
Posts: 419
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 1999 4:51 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:18 am

Thank you, makes a lot more sense now. I have pre-cleared at DUB and definitely see the value. I didn't realize they were doing that but it makes sense to take advantage of the stop.

Andy33 wrote:
varsity wrote:
So is the principal limitation of BA0001/03 LCY-JFK with A318 MTOW, range or a combination of the two? The idea that someone would rather endure a technical stop in Ireland than just train it out to LHR kind of mystified me, but I don't know how long this takes.

The MTOW restriction brought about by the short runway and lightweight runway and apron structure is what limits the range - a fully fuelled A318 in BA's configuration could make the journey non-stop (and does eastbound) but couldn't take off from LCY.
But "enduring" the technical stop in Ireland allows the passengers to go through US preclearance at SNN - which is really quick as there are a maximum of 32 passengers on the flight. This means they arrive in JFK as domestic passengers instead of lining up at US CBP behind the people off whatever widebody just arrived, so the overall time from entering the terminal at LCY to walking out of the terminal at JFK is no worse and may well be better.

In terms of timing it would take at least 90 minutes to get from LCY to LHR at the moment either by road or by rail with one or possibly two changes. This will reduce significantly when the Elizabeth Line of Crossrail opens in December this year, which is why UK based posters don't see the route surviving much past 2019.
People who live or work in the immediate area will still find LCY more convenient, but enough of those who already have to travel to get there will be lured away by the high frequency and alternative timings from LHR once it becomes easier to get there, making the route potentially non-viable.
AB3, DC8, DC9, DH7, D10, E90, M80, M88, 320, 321, 330, 722, 737, 733, 734, 738, 747, 744, 757, 752, 753, 772
AA, AF, B6, CO, DL, EA, EI, FI, HP, KM, LX, MS, NW, OP, PA, TW, UA, US, VS, W9, WO, YX
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:07 am

How about linking secondary cities in Europe that already have service to the US East Coast or Canada? Norwegian could offer a competitive product. LYS, NCE, VCE, etc come to mind. Are they within range if the A321LR?
You may like my airport photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aeroports
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:14 am

ro1960 wrote:
How about linking secondary cities in Europe that already have service to the US East Coast or Canada? Norwegian could offer a competitive product. LYS, NCE, VCE, etc come to mind. Are they within range if the A321LR?


If they are, they're on the bare reach of it's range. Those destinations would be really pushing it. But it doesn't have to be a problem, they can still do it. Just link these cities to Dublin at a convenient time for a transfer to their TATL flights from there. You don't have to serve everything non-stop, sometimes one-stop makes more sense.
 
User avatar
acreinholz
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:50 pm

I think TAP, with the direction from Neeleman, can be a major player for TATL flights and the A321LR...
[threeid][/threeid]A319, A320 A321 A330 A340 B727 B737 B747 B757 B767 B777 DC9 DC10 MD88 MD11 ATR42 ATR72 EMB E175 E190 E195 F100 CRJ700
RG VP KK JJ UA DL AA NW TR AR MJ LH BA AF AL AU AD T4 AZ SC CM G3 FF TW EK O6 TK

"Verba Volant, Scripta Manent"
 
eicvd
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:11 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:41 am

PatrickZ80 wrote:
ro1960 wrote:
How about linking secondary cities in Europe that already have service to the US East Coast or Canada? Norwegian could offer a competitive product. LYS, NCE, VCE, etc come to mind. Are they within range if the A321LR?


If they are, they're on the bare reach of it's range. Those destinations would be really pushing it. But it doesn't have to be a problem, they can still do it. Just link these cities to Dublin at a convenient time for a transfer to their TATL flights from there. You don't have to serve everything non-stop, sometimes one-stop makes more sense.

I love your optimism for a Norwegian hub in DUB, not that it will ever happen but the infrastructure is bad as it is at DUB! We need a T3 before there’s any sort of chance Norwegian make DUB a connecting point between Europe & North America.
COYBIB
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:00 am

eicvd wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
ro1960 wrote:
How about linking secondary cities in Europe that already have service to the US East Coast or Canada? Norwegian could offer a competitive product. LYS, NCE, VCE, etc come to mind. Are they within range if the A321LR?


If they are, they're on the bare reach of it's range. Those destinations would be really pushing it. But it doesn't have to be a problem, they can still do it. Just link these cities to Dublin at a convenient time for a transfer to their TATL flights from there. You don't have to serve everything non-stop, sometimes one-stop makes more sense.

I love your optimism for a Norwegian hub in DUB, not that it will ever happen but the infrastructure is bad as it is at DUB! We need a T3 before there’s any sort of chance Norwegian make DUB a connecting point between Europe & North America.


DUB with the A321LR could cover most everthing from the Mississippi to the Atlantic. Example:
MEM/DUB= 3553nm
MSY/DUB at 3785nm may be a bit much

All that applies for Aer Lingus and their birds as well.
Substitute SNN for DUB and it is even a better situation on the range.

All of this could easily replace the Iceland phenomenon as the LCC transfer point for greater Europe.
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:42 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
ro1960 wrote:
How about linking secondary cities in Europe that already have service to the US East Coast or Canada? Norwegian could offer a competitive product. LYS, NCE, VCE, etc come to mind. Are they within range if the A321LR?


If they are, they're on the bare reach of it's range. Those destinations would be really pushing it. But it doesn't have to be a problem, they can still do it. Just link these cities to Dublin at a convenient time for a transfer to their TATL flights from there. You don't have to serve everything non-stop, sometimes one-stop makes more sense.


I didn't know Norwegian does hubs. I thought it was just point to point. In the case of the cities I mention, they already have non-stop flights to North America and are very well connected to most European hubs. So I think Norwegian would be better off competing on the non-stop routes rather than connecting ones. VCE-SWF is 6652 km, NCE-SWF is 6396, the A321LR has a 7400 km range. Seems feasible, non ?
You may like my airport photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aeroports
 
klm617
Posts: 2959
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:10 pm

Detroit to London Gatwick is high on their list
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
klm617
Posts: 2959
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:13 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
rj777 wrote:
I would love to see TATL service from MKE. Planning on going to the UK sometime in 2020. Would like to avoid driving to ORD to go across the pond.

Why don't you take a train from Milwaukee to Chicago? Flights to Europe usually leave in the late afternoon, so you'll have plenty of time to arrive at the airport. A great way to start your journey, if you ask me.

Almost every flight I take from Amsterdam Airport Schiphol starts with a 2,5 hour train ride. Personally I prefer this to driving there myself (not that I own a car). No need to mind the road, time to read a book or magazine, watch the world go by while drinks and snacks are served at your seat. What more to ask for?


Why should he travel to ORD when MKE has a perfectly good airport to field a nonstop from Europe. If people keep driving to ORD then MKE will never get any international flights.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
User avatar
BaconButty
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:53 am

WaywardMemphian wrote:
I've explained it numerous times why MEM would get a mention but 2016 numbers showed over 2 million international tourists visited Memphis. The recent Anna report serving the largest unserved TATL markets showed Memphis with 91,000 indirect TATL flights a year. That does not take the international folks that drive in from Nashville or New Orleans.

I've done that as a tourist a couple of times. They're all fantastic places with a lot to offer the tourist, Natchez, Vicksburg too. I don't often speak with people who've been, if people here (UK) are going for longer than a city break, it seems to be Orlando, New England in the fall or California fly-drive. Good to see it doing so well, direct flights, with Memphis acting as a gateway to the region could only help. Atlanta doesn't really have that tourist appeal, unless you're really into Coke (the drink).
Down with that sort of thing!
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Norwegian names possible transatlantic A321LR markets

Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:26 am

BaconButty wrote:
WaywardMemphian wrote:
I've explained it numerous times why MEM would get a mention but 2016 numbers showed over 2 million international tourists visited Memphis. The recent Anna report serving the largest unserved TATL markets showed Memphis with 91,000 indirect TATL flights a year. That does not take the international folks that drive in from Nashville or New Orleans.

I've done that as a tourist a couple of times. They're all fantastic places with a lot to offer the tourist, Natchez, Vicksburg too. I don't often speak with people who've been, if people here (UK) are going for longer than a city break, it seems to be Orlando, New England in the fall or California fly-drive. Good to see it doing so well, direct flights, with Memphis acting as a gateway to the region could only help. Atlanta doesn't really have that tourist appeal, unless you're really into Coke (the drink).


The top International markets for Memphis are Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, Germany, France, Brazil.
They stay 3 to 4 nights. New Orleans, Nashville and Memphis feed off of each other. The issue Memphis has for those not driving from point to point is lack of nonstop, reasonable airfare between Memphis and either of the other two (Hello? Southwest) But...the point being, Memphis could well be the beginning or ending point with 3x weekly seasonal service on a right sized plane like the A321LR or possible MOM.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos