rbavfan wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

Do you have a source? Please include a source any time you are posting a news related thread.

Oh sorry, here is link to Norwegian press release: http://www.newsweb.no/newsweb/search.do ... l=S%C3%B8k

Where in that report did it show a 1000 million deficit, which I assume is a 1 billion loss?

I'm pretty sure that the thread starter is mixing up a few things here.

Today 6 Feb Norwegian stocks plunged some 11%, or uncomfortably close to 1000 million NOK = some US$110 million. Market cap now reduced to NOK 7323 million. That's likely where he found the figure 1000 million.

Well, everything plunged today due to the yesterday Wall Street crash. But while Easyjet, Ryanair, and also the total Oslo stock market fell around 2.5%, on par with most leading European stocks, then Norwegian stocks fell four times deeper. So sure the Oslo Stock Exchange didn't like what they saw today.

Waterbomber wrote:

DY could be made sustainable but the current management doesn't know what they're doing.
I've said it many times.

DY has to change its strategy radically and focus on LGW.
Forget the subsidiary in Argentina, that's a suicide mission.
Expand services to second tier cities on the US East coast and Asia.

Unfortunately, I think that they're wasting too much money on these side-projects that they're going to runn out before an effetive strategy could be found.
Just today they were dumping Scandinavia-U.S. one-way flights for less than 80$...

The core narrowbody business is a winner. Things didn't start sliding until they ramped up the longhaul, and there's really no effective strategy on the longhaul side because it will never drive the yield premium they need to make longhaul sustainable. And then there's Argentina which will be a bloodbath and take their concentration away from the main business where it's needed the most...

armchairceonr1 wrote:

Norwegian's costs are increasing same time when their RASK go down. They fly longer routes and their costs is increasing while their yields go down. I recommend you take one moment and look their numbers, numbers doesn't lie.

Their costs are increasing or their CASK is increasing? If they are expanding their costs obviously increase.

Here are their brand new financial results, I see nothing indicating any financial trouble at all. You don't know what you are talking about.
https://www.norwegian.com/globalassets/ ... y-2018.pdf

Nicoeddf wrote:

Please re-read what enilria explained to you. The numbers don't lie, but the interpretation is different. And he explained to you, why that is the case... *shrug*

Some people just don't understand airline reporting metrics. Sad so many people get suckered into it.

There are two ex-SN senior managers available to assist DY.

enilria wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

Norwegian's costs are increasing same time when their RASK go down. They fly longer routes and their costs is increasing while their yields go down. I recommend you take one moment and look their numbers, numbers doesn't lie.

Their costs are increasing or their CASK is increasing? If they are expanding their costs obviously increase.

Here are their brand new financial results, I see nothing indicating any financial trouble at all. You don't know what you are talking about.
https://www.norwegian.com/globalassets/ ... y-2018.pdf

Nicoeddf wrote:

Please re-read what enilria explained to you. The numbers don't lie, but the interpretation is different. And he explained to you, why that is the case... *shrug*

Some people just don't understand airline reporting metrics. Sad so many people get suckered into it.

Their unit costs(CASK) are increasing, like I wrote before. Between 1-9/17 their unit costs was 0,43 vs 0,40 year before (+7%). Same time their RASK depreciated 7% from 0,38 to 0,35.
Here you can learn more: https://www.norwegian.com/globalassets/ ... tation.pdf

Increased unit cost while expanding globally

Higher fuel cost (+7 % per ASK) driven by spot price (+8 %), partly offset by a weaker USD vs NOK (-4 %)
Higher personnel cost (+10 % per ASK) due to ramp-up (FTEs +47 %) and bought days off
Higher leasing cost (+12 % per ASK) due to a higher share of leased aircraft
Lower airport/ATC and handling (-11 % and -1 %) due to increased sector length. Handling hit by passenger care cost.
Higher technical cost (+21 % per ASK) due to higher share of both leased aircraft and 787s/MAXs with total maintenance deals
Lower depreciation (-25 % per ASK) due to lower proportion of owned aircraft

I am always wondering why DY discussions are always bringing out of people such anger and frustration, as if DY was actually physically harming them ('those'!) personally...
Heck, we even have people advocating for their demise... on an aviation (fans?) website..!!!!
People over here are really on another level altogether. Not sure I'd want to find myself alone in the same room with some of my fellow a.netters.....

Good. Their employment practices make me look forward to any failures that Norwegian has. I'm all for more fair competition benefitting the consumer but not in the way that they go about it.

nuke wrote:

Good. Their employment practices make me look forward to any failures that Norwegian has. I'm all for more fair competition benefitting the consumer but not in the way that they go about it.

Fully agree. It is by far better to earn a non-living wage on a US regional... With all the health and social security benefits they enjoy in the US system and all...

oldannyboy wrote:

I am always wondering why DY discussions are always bringing out of people such anger and frustration, as if DY was actually physically harming them ('those'!) personally...
Heck, we even have people advocating for their demise... on an aviation (fans?) website..!!!!
People over here are really on another level altogether. Not sure I'd want to find myself alone in the same room with some of my fellow a.netters.....

Well some peoples livelihood is directly threatened by DY destabilising the transatlantic marketplace. If they view them as doing so by unfair means (labor practices) then you could easily see why people get revved up.

I'd also say this is an industry website not necessarily just a fan website so many people are looking at the business side of the equation.

oldannyboy wrote:

I am always wondering why DY discussions are always bringing out of people such anger and frustration, as if DY was actually physically harming them ('those'!) personally...
Heck, we even have people advocating for their demise... on an aviation (fans?) website..!!!!
People over here are really on another level altogether. Not sure I'd want to find myself alone in the same room with some of my fellow a.netters.....

Predicting their demise is not the same thing as advocating for it. I just don't think they are a sustainable model and their method of expansion isn't going to lead to a slow death but more just running out of cash all of a sudden.

Nicoeddf wrote:

nuke wrote:

Good. Their employment practices make me look forward to any failures that Norwegian has. I'm all for more fair competition benefitting the consumer but not in the way that they go about it.

Fully agree. It is by far better to earn a non-living wage on a US regional... With all the health and social security benefits they enjoy in the US system and all...

Have you seen the regional wages in the last year or so? Definitely livable for the most part.

I find it hilarious you’re also comparing a 737 & 787 operator to US regionals that have 76-seaters as their biggest aircraft. Compare apples to apples and you’ll quickly see there is no comparison. Norwegian is surviving on paying sub-par industry wages.

Norwegian is a house of cards reminiscent of Braniff International and People Express.

ilovelamp wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

nuke wrote:

Good. Their employment practices make me look forward to any failures that Norwegian has. I'm all for more fair competition benefitting the consumer but not in the way that they go about it.

Fully agree. It is by far better to earn a non-living wage on a US regional... With all the health and social security benefits they enjoy in the US system and all...

Have you seen the regional wages in the last year or so? Definitely livable for the most part.

I find it hilarious you’re also comparing a 737 & 787 operator to US regionals that have 76-seaters as their biggest aircraft. Compare apples to apples and you’ll quickly see there is no comparison. Norwegian is surviving on paying sub-par industry wages.

"For the most part"? What a compliment for a first world country
Further, this very hard distinction in wages between a 737 and a E175 driver are ridiculous anyway. And by far not representative for the world.
As if it would be more demanding driving a 737 than a E175 in any conceivable way.

So, Norwegian is paying subpar. And still Ryanair pilots are defecting to DY. And Ryanair is healthy. What do you deduct from that?

Nicoeddf wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Fully agree. It is by far better to earn a non-living wage on a US regional... With all the health and social security benefits they enjoy in the US system and all...

Have you seen the regional wages in the last year or so? Definitely livable for the most part.

I find it hilarious you’re also comparing a 737 & 787 operator to US regionals that have 76-seaters as their biggest aircraft. Compare apples to apples and you’ll quickly see there is no comparison. Norwegian is surviving on paying sub-par industry wages.

"For the most part"? What a compliment for a first world country
Further, this very hard distinction in wages between a 737 and a E175 driver are ridiculous anyway. And by far not representative for the world.
As if it would be more demanding driving a 737 than a E175 in any conceivable way.

So, Norwegian is paying subpar. And still Ryanair pilots are defecting to DY. And Ryanair is healthy. What do you deduct from that?

What I meant by “for the most part” is because wage liability depends largely on where the pilot chooses to live. There are no cost of living adjustments based on their permanent residence.

You’re focusing almost singularly on max pax capacity. What you’re forgetting or purposefully ignoring is total mission capability; range, cargo capacity, etc. Those metrics are what govern pilot wages. So, it stands to reason smaller aircraft pay less. Take the time to compare the wages of a Norwegian 787 Captain to that of US legacy Captain or even that of a US legacy FO and you’ll see what DY’s wage advantage is.

As for Ryanair pilots fleeing, there are several factors included in that decision. Pay isn’t the only thing that forces a pilot to make a change like that. It does not mean Norwegian is their savior and everything they are looking for in an employer. Given the labor troubles at Ryanair, I’d do anything I could to get out of there. Even it meant making a horizontal step to a place like Norwegian.

I would not read too much into FR pilots leaving for DY. Ryanair is a pretty unpleasant place to work and alot of them are just attempting to get 787 type ratings so they can eventually move on to EK or QR and makes lots of money...

LupineChemist wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

I am always wondering why DY discussions are always bringing out of people such anger and frustration, as if DY was actually physically harming them ('those'!) personally...
Heck, we even have people advocating for their demise... on an aviation (fans?) website..!!!!
People over here are really on another level altogether. Not sure I'd want to find myself alone in the same room with some of my fellow a.netters.....

Predicting their demise is not the same thing as advocating for it. I just don't think they are a sustainable model and their method of expansion isn't going to lead to a slow death but more just running out of cash all of a sudden.

I don't know how close you have followed this thread, but there has been more than predicting their demise. But some of the post here has been deleted.

skipness1E wrote:

peterinlisbon wrote:

I flew with them and I think they are amazing. I just got an email today offering London to San Francisco for 163 pounds. I really hope they continue to do well because they are by far the cheapest and the best.

Agreed, I am hopefully Oakland bound in Sep but prices are in the basement and that's no way to pay for a whole new cutting edge fleet of Dreamliners whilst at the same time flying B737MAXs in secondary markets. It seems too good to be true.....

Yes, I guess we might as well enjoy it while it lasts. I upgraded on the flight out and it was well worth it - 175 pounds more for two bags, lounge access, priority through security, breakfast at Gatwick and food and drink on the plane, as well as a very comfortable seat.

The numbers don't seem to be very good for Norwegian https:// www.check-in.dk/udsigt-til-gigantisk-ja ... norwegian/ for January. Also Sas suffered a fall on loads http://www.flygtorget.se/Aktuellt/Artikel/?Id=12514. Finnar instead had a great growth.

prebennorholm wrote:

I'm pretty sure that the thread starter is mixing up a few things here.

Today 6 Feb Norwegian stocks plunged some 11%, or uncomfortably close to 1000 million NOK = some US$110 million. Market cap now reduced to NOK 7323 million. That's likely where he found the figure 1000 million.

Well, everything plunged today due to the yesterday Wall Street crash. But while Easyjet, Ryanair, and also the total Oslo stock market fell around 2.5%, on par with most leading European stocks, then Norwegian stocks fell four times deeper. So sure the Oslo Stock Exchange didn't like what they saw today.

No, I didn't mixed up things like you thought. It's just simple maths when you look Norwegian Interim reports and look what is coming. Their Q1 pre tax loss was almost 1900 million NOK last year, which is around 630 million NOK/month. Q1/17 CASK was 0,44 and RASK was 0,28(January 0,27). In January their ASK was 30 % higher, but RASK went down to 0,26. We no have any reason to think that their CASK is going down, so their losses is going to grow hand in hand with ASK growth and their losses are huge during low season.

You can't fly shiny new Dreamliners carrying more air than passengers and expect to be able to sustain it.
Colleague flew over to SEA a couple of weeks ago; reckoned on less than 80 on board.

Of further note, Norwegian shares have dropped again on the news, by almost 10%; that after a 40% drop last year...

Kikko19 wrote:

. Also Sas suffered a fall on loads http://www.flygtorget.se/Aktuellt/Artikel/?Id=12514.

SAS is having an opposite strategi than Norwegian, trading loads for yield

BlueShamu330s wrote:

Of further note, Norwegian shares have dropped again on the news, by almost 10%; that after a 40% drop last year...

Investors are not stupid. Norwegian equity is less than 5000 million NOK (Q3) and after Q4 losses it's under 4000 million. Their market cap is now around 7000 million NOK. They have around 200 aircraft on order worth about 80 billion NOK, you cannot find so stupid bankster who finance all those aircrafts. Until now they have succeed to make costly leasing contracts, but how long it last?

Someone83 wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

. Also Sas suffered a fall on loads http://www.flygtorget.se/Aktuellt/Artikel/?Id=12514.

SAS is having an opposite strategi than Norwegian, trading loads for yield

Yes, that's true, poorer loads but more profitable. Better strategy than just expanding worldwide, where you get all kinds of difficulties. At SK they are surely happy that DY is focused on Argentina and other markets.

A bit of analysis along these lines that seems to show things are really not looking up.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/14/norwe ... -thin-air/

I guess the question is how long the sell and leaseback option will work before the lessors have no confidence in Norwegian to pay the lease and they know they can just get the frames at liquidations prices after ceasing operations.

Also will DI have any issues keeping the AOC with the UK CAA due to the financial situation?

Norwegian is a highly seasonal operator achieving much higher RASKs - and LFs - in peak summer. For example:

RASK ASK RPK LF
Dec-16 0.31 4854 4107 83.3
Jan-17 0.27 4934 4096 81.7
Feb-17 0.28 4561 3936 85.6
Mar-17 0.28 5154 4336 87.9
Apr-17 0.36 5356 4640 84.5
May-17 0.32 5801 5015 88.3
Jun-17 0.39 6173 5540 90.2
Jul-17 0.46 7058 6653 94.6
Aug-17 0.4 6915 6302 89.7
Sep-17 0.35 6685 5995 89.4
Oct-17 0.34 6965 6088 87.4
Nov-17 0.27 6316 5284 84
Dec-17 0.31 6423 5435 84.6
Jan-18 0.26 6437 5281 82
Feb-18 0.26 6150 5182 84.3

You need to eliminate the growth impact from RASK as a fast-growing airline will almost always have an impact on RASK performance.

You could look at RASK over time - a few years on a monthly basis - to compare previous months to each other. But for a fairer picture, you'll need to look at its growth and its average sector lengths. If its average sector length grew, it'll likely also have a negative impact on RASK.

Yes, longer stage length will have a negative impact on RASK. But as stated earlier this thread, DY themselves have said CASK is also going up despite the change in sector length. Their plan of growing into profitability and rapid expansion isn't working and they are burning too much cash to do it. Watching them is like watching a gambler going all in at a casino.

They lost a lot of money in Q1 2017. How much cash do they have left to get through first few months of 2018?

tphuang wrote:

Yes, longer stage length will have a negative impact on RASK. But as stated earlier this thread, DY themselves have said CASK is also going up despite the change in sector length. Their plan of growing into profitability and rapid expansion isn't working and they are burning too much cash to do it. Watching them is like watching a gambler going all in at a casino.

They lost a lot of money in Q1 2017. How much cash do they have left to get through first few months of 2018?

The Q4 results showed they were actually quite strong in the cash position. I don't think it's sustainable, however. They only have so much furniture to burn to keep themselves warm.

Well, if they are not allowed to include their shares in Bank Norwegian as cash as earlier mentioned, then they are virtually left with approx 1 bn NOK in their pockets.

With it alredy being March, the worst of TATL low season is already over. They will probably be fine up to and including this summer season. However, whether they can continue like this next winter season (OCT-MAR) is anyone’s guess. Something must change as they have burned a lot of cash this winter.

B747forever wrote:

With it alredy being March, the worst of TATL low season is already over. They will probably be fine up to and including this summer season. However, whether they can continue like this next winter season (OCT-MAR) is anyone’s guess. Something must change as they have burned a lot of cash this winter.

I suspect the word of mouth by non av-geeks about the inconveniences of the Norwegian brand are hurting them also. People don’t want to ride TATL in a 737 to then have to bus 2 hours to the city they were supposedly flying to in the first place.

february numbers are not good as well (in danish but google translate does a fair work) from http://www.check-in.dk

https://www.check-in.dk/norwegian-vaekst-i-februar/

yield fell 4% / occupancy 2% more empty seats with less money earned...

mcdu wrote:

B747forever wrote:

With it alredy being March, the worst of TATL low season is already over. They will probably be fine up to and including this summer season. However, whether they can continue like this next winter season (OCT-MAR) is anyone’s guess. Something must change as they have burned a lot of cash this winter.

I suspect the word of mouth by non av-geeks about the inconveniences of the Norwegian brand are hurting them also. People don’t want to ride TATL in a 737 to then have to bus 2 hours to the city they were supposedly flying to in the first place.

11 % increase in number of passengers this February compared to last February. So People does not seem to be too worried.

The stock price is up around four percent after seven hours of trading today.

B747forever wrote:

With it alredy being March, the worst of TATL low season is already over. They will probably be fine up to and including this summer season. However, whether they can continue like this next winter season (OCT-MAR) is anyone’s guess. Something must change as they have burned a lot of cash this winter.

I mean they are accelerating their losses and the further expansion eats into their own yields causing them to do more sell and lease back operations which raises their CASK. All this while trying to finance a new operation in Argentina.

I feel like low cost longhaul is a somewhat viable model, but Norwegian is just terrible at managing it. It needed very limited growth to control the impact to supply on the market.

My new crazy theory is that FR is just waiting for Norwegian to fail to be able to pick up some cheap 787s and start their own long haul fleet while selling connecting tickets at DUB, MAD and maybe STN/LTN.

Mortyman wrote:

mcdu wrote:

B747forever wrote:

With it alredy being March, the worst of TATL low season is already over. They will probably be fine up to and including this summer season. However, whether they can continue like this next winter season (OCT-MAR) is anyone’s guess. Something must change as they have burned a lot of cash this winter.

I suspect the word of mouth by non av-geeks about the inconveniences of the Norwegian brand are hurting them also. People don’t want to ride TATL in a 737 to then have to bus 2 hours to the city they were supposedly flying to in the first place.

11 % increase in number of passengers this February compared to last February. So People does not seem to be too worried.

Except they added a lot more seats than they did pax. That’s why they LF was dismal. When they need 110% LF to stay afloat the 80’s they are posting is just adding fuel to the furniture fire that’s ongoi.

Norwegian released their 3/2018 traffic figures at friday:

The total number of passengers flown in March 2018
was 2,816,164 compared to 2,453,551 last year, an
increase of 362,613 passengers (15 %).
Compared to the same period last year:
- Total passenger traffic (RPK) increased by 48 %
- Total capacity (ASK) increased by 44 %
- The load factor was 86.7 %, up 2.6 p.p.

http://www.newsweb.no/newsweb/search.do ... eId=448233

RASK was up 4% at 0,3 NOK and yield was up 1% at 0,35 NOK.
http://www.newsweb.no/newsweb/attachmen ... tId=174228

When you look these numbers you have to remember that last year easter season was at april and this year it divided between march and april. Last april Norwegian's RASK was 0,36 and yield 0,41, this year they are very far of that.

This is totally insane, their losses grow faster than their traffic but they are still pushing more gas to pedal. They already told that their losses are about 2600 million NOK at Q1 and I think that H1 losses will be over 4000 million NOK.

Norwegian also said last month that they completed pre-delivery payment financing for Boeing 787-9 aircraft: http://www.newsweb.no/newsweb/search.do ... eId=447889

I think that actually BOC take those aircrafts and lease them to Norwegian: https://www.bocaviation.com/en/Investor ... 54148.ashx

armchairceonr1 wrote:

This is totally insane, their losses grow faster than their traffic but they are still pushing more gas to pedal. They already told that their losses are about 2600 million NOK at Q1 and I think that H1 losses will be over 4000 million NOK.

Their plan is to replicate Amazon: grab market share in a new niche, make money later once you've established dominance. The only issue is whether they'll have sufficient finances to keep up the market share grab long enough. My guess is they can; it will probably require an outside equity infusion at some point.

B787-8 LN-LNG is now parked enginelss at CPH, and will reportedly remain parked until mid july.
Hard to tell how that will impact Norwegians longhaul ops and how big a part of the bill RR will pick up.

Is there a breakdown between the European operation and transatlantic operations?

Matt6461 wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

This is totally insane, their losses grow faster than their traffic but they are still pushing more gas to pedal. They already told that their losses are about 2600 million NOK at Q1 and I think that H1 losses will be over 4000 million NOK.

Their plan is to replicate Amazon: grab market share in a new niche, make money later once you've established dominance. The only issue is whether they'll have sufficient finances to keep up the market share grab long enough. My guess is they can; it will probably require an outside equity infusion at some point.

NOrwegian is no way like Amazon. Amazon has something for everyone. NOrewegian is trying to peddle cheap fares in a long haul point to point or short haul with no connections. Their market is too narrow, their cost too high and revenue too low. Amazon is a household name and NOrwegian is a bitterly hated and divisive entity. While it may attract price conscious customers it doesn’t attract corporate accounts or true business road warriors. Those customers are what generate the greatest profits for the other airlines.

mcdu wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

This is totally insane, their losses grow faster than their traffic but they are still pushing more gas to pedal. They already told that their losses are about 2600 million NOK at Q1 and I think that H1 losses will be over 4000 million NOK.

NOrwegian is a bitterly hated and divisive entity.

Only to sad Americans with a great penchant for unions and with nothing better to do.

Dahlgardo wrote:

B787-8 LN-LNG is now parked enginelss at CPH, and will reportedly remain parked until mid july.
Hard to tell how that will impact Norwegians longhaul ops and how big a part of the bill RR will pick up.

Norwegian is getting another 8 Boeing 787-9 in adittion to the 3 they have already gotten this year. I don't think it will have much of an impact.

[email protected] wrote:

mcdu wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

NOrwegian is a bitterly hated and divisive entity.

Only to sad Americans with a great penchant for unions and with nothing better to do.

God forbid we do something to protect the few middle class jobs we have left. The day Norwegian never flies in US airspace again will be a great one.

[email protected] wrote:

mcdu wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

NOrwegian is a bitterly hated and divisive entity.

Only to sad Americans with a great penchant for unions and with nothing better to do.

LOL, there's that union line again from you. A little monotonous, no? There are plenty of other points to make regarding DY's poor performance that are not related to Unions. You seem to be the only one fixated on that. There are plenty of non-Americans on this thread capable of understanding DY's current dire situation.

mcdu wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

This is totally insane, their losses grow faster than their traffic but they are still pushing more gas to pedal. They already told that their losses are about 2600 million NOK at Q1 and I think that H1 losses will be over 4000 million NOK.

Their plan is to replicate Amazon: grab market share in a new niche, make money later once you've established dominance. The only issue is whether they'll have sufficient finances to keep up the market share grab long enough. My guess is they can; it will probably require an outside equity infusion at some point.

NOrwegian is no way like Amazon. Amazon has something for everyone. NOrewegian is trying to peddle cheap fares in a long haul point to point or short haul with no connections. Their market is too narrow, their cost too high and revenue too low. Amazon is a household name and NOrwegian is a bitterly hated and divisive entity. While it may attract price conscious customers it doesn’t attract corporate accounts or true business road warriors. Those customers are what generate the greatest profits for the other airlines.

Whilst we can agree their costs are too high and their revenues too low, the remainder of your post is frankly nonsense.

Norwegian do offer highly appealing lead-in fares, but beyond this their pricing is somewhat average on the established routes - often it's cheaper to fly a legacy on a return ticket rather than two one-ways with Norwegian... and they do offer connecting flights, both via their own network and with other partner carriers.

Where is there evidence of them being bitterly hated and divisive? Sure they'll get some shitty reviews from disgruntled pax, as do all airlines. Similarly where is there evidence of Norwegian having a disproportionately low proportion of 'true' business travel?

mcdu wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

This is totally insane, their losses grow faster than their traffic but they are still pushing more gas to pedal. They already told that their losses are about 2600 million NOK at Q1 and I think that H1 losses will be over 4000 million NOK.

Their plan is to replicate Amazon: grab market share in a new niche, make money later once you've established dominance. The only issue is whether they'll have sufficient finances to keep up the market share grab long enough. My guess is they can; it will probably require an outside equity infusion at some point.

NOrwegian is no way like Amazon. Amazon has something for everyone. NOrewegian is trying to peddle cheap fares in a long haul point to point or short haul with no connections. Their market is too narrow, their cost too high and revenue too low. Amazon is a household name and NOrwegian is a bitterly hated and divisive entity. While it may attract price conscious customers it doesn’t attract corporate accounts or true business road warriors. Those customers are what generate the greatest profits for the other airlines.

It's a weird comparison, because Amazon has operated at low margins but positive margins. The idea is to build up market share while sacrificing margin. In the case of Norwegian, they're not low margin but no margin, actually very negative margin. That's something that Amazon never did. They just had a low P/E ratio for a long time.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

mcdu wrote:

Only to sad Americans with a great penchant for unions and with nothing better to do.

God forbid we do something to protect the few middle class jobs we have left. The day Norwegian never flies in US airspace again will be a great one.

It will most certainly be a sad one.

Long live competition and cheap fares.

Everytime I see a post about how bad Norwegian is, I always wonder if the posters adopt the same approach to other parts of their lives, like never buy cheap clothes, cheap electronics etc. that have been made abroad? Or is there just a large dose of hypocrisy in relation to Norwegian?

I loved Norweigan and I hope they will be sucessful. Both their econonmy and premium cabins are excellent and amazing value and their prices are incredible. I paid £200 from London to Denver and £100 from San Francisco to London, plus the cost of baggage and £180 for an an upgrade to premium. Their aircraft are brand new and the food and drink is really good, plus they had an amazing lounge in Gatwick with a free breakfast and anytime you want a drink or a snack during the flight you can just order it through the screen in front of you.

I'm not sure that they are really "dumping" capacity as some are saying, but rather using low fares as a type of advertising. When I was in the USA, every time anyone mentioned the wish to travel to Europe I told them about Norweigan. Here we are again talking about them so that's more free advertising. I remember when Ryanair was offering flights for less than £10 to Europe and then ordering huge numbers of brand-new aircraft. Look how sucessful they have become. It seems to me that Norweigan is doing the same but for long-haul. My overall impression is of an airline that is incredibly efficient and cheap whilst providing service that is probably better than most legacy carriers.

I think their biggest disadvantage in the US is the lack of feed and I wonder if they could partner up with Frontier, Jet Blue or some other airline so that their flights appear on searches from the hundreds of secondary towns and cities all over the country. It seems to me they are missing out on about half of the US market due to a lack of feed but obviously their competitors are not going to want to give it to them.

For example: DSM-LON 1432$ on AA/BA. ORD-LON 475$ on Norweigan. This is for a random date - I didn't even try looking for the cheapest dates to fly, but it shows that you can save 1000$ and pay 1/3rd of the price to go to Europe but only if you know how to do it and I think most people probably don't. I wonder if Norweigan would benefit from an advertising campaign (perhaps with banners on the websites of airlines like Frontier and Spirit, which could provide connections for them).

[email protected] wrote:

mcdu wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

NOrwegian is a bitterly hated and divisive entity.

Only to sad Americans with a great penchant for unions and with nothing better to do.

In case you are not aware, unions are widely reviled in the U.S., especially by one side of the political spectrum.