Norwegian drops LGW-SIN and announces LGW-GIG

marcoantona · Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:32 pm

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 19-451733/

Thought it deserved a new topic.

Norwegian will finally end Singapore service and its CEO announced they’ll start Rio by the next northern spring.

Singapore was very tough market for Norwegian to compete resulting in crashing yields. I think Rio will be much suitable for a low fare airline. Also with few competitors (only BA nonstop), they will face a similar scenario to EZE which appears to run smoothly.

gatibosgru · Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:37 pm

Nice to see the GIG add.

dcajet · Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:59 pm

marcoantona wrote:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/norwegian-plans-rio-flights-in-2019-451733/

Thought it deserved a new topic.

Norwegian will finally end Singapore service and its CEO announced they’ll start Rio by the next northern spring.

Singapore was very tough market for Norwegian to compete resulting in crashing yields. I think Rio will be much suitable for a low fare airline. Also with few competitors (only BA nonstop), they will face a similar scenario to EZE which appears to run smoothly.

Edited...

Last flight ex SIN is on Jan. 12.

B747forever · Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:19 pm

Yeah, LON-SIN has a lot of competition with QF 1x daily, BA 2x daily and SQ 4x daily.

Hopefully GIG will work out for them!

gilesdavies · Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:37 pm

If it's true, that is a real shame..,

But when you think about the competition on the Singapore route and to South East Asia, I guess it is not surprising. Prices to this area of Asia are regularly available for £350+ return if you are flexible with your dates and the carrier. I think Norwegians lead in prices were around £280 for the route, but when you factor in food and luggage you was looking closer to £350-400.

The competition on the route is pretty heavy, flights are available with Qantas, Singapore and British Airways, there is also no end of one stop options via the Middle East and China for example...

For the budget traveller many of the Chinese carriers are actually cheaper than Norwegian when you factor in food and luggage on the flights. They usually also offer the options to numerous locations in Asia for a similar price with guaranteed connections, to your final destination...
Where if you use Norwegian you have to arrange your own onwards flights from Singapore and run the risk of missing flights if connecting with another non-aligned airline.

I think having no aligned airlines in Singapore to connect on to the Norwegian flight could the routes Achilles heal.

Would be interesting to see if a carrier like Scoot might pick the route up, but it might water down capacity further on their parent airline Singapore. Air Asia X from nearby Kuala Lumpar might give the route a try again once the A330neos are delivered.

behramjee · Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:39 pm

their long haul strategy is seriously starting to sound like a complete circus !

Flighty · Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:47 pm

Where is Norwegian's money coming from?

dcajet · Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:50 pm

behramjee wrote:
their long haul strategy is seriously starting to sound like a complete circus !

Oh please. They cancel one route and that qualifies as a circus in your book?

LHUSA · Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:50 pm

I'm surprised they're hanging on to it for more than 4 months yet. Seems like they should cut their losses sooner.

dcajet · Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:59 pm

LHUSA wrote:
I'm surprised they're hanging on to it for more than 4 months yet. Seems like they should cut their losses sooner.

They may have enough tickets already sold that would make an immediate departure from SIN a nightmare for the airline and the ticket holders. They have been flying the route for like almost a year now.

BA777FO · Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:13 pm

Not surprised to see the cancellation of Singapore, as others say, with the competition the yields were never going to be there to sustain profits even with high load factors.

Rio won't be an easy market either - BA operate the 787 and use Mixed Fleet cabin crew on the route, it's a very cost-effective operation. Not as much competition as Singapore but it's a smaller market and with BA increasing frequencies to Sao Paulo, Brazil a strongly performing market right now.

moa999 · Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:20 pm

Is there a source for dropping LGW-SIN ?

marcoantona · Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:51 pm

moa999 wrote:
Is there a source for dropping LGW-SIN ?

https://www.ttgmedia.com/news/norwegian ... -rio-15381

c933103 · Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:53 pm

so, how about EZE-SIN?

TC957 · Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:48 pm

c933103 wrote:
so, how about EZE-SIN?

Won't happen.

behramjee · Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:47 pm

dcajet wrote:
behramjee wrote:
their long haul strategy is seriously starting to sound like a complete circus !

Oh please. They cancel one route and that qualifies as a circus in your book?

its actually a combination of having too many nonstop flights from too many different EU airports to different cities of the world in Asia/Americas which in the long run is not sustainable and also not in the current short term climate.

their high long haul route losses clearly indicate that their strategy is not working one bit. They should focus long haul out of EU from 2 hubs maximum and generate flow traffic through them rather than have operations from BCN CPH ARN FCO AMS etc.

anstar · Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:07 pm

behramjee wrote:
dcajet wrote:
behramjee wrote:
their long haul strategy is seriously starting to sound like a complete circus !

Oh please. They cancel one route and that qualifies as a circus in your book?

its actually a combination of having too many nonstop flights from too many different EU airports to different cities of the world in Asia/Americas which in the long run is not sustainable and also not in the current short term climate.

their high long haul route losses clearly indicate that their strategy is not working one bit. They should focus long haul out of EU from 2 hubs maximum and generate flow traffic through them rather than have operations from BCN CPH ARN FCO AMS etc.

AMS isn't a base.

PatrickZ80 · Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:03 pm

anstar wrote:
behramjee wrote:
its actually a combination of having too many nonstop flights from too many different EU airports to different cities of the world in Asia/Americas which in the long run is not sustainable and also not in the current short term climate.

their high long haul route losses clearly indicate that their strategy is not working one bit. They should focus long haul out of EU from 2 hubs maximum and generate flow traffic through them rather than have operations from BCN CPH ARN FCO AMS etc.

AMS isn't a base.

True, but other than that I think behramjee is right. Within Europe it's very easy and cheap to take a short haul flight to the nearest long haul departure airport. They don't need long haul from every airport in Europe, they need congestion.

In a few months I'll be flying Norwegian myself, I'm going to Los Angeles. First I've looked up from where in Europe I can get to Los Angeles the cheapest, this turned out to be Copenhagen. I found a flight to Copenhagen very cheap and at exactly the right time to make a self-transfer there, so Copenhagen suits me eventhough it's not my local airport. For my return flight I looked up to where in Europe I could fly cheap, this turned out to be Barcelona. Not my local airport either, but it doesn't matter. I could get a rather cheap flight home from Barcelona with plenty of time for a self-transfer.

My local airport is Amsterdam by the way, but on this occasion I'll be flying from and to Eindhoven. That's not too far away either and both the prices and the flight times out of Eindhoven turned out to be a whole lot better than Amsterdam. Norwegian could start a direct flight from Amsterdam to Los Angeles, but what would be the added value of that? It might occasionally be the cheapest option, but when it's not I can just as well transfer at a foreign airport. It's no inconvenience at all.

Right now Norwegian is competing against itself with their various hubs. People will fly through the hub that offers the cheapest option and with that they're undermining their other more expensive flights out of other hubs.

PavlovsDog · Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:46 pm

I just booked LGW-SIN OW just before Christmas and premium was only slightly more expensive than economy.

mooseofspruce · Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:08 pm

Too bad since one-way fares were pretty amazing considering they were also nonstop; I had two friends a month and thensome ago (one from the UK, one from Singapore) go on a RTW itinerary where returns from SIN back to LON were not possible (the one from the UK flew LGW-SIN on DY to meet up with the other, before they both flew SIN-TPE-SFO on BR to meet me before we flew SFO-BWI on AS for an event, after which they both flew JFK-LGW on DY, and the other flew LGW-SIN on DY alone). I thought it strange when one of them showed me that C on LGW-SIN was the same fare was regular Y, and Y without any ancillaries at that.

But at least compared to TATL if there was no DY (or PR, WW, FI, etc.), that there are still some decent one-way-one-stop fares from LON to SIN looking forward, seemingly led by MH via KUL and 9W via BOM.

Despite the fares though, one of the replies in another Norwegian thread mentioned overhearing an FA say that it was from losing a cargo contract, so I guess that'd help explain the fares.

Sounds like if GIG turns out to be anything like EZE it'll be a smart decision.

dcajet · Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:59 am

mooseofspruce wrote:

Sounds like if GIG turns out to be anything like EZE it'll be a smart decision.

South America-Europe flights continue to be some of the most expensive ones out there. That's why Level and Norwegian are doing so well at EZE. I am sure GIG will be the same story. Taxes are also insane there.

LAXLHR · Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:23 am

GIG is a perfect fit for Norwegian! Up against a BA787 is not bad and the market can work well for both. If anyone ever has the opportunity and or means to go to GIG and do not, they are insane! Beautiful and amazing city.

ajs123uk · Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:26 am

BA777FO wrote:
Not surprised to see the cancellation of Singapore, as others say, with the competition the yields were never going to be there to sustain profits even with high load factors.

Rio won't be an easy market either - BA operate the 787 and use Mixed Fleet cabin crew on the route, it's a very cost-effective operation. Not as much competition as Singapore but it's a smaller market and with BA increasing frequencies to Sao Paulo, Brazil a strongly performing market right now.

Worldwide crew have been operating GIG again for quite some time.

dcajet · Sat Sep 08, 2018 3:30 am

ajs123uk wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
Not surprised to see the cancellation of Singapore, as others say, with the competition the yields were never going to be there to sustain profits even with high load factors.

Rio won't be an easy market either - BA operate the 787 and use Mixed Fleet cabin crew on the route, it's a very cost-effective operation. Not as much competition as Singapore but it's a smaller market and with BA increasing frequencies to Sao Paulo, Brazil a strongly performing market right now.

Worldwide crew have been operating GIG again for quite some time.

Is GR operating with Mixed Fleet? EZE went Mixed fleet Jun. 1st.

PatrickZ80 · Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:18 am

I wonder if they'll announce it from other European hubs in the future too. Copenhagen or Barcelona maybe. Neither of these airports have direct flights to Rio de Janeiro and Copenhagen doesn't have any flights to Brazil at all. Barcelona does have a flight to Sao Paulo on Latam, but I'm sure there's room for a competing flight to Rio by Norwegian.

SCQ83 · Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:57 am

dcajet wrote:
South America-Europe flights continue to be some of the most expensive ones out there. That's why Level and Norwegian are doing so well at EZE. I am sure GIG will be the same story. Taxes are also insane there.

Not anymore to Brazil. After the Brazilian crisis, it is not uncommon to see Europe-Brazil for 500 EUR r/t or so, which is a fairly typical fare to the US. Too much competition in the form of LATAM, Azul, TAP, Iberia, Air France, Alitalia, Air Europa... with traffic down from Brazil, and even new entrants like Royal Air Maroc which offer cheap connections.

For instance, I just checked for next month and there are MAD-GRU with LATAM non-stop return for 537 EUR some days. From LHR, there are connecting flights with RAM via CMN for 515 GBP, and non-stop with LATAM for 573 GBP. Those are very cheap fares for non-stop legacy airlines. That means Norwegian will need to offer 250 EUR one way with luggage and food to compete.

I am very skeptical about GIG working out for them. European tourism to Brazil was down in 2017 despite 1) the cheaper flights, 2) the much cheaper Brazilian Real for EUR/GBP earners (now Brazil is WAY cheaper for an Euro tourist than 4 or 5 years ago) and 3) an improved economy in Europe where people travel abroad at record rates. Brazil is seen as in Europe as an increasingly dangerous country plunged in a major economic crisis and almost chaotic situation. Definitely not a trendy destination.

http://www.dadosefatos.turismo.gov.br/i ... s_2017.pdf

Argentina and Chile are a different story; I agree with your point about fares being much higher. Also Buenos Aires and Argentina are more of a millennial and Instagrammable destination for your average European tourist than Brazil. I think SCL would be a better choice than GIG; nowadays is more attractive for European tourists, fares to Chile are much higher than to Brazil and Chileans have more disposable income than Brazilians.

BA777FO · Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:23 am

ajs123uk wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
Not surprised to see the cancellation of Singapore, as others say, with the competition the yields were never going to be there to sustain profits even with high load factors.

Rio won't be an easy market either - BA operate the 787 and use Mixed Fleet cabin crew on the route, it's a very cost-effective operation. Not as much competition as Singapore but it's a smaller market and with BA increasing frequencies to Sao Paulo, Brazil a strongly performing market right now.

Worldwide crew have been operating GIG again for quite some time.

Shows how long it's been since I last went to Rio! I wouldn't be surprised to see it move again in the next round of route swaps.

GRU is worldwide and on the 77W but for NW18 there are 2 additional 787 frequencies, I imagine that'll be crewed by Worldwide too but it wouldn't be the first route to see both crews (SIN already does).

dcajet · Sat Sep 08, 2018 8:19 pm

SCQ83 wrote:
dcajet wrote:
South America-Europe flights continue to be some of the most expensive ones out there. That's why Level and Norwegian are doing so well at EZE. I am sure GIG will be the same story. Taxes are also insane there.

Not anymore to Brazil. After the Brazilian crisis, it is not uncommon to see Europe-Brazil for 500 EUR r/t or so, which is a fairly typical fare to the US. Too much competition in the form of LATAM, Azul, TAP, Iberia, Air France, Alitalia, Air Europa... with traffic down from Brazil, and even new entrants like Royal Air Maroc which offer cheap connections.

For instance, I just checked for next month and there are MAD-GRU with LATAM non-stop return for 537 EUR some days. From LHR, there are connecting flights with RAM via CMN for 515 GBP, and non-stop with LATAM for 573 GBP. Those are very cheap fares for non-stop legacy airlines. That means Norwegian will need to offer 250 EUR one way with luggage and food to compete.

I am very skeptical about GIG working out for them. European tourism to Brazil was down in 2017 despite 1) the cheaper flights, 2) the much cheaper Brazilian Real for EUR/GBP earners (now Brazil is WAY cheaper for an Euro tourist than 4 or 5 years ago) and 3) an improved economy in Europe where people travel abroad at record rates. Brazil is seen as in Europe as an increasingly dangerous country plunged in a major economic crisis and almost chaotic situation. Definitely not a trendy destination.

http://www.dadosefatos.turismo.gov.br/i ... s_2017.pdf

Argentina and Chile are a different story; I agree with your point about fares being much higher. Also Buenos Aires and Argentina are more of a millennial and Instagrammable destination for your average European tourist than Brazil. I think SCL would be a better choice than GIG; nowadays is more attractive for European tourists, fares to Chile are much higher than to Brazil and Chileans have more disposable income than Brazilians.

Well, to your point: savvy travellers from Argentina take an inexpensive (€25) Flybondi or Andes flight to IGR, take a taxi over the border to IGU and then take a flight to GRU-Europe for 1/3 less of what costs from EZE or COR.

SCQ83 · Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:43 am

dcajet wrote:
Well, to your point: savvy travellers from Argentina take an inexpensive (€25) Flybondi or Andes flight to IGR, take a taxi over the border to IGU and then take a flight to GRU-Europe for 1/3 less of what costs from EZE or COR.

I don't see your point. That would reduce any savings. And now there is low-cost (LEVEL and Norwegian) in EZE.

My point was that Europe-Brazil fares (contrary to most of Latin America where fares are still quite expensive) have became very competitive in the last few years due to the increased offer (new LATAM flights, Azul, Ethiopian, Royal Air Maroc...) and decreased demand (crisis in Brazil).

Since LGW-GIG is geared more towards British tourists to Brazil, I am quite skeptical about this, contrary to EZE where there was an obvious demand for lower fares (since Europe-Argentina are usually extremely expensive), and Argentina is a country with more tourism potential today. Taking a look at the PDF I posted above, it is interesting that overall Brazil had fewer European tourists in 2017 than in 2015, despite Brazil becoming way cheaper for Europeans in those two years because of the devaluation of the Real. So the Olympics in Rio had a detrimental effect to the city since most news that came to Europe from there were about crime, unfinished accommodations or athletes competing on waters full of garbage. Compare that to Barcelona in 1992 which meant the beginning of BCN becoming a globally recognised destination.

Santiago de Chile would be a more sensitive destination IMO. It is more similar to Argentina in the fact that Europe-SCL fares are extremely high and Chile has also more potential today as a destination for European tourists (Isla de Pascua, Punta Arenas, San Pedro de Atacama...).

LuxuryTravelled · Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:42 am

Norwegian couldn't operate SIN-LGW with cargo in winter due to the headwinds, so, therefore, the contract.

a350lover · Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:55 am

As far as I know, SIN was just added to the network, when they definitely lost any possibility to operate Tokio.

It looks tough for Norwegian to find any "suitable" destination eastwards. Maybe the restrictions which still affect its operations over Russia explain this. Good luck to them serving GIG. The issue which I see in Norwergian's strategy is mainly yield. They seem to prefer destinations purely leisure (ARN-BKK, soon ARN Krabi), or just with a mix of leisure & slightly business (BCN-LAX). Yields on the Rio operation will probably be low too, but I see the movement logical, maybe more than entering in Brazil to start serving GRU, which for sure could offer somewhat of a more corporate profile pax.

Once they present the whole ARG strategy which I guess still counts with some 787s to be added to the operation, we'll see some more deployments in routes to South America. I have the feeling they'll try to serve many destinations using ARG crews, wherever possible. More ore less, same as they do with the crews from BKK.

Adding capacity vs adding destinations? Norwegian seem to be again different. Ey, good luck!

a350lover · Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:55 am

Does anyone know how good/bad were the load factors? Fierce competition is there pretty much on every market where Norwegian operates (ORD, LAX, JFK/EWR, etc.), so low yields are probably part of its issue.

lhrsfosyd · Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:26 pm

Have they loaded the schedules yet? They could have more competitive timetable than BA + feed at LGW could make this work. Ideally they should do red eye both ways with tag on to EZE and crewed by ARG base (days 257).

LGW-GIG 2230-0615 +1 257
GIG-EZE 0745-1100 136

EZE-GIG 1230-1530 136
GIG-LGW 1700-0815 +1 136

dcajet · Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:04 pm

SCQ83 wrote:
dcajet wrote:
Well, to your point: savvy travellers from Argentina take an inexpensive (€25) Flybondi or Andes flight to IGR, take a taxi over the border to IGU and then take a flight to GRU-Europe for 1/3 less of what costs from EZE or COR.

I don't see your point. That would reduce any savings. And now there is low-cost (LEVEL and Norwegian) in EZE.

My point was that Europe-Brazil fares (contrary to most of Latin America where fares are still quite expensive) have became very competitive in the last few years due to the increased offer (new LATAM flights, Azul, Ethiopian, Royal Air Maroc...) and decreased demand (crisis in Brazil).

Since LGW-GIG is geared more towards British tourists to Brazil, I am quite skeptical about this, contrary to EZE where there was an obvious demand for lower fares (since Europe-Argentina are usually extremely expensive), and Argentina is a country with more tourism potential today. Taking a look at the PDF I posted above, it is interesting that overall Brazil had fewer European tourists in 2017 than in 2015, despite Brazil becoming way cheaper for Europeans in those two years because of the devaluation of the Real. So the Olympics in Rio had a detrimental effect to the city since most news that came to Europe from there were about crime, unfinished accommodations or athletes competing on waters full of garbage. Compare that to Barcelona in 1992 which meant the beginning of BCN becoming a globally recognised destination.

Santiago de Chile would be a more sensitive destination IMO. It is more similar to Argentina in the fact that Europe-SCL fares are extremely high and Chile has also more potential today as a destination for European tourists (Isla de Pascua, Punta Arenas, San Pedro de Atacama...).

Not sure how to make it clear... instead of paying US$1,000 to fly EZE-ZRH r/t, folks take a Flybondi or Andes LCC domestic trip from COR or AEP to IGR for US$25, cab over the border and do IGU-GRU-ZRH for US$650. If they have the time and the $300 savings are worth the hassle, people will do it.

dcajet · Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:14 pm

lhrsfosyd wrote:
Have they loaded the schedules yet? They could have more competitive timetable than BA + feed at LGW could make this work. Ideally they should do red eye both ways with tag on to EZE and crewed by ARG base (days 257).

LGW-GIG 2230-0615 +1 257
GIG-EZE 0745-1100 136

EZE-GIG 1230-1530 136
GIG-LGW 1700-0815 +1 136

LGW-EZE is going daily on Dec. 4th... although I like the idea of Norwegian flying GIG-EZE-GIG. They would compete with Emirates, the big discounter (very successfully) on this route.

Speaking of Norwegian's international flying from Argentina, both Flight Global and Air Transport World have mentioned this past week that Norwegian plans to base some A321LR in Argentina for international flying in the continent. The A321LR's range of 4,000 NM (as per Airbus) allows for a nonstop EZE-FLL, ROS-FLL or COR-FLL, routes for which DN holds authority.

BrianDromey · Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:24 pm

LuxuryTravelled wrote:
Norwegian couldn't operate SIN-LGW with cargo in winter due to the headwinds, so, therefore, the contract.

The 787-9 should be more than capable of hauling cargo over that distance. Unless DY have lower MTOW models/paper derated?

neutrino · Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:26 am

dcajet wrote:
behramjee wrote:
their long haul strategy is seriously starting to sound like a complete circus !

Oh please. They cancel one route and that qualifies as a circus in your book?

Maybe his book is itself a complete circus?

minilinde · Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:41 am

Flighty wrote:
Where is Norwegian's money coming from?

Its all debt!

LuxuryTravelled · Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:01 am

BrianDromey wrote:
LuxuryTravelled wrote:
Norwegian couldn't operate SIN-LGW with cargo in winter due to the headwinds, so, therefore, the contract.

The 787-9 should be more than capable of hauling cargo over that distance. Unless DY have lower MTOW models/paper derated?

I was told the winter trade winds effected the level of cargo they can carry, which affected yield. There is apparently more money to be made elsewhere.

gunnerman · Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:12 am

I never understood LGW-SIN. A western European airline is likely to find it a struggle to make money going eastward, just look at the competition: EK alone from DXB has 4xdaily nonstop (two 388, two 77W) and a daily CMB-SIN. And LGW isn't a hub operation for DI, unlike LHR, SIN and DXB where BA, SQ and EK respectively get a lot of connecting passengers.

SCQ83 · Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:16 am

dcajet wrote:
Not sure how to make it clear... instead of paying US$1,000 to fly EZE-ZRH r/t, folks take a Flybondi or Andes LCC domestic trip from COR or AEP to IGR for US$25, cab over the border and do IGU-GRU-ZRH for US$650. If they have the time and the $300 savings are worth the hassle, people will do it.

I reckon in that case it is easier to fly EZE-LGW on Norwegian or EZE-BCN on LEVEL and fly from there to anywhere in Europe. BCN has been for quite a long time low-cost central. And specially this summer carriers have been literally giving tickets away to fill seats due to the collapse in tourism in Barcelona:

https://www.hosteltur.com/108671_los-ho ... monia.html

So basically today from Barcelona you can reach anywhere in Europe for 20 or 30 euros even in peak season.

a350lover · Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:39 am

gunnerman wrote:
I never understood LGW-SIN. A western European airline is likely to find it a struggle to make money going eastward, just look at the competition: EK alone from DXB has 4xdaily nonstop (two 388, two 77W) and a daily CMB-SIN. And LGW isn't a hub operation for DI, unlike LHR, SIN and DXB where BA, SQ and EK respectively get a lot of connecting passengers.

Very good point. Not only for Norwegian, in fact, any EU carrier finds it particularly challenging the routes eastwards. Is there any way to beat the fares and service of Emirates and Qatar? Despite the fact Norwegian seems to like to keep opening new routes from different airports no matter the limited connecting possibilities (AMS, MXP, MAD, etc.), they simply can't try anywhere else in Asia?

PatrickZ80 · Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:58 am

a350lover wrote:
Very good point. Not only for Norwegian, in fact, any EU carrier finds it particularly challenging the routes eastwards. Is there any way to beat the fares and service of Emirates and Qatar? Despite the fact Norwegian seems to like to keep opening new routes from different airports no matter the limited connecting possibilities (AMS, MXP, MAD, etc.), they simply can't try anywhere else in Asia?

Their routes to Bangkok seem to be doing pretty good. Perhaps the difference is that they don't fly Bangkok from Gatwick but instead they fly there from their Scandinavian hubs. They're better suited for this kind of operation. Norwegian does have a very large short haul network out of those Scandinavian hubs, thus plenty of connecting traffic there. This is something they don't have at a lot of other airports they fly long haul out of. Even Gatwick doesn't have that much of a short haul feeder network on Norwegian.

Maybe Copenhagen - Singapore would have performed better than Gatwick - Singapore. This would still capture the demand from Gatwick since Norwegian has multiple daily Gatwick - Copenhagen flights. Passengers flying Norwegian from Gatwick to Singapore could simply connect in Copenhagen.

a350lover · Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:26 am

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Their routes to Bangkok seem to be doing pretty good. Perhaps the difference is that they don't fly Bangkok from Gatwick but instead they fly there from their Scandinavian hubs. They're better suited for this kind of operation. Norwegian does have a very large short haul network out of those Scandinavian hubs, thus plenty of connecting traffic there. This is something they don't have at a lot of other airports they fly long haul out of. Even Gatwick doesn't have that much of a short haul feeder network on Norwegian.

Maybe Copenhagen - Singapore would have performed better than Gatwick - Singapore. This would still capture the demand from Gatwick since Norwegian has multiple daily Gatwick - Copenhagen flights. Passengers flying Norwegian from Gatwick to Singapore could simply connect in Copenhagen.

I guess we all suspect this is hurting a lot Norwegian strategy, but for some reason, they don't seem to care much. Instead, they keep deploying efforts elsewhere and relying just on the O&D traffic, which tends to be rather leisure profile, low cost, low yield.

787Driver · Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:16 pm

gunnerman wrote:
I never understood LGW-SIN. A western European airline is likely to find it a struggle to make money going eastward, just look at the competition: EK alone from DXB has 4xdaily nonstop (two 388, two 77W) and a daily CMB-SIN. And LGW isn't a hub operation for DI, unlike LHR, SIN and DXB where BA, SQ and EK respectively get a lot of connecting passengers.

Well you don’t have to understand.

But a guess would be that a few years ago they were probably estimating that by now they would have had Siberian overflight permits. Since that didn’t happen while more and more aircraft kept coming, they had to find alternative routes to place the aircraft on

xijiayu · Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:29 pm

People fly with Norwegian on LGW-SIN only when their fares are really low and attractive. However, I don't think they would be able to compete with other airlines based on the fares and frequency offered. At the moment, BA have offer for LHR to SIN return in June next year for over £360. In the past, I have also seen SIA, Emirates, Qatar, etc offered fares of around £400. How is Norwegian going to compete with these fares? Unless they can offer £300 or lower inclusive checked in luggage and meals, but they only fly 4 times per week between LGW and SIN, which is very inconvenience for travelers.

I bought two Norwegian tickets last year for my relatives to travel from SIN to LGW on approximately £370 each, which were actually low fare tickets. Two months before the departure dates, Norwegian rescheduled the flights and had caused so much inconvenience to us, since they don't fly daily and you had to either cut short of your holiday or pay for extra night in London. I guess only those based in London with great flexibility are willing to travel with Norwegian on LGW-SIN if their fares are really low. Connecting passengers from other parts of the UK (Scotland, Manchester, etc) have more options with Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, etc at lower fares and don't really need to fly to SIN via LGW. There are just simply too much competition for Norwegian on SIN sector and maybe GIG would be better for them since BA is the only airlines flying the route and the fares to Brazil traditionally aren't cheap as well (although I have seen Latam with great fares to GRU this year).

dcajet · Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:09 pm

SCQ83 wrote:
dcajet wrote:
Not sure how to make it clear... instead of paying US$1,000 to fly EZE-ZRH r/t, folks take a Flybondi or Andes LCC domestic trip from COR or AEP to IGR for US$25, cab over the border and do IGU-GRU-ZRH for US$650. If they have the time and the $300 savings are worth the hassle, people will do it.

I reckon in that case it is easier to fly EZE-LGW on Norwegian or EZE-BCN on LEVEL and fly from there to anywhere in Europe. BCN has been for quite a long time low-cost central. And specially this summer carriers have been literally giving tickets away to fill seats due to the collapse in tourism in Barcelona:

https://www.hosteltur.com/108671_los-ho ... monia.html

So basically today from Barcelona you can reach anywhere in Europe for 20 or 30 euros even in peak season.

But you must realize that there are more travelers from Argentina than there are seats on Norwegian or LEVEL flights out of EZE. Or that, even budget travelers have their brand preferences or who may not wish to transfer in BCN, etc. The scenarios are endless.

Besides, you made a point that travel from Brazil to Europe was cheaper than from Argentina. And I brought up the above example as a way of saying, "yes, you are right"...

lhrsfosyd · Tue Sep 11, 2018 5:25 am

Perhaps Norwegian should try there and backs to West Africa from LPA.

Jomar777 · Tue Sep 11, 2018 5:41 am

SCQ83 wrote:
dcajet wrote:
South America-Europe flights continue to be some of the most expensive ones out there. That's why Level and Norwegian are doing so well at EZE. I am sure GIG will be the same story. Taxes are also insane there.

Not anymore to Brazil. After the Brazilian crisis, it is not uncommon to see Europe-Brazil for 500 EUR r/t or so, which is a fairly typical fare to the US. Too much competition in the form of LATAM, Azul, TAP, Iberia, Air France, Alitalia, Air Europa... with traffic down from Brazil, and even new entrants like Royal Air Maroc which offer cheap connections.

For instance, I just checked for next month and there are MAD-GRU with LATAM non-stop return for 537 EUR some days. From LHR, there are connecting flights with RAM via CMN for 515 GBP, and non-stop with LATAM for 573 GBP. Those are very cheap fares for non-stop legacy airlines. That means Norwegian will need to offer 250 EUR one way with luggage and food to compete.

I am very skeptical about GIG working out for them. European tourism to Brazil was down in 2017 despite 1) the cheaper flights, 2) the much cheaper Brazilian Real for EUR/GBP earners (now Brazil is WAY cheaper for an Euro tourist than 4 or 5 years ago) and 3) an improved economy in Europe where people travel abroad at record rates. Brazil is seen as in Europe as an increasingly dangerous country plunged in a major economic crisis and almost chaotic situation. Definitely not a trendy destination.

http://www.dadosefatos.turismo.gov.br/i ... s_2017.pdf

Argentina and Chile are a different story; I agree with your point about fares being much higher. Also Buenos Aires and Argentina are more of a millennial and Instagrammable destination for your average European tourist than Brazil. I think SCL would be a better choice than GIG; nowadays is more attractive for European tourists, fares to Chile are much higher than to Brazil and Chileans have more disposable income than Brazilians.

Actually, as you pointed on your article, most of these are to GRU. GIG has less offering and it does make sense. If Norwegian was going for GRU your point would be very valid although the fares you quote are not always available and a connection from the UK to the continent comes at a premium.

I feel they will do well at GIG but unless they somehow tie up to their EZE operations, this might end up being a season schedule rather than a full year.

tkoenig95 · Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:36 pm

With Norwegian selling off the new A320NEOs coming in, shifting year-round service to seasonal, cutting LGW-SIN and shifting to the South American service, I think they are finally starting to fill the holes that is draining their cash and showing investors they know how to run a successful, global airline.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net