DeltaPrince
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:05 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:10 pm

Let ‘em fail. Norwegian is an over-leveraged carrier with an unsustainable business model.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:19 pm

aileron1999 wrote:
enilria wrote:
It seems like there is such joy and enthusiasm in the media and on this site for the complete elimination of low priced Atlantic travel. The legacies say Atlantic is their best region, so it’s not even hurting the big carriers. I guess the elites don’t want the peasants to see the world.


Hi Enilria,

First let me say I work for a major U.S. carrier so I realize my opinions are slanted, but put me in the camp of cheering the speculated demise of Norwegian. Legacy carriers across the Atlantic have brought reasonable fares and exceptional safety records to millions of travelers. They employ thousands of people in high paying jobs in the communities they serve and provide consistent reliable transportation, while paying consistent local taxes. They tend to be dedicated corporate citizens often contributing mightily to local arts and charities. When a legacy carrier starts a long haul trans Atlantic route, they intend to serve it permanently. ULCC in contrast don’t typically take a stake in the communities they serve. They source labor from the cheapest parts of the world, often mixing crews with little common language experience. They purchase their aircraft using subsidized financing at the expense of U.S. tax Payers. They set up head quarters in countries they barely serve to take advantage of favorable tax laws. ULCC carriers quickly enter and exit markets, often after they have already sold tickets that they can’t honor. They provide no long term consistent service. When purchasing aircraft new, with low cost subsidized financing and new low cost labor it’s fairly easy to provide cheap fares. However as aircraft begin to age and labor wants fair wages, these types of operations struggle to survive. Ultimately they have historically gone out of business leaving communities and individuals stranded.
ULCC across the Atlantic do provide cheap service to many people who otherwise would not be able to travel. This is good in the short term but history has shown that they are not sustainable in long term and do great damage to airlines who do serve these communities for the long term.

Eric

Eric?I tend to agree with you but not for your reasons. I believed Norwegian was set up with the hope that the USA would allow cabotage.
And it might have been true hae the EU also allowed cabotage. But? They Didn't and we are where we are. An..d? with President Trump in office? It's Not likely to happen anytime soon if EVER..
 
kameleonten
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:58 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:35 am

The main topic (Norwegian's finances) has been analyzed to pieces so while I am a big fan of Norwegian and hope that they will thrive and prosper, I won't go into that. However, I would like to comment on the remarkable statement made by some on here about transpacific fares being lower than transatlantic ones and that domestic fares are lower than international ones. In my experience, this is simply not true. I have been traveling to southern China at least once a month for the last 1,5 years and recently relocated to Florida, from where I continue my travels there, and also fly to Europe and US domestic. I pay my tickets myself but I have a consulting project in China so working upon arrival I like to travel well. The good thing is I know months ahead when I am traveling and book my tickets accordingly, always flying J on international and Y on short haul. From Europe I could usually book a roundtrip ticket to Hong Kong in J for ~2000 Euro, regardless of starting point - a trip of 11-13 hours, depending on the departure city. From Florida, from where there are zero direct flights to anywhere in Asia, J fares start at 7000 USD. My most convenient options would be via DFW on AA or IAH on UA, both of which usually start at 10-12 kUSD. Granted, from Florida to HKG is significantly longer than from Europe so what I usually do is buy a roundtrip ticket to the west coast, with a self transfer to a direct flight from there. Still, the direct flights from LAX or SFO, which are comparable in distance to the European options (~13-14 hours), start at 6000 USD on a good day. Sometimes, with campaigns, flights can be found on other carriers starting at 4000 USD but that is as good as it gets, if one wants to stick with a decent carrier. I have seen lower prices with the Chinese airlines or PAL but that is a whole different thing than flying SAS, Lufthansa, KLM etc. plus these prices always require an additional stop. I have checked all transfer options in the US on multiple occasions - it is simply not true that TPAC is less expensive than TATL.

Along similar lines, I can easily find TATL fares with a bunch of airlines (not just Norwegian, but also Level, Eurowings, etc. and sometimes even legacies such as Aeroflot or TAP) for 400 EUR r/t while that is what I would pay roundtrip for a four hour trip to South Carolina or Virginia on one of the US3, booking the same time before departure. So it is another myth that US domestic is cheaper than international travel. It is obvious that consolidation has gotten further in the US than in Europe and that competition is more intense on TATL than US domestic - thank you Norwegian for that.
 
User avatar
AAR
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:58 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:34 am

NAS way of selling tickets - Norwegian like other airlines use revenue management to keep the load factors up. Revenue management = sell a certain sector of the cabin real cheap (you get some money for otherwise empty seats), sell another chunk cheap and the final chunk for normal prices. This is why the RASK is so low now, Norwegian has loaded up with a lot of planes and crews, therefore the ASK is +35 and the CASK is even higher as the fuel costs more. To cover the increased CASK you need to sell the seats, even at a loss = low RASK (Revenue/ASK) but still OK yield ($ for those seats sold). So the operation eats money
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8330
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:28 am

Norwegian took the hub bypass too far. The simply have too many origin and destination points to operate efficiently. Coupled with no proper hub feed, and the sheer cost of advertising in so many markets, no wonder they struggled. Add in fuel costs and it becomes more complex again.

Some route choices were bizarre, flying from secondary to secondary airports where the brand isn’t established and there is no history of traffic is doomed to fail.

Norwegian needs to go back to a hub model, where their long haul feeds into their impressive and quality short haul network in a few cities.

Short haul is the same. @pearson posted a great chart recently showing the yield differences of easyJet and Norwegian at Gatwick. Norwegian earn far less yield on every route for a superior and more expensive to operate product.

The Norwegian soft and hard product is great, fleet modern, crew friendly. It’s their overly complicated route network that’s killing them.
Greetings from Hong Kong.... a subsidiary of China Inc.
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:39 am

I’m surprised to read in the article “It is now the largest foreign airline at NY’s JFK“. I would have thought BA would be.
You may like my airport photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aeroports
 
Andy33
Posts: 2474
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:19 am

aileron1999 wrote:
enilria wrote:
It seems like there is such joy and enthusiasm in the media and on this site for the complete elimination of low priced Atlantic travel. The legacies say Atlantic is their best region, so it’s not even hurting the big carriers. I guess the elites don’t want the peasants to see the world.


They purchase their aircraft using subsidized financing at the expense of U.S. tax Payers. They set up head quarters in countries they barely serve to take advantage of favorable tax laws.
Eric

Looks like another person doesn't understand how the US EXIM bank works. There is an agreement between the USA and the EU that airlines domiciled in the one aren't eligible for subsidised financing from the other. So if you set up a corporate headquarters in, say, Ireland, to take advantage of low tax rates, you automatically disqualify yourself from buying Boeings with low cost funding from the US taxpayer. Indeed, although Norway isn't itself in the EU, even if the Norwegian group registered all their airlines and planes in Norway, various association agreements with the EU mean the US-EU agreement still applies there. And of course should you decide to move your airline headquarters outside Europe altogether, you are then disqualified from using the US-EU/EEA open skies agreement and can't fly TATL at all.
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 3242
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:41 am

Aptivaboy wrote:
Legacy carriers across the Atlantic have brought reasonable fares


Apologies, kind Sir, but I must disagree. TATL legacy flights are often exceptionally expensive and outside the reach of most people. There is a reason that Wow, Norwegian and others exist. While I don't disagree with the rest of what you wrote - much of it is spot on - in the end the fare war is what the average person looks at. The rest of us who have to sometimes scrimp and save to travel (scrimp and save a lot!) look kindly upon LCCs and ULCCs. They make our travel dreams possible. The legacies have consistently reduced the quality of their onboard product while raising fares and fees, cutting back on their rewards programs, and generally not making flying easier for the general public. Given that background, is it any wonder that LCCs and ULCCs are viewed so favorably by the flying public?

TATL flights being expensive is a myth. I’ve bought Europe tickets two days in advance for $500. I spend more flying domestically than I do international. Norwegian does a great job of grabbing the people who think that is the only way they can afford Europe. The only problem is they can’t and won’t make money doing it.

Norwegian may hav shiny new 787s, but it’s not just their fuel costs that will suffer as the oil goes up, but their revenue. They are depending on people with smaller discretionary income to travel, and as soon as they take a little hit from rising oil they won’t be going to Europe anymore. Meanwhile Delta, United, American, British Airways, and KLM will still be booking people like me and thousands of other business travelers who demand travel options and not just a 3x weekly flight to Edinburgh with a self connect.
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
flylondon
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:37 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:22 am

PatrickZ80 wrote:
mcdu wrote:
they start selling aircraft and such just to keep the balance up. They're far from there yet.


Norwegian has been selling aircraft for several months
 
bennett123
Posts: 8947
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:23 am

Not everyone travels on business.

There are many folk who fly on cheap fares or do not fly.
 
mcdu
Topic Author
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:30 am

flylondon wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
mcdu wrote:
they start selling aircraft and such just to keep the balance up. They're far from there yet.


Norwegian has been selling aircraft for several months


Which aircraft? Is this leased aircraft the are not keeping or those delivery slots they are trying to sell?

It appears Norwegian has very few tangible assets to sell.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5704
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:53 am

mcdu wrote:
flylondon wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:


Norwegian has been selling aircraft for several months


Which aircraft? Is this leased aircraft the are not keeping or those delivery slots they are trying to sell?

It appears Norwegian has very few tangible assets to sell.


Read here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1403137
 
mcdu
Topic Author
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:02 pm

Mortyman wrote:
mcdu wrote:
flylondon wrote:

Norwegian has been selling aircraft for several months


Which aircraft? Is this leased aircraft the are not keeping or those delivery slots they are trying to sell?

It appears Norwegian has very few tangible assets to sell.


Read here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1403137


So they are selling delivery positions. Norwegian doesn’t own those A321’s they own the right to buy their spots on the production line. That’s a big difference than selling tangible owned aircraft. The value of those delivery slots is dependent upon the market demand. Is there a huge demand for the A321neo? Is there a carrier that really needs those spots? If the economy continues to show signs of contraction those slots become less and less valuable.

So I go back to the point. Norwegian has very few if any assets. They are a paper company with too many alias operations with no value.
 
xdlx
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:29 pm

Prost wrote:
I guess I don’t understand why rising fuel costs will hurt Norwegian so much when they have modern 787s. You’d think DL would be hurting flying 767s.


SIMPLE : That shiny new Dreamliner cost a fixed amount ++, DL pays nada for the 767 other than operating cost, plane is depreciated and just printing money when it cranks up to fly.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5704
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:37 pm

mcdu wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
mcdu wrote:

Which aircraft? Is this leased aircraft the are not keeping or those delivery slots they are trying to sell?

It appears Norwegian has very few tangible assets to sell.


Read here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1403137


So they are selling delivery positions. Norwegian doesn’t own those A321’s they own the right to buy their spots on the production line. That’s a big difference than selling tangible owned aircraft. The value of those delivery slots is dependent upon the market demand. Is there a huge demand for the A321neo? Is there a carrier that really needs those spots? If the economy continues to show signs of contraction those slots become less and less valuable.

So I go back to the point. Norwegian has very few if any assets. They are a paper company with too many alias operations with no value.



The way I understand it is that they plan on selling Airbus 320's and older Boeing 737-800NG's and keep the planned Airbus 321's for now. It has always been the plan to lease out / sell the Airbus 320''s and sell older Boeing 737-800's and replace most of the NG's with Max that they have on order.
 
Andy33
Posts: 2474
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:11 pm

aileron1999 wrote:
Andy33 wrote:
aileron1999 wrote:

They purchase their aircraft using subsidized financing at the expense of U.S. tax Payers. They set up head quarters in countries they barely serve to take advantage of favorable tax laws.
Eric

Looks like another person doesn't understand how the US EXIM bank works. There is an agreement between the USA and the EU that airlines domiciled in the one aren't eligible for subsidised financing from the other. So if you set up a corporate headquarters in, say, Ireland, to take advantage of low tax rates, you automatically disqualify yourself from buying Boeings with low cost funding from the US taxpayer. Indeed, although Norway isn't itself in the EU, even if the Norwegian group registered all their airlines and planes in Norway, various association agreements with the EU mean the US-EU agreement still applies there. And of course should you decide to move your airline headquarters outside Europe altogether, you are then disqualified from using the US-EU/EEA open skies agreement and can't fly TATL at all.



https://www.ft.com/content/caae9f86-4d9 ... 144feabdc0

Are you sure?

Eric

As that link leads to an article behind a paywall, I'm disinclined to follow it, as many others here would be. Do you have a link to a publicly available rebuttal of my point?
 
jhz94
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:59 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:07 pm

mcdu wrote:
flylondon wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:


Norwegian has been selling aircraft for several months


Which aircraft? Is this leased aircraft the are not keeping or those delivery slots they are trying to sell?

It appears Norwegian has very few tangible assets to sell.


I agree with your question. Most of the "owned" planes are registered to "DY(insert number here) Leasing LLC" which happens to be registered as C/O Wilmington Trust. That's not exactly Norwegian Air Shutle ASA. However, we don't actually know the real ownership of these companies as and in those structures but it seems complex to just sell property not belonging to oneself. One can assume that "DY(insert number here) Aviation Ireland Ltd" (which all are 100 % owned by Norwegian) may be a shareholder of "DY(insert number here) Leasing LLC".

I really hope that they will be around for a while (at least on intra europe) as the market wouldn't benefit from less competition during these consolidation times.
Did you know that you can run diesel cars on Jet A1?
 
mcdu
Topic Author
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:17 pm

Mortyman wrote:
mcdu wrote:
Mortyman wrote:


So they are selling delivery positions. Norwegian doesn’t own those A321’s they own the right to buy their spots on the production line. That’s a big difference than selling tangible owned aircraft. The value of those delivery slots is dependent upon the market demand. Is there a huge demand for the A321neo? Is there a carrier that really needs those spots? If the economy continues to show signs of contraction those slots become less and less valuable.

So I go back to the point. Norwegian has very few if any assets. They are a paper company with too many alias operations with no value.



The way I understand it is that they plan on selling Airbus 320's and older Boeing 737-800NG's and keep the planned Airbus 321's for now. It has always been the plan to lease out / sell the Airbus 320''s and sell older Boeing 737-800's and replace most of the NG's with Max that they have on order.


I may be wrong but I understood that Norwegian didn’t own those older airplanes. They lease almost everything. If they do own those planes and sell them what is left to leverage against the heavy losses? Those new planes all come with large price tags. If they can’t afford to stay in business with owner aircaft, selling those for leased aircraft is not going to improve the balance sheet.
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:22 pm

xdlx wrote:
Prost wrote:
I guess I don’t understand why rising fuel costs will hurt Norwegian so much when they have modern 787s. You’d think DL would be hurting flying 767s.


SIMPLE : That shiny new Dreamliner cost a fixed amount ++, DL pays nada for the 767 other than operating cost, plane is depreciated and just printing money when it cranks up to fly.


Bravo. People think you can print money because you’re flying an airplane that has 30% less fuel costs. They forget the tremendous capital outlay to purchase that frame. These airplanes are incredibly expensive. Deltas financial burden with an old fuel guzzler outdoes the new plane. There’s a crossover at some point but it hasn’t been reached.

These ULCCs are hitting the wall with their point to point model. They’ve got planes flying all over the place without the benefit of the feed hubs provide.

That’s hurting the hell out of them and they’ve got a lot of bills to pay with all that shiny new metal/carbon fibre.

I don’t worry too much about my heating an cooling costs for my home once I paid off the mortgage...... same idea.
Stand-by for new ATIS message......
 
Shanasta
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:16 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:36 pm

enilria wrote:
It seems like there is such joy and enthusiasm in the media and on this site for the complete elimination of low priced Atlantic travel. The legacies say Atlantic is their best region, so it’s not even hurting the big carriers. I guess the elites don’t want the peasants to see the world.


Having flown them a half dozen times, I have to agree the pricing and service for said price is exceptional.
 
Natesantiago88
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:34 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:07 am

 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sat Oct 27, 2018 4:38 am

mcdu wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1403137


So they are selling delivery positions. Norwegian doesn’t own those A321’s they own the right to buy their spots on the production line. That’s a big difference than selling tangible owned aircraft. The value of those delivery slots is dependent upon the market demand. Is there a huge demand for the A321neo? Is there a carrier that really needs those spots? If the economy continues to show signs of contraction those slots become less and less valuable.

Up to the late-70's, mainly US legacies, sold options and undelivered new aircraft at a profit, often selling in competition with the OEM.

From the early 80's A, B, GE, PW and RR standard sale and option T&C's precluded re-sale, but was only selectively enforced.

Nearly a decade ago, the subject surfaced again, and not just with Boeing aircraft.

Each OEM has generic agreements, for airlines and leasing companies. Only the very largest customers get to make changes, for a fee.

Leasing companies enjoy special status, but selling options and new aircraft, is not one of them.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:36 am

Andy33 wrote:
aileron1999 wrote:
They purchase their aircraft using subsidized financing at the expense of U.S. tax Payers. They set up head quarters in countries they barely serve to take advantage of favorable tax laws.
Eric

Looks like another person doesn't understand how the US EXIM bank works. There is an agreement between the USA and the EU that airlines domiciled in the one aren't eligible for subsidised financing from the other. So if you set up a corporate headquarters in, say, Ireland, to take advantage of low tax rates, you automatically disqualify yourself from buying Boeings with low cost funding from the US taxpayer. Indeed, although Norway isn't itself in the EU, even if the Norwegian group registered all their airlines and planes in Norway, various association agreements with the EU mean the US-EU agreement still applies there. And of course should you decide to move your airline headquarters outside Europe altogether, you are then disqualified from using the US-EU/EEA open skies agreement and can't fly TATL at all.

US EXIM rules have been eased, plus many of it's offerings are available from AFIC and from others in the private sector.
 
ryanov
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:38 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:16 am

I flew JFK-OSL-AGP on Norwegian a few years ago. Was a nice experience. That said, I since learned who they are and will pay more to avoid them. Employees from one place, planes registered in another place, etc. all to get the cheapest taxes or whatever in every area. No thanks. Hope they go under.
 
User avatar
LuxuryTravelled
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:06 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:19 am

I would question the credibilty of Forbes... It looks like Norwegian are turning a corner - and with no wet-leasing next year, combined with a reduction in the schedule it should produce higher yields.
 
a350lover
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:21 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:39 am

Tiny margins are part of the low cost model. When Ryanair sell tickets STN-MAD at 10€, or Norwegian does MAD-LAX at 160€, yields are inexistent. The problem with Norwegian has been the lack of a solid strategy concentrating efforts in one direction. I might be wrong and maybe I am missing a new way of making business by deploying assets and investment the way Norwegian does (in different regions, with different AOCs, with different fleet companies, with staff "outsourced" which in fact work for an outsourcing company owned by Norwegian). However, their model, taking into account how big they are, should make much more money than it does now.
 
CeddP
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:04 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:52 am

mcdu wrote:
Mortyman wrote:
mcdu wrote:

So they are selling delivery positions. Norwegian doesn’t own those A321’s they own the right to buy their spots on the production line. That’s a big difference than selling tangible owned aircraft. The value of those delivery slots is dependent upon the market demand. Is there a huge demand for the A321neo? Is there a carrier that really needs those spots? If the economy continues to show signs of contraction those slots become less and less valuable.

So I go back to the point. Norwegian has very few if any assets. They are a paper company with too many alias operations with no value.



The way I understand it is that they plan on selling Airbus 320's and older Boeing 737-800NG's and keep the planned Airbus 321's for now. It has always been the plan to lease out / sell the Airbus 320''s and sell older Boeing 737-800's and replace most of the NG's with Max that they have on order.


I may be wrong but I understood that Norwegian didn’t own those older airplanes. They lease almost everything. If they do own those planes and sell them what is left to leverage against the heavy losses? Those new planes all come with large price tags. If they can’t afford to stay in business with owner aircaft, selling those for leased aircraft is not going to improve the balance sheet.


See here, page 8 : https://www.norwegian.com/globalassets/ip/documents/about-us/company/investor-relations/reports-and-presentations/interim-reports/norwegian-q3-2018-presentation.pdf
At the end of 2018, 80 aircrafts will be owned, 84 leased.
 
minister
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:22 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:35 am

LupineChemist wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
HPAEAA wrote:
The question really is, does Norweigen have sufficient cash flow to sustain the losses until they can raise fares.


Until CASK is below RASK, they are unsustainable. Period.

https://www.norwegian.com/globalassets/ ... report.pdf


+1

In an increasing cost environment, primarily because of oil, and in a yield stable (or worse, declining) environment Norwegian's spread between CASK and RASK should worsen.

I feel the real test is if/when they start missing lease payments.
 
senatorflyer
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:57 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:07 am

minister wrote:
LupineChemist wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:

Until CASK is below RASK, they are unsustainable. Period.

https://www.norwegian.com/globalassets/ ... report.pdf


+1

In an increasing cost environment, primarily because of oil, and in a yield stable (or worse, declining) environment Norwegian's spread between CASK and RASK should worsen.

I feel the real test is if/when they start missing lease payments.


Which will happen sooner rather than later. They have not enough short term assets (cash and equivalents) to pay their short term liabilities. The amount of short term liabilities is about 1 billion euros higher. With winter coming they will face difficulties.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 12:20 pm

Shanasta wrote:
enilria wrote:
It seems like there is such joy and enthusiasm in the media and on this site for the complete elimination of low priced Atlantic travel. The legacies say Atlantic is their best region, so it’s not even hurting the big carriers. I guess the elites don’t want the peasants to see the world.


Having flown them a half dozen times, I have to agree the pricing and service for said price is exceptional.


If I sold $20 bills for $10 you'd think my pricing and service was excellent too!
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:25 pm

Hope they make it. I fly BOS/LGW once a month on DY and have always enjoyed the experience.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 757
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:45 pm

mcdu wrote:
The death of Norwegian is upon us. I would not but a ticket for travel more than a week in advance.

What is your booking advice for travel on WOW Air?
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 757
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:52 pm

ro1960 wrote:
I’m surprised to read in the article “It is now the largest foreign airline at NY’s JFK“. I would have thought BA would be.

That was discussed here two weeks ago:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1405775&start=50
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 757
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:10 pm

sixtyseven wrote:
These ULCCs are hitting the wall with their point to point model. They’ve got planes flying all over the place without the benefit of the feed hubs provide.

I thought point to point flying on 787's would be the money making future of air travel. And that we wouldn't have to change flights at hubs anymore. At least that is what Boeing wants us to believe since the introduction of their 'gamechanging' machine. And a lot of people here keep telling how great it is that we can now fly nonstop from Boston to Tokyo and Austin to London.
 
User avatar
vhtje
Posts: 1016
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:14 pm

tphuang wrote:
There is no reason for JFK-LHR J fares to be that much higher than JFK-SFO other than the fact that there is no low cost competition.


Utter nonsense. Airport charges and navigation fees are higher TATL compared to domestic US routes. Staffing costs are higher since crew flying TATL need more downtime at the destination before returning. Aircraft costs are higher since larger aircraft are typically used TATL compared to domestic US flying. Plus the airlines' contributions to immigration and quarantine and associated services, which are obviously passed on to customers in ticket prices. Then there are taxes and charges levied on international tickets. I could go on...
I only turn left when boarding aircraft. Well, mostly. All right, sometimes. OH OKAY - rarely.
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1175
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:31 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
sixtyseven wrote:
These ULCCs are hitting the wall with their point to point model. They’ve got planes flying all over the place without the benefit of the feed hubs provide.

I thought point to point flying on 787's would be the money making future of air travel. And that we wouldn't have to change flights at hubs anymore. At least that is what Boeing wants us to believe since the introduction of their 'gamechanging' machine. And a lot of people here keep telling how great it is that we can now fly nonstop from Boston to Tokyo and Austin to London.


Boeing has been using that as a selling point for years. There have been some new point to pont routes but imho they were a natural result of econimic growth, not an airplane type. Many point to point city pairs have failed.
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:33 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
sixtyseven wrote:
These ULCCs are hitting the wall with their point to point model. They’ve got planes flying all over the place without the benefit of the feed hubs provide.

I thought point to point flying on 787's would be the money making future of air travel. And that we wouldn't have to change flights at hubs anymore. At least that is what Boeing wants us to believe since the introduction of their 'gamechanging' machine. And a lot of people here keep telling how great it is that we can now fly nonstop from Boston to Tokyo and Austin to London.


I think there’s some markets where this works but I think the market is saturated. While there are people on here that would love a Tulsa to Lisbon route I don’t think it’s feasible but it’s great selfishly. Especially at the fares being charged on these routes to stimulate the demand.

I think the hub system guarantees a certain amount of traffic for an airline allowing them to offer certain point to point routes which might not be able to stand-alone. But this flexibility is lost on some of these other de hubbed carriers.

I guess the proof is in the pudding but Norweigan and the Iceland carriers seem to have hit a bit of a wall. Iceland is smelling like a bit of a fad that’s wearing off to me. No offence to the country.
Stand-by for new ATIS message......
 
kalvado
Posts: 2031
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:57 pm

ryanov wrote:
I flew JFK-OSL-AGP on Norwegian a few years ago. Was a nice experience. That said, I since learned who they are and will pay more to avoid them. Employees from one place, planes registered in another place, etc. all to get the cheapest taxes or whatever in every area. No thanks. Hope they go under.

Welcome to 21st century, bro. Everyone is doing same thing as much as they can - and you're just bashing those who are most successful here.
You know, those big airlines flying planes built by Chicago-based company and maintaining them far away from US - an connecting to flight which have nothing to do with the airline, "you see this is REGIONAl flight!". And US3 crews, of course, don't have to commute overseas - just transcon, because the hub is in an expensive city..
There are many more examples here, those are just aviation related.
 
User avatar
adambrau
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:44 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:38 pm

enilria wrote:
It seems like there is such joy and enthusiasm in the media and on this site for the complete elimination of low priced Atlantic travel. The legacies say Atlantic is their best region, so it’s not even hurting the big carriers. I guess the elites don’t want the peasants to see the world.


I know you are one of the more knowledgeable posters on .net but

A) of course United/AA/DL Management, and their European partners would be delighted to see Norwegian disappear;

B) your suggestion of 'elites' wanting to steer clear of the 'peasants' is a stretch. We all have to clomp through airports that are overcrowded, and that is before you get on the p-lane. Maybe there was a haughty attitude toward deregulation when the US Government set into play "the race to the bottom" with air fares freed up and domestic air routes given to as many carriers wanted to fly them. Legislation that went into effect in 1979, effectively 30 years ago. Norwegian is just the latest evolution to Peoples' Express/Laker experiment.

C) I have many friends who fly Norwegian because they can get a premium cabin ticket at huge discounts to the majors. But after separating out premium cabins price differentials, I always get the sense that the US3 and EU3 are filling their economy cabins by unbundling various services, a concept that they undoubtedly copied straight from the practices introduced by the ULCC's. In the end, maybe 5% of passengers flying summer RT Gatwick to NYC on a £250 ticket and then ++ at the airport; in the end do the vast majority save that much over the legacies' economy basic fares? Has anyone really seen Norwegian's financials?

I'm on your side - a Norwegian bankruptcy would be bad news for consumers. They offer a good product and with all the airline consolidation since DL/NW, the competition is good and many people are employed in aviation. I think the 747 was called the "Everyone's airplane" by Pan Am as it really opened up int'l air travel to many who couldn't afford it before, so that was another 10 years before Deregulation. I don't follow airlines profitability religiously but I can tell United and Delta are doing well and American perhaps a bit behind? Wouldn't surprise me all that much for a weaker financial line to drop out of the race when the next 'unforeseeable' shock hits the global economy, as it inevitably will.
Let's keep the skies friendly.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3249
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:45 pm

vhtje wrote:
tphuang wrote:
There is no reason for JFK-LHR J fares to be that much higher than JFK-SFO other than the fact that there is no low cost competition.


Utter nonsense. Airport charges and navigation fees are higher TATL compared to domestic US routes. Staffing costs are higher since crew flying TATL need more downtime at the destination before returning. Aircraft costs are higher since larger aircraft are typically used TATL compared to domestic US flying. Plus the airlines' contributions to immigration and quarantine and associated services, which are obviously passed on to customers in ticket prices. Then there are taxes and charges levied on international tickets. I could go on...

We took a look at a ticket itinerary for jfk lhr a while back. It was under 300 rt for j seat. Not nearly as high as people keep on saying. There was a time not so long ago when transcon j fares were routinely $4000 too. And again, the much longer ewr sin flights are under $6000 rt on sq. Jfk lhr is less than half that distance.

The fares are where they are due to lack of competition in the premium sector outside of the legacy jv. Which is why I encourage any kind of competition in tatl.
 
User avatar
adambrau
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:44 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:31 pm

tphuang wrote:
vhtje wrote:
tphuang wrote:
There is no reason for JFK-LHR J fares to be that much higher than JFK-SFO other than the fact that there is no low cost competition.


Utter nonsense. Airport charges and navigation fees are higher TATL compared to domestic US routes. Staffing costs are higher since crew flying TATL need more downtime at the destination before returning. Aircraft costs are higher since larger aircraft are typically used TATL compared to domestic US flying. Plus the airlines' contributions to immigration and quarantine and associated services, which are obviously passed on to customers in ticket prices. Then there are taxes and charges levied on international tickets. I could go on...

We took a look at a ticket itinerary for jfk lhr a while back. It was under 300 rt for j seat. Not nearly as high as people keep on saying. There was a time not so long ago when transcon j fares were routinely $4000 too. And again, the much longer ewr sin flights are under $6000 rt on sq. Jfk lhr is less than half that distance.

The fares are where they are due to lack of competition in the premium sector outside of the legacy jv. Which is why I encourage any kind of competition in tatl.


I just spoke with my assistant who always flies Norwegian across the Atlantic for personal trips, and every time he applied for a cash upgrade to their premium cabin he got it (which he said was not completely lay flat compared to when he flies UA or LX or LH but maybe it was an older cabin rollout). He only paid a few hundred bucks each way on 6 flights and he said said the service/food was great. So say he paid something like $800 all in to sit in a premium cabin that is still pretty rock bottom revenue pull. Closest I have found, occasionally, EWR-FRA on UA/LH for around $2700 RT but it is only that route (I think SQ undercuts them) - and I am not going to fly to Budapest or Athens to get a cheap business fare to London and waste all that time. The US3 (for them) are trying to pick up their hard and soft game, but most business class tickets before the corporate discount are now over $7k RT. And it can be well over 10K if it's last minute. Urban legend dictates the legacies earn bank in Business and First, I can't help feel Norwegian is at a strategic disadvantage with their pricing model. I think the ULCC model is here to stay but I would only fly them last minute and if there was nothing else. I haven't been to JFK since UA pulled out anyway (I live very close to the Holland Tunnel and WTC (PATH) so EWR is closer regardless). Anyway, let's hope that with the ULCC/LCC carriers that have gone TangoU hopefully that is enough breathing space to get Norwegian through the winter season.
Let's keep the skies friendly.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14904
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:41 pm

aileron1999 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Legacy carriers across TATL have not brought reasonable fares to us. Compared to the fares across TPAC, TATL fares especially in premium cabin are astronomical. While I personally don't like DY's reckless route planning, they have at least done something to lower the fares for consumers. For that, I support them 100%. The problem I have is with their reckless CEO who is going to burn them to the ground with his expansion planning.


Fares arcross the Pacific are trashed by subsidized Chinese Airlines. Look at some of the prices and tell me how an airline can survive charging that without subsidies. Case in point Americans withdrawal from the Chicago China market. Again not sustainable.

I could change the word “reasonable” with sustainable. But ultimately they mean the same thing. The fares Norwegian charges are not sustainable. They are great for those who can take advantage of it but they are not sustainable. Legacy airlines charge a higher fare, but it is a fare that can sustain the cost of business over the long haul. Thus a “reasonable fare”

That’s the issue, no? There are those that think they “deserve” the fares that are charged by money losing airlines or during a fare war, and it’s not fair that those fares go away when the fare war ends le the airline goes bust.

Same was true in Hawaii. The unsustainable fares drove airlines out of business and now that fares inter island are at a level that is sustainable, many in Hawaii say they are being gouged by greedy airlines.

It comes from people not understanding the costs involved in the products they want to buy, and it’s magnified by seat dumping, fare wars and venture capital distorting markets by allowing for lower than cost fares charged by new entrants.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3249
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:54 pm

ikramerica wrote:
aileron1999 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Legacy carriers across TATL have not brought reasonable fares to us. Compared to the fares across TPAC, TATL fares especially in premium cabin are astronomical. While I personally don't like DY's reckless route planning, they have at least done something to lower the fares for consumers. For that, I support them 100%. The problem I have is with their reckless CEO who is going to burn them to the ground with his expansion planning.


Fares arcross the Pacific are trashed by subsidized Chinese Airlines. Look at some of the prices and tell me how an airline can survive charging that without subsidies. Case in point Americans withdrawal from the Chicago China market. Again not sustainable.

I could change the word “reasonable” with sustainable. But ultimately they mean the same thing. The fares Norwegian charges are not sustainable. They are great for those who can take advantage of it but they are not sustainable. Legacy airlines charge a higher fare, but it is a fare that can sustain the cost of business over the long haul. Thus a “reasonable fare”

That’s the issue, no? There are those that think they “deserve” the fares that are charged by money losing airlines or during a fare war, and it’s not fair that those fares go away when the fare war ends le the airline goes bust.

Same was true in Hawaii. The unsustainable fares drove airlines out of business and now that fares inter island are at a level that is sustainable, many in Hawaii say they are being gouged by greedy airlines.

It comes from people not understanding the costs involved in the products they want to buy, and it’s magnified by seat dumping, fare wars and venture capital distorting markets by allowing for lower than cost fares charged by new entrants.


The fares across TPAC by very high quality carriers like SQ, JL and CX have been that way for years. They are not going away. The premium transcon fares in America were high for years and have now crashed since mint entrance. And clearly, everyone is still in business. DY model is unsustainable because it has been expanding too fast and into places they shouldn't. Even if they fail, it doesn't mean airlines can't be sustainable if the premium cabin fares fall by 30% over TATL.

My issue is the idea that we should be satisfied with limited competition by these 3 powerful legacy JVs over TATL. This is a huge market. And maybe not every new airline will succeed. But consumers are right to ask for more choices on such a large market where the premium sector is monopolized. We've seen what can happen in premium sector in TPAC and in TCON market. Legacy airlines are clearly making boatload over TATL. This has been covered in all the recent earning calls. I welcome any new competition in this sector.

I welcome EI and TP who are providing much lower priced TATL J fares. Check JFK to DUB vs JFK-LHR fares. The former can be had for $2500 on EI and the latter is $4500 in January.
 
Busyboy2
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 1:57 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:13 pm

enilria wrote:
It seems like there is such joy and enthusiasm in the media and on this site for the complete elimination of low priced Atlantic travel. The legacies say Atlantic is their best region, so it’s not even hurting the big carriers. I guess the elites don’t want the peasants to see the world.


You had to know this statement couldnt go unchallenged. Im neither a peasant or an elite and i cross the Atlantic a few times a year. All on global carriers.
 
reality
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:01 pm

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:31 pm

adambrau wrote:
tphuang wrote:
vhtje wrote:

Utter nonsense. Airport charges and navigation fees are higher TATL compared to domestic US routes. Staffing costs are higher since crew flying TATL need more downtime at the destination before returning. Aircraft costs are higher since larger aircraft are typically used TATL compared to domestic US flying. Plus the airlines' contributions to immigration and quarantine and associated services, which are obviously passed on to customers in ticket prices. Then there are taxes and charges levied on international tickets. I could go on...

We took a look at a ticket itinerary for jfk lhr a while back. It was under 300 rt for j seat. Not nearly as high as people keep on saying. There was a time not so long ago when transcon j fares were routinely $4000 too. And again, the much longer ewr sin flights are under $6000 rt on sq. Jfk lhr is less than half that distance.

The fares are where they are due to lack of competition in the premium sector outside of the legacy jv. Which is why I encourage any kind of competition in tatl.


I just spoke with my assistant who always flies Norwegian across the Atlantic for personal trips, and every time he applied for a cash upgrade to their premium cabin he got it (which he said was not completely lay flat compared to when he flies UA or LX or LH but maybe it was an older cabin rollout). He only paid a few hundred bucks each way on 6 flights and he said said the service/food was great. So say he paid something like $800 all in to sit in a premium cabin that is still pretty rock bottom revenue pull. Closest I have found, occasionally, EWR-FRA on UA/LH for around $2700 RT but it is only that route (I think SQ undercuts them) - and I am not going to fly to Budapest or Athens to get a cheap business fare to London and waste all that time. The US3 (for them) are trying to pick up their hard and soft game, but most business class tickets before the corporate discount are now over $7k RT. And it can be well over 10K if it's last minute. Urban legend dictates the legacies earn bank in Business and First, I can't help feel Norwegian is at a strategic disadvantage with their pricing model. I think the ULCC model is here to stay but I would only fly them last minute and if there was nothing else. I haven't been to JFK since UA pulled out anyway (I live very close to the Holland Tunnel and WTC (PATH) so EWR is closer regardless). Anyway, let's hope that with the ULCC/LCC carriers that have gone TangoU hopefully that is enough breathing space to get Norwegian through the winter season.


Norwegian "Premium" is somewhere in-between other airlines' premium economy and business class. It is not business class and really should not be compared to business class in other airlines--neither pricewise nor comfortwise.. The seats are not lie-flat. They are 7 across in the 787 (compared to 9 across in Norwegian economy), are only 19" wide but have a generous 46" pitch. These are not business class standards. No pampering. No over the top meals. No unlimited alcoholic drinks. No luxurious lounges (though they do include third-party lounges in some airports). It is actually a brilliant strategy. Much, much better than the usual premium economy product elsewhere. Many people don't need full business class amenities--they just want a comfortable seat that reclines substantially, has plenty of legroom, and all this at a fair price. Norwegian offers this.

Typical round trip PREMIUM fares JFK - LGW are around $1200 when purchased well in advance and can easily top $2000 when purchased closer to the flight date. Last minute upgrades may not be as cheap as you suggest--at least not to LGW--and you may end up in a middle seat. Return fares to Scandinavia are somewhat less. Other cities, like Rome, are quite a bit higher.
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:04 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
ro1960 wrote:
I’m surprised to read in the article “It is now the largest foreign airline at NY’s JFK“. I would have thought BA would be.

That was discussed here two weeks ago:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1405775&start=50


Thanks for the link. 40k pax difference, not much but still.
You may like my airport photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aeroports
 
a350lover
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:21 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:00 pm

reality wrote:
Norwegian "Premium" is somewhere in-between other airlines' premium economy and business class. It is not business class and really should not be compared to business class in other airlines--neither pricewise nor comfortwise.. The seats are not lie-flat. They are 7 across in the 787 (compared to 9 across in Norwegian economy), are only 19" wide but have a generous 46" pitch. These are not business class standards. No pampering. No over the top meals. No unlimited alcoholic drinks. No luxurious lounges (though they do include third-party lounges in some airports). It is actually a brilliant strategy. Much, much better than the usual premium economy product elsewhere. Many people don't need full business class amenities--they just want a comfortable seat that reclines substantially, has plenty of legroom, and all this at a fair price. Norwegian offers this.

Typical round trip PREMIUM fares JFK - LGW are around $1200 when purchased well in advance and can easily top $2000 when purchased closer to the flight date. Last minute upgrades may not be as cheap as you suggest--at least not to LGW--and you may end up in a middle seat. Return fares to Scandinavia are somewhat less. Other cities, like Rome, are quite a bit higher.


Norwegian Premium product is certainly a good proposal. The problem is it took too long for Norwegian to realize that, as for every player in this industry, the front part of the airplane is where they have to focus in order to make some business. They were just too enthusiastic about selling low cost long haul tickets and for pioneering that in the market, which is fine, but does not report much revenue. Not long time ago, they announced plans to increase the capacity of the Premium Cabins in their 787s, although the issue with poor yields remains there since most of the network they cover is mainly leisure-focused (BCN, FCO, BKK....), with some other routes preseting a mix of pax, but marketed mainly for the low-cost lovers who do not fly at the front i.e LGW-OAK, LGW-LAX, LGW-JFK, ORY-EWR, AMS-JFK, MAD-JFK....
 
senatorflyer
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:57 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:18 pm

adambrau wrote:
tphuang wrote:
vhtje wrote:

Utter nonsense. Airport charges and navigation fees are higher TATL compared to domestic US routes. Staffing costs are higher since crew flying TATL need more downtime at the destination before returning. Aircraft costs are higher since larger aircraft are typically used TATL compared to domestic US flying. Plus the airlines' contributions to immigration and quarantine and associated services, which are obviously passed on to customers in ticket prices. Then there are taxes and charges levied on international tickets. I could go on...

We took a look at a ticket itinerary for jfk lhr a while back. It was under 300 rt for j seat. Not nearly as high as people keep on saying. There was a time not so long ago when transcon j fares were routinely $4000 too. And again, the much longer ewr sin flights are under $6000 rt on sq. Jfk lhr is less than half that distance.

The fares are where they are due to lack of competition in the premium sector outside of the legacy jv. Which is why I encourage any kind of competition in tatl.


I just spoke with my assistant who always flies Norwegian across the Atlantic for personal trips, and every time he applied for a cash upgrade to their premium cabin he got it (which he said was not completely lay flat compared to when he flies UA or LX or LH but maybe it was an older cabin rollout). He only paid a few hundred bucks each way on 6 flights and he said said the service/food was great. So say he paid something like $800 all in to sit in a premium cabin that is still pretty rock bottom revenue pull. Closest I have found, occasionally, EWR-FRA on UA/LH for around $2700 RT but it is only that route (I think SQ undercuts them) - and I am not going to fly to Budapest or Athens to get a cheap business fare to London and waste all that time. The US3 (for them) are trying to pick up their hard and soft game, but most business class tickets before the corporate discount are now over $7k RT. And it can be well over 10K if it's last minute. Urban legend dictates the legacies earn bank in Business and First, I can't help feel Norwegian is at a strategic disadvantage with their pricing model. I think the ULCC model is here to stay but I would only fly them last minute and if there was nothing else. I haven't been to JFK since UA pulled out anyway (I live very close to the Holland Tunnel and WTC (PATH) so EWR is closer regardless). Anyway, let's hope that with the ULCC/LCC carriers that have gone TangoU hopefully that is enough breathing space to get Norwegian through the winter season.



You do realise that Norwegian only offers premium economy and no business class?
 
ryanov
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:38 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Mon Oct 29, 2018 12:36 am

kalvado wrote:
Welcome to 21st century, bro. Everyone is doing same thing as much as they can - and you're just bashing those who are most successful here.
You know, those big airlines flying planes built by Chicago-based company and maintaining them far away from US - an connecting to flight which have nothing to do with the airline, "you see this is REGIONAl flight!". And US3 crews, of course, don't have to commute overseas - just transcon, because the hub is in an expensive city..
There are many more examples here, those are just aviation related.


No, it isn’t the same thing. Norwegian’s behavior is akin to registering a car in a state other than the one you live so that your costs are lower, not like getting it repaired out of state. For the record, I don’t appreciate the overseas heavy maintenance either, but Norwegian is far beyond any of that.

And I don’t fly on subcontracted flights either (thankfully, that’s almost always possible on the airline I choose).

Bottom line: it’s my money, I’ll spend it how I see fit, and I think there should be regulation to prevent these scammers (as well as enforcement of anti-monopolistic regulations to prevent the major airlines from price-fixing).
 
kalvado
Posts: 2031
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Norwegian survival questioned-Forbes

Mon Oct 29, 2018 1:30 am

ryanov wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Welcome to 21st century, bro. Everyone is doing same thing as much as they can - and you're just bashing those who are most successful here.
You know, those big airlines flying planes built by Chicago-based company and maintaining them far away from US - an connecting to flight which have nothing to do with the airline, "you see this is REGIONAl flight!". And US3 crews, of course, don't have to commute overseas - just transcon, because the hub is in an expensive city..
There are many more examples here, those are just aviation related.


No, it isn’t the same thing. Norwegian’s behavior is akin to registering a car in a state other than the one you live so that your costs are lower, not like getting it repaired out of state. For the record, I don’t appreciate the overseas heavy maintenance either, but Norwegian is far beyond any of that.

And I don’t fly on subcontracted flights either (thankfully, that’s almost always possible on the airline I choose).

Bottom line: it’s my money, I’ll spend it how I see fit, and I think there should be regulation to prevent these scammers (as well as enforcement of anti-monopolistic regulations to prevent the major airlines from price-fixing).

Sure you may spend your money the way you see it fit. But I am afraid you would have a hard time spending anything if you choose to apply strict ethics criteria to each and every vendor. And - surprise-surprise - the more cheap labor company uses, the more creative their accounting is, the more competitive advantage it gets. I see Norwegian as playing by the corporate rules of 21st century which have nothing to do with old style ethics. Love it or hate it - you don't make those rules (and neither am I)

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