wexfordflyer wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

wexfordflyer wrote:

I understood that you said "And in all fairness, if one can’t fork out 100 eur more for a ticket then I think he/she shouldn’t travel.". And I think that's narrow minded and elitist. And I stand by that.

BA having tickets for £260 is irrelevant. I'm also sure that LHR-NYC for £260 on BA is few and far between.

I never commented on whether fares should increase, decrease or anything. I said opening up travel to all (regardless of whether you can fork out 100eur or more) is a good thing. Prices of tickets is one aspect, limiting flying to those who can afford certain prices is completely another. Bringing in whether people can have comfort money while away is a whole other ballgame. In the elite world you might have it, in the real world alot of people don't. They should still be able to fly if they either want or need to.

If the business model can't sustain lower fares, then fair enough. And it may exclude people from being able to access travel, which is unfortunate. Excluding them because of what they can afford I think is bad form.

WOW tried, and they failed. Norwegian are trying, whether they succeed only time will tell.

Travel is already open to everyone even on legacies. Flying has never been as cheap as it is today. Hence your statement makes no sense. But the reality is there are always people who can’t afford one thing or the other.

Yes, there are people who can't afford things. That's totally different to saying they should be excluded "unless they can afford XXXeur". You still haven't given any reason to support your initial statement. Travel has never been as cheap, in part due to the like of WOW. Although it seems you would rather is wasn't open to everyone.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, as it's getting quite off topic.

Where did I say people should be excluded? And where did I say I don’t want travel to be open to everyone?

I said ticket prices are at rock bottom with all the legacies. So if you’d actually would make an effort to check all the cheap deals available from the UK to the US and Canada from 250 GBP upwards with legacies then you would understand what I am saying. If the 250 GBP is already too expensive for someone then yes, I think one shouldn’t go on a TATL holiday simply to not run into any financial trouble while abroad.

Surely Norwegian can only benefit from WOWs demise? Those 3.5m need to find other carriers to use so any carriers that overlapped WWs network will benefit. Norwegian have seen off both primera and WOW and hopefully can pull things together to make the low cost long haul model work.
IF Norwegian fail, then who is left? Mainly Legacy Airlines that will likely soon bump up prices.

Sad for their employees. But the reaction from klm617 will be pure gold.

Pbb152 wrote:

Sad for their employees. But the reaction from klm617 will be pure gold.

What do you mean? It's the little engine that could!

Virgin Atlantic just posted on their Facebook page they're offering
special " Rescue fares" to WW pax stranded by the shutdown.

Great move by VS. What they lose in short term revenue
will be made up by long term goodwill

Sooner787 wrote:

Virgin Atlantic just posted on their Facebook page they're offering
special " Rescue fares" to WW pax stranded by the shutdown.

Great move by VS. What they lose in short term revenue
will be made up by long term goodwill

Icelandair and Wizz have also offered such fares. Icelandair has also offered stranded WOW employees abroad free tickets to get back home.

Reykjavík Excursions have had to lay off 59 people cause of this.

https://www.visir.is/g/2019190328758/59 ... nnisferdum

Pbb152 wrote:

Sad for their employees. But the reaction from klm617 will be pure gold.

"IF THEY LEASED AN A380 AND FLEW TO DTW WITH IT, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ANY FINANCIAL PROBLEMS!!!"

To all the people in this thread who are saying that the low-cost long-haul business model is good, the collapse of WOW here and the serious financial problems of Norwegian show us that it cleariy is not. You can't just expect to pay peanuts for a 8-hour transatlantic flight. From Stansted to Barcelona, sure, but on such a route? It's just not going to be profitable. Not everything can be free and available to everyone. This is also why I don't see any low-cost long-haul boom happening with the A321XLR - either that or it will pop up, last a few years and then we will be seeing lots of bankrupt airline-related news on here

wexfordflyer wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

max999 wrote:

That's incredibly narrow minded and elitist. Making travel affordable for all is a positive thing. Sometimes people have no choice but need to fly, for things like family bereavements, medical treatment or relocation for jobs, etc. Maybe these people do not have much money, but surely they shouldn't be excluded from flying? Yes, in many cases they may not have sufficient "spare change" while abroad, but not all of us have that luxury.

No need to further separate the "haves" and "have nots".

While the WOW business model proved to be unsustainable, them being part of opening up the opportunity to travel to more people was a positive thing.

No, " making travel affordable for all is a positive thing" is absolutely untrue. We have seen places ruined environmentally and culturally because of unrestricted mass tourism.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

asuflyer wrote:

TF-JOY was repossessed at YUL earlier this evening.

That may be one of the LATAM-owned frames (managed by Air Lease Corporation, if the NTU information is correct). I expect TF-JOY, TF-GMA, and TF-GPA to be taken back by LATAM if indeed they were the true owners.

TF-NOW, which had been on a wet-lease, is currently grounded at MIA. TF-PRO was earlier repossessed at YUL. Both NOW and PRO are owned by Shanghai's Bank of Communication (BoComm), and I expect both frames to be ferried to the desert for temporary storage.

Status of each plane:
CAT (A321): stuck at EWR (owned by Goshawk)
DOG (A321): stuck at BOS (owned by Goshawk)
DTR (A21N): stuck at BWI (owned by ALC)
GMA (A321): stuck at YYZ (managed by ALC, may be owned by LATAM Airlines Group)
GPA (A321): last flew on March 18, at KEF (managed by ALC, may be owned by LATAM)
JOY (A321): repossessed at YUL tonight (managed by ALC, may be owned by LATAM)
NEO (A20N): ferried KEF-LJU on March 21 on lease return (owned by ALC)
NOW (A321): repossessed at MIA on March 24 (owned by BoComm)
PRO (A321): repossessed at YUL on March 24 (owned by BoComm)
SKY (A21N): stuck at CPH (owned by ALC)
WIN (A321): stuck at DTW (owned by ALC)

To have to pay out of pocket to return home---YIKES! Only 7 planes departed KEF today out of KEF for WW.

Considering only 1 out of 10 planes is at home.... does anyone know what's the current situation of the crews down route?

I love how bipolar this forum is. The same people who are absolutely obsessed with yields and claim that everything except for NYC - LHR and such is "Irrelevant with trash yields" come on threads like this and say that air travel should be cheap and accessible to everyone

senatorflyer wrote:

wexfordflyer wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

Travel is already open to everyone even on legacies. Flying has never been as cheap as it is today. Hence your statement makes no sense. But the reality is there are always people who can’t afford one thing or the other.

Yes, there are people who can't afford things. That's totally different to saying they should be excluded "unless they can afford XXXeur". You still haven't given any reason to support your initial statement. Travel has never been as cheap, in part due to the like of WOW. Although it seems you would rather is wasn't open to everyone.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, as it's getting quite off topic.

Where did I say people should be excluded? And where did I say I don’t want travel to be open to everyone?

I said ticket prices are at rock bottom with all the legacies. So if you’d actually would make an effort to check all the cheap deals available from the UK to the US and Canada from 250 GBP upwards with legacies then you would understand what I am saying. If the 250 GBP is already too expensive for someone then yes, I think one shouldn’t go on a TATL holiday simply to not run into any financial trouble while abroad.

I don't know what city you live in but I can assure you tickets out of Detroit are not rock bottom. Please show me a round trip between DTW and London for 250 pounds

multimark wrote:

wexfordflyer wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

That's incredibly narrow minded and elitist. Making travel affordable for all is a positive thing. Sometimes people have no choice but need to fly, for things like family bereavements, medical treatment or relocation for jobs, etc. Maybe these people do not have much money, but surely they shouldn't be excluded from flying? Yes, in many cases they may not have sufficient "spare change" while abroad, but not all of us have that luxury.

No need to further separate the "haves" and "have nots".

While the WOW business model proved to be unsustainable, them being part of opening up the opportunity to travel to more people was a positive thing.

No, " making travel affordable for all is a positive thing" is absolutely untrue. We have seen places ruined environmentally and culturally because of unrestricted mass tourism.

Like I said earlier, I find it funny that there is much less criticism of the ultra-rich flying in F or J, or private jets, which are doing just as much environmental damage as a plane full of middle class tourists.

Many people who fly WOW or Norwegian probably only fly once or twice a year, and those flying in bigger, more spacious F and J seats (or worse, private jets) are usually flying far more frequently, and are making more of an individual environmental impact.

senatorflyer wrote:

wexfordflyer wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

I don’t think you understood what I was saying. You can book a BA ticket from LHR to BOS or NYC from GBP 260 (includes even food and drinks), if this is too expensive for someone then I am really puzzled. Fares are already as low as they can get, even with legacies.

Bereavements are ‚last minute’ events, and as a result most airfares will be expensive at short notice, even LCC.

I understood that you said "And in all fairness, if one can’t fork out 100 eur more for a ticket then I think he/she shouldn’t travel.". And I think that's narrow minded and elitist. And I stand by that.

BA having tickets for £260 is irrelevant. I'm also sure that LHR-NYC for £260 on BA is few and far between.

I never commented on whether fares should increase, decrease or anything. I said opening up travel to all (regardless of whether you can fork out 100eur or more) is a good thing. Prices of tickets is one aspect, limiting flying to those who can afford certain prices is completely another. Bringing in whether people can have comfort money while away is a whole other ballgame. In the elite world you might have it, in the real world alot of people don't. They should still be able to fly if they either want or need to.

If the business model can't sustain lower fares, then fair enough. And it may exclude people from being able to access travel, which is unfortunate. Excluding them because of what they can afford I think is bad form.

WOW tried, and they failed. Norwegian are trying, whether they succeed only time will tell.

Travel is already open to everyone even on legacies. Flying has never been as cheap as it is today. Hence your statement makes no sense. But the reality is there are always people who can’t afford one thing or the other.

If you live outside the major markets travel is outragesly expensive.

Icelandair should try to get their hands on some of the A320/1 and crew from WOW to swap out the MAX.

FlapsOne wrote:

It’s very sad to see it go and I feel a chapter is closing on LCC TATL flights. Soon it will go back to the preserve of the middle classes and today’s inclusive offerings whereby everyone can afford to fly is sadly drawing to a close. I feel we take a step back in the evolution of the industry.

A sad day.

I would argue that not everyone could afford to fly – – their fares were being subsidized by investor money. Otherwise the airline would not have gone i
Insolvent. But I will agree yes, a sad day.

washingtonflyer wrote:

Maybe AA can grab an available A321 for use in their grounded Max fleet...

It would take months to convert them. Makes no sense.

klm617 wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

wexfordflyer wrote:

I understood that you said "And in all fairness, if one can’t fork out 100 eur more for a ticket then I think he/she shouldn’t travel.". And I think that's narrow minded and elitist. And I stand by that.

BA having tickets for £260 is irrelevant. I'm also sure that LHR-NYC for £260 on BA is few and far between.

I never commented on whether fares should increase, decrease or anything. I said opening up travel to all (regardless of whether you can fork out 100eur or more) is a good thing. Prices of tickets is one aspect, limiting flying to those who can afford certain prices is completely another. Bringing in whether people can have comfort money while away is a whole other ballgame. In the elite world you might have it, in the real world alot of people don't. They should still be able to fly if they either want or need to.

If the business model can't sustain lower fares, then fair enough. And it may exclude people from being able to access travel, which is unfortunate. Excluding them because of what they can afford I think is bad form.

WOW tried, and they failed. Norwegian are trying, whether they succeed only time will tell.

Travel is already open to everyone even on legacies. Flying has never been as cheap as it is today. Hence your statement makes no sense. But the reality is there are always people who can’t afford one thing or the other.

If you live outside the major markets travel is outragesly expensive.

That's just because the demand outside those major markets doesn't warrant the same level of service, unfortunately, and those flights that do exist need to be expensive to warrant their existence over connecting flights via bigger airports.

BBC news saying that around 10,000 passengers are affected, guess not all are abroad.

multimark wrote:

wexfordflyer wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

That's incredibly narrow minded and elitist. Making travel affordable for all is a positive thing. Sometimes people have no choice but need to fly, for things like family bereavements, medical treatment or relocation for jobs, etc. Maybe these people do not have much money, but surely they shouldn't be excluded from flying? Yes, in many cases they may not have sufficient "spare change" while abroad, but not all of us have that luxury.

No need to further separate the "haves" and "have nots".

While the WOW business model proved to be unsustainable, them being part of opening up the opportunity to travel to more people was a positive thing.

No, " making travel affordable for all is a positive thing" is absolutely untrue. We have seen places ruined environmentally and culturally because of unrestricted mass tourism.

Travel and tourism are two different things. People don't always travel for tourism. Your point on places being ruined due to unrestricted tourism is true. But travel being affordable isn't the simplistic blame point for that.

a350lover wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

asuflyer wrote:

TF-JOY was repossessed at YUL earlier this evening.

That may be one of the LATAM-owned frames (managed by Air Lease Corporation, if the NTU information is correct). I expect TF-JOY, TF-GMA, and TF-GPA to be taken back by LATAM if indeed they were the true owners.

TF-NOW, which had been on a wet-lease, is currently grounded at MIA. TF-PRO was earlier repossessed at YUL. Both NOW and PRO are owned by Shanghai's Bank of Communication (BoComm), and I expect both frames to be ferried to the desert for temporary storage.

Status of each plane:
CAT (A321): stuck at EWR (owned by Goshawk)
DOG (A321): stuck at BOS (owned by Goshawk)
DTR (A21N): stuck at BWI (owned by ALC)
GMA (A321): stuck at YYZ (managed by ALC, may be owned by LATAM Airlines Group)
GPA (A321): last flew on March 18, at KEF (managed by ALC, may be owned by LATAM)
JOY (A321): repossessed at YUL tonight (managed by ALC, may be owned by LATAM)
NEO (A20N): ferried KEF-LJU on March 21 on lease return (owned by ALC)
NOW (A321): repossessed at MIA on March 24 (owned by BoComm)
PRO (A321): repossessed at YUL on March 24 (owned by BoComm)
SKY (A21N): stuck at CPH (owned by ALC)
WIN (A321): stuck at DTW (owned by ALC)

To have to pay out of pocket to return home---YIKES! Only 7 planes departed KEF today out of KEF for WW.

Considering only 1 out of 10 planes is at home.... does anyone know what's the current situation of the crews down route?

FI is flying all stranded WOW crews home for free today/tonight.

Well looks like Thomas Cook might be able to get their hands on some last minute 321 additions for S19 and drop those abominations that are Avion Express and Smartlynx.

Sad for all employees, glad to see Icelandair helping them get home.

Fex180 wrote:

multimark wrote:

wexfordflyer wrote:

That's incredibly narrow minded and elitist. Making travel affordable for all is a positive thing. Sometimes people have no choice but need to fly, for things like family bereavements, medical treatment or relocation for jobs, etc. Maybe these people do not have much money, but surely they shouldn't be excluded from flying? Yes, in many cases they may not have sufficient "spare change" while abroad, but not all of us have that luxury.

No need to further separate the "haves" and "have nots".

While the WOW business model proved to be unsustainable, them being part of opening up the opportunity to travel to more people was a positive thing.

No, " making travel affordable for all is a positive thing" is absolutely untrue. We have seen places ruined environmentally and culturally because of unrestricted mass tourism.

Like I said earlier, I find it funny that there is much less criticism of the ultra-rich flying in F or J, or private jets, which are doing just as much environmental damage as a plane full of middle class tourists.

Many people who fly WOW or Norwegian probably only fly once or twice a year, and those flying in bigger, more spacious F and J seats (or worse, private jets) are usually flying far more frequently, and are making more of an individual environmental impact.

While I see the point you're making, that's also the reason those airline struggle and go out of business. It seems you can't build a business model around people that travel 1-2 times a year without losing your shirt. Short-haul maybe, but even easyJet and Ryanair have increasingly been making a play at the regular business travellers in recent years.

Could some European lcc establish base in KEF? Ryanair? Wizz?

klm617 wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

wexfordflyer wrote:

I understood that you said "And in all fairness, if one can’t fork out 100 eur more for a ticket then I think he/she shouldn’t travel.". And I think that's narrow minded and elitist. And I stand by that.

BA having tickets for £260 is irrelevant. I'm also sure that LHR-NYC for £260 on BA is few and far between.

I never commented on whether fares should increase, decrease or anything. I said opening up travel to all (regardless of whether you can fork out 100eur or more) is a good thing. Prices of tickets is one aspect, limiting flying to those who can afford certain prices is completely another. Bringing in whether people can have comfort money while away is a whole other ballgame. In the elite world you might have it, in the real world alot of people don't. They should still be able to fly if they either want or need to.

If the business model can't sustain lower fares, then fair enough. And it may exclude people from being able to access travel, which is unfortunate. Excluding them because of what they can afford I think is bad form.

WOW tried, and they failed. Norwegian are trying, whether they succeed only time will tell.

Travel is already open to everyone even on legacies. Flying has never been as cheap as it is today. Hence your statement makes no sense. But the reality is there are always people who can’t afford one thing or the other.

If you live outside the major markets travel is outragesly expensive.

Detroit to London for GBP 430 with AA/BA, not exactly outragesly expensive. You could have it 20 pounds cheaper if don’t want to fly AA.

finnishway wrote:

Could some European lcc establish base in KEF? Ryanair? Wizz?

Why? They can cover all European flying from their existing European mainland stations. Wizz for example already flies to 11 destinations from KEF.

Lost-cost long-haul fails far more often than it succeeds, we all know that by now.

Isn't this why major airlines are building the low cost model into their existing flights with the "Basic Fares" structure (where you get virtually nothing for your fare except your bum in whatever seat is left on day of check-in), while maintaining the higher revenue streams (Business, Premium Economy, Economy Flex, etc) on the same plane? It allows them to compete with the lcc demand without putting all their eggs in that one basket.

For the most part airlines like this that allowed more people to travel is generally a good thing (although places like Venice are now at severe risk of catastrophic environmental damage due to overtourism). But there are limits to what works. Norwegian should be worried.

multimark wrote:

wexfordflyer wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

That's incredibly narrow minded and elitist. Making travel affordable for all is a positive thing. Sometimes people have no choice but need to fly, for things like family bereavements, medical treatment or relocation for jobs, etc. Maybe these people do not have much money, but surely they shouldn't be excluded from flying? Yes, in many cases they may not have sufficient "spare change" while abroad, but not all of us have that luxury.

No need to further separate the "haves" and "have nots".

While the WOW business model proved to be unsustainable, them being part of opening up the opportunity to travel to more people was a positive thing.

No, " making travel affordable for all is a positive thing" is absolutely untrue. We have seen places ruined environmentally and culturally because of unrestricted mass tourism.

I hope you live up to your words and stay away from traveling to those places. I suggest Google Maps Street View; you can tour those places from the comfort of your couch.

SRQKEF wrote:

finnishway wrote:

Could some European lcc establish base in KEF? Ryanair? Wizz?

Why? They can cover all European flying from their existing European mainland stations. Wizz for example already flies to 11 destinations from KEF.

Wow might have gone bankrupt, but that doesn’t mean that some of their operations would have been success.

Just look at the statistics how much KEF has grown after Wow started operations.

Iceland is not as far from North America as Ireland for example. I think lcc like Ryanair or Wizz could fly for example KEF-BOS/NYC profitable.

SRQKEF wrote:

Just in: https://www.mbl.is/vidskipti/frettir/20 ... r_wow_air/

According to initial news reporting, the WOW air brand will stay intact as a seperate brand under Icelandair Group. The new entity will have a combined transatlantic market share of 3,8%.

What good does an article written in Icelandic do for any of us.

finnishway wrote:

Iceland is not as far from North America as Ireland for example. I think lcc like Ryanair or Wizz could fly for example KEF-BOS/NYC profitable.

LCC like Ryanair & Wizz are not setup for a hub and spoke type operation with connecting passengers. Setting up such a network and being able to fill the planes profitably would be a lot harder than having the aircraft to operate thin transatlantic routes at a profit.

So this post started 4 months ago and the poster finally got his wish. WOW it took 4 months for his post to be accurate.

max999 wrote:

multimark wrote:

wexfordflyer wrote:

That's incredibly narrow minded and elitist. Making travel affordable for all is a positive thing. Sometimes people have no choice but need to fly, for things like family bereavements, medical treatment or relocation for jobs, etc. Maybe these people do not have much money, but surely they shouldn't be excluded from flying? Yes, in many cases they may not have sufficient "spare change" while abroad, but not all of us have that luxury.

No need to further separate the "haves" and "have nots".

While the WOW business model proved to be unsustainable, them being part of opening up the opportunity to travel to more people was a positive thing.

No, " making travel affordable for all is a positive thing" is absolutely untrue. We have seen places ruined environmentally and culturally because of unrestricted mass tourism.

I hope you live up to your words and stay away from traveling to those places. I suggest Google Maps Street View; you can tour those places from the comfort of your couch.

Also,. If we're really worried about the environmental impact of air travel, clearly what we should be doing is reducing frequencies and getting as many people into each flight as possible, right? Every commercial flight should be all economy. Of course we can ask F and J travelers to sacrifice a bit for the environment.

But no, you would never dream of asking upper class travelers to sacrifice anything, because those "environmental concerns" only come up when it's a cover for something else. It's like when rich homeowners oppose a development project near them because it "alters the character of the neighborhood" we all know that's just an indirect way to say "I don't want the poor near me"

multimark wrote:

No, " making travel affordable for all is a positive thing" is absolutely untrue. We have seen places ruined environmentally and culturally because of unrestricted mass tourism.

Elitist much?. The market is the restriction. I hope someone buys a few secondhand A380s to fly all-J UIO-SCY six times a day for 100USD, just to pith off the treehuggers.

rbavfan wrote:

So this post started 4 months ago and the poster finally got his wish. WOW it took 4 months for his post to be accurate.

Exactly and he made sure we all knew that WOW Air needed to fold with negative post after post. I was going to say something but decided not to but when you posted this I felt the need to reply. It really amazes me how people like to see things fail at the cost to people who rely on that service. But hey the end justifies the means.

rbavfan wrote:

SRQKEF wrote:

Just in: https://www.mbl.is/vidskipti/frettir/20 ... r_wow_air/

According to initial news reporting, the WOW air brand will stay intact as a seperate brand under Icelandair Group. The new entity will have a combined transatlantic market share of 3,8%.

What good does an article written in Icelandic do for any of us.

Please look at the date, this thread was started back in November back when news on FI buying out WOW first emerged (and yes, those initial news were reported in Icelandic ). I just wanted to adhere to the rules to post a link to support my post instead of it coming off as the baseless chatter many a.net posts amount to nowadays.

senatorflyer wrote:

klm617 wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

Travel is already open to everyone even on legacies. Flying has never been as cheap as it is today. Hence your statement makes no sense. But the reality is there are always people who can’t afford one thing or the other.

If you live outside the major markets travel is outragesly expensive.

Detroit to London for GBP 430 with AA/BA, not exactly outragesly expensive. You could have it 20 pounds cheaper if don’t want to fly AA.

Looks like AA might be my new airline of choice in the future.

rbavfan wrote:

So this post started 4 months ago and the poster finally got his wish. WOW it took 4 months for his post to be accurate.

Again, the initial post was named "Icelandair buying WOW". A.net mods changed it to reflect today's news because apparently they decided a new thread wasn't needed. WOW, or any other airline for that matter, folding was never my wish.

klm617 wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

So this post started 4 months ago and the poster finally got his wish. WOW it took 4 months for his post to be accurate.

Exactly and he made sure we all knew that WOW Air needed to fold with negative post after post. I was going to say something but decided not to but when you posted this I felt the need to reply. It really amazes me how people like to see things fail at the cost to people who rely on that service. But hey the end justifies the means.

Please read back on my posts. I have never said WOW needed to fold, and as an Icelandic consumer myself I'm sure I'm one of the people this will hit the hardest in terms of higher air fares. However, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time just in terms of raw financial numbers. My opinion is that Iceland does need a 2nd O&D focused carrier that competes against FI with lower fares to key European markets such as London, Copenhagen, Paris and Amsterdam and perhaps even BOS, NYC and Toronto. Unfortunately, WOW was overambitious and quite poorly managed so they didn't fill that role. I really would have wanted them to succeed and never suggested otherwise, all I did was point out the facts that concluded their operation wasn't sustainable (as they themselves have since admitted).

There's 3 main players recently in the low-cost long haul market as I see it. Primera, WOW and Norwegian.

Primera - Poorly run operation. Hap hazard start up and not managed greatly when it started to go wrong. Reliant on new aircraft deliveries. Had the aircraft arrived on time or the delivery delays been handled better without cost of sub-chartering, the end story may have been different.

WOW - Services were via a hub when there's direct options available. New expensive aircraft, albeit more efficient and perfect range. Expanded too fast and if load factors were good, yield management wasn't great.

Norwegian - Rapid expansion and large aircraft orders costing them money. Technical issues with their 787's and now 737 Max. I wouldn't be surprised if compensation from the 787 has actually helped them. They have now seen off Primera and WOW and offer direct services rather than via hub services.

The legacy carriers want to protect their hubs and have the burden of higher legacy costs. You have the likes of Westjet that are growing, the potential of JetBlue and Aer Lingus to a degree can be classed as a low-cost carrier after it's restructure. They are moving into the narrowbody TATL market.
I think the point being, if you have deep pockets and build the network sensibly with lower labour and fuel costs on efficient aircraft, then there's no reason why it can't work.

finnishway wrote:

SRQKEF wrote:

finnishway wrote:

Could some European lcc establish base in KEF? Ryanair? Wizz?

Why? They can cover all European flying from their existing European mainland stations. Wizz for example already flies to 11 destinations from KEF.

Wow might have gone bankrupt, but that doesn’t mean that some of their operations would have been success.

Just look at the statistics how much KEF has grown after Wow started operations.

Iceland is not as far from North America as Ireland for example. I think lcc like Ryanair or Wizz could fly for example KEF-BOS/NYC profitable.

I know very well where Iceland is located because I've lived there my entire life. I still don't see a remote chance of FR starting TATL ops from here when they don't even fly here at the moment. The only airline I can potentially see offering LCC TATL flights from KEF in the current climate is Norwegian, but they have enough on their plate at the moment. Remember that all 4 of the major N-American airlines fly here in the summer, including DL year round from JFK, so KEF is by no means the same wasteland when it comes to competition as it was back in the early 2000s.

SRQKEF wrote:

a350lover wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

That may be one of the LATAM-owned frames (managed by Air Lease Corporation, if the NTU information is correct). I expect TF-JOY, TF-GMA, and TF-GPA to be taken back by LATAM if indeed they were the true owners.

TF-NOW, which had been on a wet-lease, is currently grounded at MIA. TF-PRO was earlier repossessed at YUL. Both NOW and PRO are owned by Shanghai's Bank of Communication (BoComm), and I expect both frames to be ferried to the desert for temporary storage.

Status of each plane:
CAT (A321): stuck at EWR (owned by Goshawk)
DOG (A321): stuck at BOS (owned by Goshawk)
DTR (A21N): stuck at BWI (owned by ALC)
GMA (A321): stuck at YYZ (managed by ALC, may be owned by LATAM Airlines Group)
GPA (A321): last flew on March 18, at KEF (managed by ALC, may be owned by LATAM)
JOY (A321): repossessed at YUL tonight (managed by ALC, may be owned by LATAM)
NEO (A20N): ferried KEF-LJU on March 21 on lease return (owned by ALC)
NOW (A321): repossessed at MIA on March 24 (owned by BoComm)
PRO (A321): repossessed at YUL on March 24 (owned by BoComm)
SKY (A21N): stuck at CPH (owned by ALC)
WIN (A321): stuck at DTW (owned by ALC)

To have to pay out of pocket to return home---YIKES! Only 7 planes departed KEF today out of KEF for WW.

Considering only 1 out of 10 planes is at home.... does anyone know what's the current situation of the crews down route?

FI is flying all stranded WOW crews home for free today/tonight.

Priceless first they help put WOW Air out of business and cause these people to lose their jobs and then fly them home for free very tacky.

SRQKEF wrote:

klm617 wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

So this post started 4 months ago and the poster finally got his wish. WOW it took 4 months for his post to be accurate.

Exactly and he made sure we all knew that WOW Air needed to fold with negative post after post. I was going to say something but decided not to but when you posted this I felt the need to reply. It really amazes me how people like to see things fail at the cost to people who rely on that service. But hey the end justifies the means.

Please read back on my posts. I have never said WOW needed to fold, and as an Icelandic consumer myself I'm sure I'm one of the people this will hit the hardest in terms of higher air fares. However, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time just in terms of raw financial numbers. My opinion is that Iceland does need a 2nd O&D focused carrier that competes against FI with lower fares to key European markets such as London, Copenhagen, Paris and Amsterdam and perhaps even BOS, NYC and Toronto. Unfortunately, WOW was overambitious and quite poorly managed so they didn't fill that role.

Icelander here too. Just booked flights to NY this morning at prices way higher than few days ago when I checked. Should have booked then, but oh well.

This is great news for travelers. They have bambozzled passengers for the last time.

klm617 wrote:

SRQKEF wrote:

a350lover wrote:

Considering only 1 out of 10 planes is at home.... does anyone know what's the current situation of the crews down route?

FI is flying all stranded WOW crews home for free today/tonight.

Priceless first they help put WOW Air out of business and cause these people to lose their jobs and then fly them home for free very tacky.

This is the last post from you I'll reply to because, frankly, I don't see a point in replying to your senseless rhetoric. If by helping to put WOW out of business you mean running a successful and sustainable operation then yes, they did. They never did anything specific to hurt them, they just both operated from the same hub. Flying them home for free isn't in any way tacky, it's just people within the aviation sector helping each other out because you never know if your airline is the next to go, and then you'd want other airlines to treat you the same.

I understand you're hurting because WOW was an important airline to the Detroit market due to their low fares across the Atlantic from there, and I'm sure DTW was one of the few markets where WOW's business model actually worked due to the demographics at play. However, as today has unfortunately shown, they just didn't have enough markets like that to survive. It's really unfortunate, and my condolences go out to all WOW air staff as all my experiences with them have only been positive. But it just is what it is.

I had checked WOW a year or so ago for a trip via Iceland to Europe. Their fare and fee structure was so complex, we just flew Icelandair instead.

klm617 wrote:

SRQKEF wrote:

a350lover wrote:

Considering only 1 out of 10 planes is at home.... does anyone know what's the current situation of the crews down route?

FI is flying all stranded WOW crews home for free today/tonight.

Priceless first they help put WOW Air out of business and cause these people to lose their jobs and then fly them home for free very tacky.

Dude, what planet do you live on? WOW put themselves out of business. Your business acumen is 100% emotional. Time to face some facts.

The question now becomes whether another crooked Scandinavian CEO will fool investors and pax alike and start another ULCC that will survive for a couple of years before folding.

GuillaumePhilly wrote:

FlapsOne wrote:

It’s very sad to see it go and I feel a chapter is closing on LCC TATL flights. Soon it will go back to the preserve of the middle classes and today’s inclusive offerings whereby everyone can afford to fly is sadly drawing to a close. I feel we take a step back in the evolution of the industry.

A sad day.

I would argue that not everyone could afford to fly – – their fares were being subsidized by investor money. Otherwise the airline would not have gone i
Insolvent. But I will agree yes, a sad day.

That is the investor's decision. JetBlue is a startup airline that was sustainable due in large part to very strong financing. Network effects and strong capital (deep pockets) are crucial to airline sustainability.

Regardless, WOW has pushed the legacy airlines to unbundle fares, add basic economy concepts, even carve out airlines within airlines. Airlines have natural advantages with flying rights and open skies agreements. It is going to continue to be very difficult for startups to crack the flying world.

Dieuwer wrote:

The question now becomes whether another crooked Scandinavian CEO will fool investors and pax alike and start another ULCC that will survive for a couple of years before folding.

I don’t think calling Skuli crooked is fair. Sure, he lost alot of money for his investors, but he also put all his personal money into the company and has almost nothing left after the bankruptcy. His reasons for starting WOW were idealistic and came from a good place. It just wasn’t executed correctly, and the A330s, especially the A330neo’s, along with all the statements about becoming “not just bigger than Icelandair but bigger than SAS”, show he became overambitious.