Hello Everyone, I want to know that Why did Norwegian Air Shuttle Suddenly Stopped Flying from Stockholm and Copenhagen to New York-JFK and other US Cities? What are the Reasons? Will it resumed again?

Because I like to Visit Sweden and Denmark.

Not profitable. And Norwegian is losing money hand over fist and needs to do something different.

I lost count on the number of emails they sent me offering CPH-JFK trips at little more than the price of a pint of beer in Copenhagen.

That's no big problem. But if they sent the same offer to a bunch of other people, and they actually accepted it....

It's easier for Norwegian to just shovel money into the fireplace.

My wild guess: If Norwegian had built their TATL service on top of rock solid interlining, codesharing, alliance membership and all such things, then they would have been a real competitor to BA, AF, KL, SK, LH and others. As a single sector price cutter they are less relevant for those 97% of the USA outside NYC city borders.

I can think of at least 4 reasons:

- Americans, for the most part, just aren't that interested in visiting Denmark and Sweden. Other countries where Norwegian has focused its expansion efforts, like France, Italy and Spain, are *far* more popular with American tourists. The 787 is probably just too big to serve transatlantic routes to/from ARN/CPH, even seasonally...

- Denmark and Sweden are *extremely* expensive places to visit and do business. Hubbing at the likes of ARN and CPH must cost a fortune - hardly a good strategy for a carrier with severe financial problems! Don't forget that eating out in places like Copenhagen and Stockholm tends to be exorbitantly expensive for American travelers. What good does getting a cheap fare to CPH do if you can't afford to enjoy the city once there?

- FFer loyalty to "legacy" carriers like AA, DL, SK and UA is important to consider. Sure, AA no longer serves ARN/CPH on its own metal, while DL only offers seasonal service to CPH and UA only serves ARN seasonally, but these carriers have partners that serve these markets year round...

- "flygskam", perhaps better known as "flight shaming" (avoiding air travel for environmental reasons) started in Sweden. While it has caught on elsewhere, it has probably hit aviation demand from Sweden harder than any other country...

Subwayfan1998 wrote:

Hello Everyone, I want to know that Why did Norwegian Air Shuttle Suddenly Stopped Flying from Stockholm and Copenhagen to New York-JFK and other US Cities? What are the Reasons? Will it resumed again?

Because I like to Visit Sweden and Denmark.

Did you know that Norwegian has axed all of their long haul routes in Sweden and CPH earlier this year? Because they are trying hard to return to profit. So that means no more DY long haul from CPH and ARN anymore.

Very small market, little to no interest for Americans (OP aside). The attempt to serve these routes must be related to the airline’s Scandinavian heritage rather than good business sense. Like when American Trans Air tried Riga in the 90s, because the boss was of Latvian descent. Franco Mancassola, boss of bankrupt U.K. low cost Debonair started service from London to his Italian birthplace (can’t remember; too obscure) with similar results.

SurfandSnow wrote:

I can think of at least 4 reasons:
- Denmark and Sweden are *extremely* expensive places to visit and do business. Hubbing at the likes of ARN and CPH must cost a fortune - hardly a good strategy for a carrier with severe financial problems! Don't forget that eating out in places like Copenhagen and Stockholm tends to be exorbitantly expensive for American travelers. What good does getting a cheap fare to CPH do if you can't afford to enjoy the city once there?

Eating out in NYC, LA, SF or other major cities in the US is just as expensive as in Denmark and Sweden. If you adjust for quality of the food, Copenhagen is probably far less expensive than the US.
And at least the pricing for food is transparent in the Nordics, compared to the US where you have to add cover charges and exorbitant tips (15%+) to the menu prices...

As for CPH they simply just lost the battle, mainly with SAS but also Icelandair, LH, BA, KL etc. To the US and EK, QR, TK and TG to Asia.
All US destinations apart from LAX was served in direct competition with SAS. With SAS having higher frequency, connections at both ends, similar fares and a proper business class meant that they had the upper hand.
The Danish medias have also, quite frequently, had very negative articles about Norwegian because they didn't paid compensation due to delays etc. So their reputation is not that good.

The routes weren't profitable and Norwegian has spent the last year or so refocusing its operation to make it profitable. Scandinavia on the whole is a relatively small market and Norwegian found it would be more profitable to reposition the Dreamliners used on these routes into other markets. SAS essentially owns the market from NYC and as a member of Star Alliance, taps into strong feed at EWR from UA, which itself serves ARN only seasonally.

Of course Norwegian still serves these destinations one-stop through the many European destinations from where they do fly to New York. For example through London Gatwick, from where they got multiple daily flights to both Stockholm and Copenhagen.

The idea that they can serve destinations one-stop in order to increase load factors is finally starting to sink in with Norwegian. For a long time that was their problem, they wanted to serve each market non-stop. Often those markets proved to be too small and the load factors were trash. But if you can concentrate multiple markets in one flight, you don't have that problem anymore.

With ARN, a number of long hauls were cut or are being cut, not just Norwegian, but also SK, due to some sort of tax no? Not really the major factor when it comes to Norwegian specifically, but a contributing one overall to the lack of profitability. Also, Norwegian continues to deal with the RR engine issue and has to shuffle the fleet around so it would stand to reason axing unprofitable long hauls from small markets makes sense. They have also closed a few stations in the US as well. OAK is closing in favor of SFO, EWR is closed with BCN and FCO moved to JFK, and most of the FLL operation closing in favor of MIA.

Cointrin330 wrote:

With ARN, a number of long hauls were cut or are being cut, not just Norwegian, but also SK, due to some sort of tax no? Not really the major factor when it comes to Norwegian specifically, but a contributing one overall to the lack of profitability. Also, Norwegian continues to deal with the RR engine issue and has to shuffle the fleet around so it would stand to reason axing unprofitable long hauls from small markets makes sense. They have also closed a few stations in the US as well. OAK is closing in favor of SFO, EWR is closed with BCN and FCO moved to JFK, and most of the FLL operation closing in favor of MIA.

True, aviation tax in Sweden is one of the highest in Europe. That's the reason they weren't able to offer low fares out of Sweden, at least not as low as out of other countries without this tax.

Norwegian is an airline that caters to cheapskates, they'll do anything to get the lowest price. That includes self-transfering at a foreign airport. Just lower than others ain't low enough, it has to be the very cheapest. That can't be achieved out of Sweden. It can be achieved out of Spain for example (Spain doesn't have an aviation tax), where they have a big base in Barcelona. That ain't all local Barcelona traffic, lots of people that fly Norwegian out of Barcelona self-connect there. In fact I've done so myself when I flew them.

Since Swedes will first fly from Sweden to Barcelona to catch their flight there (cheaper), they won't fly direct from Sweden to their destination. That has a negative impact on the load factors on the flights out of Sweden. So much that these flights ain't profitable anymore. On the other hand the fact that Spain doesn't have a tax increases the load factors out of Barcelona.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

With ARN, a number of long hauls were cut or are being cut, not just Norwegian, but also SK, due to some sort of tax no? Not really the major factor when it comes to Norwegian specifically, but a contributing one overall to the lack of profitability. Also, Norwegian continues to deal with the RR engine issue and has to shuffle the fleet around so it would stand to reason axing unprofitable long hauls from small markets makes sense. They have also closed a few stations in the US as well. OAK is closing in favor of SFO, EWR is closed with BCN and FCO moved to JFK, and most of the FLL operation closing in favor of MIA.

True, aviation tax in Sweden is one of the highest in Europe. That's the reason they weren't able to offer low fares out of Sweden, at least not as low as out of other countries without this tax.

Norwegian is an airline that caters to cheapskates, they'll do anything to get the lowest price. That includes self-transfering at a foreign airport. Just lower than others ain't low enough, it has to be the very cheapest. That can't be achieved out of Sweden. It can be achieved out of Spain for example (Spain doesn't have an aviation tax), where they have a big base in Barcelona. That ain't all local Barcelona traffic, lots of people that fly Norwegian out of Barcelona self-connect there. In fact I've done so myself when I flew them.

Since Swedes will first fly from Sweden to Barcelona to catch their flight there (cheaper), they won't fly direct from Sweden to their destination. That has a negative impact on the load factors on the flights out of Sweden. So much that these flights ain't profitable anymore. On the other hand the fact that Spain doesn't have a tax increases the load factors out of Barcelona.

Sweden should change it's policy by abolishing Aviation Tax

okobjorn wrote:

And at least the pricing for food is transparent in the Nordics, compared to the US where you have to add cover charges and exorbitant tips (15%+) to the menu prices...

I remember being annoyed each time I ordered something to eat or drink in the U.S. and I had to pay more than the price mentioned on the menus. Very inconvenient.

IMO, a combination of arrogance, reckless over-expansion all over the world, ridiculously low pricing.. and getting hit with the 737MAX stick .. that didn't help them much either.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Since Swedes will first fly from Sweden to Barcelona to catch their flight there (cheaper), they won't fly direct from Sweden to their destination.

Why would any Swede do that when KLM, Lufthansa and Swiss regularly offer full service return tickets from Stockholm to Los Angeles and San Francisco for around € 300,00 or less?

I have worked at ARN for over 30 years, and watched the flights to the USA come and go.
In 1987 to 1992, TWA operated a Tristar JFK-ARN-JFK in June July and August, and then a B767-200 shared with Oslo, JFK-FBU-ARN-JFK the rest of the year. Other airlines have found the same. Tourists can fill the aircraft in June and July, then the aircraft is empty the rest of the year. Tower Air B747, Northwest DC10, AA B767, Pan Am A310. Delta A310 etc have all tried and gone. And of course Malaysian B744/B777 for 4 years.
SAS creams off all the business traffic as they all have SAS Eurobonus cards and use the points for upgrades (as I did 2 months ago).
There is not enough left for the others.

Edit forgot NW.

Maybe codeshare/interline with WN in the near future?

It feels like Norwegian changed the transatlantic strategy to focus more on US point of sale from Americans traveling to Europe instead of Europeans visiting America. The rising US dollar in the last two years may have helped that

cedarjet wrote:

Very small market, little to no interest for Americans (OP aside). The attempt to serve these routes must be related to the airline’s Scandinavian heritage rather than good business sense. Like when American Trans Air tried Riga in the 90s, because the boss was of Latvian descent. Franco Mancassola, boss of bankrupt U.K. low cost Debonair started service from London to his Italian birthplace (can’t remember; too obscure) with similar results.

It's also why NW tried nonstop MSP-OSL in the 1980s (Despite MN being highly composed of Norwegian descent.) Just because the ethnicity is there doesn't mean people want to frequently visit the old country. Same could be said of a few years ago when UA made EWR-FCO seasonal.

It seems like SAS cornered the NYC market to OSL / ARN / CPH all to EWR at this point. Small market indeed. Although AA made ORD-ARN work for many years in the 1990s.

Tristarsteve wrote:

I have worked at ARN for over 30 years, and watched the flights to the USA come and go.
In 1987 to 1992, TWA operated a Tristar JFK-ARN-JFK in June July and August, and then a B767-200 shared with Oslo, JFK-FBU-ARN-JFK the rest of the year. Other airlines have found the same. Tourists can fill the aircraft in June and July, then the aircraft is empty the rest of the year. Tower Air B747, Northwest DC10, AA B767, Pan Am A310. Delta A310 etc have all tried and gone. And of course Malaysian B744/B777 for 4 years.
SAS creams off all the business traffic as they all have SAS Eurobonus cards and use the points for upgrades (as I did 2 months ago).
There is not enough left for the others.

Edit forgot NW.

NW tried JFK and BOS to ARN for a bit as well I think.

Rossiya747 wrote:

Maybe codeshare/interline with WN in the near future?

Highly unlikely. Southwest doesn't codeshare with anyone and Norwegian already codeshares with JetBlue.

MartijnNL wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Since Swedes will first fly from Sweden to Barcelona to catch their flight there (cheaper), they won't fly direct from Sweden to their destination.

Why would any Swede do that when KLM, Lufthansa and Swiss regularly offer full service return tickets from Stockholm to Los Angeles and San Francisco for around € 300,00 or less?

Maybe because € 300 is quite expensive and Norwegian can undercut that out of Barcelona. Full-service or not doesn't make any difference, it's the price that matters. Usually full-service only means you're paying for services you don't make use of.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

With ARN, a number of long hauls were cut or are being cut, not just Norwegian, but also SK, due to some sort of tax no? Not really the major factor when it comes to Norwegian specifically, but a contributing one overall to the lack of profitability. Also, Norwegian continues to deal with the RR engine issue and has to shuffle the fleet around so it would stand to reason axing unprofitable long hauls from small markets makes sense. They have also closed a few stations in the US as well. OAK is closing in favor of SFO, EWR is closed with BCN and FCO moved to JFK, and most of the FLL operation closing in favor of MIA.

True, aviation tax in Sweden is one of the highest in Europe. That's the reason they weren't able to offer low fares out of Sweden, at least not as low as out of other countries without this tax.

Norwegian is an airline that caters to cheapskates, they'll do anything to get the lowest price. That includes self-transfering at a foreign airport. Just lower than others ain't low enough, it has to be the very cheapest. That can't be achieved out of Sweden. It can be achieved out of Spain for example (Spain doesn't have an aviation tax), where they have a big base in Barcelona. That ain't all local Barcelona traffic, lots of people that fly Norwegian out of Barcelona self-connect there. In fact I've done so myself when I flew them.

Since Swedes will first fly from Sweden to Barcelona to catch their flight there (cheaper), they won't fly direct from Sweden to their destination. That has a negative impact on the load factors on the flights out of Sweden. So much that these flights ain't profitable anymore. On the other hand the fact that Spain doesn't have a tax increases the load factors out of Barcelona.

But they still fly out of ARN and GOT on shorthaul, so the Swedes still pay the tax...And Norwegian actually is not for the cheapskates at all...Ryanair is...On the contrary, is one of the most beloved LCCs, considered a lot better to fly and not trashy like FR...

cedarjet wrote:

Very small market, little to no interest for Americans (OP aside). The attempt to serve these routes must be related to the airline’s Scandinavian heritage rather than good business sense. Like when American Trans Air tried Riga in the 90s, because the boss was of Latvian descent. Franco Mancassola, boss of bankrupt U.K. low cost Debonair started service from London to his Italian birthplace (can’t remember; too obscure) with similar results.

The market is there, at least for CPH. In the summer Copenhagen is full of Americans and a lot of Danes go to the US too. In 2020 there's quite a big increase of capacity between CPH and the US (and YYZ on AC which a lot of pax use for connections to/from the US) especially in the Summer most were announced before Norwegian announced their closures.
SAS:
CPH-EWR: increase to 2x daily (A333/A359) from March to November, instead of 11-13 weekly A333/A343.
CPH-LAX: New daily service (A333/A343/A359)
CPH-SFO: A359 to operate alongside A343.
CPH-BOS: 6x weekly A321LR year-round replacing summer-seasonal A333 service.
CPH-ORD: A359 replacing A333/A343 between January and June.
CPH-IAD: to operate daily year-round A333 and not cutting down to 5 weekly in January/February.

Delta:
CPH-JFK: Summer seasonal daily 76W extented by 2 months (operating May 1st to October 24th)

AC:
CPH-YYZ: Daily 450-seater 77W to replace Daily 400-seater 77W from May to October.

On top of that there's the connections via KEF, LHR, MUC, FRA, CDG, AMS etc.

The reason Norwegian failed is that they've been a mix of amateurs and unlucky.
Selling flights so cheap they couldn't earn money on it, offering a low frequency service etc. And the problems with their 787's.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

True, aviation tax in Sweden is one of the highest in Europe. That's the reason they weren't able to offer low fares out of Sweden, at least not as low as out of other countries without this tax.

The UK has the highest aviation tax in Europe, significantly so for longhaul. This hasn't stopped Norwegian building up LGW as their biggest base. Same with all the bleating Ryanair does, yet STN is one of their biggest bases. The taxes are arguably too high and aboloshing it would create knock-on positive effects to the economy that boost overall tax revenues but in today's "climate", no pun intended, abolishing something that's seen as a deterrent to envieonmental harm is something few politicians will consider.

Ultimately it's a demand equation. The demand simply wasn't there to fill up 787s regularly at a price that meant a profit. Not every city pair is a viable air route.

SASViking wrote:

cedarjet wrote:

Very small market, little to no interest for Americans (OP aside). The attempt to serve these routes must be related to the airline’s Scandinavian heritage rather than good business sense. Like when American Trans Air tried Riga in the 90s, because the boss was of Latvian descent. Franco Mancassola, boss of bankrupt U.K. low cost Debonair started service from London to his Italian birthplace (can’t remember; too obscure) with similar results.

The market is there, at least for CPH. In the summer Copenhagen is full of Americans and a lot of Danes go to the US too. In 2020 there's quite a big increase of capacity between CPH and the US (and YYZ on AC which a lot of pax use for connections to/from the US) especially in the Summer most were announced before Norwegian announced their closures.
SAS:
CPH-EWR: increase to 2x daily (A333/A359) from March to November, instead of 11-13 weekly A333/A343.
CPH-LAX: New daily service (A333/A343/A359)
CPH-SFO: A359 to operate alongside A343.
CPH-BOS: 6x weekly A321LR year-round replacing summer-seasonal A333 service.
CPH-ORD: A359 replacing A333/A343 between January and June.
CPH-IAD: to operate daily year-round A333 and not cutting down to 5 weekly in January/February.

Delta:
CPH-JFK: Summer seasonal daily 76W extented by 2 months (operating May 1st to October 24th)

AC:
CPH-YYZ: Daily 450-seater 77W to replace Daily 400-seater 77W from May to October.

On top of that there's the connections via KEF, LHR, MUC, FRA, CDG, AMS etc.

The reason Norwegian failed is that they've been a mix of amateurs and unlucky.
Selling flights so cheap they couldn't earn money on it, offering a low frequency service etc. And the problems with their 787's.

Thats correct with the US market but to Thailandthe failed because of flight times and the prices you could always find cheaper flights with one stop and with better service.

And again frequency

SASViking wrote:

On top of that there's the connections via KEF, LHR, MUC, FRA, CDG, AMS etc.

Yup, for western half of Denmark KL has mostly stolen the TATL market. From BLL and AAL you go to AMS all day long and connect to wherever you want. Not long ago they sent mostly small Fokker or Embraer planes, but nowadays they mostly fill B738s. 7x daily AAL/BLL combined.

What little is left is grabbed by BA, AF or LH via LRH, CDG or FRA. Western Denmark is more and more forgetting that there is an airport in Copenhagen.

It doesn't hurt CPH so much because the Swedish tax has increased the number of Swedes using CPH as their local airport.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Maybe because € 300 is quite expensive and Norwegian can undercut that out of Barcelona. Full-service or not doesn't make any difference, it's the price that matters. Usually full-service only means you're paying for services you don't make use of.

Stockholm - Barcelona - Los Angeles return is a 15,000 mile journey. Do you really think 30 hours in the air for € 300,00 is quite expensive? How much does Norwegian actually charge for this trip?

Personally I would always pay € 300,00 for a return ticket from Stockholm to Los Angeles via Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Zurich on KLM, Lufthansa or Swiss instead of saving a little money by using Norwegian via Barcelona. To me hot meals and drinks make all the difference to long haul flights. Going via Spain adds to the total flying time as well.

Sweden is a rich country. When € 300,00 is quite expensive for a 15,000 mile jouney, maybe you shouldn't travel at all.

MartijnNL wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Maybe because € 300 is quite expensive and Norwegian can undercut that out of Barcelona. Full-service or not doesn't make any difference, it's the price that matters. Usually full-service only means you're paying for services you don't make use of.

Stockholm - Barcelona - Los Angeles return is a 15,000 mile journey. Do you really think 30 hours in the air for € 300,00 is quite expensive? How much does Norwegian actually charge for this trip?

Personally I would always pay € 300,00 for a return ticket from Stockholm to Los Angeles via Amsterdam, Frankfurt or Zurich on KLM, Lufthansa or Swiss instead of saving a little money by using Norwegian via Barcelona. To me hot meals and drinks make all the difference to long haul flights. Going via Spain adds to the total flying time as well.

PatrickZ80 is obviously obsessed about LCCs and considers anything beyond a seat onboard an aircraft as extra and thus unnecessary. What he fails to see is that extra $50-100 a full service carrier charges vs LCC not only includes usually better seating and a soft product with meals, but more importantly works as an insurance in case of IRROPS. Good luck getting rebooked if your Ryanair or Norwegian flight is canceled. When you pay the tiny fare premium a full service carrier charges you get a much better trip protection. Your Lufthansa, KLM or BA ticket gives you access to basically any carrier within Star, Skyteam or OneWorld in case of delays/cancellations.

B747forever wrote:

PatrickZ80 is obviously obsessed about LCCs and considers anything beyond a seat onboard an aircraft as extra and thus unnecessary. What he fails to see is that extra $50-100 a full service carrier charges vs LCC not only includes usually better seating and a soft product with meals, but more importantly works as an insurance in case of IRROPS. Good luck getting rebooked if your Ryanair or Norwegian flight is canceled. When you pay the tiny fare premium a full service carrier charges you get a much better trip protection. Your Lufthansa, KLM or BA ticket gives you access to basically any carrier within Star, Skyteam or OneWorld in case of delays/cancellations.

If only it really was cut black and white that way though. What's not mentioned is that this "tiny" fare premium more often than not varies by segment, travel date, or generally across options. How often do they apply to one-way transatlantic segments when it comes to utilizing airlines that participate in JVs?

It's nice for consumers when full-service carriers sell tickets below cost to better compare with LCCs whether they need to cut services or not, and to have that insurance or whatever complementary services that are still included; for example, DL/VS are running ads offering SFO-LHR return for less than US$400 in Light/Basic or are generally matching Norwegian's fares to LGW. On the surface, the main differences/perks in offering on VS being a meal, arguably more-valuable mileage accrual and 10kg carry-on separate from a personal item (seat selection and check/hold bags are only included when buying up to a Classic/Main fare, while Norwegian weighs your personal item and carry-on to weigh under 10kg when combined...and then there's BA's relatively non-existent weight limit for carry-ons). Family and I honestly would've been silly not to take up VS's offer this autumn (of which less than 1/3 of the total ticket price was actual fare separate from surcharges or UK APD, no way DL/VS/AF/KL are making anything off that).

But say Norwegian pulls out of a route or from the entire transatlantic market entirely in whatever way. It will be a very welcomed surprise if between AA/BA, DL/VS/AF/KL and UA/LH there will still be US$400-500 return transatlantic fares in Y.

Subwayfan1998 wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

With ARN, a number of long hauls were cut or are being cut, not just Norwegian, but also SK, due to some sort of tax no? Not really the major factor when it comes to Norwegian specifically, but a contributing one overall to the lack of profitability. Also, Norwegian continues to deal with the RR engine issue and has to shuffle the fleet around so it would stand to reason axing unprofitable long hauls from small markets makes sense. They have also closed a few stations in the US as well. OAK is closing in favor of SFO, EWR is closed with BCN and FCO moved to JFK, and most of the FLL operation closing in favor of MIA.

True, aviation tax in Sweden is one of the highest in Europe. That's the reason they weren't able to offer low fares out of Sweden, at least not as low as out of other countries without this tax.

Norwegian is an airline that caters to cheapskates, they'll do anything to get the lowest price. That includes self-transfering at a foreign airport. Just lower than others ain't low enough, it has to be the very cheapest. That can't be achieved out of Sweden. It can be achieved out of Spain for example (Spain doesn't have an aviation tax), where they have a big base in Barcelona. That ain't all local Barcelona traffic, lots of people that fly Norwegian out of Barcelona self-connect there. In fact I've done so myself when I flew them.

Since Swedes will first fly from Sweden to Barcelona to catch their flight there (cheaper), they won't fly direct from Sweden to their destination. That has a negative impact on the load factors on the flights out of Sweden. So much that these flights ain't profitable anymore. On the other hand the fact that Spain doesn't have a tax increases the load factors out of Barcelona.

Sweden should change it's policy by abolishing Aviation Tax

A political statement at best. Tax has to be raised somehow and of course there are trade-offs with higher taxation but Sweden/Denmark have very different social provisions as societies than lower taxed economies. Aviation is deemed in this case to be a viable candidate to, in part, pay for it.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Of course Norwegian still serves these destinations one-stop through the many European destinations from where they do fly to New York. For example through London Gatwick, from where they got multiple daily flights to both Stockholm and Copenhagen.

The idea that they can serve destinations one-stop in order to increase load factors is finally starting to sink in with Norwegian. For a long time that was their problem, they wanted to serve each market non-stop. Often those markets proved to be too small and the load factors were trash. But if you can concentrate multiple markets in one flight, you don't have that problem anymore.

Bang on. Quite simply LGW and BCN are A) cheaper hubs to operate from then CPH or ARN, B) have greater depth of O&D markets in their own right, and C) markets which are socially more induced to LCC. DY needs to make money and as rightly pointed out in other posts, has worked out funnelling through more profitable hubs is a better way to do it then O&D all over the place at prices and yields that make no sense.