Is there any possibility to change the engines from RR to GE? I know Boeing made sure the architecture matched. Has anyone ever done it?

I reckon these frames will sit in the desert for a year or two myself.....

santi319 wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

Shuttle wrote:

And a link direct from Norwegian:

https://media.uk.norwegian.com/pressrel ... rk-3064682

A pity for their LH crews and staff.

Shuttle

None of the crews actually worked for Norwegian and they were temp workers with bad benefits compared to their peers...

Any Norwegian cabin crew with EU contracts had vastly better statutory rights than any US airline cabin crew has ever had in history

Sad to see that we still have the odd dinosaur gleefully trolling the demise of a competitor. Perhaps it comforts some to know that several thousand people have no jobs to return to.

The reality is that Norwegian had just about pulled everything together and were looking at a strong and likely profitable 2020. They thought outside the box and challenged expectations - making some mistakes along the way is inevitable. Personally I admire their vision - it's just a matter of time before someone else ties again in the post covid future.

Well, flying to Europe was going to be expensive anyways with the majors taking seats out of the market. Now with Norwegian gone, the old days of the Trans Atlantic being a major profit center will return for the airlines, but way more expensive for the consumer. Glad I went last summer.

PlymSpotter wrote:

Sad to see that we still have the odd dinosaur gleefully trolling the demise of a competitor. Perhaps it comforts some to know that several thousand people have no jobs to return to.

The reality is that Norwegian had just about pulled everything together and were looking at a strong and likely profitable 2020. They thought outside the box and challenged expectations - making some mistakes along the way is inevitable. Personally I admire their vision - it's just a matter of time before someone else ties again in the post covid future.

I think this is pretty rosey. They were loss making and massively in debt. "Thinking outside the box" is just a cliche. They pursued a loss making business model that was unsustainable and really did take flags of convenience and outsourcing to the next level. Yes they had shiney new toys they never had the money to pay for and could fly Americans to Europe for a fraction of the cost of competitors but oddly enought, ex UK long haul was only markedly cheaper on routes where they never came close to filling the aircraft. Sorry for the employees but the industry will be glad to be shot of them frankly.

GSP psgr wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

37 almost new 787s (not including any awaiting delivery!) looking for new homes! That's not going to help already depressed widebody sales for a while to come, I would imagine. I wonder if BA will seize the opportunity, if the theory that they wanted to buy the airline for its 787'as was correct - or if that horse has already bolted.

On the other side of the Atlantic, maybe JetBlue or Southwest if the prices get low enough? Moreso Southwest, as JetBlue seems committed to long range 321s as their transatlantic aircraft of choice. Unlikely, but I could definitely see a BWI transatlantic operation making money, along with some selected other routes-mostly their hubs to LGW. If Southwest ever wanted to get into the 787 game cheaply, this might be it.

Southwest couldn't even make MEX work - with big ops at LAX, PHX, HOU, and MDW. They have zero foreign point of sale MOJO. They're not turning BWI into a TATL hub to run 29 787-9s.

klm617 wrote:

Certainly places like ATL, CLT, CLE, DTW, MSP, STL, MKE, and the like could support 3 weekly 787 flights with no issue and they could have commanded a higher ticket price and less airport fees. Of course they are not going to fly to Montana.

Certainly places like Cleveland and St. Louis have a horrible track record when it comes to transatlantic service - even Wow Air's foray into such markets with efficient narrowbody aircraft and absurdly low fares was a failure. I'm not sure if MKE has ever even had nonstop service to Europe; it's quite a stretch to think that widebody 787 flights would work from an airport that is such an easy drive from a much bigger facility that has had a plethora of transatlantic flights for decades.

ATL, CLT, DTW and MSP are no doubt important international airports, but only because U.S. carriers have turned them into massive fortress hubs. Atlanta and Detroit also serve significantly larger metropolitan areas than the other cities on your list. It's one thing for DL to add transatlantic service from, say, DTW that can draw upon the carrier's extensive local FFer base as well as hub feed. It's quite another for a European carrier from Norway to fly to a city that most Americans tend to avoid (unless they have business or family in the area, of course) due to its notoriously high crime rates. Even if a new DTW entrant doesn't have to worry about an aggressive DL response (good luck!), they still have to worry about marketing "Detroit" to transatlantic travelers.

Now, all that said, I do think there could have been other places in the U.S. that could have supported 3x weekly 787 flights on Norwegian with no issue. Places that Europeans actually like/want to go, like BNA, CHS, MSY, PHX and RSW, spring to mind.

PlymSpotter wrote:

Sad to see that we still have the odd dinosaur gleefully trolling the demise of a competitor. Perhaps it comforts some to know that several thousand people have no jobs to return to.

The reality is that Norwegian had just about pulled everything together and were looking at a strong and likely profitable 2020. They thought outside the box and challenged expectations - making some mistakes along the way is inevitable. Personally I admire their vision - it's just a matter of time before someone else ties again in the post covid future.

It’s not about revelling in the demise of a competitor. The fact is that they pursued a flawed business model long after it was obvious it was doomed, thereby damaging more sustainable airlines in the industry. They only changed direction when they became desperate to survive. The sad thing is that they deceived their employees into thinking they could pull a magic rabbit out of the hat.

They made the same mistakes as others right back to the days of Laker, but did it on a much grander and foolhardy scale.

Varsity1 wrote:

Is there any possibility to change the engines from RR to GE? I know Boeing made sure the architecture matched. Has anyone ever done it?

Theoretically possible, but sadly no one tried that.

MIflyer12 wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

37 almost new 787s (not including any awaiting delivery!) looking for new homes! That's not going to help already depressed widebody sales for a while to come, I would imagine. I wonder if BA will seize the opportunity, if the theory that they wanted to buy the airline for its 787'as was correct - or if that horse has already bolted.

On the other side of the Atlantic, maybe JetBlue or Southwest if the prices get low enough? Moreso Southwest, as JetBlue seems committed to long range 321s as their transatlantic aircraft of choice. Unlikely, but I could definitely see a BWI transatlantic operation making money, along with some selected other routes-mostly their hubs to LGW. If Southwest ever wanted to get into the 787 game cheaply, this might be it.

Southwest couldn't even make MEX work - with big ops at LAX, PHX, HOU, and MDW. They have zero foreign point of sale MOJO. They're not turning BWI into a TATL hub to run 29 787-9s.

I wasn't inferring that they'd initially take all 29. I do maintain that they could probably make BWI-LGW/CDG/AMS/DUB and maybe FCO or MAD work on a year round basis with the 787. BWI would have an extremely powerful feed base, plus IAD is perhaps the single worst O&D airport I can imagine. I believe there is latent appeal for more serious transatlantic options from BWI than are offered currently.

From London, I could also see 4-5 out of FLL, MCO, DEN, HOU, LAS, LAX, and OAK to LGW work on a year round basis post-COVID (albeit perhaps not daily). Total, maybe 10 to 15 frames to start, theoretically.

This is very sad news for me. I've had a couple of great trips on Norwegian. It may be my favorite airline. There were a lot of little things that they did very well. It felt like the best of both worlds for long haul. It was inexpensive, but I felt they treated me well and gave me a comfortable seat with good entertainment. It also felt like they were honest and straight forward in the way they sold things. It made planning my trips so much easier.

skipness1E wrote:

PlymSpotter wrote:

Sad to see that we still have the odd dinosaur gleefully trolling the demise of a competitor. Perhaps it comforts some to know that several thousand people have no jobs to return to.

The reality is that Norwegian had just about pulled everything together and were looking at a strong and likely profitable 2020. They thought outside the box and challenged expectations - making some mistakes along the way is inevitable. Personally I admire their vision - it's just a matter of time before someone else ties again in the post covid future.

I think this is pretty rosey. They were loss making and massively in debt. "Thinking outside the box" is just a cliche. They pursued a loss making business model that was unsustainable and really did take flags of convenience and outsourcing to the next level. Yes they had shiney new toys they never had the money to pay for and could fly Americans to Europe for a fraction of the cost of competitors but oddly enought, ex UK long haul was only markedly cheaper on routes where they never came close to filling the aircraft. Sorry for the employees but the industry will be glad to be shot of them frankly.

It’s not rosy, what plymspotter wrote is accurate. We were struck by many external factors which was out of our control, such as massive problems with RR engines and Russians denying us overflight permits over Siberia, a 737MAX stuck in Iran for months due to international sanctions, 737MAX grounding which affected 18 of our aircraft I believe, and a ballooning inflation in Argentina just when the ops there was running smoothly.

Despite all of this, 2020 was looking to be our most profitable year ever before COVID hit.

Norwegian proved that low cost LH can be profitable, and this is the reason why they waited so long to pull the plug after the groundings back in April last year. If it hadn’t been profitable for Norwegian, our new CEO would just have shut LH down asap.

I wonder if it would be more cost effective for Hawaiian to Ditch the New bird 787 orders and pick up some used ones from Norwegian.

Flyguy

wnflyguy wrote:

I wonder if it would be more cost effective for Hawaiian to Ditch the New bird 787 orders and pick up some used ones from Norwegian.

Flyguy

HA has chosen GE to operate its fleet, while DY's fleet is RR-powered.
Again, the engine choice is being the problem.

Varsity1 wrote:

Is there any possibility to change the engines from RR to GE? I know Boeing made sure the architecture matched. Has anyone ever done it?

I thought in the end they, for all practical purposes, abandoned the common pylon idea?

RexBanner wrote:

guillermohs wrote:

windian425 wrote:

Does this help IAG with Level? Or is Level toast anyway..

As for the topic, sad news for transatlantic aviation. Reduced fares are very much needed in this market.

Needed for those with less money but not at all realistic as a business proposition. Which is why it failed.

Tell that to the legacy carriers operating high frequency routes with so much y capacity fare levels in the back are exceptionally low much of the year.
This is the reason TALC doesn’t sustain low cost operators and the market for secondary routes is always suppressed .

william wrote:

Well, flying to Europe was going to be expensive anyways with the majors taking seats out of the market. Now with Norwegian gone, the old days of the Trans Atlantic being a major profit center will return for the airlines, but way more expensive for the consumer. Glad I went last summer.

That's only temporary, until the next LCC moves in. In fact, FrenchBee is still around offering fares similar to those of Norwegian. Of course FrenchBee is a much smaller airline, which in this case can be a benefit for them. No surplus of capacity and thus competing against themselves and all of their operations concentrated in one place (Paris Orly).

If Americans go to visit Europe they visit the whole continent, so it doesn't matter where in Europe their flight goes. Paris is as good as any other city and from there they can start their tour through Europe. This is where Norwegian failed, they offered a variety of destinations in Europe. If the destination is irrelevant, all of those flights compete against each other.

skipness1E wrote:

They pursued a loss making business model that was unsustainable and really did take flags of convenience and outsourcing to the next level.

airsmiles wrote:

It’s not about revelling in the demise of a competitor. The fact is that they pursued a flawed business model long after it was obvious it was doomed, thereby damaging more sustainable airlines in the industry. They only changed direction when they became desperate to survive.

There was and is nothing wrong with their LH LCC model in itself - Schram commented that Norwegian did have many profitable LH routes. As I see it, the problem was the strategy of rolling out that business model - they expanded their route portfolio aggressively and entered into multiple marginal markets / routes, some of which would take years to (potentially) mature. Coupled with huge costs from the MAX and RR issues etc... this inevitably led to over-exposure and losses. Now for 2020 they had made some quite significant changes which should have brought the overall group into profit. We'll never know if that would ultimately have included long-haul, but as they trimmed away numerous unprofitable routes they considered not likely to mature, it stands to reason that LH would at very least have been in a much better shape.

It's going to be another uncomfortable 18 months for the LH travel industry, but after that I can see another LH LCC operating TATL with the same model Norwegian used.

Galwayman wrote:

santi319 wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

Shuttle wrote:

And a link direct from Norwegian:

https://media.uk.norwegian.com/pressrel ... rk-3064682

A pity for their LH crews and staff.

Shuttle

None of the crews actually worked for Norwegian and they were temp workers with bad benefits compared to their peers...

Any Norwegian cabin crew with EU contracts had vastly better statutory rights than any US airline cabin crew has ever had in history

And yet they are all out of a job just the same. And just to point out, hasn’t multiple carriers in Europe, including Virgin Atlantic and BA simply fired loads of crew recently? At least we have furlough protection in the US.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Agreed.

Another wildcard might be Scoot, the Singapore Airlines low-cost subsidiary. They already got a fleet of 787s that are more or less similar to those of Norwegian, so no need to refurbish anything. They're familiar with the aircraft type and crews can be picked up anywhere (including the former Norwegian crews). It would offer great expansion possibilities for Scoot to markets such as Japan and Australia, and maybe their return to Europe.

In paper or theory, I agree with you. But, there is always a but.

If anything have taught us during last decade, through the LHLCC airlines with the likes of Oasis, JetStar, AirAsiaX...and now Level and Norwegian, that the room for a LHLCC is very limited. The expansion is impossible without hitting a low ceiling. LHLCC could thrive when the market is right with
1, Steady passengers volume and load factors
2, Steady cost control (that including fuel and airport charges); and
3, Steady finance cost and reasonable income to cover cost

They are all business 101s. The biggest problem for LHLCC was, at least in last decades, was the passenger numbers and load factors. On paper, LHLCC did enjoy a high load factors on many routes it operated. But firstly, they were still loosing money, it meant either the ancillary revenue did not match the expectations, or the total fares were too low to make a profit. And secondly, none of the attempt routes could sustain a year long more than daily operation, with the exception of Oasis's LON-HKG routes.

So all the standing alone LHLCC are failing, with the exception of few French carriers that operates France-Overseas Departments 'domestic' long haul routes, and the LHLCC under the legacy carrier groups. And those French carriers survive based on large volume of passenger numbers and very steady demand.

So now back to Scoot. The problem with Scoot (or JetStar in the same sense) is that its long haul operation can only survive on the mercy of the parent company. It means firstly it requires the legacy parent company to continue investing and believing in their potential; secondly, it requires the legacy parent company gives them access to market/routes that their parent company is not operating or competing.

Based on above reason, I don't think Scoot would be able to afford the plane. Any expansion by Scoot from Singapore would require SQ to give up certain market shares. It is just not feasible currently. Venturing into Australia or Japan, the comparatively higher yield areas outside ASEAN would be ideal, but it can not be achieved without big investment and take on initial loss on opening seasons.

Legacy parent companies are happy to set up a LHLCC to compete with new comers, to offload routes that requires lower costs to operate, to transfer loss making units/routes. That is why there is a low ceiling for the LHLCC's expansion.

But strange things happen in aviation market. I would not be surprised should Scoot took few frames. I just doubt the potentials.

I think one fact that often gets omitted when analysing why LHLCCs fail is that legacies use destroyer pricing to gain market share and keep the competition at bay. Legacies were caught napping when the short haul LCCs were established and their success was underestimated. But they don't want that to happen a second time.

Anecdotally the last two years I was able to fly for leisure purposes the following TATL:

2019 ZRH-SFO by LX $370 (roundtrip fare), no baggage but meal and IFE
2019 ZRH-JFK by LX $290 (roundtrip fare), no baggage but meal and IFE
2019-2020 BSL-LHR-MIA by BA $530 (roundtrip fare, X-mas time), no baggage but meal and IFE
2020 ZRH-LHR-LAX by BA $290 (roundtrip fare), no baggage but meal and IFE
2020-2021 BSL-CDG-MIA by AF $420 (roundtrip fare, X-mas time), no baggage but meal and IFE (cancel because of C19 but booking in January so before the global crisis emerged)

I did not use any miles or discount codes nor do I have relatives working at airlines. So for these fares it makes no sense to use DY as this would simply be a worse deal. If booking at the right time (luckily my job allows me to take vacation well in advance) legacies can be very cheap. Maybe once the competition, DY, is gone fares are unfortunately going up again, but legacies seem to have the ability to compete with LHLCCs price wise for Y class seats. So any future LHLCC should be warned that the TATL market can be very though!

chonetsao wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Agreed.

Another wildcard might be Scoot, the Singapore Airlines low-cost subsidiary. They already got a fleet of 787s that are more or less similar to those of Norwegian, so no need to refurbish anything. They're familiar with the aircraft type and crews can be picked up anywhere (including the former Norwegian crews). It would offer great expansion possibilities for Scoot to markets such as Japan and Australia, and maybe their return to Europe.

In paper or theory, I agree with you. But, there is always a but.

If anything have taught us during last decade, through the LHLCC airlines with the likes of Oasis, JetStar, AirAsiaX...and now Level and Norwegian, that the room for a LHLCC is very limited. The expansion is impossible without hitting a low ceiling. LHLCC could thrive when the market is right with
1, Steady passengers volume and load factors
2, Steady cost control (that including fuel and airport charges); and
3, Steady finance cost and reasonable income to cover cost

They are all business 101s. The biggest problem for LHLCC was, at least in last decades, was the passenger numbers and load factors. On paper, LHLCC did enjoy a high load factors on many routes it operated. But firstly, they were still loosing money, it meant either the ancillary revenue did not match the expectations, or the total fares were too low to make a profit. And secondly, none of the attempt routes could sustain a year long more than daily operation, with the exception of Oasis's LON-HKG routes.

So all the standing alone LHLCC are failing, with the exception of few French carriers that operates France-Overseas Departments 'domestic' long haul routes, and the LHLCC under the legacy carrier groups. And those French carriers survive based on large volume of passenger numbers and very steady demand.

So now back to Scoot. The problem with Scoot (or JetStar in the same sense) is that its long haul operation can only survive on the mercy of the parent company. It means firstly it requires the legacy parent company to continue investing and believing in their potential; secondly, it requires the legacy parent company gives them access to market/routes that their parent company is not operating or competing.

Based on above reason, I don't think Scoot would be able to afford the plane. Any expansion by Scoot from Singapore would require SQ to give up certain market shares. It is just not feasible currently. Venturing into Australia or Japan, the comparatively higher yield areas outside ASEAN would be ideal, but it can not be achieved without big investment and take on initial loss on opening seasons.

Legacy parent companies are happy to set up a LHLCC to compete with new comers, to offload routes that requires lower costs to operate, to transfer loss making units/routes. That is why there is a low ceiling for the LHLCC's expansion.

But strange things happen in aviation market. I would not be surprised should Scoot took few frames. I just doubt the potentials.

Meanwhile everyone seems to forget about Cebu Pacific, although I can't really blame anyone for doing so given that their long-haul service mostly failed except for Dubai and Australia. On the other hand, there are also other failures like flyNas's short-lived long-haul services or the now dearly-departed NokScoot.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

william wrote:

Well, flying to Europe was going to be expensive anyways with the majors taking seats out of the market. Now with Norwegian gone, the old days of the Trans Atlantic being a major profit center will return for the airlines, but way more expensive for the consumer. Glad I went last summer.

That's only temporary, until the next LCC moves in. In fact, FrenchBee is still around offering fares similar to those of Norwegian. Of course FrenchBee is a much smaller airline, which in this case can be a benefit for them. No surplus of capacity and thus competing against themselves and all of their operations concentrated in one place (Paris Orly).

If Americans go to visit Europe they visit the whole continent, so it doesn't matter where in Europe their flight goes. Paris is as good as any other city and from there they can start their tour through Europe. This is where Norwegian failed, they offered a variety of destinations in Europe. If the destination is irrelevant, all of those flights compete against each other.

Spurious reasoning since they had contracts with Olsen line for tour traffic

Low cost long haul has really only evolved over the years, we are pretty much left with what we have always had, as has already been described

a 2nd/3rd French carrier flying to French overseas territories, and a few additional destinations with strong French links like Montreal, Abidjan - Corsair has done this for nearly 40 years while this has been supplemented by another airline, AOM, Air Liberte and really French Bee/Air Caraibes now

A subsidiary of a main line carrier - again this is nothing new British Airways had British Airtours renamed Caledonian for years. While current incarnations do different things the point is they provide a service at a lower cost than the parent airline. At some point history shows that once the offshoot has done its job it is sold or merged back into the main carrier

Very few airlines have made the leap from short haul narrow body flying to long haul widebody flying, TAM is the most obvious and so far WestJet but history is littered this those that have failed or failing - British Midland, Norwegian, Air Asia X.

As for Level, there is still a question mark about whether Paris Orly ops will return leaving a small Barcelona operation. I see no reason to keep a brand going just for this, the routes could be marketed as Iberia, transfered to Air Europa or now with Norwegian out the game wound up.

amc737

Capricorn wrote:

I think one fact that often gets omitted when analysing why LHLCCs fail is that legacies use destroyer pricing to gain market share and keep the competition at bay. Legacies were caught napping when the short haul LCCs were established and their success was underestimated. But they don't want that to happen a second time.

Anecdotally the last two years I was able to fly for leisure purposes the following TATL:

2019 ZRH-SFO by LX $370 (roundtrip fare), no baggage but meal and IFE
2019 ZRH-JFK by LX $290 (roundtrip fare), no baggage but meal and IFE
2019-2020 BSL-LHR-MIA by BA $530 (roundtrip fare, X-mas time), no baggage but meal and IFE
2020 ZRH-LHR-LAX by BA $290 (roundtrip fare), no baggage but meal and IFE
2020-2021 BSL-CDG-MIA by AF $420 (roundtrip fare, X-mas time), no baggage but meal and IFE (cancel because of C19 but booking in January so before the global crisis emerged)

I did not use any miles or discount codes nor do I have relatives working at airlines. So for these fares it makes no sense to use DY as this would simply be a worse deal. If booking at the right time (luckily my job allows me to take vacation well in advance) legacies can be very cheap. Maybe once the competition, DY, is gone fares are unfortunately going up again, but legacies seem to have the ability to compete with LHLCCs price wise for Y class seats. So any future LHLCC should be warned that the TATL market can be very though!

And that's exactly my point. If you go into second tier markets with little or no competition you can get better fares for your seats rather than going into NYC and giving away your pricing power. Even if you don't go into another's hub boldly and threaten their market share they will leave you alone because you would be creating a market that didn't exist. Full planes don't mean profits so even so there is a huge demand in places like NYC, BOS and LAX it doesn't matter if you have to sell seats at less than cost. It's time to look beyond the usual suspects and carve out a market for yourself where customers have no access to low fares and you don't have to give away seats to stay relevant and maybe you could be successful. Icelandair has been doing it for years in MSP with success.

With jetblue entering the TA market, I wonder if they would be interested in taking some of these, since there is going to be a widebody void going across the Atlantic now. I know it’s probably a long shot, but is it? They have a great opportunity that has been presented by this, and also capturing the Norwegian crowd.

I had a ticket booked last year for Norwegian LGW-JFK return for £280.00 - 2 bags and meals included. Was so looking forward to it then they cut the day flight on a Sunday, so got a refund and flew on Virgin A350s instead - such a shame I didn't fly Norwegian to try their product before it's gone. Flew them LGW-ALC rtn and loved that product

Galwayman wrote:

santi319 wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

Shuttle wrote:

And a link direct from Norwegian:

https://media.uk.norwegian.com/pressrel ... rk-3064682

A pity for their LH crews and staff.

Shuttle

None of the crews actually worked for Norwegian and they were temp workers with bad benefits compared to their peers...

Any Norwegian cabin crew with EU contracts had vastly better statutory rights than any US airline cabin crew has ever had in history

Well no, disagree, in the US you have the opportunity to actually bid for ALL THE FLIGHTS your airline does not just the domestic/intra european ones. And with the same pay and benefits for all. That in itself is superior already. Try again.

Those with more insight, does this give B6 possible avenues to enter LGW? I’m not sure of the slot rules there.

We all know B6 was trying to go in either LGW or LHR, I am curious if the lack of a Norwegian hub will now benefit them in this quest.

AirPacific747 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

PlymSpotter wrote:

Sad to see that we still have the odd dinosaur gleefully trolling the demise of a competitor. Perhaps it comforts some to know that several thousand people have no jobs to return to.

The reality is that Norwegian had just about pulled everything together and were looking at a strong and likely profitable 2020. They thought outside the box and challenged expectations - making some mistakes along the way is inevitable. Personally I admire their vision - it's just a matter of time before someone else ties again in the post covid future.

I think this is pretty rosey. They were loss making and massively in debt. "Thinking outside the box" is just a cliche. They pursued a loss making business model that was unsustainable and really did take flags of convenience and outsourcing to the next level. Yes they had shiney new toys they never had the money to pay for and could fly Americans to Europe for a fraction of the cost of competitors but oddly enought, ex UK long haul was only markedly cheaper on routes where they never came close to filling the aircraft. Sorry for the employees but the industry will be glad to be shot of them frankly.

It’s not rosy, what plymspotter wrote is accurate. We were struck by many external factors which was out of our control, such as massive problems with RR engines and Russians denying us overflight permits over Siberia, a 737MAX stuck in Iran for months due to international sanctions, 737MAX grounding which affected 18 of our aircraft I believe, and a ballooning inflation in Argentina just when the ops there was running smoothly.

Despite all of this, 2020 was looking to be our most profitable year ever before COVID hit.

Norwegian proved that low cost LH can be profitable, and this is the reason why they waited so long to pull the plug after the groundings back in April last year. If it hadn’t been profitable for Norwegian, our new CEO would just have shut LH down asap.

I express sympathy for the loss of your job and those of your colleagues. I don't intend to be insensitive in what I will ask and say below.

Saying something like "Norwegian proved that low cost LH can be profitable" is not borne out by the numbers. Norwegian's longhaul operations have indeed been atrocious over many years. Posters here have outlined the reasons adequately. Norwegian is not the sole airline that has struggled to make long haul low cost work at scale, Air Asia is another very recent example.

However, what you describe above just sounds to me like excuses that some executives make for failures. Blame all of the company's misfortunes on external factors and point to promising times just ahead. Norwegian being profitable in 2020 is questionable but seems to have been accepted. Blaming everyone from Boeing to Rolls Royce and even Russia and Iranian sanctions?

UPNYGuy wrote:

Those with more insight, does this give B6 possible avenues to enter LGW? I’m not sure of the slot rules there.

We all know B6 was trying to go in either LGW or LHR, I am curious if the lack of a Norwegian hub will now benefit them in this quest.

Event without Norwegian's slots, LGW will have ample capacity in S21 and beyond - certainly enough to accommodate JetBlue. I say this became I'm not sure if Norwegian plan to retain the slots and increase their short-haul flying from LGW in place of former LH services.

As a new entrant, JetBlue would have priority access to those available slots at both LHR and LGW under the slot coordination scheme.

majano wrote:

Saying something like "Norwegian proved that low cost LH can be profitable" is not borne out by the numbers.

Of the overall unit, no. But it's reported that there were a core portfolio of Norwegian's LH routes that were profitable - this is what the new CEO was trimming back to in 2020 in order to revalidate and evaluate their LH LCC model. So it's correct to say that they proved it can be profitable.

majano wrote:

However, what you describe above just sounds to me like excuses that some executives make for failures. Blame all of the company's misfortunes on external factors and point to promising times just ahead. Norwegian being profitable in 2020 is questionable but seems to have been accepted. Blaming everyone from Boeing to Rolls Royce and even Russia and Iranian sanctions?

So do you think that the original 787 delays, RollsRoyce engine issues and MAX groundings have no affect on an airline's bottom line? These events are not excuses, but genuine issues that have cost many airlines around the world hundreds of millions of dollars. Naturally if you are already in a more precarious position, it's going to hurt you more. But lets not forget Norwegian survived these events and, as you acknowledge, it is accepted that their turn around plan was viable and that 2020 was going to be a good year for them. Then Coronavirus hit.

aviator2000 wrote:

onwFan wrote:

guillermohs wrote:

Level will disappear once Air Europa is owned by IAG. I foresee the group will use UX's reasonable brand recognition (and Dreamliners) for a niche which was intended in the first place for Level but failed to fulfill.

As for the topic, sad news for transatlantic aviation. Reduced fares are very much needed in this market.

Agree. In fact if I am not mistaken, Level was itself IAG’s response to Norwegian Long Haul. Given that the BA/IAG airlines’ routes had the most overlap with Norwegian Long Haul, I am sure BA is heaving a huge sigh of relief. Currently, the only part of Level that is left is at BCN and I am sure folding it into UX looks like a natural step. Don’t see the point of a 4-fleet sub-brand given the times...

On the bright side, I hope this means BA will be encouraged to resume/re-launch secondary US destinations like AUS, SAN, SJC, BNA, MSY, PDX, etc.

I'd expect quite the opposite. British Airways and IAG as a whole started many new routes in order to put Norwegain Air out of business, as they perceived it as a threat. With Norwegian long haul now gone, BA will retreat even further, as they only have to operate those routes which make them an important amount of money.

How can you correlate BA launching flights to secondary US destinations as a response to Norwegian?

AC4500 wrote:

aviator2000 wrote:

onwFan wrote:

Agree. In fact if I am not mistaken, Level was itself IAG’s response to Norwegian Long Haul. Given that the BA/IAG airlines’ routes had the most overlap with Norwegian Long Haul, I am sure BA is heaving a huge sigh of relief. Currently, the only part of Level that is left is at BCN and I am sure folding it into UX looks like a natural step. Don’t see the point of a 4-fleet sub-brand given the times...

On the bright side, I hope this means BA will be encouraged to resume/re-launch secondary US destinations like AUS, SAN, SJC, BNA, MSY, PDX, etc.

I'd expect quite the opposite. British Airways and IAG as a whole started many new routes in order to put Norwegain Air out of business, as they perceived it as a threat. With Norwegian long haul now gone, BA will retreat even further, as they only have to operate those routes which make them an important amount of money.

How can you correlate BA launching flights to secondary US destinations as a response to Norwegian?

For one, they started LGW to OAK (BA). There was no other reason for them to start that route except to put pressure on Norwegian. As soon as Norwegian moved to SFO, they dropped OAK. Within a week! They also had Level flying Spain to OAK. No other reason than to try and put Norwegian out of business. That route also stopped as soon as Norwegian dropped it. There are probably many more examples of this in other parts of the country.

ricq wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

aviator2000 wrote:

I'd expect quite the opposite. British Airways and IAG as a whole started many new routes in order to put Norwegain Air out of business, as they perceived it as a threat. With Norwegian long haul now gone, BA will retreat even further, as they only have to operate those routes which make them an important amount of money.

How can you correlate BA launching flights to secondary US destinations as a response to Norwegian?

For one, they started LGW to OAK (BA). There was no other reason for them to start that route except to put pressure on Norwegian. As soon as Norwegian moved to SFO, they dropped OAK. Within a week! They also had Level flying Spain to OAK. No other reason than to try and put Norwegian out of business. That route also stopped as soon as Norwegian dropped it. There are probably many more examples of this in other parts of the country.

LGW-IAK/FLL are hardly the kind of routes I was talking about. They were obviously launched only to compete with Norwegian. On the other hand LHR to SAN, AUS, MSY, BNA, PIT, etc. were strategic launches with business customers in mind, and lucrative pre-covid. I was referring more to the fact that BA can focus on such routes rather than having to compete with Norwegian...

The thought has come to me that this might not be as positive for IAG (BA) as I initially thought, given that this will likely release a lot of slots at LGW that Wizz Air will be keen to snap up. BA have stated that could hold their own against DI on LH ( BA LGW densified 777 giving similar unit costs as Norwegian had), but have often struggled with short-haul profitability and Wizz Air vie Ryanair on SH costs. Might make it difficult to BA to re-establish the SH Gatwick flying if Wizz get a decent foothold in LGW.

Shuttle wrote:

The thought has come to me that this might not be as positive for IAG (BA) as I initially thought, given that this will likely release a lot of slots at LGW that Wizz Air will be keen to snap up. BA have stated that could hold their own against DI on LH ( BA LGW densified 777 giving similar unit costs as Norwegian had), but have often struggled with short-haul profitability and Wizz Air vie Ryanair on SH costs. Might make it difficult to BA to re-establish the SH Gatwick flying if Wizz get a decent foothold in LGW.

That's nothing new, legacy airlines have always struggled on short haul where LCCs pick up most of the market. British Airways short haul at Gatwick has never been able to compete against EasyJet, which is the largest airline at Gatwick already. And Wizzair even undercuts EasyJet, which is on the expensive side for an LCC.

It's kind of obvious that Wizzair is after the assets of Norwegian such as those Gatwick slots, they're actively trying to kill Norwegian. Those ultra low fares in Norway have never been about profit, they're about putting the final nail to Norwegian's coffin. Wizzair wants to pick up the assets of Norwegian for as cheap as possible.

Wasn't Norwegian also granted some Heathrow slots? That would be the day, Wizzair at Heathrow. It could just happen...

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Shuttle wrote:

The thought has come to me that this might not be as positive for IAG (BA) as I initially thought, given that this will likely release a lot of slots at LGW that Wizz Air will be keen to snap up. BA have stated that could hold their own against DI on LH ( BA LGW densified 777 giving similar unit costs as Norwegian had), but have often struggled with short-haul profitability and Wizz Air vie Ryanair on SH costs. Might make it difficult to BA to re-establish the SH Gatwick flying if Wizz get a decent foothold in LGW.

That's nothing new, legacy airlines have always struggled on short haul where LCCs pick up most of the market. British Airways short haul at Gatwick has never been able to compete against EasyJet, which is the largest airline at Gatwick already. And Wizzair even undercuts EasyJet, which is on the expensive side for an LCC.

It's kind of obvious that Wizzair is after the assets of Norwegian such as those Gatwick slots, they're actively trying to kill Norwegian. Those ultra low fares in Norway have never been about profit, they're about putting the final nail to Norwegian's coffin. Wizzair wants to pick up the assets of Norwegian for as cheap as possible.

Wasn't Norwegian also granted some Heathrow slots? That would be the day, Wizzair at Heathrow. It could just happen...

Agree on the BA struggling at LGW against EasyJet, although I would argue that BA managed to carve our a 'niche' at LGW for SH leisure flights, attracting customers that still grant BA a bit of 'cachet' (not wanting to go down that discussion path).

Actually, this could be a 'win-win' for both Wizz and Norwegian: If slots open up at LGW, Wizz might transfer their planes/crew currently flying Norway domestic to LGW (maybe seeing better prospects that Norway), allowing Norwegian to re-establish their strength in Norway.

Loved their product. Easily my favorite way to fly between Denver and Europe. Will be missed, but thats the way this industry works.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Shuttle wrote:

That's nothing new, legacy airlines have always struggled on short haul where LCCs pick up most of the market. British Airways short haul at Gatwick has never been able to compete against EasyJet, which is the largest airline at Gatwick already. And Wizzair even undercuts EasyJet, which is on the expensive side for an LCC.

Without wishing to drift too far from Norwegian, BA had been consistently profitable in recent years at Gatwick and easily held their own against easyJet on the routes that they operated in competition. It was far from the most profitable part of BA’s overall operation but it was profitable. The value in SH Gatwick for BA was not really to make large profits but to act as an Achilles heel for easyJet as an overwhelmingly dominant multi frequency, multi destination easyJet hub at Gatwick threatens the SH margins at Heathrow too. They know this and it’s why they’ve fought back and expanded in recent years with the acquisition of Monarch slots, the SH retrenchment to Heathrow is literally just a survival mechanism, the slots at the golden runways must be protected at all costs. Long term though there’s two problems for BA in giving up Gatwick a) the same SH threat still exists from easy (and other competitors with grand designs ie Wizz) and needs countering and b) Heathrow simply isn’t big enough for the BA operation to fit into. They want an ongoing presence there in the longer term which is why they’re still flying the long haul stuff from LGW.

Will be interesting to see if Nowergian dip their toes in again with the 737MAX.

onwFan wrote:

ricq wrote:

AC4500 wrote:

How can you correlate BA launching flights to secondary US destinations as a response to Norwegian?

For one, they started LGW to OAK (BA). There was no other reason for them to start that route except to put pressure on Norwegian. As soon as Norwegian moved to SFO, they dropped OAK. Within a week! They also had Level flying Spain to OAK. No other reason than to try and put Norwegian out of business. That route also stopped as soon as Norwegian dropped it. There are probably many more examples of this in other parts of the country.

LGW-IAK/FLL are hardly the kind of routes I was talking about. They were obviously launched only to compete with Norwegian. On the other hand LHR to SAN, AUS, MSY, BNA, PIT, etc. were strategic launches with business customers in mind, and lucrative pre-covid. I was referring more to the fact that BA can focus on such routes rather than having to compete with Norwegian...

Most of those cities you listed were only added because they were bought and paid for by their respective local governments. AUS, BNA, MSY and PIT fit this bill. If there was no money I doubt they would have BA service.

Great opportunity for Condor. They could retire the 767s (which woul probably be converted to cargo) and take some quite new 787s.
But I guess Condor is not in the best shape for that right now. Too bad!

Perhaps AI to add 789'S to their fleet and allow them to use the 788'S to open new routes when demand returns.

vfw614 wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

vfw614 wrote:

What's the breakdown between 787-8 and -9s? I suppose it will be quite a different story when it comes to finding new homes for -8s and -9s - is anyone still taking on -8s these days? They seem to be sharing the fate that almost all smallest siblings of an airliner family meet as soon as larger aircraft within the family become available.

8s remain in production United American and BA received some quite recently

Sure. But when was the last time someone actually ordered one?

Although given the current state of the market, "outdated" aircraft concepts sort of see a renaissance - Lufthansa, for example, is operating almost all their A340s as these are the smallest longhaul planes in the inventory while parking 747-8, A380s, A330s. A year ago, those A340s were already flying coke cans.

Didn’t AA order them in their last fleet renewal round? I believe that was also the impetus for Boeing to work on commonality with the -9 and -10. I suspect as 767s age out there will be a few customers who mix -8s with the rest of their fleets. Sad to see Norwegian go, I really wanted to try them, it looked like a very respectable LCLH product (which could be why it wasn’t as successful financially)

santi319 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

santi319 wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

None of the crews actually worked for Norwegian and they were temp workers with bad benefits compared to their peers...

Any Norwegian cabin crew with EU contracts had vastly better statutory rights than any US airline cabin crew has ever had in history

Well no, disagree, in the US you have the opportunity to actually bid for ALL THE FLIGHTS your airline does not just the domestic/intra european ones. And with the same pay and benefits for all. That in itself is superior already. Try again.

Try again? I don't think you're understanding what Galwayman was writing.

In the EU your vacation, medical support/sick leave, maternity etc, is a million times better, and is guaranteed - it's not something you have to negotiate in a contract with your union against your dodgy US company carrier. In most EU countries you get 4 weeks of paid vacation if not more, guaranteed when you start. Most provide for paid maternity for up to a year. I can go on but you won't find those things at any US carrier. Most people in the US are unfamiliar with this and just have no concept of what it entails.

If you want to talk about not being able to work all the flights at your airline, let's consider all the US majors that contract out their flying to regionals for less pay, that you can't fly unless you work for that regional. Along with this, you have airlines like American that have (or had) flight attendant bases in South America that worked flights to Miami for lower wages, that you would not be able to work because these were staffed with South American based crews. Just like United and Delta's former intra Asia flying you usually couldn't bid for because it was staffed with lower-paid nationals in foreign countries- I do believe they may have had a purser chaser trip pairing but regardless, you wouldn't see much of that flying.

Also, putting people on "standby" operations for years of their life isn't great. With most European airlines - Norwegian included, this wasn't the case, you have a line of flying right after training. US and EU long haul based crews flew incredible rotations like JFK-CDG-OAK-ARN-LAX-FCO-JFK for their first trips right after training. Also, some airlines in Europe have bidding systems, Norwegian actually purchased Lufthansa's bidding system for their crew operations. If you want to work short haul you transfer to the short haul operation, if you want to work long haul you transfer there. You can't do that with most US carriers, even in the US because your regional operators operate the flights for lower wages.

Hope that helps clear it up.

bluefltspecial wrote:

santi319 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

Any Norwegian cabin crew with EU contracts had vastly better statutory rights than any US airline cabin crew has ever had in history

Well no, disagree, in the US you have the opportunity to actually bid for ALL THE FLIGHTS your airline does not just the domestic/intra european ones. And with the same pay and benefits for all. That in itself is superior already. Try again.

Try again? I don't think you're understanding what Galwayman was writing.

In the EU your vacation, medical support/sick leave, maternity etc, is a million times better, and is guaranteed - it's not something you have to negotiate in a contract with your union against your dodgy US company carrier. In most EU countries you get 4 weeks of paid vacation if not more, guaranteed when you start. Most provide for paid maternity for up to a year. I can go on but you won't find those things at any US carrier. Most people in the US are unfamiliar with this and just have no concept of what it entails.

If you want to talk about not being able to work all the flights at your airline, let's consider all the US majors that contract out their flying to regionals for less pay, that you can't fly unless you work for that regional. Along with this, you have airlines like American that have (or had) flight attendant bases in South America that worked flights to Miami for lower wages, that you would not be able to work because these were staffed with South American based crews. Just like United and Delta's former intra Asia flying you usually couldn't bid for because it was staffed with lower-paid nationals in foreign countries- I do believe they may have had a purser chaser trip pairing but regardless, you wouldn't see much of that flying.

Also, putting people on "standby" operations for years of their life isn't great. With most European airlines - Norwegian included, this wasn't the case, you have a line of flying right after training. US and EU long haul based crews flew incredible rotations like JFK-CDG-OAK-ARN-LAX-FCO-JFK for their first trips right after training. Also, some airlines in Europe have bidding systems, Norwegian actually purchased Lufthansa's bidding system for their crew operations. If you want to work short haul you transfer to the short haul operation, if you want to work long haul you transfer there. You can't do that with most US carriers, even in the US because your regional operators operate the flights for lower wages.

Hope that helps clear it up.

I’m not even going to continue this back and forth. Just going to let you know you are severely misinformed.

bluefltspecial wrote:

In the EU your vacation, medical support/sick leave, maternity etc, is a million times better, and is guaranteed - it's not something you have to negotiate in a contract with your union against your dodgy US company carrier. In most EU countries you get 4 weeks of paid vacation if not more, guaranteed when you start. Most provide for paid maternity for up to a year. I can go on but you won't find those things at any US carrier. Most people in the US are unfamiliar with this and just have no concept of what it entails.

The US isn't a paradise, but I hate to break it to you that in aviation in particular, they probably have it way better than us. Good luck getting paid vacation on the temporary contracts we get in Europe these days. Sick leave, not at all. They don't have pay-2-fly constantly eroding terms and conditions, we do. Sure, we might get health care, but that's a scant compensation considering any paid job in Europe these days is going to offer us less than minimum wage, while even their LCCs offer salaries to new hires that even experienced captains in Europe would dream about.

You can thank the lack of a European 1500 hour rule for that.

Sorry if I missed this, but I’m assuming this means the a321lrs are done for? Anyone know for sure?

bluefltspecial wrote:

Hope that helps clear it up.

Yes it does, so poor staffing models is another reason why they are going out of business.