Most of the original Norwegian-guys (Including Bjørn Kjos) are in on it.
They are going to be doing international flights with
787s before christmas they say.

https://borsen.dagbladet.no/nyheter/sta ... p/73530440


I am not convinced that they don’t have a chance.
Norwegian’s 787 operation would have been profitable i fit werent for all the problems with the planes.
That is at least more or less a fact.

That said. I am not placing my savings in that company.

M564038 wrote:

I am not convinced that they don’t have a chance.
Norwegian’s 787 operation would have been profitable i fit werent for all the problems with the planes.
That is at least more or less a fact.

Most of the problems with the planes have been fixed (a bulk of it being the RR engine woes). They obviously wouldn’t pick up 787s that have gotten the new engines yet.

Still sounds like a great idea if your aim is to lose a lot of money though.

Do people never learn? Their airline failed, time to move on, not take unwinnable chances.

That said, I hope I'm wrong, and wish them good luck!

Did April Fools come early this year?

Emotional involvement is rarely a good idea in business if the aim is to make a profit

Second new Norwegian airline in a short while that has announced operations ... This is gonna be interesting ...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel ... c-airline/

Hopefully they will chose markets where they can actually make money rather than giving away seats. Time for a new approach to the LCC TATL business plan. Most major markets are well served time to go into markets where prices are too high and their service will be well received. BOS, NYC, ORD, LAX, and SFO haven't worked for anybody. It's time for BWI, CLE, DTW, PIT, YWG, MCI, STL, CVG 2 to 3 weekly and the like. Uncongested low traffic airports where turn arounds can be executed with minimal delay and optimal aircraft usage. Pick a city and make it your low coast hub and watch the profits grow. Good choice maybe HAM or GLA

NCAD95 wrote:

It's time for BWI, CLE, DTW, PIT, YWG, MCI, STL, CVG 2 to 3 weekly and the like. Uncongested low traffic airports where turn arounds can be executed with minimal delay and optimal aircraft usage. Pick a city and make it your low coast hub and watch the profits grow. Good choice maybe HAM or GLA

Oh my god, just set bails of money on fire. HAM has struggled even to NYC. CLE, PIT, CVG -- you couldn't get 75 people to pay $500 each way, let alone fill a 787-8.

Among your U.S. origins only BWI and DTW even get service to LONDON. Second- and third-tier European destinations to 2nd and 3rd-tier North American destinations just won't cut it. Do yourself a favor: study NAS' TATL network failures.

Did anyone else read the title of this thread as Norwegian "locust" airline?

MIflyer12 wrote:

NCAD95 wrote:

It's time for BWI, CLE, DTW, PIT, YWG, MCI, STL, CVG 2 to 3 weekly and the like. Uncongested low traffic airports where turn arounds can be executed with minimal delay and optimal aircraft usage. Pick a city and make it your low coast hub and watch the profits grow. Good choice maybe HAM or GLA

Oh my god, just set bails of money on fire. HAM has struggled even to NYC. CLE, PIT, CVG -- you couldn't get 75 people to pay $500 each way, let alone fill a 787-8.

Among your U.S. origins only BWI and DTW even get service to LONDON. Second- and third-tier European destinations to 2nd and 3rd-tier North American destinations just won't cut it. Do yourself a favor: study NAS' TATL network failures.

Yes and all those failures have the same suspects BOS, NYC, ORD, LAX, SFO and Florida. WOW Air couldn't even make MIA work. The key is not the O/D numbers but the beyond connections that can be done. That why KEF works granted it is a tourist destination but offer people $500 roundtrips to Germany through HAM and they can access inexpensive train travel through Germany and the rest of central Europe. It's time for some out of the box thinking like G4 in the USA and they are making money flying out of smaller airports less than daily. All I'm saying is try something else I don't need an course in airline economics to know the current status quo isn't working. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

mcogator wrote:

Did anyone else read the title of this thread as Norwegian "locust" airline?

I did. It took me two or three readings to get it.

mcogator wrote:

Did anyone else read the title of this thread as Norwegian "locust" airline?

Yes. Another low cost airline is just what’s needed. Good time to launch in too when everyone around you us excess capacity and the ability to upscale their operations at a blinks notice.

M564038 wrote:

That is at least more or less a fact.

So which is it?

The phrase "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind for this scenario.

Judging from the interviews I have heard/read with BK after he quit norwegian, he does not have any kind of nostalgia or emotions invested.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Emotional involvement is rarely a good idea in business if the aim is to make a profit

Hehe. A bit of both;-) we are deep within quantum spin/state Schrödinger-territory of retrospective acounting after all.

scbriml wrote:

M564038 wrote:

That is at least more or less a fact.

So which is it? :sarcastic:

It will be interesting to watch this and see what happens. Post pandemic there may be a huge pent up demand for low cost international flights. The entire world of Aviation has changed and it might be time for this venture. I really like the name Norse Atlantic Airways it suggest power and beauty to me. Anyone know where they might get a bunch of used 787? I wonder if thier livery will be red noses?

Edit : Typo

Apparently it will be called "Norse Atlantic Airways" - what a terrible name IMO. It also seems bad for its broad presence across Europe and the US (yes, I know airlines have geographic names with broad flying, but typically those were strong in those geographies before expanding).

https://newsroom.aviator.aero/norse-atl ... l-airline/

M564038 wrote:

Norwegian’s 787 operation would have been profitable i fit werent for all the problems with the planes.

What on earth brings you to that conclusion?

2021 we won't see crowds of Americans or Europeans crossing the Altantic.
Why would you want to use again an aircraft which definitely didn't help Norwegian about 10 years ago, especially now that the A321LR is a reality?

NCAD95 wrote:

Hopefully they will chose markets where they can actually make money rather than giving away seats. Time for a new approach to the LCC TATL business plan. Most major markets are well served time to go into markets where prices are too high and their service will be well received. BOS, NYC, ORD, LAX, and SFO haven't worked for anybody. It's time for BWI, CLE, DTW, PIT, YWG, MCI, STL, CVG 2 to 3 weekly and the like. Uncongested low traffic airports where turn arounds can be executed with minimal delay and optimal aircraft usage. Pick a city and make it your low coast hub and watch the profits grow. Good choice maybe HAM or GLA

I don't agree with that.

The markets you're mentioning won't work because the legacies can easily undercut them one-stop. Low-cost travelers won't care about a stop more or less, they go for the lowest price. For example you're mentioning Cleveland. Let's say a passenger wants to get from Paris to Cleveland, what stops Delta from offering a cheaper Paris - Atlanta - Cleveland than this new LCC straight Paris - Cleveland? As long as Delta (or whatever other airline) is cheaper, nobody will pick the direct flight.

In fact, after Norwegian pulling out of the TATL market, there is still one TATL LCC left: FrenchBee. They're much smaller than Norwegian was, which is a good thing. But guess which two airports in the USA they serve.... New York (Newark) and San Francisco. The major airports. Sure they got Alaska Airlines as their official feeder partner in the US, but on self-transfer you can use any airline you want as a feeder. You could fly FrenchBee from Paris to Newark connecting to Spirit Newark to Cleveland and you'd be way cheaper than the direct Paris to Cleveland which is supposed to be low cost but the fare is just way too high.

In order to make a long haul LCC successful you got to understand how low-cost travelers think. They're different from legacy passengers, they don't give a shit about convenience. They care about the lowest price more than anything else. If you can't be cheap, then what the hell are you doing? Certainly on long haul you got to choose your airports carefully, two things are important. First, that you're able to offer a low fare out of there. That means little to no taxes, if the taxes are too high you pull out. That's why the UK, with it's horrendous APD, is not suitable for long haul low cost flights. After all you can offer your flights cheaper out of Ireland or Spain for example, those countries don't have any aviation tax.

Second are low-cost connecting opportunities, good presence of other (short haul) low-cost airlines. Low-cost travelers will self-connect if that saves them money, you need to make use of that. In Europe, Dublin, Barcelona and Budapest would make great long haul low cost bases. People from all over Europe can jump on a short haul LCC to those airports and self-connect to your long haul LCC, which is how you need to fill your planes. Long haul LCC can only work with high load factors and since it's a niche market, you need to scrape those passengers together from all over the place. The same goes for your destinations, you got to have low-cost connecting opportunities. Fly to a place where the local low-cost airlines have a good presence so your passengers can self-connect to wherever they want to go.

Not saying that FrenchBee is doing these things perfect, but they seem to be doing okay. Aviation taxes in France are bearable and Paris Orly, as a hub for EasyJet, Vueling and Transavia France, has good low-cost connecting opportunities. So do Newark and San Francisco. If the TATL market isn't flooded with LCCs, I see no reason why they wouldn't be sustainable. Of course it only takes so much for another airline to do it cheaper, which can easily put FrenchBee in trouble.

I am surprised they chose Norway over LGW. I was under the impression their routes from their to the U.S. were pretty good performers in terms of loads. Not sure if they were profitable on those routes. Perhaps if OSL is good they will look at CPH or LGW sometime in the future.

So, they are going to use the same plane they previously accused of causing their airline fall ?
interesting times ahead

georgiabill wrote:

I am surprised they chose Norway over LGW. I was under the impression their routes from their to the U.S. were pretty good performers in terms of loads. Not sure if they were profitable on those routes. Perhaps if OSL is good they will look at CPH or LGW sometime in the future.

It kind of makes sense given that they can't really offer low fares out of Gatwick due to the high ticket taxes (APD). Besides, there's too much competition in London. It's better to start out at a place where there's less competition.

Personally I wouldn't have chosen Norway either given that Norway has an aviation tax as well. It's a bit lower than in the UK, but still makes the ticket price unnecessarily high. There's way less competition out of Norway, but on the other hand, how are you going to get your passengers from all over Europe to Oslo to fill up your flights? Oslo doesn't really have a big LCC presence and a legacy adds way too much to the total ticket price.

It might kind of work as long as they're still small and there's not too much competition around, but I have my doubts with it. Honestly, I don't think they're going to make it that way. It can be done by making the right choices, obviously it can't be done by making the wrong choices.

NCAD95 wrote:

Hopefully they will chose markets where they can actually make money rather than giving away seats. Time for a new approach to the LCC TATL business plan. Most major markets are well served time to go into markets where prices are too high and their service will be well received. BOS, NYC, ORD, LAX, and SFO haven't worked for anybody. It's time for BWI, CLE, DTW, PIT, YWG, MCI, STL, CVG 2 to 3 weekly and the like. Uncongested low traffic airports where turn arounds can be executed with minimal delay and optimal aircraft usage. Pick a city and make it your low coast hub and watch the profits grow. Good choice maybe HAM or GLA

Literally the only thing that worked for Norwegian was New York/Miami/LA/SF/Boston.

And any future endeavors will stick to those cities too.

MAH4546 wrote:

NCAD95 wrote:

Hopefully they will chose markets where they can actually make money rather than giving away seats. Time for a new approach to the LCC TATL business plan. Most major markets are well served time to go into markets where prices are too high and their service will be well received. BOS, NYC, ORD, LAX, and SFO haven't worked for anybody. It's time for BWI, CLE, DTW, PIT, YWG, MCI, STL, CVG 2 to 3 weekly and the like. Uncongested low traffic airports where turn arounds can be executed with minimal delay and optimal aircraft usage. Pick a city and make it your low coast hub and watch the profits grow. Good choice maybe HAM or GLA

Literally the only thing that worked for Norwegian was New York/Miami/LA/SF/Boston.

And any future endeavors will stick to those cities too.

How is it then that they went out of business serving these routes and WOW Air cut these markets as well in their hopes to survive ?

NCAD95 wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

NCAD95 wrote:

Hopefully they will chose markets where they can actually make money rather than giving away seats. Time for a new approach to the LCC TATL business plan. Most major markets are well served time to go into markets where prices are too high and their service will be well received. BOS, NYC, ORD, LAX, and SFO haven't worked for anybody. It's time for BWI, CLE, DTW, PIT, YWG, MCI, STL, CVG 2 to 3 weekly and the like. Uncongested low traffic airports where turn arounds can be executed with minimal delay and optimal aircraft usage. Pick a city and make it your low coast hub and watch the profits grow. Good choice maybe HAM or GLA

Literally the only thing that worked for Norwegian was New York/Miami/LA/SF/Boston.

And any future endeavors will stick to those cities too.

How is it then that they went out of business serving these routes and WOW Air cut these markets as well in their hopes to survive ?

WOW’s final NA routes were EWR (NYC), BWI (Washington), BOS, Toronto, Montreal, and Detroit. They cut their smaller cities like PIT and STL. West coast had to be cut because they dropped the A330s and none of their other planes could make it.

Their final European cities were Dublin, London (LGW), Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Berlin, and Copenhagen.

You will notice most of those cities are heavy hitters- and for good reason.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

georgiabill wrote:

I am surprised they chose Norway over LGW. I was under the impression their routes from their to the U.S. were pretty good performers in terms of loads. Not sure if they were profitable on those routes. Perhaps if OSL is good they will look at CPH or LGW sometime in the future.

It kind of makes sense given that they can't really offer low fares out of Gatwick due to the high ticket taxes (APD). Besides, there's too much competition in London. It's better to start out at a place where there's less competition.

Personally I wouldn't have chosen Norway either given that Norway has an aviation tax as well. It's a bit lower than in the UK, but still makes the ticket price unnecessarily high. There's way less competition out of Norway, but on the other hand, how are you going to get your passengers from all over Europe to Oslo to fill up your flights? Oslo doesn't really have a big LCC presence and a legacy adds way too much to the total ticket price.

It might kind of work as long as they're still small and there's not too much competition around, but I have my doubts with it. Honestly, I don't think they're going to make it that way. It can be done by making the right choices, obviously it can't be done by making the wrong choices.

It says they will be working with NAS and Flyr to get connecting passengers onto their flights. In that case LON and PAR are pure O&D.

Another scheme to fleece investors, aircraft manufacturers, lessors, and airline workers. Norwegian as a company is about as bad a business model as you can get in the airline industry.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Norwegian as a company is about as bad a business model as you can get in the airline industry.

Pragusa.ONE is probably worse
https://onemileatatime.com/pragusa-one-airline/

Or you can go down the route of Family Airlines

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Another scheme to fleece investors, aircraft manufacturers, lessors, and airline workers. Norwegian as a company is about as bad a business model as you can get in the airline industry.

Do you mean the long haul flying, or the European short haul network, or the domestic flying? The latter two were quite successful until Covid.

@PatrickZ80 Long-Haul low-cost is not about only low-fares.

It's about having low-cost, so you can better adapt to challenges.

The same is true for short and medium haul. A summer Stansted - Ibiza on Ryanair can be more-equal-or-less expensive as LHR - Ibiza on BA.

Ultimately, the price is regulated by the market. A non-stop will be more expensive than 1 or 2 stop options. but there are customers that are willing to pay the premium to fly non-stop, even though it's on a "low-cost" airlines.

And to all the naysayers. Please, please, have a look to the Norwegian 2019 results. Their operations were profitable. Norwegian did not write any profits that year due to their massive debt. But their operation, were profitable.

I welcome the ambition of these new-(old) players. It's paramount to market health that there are players that are willing to fight vs the three "mafias" that dominate the North-Atlantic corridor.

NCAD95 wrote:

Yes and all those failures have the same suspects BOS, NYC, ORD, LAX, SFO and Florida. WOW Air couldn't even make MIA work. The key is not the O/D numbers but the beyond connections that can be done. That why KEF works granted it is a tourist destination but offer people $500 roundtrips to Germany through HAM and they can access inexpensive train travel through Germany and the rest of central Europe. It's time for some out of the box thinking like G4 in the USA and they are making money flying out of smaller airports less than daily. All I'm saying is try something else I don't need an course in airline economics to know the current status quo isn't working. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Deutsche Bahn is anything but inexpensive. Moreover, Hamburg is a long train ride away from several major German cities. And especially so to central Europe. Also, HAM is only served by the S-Bahn. So, one would have to take that from the airport into the city, to then catch a long distance train. If the point is to fly someone cheaply to a landing point in Europe where they can continue their journey by other means, Then they are better off flying to an airport where Ryanair or easyJet has a good number of flights.

tobsw wrote:

And to all the naysayers. Please, please, have a look to the Norwegian 2019 results. Their operations were profitable. Norwegian did not write any profits that year due to their massive debt. But their operation, were profitable.

That sounds like a reasonable argument, but they need to pay the lease/loan costs on aircraft, equipment, training, ground facilities, catering assets, etc. Aviation is a very capital intensive industry. If your profitability is not enough to cover the costs associated with your production then you are not a viable business in the long term.

BrianDromey wrote:

That sounds like a reasonable argument, but they need to pay the lease/loan costs on aircraft, equipment, training, ground facilities, catering assets, etc. Aviation is a very capital intensive industry. If your profitability is not enough to cover the costs associated with your production then you are not a viable business in the long term.

The main issue was their debt. That was the main issue. They didn't grow organically, but exponentially taking a huge debt with them. Their growth was not sustainable.

But otherwise, purely looking at their operations profit/loss, they wrote a profit. And that includes all the costs you provided: from marketing, to training, to maintenance, to fuel, to lease/depreciation/amortisation... all costs related to the core purpose of transporting people on a plane.

Here you can check out their 2019 annual report.
https://www.norwegian.com/globalassets/ip/documents/about-us/company/investor-relations/reports-and-presentations/annual-reports/annual-report-norwegian-2019.pdf

And here, a snapshot of their financial results (2019)

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

Do people never learn? Their airline failed, time to move on, not take unwinnable chances.

That said, I hope I'm wrong, and wish them good luck!

Long haul ULCCs are here to stay, when one fails, more will step in. Just another player in the game now. When times are good, they'll have explosive growth, when things get ugly, they'll fail. But they won't stop popping up.

JetBuddy wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Another scheme to fleece investors, aircraft manufacturers, lessors, and airline workers. Norwegian as a company is about as bad a business model as you can get in the airline industry.

Do you mean the long haul flying, or the European short haul network, or the domestic flying? The latter two were quite successful until Covid.

The long haul entity in particular. Don't get me wrong. I flew Norwegian within Europe and across the Atlantic and found the on board service pleasant and the experience overall just fine, but there was no value in Norwegian's long haul model. When you add up basics like a checked bag and a meal, not something I needed, but I did the math, the fares were identical and in some cases exceeded the legacy carriers at the time. The problem is the convoluted legal entities they created and the shareholder value they did not create.

a350lover wrote:

2021 we won't see crowds of Americans or Europeans crossing the Altantic.
Why would you want to use again an aircraft which definitely didn't help Norwegian about 10 years ago, especially now that the A321LR is a reality?

Exactly 321s to second tear cities in the US and Canada with no ULCC/LCC option with a scissor hub in central Europe less than daily on the North America side. Preferably serving cities where the TATL inbounds can do a European turn as well. And boom you've got a viable business plan. You need to also ensure you are not a threat to incumbent carriers and the US3 that's why I say less than daily. Because you will be serving a market that the US3 don't care to cater to a market that at this point doesn't really exist where you can crave out your own niche. Until it's done you can't say it doesn't work just because the numbers may indicate that.

PSA727 wrote:

NCAD95 wrote:

Yes and all those failures have the same suspects BOS, NYC, ORD, LAX, SFO and Florida. WOW Air couldn't even make MIA work. The key is not the O/D numbers but the beyond connections that can be done. That why KEF works granted it is a tourist destination but offer people $500 roundtrips to Germany through HAM and they can access inexpensive train travel through Germany and the rest of central Europe. It's time for some out of the box thinking like G4 in the USA and they are making money flying out of smaller airports less than daily. All I'm saying is try something else I don't need an course in airline economics to know the current status quo isn't working. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Deutsche Bahn is anything but inexpensive. Moreover, Hamburg is a long train ride away from several major German cities. And especially so to central Europe. Also, HAM is only served by the S-Bahn. So, one would have to take that from the airport into the city, to then catch a long distance train. If the point is to fly someone cheaply to a landing point in Europe where they can continue their journey by other means, Then they are better off flying to an airport where Ryanair or easyJet has a good number of flights.

I know in off peak times Deutsche Bahn has some pretty competitive prices. HAM was just a thought but if you wanted to open a hub like I suggested what city would you chose. Maybe Luxembourg IDK just thinking out loud.

Has there ever been a ULCC *long haul* that actually worked? The whole idea (extra fees for everything and not a cubic inch of extra space to save a buck or two) seems stupid for 10 hour flights across half the world where the “extras” aren’t really optional for the vast majority.

Whenever I priced WoW or Norwegian, I theoretically saved nothing when I added the bag and a non-torture seat while not earning any useful miles (that I only use for premium cabin upgrades so they are important to me only for this purpose) and having awkward flight times, flight days and airports where I have to organize additional train travel.

ULCC is fine for medium/short haul but forget it long haul.

May as well get James Hogan or John Borghetti to run this venture.. or even one of the guys from Baltia aka USGlobal.

It’s good to see there might be some light at the end of the tunnel for unemployed colleagues, in every department. Whatever you think of this venture it could be a lifeline for some to be able to pull through and buy time before moving on. In the mean time there is a way to stay current and/or get food on the table. The industry has had enough punches over the last 13 months. We need some good news.

Website up and running. Although not that much information

https://flynorse.com/

Apparently, they've already started advertising for cabin crew positions (through OSM Aviation, the same staffing company Norwegian used)

https://osmaviation.com/job/b787-cabin- ... c-airways/

JeremyXWB wrote:

Apparently, they've already started advertising for cabin crew positions (through OSM Aviation, the same staffing company Norwegian used)

https://osmaviation.com/job/b787-cabin- ... c-airways/

Remember, Norse is currently owned 63%, by the guy behind OSM. So assume all staffing will be through OSM

Galore wrote:

Has there ever been a ULCC *long haul* that actually worked? The whole idea (extra fees for everything and not a cubic inch of extra space to save a buck or two) seems stupid for 10 hour flights across half the world where the “extras” aren’t really optional for the vast majority.

Whenever I priced WoW or Norwegian, I theoretically saved nothing when I added the bag and a non-torture seat while not earning any useful miles (that I only use for premium cabin upgrades so they are important to me only for this purpose) and having awkward flight times, flight days and airports where I have to organize additional train travel.

ULCC is fine for medium/short haul but forget it long haul.

That's exactly it right there. They need to serve markets where they can have price advantage over the incumbent long haul carriers

its a dead wish swimming belly up...
Norwegian has just cheated 10 of tousand customers of their money, so a new cheating carrier ULCC will nok work

They don't deserve to succeed, it's that simple.

Galore wrote:

Has there ever been a ULCC *long haul* that actually worked? The whole idea (extra fees for everything and not a cubic inch of extra space to save a buck or two) seems stupid for 10 hour flights across half the world where the “extras” aren’t really optional for the vast majority.

Whenever I priced WoW or Norwegian, I theoretically saved nothing when I added the bag and a non-torture seat while not earning any useful miles (that I only use for premium cabin upgrades so they are important to me only for this purpose) and having awkward flight times, flight days and airports where I have to organize additional train travel.

ULCC is fine for medium/short haul but forget it long haul.

I'd say Norwegian *could* have worked if they didn't go gangbusters and want to fly anywhere/everywhere. If they would have focused on a smaller operation and continue to build from that rather than opening tons of routes, it could have matured into a good opportunity.