Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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.
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
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.
mcogator wrote:Did anyone else read the title of this thread as Norwegian "locust" airline?
mcogator wrote:Did anyone else read the title of this thread as Norwegian "locust" airline?
M564038 wrote:That is at least more or less a fact.
davidjohnson6 wrote:Emotional involvement is rarely a good idea in business if the aim is to make a profit
scbriml wrote:M564038 wrote:That is at least more or less a fact.
So which is it? :sarcastic:
M564038 wrote:Norwegian’s 787 operation would have been profitable i fit werent for all the problems with the planes.
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
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.
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
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.
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 ?
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.
ContinentalEWR wrote:Norwegian as a company is about as bad a business model as you can get in the airline industry.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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/
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.
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.