Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26287
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Tue Mar 16, 2021 7:20 pm

sas931 wrote:
Norwegian has just cheated 10 of tousand customers of their money, so a new cheating carrier ULCC will nok work

The legacy airlines have also sat on $billions in customer's deposits during the epidemic, they do not have any moral superiority.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
TropicalSky
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 1:37 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Tue Mar 16, 2021 8:03 pm

Lufthansa was one of the biggest culprits

Revelation wrote:
sas931 wrote:
Norwegian has just cheated 10 of tousand customers of their money, so a new cheating carrier ULCC will nok work

The legacy airlines have also sat on $billions in customer's deposits during the epidemic, they do not have any moral superiority.
 
JibberJim
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:33 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Tue Mar 16, 2021 9:07 pm

[quote="tobsw2]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.[/quote]

Absolutely, and I think this is often underestimated difference between the North American and European customer. Almost all European customers have flown on RyanAir, Wizz etc. because they are the only people flying places they want to go, the direct to the place you want to go is really important - when they're flying LHR-PRG or LHR-BCN they'll pay more and the ULCC's will be having lesser customers who are less likely to afford long haul anyway, but the wealthier folk actually avoid the large destination airport if it gets them sitting in their villa drinking quicker.

I know as many people who boycott BA or Virgin as I do who boycott RyanAir, and the low expectation makes it even easier for the low-cost.

The problem I think comes with long haul, is that you do only want to go to a few places, sorry Cleveland, but no-one wants to go there, it's not like RyanAir stimulating traffic to a small Italian airport where as long as there's a villa, a restaurant and some sun people will try out a weekend there. So are there enough underserved routes to get that extra traffic for direct away from the legacies. In normal times the cheap seat dumping from all the business class seats between London and New York probably says there isn't, but maybe from other places.
 
User avatar
NCAD95
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:11 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Tue Mar 16, 2021 10:18 pm

JibberJim wrote:
[quote="tobsw2]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.[/quote]

Absolutely, and I think this is often underestimated difference between the North American and European customer. Almost all European customers have flown on RyanAir, Wizz etc. because they are the only people flying places they want to go, the direct to the place you want to go is really important - when they're flying LHR-PRG or LHR-BCN they'll pay more and the ULCC's will be having lesser customers who are less likely to afford long haul anyway, but the wealthier folk actually avoid the large destination airport if it gets them sitting in their villa drinking quicker.

I know as many people who boycott BA or Virgin as I do who boycott RyanAir, and the low expectation makes it even easier for the low-cost.

The problem I think comes with long haul, is that you do only want to go to a few places, sorry Cleveland, but no-one wants to go there, it's not like RyanAir stimulating traffic to a small Italian airport where as long as there's a villa, a restaurant and some sun people will try out a weekend there. So are there enough underserved routes to get that extra traffic for direct away from the legacies. In normal times the cheap seat dumping from all the business class seats between London and New York probably says there isn't, but maybe from other places.[/quote]


Yes but your example is flawed because who goes to Manchester on holiday yet Ryanair operates out of there. Same with second tier cities in the USA people want to travel from here to there and there is always family traveling between the two cities. It's not always about a city being a tourist destination it's about the potential demand. You stated CLE as an example yet both WW and FI chose CLE for a reason. We need to stop with the stereo types. Again you can't say it doesn't work until some one steps in and tries.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:14 am

NCAD95 wrote:
JibberJim wrote:
[quote="tobsw2]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.[/quote]

Absolutely, and I think this is often underestimated difference between the North American and European customer. Almost all European customers have flown on RyanAir, Wizz etc. because they are the only people flying places they want to go, the direct to the place you want to go is really important - when they're flying LHR-PRG or LHR-BCN they'll pay more and the ULCC's will be having lesser customers who are less likely to afford long haul anyway, but the wealthier folk actually avoid the large destination airport if it gets them sitting in their villa drinking quicker.

I know as many people who boycott BA or Virgin as I do who boycott RyanAir, and the low expectation makes it even easier for the low-cost.

The problem I think comes with long haul, is that you do only want to go to a few places, sorry Cleveland, but no-one wants to go there, it's not like RyanAir stimulating traffic to a small Italian airport where as long as there's a villa, a restaurant and some sun people will try out a weekend there. So are there enough underserved routes to get that extra traffic for direct away from the legacies. In normal times the cheap seat dumping from all the business class seats between London and New York probably says there isn't, but maybe from other places.[/quote][/quote]

Yes but your example is flawed because who goes to Manchester on holiday yet Ryanair operates out of there. Same with second tier cities in the USA people want to travel from here to there and there is always family traveling between the two cities. It's not always about a city being a tourist destination it's about the potential demand. You stated CLE as an example yet both WW and FI chose CLE for a reason. We need to stop with the stereo types. Again you can't say it doesn't work until some one steps in and tries.[/quote]


People do not go to Manchester (except they wanna see a game), people flee Manchester to the south to see some sun and beaches.

Low-cost long haul can work but it is important to pick routes people want to travel on and you can get package holiday deals on board. 3x MAN-MCO, 3x MAN-LAS for example. There are many markets you might get enough tourists. BER-LAS 2x a week, DUS-MCO 2x a week, ORY-LAX maybe. But you need to serve markets that have a price sensitive market you can serve direct and where you can get cheap deal packages on board.
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 3007
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:55 am

tobsw wrote:
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

My understanding of organic growth is a company that grows from its own resource rather than by acquisition. Norwegian was debt-fuelled, but organic.
My question is where did all that debt come from? If they were operationally profitable and included their lease costs? The truth is their growth rate was unsustainable even with historically low interest costs, high efficiency aircraft, low staffing costs, and relatively cheap fuel. The income was not enough to cover operational and capital costs.
 
sfojvjets
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2020 6:00 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:16 am

BrianDromey wrote:
tobsw wrote:
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

My understanding of organic growth is a company that grows from its own resource rather than by acquisition. Norwegian was debt-fuelled, but organic.
My question is where did all that debt come from? If they were operationally profitable and included their lease costs? The truth is their growth rate was unsustainable even with historically low interest costs, high efficiency aircraft, low staffing costs, and relatively cheap fuel. The income was not enough to cover operational and capital costs.


Were they even operationally profitable? You talked about their lease costs being included, but are those lease costs solely from leasing some of their fleet or do they also include leasing jets during the 787 groundings? They definitely expanded much too fast as you stated, but those groundings of both their 787s and MAXes did really impact them operationally. IIRC they leased out Air Belgium, Wamos, and HiFly jets and maybe even from some other ACMI/lessors too - they even leased out HiFly's A380 at one point too I think. Of course, their growth was unsustainable to begin with, and this simply exacerbated the issue, but my question basically is does the operational profitability that was previously stated cover losses incurred from the various groundings that befell sections of their fleet?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19926
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:18 am

NCAD95 wrote:
Yes but your example is flawed because who goes to Manchester on holiday yet Ryanair operates out of there.


While very few people chose to fly to Manchester for a holiday, millions fly from Manchester for a holiday. Manchester airport handled just shy of 30 million passengers in 2019. No sane airline is going to ignore a market of that size.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancheste ... statistics
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
PSA727
Posts: 915
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:49 am

Re: New Norwegian locost international airline announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:42 am

NCAD95 wrote:


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.

I'm only aware of two airports in Germany which are directly linked with the high-speed rail (or even a long-distance train) network. DUS and FRA. The last time I flew out of LUX, I had to take a bus that went directly from the city to the airport; there was no rail option. I don't know if that has changed. But an ULCC should still choose an airport within very close proximity to a city that people would consider for their actual destination. I'm not sure how many passengers per flight they could attract who are willing to create such an indirect and time-consuming method of getting to their desired destination. And full disclosure, I've done kind of the same thing in the past. I'd find a really cheap fare to London, then worked my way over to LGW/STN/LTN to catch a $25-$30 easyJet or Ryanair flight to the destination (and many cases, a not-so-big city) on the continent. But only because after doing all of that and paying for those added expenses, I was still saving hundreds of dollars versus buying one ticket to my final destination. And it also helped a lot when a few of the U.S. carriers still had service to LGW. Not really any LCCs flying out of LHR.

And as for Deutsche Bahn. Yes, you can find some pretty inexpensive "SparPreis" tickets within Germany (29/39 Euros). But those tickets have advance-purchase requirements, and are only good for a specific train departure. If you miss it, you lose full value. And it's the walk-up ticket prices which are really high; over 100 Euros between a lot of city pairs. Now, one can say the same thing about the LCCs. Which is why in either case you'd have to "pad your schedule" to account for a flight delay. But at least with the flight option, you're looking at a 1-2 hour flight versus a 5-6 hour train ride, or longer.
fly high, pay low...Germanwings!
 
User avatar
NCAD95
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:11 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:43 am

FluidFlow wrote:
NCAD95 wrote:
JibberJim wrote:
[quote="tobsw2]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.[/quote]

Absolutely, and I think this is often underestimated difference between the North American and European customer. Almost all European customers have flown on RyanAir, Wizz etc. because they are the only people flying places they want to go, the direct to the place you want to go is really important - when they're flying LHR-PRG or LHR-BCN they'll pay more and the ULCC's will be having lesser customers who are less likely to afford long haul anyway, but the wealthier folk actually avoid the large destination airport if it gets them sitting in their villa drinking quicker.

I know as many people who boycott BA or Virgin as I do who boycott RyanAir, and the low expectation makes it even easier for the low-cost.

The problem I think comes with long haul, is that you do only want to go to a few places, sorry Cleveland, but no-one wants to go there, it's not like RyanAir stimulating traffic to a small Italian airport where as long as there's a villa, a restaurant and some sun people will try out a weekend there. So are there enough underserved routes to get that extra traffic for direct away from the legacies. In normal times the cheap seat dumping from all the business class seats between London and New York probably says there isn't, but maybe from other places.[/quote][/quote]

Yes but your example is flawed because who goes to Manchester on holiday yet Ryanair operates out of there. Same with second tier cities in the USA people want to travel from here to there and there is always family traveling between the two cities. It's not always about a city being a tourist destination it's about the potential demand. You stated CLE as an example yet both WW and FI chose CLE for a reason. We need to stop with the stereo types. Again you can't say it doesn't work until some one steps in and tries.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

People do not go to Manchester (except they wanna see a game), people flee Manchester to the south to see some sun and beaches.

Low-cost long haul can work but it is important to pick routes people want to travel on and you can get package holiday deals on board. 3x MAN-MCO, 3x MAN-LAS for example. There are many markets you might get enough tourists. BER-LAS 2x a week, DUS-MCO 2x a week, ORY-LAX maybe. But you need to serve markets that have a price sensitive market you can serve direct and where you can get cheap deal packages on board.[/quote]


Exactly and there are many major airports that are second tier in North America who don't have this option that a low coast TATL competitor can market to and unlike big cities with a large amount of capacity they could charge a bit of a premium for their service rather than having to give their seats away to gain market share.
 
evanb
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:52 am

The LCC business model is not a branding exercise but an actual business model. If one wants to attract passengers or grow the market through substantially lower fares, one also has to significantly reduce costs vis-a-vis competitors. Successful short-haul LCCs like Southwest, easyJet, Ryanair, etc found mechanisms to substantially lower their cost structure (permanently) through concepts like single fleeting, higher density layouts, higher fleet utilization, lower cost airports, etc. There were no single silver bullets, but a series of these.

These cost structure savings have not yet been translated to long haul flying with anywhere near the same magnitude. Until Norwegian or some other player can find some silver bullets they are not going to find sustainable success. I'm all ears for what these may be, but I'm yet to see a compelling argument how to substantially reduce costs. Norwegian had a streamlined fleet (that wasn't enough), they used innovative (and controversial) labor practices to lower labor costs (although that also increased the complexity of their operation running several AOCs in several countries), they had a good fleet utilization (but this isn't as valuable on TATL where most competitors have similarly good utilization), they tried secondary airports but that didn't seem to provide enough. What innovations in cost structure will we see this time?
 
tobsw
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:29 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:57 am

sfojvjets wrote:
BrianDromey wrote:

Were they even operationally profitable? You talked about their lease costs being included, but are those lease costs solely from leasing some of their fleet or do they also include leasing jets during the 787 groundings? They definitely expanded much too fast as you stated, but those groundings of both their 787s and MAXes did really impact them operationally. IIRC they leased out Air Belgium, Wamos, and HiFly jets and maybe even from some other ACMI/lessors too - they even leased out HiFly's A380 at one point too I think. Of course, their growth was unsustainable to begin with, and this simply exacerbated the issue, but my question basically is does the operational profitability that was previously stated cover losses incurred from the various groundings that befell sections of their fleet?


It's not what I talk, it's about what they state in their financial results. Inform yourself, then discuss.

Anyway, my point is that long-haul low-cost is possible, if done right. Norwegian demonstrated it was possible (perhaps too late), as they only managed an operational profit in 2019. Not the years before. Remember that it was the first year after they started balancing out and focusing on sustainable profitability, instead of exponencial growth, hallmark of previous years.

If the new Norse Atlantic focuses on the same ideas Norwegian implemented from 2019, then it should be possible.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:54 am

NCAD95 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
NCAD95 wrote:


Exactly and there are many major airports that are second tier in North America who don't have this option that a low coast TATL competitor can market to and unlike big cities with a large amount of capacity they could charge a bit of a premium for their service rather than having to give their seats away to gain market share.


I do not think that will work. Europeans do not go to secondary NA cities. The point is, that secondary European cities need connections to Main US cities. There are only a hand full of cities European wants to see (NY, LA, SF, MIA and Orlando for the Parks). All the other cities do not warrant year round service and besides maybe 5 more (San Diego, Tampa, Boston, Chicago, Vancouver) do not need service at all. All the other NA cities that actually see service are because they are a hub or are served from a hub through a major EU-Airline and even there it is hard for the carrier to make it viable.

Heck no one wants to fly from CLE to DUS, or BER to AUS. Who actually wants to see Düsseldorf or Austin?

So for a ULCC you need to take advantage of actual point to point demand that is not served and there are many medium to large European cities that have enough demand for a 2x weekly flight to the big tourist spots in NA.

Take Edelweiss as an example and they are not even ULCC, or Condor. That is the market you can serve from many more European cities to the tourist spots in NA.

EDIT: It can work with a ULCC in the US too but then you also only can fly to big EU cities like Paris, Rome and London.
 
User avatar
NCAD95
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:11 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:49 am

FluidFlow wrote:
NCAD95 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:


Exactly and there are many major airports that are second tier in North America who don't have this option that a low coast TATL competitor can market to and unlike big cities with a large amount of capacity they could charge a bit of a premium for their service rather than having to give their seats away to gain market share.


I do not think that will work. Europeans do not go to secondary NA cities. The point is, that secondary European cities need connections to Main US cities. There are only a hand full of cities European wants to see (NY, LA, SF, MIA and Orlando for the Parks). All the other cities do not warrant year round service and besides maybe 5 more (San Diego, Tampa, Boston, Chicago, Vancouver) do not need service at all. All the other NA cities that actually see service are because they are a hub or are served from a hub through a major EU-Airline and even there it is hard for the carrier to make it viable.

Heck no one wants to fly from CLE to DUS, or BER to AUS. Who actually wants to see Düsseldorf or Austin?

So for a ULCC you need to take advantage of actual point to point demand that is not served and there are many medium to large European cities that have enough demand for a 2x weekly flight to the big tourist spots in NA.

Take Edelweiss as an example and they are not even ULCC, or Condor. That is the market you can serve from many more European cities to the tourist spots in NA.

EDIT: It can work with a ULCC in the US too but then you also only can fly to big EU cities like Paris, Rome and London.


In respect to Condor you are telling me MSP, PIT and BWI are tourist destinations in the USA. I still disagree there are enough people that want to go from CLE to LGW 3 weekly on a narrow body at the RIGHT price and the right price in CLE is greater than the right price in NYC because of over saturation.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:12 pm

NCAD95 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
NCAD95 wrote:

Exactly and there are many major airports that are second tier in North America who don't have this option that a low coast TATL competitor can market to and unlike big cities with a large amount of capacity they could charge a bit of a premium for their service rather than having to give their seats away to gain market share.


I do not think that will work. Europeans do not go to secondary NA cities. The point is, that secondary European cities need connections to Main US cities. There are only a hand full of cities European wants to see (NY, LA, SF, MIA and Orlando for the Parks). All the other cities do not warrant year round service and besides maybe 5 more (San Diego, Tampa, Boston, Chicago, Vancouver) do not need service at all. All the other NA cities that actually see service are because they are a hub or are served from a hub through a major EU-Airline and even there it is hard for the carrier to make it viable.

Heck no one wants to fly from CLE to DUS, or BER to AUS. Who actually wants to see Düsseldorf or Austin?

So for a ULCC you need to take advantage of actual point to point demand that is not served and there are many medium to large European cities that have enough demand for a 2x weekly flight to the big tourist spots in NA.

Take Edelweiss as an example and they are not even ULCC, or Condor. That is the market you can serve from many more European cities to the tourist spots in NA.

EDIT: It can work with a ULCC in the US too but then you also only can fly to big EU cities like Paris, Rome and London.


In respect to Condor you are telling me MSP, PIT and BWI are tourist destinations in the USA. I still disagree there are enough people that want to go from CLE to LGW 3 weekly on a narrow body at the RIGHT price and the right price in CLE is greater than the right price in NYC because of over saturation.


I actually included London, Paris and Rome as the only possible destinations in EU that have enough demand for such an endeavour. Secondary city to secondary city will not work.

Condor at least had strong partners selling holidays. For Norse, they only have point to point demand so CLE will not generate enough demand. Neither will MSY (maybe during the festivities) nor BWI. The US is a vast desert for Europeans outside of California, Florida Hawaii and NY. And vice versa.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2222
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:29 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
NCAD95 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

I do not think that will work. Europeans do not go to secondary NA cities. The point is, that secondary European cities need connections to Main US cities. There are only a hand full of cities European wants to see (NY, LA, SF, MIA and Orlando for the Parks). All the other cities do not warrant year round service and besides maybe 5 more (San Diego, Tampa, Boston, Chicago, Vancouver) do not need service at all. All the other NA cities that actually see service are because they are a hub or are served from a hub through a major EU-Airline and even there it is hard for the carrier to make it viable.

Heck no one wants to fly from CLE to DUS, or BER to AUS. Who actually wants to see Düsseldorf or Austin?

So for a ULCC you need to take advantage of actual point to point demand that is not served and there are many medium to large European cities that have enough demand for a 2x weekly flight to the big tourist spots in NA.

Take Edelweiss as an example and they are not even ULCC, or Condor. That is the market you can serve from many more European cities to the tourist spots in NA.

EDIT: It can work with a ULCC in the US too but then you also only can fly to big EU cities like Paris, Rome and London.


In respect to Condor you are telling me MSP, PIT and BWI are tourist destinations in the USA. I still disagree there are enough people that want to go from CLE to LGW 3 weekly on a narrow body at the RIGHT price and the right price in CLE is greater than the right price in NYC because of over saturation.


I actually included London, Paris and Rome as the only possible destinations in EU that have enough demand for such an endeavour. Secondary city to secondary city will not work.

Condor at least had strong partners selling holidays. For Norse, they only have point to point demand so CLE will not generate enough demand. Neither will MSY (maybe during the festivities) nor BWI. The US is a vast desert for Europeans outside of California, Florida Hawaii and NY. And vice versa.

Off topic but speaking on Condor, they’re currently looking into the replacement of their 767s. A330neo vs 787-9. Boeing is charging them WAY TOO much for -9s compared to the 330neos I know this because I’ve seen the communications with the financiers and OEMs
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10296
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:40 pm

At least a brave idea, when nobody knows how travel will look in the future and how customer interests will have changed.
 
User avatar
NCAD95
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:11 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 2:26 pm

This would be my business plan to success using LGW as my center of operation providing I could get slots. I would start with 3 A321s operating 18 weekly flights over the North Atlantic giving me a spare frame 3 days week so I am not completely screwed if one plane goes tech.

LGW-BOS 4 X
LGW-PIT 3 X
LGW-BWI 4 X
LGW-YUL 3 X
LGW-CLE-DTW-LGW 2 X
LGW-DTW-CLE-LGW 2 X

For flights to Central Europe I would operate the full 21 weekly flights with all 3 frames because if for any reason 1 frame goes down it's pretty easy to find your customers onward connections to their final destination through alterative options.

LGW-BER 4 X
LGW-FRA 5 X
LGW-ORY 5 X
LGW-AMS 4 X
LGW-BRU 3 X

Again the base of operations is flexible but LGW kills 2 birds with one stone it's one less out station you have to serve and it's a major destination with a lot of O/D. STN might work as well. I think this could work well. BOS is good because it's a volume destination with a relatively short flying time meaning less cost so you can take a bit of a hit there on ticket prices.
 
User avatar
NCAD95
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:11 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 2:33 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
NCAD95 wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:

I do not think that will work. Europeans do not go to secondary NA cities. The point is, that secondary European cities need connections to Main US cities. There are only a hand full of cities European wants to see (NY, LA, SF, MIA and Orlando for the Parks). All the other cities do not warrant year round service and besides maybe 5 more (San Diego, Tampa, Boston, Chicago, Vancouver) do not need service at all. All the other NA cities that actually see service are because they are a hub or are served from a hub through a major EU-Airline and even there it is hard for the carrier to make it viable.

Heck no one wants to fly from CLE to DUS, or BER to AUS. Who actually wants to see Düsseldorf or Austin?

So for a ULCC you need to take advantage of actual point to point demand that is not served and there are many medium to large European cities that have enough demand for a 2x weekly flight to the big tourist spots in NA.

Take Edelweiss as an example and they are not even ULCC, or Condor. That is the market you can serve from many more European cities to the tourist spots in NA.


EDIT: It can work with a ULCC in the US too but then you also only can fly to big EU cities like Paris, Rome and London.


In respect to Condor you are telling me MSP, PIT and BWI are tourist destinations in the USA. I still disagree there are enough people that want to go from CLE to LGW 3 weekly on a narrow body at the RIGHT price and the right price in CLE is greater than the right price in NYC because of over saturation.


I actually included London, Paris and Rome as the only possible destinations in EU that have enough demand for such an endeavour. Secondary city to secondary city will not work.

Condor at least had strong partners selling holidays. For Norse, they only have point to point demand so CLE will not generate enough demand. Neither will MSY (maybe during the festivities) nor BWI. The US is a vast desert for Europeans outside of California, Florida Hawaii and NY. And vice versa.


Correct secondary to secondary will not work one side has to have major O/D markets. But my position is based on there is already a flood of low coast capacity from the European side to the USA tourist destinations and nothing from the USA side to Europe's major cities except for FI. You are seeing the issue from the European perspective and you need to look at the bigger picture where there is a lack of options. Sure no one wants to visit places like BWI and PIT but there are many people in PIT and BWI who want to visit Europe than have no option but to drive to their nearest flooded market where you can get affordable deals out of.
 
kameleonten
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:58 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:17 pm

Someone83 wrote:
Website up and running. Although not that much information

https://flynorse.com/


Remarkable that they get away with having a 787 clearly in Norwegian livery on the front page...
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4934
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:40 pm

Secondary city to secondary city is the only place where long haul loco does work for the likes of Condor, TUI etc. Constrained and lowish demand for direct flight means a price point can be met to make money on a non daily basis. There's a reason why old school charters weren't daily.

This Norse nonsense is pure ego!
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4559
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:15 pm

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.


I think FrenchBee would be the best example of a long haul LCC that actually works. Not a very big airline, but they're sustainable.

NCAD95 wrote:
This would be my business plan to success using LGW as my center of operation providing I could get slots. I would start with 3 A321s operating 18 weekly flights over the North Atlantic giving me a spare frame 3 days week so I am not completely screwed if one plane goes tech.

LGW-BOS 4 X
LGW-PIT 3 X
LGW-BWI 4 X
LGW-YUL 3 X
LGW-CLE-DTW-LGW 2 X
LGW-DTW-CLE-LGW 2 X

For flights to Central Europe I would operate the full 21 weekly flights with all 3 frames because if for any reason 1 frame goes down it's pretty easy to find your customers onward connections to their final destination through alterative options.

LGW-BER 4 X
LGW-FRA 5 X
LGW-ORY 5 X
LGW-AMS 4 X
LGW-BRU 3 X

Again the base of operations is flexible but LGW kills 2 birds with one stone it's one less out station you have to serve and it's a major destination with a lot of O/D. STN might work as well. I think this could work well. BOS is good because it's a volume destination with a relatively short flying time meaning less cost so you can take a bit of a hit there on ticket prices.


Sorry to say, but your business plan is doomed to fail. Certainly when another airline comes in with this business plan:

Center of operation would be Budapest. Fleet would consist of 2 A330-800NEOs in all-economy configuration, offering it's maximum seating capacity of 406 seats. These would be the routes:

BUD-EWR 3x
BUD-MCO 2x
BUD-OAK 3x
BUD-DMK 2x

That's a total of 10 weekly flights, thus 5 flights per week per aircraft. Seems doable to me, even in case one goes tech there wouldn't be immediately a major problem. I would not operate any short haul routes within Europe. Hence, why do you think I picked Budapest as a base? It's the largest base for Wizzair, Ryanair and EasyJet also have a large presence there. They can operate those European flights much cheaper than I can. Yes, the frequency would be lower but low-cost passengers don't care too much about that. They go whenever the cheapest flight goes, therefor a higher frequency doesn't make sense, you'd only be competing against yourself. Because long haul low cost is a niche market, you don't want to flood the market with flights. Let those passengers adapt to you.

The first gain compared to your airline would be the APD. On departure from any British airport to a long haul destination passengers pay £80 APD. Hungary doesn't have any APD, therefor I can start by offering my tickets out of Budapest £80 cheaper than you can out of Gatwick. A flight from London to Budapest is likely cheaper than £80, certainly on Wizzair, Ryanair or EasyJet. Let's say you can fly Luton - Budapest for £20, that's still £60 pure profit for the passenger and then the fare excluding taxes is the same.

But it would not be the same. Given that my plane is packed with the maximum amount of seats, I can divide my total flight operating costs by much more passengers than you can. That leads to a lower price per seat. Granted, given the fact that I use a bigger plane my operating costs would also be higher but still it would be way lower per seat. That allows for lower ticket prices, up to £100 cheaper than your proposal.

The destinations I've chosen aren't random. Not only do they have a large demand by themselves, they also have good connecting opportunities. Newark has a number of flights on Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant, Orlando also has plenty of Spirit and Frontier. Those don't have a major presence at the west coast, but Oakland seems like a pretty good one. Then there's one destination in Asia, which is Bangkok Don Mueang. The hub for NokAir and Thai AirAsia. Those can provide flights further into Asia.

Needless to say, you don't need to interline with those airlines. You just have to serve the same airport, passengers will mix and match their own connections together.

How is your airline going to respond to this? You thought you had something good, until someone else did it better.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3850
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:03 pm

If at first you don't succeed...maybe re-evaluate your business model. Also, using the 787 might not be a good idea. Focus on smaller airports within the reach of an A321neo. But with jetBlue now prepared to go TATL with narrowbody planes, that plan likely has sunset, since the point-of-sale will be USA based. Also, it's hard to redeploy wide-bodies in a crisis like this, where Norwegian had no choice but to park the fleet. For jetBlue, these planes could simply mean a domestic Mint expansion.

Speaking of, what is the status of the Gatwick slots at Norwegian? (Slots at LGW can be sold, leased, or traded so long as the AOC is active.)
 
vadheim
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2000 9:21 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:59 pm

 
M564038
Topic Author
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:18 pm

It is not clearly a Norwegian 787.
And even if it is, it does not show any trademarked features, and is probably a photo provided by the current owner of the aircraft.

kameleonten wrote:
Someone83 wrote:
Website up and running. Although not that much information

https://flynorse.com/


Remarkable that they get away with having a 787 clearly in Norwegian livery on the front page...
 
SkyVoice
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:34 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:34 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
If at first you don't succeed...maybe re-evaluate your business model.


Right! And, as the late, great American football coach Bill Walsh said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results."

So, they hope to be in the air by Christmas. Great! What year?
Addicted to opiate painkillers for 25 years; sober since 3 April, 2012
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 18, 2021 7:01 am

Who's to say that Norweigan wouldn't have succeeded if it wasn't for a worldwide economic disaster that nobody saw coming. If in 2019 someone had predicted "next year going on holiday will be made illegal" they'd be considered a lunatic. I'm pretty sure most airlines would have been wiped out if the governments hadn't saved them.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:42 am

peterinlisbon wrote:
Who's to say that Norweigan wouldn't have succeeded if it wasn't for a worldwide economic disaster that nobody saw coming. If in 2019 someone had predicted "next year going on holiday will be made illegal" they'd be considered a lunatic. I'm pretty sure most airlines would have been wiped out if the governments hadn't saved them.

DY was facing severe financial issues long before Covid.
 
User avatar
NCAD95
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:11 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:53 am

Polot wrote:
peterinlisbon wrote:
Who's to say that Norweigan wouldn't have succeeded if it wasn't for a worldwide economic disaster that nobody saw coming. If in 2019 someone had predicted "next year going on holiday will be made illegal" they'd be considered a lunatic. I'm pretty sure most airlines would have been wiped out if the governments hadn't saved them.

DY was facing severe financial issues long before Covid.


Covid was just a good cover to end long-haul and save a bit of face in the process. Look we tried but this pandemic really killed our operation.
 
User avatar
NCAD95
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:11 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:54 am

skipness1E wrote:
Secondary city to secondary city is the only place where long haul loco does work for the likes of Condor, TUI etc. Constrained and lowish demand for direct flight means a price point can be met to make money on a non daily basis. There's a reason why old school charters weren't daily.

This Norse nonsense is pure ego!


Thank you.
 
M564038
Topic Author
Posts: 622
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:29 pm

No, they were actually getting profitable and had their best year ever.

Polot wrote:
peterinlisbon wrote:
Who's to say that Norweigan wouldn't have succeeded if it wasn't for a worldwide economic disaster that nobody saw coming. If in 2019 someone had predicted "next year going on holiday will be made illegal" they'd be considered a lunatic. I'm pretty sure most airlines would have been wiped out if the governments hadn't saved them.

DY was facing severe financial issues long before Covid.
 
Tim445
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:04 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Sat Mar 20, 2021 3:36 pm

Something I am curious about that no one has brought up is whether this new venture will even be able to obtain the traffic rights to fly from the UK to the US post Brexit? Norse does not appear to be intending to use a UK AOC and even if they did apply for a new AOC it will not be grandfathered in the same way Virgin Atlantic and BA are to fly to the US with non UK majority ownership under the post Brexit UK-US bilateral.

Second if unable to fly UK to US what are the prospects business model wise to be only able to fly from the EU27/EEA to the US without the UK market?
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 1401
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: New Norwegian locost international airline announced

Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:36 pm

travaz wrote:
:hyper: 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? :scratchchin: I wonder if thier livery will be red noses? :lol:

Edit : Typo

Yes, the world has changed....
Airplanes, especially wide bodies, are dirt cheap and plentiful now, unlike just a couple of years ago. So are pilots.... That isn’t going to magically change in the next few years.

IMO, WOW failed not because of the US cities they chose, but because they were going head-to-head with Iceland, trying to best them at their own game. Chose those same cities to Luton or Gatwick, and Copenhagen, it could be successful.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:39 pm

M564038 wrote:
No, they were actually getting profitable and had their best year ever.

Pretty sure I remember before covid they had received emergency funding and their potential demise was discussed here and other forums quite a bit. They were cutting capacity big time. They stopped flying a lot of US routes. The following thread began in January 2020, and a lot of the first page was January and February, before covid really took off. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1441857

Things were not rosy at Norwegian when covid hit.

Edited to add: read the 2018 onward restructuring paragraph in wiki. Sure doesn’t paint a rosy picture at any point from when they began restructuring their business to when Bjorn Kjos stepped down in July 2019 until covid hit. Basically just slash and burn the operation to try to shrink to profitability, sale/leaseback of aircraft to stay afloat, etc. All that was pre-pandemic with a great economic landscape and many US airlines making record profits. Could they have turned the ship around without covid happening? Maybe. But it would have been a tough row to hoe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Air_Shuttle
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 633
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: New Norwegian locost international airline announced

Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:05 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Oh my god, just set bails of money on fire. HAM has struggled even to NYC.


I would not say that HAM struggled with NYC, it was United struggling with HAM. The demand is definitely there, United was not able to attract sufficient premium demand, Continental showed that it works when doing it right, and they were not the first Airline serving HAM from the US. Since the merger the share of overall HAM-NYC and HAM-USA passengers flying on that nonstop flight dropped while overall numbers were increasing. But to be fair: one factor also were performance issues with the 757 in winter and issues to properly fill 767s in January and February -- where the bad reliability of those 767s played a role as well. Switching to seasonal was the last nail in the coffin as the HAM-NYC market does not work seasonal.

I think an Airline which is not part of any Joint Ventures which has a good product, the right airplane and attractive flight times can be very sucessful on HAM-NYC*. Emirates fulfilled almost all of these factors, problems were unattractive departure times, competition by Continental and a huge imbalance of demand between DXB-HAM and HAM-JFK. But now with Corona things look a lot different and I dont think that a new norwegian longhaul Airline could be very sucessful flying before Christmas ...

*= Thinking of JetBlue and Emirates in the first place. I am sure Delta can be sucessful too as they still have a very good reputation in and around Hamburg, in constrast to United.

PSA727 wrote:
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.


You are absolutely right, but dont underestimate the catchment area of Hamburg, which is bigger than many would expect. 6 Million people within 90 minutes by car and 10 million people within 120 minutes by car. And most of that area does not overlap with the catchment areas of other big airports, and there is NO direct competition now. And offering nonstop options is a REAL advantage over one or more stop competition.
Lufthansa can of course try to squeeze them out of HAM by offering dirt cheao tickets via FRA. They tried to do so to get Continental and Emirates out of Hamburg, has not worked ...
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
Someone83
Posts: 5303
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:56 am

Norse has successfully issued new shares, raising 1,4 billion NOK (about USD 160 million), and will most likely be listed on Oslo Stock Exhange from mid-April

With also Flyr listed earlier this Winter, 50% of the airlines listed on Oslo Stock Exchange, is not yet actually flying
 
User avatar
lesfalls
Posts: 3531
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:05 pm

Spain’s La Vanguardia is suggesting that they will also fly from BCN: https://www.lavanguardia.com/economia/2 ... a.amp.html

Their sources for info are high regarded typically.
Lufthansa: Einfach ein bisschen besser.
 
TFFIP
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 4:47 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:12 pm

If they put some flat bed seats in the first couple of rows and offer a product similar to Westjet 787 business then they might have a chance
of some of that all important premium class revenue to carry things.
 
TC957
Posts: 4075
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:23 pm

Might I suggest to Norse NOT to copy what Norwegian did, and failed with, ie, fly mainly to the US, but to try new different upmarket leisure routes instead.
How about OSL - MLE / BKK / BGI / PUJ / SEZ / HKT. The US won't get back to the pre-covid traffic volumes for years yet. Whereas there is a pent-up demand for luxury holidays which will be unleashed as soon as countries open up again.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 25399
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:51 am

Typical non-sense from U.S. politicians calling for Norse Atlantic to be blocked from serving the U.S.

Obviously did not learn from the Norwegian saga, that the U.S. cant deny access to rightfully certified airline under the open-skies agreement.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norw ... SKBN2BG38L
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 5189
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:57 am

TC957 wrote:
Might I suggest to Norse NOT to copy what Norwegian did, and failed with, ie, fly mainly to the US, but to try new different upmarket leisure routes instead.
How about OSL - MLE / BKK / BGI / PUJ / SEZ / HKT. The US won't get back to the pre-covid traffic volumes for years yet. Whereas there is a pent-up demand for luxury holidays which will be unleashed as soon as countries open up again.


There is the little issue of the inability to access Russian overflight rights which makes service eastward less feasible.
mercure f-wtcc
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26604
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 25, 2021 6:31 am

TC957 wrote:
Might I suggest to Norse NOT to copy what Norwegian did, and failed with, ie, fly mainly to the US, but to try new different upmarket leisure routes instead.
How about OSL - MLE / BKK / BGI / PUJ / SEZ / HKT. The US won't get back to the pre-covid traffic volumes for years yet. Whereas there is a pent-up demand for luxury holidays which will be unleashed as soon as countries open up again.


Norwegian didn't fail on all its routes, and Norse Atlantic has made it clear it wants to do what worked, which is New York, Miami and Los Angeles.

Unfortunately, given the horrendous situation in Europe regarding COVID, inbound tourism from the U.S. that would otherwise go to Europe will divert elsewhere, and the U.S. will continue to ban Europeans from coming to visit the States until their COVID problem is under control.
a.
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5947
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:25 am

Some Things never change ... :-)

U.S. should deny market access to Norwegian budget airline -lawmaker


WASHINGTON — The chairman of the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday urged the Biden administration to deny a permit for a new low-cost Norwegian carrier to enter the domestic market.

Representative Peter DeFazio, in a statement released ahead of a hearing Thursday, urged Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to deny Norse Atlantic permission to enter the U.S. market.



https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/u ... e-lawmaker
 
ELBOB
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:30 am

M564038 wrote:
It is not clearly a Norwegian 787.
And even if it is, it does not show any trademarked features, and is probably a photo provided by the current owner of the aircraft.


Huh, I can see the red forward fuselage and blue annular stripe...

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... 2BHome.jpg

They've deliberately picked that one from stock imagery and futzed the white balance around a bit:

https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/airpl ... 6-75697607
 
TC957
Posts: 4075
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 25, 2021 10:09 am

mercure1 wrote:
TC957 wrote:
Might I suggest to Norse NOT to copy what Norwegian did, and failed with, ie, fly mainly to the US, but to try new different upmarket leisure routes instead.
How about OSL - MLE / BKK / BGI / PUJ / SEZ / HKT. The US won't get back to the pre-covid traffic volumes for years yet. Whereas there is a pent-up demand for luxury holidays which will be unleashed as soon as countries open up again.


There is the little issue of the inability to access Russian overflight rights which makes service eastward less feasible.

Guess a few $$$ in the right Russian pockets can overcome that issue.
Norse would do well to remember the saying " If you do what you've always done, you get what you always got ".
 
User avatar
lesfalls
Posts: 3531
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:38 pm

mercure1 wrote:
TC957 wrote:
Might I suggest to Norse NOT to copy what Norwegian did, and failed with, ie, fly mainly to the US, but to try new different upmarket leisure routes instead.
How about OSL - MLE / BKK / BGI / PUJ / SEZ / HKT. The US won't get back to the pre-covid traffic volumes for years yet. Whereas there is a pent-up demand for luxury holidays which will be unleashed as soon as countries open up again.


There is the little issue of the inability to access Russian overflight rights which makes service eastward less feasible.


As long as they fly directly from OSL they do have the overflight rights. It would make the most sense considering how they will most likely have a big following in Norway already considering how it is being started by Norwegian’s founder.

Once they got approval, OSL-BKK did overfly Russia for quite some time. I remember something about the same being for CPH/ARN-BKK but I believe that last short as then there was another spat. OSL-BKK stil flew over Russia though even after the spat.
Lufthansa: Einfach ein bisschen besser.
 
User avatar
lesfalls
Posts: 3531
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:42 pm

Mortyman wrote:
Some Things never change ... :-)

U.S. should deny market access to Norwegian budget airline -lawmaker


WASHINGTON — The chairman of the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday urged the Biden administration to deny a permit for a new low-cost Norwegian carrier to enter the domestic market.

Representative Peter DeFazio, in a statement released ahead of a hearing Thursday, urged Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to deny Norse Atlantic permission to enter the U.S. market.



https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/u ... e-lawmaker


It could get stalled as Norwegian international was under the Obama administration for 2 years if I’m not mistaken. Only when Trump came did the DOT change its mind fast. This could be already a bad start possibly.
Lufthansa: Einfach ein bisschen besser.
 
SEA
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:21 pm

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:59 pm

ELBOB wrote:
M564038 wrote:
It is not clearly a Norwegian 787.
And even if it is, it does not show any trademarked features, and is probably a photo provided by the current owner of the aircraft.


Huh, I can see the red forward fuselage and blue annular stripe...

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... 2BHome.jpg

They've deliberately picked that one from stock imagery and futzed the white balance around a bit:

https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/airpl ... 6-75697607


I must be going blind! I do not see any of that.
 
travaz
Posts: 1079
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 1:03 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 25, 2021 3:45 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Typical non-sense from U.S. politicians calling for Norse Atlantic to be blocked from serving the U.S.

Obviously did not learn from the Norwegian saga, that the U.S. cant deny access to rightfully certified airline under the open-skies agreement.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norw ... SKBN2BG38L


And this is from the let anyone and everyone in Crowd!
 
peterinlisbon
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:37 am

Re: New Norwegian low-cost Norse Atlantic Airways announced

Thu Mar 25, 2021 4:00 pm

There is a saying that goes "when you fall off, you just have to get back on the norse."

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos