PatrickZ80 wrote:

If I want to get to New York as cheap as possible the cheapest for me would be to fly Transavia Amsterdam - Paris Orly first thing in the morning, then self-transfer at Orly to FrenchBee taking me to New York (Newark). Return I could one again fly FrenchBee from Newark to Paris Orly, arriving there late afternoon. In the evening Transavia has another flight Paris Orly - Amsterdam. If FrenchBee can do it, why can't another airline?

It won't work as Transavia (Holland) flies AMS-ORY-AMS only in the evening.

nicode wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

If I want to get to New York as cheap as possible the cheapest for me would be to fly Transavia Amsterdam - Paris Orly first thing in the morning, then self-transfer at Orly to FrenchBee taking me to New York (Newark). Return I could one again fly FrenchBee from Newark to Paris Orly, arriving there late afternoon. In the evening Transavia has another flight Paris Orly - Amsterdam. If FrenchBee can do it, why can't another airline?

It won't work as Transavia (Holland) flies AMS-ORY-AMS only in the evening.

Not anymore, starting the winter season they also got a morning flight on some days. It's not daily but there are days on which both Transavia and FrenchBee fly so that offers opportunities.

By the way, these flights are performed by Transavia France if I'm not mistaken so technically it's ORY-AMS-ORY. Not that it makes much of a difference.

For someone in central or eastern Europe having the Europe end of a TATL might make some sense. However, for someone in western Europe much less so.

First you fly east, then then you sit around, then you have a longer flight west again. This is going to add a lot of hassle and delays overall. If you are going to save £100 maybe, if you are going to save £10, it would be crazy.

Can they cut their costs low enough to make the tickets that much cheaper?.

https://www.expedia.co.uk/Flights-Searc ... 20Airports)%2Cdeparture%3A6%2F6%2F2022TANYT&options=cabinclass%3Aeconomy&leg2=from%3ANew%20York%20(NYC%20-%20All%20Airports)%2Cto%3ALondon%2Cdeparture%3A13%2F6%2F2022TANYT&passengers=children%3A0%2Cadults%3A1%2Cseniors%3A0%2Cinfantinlap%3AY&fromDate=6%2F6%2F2022&toDate=13%2F6%2F2022&d1=2022-06-06&d2=2022-06-13

45 options under £400, including JetBlue at £322, of these 22 are direct taking 7 hrs 45 to 8 hrs 22.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

airlinenavigato wrote:

For getting feeder flights, Flypop simply flies from Stansted. In STN they get feeded from over 100 Ryanair routes for self-transfer.

How about these flying times for Norse Atlantic?:

- 02:00 departure STN
so they get almost all the Ryanair feeder flights that arrive during the day before.
- 05:00 arrival New York
There it's possible to connect to almost all other flights of the day.

- 07:00 departure New York
- 20:00 arrival STN

and on another scheduled day they fly
- 14:00 departure New York
- 03:00 arrival STN
to get all connecting flights of Ryanair

The idea of STN 0200 NYC 0500 or arriving from NYC into STN at 0300 does not sound like anything many passengers will even consider... particularly if there were Ryanair self-connections involved as well.

If this night time curfew at STN is still in place, that will sink this cunning plan: -

https://www.uas.aero/7907-2/

0200 departure STN-JFK is not for me either and I doubt it could be sold cheap enough compared to daytime flights to make it competitive or worthwhile for anyone except those that have to be in NYC at the crack of dawn and can't arrive the day before, and those sort of passengers would have once flown on Concorde!

airlinenavigato wrote:

For getting feeder flights, Flypop simply flies from Stansted. In STN they get feeded from over 100 Ryanair routes for self-transfer.

How about these flying times for Norse Atlantic?:

- 02:00 departure STN
so they get almost all the Ryanair feeder flights that arrive during the day before.
- 05:00 arrival New York
There it's possible to connect to almost all other flights of the day.

- 07:00 departure New York
- 20:00 arrival STN

and on another scheduled day they fly
- 14:00 departure New York
- 03:00 arrival STN
to get all connecting flights of Ryanair

- 09:00 departure STN
- 12:00 arrival New York

Maybe not Ryanair, but what about Worldwide by EasyJet? Didn’t they even partner with Norwegian? They could easily feed the operations in LGW, BER, CDG, …

What sort of margins would easyJet be making on feeding another low cost carrier? Especially one as tainted as Norwegian, which is clearly what Norse is a Trojan Horse for! To make it worth their while, a sizeable % of the base fare would need to go to EZY, making this a non-starter for any proper LOCO long haul, there's no way to drive the price down far enough against the legacy long haul airlines and still pay for feed.

Someone83 wrote:

BrianDromey wrote:

I’m not sure where STN and “FR self connects” come from as a business model.
Norwegian operated from Gatwick and offered protected connections with easyJet through the Worldwide by easyJet product. If that didn’t work, why would STN, with far lower O&D passengers work?

From what I heard, the easyJet/Worldwide solution at LGW gave Norwegian an OK or decent amount of transfer passenger. Norse has also said they intend to have feeder agreements "where needed"

And I'm pretty sure they business plan does not evolve around self transfer from Ryanair at STN, in the middle of the night

I was one of those. Did that twice flying DY TATL to LGW. First time I self-connected to EI to DUB. Second time, U2 to LIS and back from SCQ.

ok i adjust the flying times. Still room for FR self-hubbing flights. Flight searches like Google, Skyscanner and kiwi.com will show them as cheapest and people are likely gonna book them. Also for one-way journeys.

- 19:00 departure STN to get a lot of feeder flights of the day
- 22:00 arrival New York
- 23:55 departure New York to have the full day in NY
- 13:00 arrival STN

and on another scheduled day
- 17:00 departure New York
- 06:00 arrival STN to get many connecting flights and also more suitable for people with the final destination London
- 12:00 departure STN, so leisure travellers from London don't have to stand up too early in the morning
- 15:00 arrival New York

airlinenavigato wrote:

For getting feeder flights, Flypop simply flies from Stansted. In STN they get feeded from over 100 Ryanair routes for self-transfer.

How about these flying times for Norse Atlantic?:

- 02:00 departure STN
so they get almost all the Ryanair feeder flights that arrive during the day before.
- 05:00 arrival New York
There it's possible to connect to almost all other flights of the day.

- 07:00 departure New York
- 20:00 arrival STN

and on another scheduled day they fly
- 14:00 departure New York
- 03:00 arrival STN
to get all connecting flights of Ryanair

- 09:00 departure STN
- 12:00 arrival New York

It’s not possible to arrive internationally into jfk before 9 am as the airport is not open for international arrivals till 9. The 0535 Norwegian departure from the U.K. regularly arrived in jfk an hour or so early and had to remote hold until the borders opened at 9! Was a big problem for them . They had the earliest arrival into jfk from Europe

I quite like the name Norse Atlantic. I hope that the in-flight menu includes Spam.

peterinlisbon wrote:

I quite like the name Norse Atlantic. I hope that the in-flight menu includes Spam.

You ve lost me on that one !

tobsw wrote:

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)

I agree, There were Norwegian haters for years on here (and yes, there was some good reason) however they were on to something. Certain markets were quite successful and they were building great brand recognition. I say that in the sense that I heard my non aviation friends discussing them. They got jammed up with the Rolls Royce Engines, expanding too fast and taking on heavy debt, the MAX grounding and of course the Pandemic putting the nail in the coffin.

These guys would know best what routes they left behind that were making money. They had SWF-DUB up to Double daily when they had to suspend it due to the MAX grounding. They could certainly fill a 787 daily or 4-5 weekly if they wanted to. If they can find a niche (like the BER-JFK or BER-SWF) and make it work once a week the market is there. The collapse of WOW also leaves a market for Iceland as well. I'm wishing them luck and hope they come back to JFK and would really like to see them back at SWF.

Someone83 wrote:

BrianDromey wrote:

I’m not sure where STN and “FR self connects” come from as a business model.
Norwegian operated from Gatwick and offered protected connections with easyJet through the Worldwide by easyJet product. If that didn’t work, why would STN, with far lower O&D passengers work?

From what I heard, the easyJet/Worldwide solution at LGW gave Norwegian an OK or decent amount of transfer passenger. Norse has also said they intend to have feeder agreements "where needed"

And I'm pretty sure they business plan does not evolve around self transfer from Ryanair at STN, in the middle of the night

At peak, EZY transfers were filling the equivalent of 2-3 NAS 787’s per day, in both cabins - and that was just at LGW (they connected at other airports also - ORY, BCN, AMS, etc) - so pretty decent!

Someone83 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

What sort of margins would easyJet be making on feeding another low cost carrier? Especially one as tainted as Norwegian, which is clearly what Norse is a Trojan Horse for! To make it worth their while, a sizeable % of the base fare would need to go to EZY, making this a non-starter for any proper LOCO long haul, there's no way to drive the price down far enough against the legacy long haul airlines and still pay for feed.

If I understand the easyJet connection at LGW correctly, but please correct me if I'm wrong: The tickets including the feed is just priced by adding the two separate airfares together. So it isn't really any proportional splitting of any base fare for going from A to B, just adding A to C and C to B together. This easyJet's margin will be the same whether it is an O/D passenger or connecting? It is all about increasing volumes

This is correct.

Dreambaby wrote:

peterinlisbon wrote:

I quite like the name Norse Atlantic. I hope that the in-flight menu includes Spam.

You ve lost me on that one !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bW4vEo1F4E&t=18s

I think this video actually previews the inflight menu. If I fly Norse Atlantic, I'm going to order SPAM SPAM SPAM egg, bacon, sausage and SPAM.

Someone83 wrote:

787-9 LN598 - ex LN-LNO/G-CJUL

This one is reported being at SNN for paint into Norse's livery

they are due to announce the logo on the 10th. Possible coincidence?

Looks awesome! Suits the 787 well.

Interesting to see the image even has an aircraft name "Raet". Wonder if the others will be named on a geography theme?

Interesting to see the image even has an aircraft name "Raet". Wonder if the others will be named on a geography theme?

The logo is nice. The rest is nothing to write home about but inoffensive.

The livery is very nice! I actually like it with the Oseberg ship on its tail. There was some picture of it earlier, but they disappeared. It’s possible to see the livery here: https://flynorse.com/media-library

spinkid wrote:

tobsw wrote:

BrianDromey wrote:

These guys would know best what routes they left behind that were making money.

With this in mind, I'm a bit surprised they plan to serve FLL, given that Norwegian was progressively shifting its focus to MIA.

So 15 ex Norwegian B787s flying on former Norwegian routes run by ex Norwegian people in a market well down on pre COVID, with no feed focussing only on point to point.
If I had seen my shareholder value repeatedly burned by this, I'd be 200% deffo certain that it would surely work next time.........

skipness1E wrote:

So 15 ex Norwegian B787s flying on former Norwegian routes run by ex Norwegian people in a market well down on pre COVID, with no feed focussing only on point to point.
If I had seen my shareholder value repeatedly burned by this, I'd be 200% deffo certain that it would surely work next time.........

I totally understand the skepticism, although Norwegian admitted many of the faults in their last operation. Too heavy of a winter schedule when demand was diminished, trying to do too much at once (too many long haul bases) and overall growing too fast.

A focus in LGW, CDG and OSL seems smart. Those three, especially LGW seemed to be the most successful long haul bases for Norwegian.

I’m getting serious WestJet vibes from the livery - color choices, billboard titles, etc. Looks nice, though I’m skeptical of the timing - but hey, it’s not my money.

I did think of West Jet as well but more because I believe Norse needs a good lie flat business product. Just as West Jet do.
Value for money economy and reasonably priced product to attract a business market and have a piece of solid revenue.
Without that, they have Jet Blue now from London to think about, Mint is an excellent product, I have used it from LA to JFK.
Filling those 50000 seats (I think I read their fleet will offer, on paddleyourowncanoe) on all cheap Y/Y+ just doesn't fill with confidence.

Someone83 wrote:

shadez wrote:

With this in mind, I'm a bit surprised they plan to serve FLL, given that Norwegian was progressively shifting its focus to MIA.

It is not finally decided between the airport.

But they do have an office in Fort Lauderdale, and their founder and CEO lives there

Doesn't he live in Arendal, Norway or he splits his time 50-50 between the two?

Interesting to see how they still plan on having quite a big and international team with Ft Lauderdale instead of New York (DY had an office next to Times Square with more than 5 people).

Anyone have a link to the live recording though?

They're going to need a UK AOC I think? Is that right?

Regarding feeders they are looking for airlines on both sides of the atlantic.

FR seems to be out. They only serve 3 destinations each in OSL and LGW. FR was interested in feeding Norwegian, but then denied because of the financial situations of Norwegian.

The start of Norse' operations is going to be in the first half of 2022.

https://www.reuters.com/article/norse-a ... SO9N2MD026

https://flynorse.com/press-releases/nor ... ners-sl5tw

Some might think about this as crazy but what about them partnering with WN on the American side for feeder flights it would greatly benefit both of them. WN passengers would fill Norse planes with them wanting to go to Europe and then Norse being able to have there passengers continue on to USA destinations they don’t serve

Wneast wrote:

Some might think about this as crazy but what about them partnering with WN on the American side for feeder flights it would greatly benefit both of them. WN passengers would fill Norse planes with them wanting to go to Europe and then Norse being able to have there passengers continue on to USA destinations they don’t serve

At JFK? See: https://www.southwest.com/flight/routemap_dyn.html

Wneast wrote:

Some might think about this as crazy but what about them partnering with WN on the American side for feeder flights it would greatly benefit both of them. WN passengers would fill Norse planes with them wanting to go to Europe and then Norse being able to have there passengers continue on to USA destinations they don’t serve

I would think that Norse would benefit from a partner short-haul network much, much more on the European side. They seem to want to cater largely to US-based customers who want to go to Europe for cheap, and these are the kinds of passengers who fly airlines like Vueling, Ryanair, Easyjet, etc on intra-European short-haul.

Even if they were to partner with an American lcc, it would most likely not be WN. WN does not fly to JFK or EWR so would be absolutely useless if they wanted feed directly from the NYC area intl airports.

However, an airline with a decently strong network at JFK/EWR, FLL, & LAX is B6. B6 is likely the "ideal" US feeder they are aiming for. Even still I don't see B6 pursuing any kind of partnership with Norse. In just a couple years, with the arrival or more LRs + XLRs, they will likely be competing in very similar tatl markets out of NYC that Norse will be interested in as well.

The next best option is NK. Decent networks out of EWR, FLL/MIA, and LAX. F9 has a more desirable brand image of course, but will no longer fly to LAX by the time Norse starts operations.

I still am unconvinced that Norse needs any kind of partnership with airlines in the West though. To me, the value comes in having a partner short-haul European network, where they can allow connections, since I presume that their services will be most targeted towards the US-based passenger. For example, I flew OAK-SPU on Norwegian in maybe 2018 and had a pretty seamless connection through LGW. Flew back DBV-OAK via OSL and had a similarly pleasant-enough experience. If Norse can kind of replicate the old Norwegian short-haul network, this time instead allowing connections on a separate European short-haul partner, they'll be golden.

Edited for grammar mistake.

GVZZZ wrote:

Wneast wrote:

Some might think about this as crazy but what about them partnering with WN on the American side for feeder flights it would greatly benefit both of them. WN passengers would fill Norse planes with them wanting to go to Europe and then Norse being able to have there passengers continue on to USA destinations they don’t serve

At JFK? See: https://www.southwest.com/flight/routemap_dyn.html

Not JFK but there other potential adds that they did start following

airlinenavigato wrote:

Regarding feeders they are looking for airlines on both sides of the atlantic.

FR seems to be out. They only serve 3 destinations each in OSL and LGW. FR was interested in feeding Norwegian, but then denied because of the financial situations of Norwegian.

The start of Norse' operations is going to be in the first half of 2022.

https://www.reuters.com/article/norse-a ... SO9N2MD026

https://flynorse.com/press-releases/nor ... ners-sl5tw

They are looking into feeding with either DY or Flyr for flights from OSL. They are still in the talks (unable to find the article atm).

I wish them well, competition is always welcome and DY was a high quality transatlantic experience compared to many other airlines.....but there are so many discounters across the atlantic ( TP, EI, BA etc ) it's difficult to see what they bring to the market ( outside of maybe decently priced premium economy)

lesfalls wrote:

They are looking into feeding with either DY or Flyr for flights from OSL. They are still in the talks (unable to find the article atm).

Then it would fit. Flyr and Norwegian in OSL. In LGW and CDG mainly worldwide by easyjet and some feeding from Norwegian.

Wizz has >10 destinations from each OSL and LGW. But it's rather unlikely they want to go into a partnership. Maybe if Norse takes most of the financial risk of missed connections.

I'm interested about the flying times from Europe.

Oykie wrote:

The livery is very nice! I actually like it with the Oseberg ship on its tail. There was some picture of it earlier, but they disappeared. It’s possible to see the livery here: https://flynorse.com/media-library

Nice Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 screenshots. Livery looks good.