sfojvjets 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

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.

If they choose to do what Norwegian did between their choice of airports (JFK, FLL, and LAX which also correspond to the OSM Aviation crew bases, which furthermore are hiring for Norse), and who Norwegian had sought an interlining agreement with for 2020, the reasoning is even more leaned toward B6. There's also the added bonus that B6 has also moved into LAX, and it's not like their A321LRs and XLRs will be flying to Europe from LAX, presumably neither FLL, but they could also give up all of this to protect JFK-LON.

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/jetb ... h-jetblue/

Norwegian Air aims to sign an interline deal with US low-cost counterpart JetBlue. The planned partnership will allow passengers to combine fares in a single booking for connecting flights between Europe and the Americas on both airlines’ websites.

Galwayman wrote:

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)

If Norse can offer reasonable one-way pricing options, that would be something that's been mostly lost ever since Norwegian or other LCCs like Primera or WOW stopped offering transatlantic, aside from Level (which despite being IAG-aligned, had its pricing scheme separate from the JV with AA). With them, there was always the option of buying a one-way transatlantic ticket and then buying a one-way in the opposite direction, on another route, or on another airline at a later time. On airlines participating in a metal-neutral JV, the pricing is skewed towards buying the return ticket within the same JV (e.g. JFK-CDG on AF/DL and then AMS-EWR on KL, but not JFK-LHR on AA/BA and then FRA-LAX on LH), otherwise a single one-way ticket can be 4x or more the price of the return ticket. Even with EI, B6, and presumably TP or TK I would see a slight premium pricing two separately-booked one-ways compared to a return ticket. With Norwegian/Level/Primera/WOW it didn't matter if the itinerary was booked as two one-ways or a return, as the pricing would add up to the same amount.

Practicality may seem questionable but it has its users.

If that logo is supposed to portray the front of a viking ship, it is pointing backwards on both sides of the tail of the 787. “Hey guys, you are rowing backwards”...
Let´s see if that happens to Norse.

arcticcruiser wrote:

If that logo is supposed to portray the front of a viking ship, it is pointing backwards on both sides of the tail of the 787. “Hey guys, you are rowing backwards”...
Let´s see if that happens to Norse.

The bow and stern of the famous Viking longship the logo is modeled after (the Oseberg ship) are basically identical.

Polot wrote:

arcticcruiser wrote:

If that logo is supposed to portray the front of a viking ship, it is pointing backwards on both sides of the tail of the 787. “Hey guys, you are rowing backwards”...
Let´s see if that happens to Norse.

The bow and stern of the famous Viking longship the logo is modeled after (the Oseberg ship) are basically identical.

Thanks Polot, but that is even worse! The first reconstruction of the Oseberg ship sank in 20 seconds!
https://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/en/news/the-viking-ship-that-couldnt-sail-is-headed-for-roskilde

arcticcruiser wrote:

Thanks Polot, but that is even worse! The first reconstruction of the Oseberg ship sank in 20 seconds!
https://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/en/news/the-viking-ship-that-couldnt-sail-is-headed-for-roskilde

arcticcruiser wrote:

If that logo is supposed to portray the front of a viking ship, it is pointing backwards on both sides of the tail of the 787. “Hey guys, you are rowing backwards”...
Let´s see if that happens to Norse.

cynics

Someone83 wrote:

You need to take into consideration Wizz route network and strategy to Scandinavia. It is mainly to bring workers from Eastern Europe, VFR and weekend tourist from Scandinavia. Their schedule and route structure is not suitable for feed.

Yes true. The majority of routes Wizz flies 2-3 weekly. Even if the flying times fit for the flight to the US, on the way back they may not fit for protected feeder flights.

I still hope for flights from STN in the future with suitable flying times for self-hubbing. Norse said in their presentation that they got a lot of feedback and suggestions. So I suggested this idea to them via e-mail

Luton has the most Wizz Air routes for self-hubbing. There it looks like the runway is not long enough for a fully loaded 787.

Dublin and Bergamo have over 100 non-stop ULCC routes. Malpensa, Berlin, Barcelona and Vienna over 50.

Flying from there to NY between 18-19:00 on one scheduled day. And on another scheduled day arriving from NY at the ULCC airports between 6-8:00 in the morning to catch the connecting flights of that day.
For 10-30€ on FR/W6 from all over Europe, especially where the legacy carriers don't have a good offer. And for 99-139€ with Norse. Nice

the airport boss who completed the BER after many years of delay said, that self-hubbing gonna be the future.

BER has a dedicated service and website for self-transfer

https://www-airliners-de.translate.goog ... ax,nv,elem

https://ber.berlin-airport.de/en/select ... IABER.html

Those prices won't cover APD let alone costs, get real.

Of course one-way fares.

From certain airports these transatlantic fares can also be gotten from legacy carriers. rather when booking them return and then dividing them in the head into two one-way fares.

The average Ryanair fare is 37€.

I didn't say that the stated fares will be available everyday. But there will surely a good amount of days where to get them. Only a small piece of luggage included. Big piece of hand luggage, checked luggage, seat selection, priority and meals as an option.

airlinenavigato wrote:

Of course one-way fares.

From certain airports these transatlantic fares can also be gotten from legacy carriers. rather when booking them return and then dividing them in the head into two one-way fares.

The average Ryanair fare is 37€.

I didn't say that the stated fares will be available everyday. But there will surely a good amount of days where to get them. Only a small piece of luggage included. Big piece of hand luggage, checked luggage, seat selection, priority and meals as an option.

You suggest Norse fares around €100. The APD alone on a long haul flight from UK is £84. That fare will cover the APD and that’s it.

The majors can offer occasional cheap fares because they have business/premium cabins and cargo which subsides each other. The reality is Norse will be charging the same as the majors. That’s fine when travel is booming. It’s less likely to work when there is loads of capacity. If I can fly JetBlue for £300 return why bother with Norse.

seansasLCY wrote:

You suggest Norse fares around €100.

Days where they can offer 99-139€ and not only from the UK I remember from Spain non-stop before the pandemic from 120€ one-way. People who pay for a big piece of hand luggage, checked luggage, seat selection, meals and so on make it possible to make the base price lower.

seansasLCY wrote:

If I can fly JetBlue for £300 return why bother with Norse.

Isn't a widebody Dreamliner preferred over a narrowbody on longer flights anymore?

It's about flying times that fit for self-transfer connections from airports, where legacy carriers don't have a good offer or where legacy carriers are considerably more expensive on the desired flying date. JetBlue flies from Heathrow and Gatwick. There are not many ULCC routes for self-hubbing.

What % of the market self transfers?
Families? Not really? It's "bottom feeders", the modern day bucket shops. I sat next to a couple on a Norwegian B789 who brought their own sandwiches on long haul. It's really hard to make money off these people, no matter how much you evangalise this brave new world, it's a loss making money pit. Investors might as well just take their money and set light to it. Doing the same thing again and expecting a different result is insanity.
The only difference is the lease rates are likely lower on the B789s and debt levels are lower. Don't expect a down and bleeding BA to let these guys just set up and launch without a bloody response, but yeah, hub and spoke with easyJet at fares that don't even cover taxes and charges? Every day's a market share building loss leader which is EXACTLY what helped kill Norwegian v1.

skipness1E wrote:

What % of the market self transfers?
Families? Not really? It's "bottom feeders", the modern day bucket shops. I sat next to a couple on a Norwegian B789 who brought their own sandwiches on long haul. It's really hard to make money off these people, no matter how much you evangalise this brave new world, it's a loss making money pit. Investors might as well just take their money and set light to it. Doing the same thing again and expecting a different result is insanity.
The only difference is the lease rates are likely lower on the B789s and debt levels are lower. Don't expect a down and bleeding BA to let these guys just set up and launch without a bloody response, but yeah, hub and spoke with easyJet at fares that don't even cover taxes and charges? Every day's a market share building loss leader which is EXACTLY what helped kill Norwegian v1.

Spot on. If you’re going to self connect to save £10 you’re not going to spend money on any ancillary charges. The seat will be a total loss for the carrier.

One delayed flight where your self connectors all miss their connection and have to buy expensive new tickets will create loads of negative media and scare any others from doing it. You won’t build a successful airline on self connecting pax.

So.. here it is fresh out of the paint shop at SNN

https://imgur.com/U1shcDO

skipness1E wrote:

Those prices won't cover APD let alone costs, get real.

But the APD only applies to flights out of the UK, not to flights out of other countries. That's why it can make sense to self-connect in mainland Europe, that way you only pay APD on your flight from the UK to your connection airport in Europe. Your second ticket, from Europe to America, is not subject to APD.

If you look up fares to the same long haul destination on the same dates you will often find them to be much cheaper out of mainland Europe than out of the UK. The reason is the APD. So the trick is to first fly short haul from the UK to mainland Europe and self-connect there to your long haul flight, it easily saves you a good bit of money.

airlinenavigato wrote:

Days where they can offer 99-139€ and not only from the UK I remember from Spain non-stop before the pandemic from 120€ one-way. People who pay for a big piece of hand luggage, checked luggage, seat selection, meals and so on make it possible to make the base price lower.[/qoute]

Like I said, the UK is often expensive to fly from due to the APD. Those tickets out of Spain aren't subject to APD and therefor logically cheaper.

airlinenavigato"[quote="seansasLCY wrote:

If I can fly JetBlue for £300 return why bother with Norse.

Isn't a widebody Dreamliner preferred over a narrowbody on longer flights anymore?

It's about flying times that fit for self-transfer connections from airports, where legacy carriers don't have a good offer or where legacy carriers are considerably more expensive on the desired flying date. JetBlue flies from Heathrow and Gatwick. There are not many ULCC routes for self-hubbing.

Agreed on Heathrow, no ULCC will ever fly there. Gatwick is the largest EasyJet hub and therefor has low-cost connecting opportunities. Still, it only really starts when JetBlue (or any TATL ULCC) starts offering flights from anywhere else than the UK. When Norwegian flew to Newburgh they often had fares as low as €80 out of Dublin while the fare out of Edinburgh was easily €120 or higher. Therefor Dublin captured the self-connecting traffic from all of Europe, mostly on Ryanair. Hence the reason they went to twice daily, those flights were popular. Edinburgh never became the success that Dublin was. The reason was the APD, that applied out of Edinburgh but didn't apply out of Dublin.

I wouldn't call JetBlue a real LCC, their fares are pretty much on par with the legacies. They're an LCC for their service level, but looking at the fare regardless of service level they're expensive. Suppose Spirit or Frontier enters the TATL market, they'd crush JetBlue with their low fares. Like I said, €80 one-way for a TATL ticket is possible but not out of the UK.

You always over fixate on APD. What's the point in saving a few pounds on APD if you have to get from SDF to New York by other means? There's a reason loss making Norwegian moved away from SDF to focus on JFK and OAK into SFO and it's because they NEEDED to be able to charge more. Stop looking at the headlines and look at the detail, you assume DUB-SDF was succesful and EDI-SDF less so cos DUB had lower fares and higher freq?

You've never worked in business have you Patrickz80? That's the WRONG way round, that's failure writ large. All about rock bottom fares to far off airports to build market share, then too late they tried to refocus on core markets.
BTW jetBlue is certainly not an ULCC and they sure as you know what don't plan on hanging around Gatwick too long IMHO. Their transatlantic service levels are far from low cost and your hypothesis that Spirit would crush that model dead on the North Atlantic is hilarious. What are you smoking mate? There's NO way to make money using mucj lower fares on the Spirit A320 series as the fixed costs are identical to the same as full service on jetBlue or Air Canada for example. There is no competitive advantage they can offer on bucket fares that would give any ROI!!!! The penny pinching market you are talking about is not big enough or high spending enough to make money. If you need THAT level of cheap airfare you can't afford the hotels frankly.

"If at first you don't succeed, Mr. Wynt?"
"Try, try again, Mr. Kidd."

And by SDF I mean SWF
#epicfail
Mock me, do he he

skipness1E wrote:

There's a reason loss making Norwegian moved away from [SWF] to focus on JFK

Yes there is. The 737 MAX got grounded.

Maybe Norse should enter into an agreement with Indigo Partners group, in order to have connecting traffic in both sides of the pond?

Frontier (US), Volaris (Mexico), Jetsmart (Chile) and WizzAir (EU) are owned and controlled by Indigo Partners. The airlines group negotiate and order new aircraft collectively etc.

reidar76 wrote:

Maybe Norse should enter into an agreement with Indigo Partners group, in order to have connecting traffic in both sides of the pond?

Frontier (US), Volaris (Mexico), Jetsmart (Chile) and WizzAir (EU) are owned and controlled by Indigo Partners. The airlines group negotiate and order new aircraft collectively etc.

Doubt very much a Norwegian airline will go into partnership with something that entertains a company like Wizzair.

This Airline Is At War... With A Country:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqZX7YvOZkE

Some paint shop images.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E815v84WQAU ... name=large


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E815v9GWEAI ... name=large

before and after https://twitter.com/dougDKMaviation/sta ... 00739?s=20

Looks sleek!

Very much following the trend of large titles and the continuing paint on the tail and fuselage.

I also like the viking ship swirl on the tail.

AirPacific747 wrote:

So.. here it is fresh out of the paint shop at SNN

https://imgur.com/U1shcDO

Still “sans moteurs”…

Love the new livery. Looks much better than the Norwegian one

Opus99 wrote:

Love the new livery. Looks much better than the Norwegian one

same opinion. And I like the airline name more.

Opus99 wrote:

Love the new livery. Looks much better than the Norwegian one

For me it’s kinda the opposite. I feel the current one looks nice but is more bland.

The Norwegian one stood out with its unique tail designs.

AirPacific747 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Love the new livery. Looks much better than the Norwegian one

For me it’s kinda the opposite. I feel the current one looks nice but is more bland.

The Norwegian one stood out with its unique tail designs.

I sympathise with that view. It does Fall in line with the general euro white theme that most carriers use these days

It probably matters little, but it seems the tail number/registration chosen for the renders was selected before selecting a frame to SNN for paint, since the renders portray LN-LNR as "Raet" but LN-LNO was the one actually sent. The real one certainly looks quite smart and as expected compared to the renders.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

I wouldn't call JetBlue a real LCC, their fares are pretty much on par with the legacies. They're an LCC for their service level, but looking at the fare regardless of service level they're expensive. Suppose Spirit or Frontier enters the TATL market, they'd crush JetBlue with their low fares. Like I said, €80 one-way for a TATL ticket is possible but not out of the UK.

JetBlue, an LCC for their service level that includes a piece of carry-on baggage, meals, IFE, and WiFi even in their most basic Y fares between JFK and LON? Interesting conclusion. The idea that Spirit or Frontier would "crush" JetBlue is silly and there's no comparison, since JetBlue is aiming at disrupting J fares while also incorporating services comparable to or that rival legacies in Y. Thankfully an idea like Spirit or Frontier entering the TATL market doesn't need to happen to make this "comparison", as it can be observed if PLAY "crushes" JetBlue or anyone next summer when it plans to enter one-stop TATL via KEF.

This conclusion on their fares either implies research was done only on their one-way fares rather than for round trips, or neglects the fares legacies charged prior to JetBlue's entry to the market, as well as the possibility that legacies began price-matching them (as they did with Norwegian). I could get into detail about what DL/VS did on SFO/LHR in response to Norwegian on SFO/OAK and LGW, or what Icelandair did between SFO and KEF once WOW ceased operations, but it would lead to a rhetorical question: What do you think happens when a low fare operator enters or exits a market?

Next summer we could see both PLAY and Norse enter the TATL market; how the players differentiate themselves whether on price, product, network, or how they will respond to each other will be interesting to watch.

skipness1E wrote:

You always over fixate on APD. What's the point in saving a few pounds on APD if you have to get from SDF to New York by other means? There's a reason loss making Norwegian moved away from SDF to focus on JFK and OAK into SFO and it's because they NEEDED to be able to charge more. Stop looking at the headlines and look at the detail, you assume DUB-SDF was succesful and EDI-SDF less so cos DUB had lower fares and higher freq?

You've never worked in business have you Patrickz80? That's the WRONG way round, that's failure writ large. All about rock bottom fares to far off airports to build market share, then too late they tried to refocus on core markets.
BTW jetBlue is certainly not an ULCC and they sure as you know what don't plan on hanging around Gatwick too long IMHO. Their transatlantic service levels are far from low cost and your hypothesis that Spirit would crush that model dead on the North Atlantic is hilarious. What are you smoking mate? There's NO way to make money using mucj lower fares on the Spirit A320 series as the fixed costs are identical to the same as full service on jetBlue or Air Canada for example. There is no competitive advantage they can offer on bucket fares that would give any ROI!!!! The penny pinching market you are talking about is not big enough or high spending enough to make money. If you need THAT level of cheap airfare you can't afford the hotels frankly.

I disagree, Norwegian's best route on the 737 was SWF-DUB. At the time of the suspension of the MAX they were operating that route 2x daily. Nothing else was ever operated daily, so it had to be making money, or losing less than the others. I recall them announcing the closing of EDI-SWF and EDI-BDL as well as perhaps Belfast were closed due to UK taxes being too high as a contributing factor.

Someone83 wrote:

Norse plan to have a Norwegian AOC for their flight between EU and Norway to the US, while they will have a British AOC for flights between UK and US. So no Irish AOC here

I heard that there’s also a US aoc planned?

AirPacific747 wrote:

Someone83 wrote:

Norse plan to have a Norwegian AOC for their flight between EU and Norway to the US, while they will have a British AOC for flights between UK and US. So no Irish AOC here

I heard that there’s also a US aoc planned?

I haven’t heard anything about that. You might be thinking of a U.S. foreign air carrier permit, which is something every foreign airlines needs if it wants to conduct commercial operations to/from the US. With the US’s much stricter ownership rules they would probably struggle to get a AOC.

Polot wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Someone83 wrote:

Norse plan to have a Norwegian AOC for their flight between EU and Norway to the US, while they will have a British AOC for flights between UK and US. So no Irish AOC here

I heard that there’s also a US aoc planned?

I haven’t heard anything about that. You might be thinking of a U.S. foreign air carrier permit, which is something every foreign airlines needs if it wants to conduct commercial operations to/from the US. With the US’s much stricter ownership rules they would probably struggle to get a AOC.

“ Norse Atlantic Airways has good support from its Boeing 787 lessors.

15 Boeing 787-8/9s are due to be put into operations during 2022, by Norse.
These aircrafts will be in mint condition for commercial operations by Norse, as the lessors will have performed all required maintenances incl D-checks, at their own expence.

3 AOCs are in process for Norse, 1 in Norway (for use in EU/EEC area), 1 in UK (due UK outside EU and EEC) and 1 for the U.S. operations.

It is most likely Norse, as the majority of LCCs, will stay within a point to point strategy, while on "thin" routes agreements for feed by other airlines may become an option.

The major hurdle going forward for Norse, is when the U.S. government will open up for more or less unrestricted travel between USA and Europe.”

This is what I read. Got it from someone I know. Don’t know his source so take it with a grain of salt.

Someone83 wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

“ Norse Atlantic Airways has good support from its Boeing 787 lessors.

15 Boeing 787-8/9s are due to be put into operations during 2022, by Norse.
These aircrafts will be in mint condition for commercial operations by Norse, as the lessors will have performed all required maintenances incl D-checks, at their own expence.

3 AOCs are in process for Norse, 1 in Norway (for use in EU/EEC area), 1 in UK (due UK outside EU and EEC) and 1 for the U.S. operations.

It is most likely Norse, as the majority of LCCs, will stay within a point to point strategy, while on "thin" routes agreements for feed by other airlines may become an option.

The major hurdle going forward for Norse, is when the U.S. government will open up for more or less unrestricted travel between USA and Europe.”

This is what I read. Got it from someone I know. Don’t know his source so take it with a grain of salt.

That was more or less what they said themselves in the Norwegian media today

Okay, but what do we know about that US AOC then? Will some aircraft be based in the US on US registration?

AirPacific747 wrote:

Someone83 wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

“ Norse Atlantic Airways has good support from its Boeing 787 lessors.

15 Boeing 787-8/9s are due to be put into operations during 2022, by Norse.
These aircrafts will be in mint condition for commercial operations by Norse, as the lessors will have performed all required maintenances incl D-checks, at their own expence.

3 AOCs are in process for Norse, 1 in Norway (for use in EU/EEC area), 1 in UK (due UK outside EU and EEC) and 1 for the U.S. operations.

It is most likely Norse, as the majority of LCCs, will stay within a point to point strategy, while on "thin" routes agreements for feed by other airlines may become an option.

The major hurdle going forward for Norse, is when the U.S. government will open up for more or less unrestricted travel between USA and Europe.”

This is what I read. Got it from someone I know. Don’t know his source so take it with a grain of salt.

That was more or less what they said themselves in the Norwegian media today

Okay, but what do we know about that US AOC then? Will some aircraft be based in the US on US registration?

I found this interview with Bjørn Tore Larsen, CEO of Norse Atlantic Airways, published Tuesday in Norwegian newspaper E24.no:
https://e24.no/boers-og-finans/i/KzLQr7 ... selskapene

Excerpt (my translation):

- You have outlined that you will apply for a flight license and operating license (AOC) in both Norway and the United Kingdom, with routes from both there and other European countries to the United States. Where do you start?

- It will probably be from Norway. There we have already submitted the AOC application and have finished building an organization. In the UK, we're in the same process, says Larsen and continues:

- Between Europe (EU and EEA countries) and the USA, we want to fly with the Norwegian AOC. From the UK we will fly with a British license due to Brexit.

No mention of an American AOC.

Couple of points to add to the mix;
They need a business/ premium cabin. Going all economy will result in an average fare too high to be competitive. Business cabin revenue effectively subsidise cheap fares at the back.

They need to stick to primary airports. The likes of Oakland got dropped in favour of San Francisco.

Wow and Icelandair picked up many airports Kansas, Hartford, Cleveland ,add as appropriate. These didn't last long.

They need to be daily at least, this is more cost effective in terms of operational issues, eg hotel costs for crew. Any market that cannot sustain a daily service in my opinion will be marginal.

They need proper connectivity at their US point, this could be as much as 40/50% of their traffic.

Re Dublin New York Stewart. They were. Pricing so cheaply, they even were marketing a shoppers day trip on this route at silly low pricing. It reeked of desperation. The bit they missed is that the demand on Ireland US routes is on the US side. For New York people want to use JFK. To attract travellers to Stewart they need to mega discount and Aer Lingus offer a better value proposition e.g. Ticket with carry on only.

oslmgm wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Someone83 wrote:

That was more or less what they said themselves in the Norwegian media today

Okay, but what do we know about that US AOC then? Will some aircraft be based in the US on US registration?

I found this interview with Bjørn Tore Larsen, CEO of Norse Atlantic Airways, published Tuesday in Norwegian newspaper E24.no:
https://e24.no/boers-og-finans/i/KzLQr7 ... selskapene

Excerpt (my translation):

- You have outlined that you will apply for a flight license and operating license (AOC) in both Norway and the United Kingdom, with routes from both there and other European countries to the United States. Where do you start?

- It will probably be from Norway. There we have already submitted the AOC application and have finished building an organization. In the UK, we're in the same process, says Larsen and continues:

- Between Europe (EU and EEA countries) and the USA, we want to fly with the Norwegian AOC. From the UK we will fly with a British license due to Brexit.

No mention of an American AOC.

Thanks

Obviously they're making the same mistakes Norwegian made. A base in Gatwick, they must be utterly crazy! Flying out of Gatwick, or anywhere in the UK for that matter, is just asking for high fares. Anywhere in the US is over 2000 miles, therefor the long haul APD rate applies. That's £84 in economy and £185 in premium. This comes on top of the default ticket price.

In the meanwhile flying out of countries that don't have an aviation tax they can charge just the default ticket price and nothing else, allowing them to charge a way lower fare. So they have to look from where they can offer the lowest fare, which is obviously not from Gatwick. Of course London is a big market, I don't deny that. But it can be served one-stop.

Norse, just like Norwegian at the time, doesn't get that the people they're targeting will do anything to get a lower fare. If that means self-transferring at a foreign airport then so be it, as long as it's cheaper they will prefer that over a direct flight.

Like for example on December 1st Vueling offers a flight London Gatwick - Paris Orly early in the morning for € 35. Later that day FrenchBee offers a flight Paris Orly - San Francisco for € 169, making a total of € 204 one-way from Gatwick to San Francisco. How is Norse going to undercut that? Keep in mind € 98 of their fare is APD while on the Vueling flight to Orly there's only € 15 APD and the FrenchBee flight is APD-free. Even if they match the fare, minus the APD the gross fare would be € 106. FrenchBee can get away with charging € 169 out of Paris Orly of which only € 3 eco tax which is the French equivalent of the APD. So FrenchBee would have a gross fare of €166 out of Paris where Norse would have to settle for €106 just to match them from London.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Obviously they're making the same mistakes Norwegian made. A base in Gatwick, they must be utterly crazy! Flying out of Gatwick, or anywhere in the UK for that matter, is just asking for high fares. Anywhere in the US is over 2000 miles, therefor the long haul APD rate applies. That's £84 in economy and £185 in premium. This comes on top of the default ticket price.

In the meanwhile flying out of countries that don't have an aviation tax they can charge just the default ticket price and nothing else, allowing them to charge a way lower fare. So they have to look from where they can offer the lowest fare, which is obviously not from Gatwick. Of course London is a big market, I don't deny that. But it can be served one-stop.

Norse, just like Norwegian at the time, doesn't get that the people they're targeting will do anything to get a lower fare. If that means self-transferring at a foreign airport then so be it, as long as it's cheaper they will prefer that over a direct flight.

Like for example on December 1st Vueling offers a flight London Gatwick - Paris Orly early in the morning for € 35. Later that day FrenchBee offers a flight Paris Orly - San Francisco for € 169, making a total of € 204 one-way from Gatwick to San Francisco. How is Norse going to undercut that? Keep in mind € 98 of their fare is APD while on the Vueling flight to Orly there's only € 15 APD and the FrenchBee flight is APD-free. Even if they match the fare, minus the APD the gross fare would be € 106. FrenchBee can get away with charging € 169 out of Paris Orly of which only € 3 eco tax which is the French equivalent of the APD. So FrenchBee would have a gross fare of €166 out of Paris where Norse would have to settle for €106 just to match them from London.

I believe LGW was one of DY’s more successful long haul hubs. Yes taxes are higher, but the UK-US market is just so massive (especially compared to home base of Scandinavia). It’s that O&D that they are targeting.

They are also planning a hub in Paris (CDG? Not sure which airport) for your theoretical passenger.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Obviously they're making the same mistakes Norwegian made. A base in Gatwick, they must be utterly crazy! Flying out of Gatwick, or anywhere in the UK for that matter, is just asking for high fares. Anywhere in the US is over 2000 miles, therefor the long haul APD rate applies. That's £84 in economy and £185 in premium. This comes on top of the default ticket price.

In the meanwhile flying out of countries that don't have an aviation tax they can charge just the default ticket price and nothing else, allowing them to charge a way lower fare. So they have to look from where they can offer the lowest fare, which is obviously not from Gatwick. Of course London is a big market, I don't deny that. But it can be served one-stop.

Norse, just like Norwegian at the time, doesn't get that the people they're targeting will do anything to get a lower fare. If that means self-transferring at a foreign airport then so be it, as long as it's cheaper they will prefer that over a direct flight.

Like for example on December 1st Vueling offers a flight London Gatwick - Paris Orly early in the morning for € 35. Later that day FrenchBee offers a flight Paris Orly - San Francisco for € 169, making a total of € 204 one-way from Gatwick to San Francisco. How is Norse going to undercut that? Keep in mind € 98 of their fare is APD while on the Vueling flight to Orly there's only € 15 APD and the FrenchBee flight is APD-free. Even if they match the fare, minus the APD the gross fare would be € 106. FrenchBee can get away with charging € 169 out of Paris Orly of which only € 3 eco tax which is the French equivalent of the APD. So FrenchBee would have a gross fare of €166 out of Paris where Norse would have to settle for €106 just to match them from London.

This is your mantra mate. You keep banging on about APD being a game changer despite the evident balance of internal reporting and records from many years of LGW long haul operations suggestion otherwise! I'm a marketing analyst, it's literally my day job and there is not enough people willing to do what you suggest at the fare levels to turn any ROI. Near zero.
Your cunning plan is that Norse are the cheapest in market? They're called bottom feeders for a reason, they can't get decent volume nor market share any often lose all control of yield. Now Norwegian had MANY issues, but this isn't a solution! This is fantasy route planning!

If you are correct, and Norse are going after the absolute bottom of the market, the families where dad won't even spend money on a protected connection for his kids, then God help them, but they're not. Let the Spirit of Spirit do their own thing on long haul, there's sod all money to be made in that game.

@ PatrickZ80

Here we go again with your obsession with APD. Using your logic, no one should fly nonstop long haul out of the UK due to APD.

First of all, I don’t know why you keep assuming that the once a year LCC pax will do absolutely anything, including flying on 2 separate tickets through a third country, doubling the journey time, to save a few $$$. Add some bags and those savings are even less, if any. Those pax aren’t usually savvy enough to create such itineraries, and let alone have a back up plan in case anything goes wrong.

Furthermore, Norse do not compete or have to match french bee on ORY-SFO when they fly LGW-SFO. Their competition is instead other carriers offering nonstop LON-SFO flights, and it is only that price Norse have to beat. As those carriers also have to pay APD, it won’t matter how high that tax is, as all carriers have to pay it. That evens the playing field, and with lower operating costs, Norse will still be able to offer a lower fare.

You seem to think that the only thing that matters is the absolute amount of the fare, disregarding factors such as APD that airlines do not have any control over. Evidently Norse want to target the UK/London market, and your solution for that is having them set up a base in for example Paris without even offering connecting flights on LON-PAR, all because of APD? You see how stupid that looks? If you want to target a market without having a base there, at minimum you have to offer feeder flights with protected connections. Your Vueling/FrenchBee example might only work for a select few passengers, but the absolutely majority of pax won’t fly anything like that due to all the hassle and risks of doing it. Also, in your case, FrenchBee depends on Vueling operating LHW-ORT to have access to the UK market. There is absolutely nothing that stops Vueling from canceling the route or change the timings so the connection doesn’t work anymore, then what? FrenchBee just lost access to the UK market. What would you have them do then? Call Vueling and ask them to reinstate the flight?

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Obviously they're making the same mistakes Norwegian made. A base in Gatwick, they must be utterly crazy! Flying out of Gatwick, or anywhere in the UK for that matter, is just asking for high fares. Anywhere in the US is over 2000 miles, therefor the long haul APD rate applies. That's £84 in economy and £185 in premium. This comes on top of the default ticket price.

In the meanwhile flying out of countries that don't have an aviation tax they can charge just the default ticket price and nothing else, allowing them to charge a way lower fare. So they have to look from where they can offer the lowest fare, which is obviously not from Gatwick. Of course London is a big market, I don't deny that. But it can be served one-stop.

Norse, just like Norwegian at the time, doesn't get that the people they're targeting will do anything to get a lower fare. If that means self-transferring at a foreign airport then so be it, as long as it's cheaper they will prefer that over a direct flight.

Like for example on December 1st Vueling offers a flight London Gatwick - Paris Orly early in the morning for € 35. Later that day FrenchBee offers a flight Paris Orly - San Francisco for € 169, making a total of € 204 one-way from Gatwick to San Francisco. How is Norse going to undercut that? Keep in mind € 98 of their fare is APD while on the Vueling flight to Orly there's only € 15 APD and the FrenchBee flight is APD-free. Even if they match the fare, minus the APD the gross fare would be € 106. FrenchBee can get away with charging € 169 out of Paris Orly of which only € 3 eco tax which is the French equivalent of the APD. So FrenchBee would have a gross fare of €166 out of Paris where Norse would have to settle for €106 just to match them from London.

The percentage of travellers who would do this is minimal. I'm admittedly one of them who would do it 'for fun', but I know that I am by far the exception to the rule.

Also, there is a 'new' consideration in town - the environment. During Covid, awareness of environmental issues surrounding transport has skyrocketed. Reducing unnecessary flying is now front of mind for a very substantial part of the market, especially among the younger generations who are more experience led and therefore likely to still want to travel. If Norse have any sense, they will be highlighting the low per seat emissions of their high density 787s.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Obviously they're making the same mistakes Norwegian made. A base in Gatwick, they must be utterly crazy! Flying out of Gatwick, or anywhere in the UK for that matter, is just asking for high fares. Anywhere in the US is over 2000 miles, therefor the long haul APD rate applies. That's £84 in economy and £185 in premium. This comes on top of the default ticket price.

In the meanwhile flying out of countries that don't have an aviation tax they can charge just the default ticket price and nothing else, allowing them to charge a way lower fare. So they have to look from where they can offer the lowest fare, which is obviously not from Gatwick. Of course London is a big market, I don't deny that. But it can be served one-stop.

Norse, just like Norwegian at the time, doesn't get that the people they're targeting will do anything to get a lower fare. If that means self-transferring at a foreign airport then so be it, as long as it's cheaper they will prefer that over a direct flight.

Like for example on December 1st Vueling offers a flight London Gatwick - Paris Orly early in the morning for € 35. Later that day FrenchBee offers a flight Paris Orly - San Francisco for € 169, making a total of € 204 one-way from Gatwick to San Francisco. How is Norse going to undercut that? Keep in mind € 98 of their fare is APD while on the Vueling flight to Orly there's only € 15 APD and the FrenchBee flight is APD-free. Even if they match the fare, minus the APD the gross fare would be € 106. FrenchBee can get away with charging € 169 out of Paris Orly of which only € 3 eco tax which is the French equivalent of the APD. So FrenchBee would have a gross fare of €166 out of Paris where Norse would have to settle for €106 just to match them from London.

It disadvantages all the airlines equally. BA VS will tack it on to the ticket price just as everyone else would. As many have pointed out, the minority would self transfer but most passengers wouldn't think to, know how, what to do if something went wrong. British people aren't that tight either and we're quite used to being ripped off.

As the US lifted the entry ban, the start of Norse could be soon.

I'm looking forward to the fares from London and other European airports. Iberia is already from 119€. One-way non-stop from BCN to NY on some days.

JetBlue has higher fares on one-way then round trip. The latter one from 340€.

Norse promises "hundreds of Long-term jobs".
pretty self-confident for a low-cost long-haul start-up.

The national officer for the BALPA pilots union has been "incredibly impressed with the company’s business plan"
okay, let's see.

https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2021 ... term-jobs/

https://www.kiwi.com/us/search/results/ ... rtBy=price

https://www.google.com/travel/flights/s ... 9&curr=EUR

Norse Atlantic announces initial US routes

The general destinations are not too surprising, but the specific airports chosen might be. Rather than competing in the larger airports in each market the company chose Fort Lauderdale, Stewart/Newburgh, and Ontario for its flights.

Read more here:

https://paxex.aero/norse-atlantic-initi ... hk0Dxb3t4M

Should I be shocked that Orlando isn't an initial market? I feel like I should.