Maybe have fighting chance at FLL.

SWF, I'm skeptical, but don't know enough about the NYC market fragmentation.

They're going to burn cash like they soaked it in gasoline, on ONT-OSL. Who on Earth is going to fly that (to where), when LAX has roundtrips all spring-summer next year to London/Paris/Italy/etc for $600 or less, including tax, on multiple network airlines?

Has SWF ever had passenger widebody service before? When DY flew there pre-pandemic, it was on 737 MAX aircraft.

My impression was that LAX was already an airport suitable for LCCs with low costs and plenty of room for expansion (maybe not as low in cost as or as much space as ONT), and was even the airport that Norwegian launched and retained from the region, although there were some rumors about a new ONT base. Interpreting this move as conservative would depend on one's definition of conservative, or whether they feel using LAX vs. ONT is safer.

SWF I'm guessing they'll collab with Coach USA to have buses timed with the flight schedules and connect the airport with the PA bus terminal in Manhattan, just like Norwegian did. It will be interesting (amusing for me) if PLAY goes for JFK or EWR with their A321neos if they choose to serve NYC (as WOW did), while Norse's larger 787s go to the smaller SWF.

Perhaps once we learn that the UK AOC has more headway, the LGW base will see some route applications. CDG may even see applications before LGW does if based on Norse receiving its Norwegian AOC first, which it can use to operate from CDG unlike LGW.

If the remarks from the August press conference are to be believed, they intend to have all 15 of their 787s by next summer, but whether "next summer" is by the IATA schedule beginning in March, or sometime between May and July is unclear. I would be surprised if they had their entire fleet running at a reasonably high utilization whether at launch or even by May-July, so I doubt it (expanding too fast was a criticism of Norwegian, and this would surpass even that).

FSDan wrote:

Has SWF ever had passenger widebody service before? When DY flew there pre-pandemic, it was on 737 MAX aircraft.

At some point following the MAX groundings, DY (D8) combined the two daily SWF-DUB flights into an evening flight operated with an Evelop A333, and on some occasions DY's B789s, so yes.

I'm still rather confident that when they start, we'll see them at JFK and LAX....

I can see why they want to utilize ONT from the Los Angeles area. Cost. It will definitely cost them way less than it would than from LAX & I suspect ONT is giving them a lot of incentive to start service from there. To OSL? Like the rest of you, probably not the right destination from Southern California however, I can see LGW-ONT-LGW doable since London is a huge market from Southern California. With FI planning to start CPH-LAX-CPH & SAS already flying to LAX during the peak season, it seems like too much service for the Nordic region with more than one airline flying there.

I was having a look at ny airports . I read somewhere that Mccarthur long island airport was looking at getting customs to attract international flights. Is this happening? Would seem better fit for lcc long haul with a decent train connection straight into the city

usflyer msp wrote:

No one wants to fly into ONT and then fight LA traffic to get to the westside where most people are headed. It is worth $50-$100 to avoid that ground headache.

Not that much of a headache actually. Keep in mind most people on these flights will be Europeans and the fact that they fly low cost proves that they're price conscious. They likely won't drive, they'll take public transport instead. There's a bus line running from the airport to East Ontario Metrolink station from where you can take a train to Los Angeles Union station. No inconvenience at all to Europeans who are used to traveling on public transport.

I remember when I was in Los Angeles, getting back to LAX from my AirBnB address near Union Station I decided to take the metro instead of the FlyAway bus. After all I had an unlimited travel pass which was still valid but the FlyAway bus didn't accept it so to save out the costs of the bus I took several connections to get to Aviation-LAX station and then took the shuttle bus to the airport from there. Ontario would actually have been more convenient than LAX as it involved fewer connections.

f4f3a wrote:

I was having a look at ny airports . I read somewhere that Mccarthur long island airport was looking at getting customs to attract international flights. Is this happening? Would seem better fit for lcc long haul with a decent train connection straight into the city

The downside to that is that Long Island MacArthur airport has a relatively short runway, it might not be able to accommodate the 787. Sure it could work for narrow body TATL traffic but for wide body you need a longer runway. Besides, even though the airport is close to a railway line it doesn't actually have a railway station attached to it. You have to take a shuttle bus all the way around the airport to get to Ronkonkoma station, they built the terminal at the wrong side of the airport.

Okay, the same is true for Ontario but doesn't LAX have the same problem? If neither airport has direct rail service neither has the advantage of it.

They chose some pretty weird airports, in my opinion. But then, if its cheap enough people will go. Last time I flew with Norwegian my flight was from Oakland, which despite the name actually turned out to easier and more convenient for the city of San Francisco than SFO.

I know Ontario as I actually did touch and goes there in a Cessna a few times - it has two parallel runways, so the one next to the terminal was being used for 737s and so on whilst I did circuits on the other one. It's quite far east in the LA valley, but on the other hand maybe that's where some people are going or starting from. LA is pretty huge and Ontario may be more convenient for a lot of people. For local US passengers, being able to park at the airport is probably a big advantage.

SWF will be probably more popular now than before the pandemic as many people moved to the NYC suburbs in CT.

No more crew layovers in downtown manhattan.. damn.. NY went from possibly being the favorite crew destination to now most likely the least desired.

usflyer msp wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

No one wants to fly into ONT and then fight LA traffic to get to the westside where most people are headed. It is worth $50-$100 to avoid that ground headache.

Not that much of a headache actually. Keep in mind most people on these flights will be Europeans and the fact that they fly low cost proves that they're price conscious. They likely won't drive, they'll take public transport instead. There's a bus line running from the airport to East Ontario Metrolink station from where you can take a train to Los Angeles Union station. No inconvenience at all to Europeans who are used to traveling on public transport.

I remember when I was in Los Angeles, getting back to LAX from my AirBnB address near Union Station I decided to take the metro instead of the FlyAway bus. After all I had an unlimited travel pass which was still valid but the FlyAway bus didn't accept it so to save out the costs of the bus I took several connections to get to Aviation-LAX station and then took the shuttle bus to the airport from there. Ontario would actually have been more convenient than LAX as it involved fewer connections.

I get that you are really cheap but most people, even LHLC carrier pax, are not that cheap. Our time is worth money. Even with Metrolink/shuttle, ONT is most definitely not convenient to the West Side (where most tourist attractions are - union station is downtown not on the west side btw).You are looking at a minimum two and a half hour public transit ride from ONT to somewhere like West Hollywood or Beverly Hills or Santa Monica - exactly what someone wants to do after an 11 hour flight.

Indeed. I, for one, would rather not spend time faffing with public transport after such a long flight if it can be helped. I also agree that LCC passengers are not all cheap where every single part of their trip has to be cheap too. Frankly, it's a means to an end for a lot of people. I am also one of those that would look at non-stop options first.

It's probably also worth highlighting that public transport options in some North American cities aren't as good as those in many European cities.

Polot wrote:

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).

Nobody really likes paying APD, but as a Brit I can say that most of us just roll with it. The many long-haul flights that originate from the UK indicates to me that APD is a non-issue despite its unpopularity. It's just part of the cost of flying and I can't see it going away anytime soon.

Wide-body passenger service to SWF, which currently can only normally support sun destinations, primarily on A320 family aircraft? (There are wide-body freight services and the airfield is still a military one.) I don't see this lasting beyond one season. The connections to NYC are pretty long. Add to that no real focus on the premium flier (unlike what B6 is going for with its 138-seat A321LRs)...it will not work. This is a service that would require a 6-abreast plane at most.

Many of you must not understand the dynamic of the LA-based traveler, including those who live in the Inland Empire and surrounding valleys. The further east you go from LA the greater number of people you will find who refuse to drive into the city, let alone LAX all the way down the 105. The IE hosts a population of 4+ million residents, another 8 million within a 1.5 hours reach. OSL might initially be an odd destination on ONT's nonstop list, but with the right amount of intra-European connection frequencies this could be a real hit.

Yeah, a better ground connection needs to be linked between Ontario and LA, but that will come when the demand actually shows up.

usflyer msp wrote:

I get that you are really cheap but most people, even LHLC carrier pax, are not that cheap. Our time is worth money. Even with Metrolink/shuttle, ONT is most definitely not convenient to the West Side (where most tourist attractions are - union station is downtown not on the west side btw).You are looking at a minimum two and a half hour public transit ride from ONT to somewhere like West Hollywood or Beverly Hills or Santa Monica - exactly what someone wants to do after an 11 hour flight.

Of course if you're in Los Angeles you want to visit those parts of town, so did I when I was there. But the first place you want to go to after you've landed is your hotel or AirBnB or wherever you're staying. Those likely won't be in the expensive parts of town like Santa Monica, they'll be further inland. Like I said, when I was in Los Angeles I had an AirBnB not too far from Union Station. It was actually closer to Burbank than to LAX, I could actually see that airport in the distance. LAX was way too far to be seen.

It won't matter much in time traveling from LAX to Union Station or traveling from Ontario to Union Station, certainly when you take immigration into account. As non-regular visitors most people on those flights won't have global entry, they're Europeans with just an ESTA and nothing else. When I landed in LAX it took me over 2 hours to clear immigration, sure that can be done faster in Ontario. Take that into account and from plane to hotel you might actually be faster from Ontario assuming that your hotel is somewhere around Union Station.

Going to West Hollywood or Santa Monica and places like that, sure you can go there. After you've been to your hotel to check in and likely get a good night sleep. So for your flight it doesn't matter where the attractions are, it matters where your hotel is. With Norse travelers being price-conscious they won't be staying in the expensive parts of town, they can commute there for visiting them. They'll be staying further inland, closer to Ontario and further away from LAX.

toga998 wrote:

Yeah, a better ground connection needs to be linked between Ontario and LA, but that will come when the demand actually shows up.

Not that difficult actually, there is a railway line running directly in front of the terminal. It only lacks a station, build that and you can have direct shuttle trains between Ontario Airport and Union Station. That way the airport can become a real alternative to LAX competing for the Los Angeles passengers.

laca773 wrote:

With FI planning to start CPH-LAX-CPH & SAS already flying to LAX during the peak season, it seems like too much service for the Nordic region with more than one airline flying there.

FI is Icelandair, and as far as I know they are not planning to start CPH-LAX-CPH.
AY, or Finnair, is starting ARN-LAX-ARN this November.

Maybe a fast cat down the Hudson to connect swf pax with the city . Traffic free transfer .

toga998 wrote:

Many of you must not understand the dynamic of the LA-based traveler, including those who live in the Inland Empire and surrounding valleys. The further east you go from LA the greater number of people you will find who refuse to drive into the city, let alone LAX all the way down the 105. The IE hosts a population of 4+ million residents, another 8 million within a 1.5 hours reach. OSL might initially be an odd destination on ONT's nonstop list, but with the right amount of intra-European connection frequencies this could be a real hit.

Yeah, a better ground connection needs to be linked between Ontario and LA, but that will come when the demand actually shows up.

My view of the market that they are going after is Europeans visiting Los Angeles, Miami and New York with these choices and offering lower cost alternatives. When Norwegian flew to LAX they peaked with service to Madrid, Milan, Barcelona, Copenhagen, London Gatwick, Oslo, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Rome and Stockholm. I’m wondering if the new airline has access to how many travelers originated in Europe versus the US.

ONT and LAX are equal distance from Disneyland so ONT might actually be faster (depending on traffic). While it is further from downtown, that time can be made up due to less congestion to the point that someone coming from Europe may not care.

I’m always surprised how many people don’t think LA exists to the east of downtown. The Ontario catchment area is east of the 605 Freeway and includes much of the OC and of course the IE when it comes to international flights. This catchment area includes millions of people. Most airlines that operate out of Ontario do not expect to get much business from west LA and do just fine.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

toga998 wrote:

Yeah, a better ground connection needs to be linked between Ontario and LA, but that will come when the demand actually shows up.

Not that difficult actually, there is a railway line running directly in front of the terminal. It only lacks a station, build that and you can have direct shuttle trains between Ontario Airport and Union Station. That way the airport can become a real alternative to LAX competing for the Los Angeles passengers.

Building a train station is one thing. The other is actually having trains stop there frequently - something European transportation does exceedingly well and American rail does at varying and often poor levels. If you only have 3-6 trains per day then it’s useless.

runway23 wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

toga998 wrote:

Yeah, a better ground connection needs to be linked between Ontario and LA, but that will come when the demand actually shows up.

Not that difficult actually, there is a railway line running directly in front of the terminal. It only lacks a station, build that and you can have direct shuttle trains between Ontario Airport and Union Station. That way the airport can become a real alternative to LAX competing for the Los Angeles passengers.

Building a train station is one thing. The other is actually having trains stop there frequently - something European transportation does exceedingly well and American rail does at varying and often poor levels. If you only have 3-6 trains per day then it’s useless.

Not if those trains are timed correctly around departures and arrivals. then it works, but then that would require coordination by a number of transportation companies and we all know how well that happens on a daily basis.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

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

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

Or you can go down the route of Family Airlines

That business plan looks like it was written by a 12 year old for a school project. Dubrovnik to Chengdu - come on now. Are the Pandas going on holiday?

The most uncomfortable trip I ever had from the US to Europe was with Iceland Express, now Wow, which involved getting woken up at 3am to stand in a long queue in Iceland (as all of their flights arrive at the same time). The airport was totally overcrowded for about 45 minutes to the point that there wasn't even anywhere to sit down. Half an hour later it was deserted.

The next time I flew Norweigian and it was much better. I'd much rather a non-stop flight than have to deal with all of the faf of a one-stop via somewhere, which adds at least 2 hours to any trip. So even if an airport is 1 hour further out of town, it still saves time compared to having to change planes somewhere and interrupt your sleep.

usflyer msp wrote:

You can already fly from Oslo to NYC, LAX, MIA (albeit with a connection) for less than $500 RT even during the summer. I don't see how Norse can beat this and make a profit even with nonstop flights and secondary airports.

Norse will be successful because it's not going to rely on customers who live near the major hub airports of JFK, LAX, and MIA. Norse will get the price the legacy carriers are charging while still flying out of secondary airports. In the US, customers living around the secondary airports will be happy to pay the same (or slightly more) to fly Norse because of the convenience of flying out of a less congested, cheaper (parking) airport, that is closer to home. Norse knows that it may not lure passengers from within New York city limits but that's okay because the catchment area for SWF is still huge. Within 1 hr of SWF airport you can still appeal to millions of potential customers--many of which have very high average incomes. The same thing goes for ONT and FLL.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Going to West Hollywood or Santa Monica and places like that, sure you can go there. After you've been to your hotel to check in and likely get a good night sleep. So for your flight it doesn't matter where the attractions are, it matters where your hotel is. With Norse travelers being price-conscious they won't be staying in the expensive parts of town, they can commute there for visiting them. They'll be staying further inland, closer to Ontario and further away from LAX.

Sorry, I don't agree with that statement at all.

Like with your broken record comments over UK APD, it's another sweeping generalisation that is at odds with reality, as well as a big assumption on your part.

I will say it again. For some passengers, a flight is just a means to an end and should not automatically be reflective of their status, whether they're working/middle/upper class or how much money they have to spend. If a Norse Atlantic flight best meets the needs of some people, they will probably consider that flight irrespective of their wealth...unless of course they're wealthy enough to afford a private jet.

NorseFA wrote:

Norse will get the price the legacy carriers are charging while still flying out of secondary airports. In the US, customers living around the secondary airports will be happy to pay the same (or slightly more) to fly Norse because of the convenience of flying out of a less congested, cheaper (parking) airport, that is closer to home.

Huh? I thought Norse was meant to be a low-cost carrier? You're saying it'll charge the same, or potentally even more, than the legacies? I guarantee you absolutely no one would even consider paying the same as what SAS charges on EWR-OSL for a flight from Stewart, let alone 'slightly more'.

NorseFA wrote:

Within 1 hr of SWF airport you can still appeal to millions of potential customers--many of which have very high average incomes

You're dreaming if you think there are 'millions' of potential passengers SWF can appeal to. The areas surrounding SWF typically have pretty low average incomes, the 'high average incomes' are in Manhattan.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

With Norse travelers being price-conscious they won't be staying in the expensive parts of town, they can commute there for visiting them. They'll be staying further inland, closer to Ontario and further away from LAX.

Must say I agree with the other people on here saying this is quite a sweeping statement. A large proportion of LCC travellers actually stay in expensive hotels since they've spent so little on the flight. I think the vast majority of people from Europe travelling to the US on vacation aren't interested in being particularly 'price-conscious', an 11 hour flight and accommodation anywhere in somewhere like California is never going to be that cheap, plus when you've travelled that far you're gonna want to make it worth it and not be constantly watching your wallet, hence I fail to see how the average US tourist is going to be interested in saving a few bucks to travel to an unknown airport outside of where they're intending to travel to. Europeans looking for seriously cheap trips away will just hop on a cheap Ryanair flight to some European tourist spot, they're not even going to consider a trip to the US regardless of how cheap the flights are.

You've also got to consider the fact that your super-price-conscious travellers will most likely look for flights on comparison sites, especially seeing as Norse doesn't seem to be doing much advertising right now. I don't know of many price comparison sites that list Stewart as an alternate airport for New York and Ontario as an alternate airport for LA by default, hence I think a good few potential Norse passengers will simply not be aware their flights even exist. If PLAY also ends up serving New York, I can see them serving JFK or EWR, considering they're basically just a reincarnation of WOW. I fail to recall seeing a Norwegian flight ever being cheaper than a WOW flight via KEF, and I imagine that'll be the same with PLAY and Norse, hence I think PLAY will end up taking the majority of Norse's potential Stewart passengers.

The only people who I think will be attracted to Norse's offering are avgeeks, people seeking to visit Fort Lauderdale/Ontario and not Miami/LA, and potentially people who just spontaniously book flights because they see the fare is so low (assuming Norse's fares are cheap). If the fares are low enough, maybe that'll stimulate enough demand for a low-frequency service from LGW, but seeing as Norse has 15 aircraft on order, I imagine it'll be a pretty high-frequency offering.

Most of the SWF bookings will be on the European side. When they timed coach buses to meet their aircraft at SWF and drive down to Manhattan I'd say 75% of the Pax were headed to them, while the other 25% where U.S. based and of those they lived north of NYC in Orange, Rockland, Westchester, Duchess, Putnam counties as well as Western Parts of CT. So for people like me, its a dream come true. Walk from long term parking into the terminal to board a 787 and then walk back to the car and drive myself home in about 45 minutes. Anyone who is driving to JFK from Yonkers north will take a look at it because as Elaine from Seinfeld famously said "They say no one has ever beaten the Van Wyck". I'm 48 years old and I believe it has been under construction my entire adult life.

Norwegian was fairly well known here in Western Connecticut as well. The economy is pretty good here with a very low unemployment rate and a booming housing market. I'm not sure Oslo would be people's first choice, but at the right price seats will be filled.

Larsen confirmed that Norse is in talks with potential feeder airlines on both sides of the Atlantic

Source https://www.lifeinnorway.net/norse-atlantic-airways/

For Norway it seems clear that Flyr or Norwegian is the most obvious choice. But for the US, any idea?!

debonair wrote:

Larsen confirmed that Norse is in talks with potential feeder airlines on both sides of the Atlantic

Source https://www.lifeinnorway.net/norse-atlantic-airways/

For Norway it seems clear that Flyr or Norwegian is the most obvious choice. But for the US, any idea?!

JetBlue at FLL?

God help the European tourist that lands at ONT thinking its Los Angeles. Top tourist area in LA are hours away on a good day. And those that expected public transportation options after an already long flight will be disappointed.

ONT is fine for what it is. Its a local airport in the Inland Empire popular for cargo with plenty of lower-income communities and commercial facilities in the local area.

Imo, might as well fly to San Diego and call it Los Angeles. Atleast SAN also has its own attractiveness.

UPlog wrote:

God help the European tourist that lands at ONT thinking its Los Angeles. Top tourist area in LA are hours away on a good day. And those that expected public transportation options after an already long flight will be disappointed.

ONT is fine for what it is. Its a local airport in the Inland Empire popular for cargo with plenty of lower-income communities and commercial facilities in the local area.

Imo, might as well fly to San Diego and call it Los Angeles. Atleast SAN also has its own attractiveness.

ONT is a few miles from LA county so it serves much of the east LA area. It’s closer to Disneyland than many other LA airports. You are closer to Palm Springs and many mountain areas.

This was reported a few days ago. Norse looking at SWF.
https://midhudsonnews.com/2021/09/30/ne ... l-airport/

Norse plans to make Fort Lauderdale its US HQ, and plans to have pilot and flight attendants base.

https://www.thenextmiami.com/norse-atla ... hq-office/

The second 787 has been painted. Was G-CKWB with Norwegian, but not sure what its new registration will be.

Named Dartmoor, after a UK national park

https://www.flickr.com/photos/132614944 ... 986568650/

Someone83 wrote:

The second 787 has been painted. Was G-CKWB with Norwegian, but not sure what its new registration will be.

Named Dartmoor, after a UK national park

https://www.flickr.com/photos/132614944 ... 986568650/

I’m guessing it is staying as G-CKWB for Norse’s British AOC. Seems strange to me to repaint the registration, including the KWB on the nose gear doors, add the British flag, and name it after a UK park if they were going to reregister it to Norway before delivery.

Their 3rd 787 has been painted. To be named Everglades

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shanair/5 ... 7H-24tX1aT

Someone83 wrote:

Their 3rd 787 has been painted. To be named Everglades

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shanair/5 ... 7H-24tX1aT

I'm liking their livery more and more. That dark blue metallic like paint on the letters and the tail is beautiful. Combined with the viking ship swirls and an already handsome looking 787, it's a winner.

So are they naming their aircraft after natural features or parks in the markets they want to operate? Edit: I just realized someone already said that.

Looks like Norse's London ops will go out of STN instead of LGW

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... n-stansted

STN makes more sense if they want to keep costs down and most savy travellers will love the self connect opportunities , good move - I expect AA to launch spoiler routes into STN soon after Norse launch

Do AA really need to launch spoiler flights to STN ? AFAIK, Norse are not particularly going after the business class market. Norwegian was more than capable of wrecking their own finances... perhaps just let Norse self destruct without American having to trash their own yields

Is KBOS going to be served by the New Norwegian when it relaunches. Will they serve BOS from STN instead of LGW? Anyother routes might they launch to BOS?

Galwayman wrote:

STN makes more sense if they want to keep costs down and most savy travellers will love the self connect opportunities , good move - I expect AA to launch spoiler routes into STN soon after Norse launch

I can't see that happening in a million years. I don't think anyone at AA (or any other legacy TATL carrier) will lose sleep over Norse, the only people that will are the idiots who've invested money in it.

If AA's strategy was to launch 'spoiler routes', they would be huge at LGW right now.

georgiabill wrote:

Is KBOS going to be served by the New Norwegian when it relaunches. Will they serve BOS from STN instead of LGW? Anyother routes might they launch to BOS?

I'm not sure the Boston area is a particularly good market for European carriers right now. Norwegian's LGW-BOS service didn't do too badly, but I believe everything else they tried from there was quickly reduced or cut completely. On the other hand, almost every single US legacy carrier serves BOS-LHR right now, JetBlue will soon join them, and Virgin has announced it will permanently reduce its BOS schedule. I don't think there's really any room for another carrier on the route, especially not a startup.

If they're going to stick with their secondary airport strategy, I think they'd head for PVD instead of BOS.

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

STN makes more sense if they want to keep costs down and most savy travellers will love the self connect opportunities , good move - I expect AA to launch spoiler routes into STN soon after Norse launch

I can't see that happening in a million years. I don't think anyone at AA (or any other legacy TATL carrier) will lose sleep over Norse, the only people that will are the idiots who've invested money in it.

If AA's strategy was to launch 'spoiler routes', they would be huge at LGW right now.

AA have launched spoiler routes before to stop new entrants on UK routes. Didn’t they launch STN twice before when other carriers announced it?