SurfandSnow wrote:

Who wants to land in Fort Lauderdale, a complete dump of an airport far from South Beach, rather than Miami?!?

For one (if only one demographic), cruise ship passengers, since FLL is right by Port Everglades and back when DY changed its LGW-FLL to LGW-MIA, a not insignificant number of social media comments were from passengers who took the option to connect through a different long haul base that still served FLL on the same days (e.g. CDG, BCN, CPH, etc.) even with their trip becoming a connection rather than a nonstop to the region.

SurfandSnow wrote:

Who wants to land in Fort Lauderdale, a complete dump of an airport far from South Beach, rather than Miami?!?

Maybe price-conscious passengers, if Fort Lauderdale is cheaper to fly into than Miami. Not everything is about comfort, money is an important factor as well. If Miami is more expensive to fly into than Fort Lauderdale, that might trick some passengers to pick Fort Lauderdale instead.

Fort Lauderdale also has better low-cost self-connecting opportunities on for example Spirit. There's a reason ULCCs pick Fort Lauderdale over Miami. It doesn't exactly work if one flight uses one airport and the other flight uses the other airport. Not everything is about O/D traffic.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

SurfandSnow wrote:

Who wants to land in Fort Lauderdale, a complete dump of an airport far from South Beach, rather than Miami?!?

Maybe price-conscious passengers, if Fort Lauderdale is cheaper to fly into than Miami. Not everything is about comfort, money is an important factor as well. If Miami is more expensive to fly into than Fort Lauderdale, that might trick some passengers to pick Fort Lauderdale instead.

Fort Lauderdale also has better low-cost self-connecting opportunities on for example Spirit. There's a reason ULCCs pick Fort Lauderdale over Miami. It doesn't exactly work if one flight uses one airport and the other flight uses the other airport. Not everything is about O/D traffic.

True, but this move will be almost entirely about cargo, be it O&D or interline, as opposed to equivalent passenger dynamics. FLL is a ‘good’ self-connect opportunity, but not really a ‘great’ one.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

SurfandSnow wrote:

Who wants to land in Fort Lauderdale, a complete dump of an airport far from South Beach, rather than Miami?!?

Maybe price-conscious passengers, if Fort Lauderdale is cheaper to fly into than Miami. Not everything is about comfort, money is an important factor as well. If Miami is more expensive to fly into than Fort Lauderdale, that might trick some passengers to pick Fort Lauderdale instead.

Fort Lauderdale also has better low-cost self-connecting opportunities on for example Spirit. There's a reason ULCCs pick Fort Lauderdale over Miami. It doesn't exactly work if one flight uses one airport and the other flight uses the other airport. Not everything is about O/D traffic.

There is no noticeable price difference between FLL and MIA to a consumer.

As for ULCCs, both Frontier and Spirit have crew bases at MIA. Spirit of course is larger at FLL, but Frontier is larger at MIA.

Also, believe it or not, not everyone in the South Florida metro region lives closer to MIA than FLL. If you are in Broward county (~2 million people) or further north FLL is very attractive.

There is a reason why FLL has the service it has and not everyone is consolidated into MIA.

Polot wrote:

Also, believe it or not, not everyone in the South Florida metro region lives closer to MIA than FLL. If you are in Broward county (~2 million people) or further north FLL is very attractive.

Exactly. I live in Southwest Florida, with a 1 million people catchment area and for us FLL is so much more convenient for longhaul. The I-75 ("Alligator Alley") is a breeze and ends right at FLL, where the ordeal of getting to MIA begins...on a good day it's an extra half hour. On a bad day, with Miami traffic...who knows? I was considering booking a Norse flight to London out of FLL in October but learned of the move to MIA and chose to fly B6 via JFK instead, to be able to use FLL for departure/arrival. FLL has a way bigger catchment area than MIA as it gets almost all of the O&D catchment of MIA (sans the southernmost part of Miami-Dade and all of Monroe counties) but also attracts another few million people around PBI and RSW for the relevant routes, where there are no direct flight options out of PBI or RSW.

kameleonten wrote:

I was considering booking a Norse flight to London out of FLL in October but learned of the move to MIA and chose to fly B6 via JFK instead, to be able to use FLL for departure/arrival. FLL has a way bigger catchment area than MIA as it gets almost all of the O&D catchment of MIA (sans the southernmost part of Miami-Dade and all of Monroe counties) but also attracts another few million people around PBI and RSW for the relevant routes, where there are no direct flight options out of PBI or RSW.

As a visitors, I have rented cars from MIA many times during last 15 years. The driving area involved MIA-FLL-PBI many times, both outbound and return.

Without offending anyone living south of FLL (I hope), but my personally experience is traffic is generally good for driving north of S-842 (except I-95). Once you go south towards MIA after I-595, the traffic becomes noticeably BAD. There is a very noticeable difference in traffic pace from PBI-FLL-MIA, from easy to good to extreme. There are frequent deadlock in traffic both direction before you reach MIA, and very unfriendly drivers or speeding SUVs that cut in front of you dangerously all the time...

I have also tried Tri-rail few times. I found going to MIA is always nerve racking. Because there are always delays, and the frequency is not friendly so you have to factor extra hour just in case you missed the train. The people mover from Tri-rail to terminals is not friendly to people have mobility issue, because once you arrive you still have to walk a mile to reach certain terminals.

Now I don't want to start with the immigration queues in MIA as a visitor...That is another sad story.

So yes, as a visitor to Southern Florida, I actively avoid MIA for above reasons. I felt Norse is making a mistake by switching to MIA. But maybe the O&D number is better in MIA than FLL in Norse's POV. Good luck to them.

Norse have Manchester (MAN) slots for a daily flight beginning 01NOV23, departure 1850z, arrival 1230z (+1)
This will obviously be JFK but one wonders what the growth may look like in NS24
MIA, LAX, BKK, SFO all remain stubbonly unserved from MAN and Norse may be the ones to fill these gaps .

MIA not served since TCX bust
LAX not served since 2020
SFO not served since 2017
BKK - Thai have been promising this since the Dinosaurs went extinct !

chonetsao wrote:

kameleonten wrote:

I was considering booking a Norse flight to London out of FLL in October but learned of the move to MIA and chose to fly B6 via JFK instead, to be able to use FLL for departure/arrival. FLL has a way bigger catchment area than MIA as it gets almost all of the O&D catchment of MIA (sans the southernmost part of Miami-Dade and all of Monroe counties) but also attracts another few million people around PBI and RSW for the relevant routes, where there are no direct flight options out of PBI or RSW.

As a visitors, I have rented cars from MIA many times during last 15 years. The driving area involved MIA-FLL-PBI many times, both outbound and return.

Without offending anyone living south of FLL (I hope), but my personally experience is traffic is generally good for driving north of S-842 (except I-95). Once you go south towards MIA after I-595, the traffic becomes noticeably BAD. There is a very noticeable difference in traffic pace from PBI-FLL-MIA, from easy to good to extreme. There are frequent deadlock in traffic both direction before you reach MIA, and very unfriendly drivers or speeding SUVs that cut in front of you dangerously all the time...

I have also tried Tri-rail few times. I found going to MIA is always nerve racking. Because there are always delays, and the frequency is not friendly so you have to factor extra hour just in case you missed the train. The people mover from Tri-rail to terminals is not friendly to people have mobility issue, because once you arrive you still have to walk a mile to reach certain terminals.

Now I don't want to start with the immigration queues in MIA as a visitor...That is another sad story.

So yes, as a visitor to Southern Florida, I actively avoid MIA for above reasons. I felt Norse is making a mistake by switching to MIA. But maybe the O&D number is better in MIA than FLL in Norse's POV. Good luck to them.

Both posts do a good job explaining an issue I've seen discussed and explained before on A.net. I used to travel quite often to FLL. While looking at a map they appear very close, the traffic below 595 (which is pretty much where the airport meets I-95) is exactly as described. Even with improved train service. It won't impact FLL-MIA, It might change things from MIA-MCO.

Both cities attract different tourists as well. Both attract immigrants/visitors from focused areas, for example MIA is much more popular with people from Latin America, including those living elsewhere in the U.S. . FLL has a large connection with French speaking Canada, the Northeast U.S. Cruise Ships depart both FLL and MIA in large numbers, so you'll always have the market from many cities to both markets.

MIA only recently lowered some of its leasing/landing fees to make it more attractive to LCC/ULCC carriers. For many years, FLL, was a much cheaper airport to operate from. Almost every LCC/ULCC start up since deregulation east of the Mississippi has offered service to FLL because of the demand and price to operate at FLL.

From a European point of view, MIA is a far better marketing option than FLL.

Virtually everyone knows Miami and has seen pictures, while I doubt many have ever heard of Fort Lauderdale. Miami is a well know global city, while Fort Lauderdale probably does not make a blip on the radar for most Europeans.

To me serving the primary and well know destination airports like MIA and LAX is far superior then FLL or ONT from a marketing point of view for Norse.

timedoko wrote:

Norse have Manchester (MAN) slots for a daily flight beginning 01NOV23, departure 1850z, arrival 1230z (+1)
This will obviously be JFK but one wonders what the growth may look like in NS24
MIA, LAX, BKK, SFO all remain stubbonly unserved from MAN and Norse may be the ones to fill these gaps .

MIA not served since TCX bust
LAX not served since 2020
SFO not served since 2017
BKK - Thai have been promising this since the Dinosaurs went extinct !

Based on their recent comments, I do believe it is more likely a "Sun-destination" if they start up from MAN this winter

Someone83 wrote:

timedoko wrote:

Norse have Manchester (MAN) slots for a daily flight beginning 01NOV23, departure 1850z, arrival 1230z (+1)
This will obviously be JFK but one wonders what the growth may look like in NS24
MIA, LAX, BKK, SFO all remain stubbonly unserved from MAN and Norse may be the ones to fill these gaps .

MIA not served since TCX bust
LAX not served since 2020
SFO not served since 2017
BKK - Thai have been promising this since the Dinosaurs went extinct !

Based on their recent comments, I do believe it is more likely a "Sun-destination" if they start up from MAN this winter

JFK and arguably MCO are the core TATL routes ex MAN that will always be able to support multiple daily flights
They have started every base with JFK so this makes me want to believe they will start up there
This may or may not spur United and/or JetBlue into action as they are both rumoured to be launching EWR/JFK-MAN in NS24
I think we will see JFK initially - it is a safe route which shouldn't go wrong for them.
Bangkok, Miami and potentially one of Boston/Los Angeles/SFO would be a great and realistic growth plan in NS24

Just because they have slots, does not mean they will launch service. They attained bunch of slots at DUB and nothing came of it.

Norse reported its May 2023 performance operating 243 flights carrying 58,680 passengers with LF of 73%.

https://news.cision.com/norse-atlantic- ... i,c3784596

LAXintl wrote:

Norse reported its May 2023 performance operating 243 flights carrying 58,680 passengers with LF of 73%.

https://news.cision.com/norse-atlantic- ... i,c3784596

June numbers out: 97,037 passengers and LF of 83%

They also report they have reached their goal of avg. ancillary revenue per passenger of more than $100

https://newsweb.oslobors.no/message/594842

Someone83 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Norse reported its May 2023 performance operating 243 flights carrying 58,680 passengers with LF of 73%.

https://news.cision.com/norse-atlantic- ... i,c3784596

June numbers out: 97,037 passengers and LF of 83%

They also report they have reached their goal of avg. ancillary revenue per passenger of more than $100

https://newsweb.oslobors.no/message/594842

Hope that means we’ll finally see some results now especially they’ve met their ancillary goal!

Likewise I believe Frontier’s goal for ancillary revenue per passenger is $85 so is $100 a low bar for Norse’s own terms considering how some of the sectors can be very long with Norse?

Your thoughts?

Not bookable yet but showing up if you start searching for flights:

1w Miami-Berlin starts 14-Dec-2023 (MIA-BER Th / BER-MIA Fr)

4w Miami-Paris starts 12-Dec-2023 (MIA-CDG TuWeSaSu / CDG-MIA MoWeThSu)

So that will be 13 flights a week to Miami when including the 7w to LGW and 1w to OSL.

I do wonder if they will do Rome, too. Makes sense. Or good place to launch Milan from if AA keeps ignoring relaunching it.

787 G-CKOF had a issue today that warranted a return to LGW. Was operating to LAX, got no further than eastern Engand, circled for two hours over the southern North Sea and landed back at LGW.

I see G-CKWT has just departed LGW for LAX. Nine Norse planes currently in they air so the do not have many spare airplanes at the moment.

mercure1 wrote:

From a European point of view, MIA is a far better marketing option than FLL.

Virtually everyone knows Miami and has seen pictures, while I doubt many have ever heard of Fort Lauderdale. Miami is a well know global city, while Fort Lauderdale probably does not make a blip on the radar for most Europeans.

To me serving the primary and well know destination airports like MIA and LAX is far superior then FLL or ONT from a marketing point of view for Norse.

I have found FLL to be a much easier airport to use with Miami as your final destination. You get access to all the same areas, in a similar commute time, without being in a massive hub.

CX747 wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

From a European point of view, MIA is a far better marketing option than FLL.

Virtually everyone knows Miami and has seen pictures, while I doubt many have ever heard of Fort Lauderdale. Miami is a well know global city, while Fort Lauderdale probably does not make a blip on the radar for most Europeans.

To me serving the primary and well know destination airports like MIA and LAX is far superior then FLL or ONT from a marketing point of view for Norse.

I have found FLL to be a much easier airport to use with Miami as your final destination. You get access to all the same areas, in a similar commute time, without being in a massive hub.

No way on commute time. MIA is 15 minutes from downtown Miami, even during rush hour it’s not that bad plus there’s a direct train. FLL is an hour or more with regular traffic. 35-40 without.

MAH4546 wrote:

CX747 wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

From a European point of view, MIA is a far better marketing option than FLL.

Virtually everyone knows Miami and has seen pictures, while I doubt many have ever heard of Fort Lauderdale. Miami is a well know global city, while Fort Lauderdale probably does not make a blip on the radar for most Europeans.

To me serving the primary and well know destination airports like MIA and LAX is far superior then FLL or ONT from a marketing point of view for Norse.

I have found FLL to be a much easier airport to use with Miami as your final destination. You get access to all the same areas, in a similar commute time, without being in a massive hub.

No way on commute time. MIA is 15 minutes from downtown Miami, even during rush hour it’s not that bad plus there’s a direct train. FLL is an hour or more with regular traffic. 35-40 without.

Depends upon where traffic is and do you have to hike for an insane distance to get a rental car at MIA. At FLL you are on the ground and on the road much faster. To each their own but in traveling to that area often, FLL is a hidden gem that gets you in and out without the lines and wait times of MIA.

CX747 wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

CX747 wrote:

I have found FLL to be a much easier airport to use with Miami as your final destination. You get access to all the same areas, in a similar commute time, without being in a massive hub.

No way on commute time. MIA is 15 minutes from downtown Miami, even during rush hour it’s not that bad plus there’s a direct train. FLL is an hour or more with regular traffic. 35-40 without.

Depends upon where traffic is and do you have to hike for an insane distance to get a rental car at MIA. At FLL you are on the ground and on the road much faster. To each their own but in traveling to that area often, FLL is a hidden gem that gets you in and out without the lines and wait times of MIA.

Huh? Miami has a consolidated rental car facility at the airport just like FLL. There’s no hike.

Yes, obviously depending on where your going it depends what’s faster, but if your going to Miami or Miami Beach there’s no comparison. You can be off your plane and checked into your hotel in downtown Miami in less than an hour from MIA.

FLL is an understaffed nightmare and one of the worst airports facilities in the country with immigration far worse than MIA. But again to each his own.

MAH4546 wrote:

CX747 wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

No way on commute time. MIA is 15 minutes from downtown Miami, even during rush hour it’s not that bad plus there’s a direct train. FLL is an hour or more with regular traffic. 35-40 without.

Depends upon where traffic is and do you have to hike for an insane distance to get a rental car at MIA. At FLL you are on the ground and on the road much faster. To each their own but in traveling to that area often, FLL is a hidden gem that gets you in and out without the lines and wait times of MIA.

Huh? Miami has a consolidated rental car facility at the airport just like FLL. There’s no hike.

Yes, obviously depending on where your going it depends what’s faster, but if your going to Miami or Miami Beach there’s no comparison. You can be off your plane and checked into your hotel in downtown Miami in less than an hour from MIA.

FLL is an understaffed nightmare and one of the worst airports facilities in the country with immigration far worse than MIA. But again to each his own.

No hike? I almost never complain about walks etc. Getting to the rental car facility from some of AA's gates takes forever. FLL is a much smaller, easier to get into and out of facility. Anyway... I hope that Norse continues the strong work over the Atlantic.

CX747 wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

CX747 wrote:

Depends upon where traffic is and do you have to hike for an insane distance to get a rental car at MIA. At FLL you are on the ground and on the road much faster. To each their own but in traveling to that area often, FLL is a hidden gem that gets you in and out without the lines and wait times of MIA.

Huh? Miami has a consolidated rental car facility at the airport just like FLL. There’s no hike.

Yes, obviously depending on where your going it depends what’s faster, but if your going to Miami or Miami Beach there’s no comparison. You can be off your plane and checked into your hotel in downtown Miami in less than an hour from MIA.

FLL is an understaffed nightmare and one of the worst airports facilities in the country with immigration far worse than MIA. But again to each his own.

No hike? I almost never complain about walks etc. Getting to the rental car facility from some of AA's gates takes forever. FLL is a much smaller, easier to get into and out of facility. Anyway... I hope that Norse continues the strong work over the Atlantic.

Yes FLL is more compact. MIA has trains though, no need to walk it.

MAH4546 wrote:

CX747 wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

No way on commute time. MIA is 15 minutes from downtown Miami, even during rush hour it’s not that bad plus there’s a direct train. FLL is an hour or more with regular traffic. 35-40 without.

Depends upon where traffic is and do you have to hike for an insane distance to get a rental car at MIA. At FLL you are on the ground and on the road much faster. To each their own but in traveling to that area often, FLL is a hidden gem that gets you in and out without the lines and wait times of MIA.

Huh? Miami has a consolidated rental car facility at the airport just like FLL. There’s no hike.

Yes, obviously depending on where your going it depends what’s faster, but if your going to Miami or Miami Beach there’s no comparison. You can be off your plane and checked into your hotel in downtown Miami in less than an hour from MIA.

FLL is an understaffed nightmare and one of the worst airports facilities in the country with immigration far worse than MIA. But again to each his own.

Exactly, has this person been to FLL lately? Its horrific! I’ve never seen an airport that makes passengers wait for customs in the aircraft. And its not just a one off its almost everytime. Waiting 30 mins in the aircraft even if you have global entry. Avoid at all costs even if youre visiting Broward. The tri-rail leaves directly from Miami Airport, and in 45 min will drop you near downtown Fort Lauderdale (less if you’re going to Hollywood.

SurfandSnow wrote:

TexasAirCorp wrote:

Norse is axing FLL and moving service to MIA

https://twitter.com/ishriona/status/166 ... oqqzrGdFSQ

No surprise there. It sounds like both passenger and cargo customers will prefer this switch!

https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/air/nor ... for-winter

Who wants to land in Fort Lauderdale, a complete dump of an airport far from South Beach, rather than Miami?!?

FLL is not a dump of an airport and there is much more to South Florida than South Beach.

lesfalls wrote:

Someone83 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Norse reported its May 2023 performance operating 243 flights carrying 58,680 passengers with LF of 73%.

https://news.cision.com/norse-atlantic- ... i,c3784596

June numbers out: 97,037 passengers and LF of 83%

They also report they have reached their goal of avg. ancillary revenue per passenger of more than $100

https://newsweb.oslobors.no/message/594842

Hope that means we’ll finally see some results now especially they’ve met their ancillary goal!

Likewise I believe Frontier’s goal for ancillary revenue per passenger is $85 so is $100 a low bar for Norse’s own terms considering how some of the sectors can be very long with Norse?

Your thoughts?

Not at all. $100pp is essentially industry leading, it’s a great result. As you push that spend-per-head higher, each additional unit is proportionally more challenging to attain - but there is a ‘fair’ limit, both for what pax will bear and what your tech can deliver.

I tried their service to FLL, and our arrival was very late so there was a short wait onboard the plane and when we arrived to luggage claim we picked up our luggage in no time and the border control was very fast and convenient. FLL is more compact than MIA for sure. I must admit I enjoy bth of them and they both have great spotter opportunities with MIA enjoying more wide body service.

With regards to ancillary revenue I understand how they hit 100USD pr passenger. Almost everything is extra onboard Norse. We had an economy classic ticket and still had to pay 28 USD for second meal service. I do not remember that Norwegian long haul charged for the same thing. Luggage is also 75USD but that was fortunately included in the classic economy ticket. Even a carry on is 45USD if you do not select the classic ticket. To travel cheap with Norse, have a backpack or a purse. Bring all your food in that backpack and then you can actually cross the pond for a cheap amount.

I noticed that until recently the only winter flight from MIA that wasn't LGW was a single 1x weekly MIA-OSL-MIA, as in the aircraft was moreso based in MIA and not OSL (or that the other six empty days would've left the plane sitting in MIA, not OSL), so I figured it was only a matter of time before more destinations from MIA would be added.

This winter will also look busier than this summer from LGW, where it appears they've obtained enough slots for two daily flights (five daily departures/arrivals this summer, compared to seven starting in winter). Presumably this would also mean the UK AOC will get a seventh 787-9 (for the time being, G-INFO lists six), unless they can get away with what Norwegian did where, on occasion, a non UK-registered aircraft can do UK AOC flights and vice versa.

Oykie wrote:

With regards to ancillary revenue I understand how they hit 100USD pr passenger. Almost everything is extra onboard Norse. We had an economy classic ticket and still had to pay 28 USD for second meal service. I do not remember that Norwegian long haul charged for the same thing. Luggage is also 75USD but that was fortunately included in the classic economy ticket. Even a carry on is 45USD if you do not select the classic ticket. To travel cheap with Norse, have a backpack or a purse. Bring all your food in that backpack and then you can actually cross the pond for a cheap amount.

Back during the birthday sale I helped book two SFO-LGW-LAX tickets for my parents (since they wanted to return in November whereas LGW-SFO only operates to the end of October, and they're going to self-connect to Southwest on LAX-SFO, as they did previously after doing NRT-LAX on ZIPAIR last year). The ancillaries are definitely more shameless than with Norwegian (although towards the end, they did also impose a fee for the carry-on, but it was closer to only being $14 on a route like SFO-LGW) when carry-ons are $45 on Norse, though I wouldn't know if they impose the "10kg combined weight for the personal and carry-on" as Norwegian did, or if they do "10kg for only the carry-on bag that goes in the overhead bin" instead, which is what Norwegian's policy was when we'd used them in the initial years following their long-haul launch.

Since the Classic ticket includes a carry-on and a checked bag, and they each were only going to have a backpack (or purse) as a personal item and one carry-on, what made the most sense was booking one Light and one Classic ticket, where the Classic ticket would be responsible for three bags (personal, carry-on, and the second "carry-on" being checked) and then the Light ticket would just have the backpack. They may just opt to share the one meal on each flight, or bring food onboard.

In total the Classic ticket itself was $220 more than the Light ticket (as a return), or averaged at $110 each way. Consider the Classic ticket as an ancillary over Light and that'd explain breaking $100 and we were otherwise trying to be reasonably frugal having done LCCs before. The total ticket price per preson was otherwise very reasonable and comparable to what we usually paid to fly Norwegian pre-covid.

Norse is going to suspend LGW-BOS from October 31 - March 30.

santi319 wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

CX747 wrote:

Depends upon where traffic is and do you have to hike for an insane distance to get a rental car at MIA. At FLL you are on the ground and on the road much faster. To each their own but in traveling to that area often, FLL is a hidden gem that gets you in and out without the lines and wait times of MIA.

Huh? Miami has a consolidated rental car facility at the airport just like FLL. There’s no hike.

Yes, obviously depending on where your going it depends what’s faster, but if your going to Miami or Miami Beach there’s no comparison. You can be off your plane and checked into your hotel in downtown Miami in less than an hour from MIA.

FLL is an understaffed nightmare and one of the worst airports facilities in the country with immigration far worse than MIA. But again to each his own.

Exactly, has this person been to FLL lately? Its horrific! I’ve never seen an airport that makes passengers wait for customs in the aircraft. And its not just a one off its almost everytime. Waiting 30 mins in the aircraft even if you have global entry. Avoid at all costs even if youre visiting Broward. The tri-rail leaves directly from Miami Airport, and in 45 min will drop you near downtown Fort Lauderdale (less if you’re going to Hollywood.

I swear this argument pops up on almost every A.net thread at some point. While on a map the airports seem close together. South Florida traffic is notoriously bad all the way from MIA-PBI, however it is heavier South of the 95/595 exchange which is where the airport is located. Cruise departures occur from both cities and the FLL location is an easy ride to the airport. Simply put, depending on your final destination in South Florida, either airport can be your best option.

I flew yesterday into CDG and I saw one Norse plane.

I didn't even know they flew here! (and I live here).

I haven't seen a single add for Norse anywhere in the city (French Bee for instance has plenty of adds for their US routes).

That is a very big difference with Norwegian. Norwegian had a lot of advertisement and people knew about them. It was kind of the Ryanair of long-haul. But Norse? It is like a ghost airline.

veeseeten wrote:

Not at all. $100pp is essentially industry leading, it’s a great result. As you push that spend-per-head higher, each additional unit is proportionally more challenging to attain - but there is a ‘fair’ limit, both for what pax will bear and what your tech can deliver.

It might be industry leading on a per-passenger/segment/booking basis, but on a per-seat basis it is likely to be amongst the worst in cash terms. Llong-haul operations don't have as many sectors per day as a short/medium haul airline. So you have fewer opportunities to extract that ancillary revenue. Ryanair average 4.6 sectors per day from their fleet, assuming all aircraft are working 364 days of the year, which they won't. If I assume 90% availability the average is 5 sectors per day at FR. Compare that with Norse, their average will be 2, or even a bit less. It's true that N0 have more per aircraft, 338 Vs 189/197, which does level things up a bit. 676 shots for N0 Vs 945/985 at Ryanair. FR have 91% average load. N0 is relatively young airline, trying new routes, launched in a pandemic and has loads anywhere from 50%, so comparisons have to be made with care.

Spirit reports ancillary revenue of about $58/pax, Frontier $80. European stage lengths are, on average, 400km shorter than the US, perhaps explaining the lower figures from the European LCC's easyJet get €23, Ryanair €22.50 while Wizz extract €38. I think AirAsiaX manages to get about $50 per passenger, which is primly a fairer comparison. Suggests that N0 is doing relatively well opening the wallets of the passengers it does attract and shows how important high load factors are. For this reason I expect N0 to have a highly seasonal route network and barely fly over the Atlantic in Jan/Feb.

BrianDromey wrote:

veeseeten wrote:

Not at all. $100pp is essentially industry leading, it’s a great result. As you push that spend-per-head higher, each additional unit is proportionally more challenging to attain - but there is a ‘fair’ limit, both for what pax will bear and what your tech can deliver.

It might be industry leading on a per-passenger/segment/booking basis, but on a per-seat basis it is likely to be amongst the worst in cash terms. Llong-haul operations don't have as many sectors per day as a short/medium haul airline. So you have fewer opportunities to extract that ancillary revenue. Ryanair average 4.6 sectors per day from their fleet, assuming all aircraft are working 364 days of the year, which they won't. If I assume 90% availability the average is 5 sectors per day at FR. Compare that with Norse, their average will be 2, or even a bit less. It's true that N0 have more per aircraft, 338 Vs 189/197, which does level things up a bit. 676 shots for N0 Vs 945/985 at Ryanair. FR have 91% average load. N0 is relatively young airline, trying new routes, launched in a pandemic and has loads anywhere from 50%, so comparisons have to be made with care.

Spirit reports ancillary revenue of about $58/pax, Frontier $80. European stage lengths are, on average, 400km shorter than the US, perhaps explaining the lower figures from the European LCC's easyJet get €23, Ryanair €22.50 while Wizz extract €38. I think AirAsiaX manages to get about $50 per passenger, which is primly a fairer comparison. Suggests that N0 is doing relatively well opening the wallets of the passengers it does attract and shows how important high load factors are. For this reason I expect N0 to have a highly seasonal route network and barely fly over the Atlantic in Jan/Feb.

Not really sure what point you’re making about per seat - the revenue is captive and multiple purchases throughout the flight are more likely. But that aside, you need to look at how far the revenue earned sweats: the range of items you can sell (with higher likelihood for conversion, no less), eg blankets, is broader and better yielding than shorthaul - in particular, the margin on pre-order meals is way, way higher than any shorthaul buy on board.

veeseeten wrote:

BrianDromey wrote:

veeseeten wrote:

Not at all. $100pp is essentially industry leading, it’s a great result. As you push that spend-per-head higher, each additional unit is proportionally more challenging to attain - but there is a ‘fair’ limit, both for what pax will bear and what your tech can deliver.

It might be industry leading on a per-passenger/segment/booking basis, but on a per-seat basis it is likely to be amongst the worst in cash terms. Llong-haul operations don't have as many sectors per day as a short/medium haul airline. So you have fewer opportunities to extract that ancillary revenue. Ryanair average 4.6 sectors per day from their fleet, assuming all aircraft are working 364 days of the year, which they won't. If I assume 90% availability the average is 5 sectors per day at FR. Compare that with Norse, their average will be 2, or even a bit less. It's true that N0 have more per aircraft, 338 Vs 189/197, which does level things up a bit. 676 shots for N0 Vs 945/985 at Ryanair. FR have 91% average load. N0 is relatively young airline, trying new routes, launched in a pandemic and has loads anywhere from 50%, so comparisons have to be made with care.

Spirit reports ancillary revenue of about $58/pax, Frontier $80. European stage lengths are, on average, 400km shorter than the US, perhaps explaining the lower figures from the European LCC's easyJet get €23, Ryanair €22.50 while Wizz extract €38. I think AirAsiaX manages to get about $50 per passenger, which is primly a fairer comparison. Suggests that N0 is doing relatively well opening the wallets of the passengers it does attract and shows how important high load factors are. For this reason I expect N0 to have a highly seasonal route network and barely fly over the Atlantic in Jan/Feb.

Not really sure what point you’re making about per seat - the revenue is captive and multiple purchases throughout the flight are more likely. But that aside, you need to look at how far the revenue earned sweats: the range of items you can sell (with higher likelihood for conversion, no less), eg blankets, is broader and better yielding than shorthaul - in particular, the margin on pre-order meals is way, way higher than any shorthaul buy on board.

A lot of ancillary revenue is on a per flight basis. Checked luggage fees, carryon luggage fees, seat selection fees, e-ticket fees, ticket printing fees, priority boarding up charges etc. Passengers are not paying for those multiple times during the flight. And some of those fees are essentially pure profit for the airline with little to no cost associated with them.

Polot wrote:

veeseeten wrote:

BrianDromey wrote:

It might be industry leading on a per-passenger/segment/booking basis, but on a per-seat basis it is likely to be amongst the worst in cash terms. Llong-haul operations don't have as many sectors per day as a short/medium haul airline. So you have fewer opportunities to extract that ancillary revenue. Ryanair average 4.6 sectors per day from their fleet, assuming all aircraft are working 364 days of the year, which they won't. If I assume 90% availability the average is 5 sectors per day at FR. Compare that with Norse, their average will be 2, or even a bit less. It's true that N0 have more per aircraft, 338 Vs 189/197, which does level things up a bit. 676 shots for N0 Vs 945/985 at Ryanair. FR have 91% average load. N0 is relatively young airline, trying new routes, launched in a pandemic and has loads anywhere from 50%, so comparisons have to be made with care.

Spirit reports ancillary revenue of about $58/pax, Frontier $80. European stage lengths are, on average, 400km shorter than the US, perhaps explaining the lower figures from the European LCC's easyJet get €23, Ryanair €22.50 while Wizz extract €38. I think AirAsiaX manages to get about $50 per passenger, which is primly a fairer comparison. Suggests that N0 is doing relatively well opening the wallets of the passengers it does attract and shows how important high load factors are. For this reason I expect N0 to have a highly seasonal route network and barely fly over the Atlantic in Jan/Feb.

Not really sure what point you’re making about per seat - the revenue is captive and multiple purchases throughout the flight are more likely. But that aside, you need to look at how far the revenue earned sweats: the range of items you can sell (with higher likelihood for conversion, no less), eg blankets, is broader and better yielding than shorthaul - in particular, the margin on pre-order meals is way, way higher than any shorthaul buy on board.

A lot of ancillary revenue is on a per flight basis. Checked luggage fees, carryon luggage fees, seat selection fees, e-ticket fees, ticket printing fees, priority boarding up charges etc. Passengers are not paying for those multiple times during the flight. And some of those fees are essentially pure profit for the airline with little to no cost associated with them.

I’m aware. But the point I’m making is generally, you can charge all of those things at a higher rate on longhaul, despite a surprisingly similar uplift cost (save bags…) to shorthaul. My experience both professionally and as a consumer has been: perceptual value goes a long way in pricing up unbundled products.

veeseeten wrote:

Not really sure what point you’re making about per seat - the revenue is captive and multiple purchases throughout the flight are more likely. But that aside, you need to look at how far the revenue earned sweats: the range of items you can sell (with higher likelihood for conversion, no less), eg blankets, is broader and better yielding than shorthaul - in particular, the margin on pre-order meals is way, way higher than any shorthaul buy on board.

Think of ancillary as "chances to sell". While N0 has up to 2 chances per seat, per day to make ancillary revenue a short haul airline will have 5 chances per seat. But an airline will only have a chance to extract ancillary revenue if it sell the seat in the first place. Ryanair, for example, sells 91% of its seats, year-round. N0 achieved a lower load, 83% in June, it was was 67% in April. So fewer chances to sell, as fewer seats are occupied.
On the other hand, N0 has larger aircraft and flies them on longer sectors. While N0 has fewer chances to sell, it does achieve a higher selling price.

The answer to our question is unknown. Where does N0 derive the ancillary from? Is it from upgrades to the Premium Cabin (is this an ancillary or ticket revenue), preferred seats, food, baggage, etc? Does this revenue come from a relatively small sub-set of passengers? If it does then the average ancillary revenue might decrease as the loads get higher, if more "cheapskates" choose N0. Does most of the ancillary come from bundles at the time of booking, or are there opportunities from upgrades at check-in and on-board food/duty-free sales? How does pre-paying for a bundle change the likelihood of extracting more ancillary spend?

My point is that $100 is a great number to achieve. But how N0 get to that makes a lot of difference to their viability and there aren't a lot of direct comparisons. However they do it, they have to keep load factors high. That is going to be a real challenge for a transatlantic airline in the depths of winter.

I appreciate the explanation, however, unit yield to the bottom line and degree of captivity are everything, rather than frequency of opportunity to sell. Ancillaries as a whole are derived from much more than SLF and as such, the accounting treatment (in my experience) isn’t linked back to that, at least in any commercial team I’ve been a part of. We could go all day, but suffice to say, carriers are clever and obfuscatory about how they mask performance, to say the least!

any chance to see Norse at Dominican Rep ??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7W7n-dyr_8

Norse Atlantic jet had a little whoopsie at FLL and became a big problem with passengers bound for OSL being stranded for several days.

Shouldn't there be a certain time when the airline either brings in a rescue plane or books passengers on different airlines instead of continuing to delay the flight because the plane isn't fixed?

PatrickZ80 wrote:

SurfandSnow wrote:

Who wants to land in Fort Lauderdale, a complete dump of an airport far from South Beach, rather than Miami?!?

Maybe price-conscious passengers, if Fort Lauderdale is cheaper to fly into than Miami. Not everything is about comfort, money is an important factor as well. If Miami is more expensive to fly into than Fort Lauderdale, that might trick some passengers to pick Fort Lauderdale instead.

Fort Lauderdale also has better low-cost self-connecting opportunities on for example Spirit. There's a reason ULCCs pick Fort Lauderdale over Miami. It doesn't exactly work if one flight uses one airport and the other flight uses the other airport. Not everything is about O/D traffic.

Plus don't forget there are lots of people that fly into FLL to take cruises,

Flew out of OSL and LGW this past week and I was really surprised at the number of Norse 787’s I saw! Does anyone know offhand their number of airframes? They seem to have been growing quite quickly!

Anyone know of any plans for Chicago? They were looking at ORD and even RFD earlier but haven’t heard any thing. Obviously won’t be until S24 now but just curious if Norse is still interested.

hiflyeras wrote:

Flew out of OSL and LGW this past week and I was really surprised at the number of Norse 787’s I saw! Does anyone know offhand their number of airframes? They seem to have been growing quite quickly!

15, but with 5 leased to Air Europa, that leaves 10 aircraft with Norse. Of those 9 are active and 1 spare

Planeboy17 wrote:

Anyone know of any plans for Chicago? They were looking at ORD and even RFD earlier but haven’t heard any thing. Obviously won’t be until S24 now but just curious if Norse is still interested.

Doesn't seems that likely any time soon, consider their 2024 program already is starting to finalize

Someone83 wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

Flew out of OSL and LGW this past week and I was really surprised at the number of Norse 787’s I saw! Does anyone know offhand their number of airframes? They seem to have been growing quite quickly!

15, but with 5 leased to Air Europa, that leaves 10 aircraft with Norse. Of those 9 are active and 1 spare

Planeboy17 wrote:

Anyone know of any plans for Chicago? They were looking at ORD and even RFD earlier but haven’t heard any thing. Obviously won’t be until S24 now but just curious if Norse is still interested.

Doesn't seems that likely any time soon, consider their 2024 program already is starting to finalize

I just flew Norse to LGW today. Cabin crew said leases should end by next year sometime giving them some frames back. He said in 2 years there should be a lot of growth if things go well.

hiflyeras wrote:

Flew out of OSL and LGW this past week and I was really surprised at the number of Norse 787’s I saw! Does anyone know offhand their number of airframes? They seem to have been growing quite quickly!

Seeing the line up of the 5 based at LGW is indeed quite impressive. Not unusual to see them all on Pier 2 with just a BA777 blocking the pattern!

lesfalls wrote:

Someone83 wrote:

hiflyeras wrote:

Flew out of OSL and LGW this past week and I was really surprised at the number of Norse 787’s I saw! Does anyone know offhand their number of airframes? They seem to have been growing quite quickly!

15, but with 5 leased to Air Europa, that leaves 10 aircraft with Norse. Of those 9 are active and 1 spare

Planeboy17 wrote:

Anyone know of any plans for Chicago? They were looking at ORD and even RFD earlier but haven’t heard any thing. Obviously won’t be until S24 now but just curious if Norse is still interested.

Doesn't seems that likely any time soon, consider their 2024 program already is starting to finalize

I just flew Norse to LGW today. Cabin crew said leases should end by next year sometime giving them some frames back. He said in 2 years there should be a lot of growth if things go well.

Those leased-out frames are mildly problematic - the 2x -9’s are in a different config (not the end of the world, but limits flexibility in a small fleet) and the -8’s have different engine cores and no WiFi capability (although, to be fair, it’s not activated on any in-service aircraft anyway). If Norse makes it through the winter, wouldn’t be surprised to see an attempt to trade the non-standard 5x aircraft for ex-DY -9’s that are spec’ed more closely to the existing in-service fleet. Reason: re-LOPA of the returning aircraft isn’t exactly cheap….!

lesfalls wrote:

Cabin crew said leases should end by next year sometime giving them some frames back. He said in 2 years there should be a lot of growth if things go well.

Yes, they are all on +-18 months lease, so will return towards the Summer of 2024

Canceled plans to launch service to Kingston Jamaica.

https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/230823-z0dec23kin