Norse Atlantic Airways News and Discussion Thread

DLHAM · Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:04 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
I feel like I've seen that list before, there was a lot of commotion about the fact that for most flights London was referred to as LON however the second route from above shows MCO-LHR. So in that case they were just referring to Heathrow, ignoring the fact that there were lots of flights from Gatwick to Orlando.

But of course you got to keep in mind, by far most of these routes are served one-stop. The fact that there's no non-stop service doesn't mean it's unserved and low-cost travelers won't mind a connection if that saves them money.

I added Heathrow to Orlando to that list because its an amazingly high number of passengers, its just for Info. One could consider Heathrow a different place/catchment than Gatwick as well. But LHR-MCO on that list is mainly just a "fun fact".
I am still searching for more unserved routes with very high potential ... But now Corona came and I will have to get new numbers for all these markets (you can forget about the 2020 numbers, 2021 as well).

jomur · Sat Apr 17, 2021 1:27 pm

DLHAM wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
I feel like I've seen that list before, there was a lot of commotion about the fact that for most flights London was referred to as LON however the second route from above shows MCO-LHR. So in that case they were just referring to Heathrow, ignoring the fact that there were lots of flights from Gatwick to Orlando.

But of course you got to keep in mind, by far most of these routes are served one-stop. The fact that there's no non-stop service doesn't mean it's unserved and low-cost travelers won't mind a connection if that saves them money.

I added Heathrow to Orlando to that list because its an amazingly high number of passengers, its just for Info. One could consider Heathrow a different place/catchment than Gatwick as well. But LHR-MCO on that list is mainly just a "fun fact".
I am still searching for more unserved routes with very high potential ... But now Corona came and I will have to get new numbers for all these markets (you can forget about the 2020 numbers, 2021 as well).

People go LHR-XXX-MCO because generally its cheaper than going LGW-MCO direct. Now that both BA and VS are going to operate LHR-MCO direct it will be interesting to see how many still go LHR-XXX-MCO due to cost.

DLHAM · Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:27 pm

jomur wrote:
DLHAM wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
I feel like I've seen that list before, there was a lot of commotion about the fact that for most flights London was referred to as LON however the second route from above shows MCO-LHR. So in that case they were just referring to Heathrow, ignoring the fact that there were lots of flights from Gatwick to Orlando.

But of course you got to keep in mind, by far most of these routes are served one-stop. The fact that there's no non-stop service doesn't mean it's unserved and low-cost travelers won't mind a connection if that saves them money.

I added Heathrow to Orlando to that list because its an amazingly high number of passengers, its just for Info. One could consider Heathrow a different place/catchment than Gatwick as well. But LHR-MCO on that list is mainly just a "fun fact".
I am still searching for more unserved routes with very high potential ... But now Corona came and I will have to get new numbers for all these markets (you can forget about the 2020 numbers, 2021 as well).

People go LHR-XXX-MCO because generally its cheaper than going LGW-MCO direct. Now that both BA and VS are going to operate LHR-MCO direct it will be interesting to see how many still go LHR-XXX-MCO due to cost.

Yes, they like to charge a premium for nonstops. But theres still quite a lot people flying LGW-MCO, otherwise no one would serve that route. Given that so many people still fly LHR-XXX-MCO means that the whole market seems underserved. Unless all those people from LHR fly on cheapest tickets ...

Someone83 · Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:43 am

They seems to be looking for people to fill various administrative and technical positions in both Norway and the UK for the moment

jomur · Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:13 am

DLHAM wrote:
jomur wrote:
DLHAM wrote:

I added Heathrow to Orlando to that list because its an amazingly high number of passengers, its just for Info. One could consider Heathrow a different place/catchment than Gatwick as well. But LHR-MCO on that list is mainly just a "fun fact".
I am still searching for more unserved routes with very high potential ... But now Corona came and I will have to get new numbers for all these markets (you can forget about the 2020 numbers, 2021 as well).

People go LHR-XXX-MCO because generally its cheaper than going LGW-MCO direct. Now that both BA and VS are going to operate LHR-MCO direct it will be interesting to see how many still go LHR-XXX-MCO due to cost.

Yes, they like to charge a premium for nonstops. But theres still quite a lot people flying LGW-MCO, otherwise no one would serve that route. Given that so many people still fly LHR-XXX-MCO means that the whole market seems underserved. Unless all those people from LHR fly on cheapest tickets ...

Yep, its the cheapest tickets.. I was just pointing out just because people go from XXX via YYY to get to ZZZ does not mean they would go XXX-ZZZ direct if its cheap going via YYY, so its not an automatic reason to fly XXX-ZZZ direct compared to going via somewhere else.

Someone83 · Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:55 am

Norse Atlantic has reserved the following registration marks: LN-NOB, LN-NOC, LN-NOE, LN-NOF, LN-NOG, LN-NOH, LN-NOI, LN-NOJ

All registrations former used on ex-Norwegian 737-800s

JumboMaiden · Thu May 06, 2021 6:41 am

Are Norse Atlantic any closer to revealing more details of what and where ...
Newsletter was sent out over a month ago to applicants asking for Q&A to be included but
responses were autopenned "we don't know...." (to generic but key points in a few employment areas)

Someone83 · Thu May 06, 2021 6:51 am

JumboMaiden wrote:
Are Norse Atlantic any closer to revealing more details of what and where ...

As they are not planning to start operations before Dec '21, they are probably still quite a far away from announcing more of their plans, at least to a more detailed view

They have of course shown their initial planned routes, but schedule, livery etc is still far out. But have seen they have applied for employees in both Oslo and London, but not yet Paris

rhysflies · Thu May 06, 2021 7:21 am

jomur wrote:
People go LHR-XXX-MCO because generally its cheaper than going LGW-MCO direct. Now that both BA and VS are going to operate LHR-MCO direct it will be interesting to see how many still go LHR-XXX-MCO due to cost.

Have you seen the prices for London-MCO direct during peak summer holidays though? I'm surprised some families don't have to remortgage their house for their Disney trip with their kids. Easily 1,000GBP+ in economy.

jomur · Sun May 09, 2021 5:21 pm

rhysflies wrote:
jomur wrote:
People go LHR-XXX-MCO because generally its cheaper than going LGW-MCO direct. Now that both BA and VS are going to operate LHR-MCO direct it will be interesting to see how many still go LHR-XXX-MCO due to cost.

Have you seen the prices for London-MCO direct during peak summer holidays though? I'm surprised some families don't have to remortgage their house for their Disney trip with their kids. Easily 1,000GBP+ in economy.

Its not THAT expensive, usually around £800 in WT during the English school holiday periods. This year maybe different though due to covid and pent up demand.

Someone83 · Thu May 20, 2021 6:05 am

Looks like they will try to work with, and not against the unions

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.o ... ights/amp/

Norse Atlantic Signs Deal With Global Transport Workers As It Seeks Labor Backing For Transatlantic Flights

seansasLCY · Thu May 20, 2021 6:08 am

jomur wrote:
rhysflies wrote:
jomur wrote:
People go LHR-XXX-MCO because generally its cheaper than going LGW-MCO direct. Now that both BA and VS are going to operate LHR-MCO direct it will be interesting to see how many still go LHR-XXX-MCO due to cost.

Have you seen the prices for London-MCO direct during peak summer holidays though? I'm surprised some families don't have to remortgage their house for their Disney trip with their kids. Easily 1,000GBP+ in economy.

Its not THAT expensive, usually around £800 in WT during the English school holiday periods. This year maybe different though due to covid and pent up demand.

I’ve seen it much higher throughout the summer period. So much so on several occasions it’s been cheaper to book business class at least on one way.

UPlog · Thu May 27, 2021 4:38 pm

Someone83 wrote:
Looks like they will try to work with, and not against the unions

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.o ... ights/amp/

Norse Atlantic Signs Deal With Global Transport Workers As It Seeks Labor Backing For Transatlantic Flights

Norwegian did the same.

Their U.S. based FA's were part of AFA-CWA

Someone83 · Thu May 27, 2021 5:38 pm

They also just announced an agreement with The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO (AFA)

https://newsweb.oslobors.no/message/534427

The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO (AFA) and Norse Atlantic Airways (Norse) have agreed to a pre-hire agreement for U.S.-based Flight Attendant jobs at the new low-cost, long-haul start up airline. Norse expects to create a minimum of 700 Flight Attendant jobs in the U.S. and agreed to union neutrality with joint application for certification by the National Mediation Board once the Flight Attendants demonstrate majority interest in representation with AFA. The full contract, subject to ratification after certification of the union, includes industry-leading starting pay and job protections, healthcare, and a 401k among other key benefits.

Oykie · Thu Jul 15, 2021 11:45 am

According to Norwegian newspaper Dagens næringsliv, Norse Atlantic is postponing startup because of delta variant. I believe winter 2022 at the earliest.

Someone83 · Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:27 am

Norse plan to unveil their brand August 10th

https://vimeo.com/581103686

JannEejit · Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:35 am

Someone83 wrote:
Norse plan to unveil their brand August 10th

https://vimeo.com/581103686

Well that was as exciting as a dark winter's night in Trondheim !

LaunchDetected · Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:31 pm

The website still looks like a scam. The name and logo are as bland as possible. I'm not sure about how brand image impact economics but it does not inspire confidence.

davidjohnson6 · Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:43 pm

SAS seem to be carrying on as normal, Norwegian didn't go bust after all, Wideroe still doing their regional flying and Flyr have now got their new airline up and running
I think the room for another Norwegian domestic airline is very limited. Assuming the people behind Norse were serious about starting an airline... perhaps time to reassess, maybe cancel the project and retain some sort of good name, instead of going ahead and losing millions in a fare war

jbs2886 · Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:10 pm

LaunchDetected wrote:
The website still looks like a scam. The name and logo are as bland as possible. I'm not sure about how brand image impact economics but it does not inspire confidence.

Literally look at the posts above yours, they are releasing the branding August 10. So the logo and website are placeholders. Why would the airline spend a ton of money for a fancy website before it starts just to replace it with what it will be later?

LaunchDetected · Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:18 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
LaunchDetected wrote:
The website still looks like a scam. The name and logo are as bland as possible. I'm not sure about how brand image impact economics but it does not inspire confidence.

Literally look at the posts above yours, they are releasing the branding August 10. So the logo and website are placeholders. Why would the airline spend a ton of money for a fancy website before it starts just to replace it with what it will be later?

Don't worry, I saw the magnificient teasing video. But branding must be exciting, no one will tune in to watch the release. Maybe they will do better for the next LCC-TATL airline in 5 years.

jbs2886 · Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:28 pm

LaunchDetected wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
LaunchDetected wrote:
The website still looks like a scam. The name and logo are as bland as possible. I'm not sure about how brand image impact economics but it does not inspire confidence.

Literally look at the posts above yours, they are releasing the branding August 10. So the logo and website are placeholders. Why would the airline spend a ton of money for a fancy website before it starts just to replace it with what it will be later?

Don't worry, I saw the magnificient teasing video. But branding must be exciting, no one will tune in to watch the release. Maybe they will do better for the next LCC-TATL airline in 5 years.

So they should just skip the announcement and launch everything on the website....that seems not "exciting". They're trying to drum up some interest and do a cohesive launch.

Polot · Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:41 pm

davidjohnson6 wrote:
SAS seem to be carrying on as normal, Norwegian didn't go bust after all, Wideroe still doing their regional flying and Flyr have now got their new airline up and running
I think the room for another Norwegian domestic airline is very limited. Assuming the people behind Norse were serious about starting an airline... perhaps time to reassess, maybe cancel the project and retain some sort of good name, instead of going ahead and losing millions in a fare war

They are planning on being an intercontinental LCC (using ex DY 787s), so not really in competition with Wideroe, Flyr, or Norwegian.

F27500 · Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:16 pm

Who in their right mind would invest in this ..after the original venture went pretty much bust. Same guys . .. same planes .. same operating plan .. just like how WOW in Iceland is coming back as PLAY. Same thing .. different name. And thats what both these airlines are .. play (with other people's money).

prebennorholm · Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:09 am

F27500 wrote:
Who in their right mind would invest in this ..after the original venture went pretty much bust. Same guys . .. same planes .. same operating plan .. just like how WOW in Iceland is coming back as PLAY. Same thing .. different name. And thats what both these airlines are .. play (with other people's money).

No, they do not play with other people's money. They play with own money, and they do that rather cleverly.

The leasing companies, which own the planes, correctly assumes that doing loss making business with (some of) the planes is better than having the planes rotten away in a desert.

The banks, who own the leasing companies, keep the leasing companies on artificial respiration. It is cheaper than the alternative - to liquidate the leasing companies. And consequently put the planes on the market at fire sale prices.

The banks and the leasing companies are hoping that some day post COVIC they can either selll the Norse Atlantic airline company, or sell the planes to other airline companies at a decent price, or lease out the planes at decent leasing rates. That way they may one day end up having done decent business, or at least minimized their losses.

It is all clever business.

davidjohnson6 · Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:14 am

prebennorholm wrote:
The banks and the leasing companies are hoping that some day post COVIC they can either selll the Norse Atlantic airline company, or sell the planes to other airline companies at a decent price, or lease out the planes at decent leasing rates. That way they may one day end up having done decent business, or at least minimized their losses.

It is all clever business.

That sounds a bit like Dutch tulips in the 17th century... hold onto an asset in the hope that somebody else will eventually buy it. The problem is that in the 21st century there are rules about annual accounts having to value a company's assets fairly, particularly if they are potentially available for sale. Thus, the leasing companies should probably be doing a major write down in their accounts of the value of all those aircraft. When this happens, bank shareholders typically will start asking difficult questions

Some people might think it clever... sounds more like an airline existing only because a leasing company has decided to engage in false accounting

prebennorholm · Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:47 am

davidjohnson6 wrote:
That sounds a bit like Dutch tulips in the 17th century... hold onto an asset in the hope that somebody else will eventually buy it. The problem is that in the 21st century there are rules about annual accounts having to value a company's assets fairly, particularly if they are potentially available for sale. Thus, the leasing companies should probably be doing a major write down in their accounts of the value of all those aircraft. When this happens, bank shareholders typically will start asking difficult questions

Go and tell that to the Chinese government, which owns and controls the banks, which own and control the leasing companies.

Someone83 · Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:07 am

[twoid][/twoid]

prebennorholm wrote:
davidjohnson6 wrote:
That sounds a bit like Dutch tulips in the 17th century... hold onto an asset in the hope that somebody else will eventually buy it. The problem is that in the 21st century there are rules about annual accounts having to value a company's assets fairly, particularly if they are potentially available for sale. Thus, the leasing companies should probably be doing a major write down in their accounts of the value of all those aircraft. When this happens, bank shareholders typically will start asking difficult questions

Go and tell that to the Chinese government, which owns and controls the banks, which own and control the leasing companies.

Norse’s aircraft are coming from AerCap, which is a public traded company and in 2020 took at >1 billion dollar impairment on their assets.

And even with Covid, their assets kept generating a decent cash flow….

Oykie · Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:01 am

Norse Atlantic has signed a leasing agreement with BOC aviation to lease another 6 dreamliners. They will now have a total of 15 787 when.

News in Norwegian: https://e24.no/boers-og-finans/i/bzVKwB ... en-kraftig

Someone83 · Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:47 am

The 6 from BOC are all 787-9

But a 16 years leasing deal is unusual long

https://newsweb.oslobors.no/message/538814

RoyalBrunei757 · Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:54 am

Out of a fleet of 37 B787-8/9 Norwegian used to operate, how many will eventually ended up with Norse Atlantic aka Norweigan Mark II? Two went to Neos, leaving 35. With earlier deal with AerCap, they have three B787-8s and 12 B787-8s now.

Someone83 · Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:45 am

RoyalBrunei757 wrote:
Out of a fleet of 37 B787-8/9 Norwegian used to operate, how many will eventually ended up with Norse Atlantic aka Norweigan Mark II? Two went to Neos, leaving 35. With earlier deal with AerCap, they have three B787-8s and 12 B787-8s now.

They haven't really said, but in the investor presentation they outlined phase 3 of their expansion plan with 20 aircraft, and phase 4 using 30

RoyalBrunei757 · Mon Aug 02, 2021 7:06 am

Someone83 wrote:
RoyalBrunei757 wrote:
Out of a fleet of 37 B787-8/9 Norwegian used to operate, how many will eventually ended up with Norse Atlantic aka Norweigan Mark II? Two went to Neos, leaving 35. With earlier deal with AerCap, they have three B787-8s and 12 B787-8s now.

They haven't really said, but in the investor presentation they outlined phase 3 of their expansion plan with 20 aircraft, and phase 4 using 30

That's great to know, much thanks for that. That's almost covering all the 787s they used to have. Without a doubt they will lease from other lessors or order new ones once they got it up and running.

I do hope this time they can build up a good solid customer base with business sound plan before venturing into unchartered water again. The last time they went all ballastic expansion brought the whole group to its knees.

ContinentalEWR · Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:30 am

RoyalBrunei757 wrote:
Someone83 wrote:
RoyalBrunei757 wrote:
Out of a fleet of 37 B787-8/9 Norwegian used to operate, how many will eventually ended up with Norse Atlantic aka Norweigan Mark II? Two went to Neos, leaving 35. With earlier deal with AerCap, they have three B787-8s and 12 B787-8s now.

They haven't really said, but in the investor presentation they outlined phase 3 of their expansion plan with 20 aircraft, and phase 4 using 30

That's great to know, much thanks for that. That's almost covering all the 787s they used to have. Without a doubt they will lease from other lessors or order new ones once they got it up and running.

I do hope this time they can build up a good solid customer base with business sound plan before venturing into unchartered water again. The last time they went all ballastic expansion brought the whole group to its knees.

I just don't see this new version of Norwegian long haul getting off the ground. Investors were badly burned in the last go around, the business model proved itself to be full of holes, and the marketplace has changed substantially since 2019.

Someone83 · Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:36 am

ContinentalEWR wrote:
I just don't see this new version of Norwegian long haul getting off the ground. Investors were badly burned in the last go around, the business model proved itself to be full of holes, and the marketplace has changed substantially since 2019.

Remember that the company already has done an IPO and is fully funded for its launch

That of course doesn't mean it will work or be successful, and your points are relevant. But it has the needed investors onboard to get of the ground

ContinentalEWR · Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:46 pm

Someone83 wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
I just don't see this new version of Norwegian long haul getting off the ground. Investors were badly burned in the last go around, the business model proved itself to be full of holes, and the marketplace has changed substantially since 2019.

Remember that the company already has done an IPO and is fully funded for its launch

That of course doesn't mean it will work or be successful, and your points are relevant. But it has the needed investors onboard to get of the ground

True. I just don't see it being successful. It wasn't pre-pandemic even amid a boom in TATL air travel. True, a lot of DY's problems were operational issues it had no control over (787 issues) but overall, it was a shaky business model.

Oykie · Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:05 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
Someone83 wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
I just don't see this new version of Norwegian long haul getting off the ground. Investors were badly burned in the last go around, the business model proved itself to be full of holes, and the marketplace has changed substantially since 2019.

Remember that the company already has done an IPO and is fully funded for its launch

That of course doesn't mean it will work or be successful, and your points are relevant. But it has the needed investors onboard to get of the ground

True. I just don't see it being successful. It wasn't pre-pandemic even amid a boom in TATL air travel. True, a lot of DY's problems were operational issues it had no control over (787 issues) but overall, it was a shaky business model.

This new company is actually owned and operated by different owners. The first year they only pay by the hour the planes are in use, so more risk are on the leasing companies. When Norwegian ordered the planes the 787 was in high demand and they payed a premium. Now the new company has a much better deal so in some areas they might have a shot. I agree with you that point to point long haul flying has proven difficult and many have tried.

ContinentalEWR · Mon Aug 02, 2021 5:01 pm

Oykie wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
Someone83 wrote:

Remember that the company already has done an IPO and is fully funded for its launch

That of course doesn't mean it will work or be successful, and your points are relevant. But it has the needed investors onboard to get of the ground

True. I just don't see it being successful. It wasn't pre-pandemic even amid a boom in TATL air travel. True, a lot of DY's problems were operational issues it had no control over (787 issues) but overall, it was a shaky business model.

This new company is actually owned and operated by different owners. The first year they only pay by the hour the planes are in use, so more risk are on the leasing companies. When Norwegian ordered the planes the 787 was in high demand and they payed a premium. Now the new company has a much better deal so in some areas they might have a shot. I agree with you that point to point long haul flying has proven difficult and many have tried.

The business model has been and remains deeply flawed. I'm not sure how one fixes it. The issue with DY long haul in its former existence is that it inevitably was priced the same as the legacy carriers when a few options were thrown in. Most city pairings, particularly from the NYC area overlapped with well established competitors and some others were just ludicrous, notably from the West Coast. Some routes were actually offering a better option and service, notably some of the Scandinavian destinations, but overall, the airline was a mirage and long haul low cost has essentially never worked.

PMUA787 · Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:52 pm

British Airways was to start PDX-LHR service before COVID-19 and the travel restrictions put the kibbosh on that route. PDX could use another transatlantic route. Would be interesting if this Norse Atlantic beat the Speedbird to the punch on this route.I thought I saw a couple of ex-Norwegian 787's at the PDX Boeing Paint facility on the south side of the airport earlier this year. Wonder if they are going to this new startup?

815253 · Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:25 pm

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

How about these flying times for Norse Atlantic?:

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

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

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

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

seansasLCY · Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:24 pm

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

How about these flying times for Norse Atlantic?:

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

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

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

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

And how do you charge enough on those terrible flight times to make any money? The departure from JFK means you lose a whole day and who wants to depart STN at 02:00 or arrive at STN at 03:00. Why would I self connect when I can book a protected connection for £300 return? This is the problem. It’s very difficult to compete with the established carriers who can offer low prices.

815253 · Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:34 pm

from 100 European destinations you cannot get a £300 return to New York.

Ryanair has based over 30 planes in STN. So when arriving 3:00 in STN (22:00 NY time), you have 30 European destinations you can fly to at 6:00am from STN by Ryanair.

Coming from NY an arrival at 6am in STN would be also possible

There are still enough FR flights to connect to.

skipness1E · Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:59 pm

This is an insane idea.
Saying "it is possible" isn't the same as saying "it will be profitable"!

815253 · Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:25 am

I found the flying times of Norwegian between Europe and US terrible. It was not possible to do a self-transfer on the same day. Were there so many business people on the Norwegian transatlantic flight who wanted a specific departure or arrival time?

Iberia has many connections from Madrid to South America at 23:55. Flying out late, sleeping on the plane, arriving in the morning.

It hasn't been tried yet to match the transatlantic LCC flying times for many self-transfer connections.

skipness1E wrote:
This is an insane idea.

Fact based arguments, please.

PatrickZ80 · Tue Aug 03, 2021 6:07 am

skipness1E wrote:
This is an insane idea.
Saying "it is possible" isn't the same as saying "it will be profitable"!

It can certainly be profitable, however it depends on their load factors. They need to fill their aircraft to the brim, every seat needs to be occupied. I believe they opted for high density configurations so they can haul as many passengers as possible so when spreading out the total flight costs over the passengers the costs per passenger are very little.

Another airline that's currently doing that is FrenchBee, although they fly out of Paris Orly it's the same principle. And they're said to be profitable! Or at least, they would be outside COVID-19.

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

seansasLCY · Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:11 am

airlinenavigato wrote:
from 100 European destinations you cannot get a £300 return to New York.

Ryanair has based over 30 planes in STN. So when arriving 3:00 in STN (22:00 NY time), you have 30 European destinations you can fly to at 6:00am from STN by Ryanair.

Coming from NY an arrival at 6am in STN would be also possible There are still enough FR flights to connect to.

Yes you can. Checking google flights for next month there are return flights to New York available from most cities for between 300-350GBP. If you fly from Madrid you can fly direct on IB/AA return for 200GBP! At the height of Norwegian cheap flights like this were regularly available from across Europe.

Very few people will be so desperate to save 50gbp that they will book self connections with all the risk associated with it. Otherwise lots more carriers would be flying to STN for the people doing it.

davidjohnson6 · Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:32 am

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

How about these flying times for Norse Atlantic?:

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

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

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

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

Passengers generally expect to be able to sleep - and will pay more for another airline to achieve this. People often choose to pay for a 3 star hotel instead of a 1 star hotel because they value a good night's sleep. The only people who might consider these flight times are likely to be paying fares so low as to be deeply loss-making

BrianDromey · Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:12 am

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

Someone83 · Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:23 am

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

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

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

a350lover · Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:35 am

What makes Norse Atlantic think there is a reason for them to “sort of” repeat Norwegian business model and not fail? Especially when, as many point out here, you won’t have problems trying to find a flight from anywhere in Europe to the US for 300€ return, in some cases with bags and a decent tray of hot-meals included.

I don’t see the reason for Norse, and even less sense, right now.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net