Norwegian to the US from LGW
Back to Forum- This topic has 21 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 4 Sep 2014
at 05:36 by MrMichael.
-
- Author
- Posts
- Skip to last reply Create Topic
-
AMcWhirterParticipantThere have been some horrendous delays for Norwegian passengers flying between Scandinavia and the US over the past week owing to yet more B787 technical issues.
One B787, registered EI-LNF, was hit by a lightning while on the ground at Stockholm. This aircraft has been out of service for the past eight days.
It finally returned to service yesterday but, as you can see from @flightradar24, it suffered flap problems soon after take-off for LosAngeles and so had to return to Stockholm.
5 Aug 2014
at 12:37
AMcWhirterParticipantHello Holte75
Here’s a link to a complicated piece from industry magazine Aviation Week.
It would appear that Norwegian or NAI (the long-haul divisioon of Norwegian is still seeking US approval.
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/dot-docket-inundated-comments-against-nai-application
20 Aug 2014
at 09:54
Holte75ParticipantThanks for sharing that Alex, it’s interesting piece which highlights the complexity of the whole issue. At least it answers the question that there is a temporary exemption which allows them to operate the routes until the case is resolved. It will be interesting to see what the final decision is… or indeed if the 40-odd delays persist, if DY manages to keep operate the routes long enough to make the decision more than an academic exercise! 😉
21 Aug 2014
at 13:46
AMcWhirterParticipantThe US authorities have delayed their decision on granting approval.
3 Sep 2014
at 12:08
MrMichaelParticipantThis may prove my point in a previous post. Low cost does not work for long haul. This has been proven time and time again, from Laker to Zoom to Air Asia X. What would be a shame is if the excellent (as I understand things) Norwegian short haul were brought down by this ill advised venture.
3 Sep 2014
at 19:29
TominScotlandParticipantMrMichael – “Low cost does not work for long haul. This has been proven time and time again, from Laker to Zoom to Air Asia X.” – you might want to read up on Air Asia X here. Seems to be working, maybe not to London but there is more to the world than the UK!!
4 Sep 2014
at 02:03
MrMichaelParticipantGood morning Tom. Just clicked on your link (Air AsiaX results) and had a good read. I still stand by what I say, predominately large net losses since start up, a couple of years of modest profits, margins at -23%. Having said that, Air Asia X will probably be a reluctant winner in the two MH losses and the restructure of Malaysian.
Peoples Express, Globespan, Oasis Hong Kong, I could just keep naming the abject failure of the LoCo long haul model. The whole principle of low cost is better utilisation of aircraft, and on Long Haul it cannot be achieved.
As Alex States, one of the problems for Norwegian long haul is using a new somewhat unreliable aircraft with no backup and little infrastructure to sort out problems far from home when things do go wrong. These people delayed 40 odd hours I imagine looked at those getting on AA, BA and SAS flights with nothing less than envy and the thought “was this worth the £100 saving” What I would say is the very high density routes, such as Kuala Lumpur to Melbourne and London to New York will get them some market share, but if margins are so low to achieve reasonable load factors it is not sustainable.
The legacy carriers often say it is the premium cabin that makes the profit, Air AsiaX seems to have a premium product and a good one going by the reviews. However is it good enough, and will premium pax such as those on this forum take the risk of going with a LoCo on Long Haul, I suggest in the majority of cases, No. Although service, comfort, lounges etc are big factors, the biggest factor is reliability, and the LoCo long haul model (unlike short haul) has shown no signs in any case of being reliable.
4 Sep 2014
at 05:36 -
AuthorPosts