Norwegian-2
Could we try to keep this thread for discussion about Norwegian rather than Brexit please ?
There's a thread on Brexit in JetBlast with over 25,000 comments - I imagine people will be only too happy to debate Brexit with you there...
There's a thread on Brexit in JetBlast with over 25,000 comments - I imagine people will be only too happy to debate Brexit with you there...
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, Norwegian UK is not as big as implied in post #182. They have 1 x 737 and 11 x 787.
On the other hand, Norwegian Air International, based in Ireland has 69 x 737, Norwegian Long Haul, based in Norway, boasts 13 x 787 and Norwegian Air Argentina has just 1 x 737.
On the other hand, Norwegian Air International, based in Ireland has 69 x 737, Norwegian Long Haul, based in Norway, boasts 13 x 787 and Norwegian Air Argentina has just 1 x 737.
Walmart
Honda
Toyota
Nissan
BMW
DHL
Fujitsu
Aldi
Lidl
Ford
GM
Interesting
There is always a cost for low prices so how do Norwegian do it especially as HQ is in one of worlds most expensive countries
Why does Uk allow foreign entities to make money at our expense -with Brexit in place we can evict Norwegian and Ryanair can't we ?
After all could hardly do a reciprocal deal to attack new customers in Norway which has the population of Watford , our Government would never allow a foreign airline of debately financial stability to siphon off huge amounts of UK based traffic in ridiculously un-balanced traffic relationships would they?
Why does Uk allow foreign entities to make money at our expense -with Brexit in place we can evict Norwegian and Ryanair can't we ?
After all could hardly do a reciprocal deal to attack new customers in Norway which has the population of Watford , our Government would never allow a foreign airline of debately financial stability to siphon off huge amounts of UK based traffic in ridiculously un-balanced traffic relationships would they?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Waters edge
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, Norwegian UK is not as big as implied in post #182. They have 1 x 737 and 11 x 787.
On the other hand, Norwegian Air International, based in Ireland has 69 x 737, Norwegian Long Haul, based in Norway, boasts 13 x 787 and Norwegian Air Argentina has just 1 x 737.
On the other hand, Norwegian Air International, based in Ireland has 69 x 737, Norwegian Long Haul, based in Norway, boasts 13 x 787 and Norwegian Air Argentina has just 1 x 737.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course there is the issue that a number of countries may prohibit UK registered aircraft and crew from flying after March 2019 as the CAA does not, currently, have the authority or expertise to maintain airworthiness as they surrendered that ability to EASA in the past. Of course there are a number of deals that could be made to prevent this, but no action could be catastrophic. This isn't including the increased regulatory cost that UK carriers will face going forward if the CAA's rules are not harmonised with the US and EU.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: kent
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At what point do the CAA look closely at the finances of this shambles of an airline now that much of the long haul is on a UK AOC?
When Monarch were in problems there were aircraft all over the place to rescue pax.
It's a long way to Argentina.
When Monarch were in problems there were aircraft all over the place to rescue pax.
It's a long way to Argentina.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hemel Hempstead
Posts: 1,092
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I understand their issue is yield, they don't seem to have a problem filling the aircraft (especially on long haul). There are plans in place for example to increase the Premium seating, and have a more focused approach to ancillary revenue. They seem to know where the issues are, and if they can address them, then they can keep growing.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this was a tech stock no one would bat an eyelid, but of course it’s not!
I’m only surprised that loss isn’t greater, put simply you can’t add aircraft and crews at the rate Norwegian have this past year especially long haul and the forward investment required and make money, last year the likes of Titan made more money from Norwegian than clearly Norwegian made for themselves, this apparently won’t happen this year, but with 11 Dreamliner being added and all those new routes net profits will be slim to say the least.
I think that provided they can trade through the summer then good profitability will return but this industry is very sensitive to geopolitical events that are almost impossible to predict.
This is a very different situation to Monarch
I’m only surprised that loss isn’t greater, put simply you can’t add aircraft and crews at the rate Norwegian have this past year especially long haul and the forward investment required and make money, last year the likes of Titan made more money from Norwegian than clearly Norwegian made for themselves, this apparently won’t happen this year, but with 11 Dreamliner being added and all those new routes net profits will be slim to say the least.
I think that provided they can trade through the summer then good profitability will return but this industry is very sensitive to geopolitical events that are almost impossible to predict.
This is a very different situation to Monarch
Australia ?! Is the Daily Fail having a laugh ? On a per kilometre basis it's a low yield route and up against some of the best airlines in the world and their A380s. EK would eat Norwegian for breakfast !
As for trying to improve yield by going premium, when they realize full planes doesn't necessarily mean big profits ? Well I suppose that's been tried and tested over the years by names like Laker, People Express and Air Berlin and it worked out well for them.
Would love to be proved wrong, but this increasingly looks like an airline that has lost its way
As for trying to improve yield by going premium, when they realize full planes doesn't necessarily mean big profits ? Well I suppose that's been tried and tested over the years by names like Laker, People Express and Air Berlin and it worked out well for them.
Would love to be proved wrong, but this increasingly looks like an airline that has lost its way
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The business model is fundamentally flawed. Although they like to claim otherwise, Norwegian haven’t reinvented the wheel.
Low cost short haul works because costs can be cut to the very bone, aircraft utilisation is massive and so on. That just isn’t the case with long haul, it never has been and never will be. It would only ever work like IAG are doing it, where they go after a section of the market that would otherwise not be flying with their other brands, but in a way that complements their existing operations. Size and economies of scale being critical but even then there are no guarantees the model would work.
The 787 is a very pricey aircraft to purchase and/or lease. Yes it’s fuel efficient but not enough to make the difference for an Airline like Norwegian. It’s one of the reasons Level are flying the A330. I believe that if the oil price was closer to $100, Norwegian would already be consigned to the history books. The real issue is yield, or lack of it. I’ve read an analysis of the numbers stating that Norwegian’s break even load factor for 2017 was 95.9% and the 4th quarter was 99.4% That tells you all you need to know.
The current marketplace is probably as good as it gets for the industry. In that market, they’re producing woeful results. Given their cash situation, the competition they face & their aircraft orders etc. I’d give them 18 months at best.
Low cost short haul works because costs can be cut to the very bone, aircraft utilisation is massive and so on. That just isn’t the case with long haul, it never has been and never will be. It would only ever work like IAG are doing it, where they go after a section of the market that would otherwise not be flying with their other brands, but in a way that complements their existing operations. Size and economies of scale being critical but even then there are no guarantees the model would work.
The 787 is a very pricey aircraft to purchase and/or lease. Yes it’s fuel efficient but not enough to make the difference for an Airline like Norwegian. It’s one of the reasons Level are flying the A330. I believe that if the oil price was closer to $100, Norwegian would already be consigned to the history books. The real issue is yield, or lack of it. I’ve read an analysis of the numbers stating that Norwegian’s break even load factor for 2017 was 95.9% and the 4th quarter was 99.4% That tells you all you need to know.
The current marketplace is probably as good as it gets for the industry. In that market, they’re producing woeful results. Given their cash situation, the competition they face & their aircraft orders etc. I’d give them 18 months at best.