NORWEGIAN 787s
 

B787-9 SE-RXM was delivered in mid-June but has never entered service - status "stored".
What is the reason for this? With other branches of Norwegian having to sub-charter for the Max situation as well as at LGW for B787-9s why could this aircraft not be used for short-term cover until it enters service to destinations from Sweden?

Same problem as other 787s? From what I could glean it's also awaiting engine replacements.

DY/DI/D8 have massive logical problems (and costs ££££'s) to cover their current schedules for both long and short haul, plus to cover the new routes announced...

They have 5 long haul ACMI aircraft contracts on duty from LGW and DUB to cover the 787's that are AOG due RR engine recalls....

Passenger loyalty and experience is rapidly waning as the ACMI aircraft used far way short of the new Dreamliner experience, and DI/DY not being able to offer their full service product

I find that incredible. A brand-new aircraft (presumably with brand-new engines!) which cannot enter service before its basically unused engines are replaced! That seems to speak volumes about 21st century Boeing. Understandable to a point if it is what is equivalent to a recall in the motor industry - as with the ongoing programme with used 787s. But to take delivery of an aircraft which cannot be used? The mind boggles. Presumably the position with SE-RXZ (delivered more recently) will be the same.

As I type four are here in Prestwick, two stored, two at the Chevron hangar. SE-RXY arrived from Charleston on 31st July. Aircraft arriving are in for engine rectification or are donating engines to others which leave. Clearly not enough serviceable engines and so you find brand new aircraft donating their new engines to older aircraft which return to service.

Oops... that was a typo. Meant SE-RXY as the brand-new a/c..
Thanks PIK3141 for the explanation in your post.

Not sure you can blame Boeing this time. Try RR.

I also know that Virgin try to ground individual aircraft for less than one year as this reduces the work that has to be done to return them to service.

X3 of Norwegian 787 seen at JFK late last night from what I think I saw going back to EU land. If 4 are at PIK how many do the carrier have working?

JFK gets around nine Norwegian 787s a day, as well as an Evelop A333 wet-lease and another two 787s a day at EWR.

Many of their competitors are having far bigger issues that have improved any loads lost to "passenger loyalty waning". Think SAS strikes and BA proposed strikes - load factors and advanced bookings at Norwegian are at an all time high.

Quick update, last night LN-LNS also arrived at PIK (from CDG) so that now makes 5 on the ground here

37 Dreamliners across the various parts of the group. If you do some research on FR24 you could work out which are working.

One of their 787s has apparently hit the blast fence at Gatwick on push back this morning. Not having much luck unfortunately.

Push tugs seem to be causing a few issues these days...but yes you are right. No luck for Norwegian.

.

But that could be two working engines going to another airframe - if they can be transported to PIK or wherever.

More trouble at t'mill...
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/201...vLOx30q5TsdFus

Does anyone know the latest on Noerwegian 787 fleet vis a vis engines...?

Given that the Trent 1000 must be decoupled and inspected more often where does this leave Norwegian and their ability to mount a meaningful 787 schedule this winter..?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/virgi...144030202.html

Nine at Prestwick today, some rotating through, at least 5 now in storage.

That’s why they’ve significantly reduced the winter flying program this year. No point operating routes with no winter demand like Seattle and Chicago in January using wet leased aircraft.

The 'park or fly ' decision is an interesting one......
Out of interest...how many BA and VS 787 aircraft were parked up last winter...?

Thanks Vokes.........looks like Norwegian's RR powered 787s will be mostly grounded this winter........

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r...gine-nb6svvcst

Surely the cost of all this is being borne by RR?

Meanwhile, what will their winter transatlantic schedule look like..?.....same but with more wet leases or a cull similar to their European?

From a Norwegian perspective the cash from Boeing and RR is what will keep the company going for an extra year or two.

Not really. Banks and Lenders will happily lend money now against future income. The whole Invoicing Discount industry is based on it. Assume would get 100 million in 1 yrs time then lender would lend you 80% now and 10% when rest of it comes in with 10% being their cut.

I'm not sure anyone would be prepared to lend DY anything given their perilous position. The prospect of RR compensation might play well in another rights issue though......

People will always lend money of there is a return on it. IF insurance assessors say that at a minimum RR was going to pay £10M (ignore the real figures) then basically you would find a lender who would lend 60% of this now with 30% later when it is actually paid and their fee is 10%. If RR only pay £8M then lender still gets their £1M. Always a risk nothing is paid but they will account for that anyway.

It may seem crazy risk but when a bank charges you to hold money then it is not.

Indeed.......Ink

How quickly can the 50 engines be fixed..?... Rolls are reporting that it will take until the end of 2nd qtr to get through the backlog. Presumably, there is a priority list to work through based on cycles but we've heard nothing from Norwegian about how there's are phased and the effect it may have on the already depleted winter schedule (down 20% YOY)

Bond defaults give them enough cash until just past Christmas by my reckoning so expect another rights issue at some point.

Pulling unprofitable flights out of the schedule is quite easy and relatively instant I imagine. Getting the costs to follow will be more tricky I think.

BA strikes certainly helped I'm sure and I bet Norwegian wished they had more seats available for those high yielding, late bookers.:0

The bigger issue, is Norwegian are having to ground aircraft that are costing them anywhere around $1m a month in lease payments, then wet lease in Wamos and Hifly etc to cover, costhing them lets say another $1m per aircraft per month. SO already $1m an aircraft down every month.

Its all well saying RR wiull cough some compensation at some point, but a) it may not over the additional costs and b) may take years to come in, causing a cash flow issue in between.

Winter cruises
 

Out of interest, who will replace the T Cook long haul flights for the forthcoming UK-Caribbean winter schedule, DY aircraft?

Norwegian don't have enough of their own LH aircraft, hence the various wet leases in they have. Winter longhaul will be a challenge, perhaps a non European operator?