Norwegian cuts

[flybeboy]

They are closing bases in tenerife, . Las palmas, palma. Rome. New York stewert. And boston. This will have a big effect on charter flights in uk. Ie flights to exeter from ten and Lpa are ops by Norwegian for You and theirs some from cardif f to. The bases are closing from april19 . So will the flights that need to be replaced go implicaTion of more work for air europa or alba star etc!!?

[AirportPlanner1]

TUI are cutting back third party flying big time due to weak demand. This I’m afraid is Brexit reality.

[The Nutts Mutts]

Is there a list of all the routes that are being cut?

[daz211]

TUI are cutting back third party flying big time due to weak demand. This I’m afraid is Brexit reality.
Stop, stop,stop, with this Brexit bollocks.
Why do you say this is Brexit reality? If this were true, why are Jet2 expanding massively? Why is Ryanair not cutting back on flights from the UK ? Why are Easyjet expanding? I just hate it when people push blame on Brexit.
Did Monarch fold because of Brexit? Is Stansted spending in excess of £800 million because they are worried about Brexit?
Please can we just keep this thread factual, Norwegian have been in the spot light for years and I My honest opinion TUI have never really known what direction they were heading in since the Good old days of Britannia, so not Brexit at all.

[LTNman]

Have to agree with daz211. Anything negative is blamed on Brexit while anything positive is just ignored. Ryanair made a big point about cutting back if those stupid Brits voted to leave yet Ryanair has boosted capacity from the UK since we said we were leaving.

[compton3bravo]

Of course it is not Brexit just rank bad management.

[pamann]

Have to agree with daz211. Anything negative is blamed on Brexit while anything positive is just ignored. Ryanair made a big point about cutting back if those stupid Brits voted to leave yet Ryanair has boosted capacity from the UK since we said we were leaving.

And not just boosted capacity. They’re opening up a brand new base in the UK at Southend, literally days after the official Brexit date!

I’d agree with above, Brexit is just used as an excuse for anything negative. So bored of it all now.

[AirportPlanner1]

Some of you are sticking your heads in the sand regarding Brexit. Day by day, jobs are leaving the UK. Although some announcements are being drowned out of the news by political events, people are also sticking their fingers in their ears.

People are not spending. I know a business owner with no orders of note so far this year. In central London where I’m based it’s very visibly quieter than previous January’s. Flybe is suddenly on its knees. M&S is cutting harder and faster than planned. Debenhams is looking very shaky. It’s all well and good citing examples of expansion, but these TUI cuts are around the country.

[Captain_Caveman]

Norwegians Dublin base will also be reducing big time after the summer 19 season finishes

[mart901]

Norwegians Dublin base will also be reducing big time after the summer 19 season finishes
For sure? I'd imagine that would be correct if not closing down For starters it's a cost cutting exercise, minimise losses for summer.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Some of you are sticking your heads in the sand regarding Brexit. Day by day, jobs are leaving the UK. Although some announcements are being drowned out of the news by political events, people are also sticking their fingers in their ears.

People are not spending. I know a business owner with no orders of note so far this year. In central London where I’m based it’s very visibly quieter than previous January’s. Flybe is suddenly on its knees. M&S is cutting harder and faster than planned. Debenhams is looking very shaky. It’s all well and good citing examples of expansion, but these TUI cuts are around the country.
Tinfoil hat on mate! This is just the economic cycle, we're heading into the next recession, Germany is (almost) there already, and THAT's not Brexit related.
flybe have been on their knees for ages, mainly due to some very questionable management decisions
Knowing one guy with no orders in Q1 is not really a statistically significant example to be fair.
Debenhams is a victim of changing high street habits moving to Amazon et al, Woolies has gone, HMV is still dying.
None of this can in fairness be put down to a poltical decision to have more of our laws made in the UK rather than the EU.
BTW Thomas Cook isn't in the best of shape either but their business model has been squeezed badly, like TUI, by more agile competitors.

#noteverythingisbrexit

[AirportPlanner1]

Not everything is Brexit no, but a lot of things clearly are and in others it’s really not helping matters. I could go on giving tangible examples such as property sales being at a thirty year low but some people will argue black is white in defence of “the will of the people”, so I’ll just leave it there.

[RexBanner]

So it’s Brexit that’s caused Norwegian’s financial problems and not the fact that they’re selling their hugely expensive Long Haul expansion way below cost?

[Fairdealfrank]

Some of you are sticking your heads in the sand regarding Brexit. Day by day, jobs are leaving the UK. Although some announcements are being drowned out of the news by political events, people are also sticking their fingers in their ears.

People are not spending. I know a business owner with no orders of note so far this year. In central London where I’m based it’s very visibly quieter than previous January’s. Flybe is suddenly on its knees. M&S is cutting harder and faster than planned. Debenhams is looking very shaky. It’s all well and good citing examples of expansion, but these TUI cuts are around the country.


Why are people not spending?

Consider this:

(1) wages are too low and income tax at the lower end is too high (it's even payable on the minimum wage for pete's sake!);
(2) bearing in mind (1) above, VAT is too high for non-luxuries;
(3) the government has to subsidise pay (Gordon Brown's "tax credits" and/or IDS's "universal credit") in order to "make work pay";
(4) the country hasn't had a pay rise for 10 years because of austerity, not brexit, despite runaway inflation (real inflation that people experience rather than government fantasy statistics, RPI/CPI, etc.);
(5) the minimum wage has become the universal wage;
(6) housing insecurity, unaffordable rents and /or high mortgage payments leave insufficient funds for discretionary spending;
(7) job insecurity, zero hour contracts and the gig economy discourages spending and it's adversely affecting the economy.


More to do with crash 10 years ago rather than Brexit. Although job insecurity, zero hour contracts and the gig economy could be laid at the door of the EU as these conditions are rampant throughout Europe as well.

In addition the retail industry has to put up with the government's unaffordable business rates, eye-wateringly high rents levied by greedy landlords/property companies, and ludicrous parking restrictions (ever see a high street without double yellow lines?) and ridiculous parking charges.

To add insult to injury, the retail industry is up against the internet retailers who pay starvation wages and don't pay UK taxes because corporation tax is much lower in Ireland (EU single market rules allow payment of corporation tax in any of the 28 member countries whether trading there or not). Consequently they can undercut the traditional retail industry.

In reality, the present situation has nothing to do with brexit, which has not yet happened and, judging by the way things are going, won't (you read it here first).

Before anyone screams “thread drift”, please be aware that airlines and the aviation industry are not immune from all this.

[True Blue]

Many of these big chains are in trouble due to internet shopping. Enjoy town centres now, in 20 years there won't be any as too many people are too lazy to leave their armchairs. A future generation won't even know what a shop is. Nothing to do with Brexit, but it suits many management to blame it.

[LTNman]

I can remember when the minimum wage was proposed, those against it made headlines about a massive rise in unemployment which never happened. Now we have companies appearing on the TV complaining about how their wage bills will rise due to a lack of unlimited cheap labour and in fact a labour shortage. Well I hope they do rise as too many people are struggling to make ends meet but parliament will water down Brexit so much that it will be in name only. No wonder the EU is remaining firm when there are those that undermine our negotiating position from day one.

In the south all of London's 6 airports are planning massive expansion so clearly they are not bothered as they can see further than April.

[EIFFS]

So it’s Brexit that’s caused Norwegian’s financial problems and not the fact that they’re selling their hugely expensive Long Haul expansion way below cost?


eviedence please rex? These cuts are to the short haul 737/max operation not long haul!!

I think Brexit is having a slight effect, uncertainty is bound to do that to business and consumer confidence, but there are other larger factors at work hence the slow down in China and Germany, the JLR cuts are down to China not buying expensive SUV in the numbers that they were ( mind you Prince Philip will need a new one 😂🇬🇧)

Norwegian got caught out big style with fuel hedging, I believe FR did too ?

The US bases at PVD/SWF were ghost bases, no pilots based there, although that wasn’t the plan....

PMI was an odd choice, the charter market will still be served, easy enough to do with W patterns from LGW which will remain a major hub for short haul and Long haul

[AirportPlanner1]

So it’s Brexit that’s caused Norwegian’s financial problems and not the fact that they’re selling their hugely expensive Long Haul expansion way below cost?

If you read my first post which started all this you’ll see it was never suggested Norwegian’s woes are down to Brexit. The original poster enquired whether the charter flights Norwegian operate for TUI would be replaced by Air Europa etc. I said no because they are ditching third party flights due to lack of demand. Which apparently is nothing to do with Brexit either as Brexit is the sunny uplands...

[RexBanner]

eviedence please rex? These cuts are to the short haul 737/max operation not long haul!!

Can you read a balance sheet? If so I refer you to Norwegian’s financial statements. Norwegian’s RASK is below its CASK on its long haul operation consistently. It’s clear it’s a money losing exercise unless you seriously think punters paying £170 to fly to LAX in a brand new Dreamliner is a viable money making concern going forward. If you do you’re living in cloud cuckoo land.

They’re cutting the 737 operation because hubris is involved here. It’s that very human thing of pride. They don’t want to do the sensible thing and admit the low cost long haul experiment has failed (yet again) instead they’re going for broke (quite literally) by doubling down on it.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Not everything is Brexit no, but a lot of things clearly are and in others it’s really not helping matters. I could go on giving tangible examples such as property sales being at a thirty year low but some people will argue black is white in defence of “the will of the people”, so I’ll just leave it there.

Oh dear God man! Did you in all seriousness blame the housing crisis on a vote to leave the EU? Housebuilding has been constrained for decades to keep prices HIGH, you can’t buy a house because we’re not building nearly enough and haven’t done since Thatcher.
In aviation terms, if easyJet and Ryanair really do start moving units out of Gatwick and Stansted onto the continent, then you’ll have a point. But look at how many MORE aircraft EZY are ADDING to MAN by way of example?

[EIFFS]

Well Rex, the vast majority of seats cost way above £170, that’s not to suggest the financial performance is well below what is required.

For at least the last 5 years the demise of NAS has been forecast by all manner of armchair accountants, but for now it’s still here. The long held view is that NAS will never be truly profitable until it stops expanding, that there is staggering waste is not disputed, so maybe slamming on the brakes might cause a change of direction.

Longer term my best guess is that it will be acquired by another major group.

[racedo]

Had a look at going to US in Feb, flying Dub - Providence (RI) was £320. Now got told that but its not Boston or New York both of which we had down to see but NYC was £700 and BOS was £650. No idea how they can but would not have complained. Decided sunshine instead.

[Buster the Bear]

No Premium ticket lounge access unless you buy a flex ticket and no free cocktails on board for those passengers!

Frankly, having experienced the Norwegian Premium product, the loss is inconsequential, simply as what they provide to me is incredibly better than any other Premier Economy products that I have sampled elsewhere.

[willy wombat]

I'm not going to join the "it is/isn't" down to Brexit debate but no one has mentioned the Sterling exchange rate. The weak pound makes it more expensive to travel abroad from the UK and decreases the yield airlines obtain from UK sales. It does however encourage people to visit the UK as it has become a much cheaper destination.

[Pain in the R's]

Oh dear God man! Did you in all seriousness blame the housing crisis on a vote to leave the EU? Housebuilding has been constrained for decades to keep prices HIGH, you can’t buy a house because we’re not building nearly enough and haven’t done since Thatcher.
In aviation terms, if easyJet and Ryanair really do start moving units out of Gatwick and Stansted onto the continent, then you’ll have a point. But look at how many MORE aircraft EZY are ADDING to MAN by way of example?

Actually there is an argument that mass migration in some areas has helped create a housing shortage. Landlords buy properties so removing them from people seeking a home to live in. Many Eastern Europeans then rent those properties as they can't afford a deposit.

[Fairdealfrank]

Nothing to do with Brexit, but it suits many management to blame it.Many politicians too, including some who blamed the EU before the referendum.I can remember when the minimum wage was proposed, those against it made headlines about a massive rise in unemployment which never happened. Now we have companies appearing on the TV complaining about how their wage bills will rise due to a lack of unlimited cheap labour and in fact a labour shortage.There is no question that free movement from countries with much lower wages has driven down wages as well. This was not a problem before 2004. Well I hope they do rise as too many people are struggling to make ends meet but parliament will water down Brexit so much that it will be in name only. No wonder the EU is remaining firm when there are those that undermine our negotiating position from day one.There is no reason why the EU should/would negotiate a reasonable agreement. Those who suggested that it would and/or that it may be "easy", would be those who know little about how it works: Boris, Michael Gove, etc.. Those who have been involved with the intricate workings of the EU such as previous negotiators Gisela Stuart and Peter Lilly, for example, said no such thing. Nigel Farage suggested that pressure would brought by European businesses for a sensible trade deal, but in two and half tears there have been no such negotiations, so we may never know.In the south all of London's 6 airports are planning massive expansion so clearly they are not bothered as they can see further than April.For every business whinging about Brexit and threatening to leave (but never actually doing so), there are many planning expansion.If you read my first post which started all this you’ll see it was never suggested Norwegian’s woes are down to Brexit. The original poster enquired whether the charter flights Norwegian operate for TUI would be replaced by Air Europa etc. I said no because they are ditching third party flights due to lack of demand. Which apparently is nothing to do with Brexit either as Brexit is the sunny uplands..Sunny uplands? Only possible with a proper Brexit. Brexit "in name only" and/or May's deal ("say no to no say") do not cut it. Not everything is Brexit no, but a lot of things clearly are and in others it’s really not helping matters. I could go on giving tangible examples such as property sales being at a thirty year low but some people will argue black is white in defence of “the will of the people”, so I’ll just leave it there.To quote John McEnroe: "What! You cannot be serious, the ball was in"Oh dear God man! Did you in all seriousness blame the housing crisis on a vote to leave the EU? Housebuilding has been constrained for decades to keep prices HIGH, you can’t buy a house because we’re not building nearly enough and haven’t done since Thatcher

(1) The refusal (under Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May) to require councils to build adequate numbers of council houses including replacements for those sold under “right to buy”;
(2) the “land banking” by big house builders to artificially force up property prices and the failure of planning regulations to prevent this; and
(3) the explosion of buy-to-let in recent years

have more to do with this rather than brexit (or the EU for that matter!)


I'm not going to join the "it is/isn't" down to Brexit debate but no one has mentioned the Sterling exchange rate.

Sterling exchange rates have been dire since the "crash" of 2008. The days of £1.00 = euro 1.70 or US$2.10 are long gone, it's not just since 2016.

BTW after all this time since the referendum, the UK is STILL in the EU.


Actually there is an argument that mass migration in some areas has helped create a housing shortage.

It did not CAUSE the housing crisis, but it definitely hasn't help to resolve it.

[ptr120]

. The days of £1.00 = euro 1.70 or US$2.10 are long gone, it's not just since 2016.[/color]

.

Factcheck: GBP/EUR traded around the 1.70 level twice in history: Early May 2000 and late October 2000 (and those were brief spikes in both instances). Of course, the EUR didn't exist as an actual (physical) currency at the time and had a smaller membership too. In a physical form and replacing national currencies, the EUR didn't exist until 1 January 2002. Sources:
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-spot-exchange-rates/gbp/GBP-to-EUR
https://www.oanda.com/currency/help/euro

[macdo]

As Mr. MacMillan said many years ago when asked what Prime Ministers feared most - "Events,dear boy, Events".

Pretty much sums up Brexit vs. Management Ineptitude arguments.

[SWBKCB]

Sunny uplands? Only possible with a proper Brexit.

I've yet to see a proper answer to the conundrum of how we have 'frictionless' trade with the EU and 'free trade' with the rest of the world (anybody who says 'technology' can go and stand in a corner...), or how Brexit works without the two.

[Refuellerman]

The word on the street is that TUI are moving in on a deal for some of their aircraft...... .

[daz211]

Always strikes me as odd, when an airline decides To go up against the big boys with Longhaul. most will say I have my own engender but a money maker would be a base at Stansted, no competition no price to under cut, I’m not saying pull out of Gatwick just run it along side. Im not wanting this to turn into “longhaul doesn’t work at Stansted”, primera was very popular whilst it lasted. just my opinion nothing more nothing less.

[compton3bravo]

I would suggest Daz why Primera was popular because it was too sodding cheap, not charging enough to cover costs never mind trying to make profit.

[southside bobby]

We do not need to rehearse the debate again c3b but there was rather more to it than that simplistic answer.

[daz211]

I would suggest Daz why Primera was popular because it was too sodding cheap, not charging enough to cover costs never mind trying to make profit.
Ok for the sake of an argument, Emirates are very popular at Stansted.
My point was, people want to fly across the pond from Stansted, many drive past Stansted just to get to Heathrow and Gatwick, Someone is going to get there first and others will follow.

[compton3bravo]

Never mentioned anything about Stansted, good luck to Emirates and anybody else who want to fly from there, my point was pure economics. A few years ago a specialist cruise company were losing £50 on every client, guess what it went bust. I rest my case.

[SOPS]

Down here in Australia we seem to do fine without being a member of the EU.. I struggle to see the problem of leaving?

[AirportPlanner1]

Always strikes me as odd, when an airline decides To go up against the big boys with Longhaul. most will say I have my own engender but a money maker would be a base at Stansted, no competition no price to under cut, I’m not saying pull out of Gatwick just run it along side. Im not wanting this to turn into “longhaul doesn’t work at Stansted”, primera was very popular whilst it lasted. just my opinion nothing more nothing less.

I’m a Stansted “fan” as I’m local but I’m afraid that argument is a little simplistic because you need to look at the wider context. On certain high volume routes that generate significant numbers of UK-based pax - I’m thinking NY, Dubai, Orlando for example - it’s possible that a small premium could be charged for convenience. However, there is a ceiling for this because otherwise people will just book from rival airports instead. For other routes with thinner markets that need to draw custom from across the south and from the destination, you have to match the competition or you won’t get any passengers. An American sitting in Austin doesn’t care whether they land in Gatwick or Stansted unless one was much cheaper than the other.

Thats not to say long haul wouldnt work at STN because I believe it can, but to do so for greater profitability on the basis of escaping competition is flawed.

[toledoashley]

I have it on good authority (from someone who should know) that Stansted has a smaller catchment area for long haul than Gatwick has, so hence why the movement towards Gatwick.

[22/04]

I have it on good authority (from someone who should know) that Stansted has a smaller catchment area for long haul than Gatwick has, so hence why the movement towards Gatwick.

Not only smaller but I expect less wealthy - Sussex, Hants, Surrey and Dorset have a lot of wealthy people some with time on their hands for travel I expect.

[southside bobby]

daz211 is making a fair point in #34...

[racedo]

I have it on good authority (from someone who should know) that Stansted has a smaller catchment area for long haul than Gatwick has, so hence why the movement towards Gatwick.

That old chesnut. Same arguement was used for years why Ryanair would never suceed at Stansted as nobody wants to fly from there. Bearing in mind people travel down from West Midlands and other places to fly from Gatwick then idea that people wouldn't fly from Stansted is laughable.

Few LH services from Stansted have had 1.) Frequency 2.) Reliability that would entice people to book from there.

As my location suggests I live in Surrey, with LHR / LGW being closest but fly from Luton, Stansted and Gatwick on flights I take with LHR avoided at all costs. 20 years ago there was a stigma attached to flying from Stansted as "BA don't fly from there" being the usual refrain. These days I rarely hear that and know few from where I live who haven't flown from Stansted.

[compton3bravo]

I would suggest most people who live in Austin would not have a clue where Gatwick or Stansted is. Are they in Englandland'?

[FlyboyUK]

And back to Norwegian #threadcreep

[Flightrider]

We had the same crazy debate on the Thomas Cook thread some weeks ago (from the same poster, IIRC) that the solution to long-haul viability problems is to move services to Stansted. I agree with the poster earlier who suggested Primera's popularity was due to being so ****ing cheap. Thomas Cook clearly hasn't found long-haul at STN to be the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow as they have pulled it completely. Quite why anyone thinks Norwegian at STN would be any better (or less bad) than Norwegian at LGW or anywhere else is deluded. The competitive situation will not change and the legacy carriers will maintain cheap fares from London to Austin, Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, Seattle, Denver etc from whichever airport they fly, so Norwegian's yields and loads will be constrained by overall demand and market pricing set by others.

Put another way, Norwegian is the only carrier on Austin, Denver, Chicago, LAX, Seattle (and probably others) at Gatwick. The data published on-line recently by one of these analysis companies showed all of those routes were losing money (if the data is correct). With the size and scale of the Gatwick catchment plus the level of onward feed available with easyJet and Norwegian's own network, those routes aren't working. It debunks the concept that a route with no competition at that airport will do well enough to be sustainable. On that basis, with limited feed and a catchment area which certainly isn't any bigger than Gatwick's, Stansted will probably do worse.

Can we park this lunacy of moving all failing services to Stansted where the streets are paved with gold? Yes, Emirates have (by the looks of it) found something that works at STN and best of fortunes to them. However, they also make several other things work - e.g. routes from Newcastle and Birmingham to Dubai - where neither can sustain hub-aligned services to New York, even seasonally. It's great that they do. But it is an outlier in the long-haul market and their apparent success at STN is no sign that other long-haul ventures can work, just as they haven't at Newcastle or Birmingham.

[AirportPlanner1]

Fliterider- the Thomas Cook debate was had before but as pointed out at the time their withdrawal wasn’t as simplistic as not enough market at STN.

Something your argument regarding Norwegian also misses is that had history taken a different course STN probably would have been their long haul base for London. Norwegian were well established at STN with a number of routes to Norway (this was before they extended across Scandinavia and onto the rest of Europe). LGW fell out of BAA’s hands and the new more nimble/bullish operator poached a number of airlines - Norwegian, Air Berlin (except Düsseldorf) and Air Asia moved across, possibly others. So had STN been more competitive, this debate could be redundant.

Its also fair to note that for Air Asia its foray into LGW turned out not to be the pot of gold compared to STN conventional wisdom and argument suggests it should have been.

[Flightrider]

You can keep on with "what if's" and "what might have been" until the cows come home. What if Laker hadn't been allowed to fly from Gatwick and was forced to fly from Stansted in 1977 as originally there? What if Virgin hadn't started at Gatwick but had stuck with Highland Express' base at STN? What if Norwegian short-haul hadn't been able to access Gatwick? None of it is relevant. The fact is that the shape of the market today is determined by the fact that all of those things did happen. Speculating on alternatives is a pretty futile pastime.

[daz211]

Yes I did say the same about Thomas Cook and I stand by what I said. If Norwegian opened key US routes from Stansted, as well as Gatwick, they would have South and North London, the Cambridge corridor and Essex covered, now to me that’s a very large catchment area. Gatwick and Heathrow are saturated and Stansted is an untapped market, so no fighting with other carriers. If you put a business head on, Up front on Emirates is doing very well, so why not up front on Norwegian ? Where again there in no competition. I’m not suggesting closing Gatwick, I’m suggesting running along side.

[Flightrider]

Two things. If you seriously expect an airline losing money to decide that the solution to its problems is to launch more routes (Primera springs to mind) then it is either doing so to generate more cash or its management team should be locked up with the key thrown away. STN at this point in the airline's evolution is a flight of fancy, nothing more and nothing less. Second thing is that, as I've said, there are several very clear examples to suggest why Emirates' performance cannot be taken as a given for other routes by other operators. Ask anyone at BHX and NCL.

[southside bobby]

Flightrider as before is using ONLY the detail which could forward his own personal view of the viability of STN...

[Flightrider]

Quite the contrary, I'm trying to inject some rational thinking into a debate which keeps getting irrationally sidetracked. The solution to the troubles of an airline which is losing money isn't to go and start a load of new routes from an airport at which you currently don't operate or have any commercial structure to support. There is nothing pro or anti Stansted in that statement. I'd be saying exactly the same if someone was suggesting Norwegian should set up shop at Birmingham, Toulouse, Charleroi or countless others I could list. It's a crazy notion, just as it was a crazy notion in the Thomas Cook discussion.

[southside bobby]

Flightrider…

Viability of STN?

Here are a couple of your observations,selective possibly...but...

"Thomas Cook clearly hasn`t found long-haul at STN to be the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow as they have pulled it completely".

Regarding Emirates..."But it is an outlier in the long-haul market and their apparent success at STN is no sign that other long-haul ventures can work,just as they haven`t at Newcastle or Birmingham.

[PDXCWL45]

Flightrider…

Viability of STN?
"Thomas Cook clearly hasn`t found long-haul at STN to be the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow as they have pulled it completely".

I'd suggest that Thomas Cook pulling the long haul flights is more of an indication of them putting their priority of MAN long haul than anything else.

[daz211]

Maybe I’m a little more knowledgeable on this subject than you think, Having worked very hard and studied the in-depth data gathered over almost two year, providing key advice on the new Stansted base for a particular predominantly northern based airline, Let just say we could have added more metal into MAN, LBA, etc, however seeing and predicting the positive future growth at Stansted, we seen no reason why it would not work, not only did it work, we have more than doubled our predicted grown at Stansted in half the time, it is on track to be our joint largest base in the very near future.

[southside bobby]

Easing past the original & 2nd largest base in terms of pax this Summer it will be an exciting & remarkable achievement to become the joint largest base alongside the other comparable MAG airport in the future then.

[bycrewlgw]

Maybe I’m a little more knowledgeable on this subject than you think, Having worked very hard and studied the in-depth data gathered over almost two year, providing key advice on the new Stansted base for a particular predominantly northern based airline, Let just say we could have added more metal into MAN, LBA, etc, however seeing and predicting the positive future growth at Stansted, we seen no reason why it would not work, not only did it work, we have more than doubled our predicted grown at Stansted in half the time, it is on track to be our joint largest base in the very near future.

That particular airline seems to do very well at STN but what about the longhaul that is being discussed? Did you analyse that data by any chance? Does seem that most longhaul that starts at STN doesn’t seem to last. Logic seems to say that it should be successful but has always failed. Could this be due to low cost image of the airport maybe?

[southside bobby]

Perhaps view the video on the Stansted Media page of the fly/round fly/thru animation of the Stansted Transformation Project (STP) currently getting underway.

[Flightrider]

Southside bobby, can you give me a straight answer to the following questions:

1/ Do you agree that it is a less than sensible strategy for an airline facing reportedly serious levels of financial stress to suddenly launch a series of new routes from an airport it does not currently serve.

2/ Do you agree that Emirates are, on the face of it, able to make LH services work at airports (BHX and NCL being examples) from where other long-haul services have been withdrawn?

If the answer to both of the above questions is yes, then I can't really see why the debate is still ongoing. And I'm honestly not sure what Jet2's undisputed success at STN has to do with long-haul. Jet2 has been incredibly successful at LBA, but I wouldn't be advocating Leeds as a viable long-haul base just because of it.

[southside bobby]

The original poster in my view raised very legitimate & common sense opinions regarding STN`s location & ability to provide an excellent base for long-haul which would provide coverage for North London & the whole of the East of England/Cambridge Corridor & beyond & would compliment LGW way to the South.

Of course the Jet2 reference was from the same poster presenting some of his credentials as you correctly know.

It will be more than interesting over the proverbial whether MAG will be rewarded (after all they have £3b in it...STN that is) or your good self with just a view only.

I highlighted earlier too your questioning more generally in my view of STN`s viability as you sought to obfuscate that in reply.

[Flightrider]

We’re on the Norwegian thread. The premise that an airline in reported financial stress goes and sets up shop at stansted as a solution to its ills is just risible.

[daz211]

We’re on the Norwegian thread. The premise that an airline in reported financial stress goes and sets up shop at stansted as a solution to its ills is just risible.
So your solution is ? Put another rotation on an existing route at Gatwick ? Cut routes from other bases ? Or do nothing and hope it all works out in the end ? Norwegian has been losing money for a while, so to me nothing so far has worked, so instead of looking for ways to save money, Norwegian needs to find a way on making money, POSSIBLY in a small base at Stansted, even just with a daily New York to start, negotiating an amazing deal from MAG would be easy. As for me talking about my airline and Stansted, it was not a comparison to operations as we don’t offer long haul, it was to point out that a company has to positively look for opportunities and gaps in the market , we were told there is no way the Stansted base could survive going up against one of the worlds largest airlines on mirroring routes but guess what we are doing more that fine. So I’m all ears on what plan you suggest ?

[toledoashley]

The person who told me that Stansted was less attractive than Gatwick for Long Haul ironically works for Norwegian!

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

negotiating an amazing deal from MAG would be easy
It's not all about costs it's about yield and Norwegian would lose traction in the market from an outbound UK perspective as like it or not, a large % of London and SE based travellers who just won't make the trek to STN.
Their long haul strategy was to attack the market by very aggressively building market share in long haul out of London on certain core and under-served US routes. This would mean taking on BA on their home turf in London and under cutting their fares to build serious market share. In reality this means trading at a loss for some substantial period of time as IAG have deep pockets, so they either eventually get a win at Gatwick and fares rise to sustainable levels with losses falling over time, or they surrender the key point of their strategy due to unsustainable losses, which was to be a major player in this UK long haul market. In daz211's scenario, they get a "much cheapness" deal from MAG, move to another airport, and worst of all, leaving behind a lot of the new travellers they have brought to market, to remain at Gatters with BA. It's *really* difficult to shrink to sustainable levels of profitability, and leaving for STN would not take them forward in building market share and critical mass on which they've bankrolled the whole business plan. It's far from as simple as just paying less for the facilities, it's important but there are other factors in play.
And please don't leap all over me (again) for having an anti-Stansted agenda, I used it quite often and it does fine for me, so please no corbynista-style pile in. However in this case, it's not the answer to the business problems being encountered by DI around their Gatwick operations. Perhaps if they had stayed at STN all along and gone "big on a smaller more measured scale", then things might be different, but they stuck a finger in BA's eyes at their second biggest base.

[daz211]

I’m not suggesting moving from Gatwick and relocating to Stansted, when my airline set up shop at Stansted we didn’t close a base to open up at Stansted. Why would passengers in South London need to travel to Stansted? What I was suggesting is a base at Stansted alongside Gatwick, this would gain Norwegian extra passengers and possibly higher yealds, what also has to be taken into serious consideration is, would Norwegian also attract additional passengers, who would normally drive past Stansted en-route to Gatwick and Heathrow that normally fly with BA, VS, ect. What you need to realise is that most of the bottom half of the UK will have to choose Heathrow or Gatwick for longhaul flights and enough of them are north of London and pass Stansted.

[brian_dromey]

I accept that STN can offer different customers to LGW, but there is a danger that they could just dilute yield. Why not consolidate at LGW, compete on underserved routes from Europe like Austin, Las Vegas and Seattle, using the short-haul network you already have and shuttling holidaymakers to Florida? Why launch a new base to slug it out on LON-NYC with BA(et al) and VS(et al). LON-MIA/NYC/BOS, for example, are available throughout 2019 for £279, return including taxes and meals (but not bags). More capacity between London and large US cities doesn't seem like a great way to do anything expect set fire to cash.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

What I was suggesting is a base at Stansted alongside Gatwick, this would gain Norwegian extra passengers and possibly higher yealds
Wrong on the fundamentals here. All you'd do is dilute and cannibalsie your existing LGW operations. DI aren't going to serve both SFO and OAK from London for example, they're moving ops out of OAK to SFO, in much the same way they did from STN to LGW, as their analysis shows the latter airport is the more attractive option in market.
I think we're conflating short haul thinking with long haul.
EZY can serve AMS from LTN/STN/SEN/LGW easily, as that's something short haul point to point can support, four bases in London serving a mass market popular city destination. Also Jet2 coming into London short haul, capturing some ex MON and building out their own space. No one does this in long haul except the ever exceptional Emirates. Norwegian's issue of too many seats in the London market being sold below cost is not helped by adding more seats into that same London market, at another base, at *lower* costs.
You're attaching the short haul business model and assuming it'll work in that transatlantic and long haul market IMHO.

[brian_dromey]

No one does this in long haul except the ever exceptional Emirates.

Emirates, is a different best in almost every way to Norwegian. Emirates is very similar in concept to KLM, for example, serving many surprising markets by augmenting O&D demand with a huge number of connection possibilities. Of course Fokker 70's and E-190's aren't as glamorous as A380's! Does a 777-300 load of people want to fly from Newcastle to Duabi everyday? No. But enough want to go to Middle East, Africa, Asia and Australia/NZ to make it work.

[compton3bravo]

All I can say really is that quite a number of contributors seem to be looking through rose tinted glasses. A sense of realism needs to prevail.

[southside bobby]

What on earth could you mean c3b?

[FlyboyUK]

And the cuts relate to short haul not long haul, so all this STN vs LGW is off topic

[southside bobby]

… & a reasoning for the short haul cuts & put forward above are efforts to bolster the long haul arm & that`s where we came in.

[Flightrider]

Keep dreaming. It’s about as close as you’ll ever get.