indeed
i can recall trying to get back home on staff travel on Laker from MIA - he had 3 flights a day all full very evening i tried - on the 3rd night BA took pity on me and took my worthless to them Laker ticket (that cost me £10)

LAX i recall at least 2 flights a day and were busy

what killed Laker was the $ v £ on his MDD lease rates and rising fuel costs

sure but past history maybe quite relevant to the future of upstart airlines such as these ones now going head to head on prime long haul routes with legacy carriers who are charging more or less the same money for a flight with luggage food and a seat res.

hence this thread whether the likes of norwegian, westjet, primera, can make money on this....

Great thread.
Worth remembering recent culture busters of Silverjet, Maxjet and Eos who were going to show the legacy carriers how it was down with a new business model. That proved to be a classic bubble. I have two bookings with Norwegian coming up, one with D8 and one with DI. The long haul price was outstanding which gives me pause for thought, they have a lot of new aircraft coming making them stretched and the market is long overdue for another hiccup event.

Not quite true. There are 18-odd flights a day GVA-LON (all airports) BA is feeding their long haul. LX has no long haul connections (other than JFK), while easy is serving the local market.

When fuel prices go up, the economy tends to be going south. Prices rise and demand tapers off. This cycle is long overdue.

Anyone who uses "low cost carrier" to mean low fare
carrier should be banned.
With low costs and lowish fares everyone is happy.
Having medium costs and low fares means the end is nigh!
And you have to sleep in the bath. (Norwegian would).

crewmeal:

The ANZ DC-10s were all DC-10-30s (KSSU fit). (I used to fly one of them for Air Pacific of Fiji).

I say again, with a DC-10-30 it was always possible to do LON - LAX with a full load.

The first 6 Laker DC-10s were DC-10-10s which could never manage LGW - LAX non-stop and always made a stop at BGR. This wasn't altogether a bad move since the passengers cleared customs and immigration quickly and pleasantly in BGR so, on arrival at LAX at the West Imperial terminal, they were treated as domestic passengers, picked up their bags and left the airport so avoiding the long queues in the middle of the airport.

It was occasionally possible to do a direct flight from LAX - LGW with the DC-10-10 but that could only happen if we had approximately 250 passengers or less and that didn't happen very often.

Cargo and J and F traffic is what the low costs don't have. They also don't have interline agreements generally and lack connectivity. Hence easy pickings for the traditional carriers and makes life hard in the winter for the locos. The 321s will also provide flexibility to the traditional carriers just as much the locos. Look at Lufty with its loco subsidairies, Aer Lingus, Level etc. Even BA are exploring them and the potential for regional flights to the US if they can reduce the passenger levies to make the economics work. All in all I would say bubble and if the Norwegian regulators find that they have fiddled the books then the investors will soon vote with their feet and they will burn through their cash.