Hard times for Norwegian

[stn]

Do they still have airbuses on order?

Coming days and weeks are really interesting. I guess this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy; now that even laymen know that Norwegian has serious problems at hand they are going to book their flights from another provider probably.

Btw didn't we have one mate here who bashed Norwegian for the last five years at least and appeared in every thread regarding Norwegian? I wonder if he's finally at peace.

I feel sorry for the people who work there, I hope all the best.

[srjumbo747]

Let’s just face it that low cost long haul doesn’t work.
People Express, Laker’s Skytrain, Zoom, others which I’ve forgotten and now Norwegian.

[CEJM]

Meester proach, we may not always agree on Pprune but still a heartfelt Good Luck. Having been through a similar situation in 2017 I know how stressful it is. Even worse so in the current economic climate.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by srjumbo747

Let’s just face it that low cost long haul doesn’t work.
People Express, Laker’s Skytrain, Zoom, others which I’ve forgotten and now Norwegian.

It's not just low-cost long haul that doesn't work, but single-market long haul. The high end transatlantic operators of a few years ago went the same way.

The fact is that a typical legacy long haul flight has a mix of low end, median (eg business travellers in Economy) and premium passengers, plus substantial belly cargo, with O&D, plus connecting pax at both ends, plus significant marketing, plus major corporate deals for substantial users, plus very substantial and honed frequent flyer programmes, plus expert yield managers getting as much as they can out of each.

From all of this, they just manage to do a bit better than break even. Meanwhile the new contenders are missing one or more of these elements (some quite a lot), and then on what elements they do have, offer fares which are lower than those of the operator above, and thus give less revenue. What's not to understand ?

[vikingivesterled]

Originally Posted by WHBM

It's not just low-cost long haul that doesn't work, but single-market long haul. The high end transatlantic operators of a few years ago went the same way.

The fact is that a typical legacy long haul flight has a mix of low end, median (eg business travellers in Economy) and premium passengers, plus substantial belly cargo, with O&D, plus connecting pax at both ends, plus significant marketing, plus major corporate deals for substantial users, plus very substantial and honed frequent flyer programmes, plus expert yield managers getting as much as they can out of each.

From all of this, they just manage to do a bit better than break even. Meanwhile the new contenders are missing one or more of these elements (some quite a lot), and then on what elements they do have, offer fares which are lower than those of the operator above, and thus give less revenue. What's not to understand ?

Spoken like a through stuck in the mud. All the above cost money to organise and adds substantially to the revenue needed. Including faff like frequent flyer programs, honing, corporate deals, connections, over-marketing and EXPERT yield managers.
There just haven't been a well funded transatlantic low fares carrier with true low cost principles yet. Norwegian is a half way house that try to be low fares but with a high norwegian cost base, and don't want to sucumb totally to the reputation one gets if one count every coin. Its no transatlantic Ryanair, but it could be. Kjos was after all a pilot and a lawyer and not a penny pinching accountant. And the new chief never hit the ground running but was still learning the airline ropes when the market went off the cliff, after a lifetime spent within retail in an overfunded company,

[rotorcloud]

yes there are depts but... this airline managed to reduce their costs significantly in a very short time while other flag carrier tankers are still in their process of reducing their overwhelming overhead costs of pension obligations etc.
Will people travel first or business in the future in order to cover these high costs that flag carriers have when flying from their overpriced major airports? I don`t think so. I think „after-covid-times“ is the times where this business model works better than ever. as business ppl. learn to to their stuff via skype and zoom more and more. But Norwegian customers are in majority millennials and tourists. They will come back quickly and want to fly these modern, fuel efficient planes for a good price!

[qwertyuiop]

I hope they pull through. I have flown Norwegian many times and hope to do so again.

[truckflyer]

Originally Posted by vikingivesterled

Spoken like a through stuck in the mud. All the above cost money to organise and adds substantially to the revenue needed. Including faff like frequent flyer programs, honing, corporate deals, connections, over-marketing and EXPERT yield managers.
There just haven't been a well funded transatlantic low fares carrier with true low cost principles yet. Norwegian is a half way house that try to be low fares but with a high norwegian cost base, and don't want to sucumb totally to the reputation one gets if one count every coin. Its no transatlantic Ryanair, but it could be. Kjos was after all a pilot and a lawyer and not a penny pinching accountant. And the new chief never hit the ground running but was still learning the airline ropes when the market went off the cliff, after a lifetime spent within retail in an overfunded company,

Not penny pinching Kjos?
Are you sure about that?
Why Irish and British AOC?
Why Thai based crew, on Singapore contracts, all the time with EASA pilots?
Why forcing large part of the workforce to OSM, a company only supplying workforce to Norwegian, and no Scandinavian worker rights protections etc.

I ask myself, why should the Norwegian government provide funds for a company who have minority of their aircraft registered on their Norwegian AOC?

You having a joke when you saying not penny pinching Kjos.

[BehindBlueEyes]

Originally Posted by qwertyuiop

I hope they pull through. I have flown Norwegian many times and hope to do so again.

Thank you for posting this. My son is a pilot for NAS and his job, along with many others, now hangs in the balance. He’s always spoken highly of the care and support he’s always received from his management and what a great team it is. It’ll be a sad day for many reasons if Norwegian hit the buffers.

[srjumbo747]

I feel for the staff, that is without question but even before Covid19 they were on the ropes and should have stuck to shorthaul. It was a very good product.
Their longhaul product, when it worked it worked well. Unfortunately when things went wrong their customer service was shocking.
There has been longhaul flying since the flying boat era. Low cost longhaul doesn’t work. Why should Norwegian think it does?

[shaun ryder]

Will people travel first or business in the future in order to cover these high costs that flag carriers have when flying from their overpriced major airports? I don`t think so.

I think you are just making that up to fit the narrative. If you think people are going to give up flying first and business with a major and settle for Norwegian you are living in a dreamworld. Expect economy airfares to soar, those who use business and first will keep flying business and first.

[vikingivesterled]

Originally Posted by truckflyer

Not penny pinching Kjos?
Are you sure about that?
Why Irish and British AOC?
Why Thai based crew, on Singapore contracts, all the time with EASA pilots?
Why forcing large part of the workforce to OSM, a company only supplying workforce to Norwegian, and no Scandinavian worker rights protections etc.
I ask myself, why should the Norwegian government provide funds for a company who have minority of their aircraft registered on their Norwegian AOC?
You having a joke when you saying not penny pinching Kjos.

That may seem like penny pinching for a Norwegian but when flying people from UK or Spain to the US, and other even further away destinations, a small break with the socialist Scandinavian model is not enough. It's just the first couple of sentence out of MOL's and EW's book.
And if all Norwegian's aircraft was on a Norwegian AOC they couldn't be in that market at all. Think about how NIS had to come in to save Norwegian registered ship owning/management.

[the_stranger]

Originally Posted by vikingivesterled

And if all Norwegian's aircraft was on a Norwegian AOC they couldn't be in that market at all. Think about how NIS had to come in to save Norwegian registered ship owning/management.

Then they should not have been called norwegian, pretended like they are from Norway and apply for a norwegian bailout.

[macdo]

Originally Posted by truckflyer

Not penny pinching Kjos?
Are you sure about that?
Why Irish and British AOC?
Why Thai based crew, on Singapore contracts, all the time with EASA pilots?
Why forcing large part of the workforce to OSM, a company only supplying workforce to Norwegian, and no Scandinavian worker rights protections etc.

I ask myself, why should the Norwegian government provide funds for a company who have minority of their aircraft registered on their Norwegian AOC?

You having a joke when you saying not penny pinching Kjos.

That'a the price we pay so the great unwashed can travel to Spain for £30 and Vegas for £120. It is a daft unsustainable business model which will die within the next few years. Then we will be back to the good old days of the rich flying and the rest of us on the coach.

[truckflyer]

Originally Posted by the_stranger

Then they should not have been called norwegian, pretended like they are from Norway and apply for a norwegian bailout.

Exactly my point.

[Meester proach]

Originally Posted by the_stranger

Then they should not have been called norwegian, pretended like they are from Norway and apply for a norwegian bailout.

The founder is norwegian, the headquarters is in Norway, a significant part of the AOCS are there . Ever heard of global companies ? Do you think Ryanair isn’t Irish becuase not everyone that works there drinks Guinness ?

[the_stranger]

Originally Posted by Meester proach

The founder is norwegian, the headquarters is in Norway, a significant part of the AOCS are there . Ever heard of global companies ? Do you think Ryanair isn’t Irish becuase not everyone that works there drinks Guinness ?

Indeed, I don't call Ryanair Irish. And seeing how they tried and failed to use Irish law to fire foreign employees, most countries don't see then as Irish too.

I don't have an issue with global companies, but if you (mis)use the global possibilities to evade the responsibilities (tax, social payments) in your so called home country, you should not apply for a bailout in that same country.

[Luke258]

Originally Posted by truckflyer

Not penny pinching Kjos?
Are you sure about that?
Why Irish and British AOC?
Why Thai based crew, on Singapore contracts, all the time with EASA pilots?
Why forcing large part of the workforce to OSM, a company only supplying workforce to Norwegian, and no Scandinavian worker rights protections etc.

I ask myself, why should the Norwegian government provide funds for a company who have minority of their aircraft registered on their Norwegian AOC?

You having a joke when you saying not penny pinching Kjos.

Sorry to burst your bubble but besides the NUK and NSE aircraft all the 787s have norwegian registration. Also the BKK based pilots were on BKK contract, same as the cabin Crew. That also goes for All the other bases.
A british aoc was set up for flying out of the UK, that shouldn't be too hard to understand. It was as far as I remember also a requirement to fly longhaul over the pond. The irish AOC was Set up for similar reasons. What's so hard to understand about that? And more importantly, what's so bad about that?

[truckflyer]

Originally Posted by Luke258

Sorry to burst your bubble but besides the NUK and NSE aircraft all the 787s have norwegian registration. Also the BKK based pilots were on BKK contract, same as the cabin Crew. That also goes for All the other bases.
A british aoc was set up for flying out of the UK, that shouldn't be too hard to understand. It was as far as I remember also a requirement to fly longhaul over the pond. The irish AOC was Set up for similar reasons. What's so hard to understand about that? And more importantly, what's so bad about that?

Norwegian have at last 14 Dreamliners registered in the UK. 30- 737 in on Irish registration.

And if you can't see the issue with Irish AOC, or UK AOC, OSM haven't got any money to pay the salaries to any of them, the crews will be getting money from the British government most likely, but if OSM is not British, it starts to get very messy indeed. So Norwegian want help from various countries governments and their own government, so they can survive.

However if you are not paying your taxes to Norway for large part of the operations, why should you expect the Norwegian government to bail out the company who are trying their best to avoid "expensive" Norway.
Why should tax payers fit the bill for a failing company? Why should Norway bail them out?

[Meester proach]

Why ? As was mentioned with virgin, think of what a company pays into its relevant government in tax, income tax from employees etc. There’s always a price to the country of having workers doing nothing.

NUK, is a uk registered company with a UK AOC.