Norwegian burning cash!
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Finland
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by VinRouge
Thirdly, Norwegian has the world's largest sovereign wealth fund. Its bigger than any Middle Eastern equivalent. This should be a worry to BA, as they could very suddenly find themselves getting deep into a price war that is mutually destructive, against a company backed by a country with a very, very, very deep pocket.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thirdly, Norwegian has the world's largest sovereign wealth fund. Its bigger than any Middle Eastern equivalent. This should be a worry to BA, as they could very suddenly find themselves getting deep into a price war that is mutually destructive, against a company backed by a country with a very, very, very deep pocket.
CP
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CaptainProp
I don’t think Norwegian is going anywhere any time soon but the fact that the Norwegian state fund is massive is completely irrelevant.
CP
CP
Or I suppose the Norwegian government could just let a major carrier fold due to cash flow issues in the future whilst they get set up? I personally can't see that happening. Too much loss of face.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on the dark side of the moon!
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Norwegian government is already involved in SAS, its flag carrier, along with 2 neighboring governments. Moreover its souvereign fund is public money invested for a positive return for the benefit of the country and its taxpayers.
On that basis I fail to see why Norwegian Air, as a private business and competitor, would benefit from the blind & unconditionnal support of its government.
As for the too big to fail argument, this one ignores what happened to Pan Am, TWA, Swissair, Sabena, Olympic or some others more recent or still to come.
On that basis I fail to see why Norwegian Air, as a private business and competitor, would benefit from the blind & unconditionnal support of its government.
As for the too big to fail argument, this one ignores what happened to Pan Am, TWA, Swissair, Sabena, Olympic or some others more recent or still to come.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norwegian government investment, if they were to invest in Norwegian, would it not be the Norwegian AOC and the Norwegian element of the business.
Surley Norwegian government funding for an Irish/English AOC and associated companies would not be seen as Norwegian investment in an Norwegian company.
Unless of course the funds going into the Norwegian business and they filter down to the European companies, but surley that is unfair competition, having a European carrier NAI/NUK funded by the Norwegian government.
Food for thought perhaps.
Surley Norwegian government funding for an Irish/English AOC and associated companies would not be seen as Norwegian investment in an Norwegian company.
Unless of course the funds going into the Norwegian business and they filter down to the European companies, but surley that is unfair competition, having a European carrier NAI/NUK funded by the Norwegian government.
Food for thought perhaps.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Speedbrakes Up
Norwegian government investment, if they were to invest in Norwegian, would it not be the Norwegian AOC and the Norwegian element of the business.
Surley Norwegian government funding for an Irish/English AOC and associated companies would not be seen as Norwegian investment in an Norwegian company.
Unless of course the funds going into the Norwegian business and they filter down to the European companies, but surley that is unfair competition, having a European carrier NAI/NUK funded by the Norwegian government.
Food for thought perhaps.
Surley Norwegian government funding for an Irish/English AOC and associated companies would not be seen as Norwegian investment in an Norwegian company.
Unless of course the funds going into the Norwegian business and they filter down to the European companies, but surley that is unfair competition, having a European carrier NAI/NUK funded by the Norwegian government.
Food for thought perhaps.
if private investors are not investing, Folketrygdfondet cannot solely take part in strengthening the finances of the company. The captial raised for SAS in 2009 and 2010 where the SE/NO/DK states funding half the money was not considered to be unlawful state support as the other half was funded by private investors. The capital SAS gained from the states were rather considered a healthy investment than state support.
If Folketrygdfondet is to invest further in Norwegian, the company needs confidence from private investors to raise capital as well. If that confidence is lost, money from the Norwegian state is likely considered illegal state support (if even offered). However it takes time before a decision like that would be final so if NAS is able to turn things around and become profitable again the company might be able to pay back any "illegal" state support received.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by linmar
It makes no difference if the AOC is UK (at least before Brexit), Irish or Norwegian. Norway is part of the EEC and implement all EU legislation in order to take part of the EU internal market. Norwegian Air Shuttle will have to follow the same competition rules as the rest of the airlines in Europe and state support is not allowed. Folketrygdfondet (the state fund) is the second largest shareholder in Norwegian and was holding 6,1% of the shares before the issue of new shares two weeks ago.
if private investors are not investing, Folketrygdfondet cannot solely take part in strengthening the finances of the company. The captial raised for SAS in 2009 and 2010 where the SE/NO/DK states funding half the money was not considered to be unlawful state support as the other half was funded by private investors. The capital SAS gained from the states were rather considered a healthy investment than state support.
If Folketrygdfondet is to invest further in Norwegian, the company needs confidence from private investors to raise capital as well. If that confidence is lost, money from the Norwegian state is likely considered illegal state support (if even offered). However it takes time before a decision like that would be final so if NAS is able to turn things around and become profitable again the company might be able to pay back any "illegal" state support received.
if private investors are not investing, Folketrygdfondet cannot solely take part in strengthening the finances of the company. The captial raised for SAS in 2009 and 2010 where the SE/NO/DK states funding half the money was not considered to be unlawful state support as the other half was funded by private investors. The capital SAS gained from the states were rather considered a healthy investment than state support.
If Folketrygdfondet is to invest further in Norwegian, the company needs confidence from private investors to raise capital as well. If that confidence is lost, money from the Norwegian state is likely considered illegal state support (if even offered). However it takes time before a decision like that would be final so if NAS is able to turn things around and become profitable again the company might be able to pay back any "illegal" state support received.
And as commented above its not as though it's being done via the back door elsewhere and ignored.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thier debt is high their trading losses are not that much, the early hiccups with the MAX US operation seem to be over with good solid load factors going forward, the start double daily from Dublin to Stewart in a few weeks time, there was a massive training program for this to be crewed and a lot of expense, crew visas, second passports and the time off paid to get them, then lots of Captains training other Captains, with the recruited and on full pay American pilots sat at home awaiting the IAA to allow them the dispensation to fly EASA aircraft on a FAA, still not fully resolved but getting their resulting wholesale purchase of pilots days off and the double day off payments that went with it.
Meanwhile long haul proper has been receiving a new Dreamliner every two weeks, so just think of the advance up front costs of crewing and training that lot for routes that only started this week Austin & daily Chicago and it’s easy to see why the are burning cash, but they are burning it through investment not through flying empty aircraft, the 1st half will likely show a significant loss and I would expect a small full year loss, thereafter the critical mass should start to overwhelm the costs, cargo is doing very well out of LGW and people are paying for the premium seats, because although round trip fairs can be bought for similar money elsewhere, what you can’t do for sensible money with BA is one way legs, they are often 2 or 3 times the cost of a return flight on the same route.
So yes there’s a risk and it would please many if it went under, especially the ‘special one’ who was sacked by Norwegian and still hasn’t got over it.
Meanwhile long haul proper has been receiving a new Dreamliner every two weeks, so just think of the advance up front costs of crewing and training that lot for routes that only started this week Austin & daily Chicago and it’s easy to see why the are burning cash, but they are burning it through investment not through flying empty aircraft, the 1st half will likely show a significant loss and I would expect a small full year loss, thereafter the critical mass should start to overwhelm the costs, cargo is doing very well out of LGW and people are paying for the premium seats, because although round trip fairs can be bought for similar money elsewhere, what you can’t do for sensible money with BA is one way legs, they are often 2 or 3 times the cost of a return flight on the same route.
So yes there’s a risk and it would please many if it went under, especially the ‘special one’ who was sacked by Norwegian and still hasn’t got over it.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: ex-DXB
Posts: 928
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rex. BA and AA ran at a loss with the sole purpose to put Laker out of business. Laker’s model did work and it scared the hell out of all trans-Atlantic carriers. Sadly the public were denied the chance of cheaper travel thanks to BA/AA.
These two also tried to screw Virgin but RB was a different cookie to Freddie.
These two also tried to screw Virgin but RB was a different cookie to Freddie.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EIFFS
Thier debt is high their trading losses are not that much, the early hiccups with the MAX US operation seem to be over with good solid load factors going forward, the start double daily from Dublin to Stewart in a few weeks time, there was a massive training program for this to be crewed and a lot of expense, crew visas, second passports and the time off paid to get them, then lots of Captains training other Captains, with the recruited and on full pay American pilots sat at home awaiting the IAA to allow them the dispensation to fly EASA aircraft on a FAA, still not fully resolved but getting their resulting wholesale purchase of pilots days off and the double day off payments that went with it.
Meanwhile long haul proper has been receiving a new Dreamliner every two weeks, so just think of the advance up front costs of crewing and training that lot for routes that only started this week Austin & daily Chicago and it’s easy to see why the are burning cash, but they are burning it through investment not through flying empty aircraft, the 1st half will likely show a significant loss and I would expect a small full year loss, thereafter the critical mass should start to overwhelm the costs, cargo is doing very well out of LGW and people are paying for the premium seats, because although round trip fairs can be bought for similar money elsewhere, what you can’t do for sensible money with BA is one way legs, they are often 2 or 3 times the cost of a return flight on the same route.
So yes there’s a risk and it would please many if it went under, especially the ‘special one’ who was sacked by Norwegian and still hasn’t got over it.
Meanwhile long haul proper has been receiving a new Dreamliner every two weeks, so just think of the advance up front costs of crewing and training that lot for routes that only started this week Austin & daily Chicago and it’s easy to see why the are burning cash, but they are burning it through investment not through flying empty aircraft, the 1st half will likely show a significant loss and I would expect a small full year loss, thereafter the critical mass should start to overwhelm the costs, cargo is doing very well out of LGW and people are paying for the premium seats, because although round trip fairs can be bought for similar money elsewhere, what you can’t do for sensible money with BA is one way legs, they are often 2 or 3 times the cost of a return flight on the same route.
So yes there’s a risk and it would please many if it went under, especially the ‘special one’ who was sacked by Norwegian and still hasn’t got over it.
The legacy carriers have some learning and catching up to do imho. Both iridium and Inmarsat are going to rake it in over the next 20-30 years imho as data costs plummet for global high speed business connections for airlines.
Last edited by VinRouge; 29th Mar 2018 at 22:28.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not very good publicity over the last few days, Gatwick flight delayed nearly 24 hours after Hi-fly A340 subbed in went tech and then 787 waiting for a spare part. A lot of disgruntled passengers and NOT put up at hotels. Any profits for the day gone down the drain. This airline does very much remind me of Peoplexpress!
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: DUS
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incredible really. These ops disruptions have been going on for years flushing money away. Even in a learning by doing case that shouldn’t occur this often - i.e. repeating mistakes over and over again. Who manages this? Can anyone working there shed some light on their ops. Are they managed as bad as it looks from the outside?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: US
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norwegian Preminum Economy
I flew Laker and loved it. I needed to get back to North America one way at short notice. Their fare was a fraction of what else was on offer.
I have flow Norwegian and their premium economy was great. All I wanted, room, a power port, wifi and enough food and drink. Nothing lavish but it worked. Air Canada did not have any wifi on their flight from Toronto to Rome.
This summer a fully refundable, changeable, PE ticket is about 1700 RT from NYC to AMS
As their routes grow I think they will do very well with the PE.
20driver
I have flow Norwegian and their premium economy was great. All I wanted, room, a power port, wifi and enough food and drink. Nothing lavish but it worked. Air Canada did not have any wifi on their flight from Toronto to Rome.
This summer a fully refundable, changeable, PE ticket is about 1700 RT from NYC to AMS
As their routes grow I think they will do very well with the PE.
20driver
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Botswana
Posts: 872
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell me where customer sentiment fits in to the cold hard economics? Passengers love flying on the A380, however the airlines have voted with their feet as far as purchases of that model go. Same with Concorde vs the Boeing 747. In the end the economics always wins. And that does not favour Norwegian because their model is fundamentally flawed and they are a complete basket case in terms of finances.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: DUS
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 20driver
All I wanted, room, a power port, wifi and enough food and drink. Nothing lavish but it worked. Air Canada did not have any wifi on their flight from Toronto to Rome.
20driver
20driver
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry, but 3 maybe 4 summers ago non of the Norwegian 787 fleet had WiFi.
Infact my last time on a Norwegian aircraft was end of 2017 and only then where aircraft starting to have WiFi installed.
With Norwegian the USP with WiFi was the fact it's free, I think for the long haul side of the business WiFi would have to be paid for, therefore initially it was not introduced on the widebody fleet.
Infact my last time on a Norwegian aircraft was end of 2017 and only then where aircraft starting to have WiFi installed.
With Norwegian the USP with WiFi was the fact it's free, I think for the long haul side of the business WiFi would have to be paid for, therefore initially it was not introduced on the widebody fleet.
