Norwegian Air Discussion

ED E

JCX BXC wrote: »

Loads called to 160 for what reasoning? Payload restriction?

Pretty sure that was said earlier in thread (somewhere). They would be over MTOW otherwise IIRC.

JCX BXC

ED E wrote: »

Pretty sure that was said earlier in thread (somewhere). They would be over MTOW otherwise IIRC.

Genuinely haven't seen that post, must have missed that.

Are all 737-800's restricted in this way?

1123heavy

gizmo81 wrote: »

$132 million

https://www.norwegian.com/en/about/company/investor-relations/reports-and-presentations/annual-reports/

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/norwegian-air-to-accelerate-capacity-growth-in-2017-1.2836691

http://atwonline.com/airline-financials/norwegian-posts-132-million-2016-net-profit

The group's debt is over 215,000,000 eu. Not a very healthy company no matter who tries to spin it.

They don't know where they are headed is the reality. One minute it's stuart and providence from ireland, next minute it's off to Argentina, but hang on cos they're going to Guadeloupe on the way. Basing pilots in all corners of the globe (the few pilots they can get). It really is astonishing stuff we are witnessing.

A pretty good gauge nowadays is the behavior of Ryanair and MOL. If he has left something in the LCC market, then you can be pretty sure it is for a bloody good reason. Nothing stopped him doing any of what Norwegian are doing, but he is a lot wiser.

ED E

See quotes.

billie1b wrote: »

This flight is DUB - JFK on a B738 there is a ORK - BOS example further down

Works out in or around 142 pax, thats with 12 business class seats, extra bars, a crew of 03+05, eaxh pax having a 23kg bag each and being able to take a full fuel load of 22,100kgs with a max take off weight of 77,990kgs and that still leaves a little room for extra bags etc..
It wouldn't need the full 22,100kgs of fuel though, around 19,500kgs would be good with it burning 15,000-16,000kgs on the way (weather dependent).

Here's an example loadsheet for you.

bkehoe wrote: »

While the a/c can be certified with a MTOW up to 79 tonnes depending on the operator, the problem in Cork in winter is that the runway length won't allow much more than 70 tonnes for the RTOW with the conditions on some days (e.g. low QNH typically found during wet windy days).

Edit: Even today when the QNH is higher than STD (good), temperature lower than ISA (good), headwind component (good), with engine bleed supply for the air-conditioning packs off (not a normal SOP for most 737 operators, only used for extra performance), the RTOW is in the region of 76 tonnes.

If we assume no wind credit (runway in Cork doesn't point into the prevailing wind so on a windy day there would be very little credit for headwind) and a QNH of 980 (by no means as low as it can go; I've flown when its in the 960s!) and make the runway WET then we're limited to approx 70 tonnes (71 ish if Norwegian have 27k engines).

Bsal wrote: »

I presume they will have to limit the number of passengers to well below the standard 189 of the B738 due to the runway lenght at Cork being 2133m.

Irish Steve

MTOW on an 800 needs about 2400Mtrs at sea level on a reasonable temperature day, which is more than the runway available at Cork, so they will either have to compromise on fuel, or passenger load, and given the distance they are going, fuel will be needed, and could be critical. So, that means a reduction in the numbers carried, which is nothing new, it's been talked about in this thread and on other threads for longer than I can remember, it's one of the reasons that's prevented other operators from considering Cork for year round Transatlantic routes. Whatever about the summer, the issue will be a wet runway in the winter with strong jet streams on the Atlantic, there are times when the 757 struggles to make some destinations, and it has a better range than the 737-800.

Cookiemunster

1123heavy wrote: »

The group's debt is over 215,000,000 eu. .

Whatever about everything else €215m is not a large debt.

1123heavy

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Whatever about everything else €215m is not a large debt.

They are expanding at a rate that will come back to bite them. There plan is to keep growing and hopefully it'll solve their money problems.

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2017/06/27/doomed-scheduling-behind-cancellations/

repeat of last year

http://cphpost.dk/news/thousands-left-stranded-over-the-weekend-as-norwegian-air-cancels-30-flights.html

They are expanding at a rate they do not have the capacity to. They are spreading their tentacles across the world in what appears to be some attempt at domination which isn't going to go well.

Cookiemunster

1123heavy wrote: »

They are expanding at a rate that will come back to bite them. There plan is to keep growing and hopefully it'll solve their money problems.

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2017/06/27/doomed-scheduling-behind-cancellations/

repeat of last year

http://cphpost.dk/news/thousands-left-stranded-over-the-weekend-as-norwegian-air-cancels-30-flights.html

They are expanding at a rate they do not have the capacity to. They are spreading their tentacles across the world in what appears to be some attempt at domination which isn't going to go well.

Your predictions may eventually turn out to be correct, but what you said is not correct.

1123heavy wrote: »

The group's debt is over 215,000,000 eu. Not a very healthy company no matter who tries to spin it.

That's a pretty healthy debt for a company wth their turnover.

1123heavy

Cookiemunster wrote: »

1123heavy wrote: »

They are expanding at a rate that will come back to bite them. There plan is to keep growing and hopefully it'll solve their money problems.

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2017/06/27/doomed-scheduling-behind-cancellations/



repeat of last year

http://cphpost.dk/news/thousands-left-stranded-over-the-weekend-as-norwegian-air-cancels-30-flights.html

They are expanding at a rate they do not have the capacity to. They are spreading their tentacles across the world in what appears to be some attempt at domination which isn't going to go well.

Your predictions may eventually turn out to be correct, but what you said is not correct.

1123heavy wrote: »

The group's debt is over 215,000,000 eu. Not a very healthy company no matter who tries to spin it.

That's a pretty healthy debt for a company wth their turnover.

With the greatest of respect, I can't fathom how a debt of 2.3 billion isn't a big deal in your books. That is just short of the equivalent of their entire turnover last year.

Ryanair have no net debt and easyJet are in the region of 200million. A very different story for Norwegian.

1123heavy

I'd also like to add that in the current year alone, they have 400 million worth of loans alone to sort out.

They cannot afford any disruption in the slightest. Yet they are short of pilots and this has lead to massive disruption 2 years in a row. Their reaction in the midst of all this? Fly a 737 out of Cork to no man's land in the US.

It really is very bizarre stuff we are witnessing here.

Irishweather

JCX BXC wrote: »

Genuinely haven't seen that post, must have missed that.

Are all 737-800's restricted in this way?

Boeing 737-800's don't usually fly Transatlantic flights. On our island we are lucky enough for a geographical position that we can just about make it to the East Coast without a stop.

Loads were of course restricted to ensure no stop was necessary. If the flight was from Mainland Europe it would probably have had to stop in Labrador.

The Boeing 737-8 Max ensures that a full load of 189 passengers can be carried in winter months.

L1011

1123heavy wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, I can't fathom how a debt of 2.3 billion isn't a big deal in your books. That is just short of the equivalent of their entire turnover last year.

Ryanair have no net debt and easyJet are in the region of 200million. A very different story for Norwegian.

Quoted debt figures can vary wildly and depend on the method of calculation.

On some methods, a leased asset is a debt of every months leasing cost until the lease expires - because its money you have agreed to pay. On others, its 0.

That can add up to Rather A Lot for an airline.

Irishweather

Irish Steve wrote: »

MTOW on an 800 needs about 2400Mtrs at sea level on a reasonable temperature day, which is more than the runway available at Cork, so they will either have to compromise on fuel, or passenger load, and given the distance they are going, fuel will be needed, and could be critical. So, that means a reduction in the numbers carried, which is nothing new, it's been talked about in this thread and on other threads for longer than I can remember, it's one of the reasons that's prevented other operators from considering Cork for year round Transatlantic routes. Whatever about the summer, the issue will be a wet runway in the winter with strong jet streams on the Atlantic, there are times when the 757 struggles to make some destinations, and it has a better range than the 737-800.

The 757 never struggles from Ireland.

JCX BXC

Irishweather wrote: »

Boeing 737-800's don't usually fly Transatlantic flights. On our island we are lucky enough for a geographical position that we can just about make it to the East Coast without a stop.

Loads were of course restricted to ensure no stop was necessary. If the flight was from Mainland Europe it would probably have had to stop in Labrador.

I understand that, although I did mean are all the current Norwegian flights restricted the same way until the 737MAX comes, just didn't phrase it well.

Also, Labrador? I've never seen an aircraft go there for a tech stop or diversion! Surely Gander or St.Johns?

Thanks to Irish Steve and ED E for their contributions above too.

Jamie2k9

JCX BXC wrote: »

Irishweather wrote: »

Boeing 737-800's don't usually fly Transatlantic flights. On our island we are lucky enough for a geographical position that we can just about make it to the East Coast without a stop.

Loads were of course restricted to ensure no stop was necessary. If the flight was from Mainland Europe it would probably have had to stop in Labrador.

I understand that, although I did mean are all the current Norwegian flights restricted the same way until the 737MAX comes, just didn't phrase it well.

Also, Labrador? I've never seen an aircraft go there for a tech stop or diversion! Surely Gander or St.Johns?

Thanks to Irish Steve and ED E for their contributions above too.

All will be restricted.

ED E

JCX BXC wrote: »

Also, Labrador? I've never seen an aircraft go there for a tech stop or diversion! Surely Gander or St.Johns?

Same thing no?

JCX BXC

ED E wrote: »

Same thing no?

I thought Labrador was YHG and not YYT, I've never heard St.Johns referred to as Labrador, however I wouldn't be the most familiar with Canadian airports.

marno21

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

All will be restricted.

Can a 738 not make it from Shannon to Providence fully loaded without stopping given the length of the runway?

Jamie2k9

Irishweather wrote: »

Irish Steve wrote: »

MTOW on an 800 needs about 2400Mtrs at sea level on a reasonable temperature day, which is more than the runway available at Cork, so they will either have to compromise on fuel, or passenger load, and given the distance they are going, fuel will be needed, and could be critical. So, that means a reduction in the numbers carried, which is nothing new, it's been talked about in this thread and on other threads for longer than I can remember, it's one of the reasons that's prevented other operators from considering Cork for year round Transatlantic routes. Whatever about the summer, the issue will be a wet runway in the winter with strong jet streams on the Atlantic, there are times when the 757 struggles to make some destinations, and it has a better range than the 737-800.

The 757 never struggles from Ireland.

Generally no but it did at times when AA flew to Chicago.

I also think I.S was making the general point about B757 and regular stops with strong headwinds.

JCX BXC

Flights also go to Bergen in Norway, would this not be an even longer distance? Are flights currently struggling with payload restrictions from there?

Irishweather

JCX BXC wrote: »

I understand that, although I did mean are all the current Norwegian flights restricted the same way until the 737MAX comes, just didn't phrase it well.

Also, Labrador? I've never seen an aircraft go there for a tech stop or diversion! Surely Gander or St.Johns?

Thanks to Irish Steve and ED E for their contributions above too.

Yes, they're restricted until the max comes.

The 737-800's range is only 3,600 miles.

Irishweather

JCX BXC wrote: »

Flights also go to Bergen in Norway, would this not be an even longer distance? Are flights currently struggling with payload restrictions from there?

Those flights will be restricted further, maybe 130 pax?

On the Max, a Bergen flight should reach the East Coast in summer months, but there will be restrictions in winter, hence the reason for the summer only operation from Bergen.

Really, the 737 Max can only comfortably make the East Coast with a full load/winter headwinds from Ireland/Scotland/NW England.

https://leehamnews.com/2016/09/14/maxs-first-mission-cross-atlantic/

ED E

JCX BXC wrote: »

Flights also go to Bergen in Norway, would this not be an even longer distance? Are flights currently struggling with payload restrictions from there?

EDIT: You meant from the states, NVM.

Jamie2k9

marno21 wrote: »

Can a 738 not make it from Shannon to Providence fully loaded without stopping given the length of the runway?

A restriction will most likely still be in place.

L1011

marno21 wrote: »

Can a 738 not make it from Shannon to Providence fully loaded without stopping given the length of the runway?

Pretty sure the airframe can't make it from SNN to PVD if given infinite runway. Not enough fuel capacity; not limited by runway length.

marno21

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

A restriction will most likely still be in place.

L1011 wrote: »

Pretty sure the airframe can't make it from SNN to PVD if given infinite runway. Not enough fuel capacity; not limited by runway length.

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.

marno21

154 pax on board according to RedFM: http://www.redfm.ie/news/cork/historic-day-at-cork-airport-as-the-first-direct-flight-to-the-u-s-takes-off/

Irishweather

What about Dublin and Belfast?

bkehoe

Irishweather wrote: »

Boeing 737-800's don't usually fly
The Boeing 737-8 Max ensures that a full load of 189 passengers can be carried in winter months.

Please share the aircraft performance data with those of us more familiar with the NG to substantiate this.

Even though the max has a 4 tonne higher MTOW, the A/C will still potentially have a payload limit irrespective of runway length based on the amount of trip fuel needed with strong jet streams, and even more if en-route alternates unsuitable which is common in winter. ORK ops will either need booking restrictions to ensure reliable year-round non stop ops or will have occasional winter fuel stops, even if its in Shannon if they allow the aircraft to be fully booked!

With regard to yesterdays flight, WX conditions in ORK were favourable - a headwind component, temperature just above ISA and a higher than standard QNH with a dry runway. Don't know the exact flight planned route but the flight time was approx 6:30 so no strong jetstream en-route so not surprising at all that a non-stop service was possible.

MoeJay

The question really is whether the load that they can reliably get off the runway in Cork is sufficient to make the route profitable...or profitable enough...

After all, Shannon airport is the same distance from Cork city centre as Newburgh is from Manhattan so why wouldn't people be happy to fly to Shannon instead? ( added for clarity)

As for the company and cash, they have about 3 years to get enough cash rolling in to be able to cover all the payments for all the aircraft they have ordered. Most of their competitors in Ireland (including the US carriers) have been hoarding cash for a while so they can afford to burn a bit in order to get rid of NAI/NAS/NAx (delete as appropriate). Interesting times ahead.