Norwegian Air Discussion

kub

Thank you both, I wondered to myself had it something to do with the 800 being a stretched version of the original 737, well generations of stretching actually.

bk

MoeJay wrote: »

On a political point, in the mad rush to show to how great a little country we are in which to do business, this operation was rubber stamped by the IAA with a lot of government support (IAA/commercial remit??) and apart from a small office in Dublin airport, I don't see any Irish based crew operating these aircraft. Great win for the Irish aviation industry there.

It can be good though for the Irish economy in terms of tourism. Attracting more tourists from the US is important now with possible drop offs from the UK due to Brexit.

Irishweather

bkehoe wrote: »

An incredible about of factual information from people who actually operate and fly the 737 and other large commercial aircraft every day, including across the Atlantic, has been posted in this thread and its sad to see that you appear to totally dismiss these people.
Fuel required is not just trip fuel so saying the flight time was only xx:xx is pretty much irrelevant. Nobody knows what the reserves might have been. And remember, the 737 cannot take off with full fuel tanks with a full cabin of 189 passengers. Period! (As Trump's soon to be ex press secretary would say! ).

Eastbound..

MoeJay

bk wrote: »

It can be good though for the Irish economy in terms of tourism. Attracting more tourists from the US is important now with possible drop offs from the UK due to Brexit.

That's a good point but the IAA have no remit in relation to promotion of tourism, certainly none that I'm aware of.

Similarly Norwegian didn't require an Irish AOC to operate these routes. They had existing rights with which to do them. So why not just operate them? Cork could have had their flight years ago...!

JCX BXC

MoeJay wrote: »

That's a good point but the IAA have no remit in relation to promotion of tourism, certainly none that I'm aware of.

Similarly Norwegian didn't require an Irish AOC to operate these routes. They had existing rights with which to do them. So why not just operate them? Cork could have had their flight years ago...!

Which has been exactly my point for months!

1123heavy

Well the thing is Ireland is getting somewhat of a reputation among flight crews across Europe as "slave capital", that's just one way it was once put to me. I don't necessarily agree that strongly, but if i only ever heard of a country the other side of Europe when it coincided with someone lowering the standards yet again I'd probably think the same.

Thinking in their mindset it's hard to say no, first we had ryanair which revolutionised the industry (not in a good way for pilots), the country is also used by various airlines attempting to circumvent higher social ethics in their home countries and use Ireland as a loophole. Recently we had Norwegian take full advantage of this too and now again we also have SAS doing it. SAS have been involved in a dispute with their pilots for quite some time and their sudden interest in Ireland is simply to undermine the crew they already have.

roundymac

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/norwegian-air-ramps-737-max-operations/
A bit more info on the 737/Max here.

goingnowhere

To be fair to Norwegian they don't need an Irish AOC for there current routes

That said if Norwegian wanted to fly to say Marrakech, St Petersburg, i.e non US/CA/EEA you need a local AOC.

Aer Lingus has a UK AOC...

1123heavy

goingnowhere wrote: »

Aer Lingus has a UK AOC...

That is true however they don't use it to circumvent labour laws and it wasn't intended as a loophole, they legitimately required one for when they had crew based in LGW

bkehoe

Irishweather wrote: »

Eastbound..

I do believe that this isn't the first time you've reminded us. Please research IFR flight planning and the requirements for reserves, both the legal minimum and what the pilots might want in excess of that. This could easily be in the region of 5 tonnes (i.e. 25% of the tank capacity essentially unusable for trip and contingency fuel) on the 737 depending on the pilots perception of weather forecasts at destination and alternates.

So to set the scene of one way this could result in a tech stop...flight departs with fuel in excess of flight plan requirements. No airline takes as much fuel as possible so we do not fill the tanks for every flight like you might in your car before a long journey.
We get our oceanic clearance from Gander and they advise that our requested level isn't available and now we're capped at FL300 due faster traffic above. Also we've been asked to maintain a high uneconomical mach number as the long haul aircraft going across the Atlantic will be cruising at 0.82 - 0.84. The 737 at higher flight levels will cruise at 0.77/0.78 (you don't want to go much faster than .79/80 due aircraft limits) and at lower levels is more economical at around 0.70. So now we're at FL300 at 0.79, burning about 1 tonne of fuel extra for the crossing than flight planned. No longer is arriving at destination with sufficient fuel to divert to an alternate assured as this is more than the contingency fuel.

goingnowhere

1123heavy wrote: »

That is true however they don't use it to circumvent labour laws and it wasn't intended as a loophole, they legitimately required one for when they had crew based in LGW

Wasn't a crew issue it was a route access issue, to be able to fly to non EEA destinations from Belfast and London

EI had a crew base in LHR for decades but was closed during the cost saving programs

Norwegian despite the hot air from the US interests about Asian crew seem to be flying with US based cabin crews

1123heavy

goingnowhere wrote: »

Wasn't a crew issue it was a route access issue, to be able to fly to non EEA destinations from Belfast and London

EI had a crew base in LHR for decades but was closed during the cost saving programs

Norwegian despite the hot air from the US interests about Asian crew seem to be flying with US based cabin crews

Which EEA destinations did aer lingus fly to from belfast or london?

Aer lingus crew based in LHR were only CC. Flight deck crew based there were there for the little red service and that was it unless i'm mistaken.

They are US based crews on Asian contracts via OSM

kevinandrew

1123heavy wrote: »

goingnowhere wrote: »

Wasn't a crew issue it was a route access issue, to be able to fly to non EEA destinations from Belfast and London

EI had a crew base in LHR for decades but was closed during the cost saving programs

Norwegian despite the hot air from the US interests about Asian crew seem to be flying with US based cabin crews

Which EEA destinations did aer lingus fly to from belfast or london?

Aer Lingus operated London Gatwick to Zurich in 2009, Switzerland obviously not in either the EU or EEA but is part of the single market. Aer Lingus must have had ambitions further afield when the Gatwick base was originally launched, there was talk of North Africa, Turkey and a move into Central and Eastern Europe. Just before Mueller announced its closure there was talk of crew being trained up on the A330s! 



The London Gatwick base for Aer Lingus was meant to be what Norwegian have now created, the network was varied and interesting, fares were low and service was well regarded but the brand was weak and it came at totally the wrong time with Aer Lingus struggling in its home market and not having the time or funds to let Gatwick mature.

Mebuntu

1123heavy wrote: »

first we had ryanair which revolutionised the industry (not in a good way for pilots),

Aer Lingus was designed for pilots (and cabin crew, unions, politicians and the rich and famous).

Ryanair was designed for the people and there are no prizes for guessing which airline is the most successful by a long way.

Like we had with short haul it is time for the long haul revolution. There is no certainty that Norwegian will be the ones to do it but I wish them well in this new venture.

marno21

Mebuntu wrote: »

Aer Lingus was designed for pilots (and cabin crew, unions, politicians and the rich and famous).

Ryanair was designed for the people and there are no prizes for guessing which airline is the most successful by a long way.

Like we had with short haul it is time for the long haul revolution. There is no certainty that Norwegian will be the ones to do it but I wish them well in this new venture.

If there is a "long haul" revolution, it won't be with 737s. This isn't a long haul revolution.

Aer Lingus/Delta/American/United etc charge reasonably priced fares for what you get.

With Norwegian/Wow Air, there is often little difference when you add in bags etc (which are a lot more common long haul than short haul), food/water on plane, entertainment etc. Plus having to sit bolt upright on a squashed 737 for 7 hours.

It's the same in Ireland with Irish Rail/Bus Eireann and Aircoach/Dublin Coach etc. The difference here is that the Dublin Coach product isn't much different (worse) for the price paid. It's just that Dublin Coach can run a bus business and Bus Eireann is a jobs for the boys enterprise that doesn't work in 2017.

1123heavy

Mebuntu wrote: »

Aer Lingus was designed for pilots (and cabin crew, unions, politicians and the rich and famous).

Ryanair was designed for the people and there are no prizes for guessing which airline is the most successful by a long way.

Like we had with short haul it is time for the long haul revolution. There is no certainty that Norwegian will be the ones to do it but I wish them well in this new venture.

When you want to fly at 35,000ft at M.08 in a metal tube over the deep ocean on a stormy night I think an airline that takes good care of the pilots I'm entrusting with my life is who I'd rather be on.

Despite this, as the poster above rightly says, there are hardly any savings to be made, unless you go with 10kg hand luggage and fast on the day of travel.

jjbrien

marno21 wrote: »

If there is a "long haul" revolution, it won't be with 737s. This isn't a long haul revolution.

Long Haul revolution was tried by Zoom with 767's and 757's they didn't last a long time. Norwegian are running 737 max 8' and 787 which are far more economical. I always hoped boeing would redo the 757's and give them a overhaul that they have done to the 737 line would mean relaunching the line. Make them like the 787 carbon fibe, big windows better engines. Airlines are crying out for a 757 replacement first one to do it Airbus or Boeing will be on to a winner. The 757 was a jet ahead of its time and airlines have only started to realize its benefits now after Boeing shelved the line.

I read back a page or 2 ago about the 737's only doing 2 sectors a day actually some of them are doing 4 sectors a day one of them I know does OSL to EDI to SWF then back to EDI then back to OSL. The issue with on time they are facing is they try to milk the planes too much and once a delay happens it causes a big knock on effect for the rest of the schedule. Meaning if theirs too much headwind it causes a fuel stop and even more delay to the schedule.

1123heavy

jjbrien wrote: »

Long Haul revolution was tried by Zoom with 767's and 757's they didn't last a long time. Norwegian are running 737 max 8' and 787 which are far more economical. I always hoped boeing would redo the 757's and give them a overhaul that they have done to the 737 line would mean relaunching the line. Make them like the 787 carbon fibe, big windows better engines. Airlines are crying out for a 757 replacement first one to do it Airbus or Boeing will be on to a winner. The 757 was a jet ahead of its time and airlines have only started to realize its benefits now after Boeing shelved the line.

A replacement has been made in the A321LR

L1011

Zoom's "revolution" just showed that the majority of people are unwilling to accept LCC conditions on that length of a flight. They might still be around if the global financial crisis hadn't happened but they - and Globespan etc - never got any major market share.

Standard LCC economics do not work on long flights - that rules out any normal LCC business models. An awful lot of other business models have been tried ever since Laker and they've all failed.

jjbrien

1123heavy wrote: »

A replacement has been made in the A321LR

Hardly a replacement to be honest doesnt quite have the range 757 could still fly further than it 7,250 for the 757 vs 6 850 km for the A321LR. If boeing did do a complete overhaul of the 757 im sure it could go even further with todays technology.

http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a320family/a321neo/

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/historical/757_passenger.pdf

1123heavy

jjbrien wrote: »

Hardly a replacement to be honest doesnt quite have the range 757 could still fly further than it 7,250 for the 757 vs 6 850 km for the A321LR. If boeing did do a complete overhaul of the 757 im sure it could go even further with todays technology.

http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a320family/a321neo/

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/historical/757_passenger.pdf

350km? Really?

The 757 is a fuel thirsty bird and was often diverting on many routes to the east coast. The A321NEO/LR will be a lot more fuel efficient and is planned to not have these issues.

goingnowhere

A321 neo is not what you want its the A321NEOLR will get you there but the hold is full of auxiliary fuel tanks which gets you to 7400km

So your burn per seat keeps the accountants happy you just don't want to be hauling a lot of cargo around, so makes sense for LCC

1123heavy

Also to add, any 757 replacement will take at least 7/8 years to come along if it is to be a complete redesign. Also don't forget the time it would take for suitable engines to be designed for it, this has actually often been the biggest cause in long lead times for airliner deliveries.

The costs of a new airliner will be huge too. It would make far more sense time wise, and also financially, for an airline looking for a LR roughly 220+ seater airliner to subscribe to the A321neo.

Irishweather

jjbrien wrote: »

Hardly a replacement to be honest doesnt quite have the range 757 could still fly further than it 7,250 for the 757 vs 6 850 km for the A321LR. If boeing did do a complete overhaul of the 757 im sure it could go even further with todays technology.

http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a320family/a321neo/

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/historical/757_passenger.pdf

It's a replacement for Ireland.

737max

http://www.independent.ie/business/aer-lingus-reveals-it-fears-ryanair-threat-35957831.html

If this is to be believed Aer Lingus are worried by Norwegian. They are being squeezed by Ryanair on Intra-Europe routes and now being squeezed by new entrants like Norwegian on trans-atlantic which may jeopardize investment by parent IAG.

1123heavy

737max wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/aer-lingus-reveals-it-fears-ryanair-threat-35957831.html

If this is to be believed Aer Lingus are worried by Norwegian. They are being squeezed by Ryanair on Intra-Europe routes and now being squeezed by new entrants like Norwegian on trans-atlantic which may jeopardize investment by parent IAG.

If true, this isn't good news for anyone.

Jamie2k9

Elements are true, just like unions expecting 5% increase per year over 3 years, it's also worse case for EI. They will probally come out with 2.5% increase and increased productivity in return.

1123heavy

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Elements are true, just like unions expecting 5% increase per year over 3 years, it's also worse case for EI. They will probally come out with 2.5% increase and increased productivity in return.

Well yes the cold hard facts are true, but given that it is a labour court submission they will obviously be trying to make it sound like it is dire times for the company. The more negative the spin the better case they can make for themselves not to pay up. The unions won't be fooled anyway.

Jamie2k9

1123heavy wrote: »

Well yes the cold hard facts are true, but given that it is a labour court submission they will obviously be trying to make it sound like it is dire times for the company. The more negative the spin the better case they can make for themselves not to pay up. The unions won't be fooled anyway.

Unions are chancing their arms expecting 15% pay hike as well, both sides are just setting out their stalls.

Most sensible employees know 5% is completely off the table or they should if they know whats good for them.

EI staff do quiet well compared to the rest of IAG airlines.

1123heavy

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Unions are chancing their arms expecting 15% pay hike as well, both sides are just setting out their stalls.

Most sensible employees know 5% is completely off the table or they should if they know whats good for them.

EI staff do quiet well compared to the rest of IAG airlines.

In a sense, the demands are simply what the employees are owed. It's nothing on top of that. If it was then yes it would be greed, but employees took a hit when the company was in bad times and sacrifices were made. Now the company is out of that situation, the logical thing is that those who were at a loss are now repaid what they are owed. That's all it is.

I see where you're coming from, but from a union perspective, one thing leads to another. Letting this go will mean it will likely happen again, and worse ... then where do you stop before you end up with Ryanair or Norwegian terms? Sounds extreme, but it's a reality and if the boards had their way it would already be the case.