Norwegian Air International discussion

Locker10a

john boye wrote: »

That really is awful from EI making light of people losing their jobs. Not a good look.

There has been no announcement about anyone loosing jobs

john boye

Locker10a wrote: »

There has been no announcement about anyone loosing jobs

Ah OK. The breaking news on the radio earlier mentioned job losses but you're right, I haven't seen it anywhere else. I'll amend it.

Van.Bosch

cson wrote: »

Disagree, that's extremely crass from EI.

Worth bearing in mind that it was Norwegian and WOW pressure that led EI to shaking up their fare structure. Less competition for the consumer is almost always bad news.

I would say, ironically, that Aer Lingus are probably the most successful exponent of transatlantic LCC in the game.

I don’t think it’s crass, the article said the routes weren’t viable. EI disagreed which seems factual, the diff is it isn’t viable to fly people to SWF or PVD as people will only go there if it’s cheap. If all fares are cheap then it ain’t viable.

ironclaw

EI have dramatically increased their prices from YYZ since Norweigan came into the fold. I'm flying with Norweigan in about a week from YHM, I think it cost about 800CAD for a round trip. The same flight with EI was 1400CAD. For contrast, I've never paid over 1000CAD for a return flight to YYZ with EI in the past two years, regardless of the time of year. I've even flown business for less than that. This time last year, my flight with EI was 700CAD and Air Canada around the same.

I understand fuel prices have moved a little but EI, to me, were price matching with Air Canada and others out of YYZ since YHM opened. I doubt they'll drop the prices now that it's gone.

In short, it's sustainable if you are charging double the fare price you were a year ago.

Shamrockj

ironclaw wrote: »

EI have dramatically increased their prices from YYZ since Norweigan came into the fold. I'm flying with Norweigan in about a week from YHM, I think it cost about 800CAD for a round trip. The same flight with EI was 1400CAD. For contrast, I've never paid over 1000CAD for a return flight to YYZ with EI in the past two years, regardless of the time of year. I've even flown business for less than that. This time last year, my flight with EI was 700CAD and Air Canada around the same.

I understand fuel prices have moved a little but EI, to me, were price matching with Air Canada and others out of YYZ since YHM opened. I doubt they'll drop the prices now that it's gone.

In short, it's sustainable if you are charging double the fare price you were a year ago.

Not true at all a quick search and you can get fares from YYZ to DUB for under 600CAD in October-February

JCX BXC

I think it's well played by Aer Lingus, always nice to see a social media account that isn't ice cold professional.

It’s far from crass.

Article says that Norwegian claimed the routes weren’t viable. Aer Lingus simply responded with “we disagree”. How is that crass. Aer Lingus and others have been running “lowish” fares across the Atlantic for the last few years on single aisle aircraft. Aer Lingus is simply stating they disagree.

Norwegian has led with “some” low fares and the rest rapidly stack up to expensive fares. Add food, seat selection and bags and Norwegian fares running to three airports that are a good distance from main cities become very unattractive.

Norwegian should have flown to more central airports from the start in my opinion. They should have sought to make the routes attractive land not just the fares.

Aer Lingus have now started their own single aisle narrow bodied TA operation and it will be a success, as will jetBlues.

Tenzor07

Locker10a wrote: »

The MAX surely didn't help but don't forget they started the routes with regular 737 and indeed continued some routes from Dublin this summer on a regular 737. Whats to stop them continuing that? Other than the routes not being commercially viable

I would guess that the NG uses more fuel and has a shorter range than the Max, as well as NG's not being Etops rated...

zell12

Surely a double daily Dub-Swf is indicative of the success of Norwegian?
they would not be doing that if there was not the demand or the profit.

It shows there exists a demand for no-frills TATL

errlloyd

On a personal level Norwegian made a long distance relationship possible for me over the last 18 months. Herself is moving to Ireland in September and now it looks like her best bet is to be on that September 15th flight.

ted1

cson wrote: »

Worth bearing in mind that it was Norwegian and WOW pressure that led EI to shaking up their fare structure. Less competition for the consumer is almost always bad news.

.

Clearly to an unsustainable level. A race to the bottom is never good.

Look at our banking sector when banks were giving out money to keep up with other banks.

zell12

zell12 wrote: »

Surely a double daily Dub-Swf is indicative of the success of Norwegian?
they would not be doing that if there was not the demand or the profit.

It shows there exists a demand for no-frills TATL

Don’t forget before the MAX issues NAI we’re talking about a massive route cull and job losses. This I feel is the same news repackaged as “It’s Boeing’s fault” not “we made a complete mess of NAI and fleet choices”.

MoeJay

Double daily SWF was an attempt to take market share from the existing players, exactly the same as the rest of the routes out of DUB and SNN.

Low fares with high volume to drive load factor, reduce loads on your competition so they reduce capacity to stem losses as you take their passengers, then with a strong market presence you can charge what you like to stay profitable. Except in the current market the fares you have to charge to try and tempt people over are not sustainable and all your competitors can move to match you. Now you lose your unique selling point....the MAX issue, while certainly a factor in this, is not the underlying cause for such short notice market abandonment.

Re ETOPS aircraft: They have a number of ETOPS qualified -800s - all the NAI routes were launched using them. I think YHM still uses one?

Locker10a

zell12 wrote: »

Surely a double daily Dub-Swf is indicative of the success of Norwegian?
they would not be doing that if there was not the demand or the profit.

It shows there exists a demand for no-frills TATL

Means nothing really!! Historically Norwegian haven’t always shown there’s much strategic planning gone into what they have done. They may have been experimenting with something but likely the cart was before the horse and they were waiting for it to eventually workout commercially over time.

Van.Bosch

zell12 wrote: »

Surely a double daily Dub-Swf is indicative of the success of Norwegian?
they would not be doing that if there was not the demand or the profit.

It shows there exists a demand for no-frills TATL

Could just mean they had too many planes and this route lost less than others.

ironclaw

Shamrockj wrote: »

Not true at all a quick search and you can get fares from YYZ to DUB for under 600CAD in October-February

Except I wasn't referring to future flights or flights that wouldn't have competition with Norweigan. At least compare apples with apples if you want to be smug about it.

I've flown twice with Norweigan from Ireland to YHM. I usually fly EI and have been for the past three years on a regular basis out of YYZ. Both times, in April and this week, EI and Air Canada were twice the price as Norweigan.

Shn99

Norwegian profitability chart from routes ex Ireland

errlloyd

Some huge losses there. Very interesting, are these numbers estimates?

Shn99

errlloyd wrote: »

Some huge losses there. Very interesting, are these numbers estimates?

No, they are final. Calculated by RDC APEX

Bussywussy

Shn99 wrote: »

No, they are final. Calculated by RDC APEX

Yet the shannon lobby complain,they weren't even using it

Blut2

Looks like the suspicions of posters here who questioned the loads on their winter routes were completely valid. Those are awful figures.

Once Norwegian eventually start getting delivery of new 737MAXs though I wonder if they might run the DUB/ORK to Providence routes as summer seasonals. Or even just DUB. That could potentially be profitable, based on the above figures.

Bussywussy

Surely cork with zero competition would be a start

Blut2

Bussywussy wrote: »

Surely cork with zero competition would be a start

If they run only one of ORK -> PVD or DUB -> PVD they'd be much better off running DUB. People from all over the country can get to DUB quickly, ORK is much more geographically limited.

Much larger market and all of that already too - almost double the PAX last summer out of DUB than ORK on that route, according to those figures.

Cookiemunster

Bussywussy wrote: »

Yet the shannon lobby complain,they weren't even using it

Did you even read the document? Around 86% load factor on all routes Apr - Oct 2018. Around 75% load factor on all routes Nov 2018 - Mar 2019.

So similar loads factors for all three airports. But I suppose when you use the phrase 'Shannon lobby' it's obvious you have an agenda.

Bussywussy

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Did you even read the document? Around 86% load factor on all routes Apr - Oct 2018. Around 75% load factor on all routes Nov 2018 - Mar 2019.

So similar loads factors for all three airports. But I suppose when you use the phrase 'Shannon lobby' it's obvious you have an agenda.

The bottom line is the minus....loss making is it not???

Locker10a

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Did you even read the document? Around 86% load factor on all routes Apr - Oct 2018. Around 75% load factor on all routes Nov 2018 - Mar 2019.

So similar loads factors for all three airports. But I suppose when you use the phrase 'Shannon lobby' it's obvious you have an agenda.

I'm all for growth in Irish airports outside of Dublin. But, in fairness load factor doesn't indicate profitable demand! A good load factor could well be indicative of fares being very low to attract passengers. That doesn't equate to commercially sustainable! If something is cheap it will always attract people! That doesn't mean its commercially viable for the airline.

Locker10a

https://www.joe.ie/news/aer-lingus-announce-e139-flights-us-response-norwegian-cancelling-routes-678085

"Aer Lingus announce €139 flights to the US in response to Norwegian cancelling routes"

JCX BXC

The Shannon and Dublin markets were deliberately over-capacity and pushed in order to take from the existing competitors. They were the cheapest priced and most frequent routes, hence losses were larger. Stewart ran daily from Shannon from late October to Janurary, completely absurd, and naturally would have lost lots of money.

Cookiemunster

Locker10a wrote: »

I'm all for growth in Irish airports outside of Dublin. But, in fairness load factor doesn't indicate profitable demand! A good load factor could well be indicative of fares being very low to attract passengers. That doesn't equate to commercially sustainable! If something is cheap it will always attract people! That doesn't mean its commercially viable for the airline.

I'm well aware of that, but the poster was suggesting that the service wasn't being used from Shannon when it obviously was being used.

Cookiemunster

Bussywussy wrote: »

The bottom line is the minus....loss making is it not???

Loss making, yes. Not being used, no. Use of the phrase 'Shannon lobby' to encompass the entire travelling public of the Midwest suggests a bias against Shannon. Shannon also had transatlantic flights from four other carriers competing against Norwegian.