irishguy28

Norwegian has been flying to/from the West Coast for some time already.

I would imagine that they prioritise these actual longhaul routes and keep the aircraft substitutions for the shorter routes, such as East Coast to Europe (which really are only medium haul. The newest East Coast routes are being operated by B737 aircraft, after all!)

klmml

This is not something unique to Norwegian, and is just part of modern airline business. Taking some longhaul examples:
3 more wet leases (LY)
HiFly is back (AY)
Will my flight be operated by Titan Airways? (EI)
And a thread on the BA forum about a longhaul wet lease a couple of years ago that I can't find at the moment.

It wouldn't stop my flying with any of these airlines, this sort of thing happens. It's annoying and, yes, if informed about it earlier and given the opportunity to do so I might well change my plans. I was meant to be on an AY flight that was changed to a HiFly wetlease, on a BA ticket, and it took three calls to BA lasting over an hour in total, and them calling me back, before they let me change the routing.

irishguy28

And in some cases, an aircraft substitution means a much better plane/flight/experience!

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...ng-strike.html

CC1E

I'm surprised to see EL AL on that list, and to hear BA does it.

While the US mainline carriers do subcontract smaller routes, they're operated under the mainline's name and quality controls. I've never heard of United/American/Delta, or even Jetblue, using a charter aircraft & crew. And I really can't imagine them doing something as bad as reconfiguring an old 772 with enough economy seats to make it fit close to the same amount of PAX as a 789. And I still don't understand how it was legal that some of the EuroAtlantic crew didn't speak/understand english. It would have been a major issue if there had been an emergency and they needed to give instructions.

Overall using a charter airline/crew to operate a flight seems like an act of desperation by the airline. They're giving up all control of the passenger experience.

I'm still going back and forth with Norwegian via email about my over 3 hour delay on the return flight. They say they've reinvestigated, but still deny my claim. I guess I should have made an audio recording of the pilot telling us the aircraft damage was caused by Norwegian's cargo handlers. We'll see what the UK CAA comes back with...

klmml

This is, I think, just a major difference between the highly consolidated North American market, and the rest of the world. With EC261, cancelling or seriously delaying a flight can get very pricey indeed for an EEA-based airline.

I don't think asking the British CAA to intervene in your dispute is going to help. Their purview is not the same as the FAA. Your best bet is to keep negotiating with Norwegian and, if it goes nowhere, ask them to issue a "final letter" stating their position. You can then use that as the starting point for a money claim (if you are a UK resident you can try MCOL). Going to the courts before you have negotiated as thoroughly as possible with Norwegian isn't going to help your case.

Ditto

Why? Take other airlines as example:
KLM e.g. seats 282 in Y + 34 in J on 772, and "only" 264/30 on the 789
A boeing 772ER is actually a little bit longer than the 789, and fits 10 abreast instead of 9 abreast in the 789.

Granted, DY being a LCC fits more sits in Y than other airlines since they have no J cabin, but I don't see why it would be a problem to fit the same amount of PAX in a 772.

CC1E

Unfortunately I don't know the exact config of the EuroAtlantic 772 for the flight I was on since a seatmap was not published. EuroAtlantic has an example seatmap on their website, but says the aircraft can be reconfigured on-demand. It did have a small "premium" section, 6 abreast, and the rest was Y, 9 abreast. Even with the Y rows being extremely close to one another, they were not able to add enough seats to fit all of the Y customers who has seats. So, this 772 definitely had less overall capacity than the 789 that was supposed to fly the route.


I've never seen a 772 with 10 abreast, and never want to experience it.


Norwegian does have "premium" class on their flights, which they call C-class. In my mind it's really between Y+ and C, but they call it C. On the 789 it's 6 across and has decent legroom/pitch.

CC1E

It seems like I'm getting nowhere with Norwegian, so I'll ask for that final letter and use that as a starting point for a court case. Thanks.

irishguy28

It is an act of desperation - because otherwise they face the hefty bill of rebooking entire planeloads of their passengers onto the competition, AND paying out EC261/2004 compensation to each passenger in many cases [it would be rare that an airline would be able to rebook an entire planeload of passengers onto other services without any of those passengers being delayed in their arrival beyond the compensation thresholds. In some cases, any form of rebooking will be too late to avoid triggering such compensation].

Of course, while it appears that you should get compensation in your case, the idea of having a wet-lease operator is that the flight should operate close to the originally-scheduled time such that delay compensation is avoided - and in a manner that is cheaper overall for the airline than rebooking you on other carriers.

Some in the airline industry would say that this is the "unintended consequence" of the EU regulation.

klmml

... and some might say this is exactly what should happen - try to get people to their destinations with a product as close as possible to that advertised, as close as possible to the timetable. Any consequential damage to the brand is for the airlines to deal with.

Ditto

Consider yourself lucky then, most airlines these days have moved to a 3-4-3 configuration.
But of course don't forget that a 777-200 cabin is 5.87 meter wide, while the 789 is "only" 5.49 meters

CPH-Flyer

If the incident happened on your specific departure, I am fairly certain that damage to the airplane during the loading operations would count as an extraordinary circumstance. A third party company damaging the plane is difficult to foresee and plan for.

If it happened for an earlier flight and your delay was a knock on effect then it is a different matter.

CC1E

Norwegian staff or subcontractors load the luggage onto the plane. If they're not able to do their job without damaging the aircraft, that's Norwegian's fault for either poorly training them, or choosing a bad subcontractor.

If we were delayed by weather or air traffic issues, I would understand. But, Norwegian caused this delay and they should take responsibility for it.

inpd

As a counter story. I've a million miler with UA. Been 1K many times and had similar things happened to me on UA.

I've flown Norwegian transatlantic now a few times and have very good experiences.

I accept the cheaper fares with the acknowledgement that if there is IRROPS I have to swallow it.

CC1E

I usually fly on UA and B6. Though, I don't fly as much as you do.


I know that IRROPS happen and are often outside the airline's control.


While I can never forget how horrible that seat on the 772 was, I would have been willing to forgive Norwegian if the downgrade process had been handled better. Particularly notifying me in advance (since they knew days ahead), and not having the check-in agent & manager lie about there being a blocked seat next to my wife and I. Our return flight with the 3+ hour delay while sitting at the gate was just icing on the cake.


If not for the major operational issues, I would have been a big fan of Norwegian's Premium product and recommended it to others.