Originally Posted by
DoTheBartMan
Norwegian short haul and long haul are like two completely different airlines. They have their act together for short haul operations, but they've tried to apply the same model for long haul. People may be content waiting a couple of hours for a replacement aircraft when a short haul aircraft breaks, but their long haul operations have had problems from the start.
Sure, bashing an airline is always going to make a good headline. But the CAA figures for Gatwick (not sure where
c-w-s got his in the
other thread, mine are from
the CAA website, reporting period 1), suggests that things aren't so clear cut.
Route - Airline - flights matched - percent on time - average delay minutes
LGW-LAS - DY - 18 - 56% - 25
LGW-LAS - VS - 33 - 55% - 27
LGW-JFK - BA - 57 - 82% - 21
LGW-JFK - DY - 62 - 61% - 31
LGW-MCO - BA - 60 - 70% - 15
LGW-MCO - VS - 64 - 56% - 21
(I've not included DY on LGW-MCO, as they only operated nine flights)
Based on the delay statistics, then, and without knowing the airline codes, would you be able tell me which is the LCC? Sure, IRROPs might be less fun on DY, but to suggest DY longhaul flights are a slow-motion trainwreck from the start would be a bit harsh.
As for July being a bad month, SK and DY both try to work their fleets as hard as possible, because it's the holiday season. Both airlines change their schedules substantially for the summer season, perhaps based on experience in their home territory that business travel basically collapses in July due to Scandinavian vacation habits. Is that a sensible thing to apply to the rest of their operation? Perhaps not, but we'll see in time.
I'm not saying that all is rosy and wonderful, but until I have that direct competition on long haul O&D routes from my local airport, I don't have any axe to grind.