Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

Ba eclipsed by Norwegian between New York and Europe

Ba eclipsed by Norwegian between New York and Europe

Old Oct 10, 18, 5:28 am
  #61  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 6,349
I don't see anything complex either. So Norwegian has 78 flights from across the EU, while BA has 70, nearly all from Heathrow. Most people who speak English as a second or even third language will be able to interpret that. If BA wanted to counter they could say that they fly to X number of US destinations, whereas Norwegian only fly to Y. Or that Norwegian fly 20 times from UK to NY compared to BA's 70.

It's just PR spin, although by getting it into The Times and mentioning a third daily from Gatwick to JFK Norwegian might pick up a few floating travellers. However not often I agree with Hiddy but most people will not have the slightest interest, it's only on the BA forum that people get themselves in a tizzy.

The fact is the market for air travel is still growing, it is not as if Norwegian's only source of business is passengers from BA, just like Easyjet grew by opening a new market not only taking passengers from competitors. There is room for everyone.

Time will tell who sustains themselves, the market is getting more challenging, and a double digit increase in fuel costs might have some operators under pressure. With cash reserves of almost €7bn, IAG are in a better position than most.
simons1 is offline  
Old Oct 10, 18, 5:32 am
  #62  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 14,849
Callum, yes Transatlantic is a pretty bog standard term, implies flying over the Atlantic, not just two sets of metropolitan areas, also includes the Caribbean and South America as well. So I'd love to see the comparison with the 40 or so BA routes added in.
rockflyertalk likes this.
hfly is offline  
Old Oct 10, 18, 7:37 am
  #63  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: LHR, LGW
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 2,968
Originally Posted by callum9999 View Post
Why is it challenging? Does this therefore mean that we cant compare passenger numbers with any airline that has a different number of hubs? Lufthansa operates long haul from more than one city - can't compare them anymore. Emirates/Etihad/Qatar etc operate through a single hub whereas BA uses Heathrow, Gatwick and City - can't compare them anymore.

It's not as if "Transatlantic" is some vague term that's been cherry picked - it's the bog standard way of measuring the number of people flying between Europe and America. Not to mention Norwegian running 78 flights and BA running 70 seems like a very reasonable comparison - especially when comparing plane size.
Glad my post went down well! You're welcome for the article. Not always the most welcoming place FT!

So what I mean by challenging and maybe it was the wrong choice of word (apologies to you all), is, the numbers are high level and based on 2 different scenarios, one number is based on DY flights from the EU (a big place lots of airports) to NYC and the other number is flights from London (3 airports LHR LGW LCY) to NYC. But does BA's numbers include the connecting traffic from EU through London on IAG? So no, personally I don't think its reasonable comparison.

In-fact its quite impressive that BA (really IAG) has 78 flights out of one city London, 2 major airports (LHR LGW), 1 smaller airport LCY. But LGW/LCY are a tiny contribution to the IAG NYC flights. So if you compared DY LGW to NYC, as LGW is the only London airport they serve (correct me if i'm wrong) then its a not great comparison. Or maybe I missing the point here?
rockflyertalk is offline  
Old Oct 10, 18, 8:23 am
  #64  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 7,984
Originally Posted by rockflyertalk View Post
Or maybe I missing the point here?
Maybe

The point is Norwegian flew more passengers between NYC and Europe than BA did in the past year.

We can all make and have made many other points ancillary to it, but the point is there.
Ldnn1 is online now  
Old Oct 10, 18, 2:34 pm
  #65  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 14,849
The problem of course is that I bet it did not include "Open Skies" for example, which in reality was simply a BA CDG-JFK flight, while this has now been discontinued, it fits directly into this definition and time frame, so would in fact probably make up most of the 40k shortfall.....Also if one were to assume that 10% of those flying on AA a/c were on BA tickets, or even that a small percentage of people were flying openjaw, lets say into JFK but out of BOS, or anyother US gateway, that would too eclipse these numbers, wouldn't it?
hfly is offline  
Old Oct 10, 18, 2:45 pm
  #66  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LHR/ATH
Programs: Amex Platinum, LH SEN (Gold), BA Bronze
Posts: 4,469
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave View Post
I think that's is one of the learnings from the Primera crash - it's not that simple. If you are overseas and about to return on a failed airline, your options - price wise - could be horrendously priced. Particularly if you absolutely have to travel (e.g. to return to work, kids getting back to school). Moreover people thought their insurance would cover this. Well I think it would be only a small minority whose insurance would cover this, many policies specifically exclude airline failure unless the SAFI component is purchased. For example the John Lewis Finance travel insurance policy doesn't include it at the Essential Level, you need the Plus or Premier levels to include this, and they are generally considered one of the better insurers out there. This also applies to those with expensive "component" holidays - hotels, car hire, excursions booked separately and the airline fails the day before travel. The credit card protection just covers the lost spend - which may be OK if you are months away from travel.
Ok Fair enough, but you cannot compare Primera to Norwegian. I wouldn't worry about it.
ahmetdouas is offline  
Old Oct 10, 18, 2:58 pm
  #67  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: AUS, GVA, and in between
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 175
I just find this a really odd statistic to try to read some kind of meaning into. BA is the largest transatlantic carrier from Austin (way, way ahead of Norwegian), should I use this as a metric of the coming demise of Norwegian?
superweak is offline  
Old Oct 10, 18, 4:21 pm
  #68  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,369
Originally Posted by hfly View Post
Callum, yes Transatlantic is a pretty bog standard term, implies flying over the Atlantic, not just two sets of metropolitan areas, also includes the Caribbean and South America as well. So I'd love to see the comparison with the 40 or so BA routes added in.
Except it doesn't, as it very clearly stated Transatlantic flights to New York.

Originally Posted by rockflyertalk View Post
Glad my post went down well! You're welcome for the article. Not always the most welcoming place FT!

So what I mean by challenging and maybe it was the wrong choice of word (apologies to you all), is, the numbers are high level and based on 2 different scenarios, one number is based on DY flights from the EU (a big place lots of airports) to NYC and the other number is flights from London (3 airports LHR LGW LCY) to NYC. But does BA's numbers include the connecting traffic from EU through London on IAG? So no, personally I don't think its reasonable comparison.

In-fact its quite impressive that BA (really IAG) has 78 flights out of one city London, 2 major airports (LHR LGW), 1 smaller airport LCY. But LGW/LCY are a tiny contribution to the IAG NYC flights. So if you compared DY LGW to NYC, as LGW is the only London airport they serve (correct me if i'm wrong) then its a not great comparison. Or maybe I missing the point here?
I still don't understand why the number of airports served matters? The fact BA choose to operate almost all their flights from one airport isn't really relevant to the point. And yes BAs numbers do include all the connecting passengers - these are arrival stats (which therefore means BA are probably flying people from more airports than Norwegian is anyway).

Why is it impressive? They've been established at Heathrow airport for decades and it's the centre of their global network.
callum9999 is offline  
Old Oct 10, 18, 4:28 pm
  #69  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,369
Originally Posted by superweak View Post
I just find this a really odd statistic to try to read some kind of meaning into. BA is the largest transatlantic carrier from Austin (way, way ahead of Norwegian), should I use this as a metric of the coming demise of Norwegian?
Why on Earth so many of you can't just accept a simple statistic as a simple statistic is beyond me.

BA was the biggest carrier, now its Norwegian. The meaning to read into that is that Norwegian is rapidly growing and therefore posing an increasing threat to BA. It doesn't mean that there is an imminent demise for BA, nor has anyone said that, so that last statement seems incredibly pointless.
callum9999 is offline  
Old Oct 10, 18, 4:41 pm
  #70  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: UK
Programs: BA, U2+, SK, AF/KL, IHG, Hilton, others gathering dust...
Posts: 2,474
Originally Posted by hfly View Post
The problem of course is that I bet it did not include "Open Skies" for example, which in reality was simply a BA CDG-JFK flight, while this has now been discontinued, it fits directly into this definition and time frame, so would in fact probably make up most of the 40k shortfall.....Also if one were to assume that 10% of those flying on AA a/c were on BA tickets, or even that a small percentage of people were flying openjaw, lets say into JFK but out of BOS, or anyother US gateway, that would too eclipse these numbers, wouldn't it?
You seem very keen to prove (or disprove) something, I’m just not clear what it is. Maybe Open Skies wasn’t included, maybe it was. Maybe 10% of those flying AA were on BA tickets, but 20% of those flying BA were on AA/IB/AY tickets. We don’t know, and how does it matter?

Ldnn1 summed it up neatly in post 64 above. It’s a stat. BA was the largest foreign carrier of passengers internationally to/from PANYNJ airports, now it isn’t. Norwegian is understandably using the stat to promote itself. Passengers have more choice. BA isn’t about to go under as a result. Read more into it if you want. Or don’t.
orbitmic, callum9999 and truncated like this.
Oaxaca is offline  
Old Oct 10, 18, 4:54 pm
  #71  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 7,984
Originally Posted by superweak View Post
I just find this a really odd statistic to try to read some kind of meaning into. BA is the largest transatlantic carrier from Austin (way, way ahead of Norwegian), should I use this as a metric of the coming demise of Norwegian?
Perhaps it's easier if we start thinking about woods and trees.

Imagine looking at a wood which has a lot of oak trees in it and not very many pine trees. Then you look again shortly after and it now has more pine trees than oak trees. If nothing else, would you not agree that the wood now looks a bit different?
Ldnn1 is online now  
Old Oct 10, 18, 5:06 pm
  #72  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: LHR, LGW
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 2,968
Originally Posted by callum9999 View Post
Except it doesn't, as it very clearly stated Transatlantic flights to New York.



I still don't understand why the number of airports served matters? The fact BA choose to operate almost all their flights from one airport isn't really relevant to the point. And yes BAs numbers do include all the connecting passengers - these are arrival stats (which therefore means BA are probably flying people from more airports than Norwegian is anyway).

Why is it impressive? They've been established at Heathrow airport for decades and it's the centre of their global network.

Can you explain why its not relevant?

Also I wasnt aware that you had further information regarding the entirety and details for the numbers around connecting passengers. Youll have to elaborate and fill us in on the breakdown of the 1.67 vs 1.63 million, that would be helpful, thanks.
rockflyertalk is offline  
Old Oct 10, 18, 5:53 pm
  #73  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,369
Originally Posted by rockflyertalk View Post



Can you explain why its not relevant?

Also I wasnt aware that you had further information regarding the entirety and details for the numbers around connecting passengers. Youll have to elaborate and fill us in on the breakdown of the 1.67 vs 1.63 million, that would be helpful, thanks.
Because the statistic covers all flights from Europe and isn't focusing on single airports. Can you explain why it IS relevant?

Huh? Maybe I'm missing something here but why on Earth would passengers connecting through London not be included in arrivals statistics?
callum9999 is offline  
Old Oct 10, 18, 5:57 pm
  #74  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 557
This might help in terms who is biggest on the total TATL market. As of this summer Norwegian were 10th across the pond in terms seat capacity.

https://www.anna.aero/2018/04/18/tra...airport-table/

callum9999 likes this.
Nicoolio is offline  
Old Oct 10, 18, 8:03 pm
  #75  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 14,849
The biggest carrier according to a statistic which they themselves made up? If someone wants to talk about airlines eating BA's lunch, there are a ton of numbers that can be tossed out, how much traffic BA has lost to the ME3. The fact that while TK was half the size of BA a decade ago, it is now twice the size of BA and in fact almost as big as all of IAG put together. Instead this is s specious argument that like a game of telephone gets more whacky as the papers riff of of it.........DY flies mostly 787's while BA flies ageing 747's, cited in the article above. Except of course that we all know that BA flies about half 777's (and an A320) while DY supposedly flies 787's but that has varied due to their engine problems, surprised they didn't say that DY flies A380's (because they did for two weeks didn't they?).

Personally I have NEVER EVER heard of BA claiming the crown of the biggest international carrier, or Foreign carrier into the NYC area. I did in fact hear them many times citing themselves as the biggest British carrier, the biggest carrier between London and New York and several other permutations. This even before the wheeze that anyone in NY would ever consider Stewart to be a NYC area airport.
hfly is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread