26point2orbust

From airliners.net:

Snacky

The "Fuel-leak story" has been a huge controversy in Norwegian (online) newspapers today and yesterday. Experts in communication says that the picture posted online by one of the passengers, of fuel gushing out of the right wing and onto the tarmac, was "the worst thing that could happen to Norwegian", after all their problems lately. In addition there were reports that the flight crew allegedly told people snapping pictures of this rather interesting situation (to say the least), to delete them and stop their activity, due to the danger of explosion (they tried to scare them with a fancy story about "explosive fuel safety precautions"). Like snapping picture inside the cabin would have any risk of affecting fuel leaking from the tip of the wing ...


Snacky

speedbrds

I have booked for the first flight back from LAX on March 1st and in reading all the reviews, I have mixed feelings. Some say the airline is bad and some say the airline is good. Obviously, I'm not holding my breath. However, I am a bit concerned with the quality of food especially if I have to pay for it. I'm going to assume that given DY has been having issues with the 787, I should expect a delay in my flight if not worse. I purchased a my flight home on BA just to be on the safe side, though no guarantees.

26point2orbust

speedbrds, your flight may be on time, or it may be delayed for two days. It's DY...
Your plane may leak fuel, or it may not. It's DY...
The food may have worms in it, or it may not. It's DY...

FT Guest xyzpdq

It continues to baffle me how much troubble DY has with their 787s. Other carriers do not have that to the same degree. It seems that DY has pushed it beyond the limit in terms of "in air" time.

What is even more troubling is that they consistently not perform on customer service, information and even lie to customers and the public ("please delete pictures", or as the press contact in Denmark claimed that DY "most certainly rebook passengers on other airlines in case og iregularities...", etc.).

I have to fly them domestically in DK, but that is it. Would no go near them otherwise.

davidviolin

Every plane may or may not be delayed, and an open valve could happen on any aircraft if ground personnel does not know what theyre doing.

oliver2002

Not really. They choose the 787 gold service package by Boeing because it offered the cheapest MRO service for the first launch customers. Now they are quickly learning that an aircraft manufacturer doesn't have the expertise to do line maintenance. Sadly they also got two of the really bad lemons from the 787 line which amplifies the learning curve Boeing is going thru offering their new service.

CPH-Flyer

Which is cause and which is effect, the 787s being bad lemons and the service and operations becoming challenged, or the service and operations being challenged and the 787s becoming bad lemons? Or a happy mix of both?

FT Guest xyzpdq

Well, regardless I not getting anywhere close to a DY long haul route.

oliver2002

Puh... I don't really know... Boeing introduced a number of new things with the 787, and DY signed up for all of it pretty early on in order to get the maximum discount. I can understand why they did it, thats what entrepreneurship is all about, taking calculated risks. So far it doesn't look like they are loosing anything. In 1-2 years when the 787 reliability is 'normal', the fleet is a bit bigger, Boeing learns to do MRO etc etc, the public will continue to book DY and they will start to make serious money. The captive audience DY aims for is looking for a deal. As long as they can weather the aftonbladet style reporting storm and still fill aircraft (which I think is the case) and skim compensation payments from Boeing they should be fine.

CPH-Flyer

Looking at their last financial quarter reported, the compensation from Boeing is far from expected to cover the additional cost encured. I am fairly certain that forward bookings are suffering right now, people are less likely to book Norwegian. But in the end, people's memories are short so if they keep on flying until it is stable, the passengers will be back. With the cash flow from short haul they should be able to keep the long haul in the air until stable. Questions is, is the patience of the investors long enough. Where is their limit? ANA runs a much higher despatch reliability, the investors might demand some better operations and returns.

davidviolin

I think this is very close to the truth. In a few years, when the kinks are worked out, nobody will remember this when you can get a roundtrip LGW-JFK for $500 bux on a 787-

CPH-Flyer

Interesting read.

http://atwonline.com/airframes/boein...87-reliability

I guess when they count the 97 and 98 percent in October and November, the reliability only registers if the flight got of the ground, not if it was 24H+ delayed. As a passenger the one I would register as the problem would also include the delay.

Seems to be Nayak not Monarch doing the service on behalf of Boeing. Did Boeing squeeze the subcontractor agreement, or why would an established service operation suddenly struggle this much?

FT Guest xyzpdq

http://www.check-in.dk/newselement.c...6#.Uui26v57zDc
(sorry Danish only)

Basically it shows that while msot other IC carriers plan on a 120min turn-around at JFK, DY believes that have the golden nugget so they can do it in 90min. Very likely part of the reason why DY is consistently unreliable on their long haul.

CPH-Flyer

It is very likely a heavy contributor to the whole show that DY long haul is at the moment. It shows that they still really have not realised that long haul operations are different from short haul. Yes, they might do the turns more efficiently, but I'd like to see them do taxi times in JFK more efficient than other airlines. The Concorde had taxi priority and usually never waited, but I guess BA paid hefty fees for that. Other airlines do most likely pad their actual turn times to have room to absorb delays.