Norwegian to fly between UK, Ireland and U.S. NE Coast cities. from Summer 2017.
#361
Moderator: Lufthansa Miles & More, India based airlines, India, External Miles & Points Resources
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MUC
Programs: LH SEN
Posts: 48,001
Bjorn at Leehamnews did a rough cut estimate how much DY and other LCC would spend to fly LON-NYC: its about 194$/seat opex one way. Add capex to it and you see why DY would make a loss if selling may loss leader tickets. https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/25/is...able-part-3-2/
#362
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,278
You may well be right about it being money losing, but it's not the price of one ticket that makes or breaks an airline, there's lots more to it than that.
#363
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,375
Leeham has an interesting thread, which doesn't seem completed yet. I'd be interested in reading their final analysis. I have always believed that ULCC transport to the UK doesn't work because the taxes are too high, and the distance (fuel) is too high. You'd need an average fare above $600 to pretty much breakeven. And you have to get that without any biz class pax. I don't think there is much demand to "stimulate" at that price point -- and coach fares are already often below that price.
#364
Join Date: Feb 2017
Programs: LT Marriott Titanium, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, IHG Plat, Hertz Prez Circle, United Platinum
Posts: 767
In the post being questioned, you said it wouldn't pay for the fuel, not just that it was a money losing price. That was incorrect hence my comment on credibility.
You may well be right about it being money losing, but it's not the price of one ticket that makes or breaks an airline, there's lots more to it than that.
You may well be right about it being money losing, but it's not the price of one ticket that makes or breaks an airline, there's lots more to it than that.
As for the taxes/fees, I always subtract them from any cost/revenue analysis because airlines don't have any control over them. YMMV.
#365
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SIN 5 days out of 7
Programs: BD*G, A3*G, BA-S, Accor Gold, IHG Amb
Posts: 5,505
Do Norwegian transport cargo too, or are they like a lot of shorthaul LCCs in Europe which do not?
I know cargo rates are supposedly (I’m no expert) suppressed at the moment due to excess capacity, but the legacy carriers top-up revenue this way too.
FWIW, AirAsia seem to have their own regional cargo offering (in Asia).
I know cargo rates are supposedly (I’m no expert) suppressed at the moment due to excess capacity, but the legacy carriers top-up revenue this way too.
FWIW, AirAsia seem to have their own regional cargo offering (in Asia).
#366
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SIN 5 days out of 7
Programs: BD*G, A3*G, BA-S, Accor Gold, IHG Amb
Posts: 5,505
Do Norwegian transport cargo too, or are they like a lot of shorthaul LCCs in Europe which do not?
I know cargo rates are supposedly (Im no expert) suppressed at the moment due to excess capacity, but the legacy carriers top-up revenue this way too.
FWIW, AirAsia seem to have their own regional cargo offering (in Asia).
I know cargo rates are supposedly (Im no expert) suppressed at the moment due to excess capacity, but the legacy carriers top-up revenue this way too.
FWIW, AirAsia seem to have their own regional cargo offering (in Asia).
#369
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Programs: KL Platinum; A3 Gold
Posts: 28,547
If you don't consider answering your question counts as moving the conversation along, allow me get back to the point of this thread, then:
If the unions consider "labor standards" in Ireland to be objectionable, why have they not also sought Aer Lingus's permission to fly to the US to be revoked????
Or can we expect to see further complaints made against nations/territories where "labor standards" are below the US level???
Originally Posted by USA Today
WASHINGTON – A federal appeals panel upheld Friday the Transportation Department’s approval for Norwegian Air International to serve the U.S.
Four unions representing 135,000 aviation workers had challenged the decision by arguing that Norwegian was avoiding labor laws through its unusual corporate structure.
But a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that neither federal law nor international agreement allowed the department to reject an airline application, if the carrier satisfied the requirements. The department decided it did, in December 2016 after three years of internal debate.
<snip>
The unions argued that a provision in the agreement with the European Union states “opportunities created by the agreement are not intended to undermine labor standards,” which was why Norwegian was headquartered in Ireland.
<snip>
The three judges on the panel – David Tatel, Judith Rogers and David Sentelle – each wrote an opinion for a combined 19 pages of opinions supporting the department’s decision.
Tatel wrote for the court that despite arguments that Norwegian’s business model and labor practices weren’t in the public interest, nothing prevented the department from approving a qualified applicant.
The unions conceded at oral argument that the airline was fit, willing and able to provide the service, which meant that complaints about going against “public interest” were irrelevant, Tatel wrote.
Four unions representing 135,000 aviation workers had challenged the decision by arguing that Norwegian was avoiding labor laws through its unusual corporate structure.
But a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that neither federal law nor international agreement allowed the department to reject an airline application, if the carrier satisfied the requirements. The department decided it did, in December 2016 after three years of internal debate.
<snip>
The unions argued that a provision in the agreement with the European Union states “opportunities created by the agreement are not intended to undermine labor standards,” which was why Norwegian was headquartered in Ireland.
<snip>
The three judges on the panel – David Tatel, Judith Rogers and David Sentelle – each wrote an opinion for a combined 19 pages of opinions supporting the department’s decision.
Tatel wrote for the court that despite arguments that Norwegian’s business model and labor practices weren’t in the public interest, nothing prevented the department from approving a qualified applicant.
The unions conceded at oral argument that the airline was fit, willing and able to provide the service, which meant that complaints about going against “public interest” were irrelevant, Tatel wrote.
Or can we expect to see further complaints made against nations/territories where "labor standards" are below the US level???
#370
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,375
Personally, I think the unions had a legitimate grievance over Norwegian's flag of convenience. Look, whether we like it or not, aviation is governed by bilateral treaty. As an American, I can't go and just start an airline in most foreign countries. And foreigners can't just start an airline in the USA. And an Indonesian airline can't just decide it wants to fly from New York to London.
In this context, I personally would take a dim view of what Norwegian did: basically set up a dummy company in Ireland in order to operate these EU to USA flights. If it had been an Indonesian company -- hiring low wage employees for the service -- would you be OK with it?
Of course, in the end, none of this really matters. If Norwegian had a VIABLE business model, it would. Since their model is not viable, they probably would have been better off not being allowed to launch this service!
In this context, I personally would take a dim view of what Norwegian did: basically set up a dummy company in Ireland in order to operate these EU to USA flights. If it had been an Indonesian company -- hiring low wage employees for the service -- would you be OK with it?
Of course, in the end, none of this really matters. If Norwegian had a VIABLE business model, it would. Since their model is not viable, they probably would have been better off not being allowed to launch this service!
#371
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Portland OR
Programs: United 1K 1MM, Marriott Bonvoy Platinum, Hilton HHonors Gold
Posts: 560
If you don't consider answering your question counts as moving the conversation along, allow me get back to the point of this thread, then:
If the unions consider "labor standards" in Ireland to be objectionable, why have they not also sought Aer Lingus's permission to fly to the US to be revoked????
Or can we expect to see further complaints made against nations/territories where "labor standards" are below the US level???
If the unions consider "labor standards" in Ireland to be objectionable, why have they not also sought Aer Lingus's permission to fly to the US to be revoked????
Or can we expect to see further complaints made against nations/territories where "labor standards" are below the US level???
Flight report: Norwegian's Dreamliner from Oslo to New York - Grown-up Travel Guide.com
https://scandasia.com/norwegian-air-...ai-cabin-crew/
#372
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Programs: KL Platinum; A3 Gold
Posts: 28,547
#373
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,721
But that's precisely not the case in Europe. In very simple terms, Europe has a single market and there is a single treaty between the members of that market and the USA. That's really the fundamental point.
#374
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Tokyo
Programs: JAL Metal Card (OWE), SAS Eurobonus Gold (*G), Marriott Titanium (LTP), Tokyu Hotels Platinum
Posts: 20,877
Which is also why Norwegian did not need the Irish subsidiary to fly between LGW and the US. They could do that based on the Norwegian AOC and airline. And thus they also started the LGW flights before they had received the Foreign Air Operator Certificate from the US for the Irish subsidiary. What they needed the Irish company for was to lower the costs by using more flexible hiring practises than they could apply in Norway. Which caused the flag of convenience complaints.
#375
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,721
Which is also why Norwegian did not need the Irish subsidiary to fly between LGW and the US. They could do that based on the Norwegian AOC and airline. And thus they also started the LGW flights before they had received the Foreign Air Operator Certificate from the US for the Irish subsidiary. What they needed the Irish company for was to lower the costs by using more flexible hiring practises than they could apply in Norway. Which caused the flag of convenience complaints.
Ultimately it boils down to whether the particular practice is compliant or not, and here the court found that it was.