Norwegian Air Discussion

JCX BXC

There is talk about people learning to live with 10kg allowances etc, my point earlier was that these flights in many cases are more expensive than their full service competitors. I don't understand how the fares have just jumped so much.

bk

L1011 wrote: »

737max should be able to. A321LR would be consistently; if they were willing to break the fleet consistency.

They have 30 on order, so hopefully they could open up even more destinations in the US.

lxflyer wrote: »

These flights will appeal to certain people, but if you're going to NYC for example, people do need to check out the onward travel options before they book - the flights arrive at Stewart in the evening around 19:00 which does mean a late arrival for anyone going to NYC (we are talking probably near to 22:00 local - that's 03:00 Irish time!).

Norwegian say they are working with Stewart and bus companies to put a bus service direct to Manhattan in place. Makes sense, this is the US after all, bus companies love new business like this.

JCX BXC wrote: »

There is talk about people learning to live with 10kg allowances etc, my point earlier was that these flights in many cases are more expensive than their full service competitors. I don't understand how the fares have just jumped so much.

Initially flights were cheap, loads of people jumped on for a bargain, some people have saved €700 on this thread! Those cheap tickets sell out, prices go up, time will pass, those more expensive tickets probably won't sell much and the prices will drop again (though not down to the headline €65) a few weeks before the departure date.

Dynamic pricing, all airlines do it.

Locker10a

JCX BXC wrote: »

There is talk about people learning to live with 10kg allowances etc, my point earlier was that these flights in many cases are more expensive than their full service competitors. I don't understand how the fares have just jumped so much.

It always amuses me how people think LCC are so great, you can travel for cheap just bring less stuff etc. And to an extent that's true, but people seem to sometimes things LCC are providing some sort of public service to people who want to travel cheap, when the reality is LCC have the highest profits, there are in business for one thing, Profit!! Airlines today have the same costs as they did 50 years ago, and the make the same profit they've almost always made, they just do it in a different way, there are many ways to skin a cat, LCC just sell you a way that's more appealing to your wallet

Mebuntu

Very interesting read here when you add up all the additional costs of flights with Norwegian to the States

https://buzz.ie/the-big-problem-with-norwegian-airlines-super-cheap-us-flights/

That article could have been written by anyone from Aer Lingus, Delta, AA etc. Most people who fly low cost are very savvy, weigh up all the details and choose.

If you're a dyed-in-the-wool Aer Lingus fan you won't want to go with anyone else anyway and are prepared to pay the higher fares but these flights are for the thousands of other people who don't care what livery is on the outside of the aircraft and can manage the economics of trips as they see fit to keep the overall cost down. If it's cheaper they will fly.

elastico

Stewart, about 50 miles from Manhattan and less than an hour from northern New Jersey, served more than 275,000 passengers in 2016, but projections for 2017 are about 400,000 passengers with as many as 700,000 in 2018. The airport also will increase connectivity to Manhattan with additional buses offering direct service from the airport to the Port Authority Bus Terminal for just $18 each way, Cuomo said. 

Source: New York's Stewart International Airport to Start Offering Transatlantic Flights in June | NBC New York http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Stewart-International-Airport-New-York-Norwegian-Transatlantic-Flights-Ireland-Scotland--414604033.html#ixzz4Zbt6ESkU
Follow us: @nbcnewyork on Twitter | NBCNewYork on Facebook

bk

Locker10a wrote: »

It always amuses me how people think LCC are so great, you can travel for cheap just bring less stuff etc. And to an extent that's true, but people seem to sometimes things LCC are providing some sort of public service to people who want to travel cheap, when the reality is LCC have the highest profits, there are in business for one thing, Profit!! Airlines today have the same costs as they did 50 years ago, and the make the same profit they've almost always made, they just do it in a different way, there are many ways to skin a cat, LCC just sell you a way that's more appealing to your wallet

Double huh!

Of course people flying LCC's know very well that the only reason the companies do it is because it is very profitable to do so and most people are perfectly fine with that.

Ordinary people benefit from lower fares and the LCC's make a profit. Capitalism at it's best.

As for the second huh, how the hell do you think airline costs are the same as 50 years ago! LCC's couldn't exist if they were.

- Aircraft today are WAY more fuel efficient, so a lot of cost saved on fuel expense.
- LCC's tend to use just one aircraft type or a small number and keep the fleets young to keep maintenance costs down.
- Contract rates for crew are a lot less generous today.

The costs to airlines today are vastly less then they were 50 years ago.

elastico

Locker10a wrote: »

when the reality is LCC have the highest profits, there are in business for one thing, Profit!!

Same as all commercial airlines.

Locker10a wrote: »

Airlines today have the same costs as they did 50 years ago

The industry is totally different to 50 years ago. Back then flying was for the elite, with a much smaller number of planes in the air.

The business model is fundamentally different today.

Idbatterim

Very interesting read here when you add up all the additional costs of flights with Norwegian to the States

https://buzz.ie/the-big-problem-with...ap-us-flights/

Obviously if you’re paying €69 for a Shannon/New York trip instead of the average of €300-€400, you’re making a whopper saving of at least €230.

But is it worth the mammoth, almost impossible journey from Stewart airport to New York city? Does Norwegian Airlines think you’ll be wanting to stay in Newburgh, the area where Stewart Airport is based?

Laughable! I just saw a link saying a bus will take you to central NY for 18 dollars each way. "Mammoth, impossible task"! this isnt the bloody lord of the rings!

We calculated that you’re saving €230 with Norwegian Airlines. Let’s bear in mind that International Long Haul Low Fare flights charge €32.50 per person, each way, for your in-flight meal.

E32.50 for the s**te that you are served up? no thanks, Ill eat in dublin airport and take something with me.

Also you have 10k free luggage, not everyone needs more. If you do and are travelling with more people, just pay for one checked in bag if needs be.

In terms of the IFE, once the seats have usb charge points, so what? much better quality and screen on tablet or laptop, you can also watch netflix now, pre loaded without internet...

these flights will suit a lot of people...

JCX BXC

They'll only suit people at the cheapest fares, have a look at any rate from July-September, would they suit you?

bk

JCX BXC wrote: »

They'll only suit people at the cheapest fares, have a look at any rate from July-September, would they suit you?

Shrug, if they don't sell then they will drop the price and the price will suit.

There were loads of €65 and €109 flights yesterday, obviously loads of people took advantage of them and prices have gone up. But if they don't sell at these high prices they will of course drop again, just as they do for any LCC airlines dynamic pricing system.

Bob24

JCX BXC wrote: »

They'll only suit people at the cheapest fares, have a look at any rate from July-September, would they suit you?

Yes - I will probably have to travel to the US in August, quickly went to check it out when I saw the announcement this morning but I was quite disappointed. I didn't expect their advertised prices to be available for all flights, but the fare they give me (500 return Dublin to NY) is nowhere near what they promise in their promotional campaign. Aer Lignus is only marginally more expensive for the same days (550) and I don't think the small saving is worth the drawbacks of Norwegian.

bk

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes - I will probably have to trip to the US in August, quickly went check it out when I so the announcement but I was quite disappointed. I didn't expect their advertised prices to be available for all flights, but the price they give me (500 return Dublin to NY) is nowhere near what they promise in their promotion campaign. Aer Lignus is only marginally more expensive for the same days (550) and I don't think the small saving is worth the drawbacks of Norwegian.

Sounds like you were a day too late, there were plenty of flights available for €200 return yesterday around August.

Of course you are right, for just €50 difference it wouldn't be worth it. But for those people who booked yesterday, it was a great deal.

jive

It's way cheaper but you have a longer travel time on the other side. That's really all it boils down to. Aer Lingus, BA, AA etc. are just glorified LCCs these days... except they're not as low cost.

cc

I think people need to remember this can open up transatlantic to people who thought it was out of their reach because of cost. It's not just about those who regularly travel with Aer lingus T/A direct or through a hub with another airline.

The fares won't always be low, but i'm sure like Ryanair there will be regular discounting.

Bob24

bk wrote: »

Sounds like you were a day too late, there were plenty of flights available for €200 return yesterday around August.

Of course you are right, for just €50 difference it wouldn't be worth it. But for those people who booked yesterday, it was a great deal.

Yep it seems so!

200 return would have worked for me indeed. They probably wanted to get free publicity at launch and won't return to those prices, but I've set an alert on SkyScanner just in case.

amcalester

bk wrote: »

Sounds like you were a day too late, there were plenty of flights available for €200 return yesterday around August.

Of course you are right, for just €50 difference it wouldn't be worth it. But for those people who booked yesterday, it was a great deal.

I got return flights for 2 for €470 yesterday, I booked a seat with extra leg room and 1 checked bag each way, the extras made up €190 so I could have paid €280.

Similar flights with IE into JFK were going for €955 when I checked skyscanner yesterday.

With the money saved my 4 day trip to NYC has now become an 8 day trip with 7 nights in NYC and 1 in Newburgh.

Pretty pleased with that.

JCX BXC

cc wrote: »

I think people need to remember this can open up transatlantic to people who thought it was out of their reach because of cost. It's not just about those who regularly travel with Aer lingus T/A direct or through a hub with another airline.

Only people who were lucky enough to book yesterday, for people who have never flown TA they won't be booking flights spontaneously! Completely disagree with your point, that will only ever be valid when the fares are low for extended periods of time, which they seem not to be.

The points being made here are valid in my opinion, there is now denying that €140 return is good no matter what way you look at it, but there is also no denying that when the vast majority of fares are more expensive than EI/AA/UA/DL, it's not exactly accessible for people, nor does it make sense for people.

Those fares may come down again, but they'll hardly come down that much?

jive

JCX BXC wrote: »

Those fares may come down again, but they'll hardly come down that much?

I don't see why they wouldn't. I'm sure they'll do flash sales etc. in future.

737max

What do we think the price will begin to settle at mid week.
Ryanair flights to UK mid week settle around 19.99 each way.
Will these flights settle down to 120 to 130 each way with no extras?
I don't see them attracting many "business" flyers irrespective of whether the class exists or not in the cabin who aren't so price sensitive and are willing to cross-subsidize the backpacker.

bk

JCX BXC wrote: »

Those fares may come down again, but they'll hardly come down that much?

Sure, they probably won't come down to €65 again, but they will come down to whatever level is required for people to consider them worth it versus a superior Aer Lingus experience.

For instance maybe 300 versus 550?

Honestly non of this is surprising for anyone use to flying Ryanair, Easyjet, etc.
Prices bounce up and down and people watch out and pounce when the price is cheap.

JCX BXC wrote: »

Only people who were lucky enough to book yesterday, for people who have never flown TA they won't be booking flights spontaneously!

I have to disagree strongly. There are plenty of people who are use to keeping an eye out on Ryanair, etc. and jumping on bargains to fly to interesting places around Europe.

This is how one year I flew 14 times to different places around Europe and spent no more then €1000.

Lots of people like me have been waiting for the same to happen with TA flights to similarly explore the US. That is why the cheap flights were snapped up so quickly yesterday.

The same people who on the Bargain Alerts forum have picked up bargain cheap flights to Asia etc. over the last year.

There isn't anything particularly different about flying TA, then there is compared to flying around Europe or heading further afield to Asia.

bk

737max wrote: »

I don't see them attracting many "business" flyers irrespective of whether the class exists or not in the cabin who aren't so price sensitive and are willing to cross-subsidize the backpacker.

There doesn't seem to be a Premium class, all economy for now.

cc

Ok,if you are going to quote me, please quote me in full, you missed:

"The fares won't always be low, but i'm sure like Ryanair there will be regular discounting".

JCX BXC wrote: »

Only people who were lucky enough to book yesterday, for people who have never flown TA they won't be booking flights spontaneously! Completely disagree with your point, that will only ever be valid when the fares are low for extended periods of time, which they seem not to be.
The points being made here are valid in my opinion, there is now denying that €140 return is good no matter what way you look at it, but there is also no denying that when the vast majority of fares are more expensive than EI/AA/UA/DL, it's not exactly accessible for people, nor does it make sense for people.

Those fares may come down again, but they'll hardly come down that much?

No LCC offers permanent low fares, a % are discounted heavily at certain intervals. I'm not saying NAI are Ryanair but they follow a LCC model.

As for spontaneously booking flights, people booking flights spontaneously during sales is quite normal and wouldn't expect it to be any different here.

Bob24

cc wrote: »

No LCC offers permanent low fares, a % are discounted heavily at certain intervals. I'm not saying NAI are Ryanair but they follow a LCC model.

In a way yes. But on the other hand Ryanair's promotional offers often offer good deals for longer than just a day, and even if you miss the heavy discounts there are some routes for which they will almost always offer decent savings which make it worth it as long as you are OK with the kind of airline they are (i.e. you don't have to monitor flash sales to be a regular customer who is happy with the value for money).

2 days experience is a bit short to make a call on Norwegian's pricing strategy for these routes, but given how quickly they reverted to fares which are very close to what regular airlines offer, I am not sure we are looking at something similar to Ryanair here or if it was just a way to fairly cheaply gain a lot publicity on many media and websites for the launch of their new routes.

cc

Agreed, two days in is not enough to make strong call either way

Bob24 wrote: »

In a way yes. But on the other hand Ryanair's promotional offers often offer good deals for longer than just a day, and even if you miss the heavy discounts there are some routes for which they will almost always offer decent savings which make it worth it as long as you are OK with the kind of airline they are (i.e. you don't have to monitor flash sales to be a regular customer who is happy with the value for money).

2 days experience is a bit short to make a call on Norwegian's pricing strategy for these routes, but given how quickly they reverted to fares which are very close to what regular airlines offer, I am not sure we are looking at the same business model as Ryanair here or if it was just a way to fairly cheaply gain a lot publicity on many media and websites for the launch of their new routes.

Idbatterim

It's way cheaper but you have a longer travel time on the other side. That's really all it boils down to. Aer Lingus, BA, AA etc. are just glorified LCCs these days... except they're not as low cost

It may be longer for most, but not everyone who flies to NY currently , is necessarily staying in NYC...

I only see positives from it, want to stick with the legacies fine. When did more competition ever hurt the consumer, we now have more competition, more routes and more choice...

JCX BXC

bk wrote: »

Sure, they probably won't come down to €65 again, but they will come down to whatever level is required for people to consider them worth it versus a superior Aer Lingus experience.

For instance maybe 300 versus 550?

Honestly non of this is surprising for anyone use to flying Ryanair, Easyjet, etc.
Prices bounce up and down and people watch out and pounce when the price is cheap.

You're talking about it like Ryanair do the same, no they don't. I've been watching the same fare for about 3 weeks now and the price with Ryanair has only fluctuated between €23 and €28. These, in my opinion, are fairly permanently low prices, which are consistently lower than the competitor, in this case Aer Lingus.

I agree that they may come down to around €300, my point was will that be profitable for the airline, a point which you've not addressed.

I have to disagree strongly. There are plenty of people who are use to keeping an eye out on Ryanair, etc. and jumping on bargains to fly to interesting places around Europe.

Yes, and these people are the ones used to flying? We're talking about people who have never flown before.

This is how one year I flew 14 times to different places around Europe and spent no more then €1000.

Ryanair bargins are always easy to come across, I have not seen one occasion when a fare for less than €20 has not been available to someone who is flexible with their destination and dates.

Lots of people like me have been waiting for the same to happen with TA flights to similarly explore the US. That is why the cheap flights were snapped up so quickly yesterday.

The same people who on the Bargain Alerts forum have picked up bargain cheap flights to Asia etc. over the last year.

There isn't anything particularly different about flying TA, then there is compared to flying around Europe or heading further afield to Asia.

No there is not, earlier this year I found flights to Newark with united for €350pp return, they stayed this low for a few weeks. This allows people of all backgrounds to travel, and would help people not used to flying transatlantic afford it.

Having €69 fares that are only available for a few hours will only be snapped up by the regular travellers who have experience in doing things like that, they most certainly won't help the punter who does not fly regularly and usually wait for days before pulling the trigger.

Ok,if you are going to quote me, please quote me in full, you missed:

"The fares won't always be low, but i'm sure like Ryanair there will be regular discounting".

No LCC offers permanent low fares, a % are discounted heavily at certain intervals. I'm not saying NAI are Ryanair but they follow a LCC model.

As for spontaneously booking flights, people booking flights spontaneously during sales is quite normal and wouldn't expect it to be any different here.

The quote didn't apply to what I was my point, so I omitted it, it doesn't affect what you said.

LCC's in Europe generally do offer discounts that are available at all times of year, for example, Ryanair are advertising the following routes from Shannon,

Manchester €12.99
Stansted €14.99
Berlin €16.99
Gatwick €16.99
Warsaw €21.99

These fares are generally always available a few weeks in advance, and are generally always low and affordable. Norwegians fares are matching/more expensive than the competition currently.

My point is, these low fares may not be around for long, and the vast majority of people who fly Norwegian may end up paying fares similar to EI/UA/DL/AA.

Of course we have to see if these fares fall again.

I will pose the following question though, what are Norwegian doing that allows them to massively undercut the already fiercely competing transatlantic airlines? Are fares of €300 sustainable, hence will we actually be seeing fares fall again?

elastico

I'd imagine the airport is a bit like Shannon, in that its not that busy, and fairly compact, you will probably be able to pre book the bus and its a dedicated service to central NYC.

Point is you could possibly be on your bus so fast from the plane that you will have already eaten into the overall transit time spent walking around bigger airports before you get to that bus or train into the city.

As long as border control don't delay you too much of course!

Bob24

elastico wrote: »

As long as border control don't delay you too much of course!

If you fly from Dublin, I assume you will get US pre clearance at Dublin airport and walk straight to baggage collection when you land?

jive

Bob24 wrote: »

If you fly from Dublin, I assume you will get US pre clearance at Dublin airport and walk straight to baggage collection when you land?

Confirmed not to be the case. Either way, you're landing in a relatively mickey mouse airport which won't have high international traffic so it should not take too long.

Bob24

jive wrote: »

Confirmed not to be the case. Either way, you're landing in a relatively mickey mouse airport which won't have high international traffic so it should not take too long.

OK sorry I must have missed previous posts. Seems a bit silly since the facility is available at Dublin Airport. Wondering if it is due to the airline or the landing airport.

Since this is a small airport and from what I see there are very few international flights landing there, they can have slow border check (if they only get a flight once in a while I assume they will just a a few border control officers who will have a go through a large airplane of people for which a good number require to review visa / visa exemptions status and scan fingerprints ... more work that a smaller plane of people who in majority just need a very quick ID check such as what we have for European flights and which makes some small Ryanair airports pretty quick).

JCX BXC

Smaller airports are more prone to peaks though, what happens when 4 international flights all arrive into immigration at one time, when they've only capacity to handle 1 or 2 at a time? (I've no idea what capacity they have, only using a hypothetical).

Bob24

JCX BXC wrote: »

Smaller airports are more prone to peaks though, what happens when 4 international flights all arrive into immigration at one time, when they've only capacity to handle 1 or 2 at a time? (I've no idea what capacity they have, only using a hypothetical).

It seems like the only international flights they are going to have in the short term are Belfast, Dublin, Shannon, and Edinburgh, all with Norwegian Air: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_International_Airport#Passenger

So yes there will be a large peak once in a while with no activity most of the day. I assume they will prefer to let passengers queue for a bit and have fewer border control officers so that their staff has work for more that 15 minutes at a time and costs them less compared to having enough staff to go through a full air-plane quickly.

Mebuntu

I will pose the following question though, what are Norwegian doing that allows them to massively undercut the already fiercely competing transatlantic airlines?

For starters they are not including unwarranted quasi "fuel surcharges" in their fares and someone posted earlier in this thread that this is at least adding €60 each way so that's €120 off straightaway.

As well as that the cost of food onboard is not included. Some Aer Lingus (and BA) passengers I know think that the food is free but, of course, it's not. If I want to eat onboard I'll bring my own at small cost. I don't know what the cost for Aer Lingus food is in their fare but, if it was €20 each way that's another €40 off.

JCX BXC

Mebuntu wrote: »

For starters they are not including unwarranted quasi "fuel surcharges" in their fares and someone posted earlier in this thread that this is at least adding €60 each way so that's €120 off straightaway.

As well as that the cost of food onboard is not included. Some Aer Lingus (and BA) passengers I know think that the food is free but, of course, it's not. If I want to eat onboard I'll bring my own at small cost. I don't know what the cost for Aer Lingus food is in their fare but, if it was €20 each way that's another €40 off.

Oh, so getting rid of the fuel surcharges allows the airline to get fuel for free? Why didn't anyone think of this!

Norwegian may charge €30 for food, but I very much doubt any of the meals they bring on cost any more than €2/€3.

Other than saving a few quid on having less baggage on the aircraft, and less meals, I still don't see how costs can be reduced so massively.

Idbatterim

This "pre clearance" and "saving time"... I personally would choose not to take it, if I could choose...

Norwegian may charge €30 for food, but I very much doubt any of the meals they bring on cost any more than €2/€3.

yeah the same as the legacy carriers serve up, absolute crap. Id say cheaper than E3 with the bulk theyd be buying in, sure you can buy better for E3 in aldi

Bob24

Idbatterim wrote: »

This "pre clearance" and "saving time"... I personally would choose not to take it, if I could choose...

Depends on which airport you land at (how efficient they are) and personal preference I guess.

Personally if I have to choose between queueing one hour before boarding or one hour after landing, I prefer to get it done beforehand so that hen I arrive and am either tired or in a rush to go to my final destination I can get going ASAP. But sure other people might like it better the other way.

Mebuntu

Oh, so getting rid of the fuel surcharges allows the airline to get fuel for free? Why didn't anyone think of this!

You misunderstand. Fuel surcharges only came in when fuel prices soared through the roof. When the prices were reduced the surcharges remained with token reductions. This profiteering kept air fares artificially higher than they should be and all airlines are doing it......until now.

JCX BXC

Mebuntu wrote: »

You misunderstand. Fuel surcharges only came in when fuel prices soared through the roof. When the prices were reduced the surcharges remained with token reductions. This profiteering kept air fares artificially higher than they should be and all airlines are doing it......until now.

Although that has clarified it, have the base fares not reduced significantly anyway?

Bob24

Mebuntu wrote: »

You misunderstand. Fuel surcharges only came in when fuel prices soared through the roof. When the prices were reduced the surcharges remained with token reductions. This profiteering kept air fares artificially higher than they should be and all airlines are doing it......until now.

How the airline decides to structure the way they present a fare to the customer doesn't really matter for profitability though. What matters is just the full price the customer pays and the money the company is spending to deliver the service. The rest is just different marketing.

So not having an idem called "fuel surcharge" on their detailed fares is not something which makes their costs lower than any other airline andmakes discounted fees for sustainable for that. If there is an explanation, it must be a different one.

Idbatterim

Depends on which airport you land at (how efficient they are) and personal preference I guess.

Personally if I have to choose between queueing one hour before boarding or one hour after landing, I prefer to get it done beforehand so that hen I arrive and am either tired or in a rush to go to my final destination I can get going ASAP. But sure other people might like it better the other way.

the issue I have with pre clearance in Dublin is, on top of the usual airport time you have to allocate, you allocate an extra 1.5-2 hours for this, that is horendours for the red eye flights. Id way prefer to do it over there, I walked out of McCarran in sub ten minutes when I routed via London a few months ago. I feel its something that is massively blown out of proportion, I get why DAA do it. I just dont buy it

bk

JCX BXC wrote: »

I agree that they may come down to around €300, my point was will that be profitable for the airline, a point which you've not addressed.

Oh, I didn't really see you making that point, but I'm happy to address it.

Of course I can't say for certain one way or the other, but we can speculate from a basis of knowledge.

You have to understand that this is a very new and unique product, very different to what we are traditionally use to on TA.

Traditionally TA use wide body aircraft. These are much larger aircraft, which use far more fuel per passenger km, cost vastly more to purchase and cost way more to maintain.

As an example Norwegians wide body 787 that they use on other routes cost $300 million a pop.

By comparison, on these routes they will be using narrow body aircraft more similar to what Ryanair and the other LCC's use here. These craft are much cheaper to buy, much cheaper to fuel per passenger km and much cheaper to maintain.

The 737-Max 8's cost $100 million, about 1/3rd the price of a typical wide body used by Aer Lingus, etc.

Now obviously they have a much further to fly then a typical European LCC, so more fuel will be used in total and the longer journey time means it can't be utilised for as many trips per day. So obviously prices will be higher then a typical European LCC.

However the much cheaper cost of the aircraft, cheaper maintenance and cheaper cost of fuel per passenger km versus AerLingus wide bodies should allow them to be able to undercut AerLingus by quite a bit and still be profitable.

Also remember they are flying into airports with much cheaper landing costs, so more money saved there.

And you will be in the air with them for much longer, so more opportunity to sell you expensive meals and other tat.

I would expect €250 to €300 return for regular tickets should be doable on a generally ongoing basis.

BTW You might be interested to hear that AerLingus also has options to buy the Airbus A321LR, the Airbus narrow body equivalent of the 737-Max 8:

http://www.reuters.com/article/iag-results-transatlantic-idUSL8N1G94N7

You would only buy this aircraft if you planned to operate in a similar manner and compete directly with NAS.

And then you have Ryanair and Maybe Easyjet waiting in the wings. You could end up having a serious three or four way price war between NAS, EI, Ryanair all operating cheaper to run narrow bodies to the US.

JCX BXC wrote: »

Yes, and these people are the ones used to flying? We're talking about people who have never flown before.

You might be, I'm not!

I think there are very large numbers of people well use to flying around Europe at short notice, for cheap, who have been waiting for prices like these to similarly explore the US.

Given Irish peoples historical and family connections with the East coast, I suspect such flights have great potential from Ireland.

Imagine people use to flying to Spain for €50 on Ryanair who have family in Boston, etc. but for whom €500 would be too much. Well €250 might just be possible for them to now go visit those family.

JCX BXC wrote: »

I will pose the following question though, what are Norwegian doing that allows them to massively undercut the already fiercely competing transatlantic airlines? Are fares of €300 sustainable, hence will we actually be seeing fares fall again?

I hope my above detailed explanation on the cost of narrow body aircraft versus wide body aircraft clearly shows what the differences are.

LiamaDelta

JCX BXC wrote: »

Other than saving a few quid on having less baggage on the aircraft, and less meals, I still don't see how costs can be reduced so massively.

This is the crux of the matter. Personally I don't think the Norwegian model is sustainable in the long run. One of the reasons FR haven't gone transatlantic already is they know that there's far better return to be made in Europe. Their model is based on getting 6-8 sectors a day out of each aircraft. They fill the plane 6 times a day at an average fare of €40. As the TA flights can only do 2 sectors a day the average fare would need to be 3 times this to come close to the same outcome...that's before the extra costs are factored in.

Though bk there is a lot of merit to what you're saying there too....I guess the advancements being made with the 737MAX and the 321NEO are what brings the costs down significantly....almost similar to why the 757 is still popular on some 'marginal' routes.

bk

To answer the lost few questions, NAS's cost will be much less as they are using a narrow body aircraft, versus a wide body of EI.

Narrow bodies cost 1/3rd to buy (~300m vs ~100m), much cheaper to maintain and use a lot less fuel per passenger km. All equals much lower running cost per passenger km.

Also operating to small airports, with much cheaper landing and handling fees.

In fairness to EI, a wide body means you can carry more passengers, have a more expensive business class and carry cargo (nice profitable side business BTW). So it isn't a complete slam dunk for NAS.

However on the extra passengers thing. In some way in can be a disadvantage. It can often be hard to fill all the seats in a wide body out of a small island like Ireland with a low population. The narrow bodies with less seats can be easier to fill and thus can potentially operate to more destinations and out of smaller airports (like Cork) which wouldn't have enough business to fill a wide body.

Basically the advantage NAS has here is the same one that Ryanair had over the traditional airlines. Using cheaper, per fuel efficient narrow body aircraft.

The reason these narrow bodies had been used TA before is because they didn't have the range. But now Boeing and Airbus are bringing out long range versions of their narrow bodies, thus bringing some of the LCC business model to TA.

Idbatterim

whether ryanair has the foresight or just couldnt get the planes at prices they wanted etc. It may well have worked out well for them not getting into this market. The fact that Norwegian are first to market on this, probably means Ryanair now wont touch it. Far better feeding local traffic into Norwegian and IAG...

JCX BXC

bk wrote: »

Oh, I didn't really see you making that point, but I'm happy to address it.

Of course I can't say for certain one way or the other, but we can speculate from a basis of knowledge.

You have to understand that this is a very new and unique product, very different to what we are traditionally use to on TA.

Traditionally TA use wide body aircraft. These are much larger aircraft, which use far more fuel per passenger km, cost vastly more to purchase and cost way more to maintain.

As an example Norwegians wide body 787 that they use on other routes cost $300 million a pop.

By comparison, on these routes they will be using narrow body aircraft more similar to what Ryanair and the other LCC's use here. These craft are much cheaper to buy, much cheaper to fuel per passenger km and much cheaper to maintain.

The 737-Max 8's cost $100 million, about 1/3rd the price of a typical wide body used by Aer Lingus, etc.

Now obviously they have a much further to fly then a typical European LCC, so more fuel will be used in total and the longer journey time means it can't be utilised for as many trips per day. So obviously prices will be higher then a typical European LCC.

However the much cheaper cost of the aircraft, cheaper maintenance and cheaper cost of fuel per passenger km versus AerLingus wide bodies should allow them to be able to undercut AerLingus by quite a bit and still be profitable.

Also remember they are flying into airports with much cheaper landing costs, so more money saved there.

And you will be in the air with them for much longer, so more opportunity to sell you expensive meals and other tat.

I would expect €250 to €300 return for regular tickets should be doable on a generally ongoing basis.

BTW You might be interested to hear that AerLingus also has options to buy the Airbus A321LR, the Airbus narrow body equivalent of the 737-Max 8:

http://www.reuters.com/article/iag-results-transatlantic-idUSL8N1G94N7

You would only buy this aircraft if you planned to operate in a similar manner and compete directly with NAS.

And then you have Ryanair and Maybe Easyjet waiting in the wings. You could end up having a serious three or four way price war between NAS, EI, Ryanair all operating cheaper to run narrow bodies to the US.

Are 737's much cheaper to operate per passenger and than say A330's and 787's? I was not aware of that. Why do EI fly A330's to Malaga in that case?

In regards to Aer Lingus, the A321's are 757 replacements, 757's are old and won't last forever, but they have made routes unsustainable on A330's sustainable, so I'd imagine Aer Lingus would like to continue this. I'm not sure the A321's have anything to do with Norwegian.

You might be, I'm not!

Well you quoted me when you wrote your post, so one would assume we were talking about the same thing.

I think there are very large numbers of people well use to flying around Europe at short notice, for cheap, who have been waiting for prices like these to similarly explore the US.

Given Irish peoples historical and family connections with the East coast, I suspect such flights have great potential from Ireland.

I don't dispute any of this

Imagine people use to flying to Spain for €50 on Ryanair who have family in Boston, etc. but for whom €500 would be too much. Well €250 might just be possible for them to now go visit those family.

Possibly, but these fares are few and far between, and will likely be snapped up by all those bargain hunters you talk about, so by the time Mr.Regular goes to book there's no difference between Norwegian and the full service carriers.

bk

LiamaDelta wrote: »

This is the crux of the matter. Personally I don't think the Norwegian model is sustainable in the long run. One of the reasons FR haven't gone transatlantic already is they know that there's far better return to be made in Europe. Their model is based on getting 6-8 sectors a day out of each aircraft. They fill the plane 6 times a day at an average fare of €40. As the TA flights can only do 2 sectors a day the average fare would need to be 3 times this to come close to the same outcome...that's before the extra costs are factored in.

Of course, ticket prices won't be as low as LCC's in Europe. But there does seem to be a gap in the market between LCC European prices and wide body TA's that looks like can be taken advantage of with the new generation of long range narrow bodies.

I agree completely with you that financially Ryanair is probably best to remain focused on maximising the European market.

However for NAS, things are a bit different. NAS wants to expand aggressively, but it knows that the European market is already pretty saturated by Ryanair and EasyJet. So instead of trying to compete head ot head withthose in already saturated mature markets, it looks like NAS is looking for niches that it can exploit and grow.

Basically I think each company is making smart decisions from their respective market standings.

LiamaDelta wrote: »

Though bk there is a lot of merit to what you're saying there too....I guess the advancements being made with the 737MAX and the 321NEO are what brings the costs down significantly....almost similar to why the 757 is still popular on some 'marginal' routes.

Yes and it isn't just the costs, it is the range. The older 737's and Airbus narrow bodies the LCC's use simply didn't have the range to do this full stop.

These new aircraft will open up completely new markets and routes. As you say these are long and thin routes.

bk

JCX BXC wrote: »

Are 737's much cheaper to operate per passenger and than say A330's and 787's? I was not aware of that. Why do EI fly A330's to Malaga in that case?

Wide bodies are just much larger aircraft, with more cargo carrying capacity. That simply means more weight to get off the ground, which obviously means more fuel. Also they tend to be a lot more complicated, so higher maintenance costs.

EI simply use it to Malaga because there is enough demand on the route to fill the plane, even though it costs more per passenger.

With Ryanair being their only competition on the route and lots of demand, they can simply ask for the higher fare.

JCX BXC wrote: »

In regards to Aer Lingus, the A321's are 757 replacements, 757's are old and won't last forever, but they have made routes unsustainable on A330's sustainable, so I'd imagine Aer Lingus would like to continue this. I'm not sure the A321's have anything to do with Norwegian.

Well that is kind of proving the point. The 757 is a great example of a long range narrow body. Perfectly suited to long and thin routes (google that term).

The problem with it is that it is quite old and out of date now and far less fuel efficient then the A321LR.

JCX BXC wrote: »

Possibly, but these fares are few and far between, and will likely be snapped up by all those bargain hunters you talk about, so by the time Mr.Regular goes to book there's no difference between Norwegian and the full service carriers.

And again if Mr Regular doesn't see an advantage in the price, then he will go with EI and NAS will have to drop their prices to sell tickets.

LiamaDelta

bk wrote: »

But there does seem to be a gap in the market between LCC European prices and wide body TA's that looks like can be taken advantage of with the new generation of long range narrow bodies.

Yeah I guess NX are just benefiting from being first off the blocks with having the aircraft orders...as soon as the legacy carriers catch up things will even out again. There's a limited market flying predominantly leisure-only passengers to regional airports, but as the others catch up they will have to adapt and move to main airports and put less emphasis on the 'add-ons' to fares similar to what FR have had to do in recent years.

elastico

Idbatterim wrote: »

the issue I have with pre clearance in Dublin is, on top of the usual airport time you have to allocate, you allocate an extra 1.5-2 hours for this, that is horendours for the red eye flights. Id way prefer to do it over there, I walked out of McCarran in sub ten minutes when I routed via London a few months ago. I feel its something that is massively blown out of proportion, I get why DAA do it. I just dont buy it

On a good day you can be through immigration and end up waiting for your bags = no time wasted at all.

On the other hand you should be in Dublin earlier to pre clear so it could be slower overall than clearing stateside.

As you say its not as beneficial as its often made out to be.

Mebuntu

Although that has clarified it, have the base fares not reduced significantly anyway?

I don't think that can be determined as fuel surcharges are not always shown separately since, I think, 2012.

My last trips to the US were in 2009, April and Sept and in both cases Mon-Thurs. I flew with Delta DUB-JFK-DUB and the fares were:

April: €396 + taxes €75.21 = €471.21

Sept: €284 + taxes €72.71 = €356.71

It would be unfair to compare April 2017 as the cheaper fares have gone at this stage but for Sept 2017 the fare is:

Sept 2017: €616 + taxes €81 = €697 (I can't find what the fuel surcharge is but looking at EI base fare below it must be substantial)

Aer Lingus fares are:

Sept 2017: €342 + Taxes *€223.56 +Admin Fee €14 = €579.56

*Of this on a separate page the fuel surcharge for JFK is listed as 2 x €65 = €130

Make what you will of that.