Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
jfklganyc wrote:Is it safe to say they have a mini hub at JFK now? How many destinations, flights is this?
They have to be coming up against BA for largest international carrier serving the airport...which is simply astounding.
T1 must have some more room with Interjet moving to T7
shamrock321 wrote:Wonder what the reaction from IAG will be? Not likely to let them have an easy time with this!
flyguy1 wrote:Wonder if they will go for FCO, and BCN next, as these are both only done out of EWR.
tphuang wrote:The fares from JFK to Madrid don't appear to be much lower than on network carriers. I see sub $500 rt fares all the time.
superjeff wrote:tphuang wrote:The fares from JFK to Madrid don't appear to be much lower than on network carriers. I see sub $500 rt fares all the time.
European (and many other international) fares, ex-US include taxes which frequently are more than the airfare itself. The airline can lower fares, but you don't necessarily see much difference, because it would not surprise me if fares on these routes exceed 50% of the total charged.
airbazar wrote:shamrock321 wrote:Wonder what the reaction from IAG will be? Not likely to let them have an easy time with this!
If you think this worries IAG just wait until they start Latin America from MAD
behramjee wrote:LAX MXP LAX 94,000 pax flew in 2016 p2p and nobody offers nonstop flights so this is a good niche market for DY to hopefully exploit and stimulate.
gregn21 wrote:How many destinations/daily flights is that from LAX now? They practically have a hub there now. . .
theasianguy wrote:gregn21 wrote:How many destinations/daily flights is that from LAX now? They practically have a hub there now. . .
By Summer 2018:
LGW daily
CDG daily
ARN 3x/week
CPH 3x/week
OSL 2x/week
MAD 4x/week
BCN 3x/week
FCO 3x/week
MXP 4x/week
My God that is a lot!
jfklganyc wrote:Is it safe to say they have a mini hub at JFK now? How many destinations, flights is this?
They have to be coming up against BA for largest international carrier serving the airport...which is simply astounding.
T1 must have some more room with Interjet moving to T7
LupineChemist wrote:So why wouldn't a passenger just go with IB for not much more and get luggage and a meal? Particularly from JFK where they can go up to 3x per day in the summer and if something goes wrong you have options with BA or AA.
stburke wrote:IAG is going to have a conniption fit.
LupineChemist wrote:superjeff wrote:tphuang wrote:The fares from JFK to Madrid don't appear to be much lower than on network carriers. I see sub $500 rt fares all the time.
European (and many other international) fares, ex-US include taxes which frequently are more than the airfare itself. The airline can lower fares, but you don't necessarily see much difference, because it would not surprise me if fares on these routes exceed 50% of the total charged.
So why wouldn't a passenger just go with IB for not much more and get luggage and a meal? Particularly from JFK where they can go up to 3x per day in the summer and if something goes wrong you have options with BA or AA.
I'll give you JFK T7 is pretty bad, but I'm just kind of surprised they are going head to head against IB directly rather than find another route that could work. They could have MCO all to themselves or go against strictly leisure traffic with UX to CUN or PUJ.
PatrickZ80 wrote:Maybe if they don't need luggage and a meal and that one flight per day suits them, then it's easy to save a few bucks. Besides, from what I've seen the price difference is significant. You call it not much more, but is that true? I've seen Norwegian to be about half to a third of the price of legacy carriers. Reason enough to accept a little inconvenience.
OA940 wrote:How many 787's does the whole group have on order/operates?
pabloeing wrote:¿BOS can be the next Norwegian destination from MAD?
theasianguy wrote:gregn21 wrote:How many destinations/daily flights is that from LAX now? They practically have a hub there now. . .
By Summer 2018:
LGW daily
CDG daily
ARN 3x/week
CPH 3x/week
OSL 2x/week
MAD 4x/week
BCN 3x/week
FCO 3x/week
MXP 4x/week
My God that is a lot!
gatibosgru wrote:theasianguy wrote:gregn21 wrote:How many destinations/daily flights is that from LAX now? They practically have a hub there now. . .
By Summer 2018:
LGW daily
CDG daily
ARN 3x/week
CPH 3x/week
OSL 2x/week
MAD 4x/week
BCN 3x/week
FCO 3x/week
MXP 4x/week
My God that is a lot!
Wow, does this make Norwegian the largest international carrier at LAX by number of destinations?
TC957 wrote:With BA's service levels and customer care heading ever downward, but fares upward, it's hardly surprising DY are having a ball out of LGW as passengers vote with their wallet and look away from BA. I'm hoping for LGW - BKK & NRT next, given all the new slots they just got approval for.
Egerton wrote:I am not worried on IAG's account, they are paying cash dividends yet still have cash coming out of their ears, cash derived from real profits. IAG's branded airlines will not need to resort to loss leading pricing, as Norwegian is already doing so, and is heading into winter with a fast weakening balance sheet. The faster they grow, the sooner their end. Sad, but they have a doomed long haul business strategy. But it seems likely that Norwegian will hurt some heritage airlines, those who already have enough of their own problems.
Egerton wrote:I am not worried on IAG's account, they are paying cash dividends yet still have cash coming out of their ears, cash derived from real profits. IAG's branded airlines will not need to resort to loss leading pricing, as Norwegian is already doing so, and is heading into winter with a fast weakening balance sheet. The faster they grow, the sooner their end. Sad, but they have a doomed long haul business strategy. But it seems likely that Norwegian will hurt some heritage airlines, those who already have enough of their own problems.
LupineChemist wrote:So why wouldn't a passenger just go with IB for not much more and get luggage and a meal? Particularly from JFK where they can go up to 3x per day in the summer and if something goes wrong you have options with BA or AA..
jomur wrote:Last I heard BA where doing quite well at LGW and have been adding flights..
LupineChemist wrote:PatrickZ80 wrote:Maybe if they don't need luggage and a meal and that one flight per day suits them, then it's easy to save a few bucks. Besides, from what I've seen the price difference is significant. You call it not much more, but is that true? I've seen Norwegian to be about half to a third of the price of legacy carriers. Reason enough to accept a little inconvenience.
I regularly fly MAD-JFK for 400€ return or so.
Just looking now there are 435€ return fares on Delta for the summer.
At least from the Spanish side, it's unlikely to be better than the legacy options all things considered.
MAD-NYC already has 4 or 5 airlines competing (depending if you want to count AA/IB as separate) between UA, UX, IB, AA, DL. It just seems like a ridiculous use to try and get into that market where fares are already quite low. A low competition leisure destination like BKK (as mentioned) seems like it'd make a lot more sense and wouldn't be trying to send one of the least profitable airlines in Europe against some very stiff competition.
PatrickZ80 wrote:jomur wrote:Last I heard BA where doing quite well at LGW and have been adding flights..
That doesn't mean anything. Yes they are adding flights but that doesn't mean they're doing well.
I'm still surprised Norwegian built their largest long haul hub in a country with a huge APD. Fares out of the UK are about the highest in Europe. With their feeder network out of Gatwick leaving to be wished for (lots of unserved or underserved destinations) they hardly capture any transfer passengers. Self-transfer passengers are forced to pay the APD.
If they'd have picked Brussels as their long haul hub for example it would have been a whole other story. Sure Brussels doesn't have the local demand of London, but there's no APD so folks from all over Europe would fly to Brussels and self-transfer there to Norwegian. That doesn't happen at Gatwick because of the APD.
Now that Norwegian has announced Amsterdam - New York I can see people from London flying EasyJet Gatwick - Amsterdam and then self-transfer to Norwegian Amsterdam - New York. Might just be cheaper than flying Norwegian Gatwick - New York.
TC957 wrote:PatrickZ80 wrote:jomur wrote:Last I heard BA where doing quite well at LGW and have been adding flights..
That doesn't mean anything. Yes they are adding flights but that doesn't mean they're doing well.
I'm still surprised Norwegian built their largest long haul hub in a country with a huge APD. Fares out of the UK are about the highest in Europe. With their feeder network out of Gatwick leaving to be wished for (lots of unserved or underserved destinations) they hardly capture any transfer passengers. Self-transfer passengers are forced to pay the APD.
If they'd have picked Brussels as their long haul hub for example it would have been a whole other story. Sure Brussels doesn't have the local demand of London, but there's no APD so folks from all over Europe would fly to Brussels and self-transfer there to Norwegian. That doesn't happen at Gatwick because of the APD.
Now that Norwegian has announced Amsterdam - New York I can see people from London flying EasyJet Gatwick - Amsterdam and then self-transfer to Norwegian Amsterdam - New York. Might just be cheaper than flying Norwegian Gatwick - New York.
In reality, very few passengers do that kind of detour on something where there are direct flights. By the time baggage etc is added on with easyJet plus the inconvenience of transferring when direct flights are available, is it worth it.