Norwegian start long haul from MADRID

pabloeing · Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:36 am

JFK and LAX will be the first routes from Madrid in July 2018.....the plane will be the B787-9

Fly News
@flynewsmagazine
Los vuelos desde MAD de @Fly_Norwegian comienzan el 17 de julio de a Los Ángeles a Madrid y el 19 de julio a Nueva York, JFK.

LHRFlyer · Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:57 am

Official announcement from Norwegian, which also announces new routes from Amsterdam and Milan:

http://media.norwegian.com/us/#/pressre ... an-2331051

Embajador3 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:20 pm

Awesome news. I hope this will translate into lower fares for all passengers.

OA940 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:23 pm

How many 787's does the whole group have on order/operates?

tphuang · Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:37 pm

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.

jfklganyc · Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:48 pm

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 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:06 pm

Wonder what the reaction from IAG will be? Not likely to let them have an easy time with this!

flyguy1 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:11 pm

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

LGW, CDG, OSL, CPH, ARN, and now AMS, and MAD. LGW is usually 2x per day, and CDG is once per day. The others operate a few times per week usually, more in the summer. On the average day, it looks like they will have around 7 arrivals from Europe. I don't count the Caribbean stuff, as this is winter only. Wonder if they will go for FCO, and BCN next, as these are both only done out of EWR.

SCQ83 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:13 pm

I am surprised they don't launch FLL and OAK.

Southern Florida is by far the 2nd largest market from Madrid in the US and I think this market is easy to stimulate (e.g. a lot of people in South Florida speak Spanish so with affordable fares they might be interested to visit Spain).

Iberia is starting MAD-SFO next summer so this is missed opportunity for DY to compete with them from day 1 in the Bay Area market.

BENAir01 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:16 pm

Amazing!

airbazar · Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:25 pm

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

Someone83 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:42 pm

flyguy1 wrote:
Wonder if they will go for FCO, and BCN next, as these are both only done out of EWR.

AFAIK they are EWR due to slot issues

superjeff · Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:48 pm

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.

lesfalls · Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:05 pm

Flight times according to routes online:

Amsterdam – New York JFK eff 07MAY18 4 weekly 787-9
DY7701 AMS1225 – 1425JFK 789 x357
DY7700 JFK1830 – 0730+1AMS 789 x246

Madrid – Los Angeles eff 15JUL18 4 weekly 787-9
DY7743 MAD1340 – 1640LAX 789 357
DY7743 MAD1650 – 1950LAX 789 1

DY7742 LAX1840 – 1420+1MAD 789 357
DY7742 LAX2150 – 1730+1MAD 789 1

Madrid – New York JFK eff 18JUL18 3 weekly 787-9
DY7703 MAD1055 – 1300JFK 789 357
DY7702 JFK2200 – 1110+1MAD 789 246

Milan Malpensa – Los Angeles eff 16JUN18 4 weekly 787-9
DY7749 MXP0850 – 1205LAX 789 26
DY7749 MXP1325 – 1640LAX 789 3
DY7749 MXP1755 – 2110LAX 789 4

DY7748 LAX1405 – 1020+1MXP 789 2
DY7748 LAX1840 – 1455+1MXP 789 3
DY7748 LAX2000 – 1615+1MXP 789 7
DY7748 LAX2310 – 1925+1MXP 789 4

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... es-in-s18/

I don't think this is the end. I am betting that they have more plans for MXP as it isn't quite economical for an LCC to park a plane overnight.

LupineChemist · Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:08 pm

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.

MIAFLLPBIFlyer · Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:10 pm

It appears they got more JFK slots since recent additions had been at EWR, presumably due to slot issues.

behramjee · Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:22 pm

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.

pabloeing · Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:11 pm

¿BOS can be the next Norwegian destination from MAD?

Arion640 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:17 pm

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

They will be taking the fight to them in Paris very shortly it seems. The densification of 777's should also help them.

It wouldn't surprise me if IAG run level at a loss just to hit Nowergian.

Since BA became IAG gone are the days where they used to just run and hide in the fort at LHR.

stburke · Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:22 pm

IAG is going to have a conniption fit.

migair54 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:22 pm

this is great news, I hope they start doing some south america flights in the future, I think they will have a good future from Madrid, FLL could be next or SFO (bay area).

LHRFlyer · Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:28 pm

Is this amount of growth really sustainable on top of growth at LGW next year and routes between secondary cities?

LIPZ · Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:38 pm

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.

Well not exactly the same figures Bjørn Kjos referred today to the Italian media.
He said that over 41,000 pax flew between L.A. and Milan (in the last 12 months).

(In Italian)
http://www.repubblica.it/economia/2017/ ... 184100671/

nmdrdh787 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:40 pm

I can't wait to see the response from Level.

Hoping that DY considers ORD-MXP seasonally.

gregn21 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:50 pm

How many destinations/daily flights is that from LAX now? They practically have a hub there now. . .

theasianguy · Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:19 pm

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!

tcaeyx · Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:24 pm

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!

Minor correction: LGW is up to 9x/week.

stlgph · Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:34 pm

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

T1 is still packed to the gills. Lufthansa added Berlin, Air China went to midnight, and Aeroflot added that late evening arrival and departure.

Norwegian is either going to have to get creative with the scheduling or start going with more daytime flights, a la LGW.

B747forever · Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:35 pm

Should probably change the thread title to include AMS and MXP. Anyway, it is amazing to see all this continuous expansion by Norwegian.

Abeam79 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:20 pm

Before many start to getting all oogling over the news, the underlying finances problem is getting worse and it may suddenly end all this spectacle they seem to portray

https://www.ft.com/content/a013d226-daa ... 4b1c09b482

PatrickZ80 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:30 pm

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.

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.

PatrickZ80 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:37 pm

stburke wrote:
IAG is going to have a conniption fit.

Not just IAG, but I can already see the worries at Air France-KLM now that Norwegian also starts long haul flights out of Amsterdam.

In my opinion, those long haul flights out of Amsterdam would not even have been needed. They could easily have done this by adding more short haul flights to their long haul hubs out of Amsterdam since they got very little of them. They don't even fly Amsterdam - London Gatwick and flights to their Scandinavian hubs are down to less than one daily. If they just started with a double daily Amsterdam - Gatwick they could connect all Dutch passengers to their long haul flights over there.

Kadish · Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:39 pm

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.

You are right 3daily in a legacy carrier versus a low cost with 3 weekly n barely for the same price, honestly I don’t see the point.
They could have started Bkk or a Caribbean island which are very popular spots among Spaniards without sharing the cake with anyone

LupineChemist · Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:17 pm

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.

TC957 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:43 pm

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.

Mortyman · Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:59 pm

OA940 wrote:
How many 787's does the whole group have on order/operates?

Norwegian has:

In service: 8 x Boeing 787-8 and 13 Boeing 787-9

On order: 21 x Boeing 787-9

Options: 10 x Boeing 787-9

gatibosgru · Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:39 pm

pabloeing wrote:
¿BOS can be the next Norwegian destination from MAD?

I'd rather them try MXP than MAD from BOS.

gatibosgru · Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:50 pm

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?

Egerton · Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:59 pm

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.

FSDan · Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:57 pm

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?

Nah, I think Y4 still has them beat.

jomur · Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:52 pm

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.

Last I heard BA where doing quite well at LGW and have been adding flights..

Cunard · Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:51 am

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.

I totally and honestly agree with you in everything you have wrote, I am under no illusion regarding Norwegian and I can seriously see them joining the likes of Air Berlin, Monarch, Nikki at some point.

448205 · Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:21 am

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.

Accelerated by the fact that they must issue new debt on every aircraft delivery. As the airline's financial situation deteriorates, the debt for each additional aircraft becomes more expensive.

lesfalls · Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:58 am

I could see JFK-AMS not doing bad with the fares that they will be offering but MAD-JFK will definitely not do well with so much competition.

airbazar · Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:09 pm

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..

Because the market is much larger than the 3 daily that are on offer. IB is likely leaving passengers behind, or forcing passengers to fly with another airline and connect someone. DY will be happy to take these passengers non-stop.
I live in BOS and I have never found DY to be cheaper than any other airline either, and as a result I never flown with DY. But their LF is in the 90% range so clearly there is more demand than the current offering and price is clearly not everything.

PatrickZ80 · Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:57 pm

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.

tphuang · Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:17 pm

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.

Exactly, I just don't see how they can do well on a route that is already so cheap. It's got to be one of the lower yielding routes to Europe.

And dy really is not pricing itself lower than competition.

TC957 · Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:38 pm

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.

Cunard · Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:06 pm

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.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU

mat66 · Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:03 am

Has there been a discussion inside the airline at what point it makes less ans less sense to call it Norwegian? I'm anything but a marketing strategist but there is a reason LLC who operate/seek customers in several countries have a generic name like easy jet, air asia, Ryanair,...
Or is it too late for that as the airline is too big and the brand established?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net