Norwegian released today their traffic figures of January and those shows their RASK is still going downhill. Their growth doesn't seem sustainable, and I think they need brakes right now. I think they made almost 1000 million deficit in January and there is coming many unprofitable months.

Norwegian just seems to want to grow their way out of their debt problems but the increased capacity hits their own revenues.

I would love for the model to work and think it's good for consumers but I don't see how they survive much longer. My bet would be they make it to the profitable months of summer but can't make it through the 18-19 winter without some sort of crazy financing scheme. I suppose Etihad could come in and buy another failed airline.

Such a shame if they go down and particularly if by their own hand.
Still let's see.

How did their Q4 numbers look? I remember they had to sell more of the bank shares or something like that?

armchairceonr1 wrote:

Norwegian released today their traffic figures of January and those shows their RASK is still going downhill. Their growth doesn't seem sustainable, and I think they need brakes right now. I think they made almost 1000 million deficit in January and there is coming many unprofitable months.

Do you have a source? Please include a source any time you are posting a news related thread.

Q1 generally is the worst month for most transatlantic airlines, especially January. The smart move would be to cut back or reallocate frequencies and ramp back up later otherwise you dig a deep hole that has to be filled by the peak Q3.

The issue with LCCs is that there is a huge aversion to avoid down time as aircraft not flying are not helping to establish the brand.

Time will come when the last tail picture they paint will be that of Harding L. Lawrence

A source would be great:

I would only find this https://www.google.de/search?dcr=0&biw= ... k7QZz-M5zE
and this seems to indicate everything is fine, please share you number OP

Norwegian reports 11 percent passenger growth in January

Norwegian carried more than 2.3 million passengers in January, an increase of 11 percent compared to the same month previous year. The growth is primarily driven by international expansion; with a 55 percent growth, the intercontinental routes constitute the highest share.

A total of 2,333,932 passengers chose to fly with Norwegian in January - 223,356 more passengers than the same period last year. The total traffic growth (RPK) increased by 29 percent, and the capacity growth (ASK) increased by 30 percent. The load factor was 82 percent, down one percentage point.

“We are very pleased with the continued passenger growth in January, a month traditionally characterized by less demand. The global expansion continues with the strongest growth on routes between Europe and the U.S. This winter, we once again offer flights between the U.S. East Coast and the French Caribbean islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe, enabling better fleet utilization during the low season in Europe said CEO of Norwegian, Bjørn Kjos.

Norwegian operated 98.9 percent of the scheduled flights in January, whereof 72.4 percent departed on time. The on-time performance was heavily influenced by the weather situation in Oslo, London and New York.

Norwegian’s fleet renewal program continues with full force in 2018. The company took delivery of one Boeing 737-800 and one Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner in January. This year, Norwegian will take delivery of 11 Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners, 12 Boeing 737 MAX 8 and two Boeing 737-800. With an average age of only 3.6 years, Norwegian’s fleet is one of the world’s “greenest” and most modern.

Read more and download the attachement With all the numbers at the end of the article:

http://media.norwegian.com/uk/?_ga=2.11 ... ry-2405589

atcsundevil wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

Norwegian released today their traffic figures of January and those shows their RASK is still going downhill. Their growth doesn't seem sustainable, and I think they need brakes right now. I think they made almost 1000 million deficit in January and there is coming many unprofitable months.

Do you have a source? Please include a source any time you are posting a news related thread.

Oh sorry, here is link to Norwegian press release: http://www.newsweb.no/newsweb/search.do ... l=S%C3%B8k

I flew with them and I think they are amazing. I just got an email today offering London to San Francisco for 163 pounds. I really hope they continue to do well because they are by far the cheapest and the best.

I am confident that Norwegian will keep growing and not fail. The legacy airlines just messed up with starting the race to the bottom. As a Y passenger today it makes no sense if I fly BA or DY. Well there is one, free WIFI on Norwegian.

I want to see them grow and keep prices down. It's good for all consumers. The whole aviation market West and East of the Atlantic has turned into an massive oligopolistic structure with large airline groups and a few LCCs dominating the market and the prices. Competition is non-existend on many routes. And an airline like DY will make the whole business more interesting, because they have no interest to play along and keep the status quo. They want market share. Good for them. That is competition as it should be...

I believe this thread needs to be locked as Norwegian is doing fine and has actually grown in the month of January 2018. Title is misleading.

GamingPolaris wrote:

I believe this thread needs to be locked as Norwegian is doing fine and has actually grown in the month of January 2018. Title is misleading.

Growth does not equal profitability as evidenced by falling yield. Could lead to a deeper hole...

Here is the thing with Norwegian though, because they have several subsidiaries, how do we know which one is losing the money? Is Norwegian Air Shuttle? Norwegian Long Haul? Norwegian International or Norwegian UK? And if one goes under, do all of the rest?

CARST wrote:

I am confident that Norwegian will keep growing and not fail. The legacy airlines just messed up with starting the race to the bottom. As a Y passenger today it makes no sense if I fly BA or DY. Well there is one, free WIFI on Norwegian.

I want to see them grow and keep prices down. It's good for all consumers. The whole aviation market West and East of the Atlantic has turned into an massive oligopolistic structure with large airline groups and a few LCCs dominating the market and the prices. Competition is non-existend on many routes. And an airline like DY will make the whole business more interesting, because they have no interest to play along and keep the status quo. They want market share. Good for them. That is competition as it should be...

Actually I agree mostly with you. There is still one very big problem, Norwegian doesn't have money or equity to keep going. They need 17 billion NOK this year to finance their incoming airplanes, it's no way to happen.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

CARST wrote:

I am confident that Norwegian will keep growing and not fail. The legacy airlines just messed up with starting the race to the bottom. As a Y passenger today it makes no sense if I fly BA or DY. Well there is one, free WIFI on Norwegian.

I want to see them grow and keep prices down. It's good for all consumers. The whole aviation market West and East of the Atlantic has turned into an massive oligopolistic structure with large airline groups and a few LCCs dominating the market and the prices. Competition is non-existend on many routes. And an airline like DY will make the whole business more interesting, because they have no interest to play along and keep the status quo. They want market share. Good for them. That is competition as it should be...

Actually I agree mostly with you. There is still one very big problem, Norwegian doesn't have money or equity to keep going. They need 17 billion NOK this year to finance their incoming airplanes, it's no way to happen.

They’ll just do a sale and leaseback before the new planes even arrive. Problem solved.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

CARST wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

CARST wrote:

I am confident that Norwegian will keep growing and not fail. The legacy airlines just messed up with starting the race to the bottom. As a Y passenger today it makes no sense if I fly BA or DY. Well there is one, free WIFI on Norwegian.

I want to see them grow and keep prices down. It's good for all consumers. The whole aviation market West and East of the Atlantic has turned into an massive oligopolistic structure with large airline groups and a few LCCs dominating the market and the prices. Competition is non-existend on many routes. And an airline like DY will make the whole business more interesting, because they have no interest to play along and keep the status quo. They want market share. Good for them. That is competition as it should be...

Actually I agree mostly with you. There is still one very big problem, Norwegian doesn't have money or equity to keep going. They need 17 billion NOK this year to finance their incoming airplanes, it's no way to happen.

They’ll just do a sale and leaseback before the new planes even arrive. Problem solved.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

They has done this before, but there is also some point when lessors says it's enough.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

Norwegian released today their traffic figures of January and those shows their RASK is still going downhill. Their growth doesn't seem sustainable, and I think they need brakes right now. I think they made almost 1000 million deficit in January and there is coming many unprofitable months.

Let me give you a tutorial on RASK and RASM, because it seems you don't know what the metric means.

RASK= Revenue/Available Seat Kilometers. It does not cost double to fly 1000 miles vs. 500 miles. The cost of taking off and climbing to cruise altitude, airport turn costs, and cycle maintenance on things like landing gear are all the same regardless of the distance of the flight. This is also why fares also do not increase on a 1:1 ratio with miles. The RASM and CASM of a long-haul carrier are always lower than a short-haul carrier. A regional carrier flying 19 seat turboprops with pilots making $15,000 per year and no flight attendant have the highest CASM, CASK, RASM, and RASK of any airline. By your metric they are the most profitable airlines on the planet. They are not.

So, Norwegian is becoming more and more a long-haul airline. As they build that network, the proportion of their flying that is long increases. Thus, the RASM/RASK/CASM/CASK decreases because of the Aircraft Stage Length increases. When you divide by more miles, these all decrease and cost and revenue due not increase at the same rate. So, a decrease in Norwegian RASK resulting from flying longer flights is just basic math and means nothing. You apparently should invest only in airlines flying small turboprops increasingly shorter distances because then you will really get the RASK trend you seem to think is important.

Also, how do you know they lost 1 billion Kronar in January? I've never seen an airline report monthly financial results.

This same discussion comes up every quarter when they release numbers. If their yield fell and traffic fell, that would maybe be grounds for the frenzy to decry them dead, but that is not the case. How else is an airline supposed to grow? When every airline starts routes, the routes take time to develop (yield and passenger wise).

enilria wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

Norwegian released today their traffic figures of January and those shows their RASK is still going downhill. Their growth doesn't seem sustainable, and I think they need brakes right now. I think they made almost 1000 million deficit in January and there is coming many unprofitable months.

Let me give you a tutorial on RASK and RASM, because it seems you don't know what the metric means.

RASK= Revenue/Available Seat Kilometers. It does not cost double to fly 1000 miles vs. 500 miles. The cost of taking off and climbing to cruise altitude, airport turn costs, and cycle maintenance on things like landing gear are all the same regardless of the distance of the flight. This is also why fares also do not increase on a 1:1 ratio with miles. The RASM and CASM of a long-haul carrier are always lower than a short-haul carrier. A regional carrier flying 19 seat turboprops with pilots making $15,000 per year and no flight attendant have the highest CASM, CASK, RASM, and RASK of any airline. By your metric they are the most profitable airlines on the planet. They are not.

So, Norwegian is becoming more and more a long-haul airline. As they build that network, the proportion of their flying that is long increases. Thus, the RASM/RASK/CASM/CASK decreases because of the Aircraft Stage Length increases. When you divide by more miles, these all decrease and cost and revenue due not increase at the same rate. So, a decrease in Norwegian RASK resulting from flying longer flights is just basic math and means nothing. You apparently should invest only in airlines flying small turboprops increasingly shorter distances because then you will really get the RASK trend you seem to think is important.

Also, how do you know they lost 1 billion Kronar in January? I've never seen an airline report monthly financial results.

Norwegian's costs are increasing same time when their RASK go down. They fly longer routes and their costs is increasing while their yields go down. I recommend you take one moment and look their numbers, numbers doesn't lie.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

enilria wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

Norwegian released today their traffic figures of January and those shows their RASK is still going downhill. Their growth doesn't seem sustainable, and I think they need brakes right now. I think they made almost 1000 million deficit in January and there is coming many unprofitable months.

Let me give you a tutorial on RASK and RASM, because it seems you don't know what the metric means.

RASK= Revenue/Available Seat Kilometers. It does not cost double to fly 1000 miles vs. 500 miles. The cost of taking off and climbing to cruise altitude, airport turn costs, and cycle maintenance on things like landing gear are all the same regardless of the distance of the flight. This is also why fares also do not increase on a 1:1 ratio with miles. The RASM and CASM of a long-haul carrier are always lower than a short-haul carrier. A regional carrier flying 19 seat turboprops with pilots making $15,000 per year and no flight attendant have the highest CASM, CASK, RASM, and RASK of any airline. By your metric they are the most profitable airlines on the planet. They are not.

So, Norwegian is becoming more and more a long-haul airline. As they build that network, the proportion of their flying that is long increases. Thus, the RASM/RASK/CASM/CASK decreases because of the Aircraft Stage Length increases. When you divide by more miles, these all decrease and cost and revenue due not increase at the same rate. So, a decrease in Norwegian RASK resulting from flying longer flights is just basic math and means nothing. You apparently should invest only in airlines flying small turboprops increasingly shorter distances because then you will really get the RASK trend you seem to think is important.

Also, how do you know they lost 1 billion Kronar in January? I've never seen an airline report monthly financial results.

Norwegian's costs are increasing same time when their RASK go down. They fly longer routes and their costs is increasing while their yields go down. I recommend you take one moment and look their numbers, numbers doesn't lie.

Please re-read what enilria explained to you. The numbers don't lie, but the interpretation is different. And he explained to you, why that is the case... *shrug*

Nicoeddf wrote:

Please re-read what enilria explained to you. The numbers don't lie, but the interpretation is different. And he explained to you, why that is the case... *shrug*

Sry, but I don't see any reason to this. Norwegian's sector length is growing, but sametime their unit costs is going up and yields down. So enilrias theory doesn't work here.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Please re-read what enilria explained to you. The numbers don't lie, but the interpretation is different. And he explained to you, why that is the case... *shrug*

Sry, but I don't see any reason to this. Norwegian's sector length is growing, but sametime their unit costs is going up and yields down. So enilrias theory doesn't work here.

Your initial argument was, that due CASM going up and RASM going down, the whole model is not sustainable. In my view, that argument cannot be made without loads and loads of more data. Both parameters shouldn't be measured on such a short time scale but rather in year on year comparison.

Hence, enlirias theory is perfectly valid. Just the amount of available data does IMHO not allow to come to any conclusion, yet. Neither yours, nor that their future is rosy...

Nicoeddf wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Please re-read what enilria explained to you. The numbers don't lie, but the interpretation is different. And he explained to you, why that is the case... *shrug*

Sry, but I don't see any reason to this. Norwegian's sector length is growing, but sametime their unit costs is going up and yields down. So enilrias theory doesn't work here.

Your initial argument was, that due CASM going up and RASM going down, the whole model is not sustainable. In my view, that argument cannot be made without loads and loads of more data. Both parameters shouldn't be measured on such a short time scale but rather in year on year comparison.

Hence, enlirias theory is perfectly valid. Just the amount of available data does IMHO not allow to come to any conclusion, yet. Neither yours, nor that their future is rosy...

All data is available at Norwegian website. Their unit cost 1-9/2017 was 0,43 NOK vs. 0,40NOK year before. Sametime their RASK was 0,35 NOK vs. 0,38 NOK year before.

GamingPolaris wrote:

I believe this thread needs to be locked as Norwegian is doing fine and has actually grown in the month of January 2018. Title is misleading.

I agree completely

GamingPolaris wrote:

I believe this thread needs to be locked as Norwegian is doing fine and has actually grown in the month of January 2018. Title is misleading.

The thread title refers to unit revenue not overall passenger numbers. Anyone can fill an aircraft, the hard part is the revenue management to do it profitably.

peterinlisbon wrote:

I flew with them and I think they are amazing. I just got an email today offering London to San Francisco for 163 pounds. I really hope they continue to do well because they are by far the cheapest and the best.

Agreed, I am hopefully Oakland bound in Sep but prices are in the basement and that's no way to pay for a whole new cutting edge fleet of Dreamliners whilst at the same time flying B737MAXs in secondary markets. It seems too good to be true.....

For those of the non goldfish amongst us, People Express was put of business by the competition because although they chased the bottom end of the market and consumers loved them, they filled B747s in core markets and still lost money. The only way to make money over time is to drive up yields and prices, and Norwegian shows no sign of that in long haul. The old mantra of growing market share can only go on for so long while sustaining losses. The whole smoke and mirrors of the group also reminds me of the complexity of the old Air Europe, except when it went down, Air Europa survived.

NozPerry wrote:

GamingPolaris wrote:

I believe this thread needs to be locked as Norwegian is doing fine and has actually grown in the month of January 2018. Title is misleading.

I agree completely

It seems like a pretty good discussion to me. shutting down a thread because it offends you seems biased.

Hopefully this is a signal of the end of Norwegian is near.

Selling a product below cost is not a winning market strategy.

mcdu wrote:

Hopefully this is a signal of the end of Norwegian is near.

Selling a product below cost is not a winning market strategy.

Sorry but why would you hope for such an outcome? And selling below cost is a common tactic in long term growth strategy - true it's a risky one and can be seen as anti-competitive, but when there are already two giants in the sector playing the same game, I'm all for Norwegian doing what it can to expand its market share.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

Norwegian released today their traffic figures of January and those shows their RASK is still going downhill. Their growth doesn't seem sustainable, and I think they need brakes right now. I think they made almost 1000 million deficit in January and there is coming many unprofitable months.

Do you have a source? Please include a source any time you are posting a news related thread.

Oh sorry, here is link to Norwegian press release: http://www.newsweb.no/newsweb/search.do ... l=S%C3%B8k

Where in that report did it show a 1000 million deficit, which I assume is a 1 billion loss?

arcticcruiser wrote:

GamingPolaris wrote:

I believe this thread needs to be locked as Norwegian is doing fine and has actually grown in the month of January 2018. Title is misleading.

Growth does not equal profitability as evidenced by falling yield. Could lead to a deeper hole...

Yes and any time you do large expansion your RASK can full till you build up the new routes loads. All the figures show loads are growing, just not as fast as some like. They are in this for the long term. They are not day traders looking for short term profits.

rbavfan wrote:

arcticcruiser wrote:

GamingPolaris wrote:

I believe this thread needs to be locked as Norwegian is doing fine and has actually grown in the month of January 2018. Title is misleading.

Growth does not equal profitability as evidenced by falling yield. Could lead to a deeper hole...

Yes and any time you do large expansion your RASK can full till you build up the new routes loads. All the figures show loads are growing, just not as fast as some like. They are in this for the long term. They are not day traders looking for short term profits.

While they are not day traders (what airline is?) they do not have the deep pockets to sustain the growth without revenue to match. Something will have to give.

armchairceonr1 wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

armchairceonr1 wrote:

Sry, but I don't see any reason to this. Norwegian's sector length is growing, but sametime their unit costs is going up and yields down. So enilrias theory doesn't work here.

Your initial argument was, that due CASM going up and RASM going down, the whole model is not sustainable. In my view, that argument cannot be made without loads and loads of more data. Both parameters shouldn't be measured on such a short time scale but rather in year on year comparison.

Hence, enlirias theory is perfectly valid. Just the amount of available data does IMHO not allow to come to any conclusion, yet. Neither yours, nor that their future is rosy...

All data is available at Norwegian website. Their unit cost 1-9/2017 was 0,43 NOK vs. 0,40NOK year before. Sametime their RASK was 0,35 NOK vs. 0,38 NOK year before.

Yes and thats comparing January only sales. January is traditionally a slower month. Look at the entire year vs the previous year and you might be able to make an argument. Based on what has been said you would figure someone would go bankrupt in Phoenix because the electric cost is 3 time+ higher in summer than winter months. Without taking into account the entire years totals. It does not add up that way. It's why businesses do quarterly & annual earnings reports. Because 1 month cannot give them long term information needed to meet a conclusion.

rbavfan wrote:

arcticcruiser wrote:

GamingPolaris wrote:

I believe this thread needs to be locked as Norwegian is doing fine and has actually grown in the month of January 2018. Title is misleading.

Growth does not equal profitability as evidenced by falling yield. Could lead to a deeper hole...

Yes and any time you do large expansion your RASK can full till you build up the new routes loads. All the figures show loads are growing, just not as fast as some like. They are in this for the long term. They are not day traders looking for short term profits.

What makes you think their model is profitable? They got the more sustainable icelandic model pushing down the y fares they can charge. They are certainly not capturing any of the high end stuff. The medium end stuff is increasingly getting captured by the newly deployed premium economy. They are not making money even when the airline industry is doing well. Just wait until we enter into a down cycle.

How do you explain their CFO quitting last year or selling off portion of Norwegian bank?

tphuang wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

arcticcruiser wrote:

Growth does not equal profitability as evidenced by falling yield. Could lead to a deeper hole...

Yes and any time you do large expansion your RASK can full till you build up the new routes loads. All the figures show loads are growing, just not as fast as some like. They are in this for the long term. They are not day traders looking for short term profits.

What makes you think their model is profitable? They got the more sustainable icelandic model pushing down the y fares they can charge. They are certainly not capturing any of the high end stuff. The medium end stuff is increasingly getting captured by the newly deployed premium economy. They are not making money even when the airline industry is doing well. Just wait until we enter into a down cycle.

How do you explain their CFO quitting last year or selling off portion of Norwegian bank?

Norwegian just recently announced that all incoming 789s will have an increase of premium economy seats, those are the real value of Norwegian longhaul. They seem popular and must be profitable because that reduces density. I'm waiting on the launch of a branded credit card in the States to entice folks to try them and build a bit of loyalty but I figure that comes after more routes. I'm thinking 2020.

My interpretation for a guy that does legal and has zero knowledge about finances

Norwegian is making money on their day to day opperations albeit less per seat /km than last year

They need money for new planes

They need more money for new planes that they get from their day to day opperations

Thus norwegian need to borow money

Norwegian is fine as long as they can slowly pay their debt /interest

Am I totally off...

WaywardMemphian wrote:

I'm waiting on the launch of a branded credit card in the States to entice folks to try them and build a bit of loyalty but I figure that comes after more routes. I'm thinking 2020.

Already available in Scandinavia. https://www.banknorwegian.no

Bostrom wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

I'm waiting on the launch of a branded credit card in the States to entice folks to try them and build a bit of loyalty but I figure that comes after more routes. I'm thinking 2020.

Already available in Scandinavia. https://www.banknorwegian.no

Not the States though.

kiowa wrote:

NozPerry wrote:

GamingPolaris wrote:

I believe this thread needs to be locked as Norwegian is doing fine and has actually grown in the month of January 2018. Title is misleading.

I agree completely

It seems like a pretty good discussion to me. shutting down a thread because it offends you seems biased.

Where in the paragraph do I state that it offends me? It doesn’t, the title is just misleading.

skipness1E wrote:

For those of the non goldfish amongst us, People Express was put of business by the competition because although they chased the bottom end of the market and consumers loved them, they filled B747s in core markets and still lost money. The only way to make money over time is to drive up yields and prices, and Norwegian shows no sign of that in long haul. The old mantra of growing market share can only go on for so long while sustaining losses. The whole smoke and mirrors of the group also reminds me of the complexity of the old Air Europe, except when it went down, Air Europa survived.

Discounted long haul airfares are not going to stimulate huge traffic...would be travellers still have to pay for their meals, hotels, and most expensive of all, time off! This model has been tried and failed so many times. I guess someone at DY wanted to "become a millionaire" (already being a billionaire).

GamingPolaris wrote:

Where in the paragraph do I state that it offends me? It doesn’t, the title is just misleading.

What part of the title is misleading?

They should put Ed Bastian and Doug Parker on the tails of their new airplanes. It will be a great tribute to their future owners.

I find it funny that people are yearning for the demise of DY. Isn't more competition better for consumers? I think those working for FSCs directly impacted by DY are the ones hoping for DY to implode...

DY could be made sustainable but the current management doesn't know what they're doing.
I've said it many times.

DY has to change its strategy radically and focus on LGW.
Forget the subsidiary in Argentina, that's a suicide mission.
Expand services to second tier cities on the US East coast and Asia.

Unfortunately, I think that they're wasting too much money on these side-projects that they're going to runn out before an effetive strategy could be found.
Just today they were dumping Scandinavia-U.S. one-way flights for less than 80$...

Waterbomber wrote:

DY could be made sustainable but the current management doesn't know what they're doing.
I've said it many times.

DY has to change its strategy radically and focus on LGW.
Forget the subsidiary in Argentina, that's a suicide mission.
Expand services to second tier cities on the US East coast and Asia.

Unfortunately, I think that they're wasting too much money on these side-projects that they're going to runn out before an effetive strategy could be found.
Just today they were dumping Scandinavia-U.S. one-way flights for less than 80$...

Their problem is that they are overloading capacity and destinations on OAK, LAX, and the northeast megalopolis instead of expanding inwards to cities with little to no competition.

sealand wrote:

I find it funny that people are yearning for the demise of DY. Isn't more competition better for consumers? I think those working for FSCs directly impacted by DY are the ones hoping for DY to implode...

Members on here ONLY want competition when it's a full service carrier who flies between primary airports that they can earn alliance elite status on. It's become more FlyerTalk than anything the last few years.

DY is good for the market. I'm glad there is some more competition. But their numbers are concerning. Growing too fast. Slow it down. The Argentina venture to me is one of the most bizarre moves in recent airline history. To me it just says they bought too many planes and have to get them in the air somewhere.