Norwegian Flight Cancellations @ EWR

jfklucky777 · Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:26 pm

I've noticed Norwegian has cancelled all flights to EWR since Wednesday, including their 3 flights today. Their site mentions the flight cancellations are due to "regulatory issues." The three flights to EWR are now being operated in and out of JFK.

Does anyone know what's going on?

jerseyewr777 · Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:07 pm

I'm curious to know as well. Looks like the arrivals Wednesday were diverted to JFK. Yesterday & today shows all 3 flights (FCO, BCN & ORY) cancelled. The flights tomorrow all seem to be operating as scheduled into EWR.

PatrickZ80 · Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:21 pm

Ever since Newark isn't slot controlled anymore too many airlines are trying to use it. The airport doesn't have the capacity for that, it's just full. There are too many flights and not all of them can be served, so some flights have to be served elsewhere.

I've also read somewhere that Newark is the most expensive airport in the USA when it comes to landing and handling fees. Even JFK is cheaper, only JFK is still slot controlled.

brian415 · Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:33 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Ever since Newark isn't slot controlled anymore too many airlines are trying to use it. The airport doesn't have the capacity for that, it's just full. There are too many flights and not all of them can be served, so some flights have to be served elsewhere.

I've also read somewhere that Newark is the most expensive airport in the USA when it comes to landing and handling fees. Even JFK is cheaper, only JFK is still slot controlled.

If you were to speculate, was it a flow control issue, or was it a gate availability issue at EWR?

Also, in terms of the diversion to JFK (which have no slots), did they have to "borrow" someone else's slot that wasn't in use that day?

Did these planes deadhead back to their respective bases?

DDR · Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:39 pm

Doesn't sound like a very smart way to run your business. Wouldn't they have researched all of this before they began service? Or was it slot controlled when they started?

N757ST · Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:46 pm

Flow control programs only effect arrivals from flights departing from the USA and Canada.

aemoreira1981 · Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:50 pm

I have to wonder how much is because of winds restricting capacity. Today, all arrivals had to do 22L circle 29.

brian415 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:03 am

DDR wrote:
Doesn't sound like a very smart way to run your business. Wouldn't they have researched all of this before they began service?

Growth may be happening at the expense of sound practices, as these articles hint at ...
▪https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/14/norwegian-flies-thin-air/
▪https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/07/norwegians-creative-accounting/

DDR wrote:
Or was it slot controlled when they started?

Norwegian launched EWR service in June 2017. Slot restrictions came off in October 2016, during Obama era.
▪https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newark_Liberty_International_Airport&oldid=774591907#Airlines_and_destinations
▪https://airwaysmag.com/airports/slot-restrictions-come-off-newark-october-30/

jerseyewr777 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:05 am

Interesting to note that no other airline seems to be having the same problem at Newark. Sure, it's crowded & you wait for gates at times. JFK is no different. There must be more to this story.

quintinsoloviev · Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:06 am

I think they've been at EWR before the new "no-slot" rule

brian415 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:16 am

quintinsoloviev wrote:
I think they've been at EWR before the new "no-slot" rule

See above. I modified my post.

N757ST · Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:19 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
I have to wonder how much is because of winds restricting capacity. Today, all arrivals had to do 22L circle 29.

Only domestic and Canadian flights would’ve been effected by a ground delay program. Trans Atlantic flights won’t be affected.

Delta717 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:34 am

Could it at all be related to the fact that DY7013 (LGW-JFK) hasn’t been operated by a Norwegian a/c since Feb. 28?

DDR · Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:37 am

brian415 wrote:
DDR wrote:
Doesn't sound like a very smart way to run your business. Wouldn't they have researched all of this before they began service?

Growth may be happening at the expense of sound practices, as these articles hint at ...
▪https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/14/norwegian-flies-thin-air/
▪https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/07/norwegians-creative-accounting/

DDR wrote:
Or was it slot controlled when they started?

Norwegian launched EWR service in June 2017. Slot restrictions came off in October 2016, during Obama era.
▪https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newark_Liberty_International_Airport&oldid=774591907#Airlines_and_destinations
▪https://airwaysmag.com/airports/slot-restrictions-come-off-newark-october-30/

Thanks for the info and the links Brian. Pretty informative stuff in the links.

a340crew · Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:37 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
I have to wonder how much is because of winds restricting capacity. Today, all arrivals had to do 22L circle 29.

This is most likely the issue. Norwegian doesn't not allow "circle to land" maneuvers per there ops specs, there for, if the crosswind component to land on 22L was too much, that would explain the reason for moving the flights to JFK.

All 3 flights operated to/from JFK today instead of Newark, with Norwegian providing ground transportation to passengers who could not get to JFK.

jfklucky777 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:56 am

a340crew wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
I have to wonder how much is because of winds restricting capacity. Today, all arrivals had to do 22L circle 29.

This is most likely the issue. Norwegian doesn't not allow "circle to land" maneuvers per there ops specs, there for, if the crosswind component to land on 22L was too much, that would explain the reason for moving the flights to JFK.

All 3 flights operated to/from JFK today instead of Newark, with Norwegian providing ground transportation to passengers who could not get to JFK.

I don't think this is the case. Quoted from their website for the fight status of the FCO-EWR flight:

"Important information regarding your flight DY7023 from Rome (FCO) to New York (EWR) 16.03.2018 17:25. Due to regulatory issues the flight will now be operated to New York (JFK) airport."

The same info was posted for all EWR bound flights since Wednesday.

jerseyewr777 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:09 am

Flights tomorrow cancelled as well & being sent to JFK with new flight numbers. I think we are seeing the end of this airline.

CrawleyBen · Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:29 am

jerseyewr777 wrote:
Flights tomorrow cancelled as well & being sent to JFK with new flight numbers. I think we are seeing the end of this airline.

You think wrong I'm afraid.

Ben

Jouhou · Sat Mar 17, 2018 10:02 am

a340crew wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
I have to wonder how much is because of winds restricting capacity. Today, all arrivals had to do 22L circle 29.

This is most likely the issue. Norwegian doesn't not allow "circle to land" maneuvers per there ops specs, there for, if the crosswind component to land on 22L was too much, that would explain the reason for moving the flights to JFK.

All 3 flights operated to/from JFK today instead of Newark, with Norwegian providing ground transportation to passengers who could not get to JFK.

I concur with this theory. The jet stream has shifted in a manner that currently has howling arctic winds passing through the northeastern US. Believe me the wind is brutal right now :cold:

AF022 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 10:52 am

JFK terminal one is extremely busy - how can they handle three extra flights?

aemoreira1981 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:50 am

Jouhou wrote:
a340crew wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
I have to wonder how much is because of winds restricting capacity. Today, all arrivals had to do 22L circle 29.

This is most likely the issue. Norwegian doesn't not allow "circle to land" maneuvers per there ops specs, there for, if the crosswind component to land on 22L was too much, that would explain the reason for moving the flights to JFK.

All 3 flights operated to/from JFK today instead of Newark, with Norwegian providing ground transportation to passengers who could not get to JFK.

I concur with this theory. The jet stream has shifted in a manner that currently has howling arctic winds passing through the northeastern US. Believe me the wind is brutal right now

And pretty typical for this time of year---strong northwest winds. When 31R/13L was closed for a time, the wrong time was picked to close that runway (for construction on 4L/22R) because the winds turned JFK into a single-runway operation with 4-hour delays.

AF022 wrote:
JFK terminal one is extremely busy - how can they handle three extra flights?

In the evening after the legacy carriers have departed, but not late enough to force a Terminal 4 arrival.

goboeing · Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:55 am

a340crew wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
I have to wonder how much is because of winds restricting capacity. Today, all arrivals had to do 22L circle 29.

This is most likely the issue. Norwegian doesn't not allow "circle to land" maneuvers per there ops specs, there for, if the crosswind component to land on 22L was too much, that would explain the reason for moving the flights to JFK.

All 3 flights operated to/from JFK today instead of Newark, with Norwegian providing ground transportation to passengers who could not get to JFK.

Having regular service to EWR yet not being able to operate on runway 29 . . . wow.

Norwegian is apparently operationally inept.

ual763 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:46 pm

What part of “regulatory issues” do people not understand? It’s not weather. They don’t cancel flights days out due to the current winds being strong. I’m sure the airline would love to blame it on weather, as this is a lot more embarrassing. There’s something else going on here.

ei a330-200 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:50 pm

ual763 wrote:
What part of “regulatory issues” do people not understand? It’s not weather. They don’t cancel flights days out due to the current winds being strong. I’m sure the airline would love to blame it on weather, as this is a lot more embarrassing. There’s something else going on here.

The regulatory issue being that they cannot fly a circling approach due to company procedures, which are REGULATORY in nature.

Polot · Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:57 pm

ei a330-200 wrote:
ual763 wrote:
What part of “regulatory issues” do people not understand? It’s not weather. They don’t cancel flights days out due to the current winds being strong. I’m sure the airline would love to blame it on weather, as this is a lot more embarrassing. There’s something else going on here.

The regulatory issue being that they cannot fly a circling approach due to company procedures, which are REGULATORY in nature.

Talk of the airline about to shut down, or because of sudden space issues at EWR (what changed in the past couple of days where that suddenly became the major concern?) make no sense. DY is still operating the flights, just to another airport.

aemoreira1981 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:01 pm

ei a330-200 wrote:
ual763 wrote:
What part of “regulatory issues” do people not understand? It’s not weather. They don’t cancel flights days out due to the current winds being strong. I’m sure the airline would love to blame it on weather, as this is a lot more embarrassing. There’s something else going on here.

The regulatory issue being that they cannot fly a circling approach due to company procedures, which are REGULATORY in nature.

But that sounds odd since the Runway 13 approaches at JFK are also circulatory in nature, although it's not an approach-circle per se. A runway 13L approach to JFK and Runway 29 approach to EWR leave less than 2 miles before one lines up with the runway, although at EWR, it's less than 1, and 22 circle 29 is a bit challenging with 4 circle 29 even more so.

jfklucky777 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:03 pm

ORY-EWR and FCO-EWR are cancelled today and operating from JFK. Wind is not an issue today.

N757ST · Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:04 pm

The circle to 29 isn’t a “circle to land”. It’s a charted visual approach. If flying a charted visual is against an op-spec then that’s one heck of a restrictive op-spec.

United1 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:07 pm

Can someone please explain what "circle to land" means? Thanks!!

kiowa · Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:10 pm

Polot wrote:
ei a330-200 wrote:
ual763 wrote:
What part of “regulatory issues” do people not understand? It’s not weather. They don’t cancel flights days out due to the current winds being strong. I’m sure the airline would love to blame it on weather, as this is a lot more embarrassing. There’s something else going on here.

The regulatory issue being that they cannot fly a circling approach due to company procedures, which are REGULATORY in nature.

Talk of the airline about to shut down, or because of sudden space issues at EWR (what changed in the past couple of days where that suddenly became the major concern?) make no sense. DY is still operating the flights, just to another airport.

Will other airlines honor Norwegians tickets in the event that Norwegian goes out of business overnight?

jfklganyc · Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:25 pm

Just to correct some misconceptions on this thread:

1 JFK is not LHR. There are slots available. A divert would not need to borrow a slot

2 T1 has space and T4 is the de facto overflow for any airline

3 EWR 29 is a circle approach. VOR or RNP JFK 13 L or R is absolutely NOT a circling approach.

A circling approach has charted circling minimums.

VOR 13L has an MDA (minimum descent alt) of 800 feet at which point Lead in Lights are followed to runway.

RNP 13L has minimums of 530 feet at which point the same lights are followed.

EWR runway 29 has an ILS to 22L circle to land 29. Or a charted visual to 29.

Over the last few years, these types of approaches have gone the way of the Dodo in the industry. They are considered unnecessarily risky and are gradually being replaced by RNAV visual approaches (these are still visuals that provide vertical and lateral guidance)

It is not surprising that a new airline wouldnt bother to get certified in circling approaches or chop and drop non precision approaches...it is the way of the future.

STT757 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:27 pm

]

United1 wrote:
Can someone please explain what "circle to land" means? Thanks!!

https://youtu.be/YnSHk2VUicY

Circle to land runway 29 EWR.

jfklganyc · Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:51 pm

[https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KEWR/IAP/STADIUM+VISUAL+RWY+29[/quote]

That is the approach plate.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Circling_Approach_-_difference_between_ICAO_PANS-OPS_and_US_TERPS

That is some info on circling approaches.

It is basically an approach that has no straight in landing.

You follow an approach path with guidance until a predetermined altitude. At that point you hand fly a a semi circle to the landing runway while maintaining a predetermined radius for your category of aircraft. Category of aircraft is based on size and approach speed. For instance, a 787 would be a cat D. They would have a larger radius (based on visibility) than an Express Jet 145

As I said in an earlier post, the industry is moving away from this type of approach to approaches that have constant vertical and lateral guidance (even on visuals). This inceases situational awareness and safety.

N212R · Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:37 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Over the last few years, these types of approaches have gone the way of the Dodo in the industry. They are considered unnecessarily risky and are gradually being replaced by RNAV visual approaches (these are still visuals that provide vertical and lateral guidance)

It is not surprising that a new airline wouldnt bother to get certified in circling approaches or chop and drop non precision approaches...it is the way of the future.

What, if anything, does that say about the aeronautical skill levels of those in the pointy end of today's commercial jetliners? Why would a "new" airline be any different from a legacy carrier in matters of certification?

CrawleyBen · Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:53 pm

kiowa wrote:
Polot wrote:
ei a330-200 wrote:

The regulatory issue being that they cannot fly a circling approach due to company procedures, which are REGULATORY in nature.

Talk of the airline about to shut down, or because of sudden space issues at EWR (what changed in the past couple of days where that suddenly became the major concern?) make no sense. DY is still operating the flights, just to another airport.

Will other airlines honor Norwegians tickets in the event that Norwegian goes out of business overnight?

Personally can't see why any other airlines would honour DY passengers tickets in the event the airline collapsed (which I'm not convinced they are going to FWIW).

Ben

ual763 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 4:00 pm

When wind is a factor, they simply list weather as the cancellation factor, not "regulatory issues". Also, others have said they've canceled flights today even though wind isn't an issue. They've also canceled flights beyond the TAF forecast valid times. There's more here than just "wind". It's not like wind like this is all that unusual at EWR.

Besides being a pilot, I'm also a licensed dispatcher. If it was wind, they would still release the flight to EWR, and just list JFK as an alternate. They wouldn't cancel EWR flights days early for this.

N757ST · Sat Mar 17, 2018 4:28 pm

JfkLganyc is absolutely correct, but what I was saying is I can’t remember a time they actually were using the circle 29... they will use the stadium visual 29.

ual777 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:32 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Just to correct some misconceptions on this thread:

1 JFK is not LHR. There are slots available. A divert would not need to borrow a slot

2 T1 has space and T4 is the de facto overflow for any airline

3 EWR 29 is a circle approach. VOR or RNP JFK 13 L or R is absolutely NOT a circling approach.

A circling approach has charted circling minimums.

VOR 13L has an MDA (minimum descent alt) of 800 feet at which point Lead in Lights are followed to runway.

RNP 13L has minimums of 530 feet at which point the same lights are followed.

EWR runway 29 has an ILS to 22L circle to land 29. Or a charted visual to 29.

Over the last few years, these types of approaches have gone the way of the Dodo in the industry. They are considered unnecessarily risky and are gradually being replaced by RNAV visual approaches (these are still visuals that provide vertical and lateral guidance)

It is not surprising that a new airline wouldnt bother to get certified in circling approaches or chop and drop non precision approaches...it is the way of the future.

When EWR is landing 29, you don't have to accept it. The wide bodies regularly take 22L when circle to 29 is in use.

There's something else going on because it doesn't make any sense.

spinkid · Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:46 pm

ual777 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:

There's something else going on because it doesn't make any sense.

I agree, there is something else going on here. If its just the wind pattern forcing this kind of landing, you have to figure that is going to happen fairly often, and the cost in dollars and cost in reputation to bus your passengers to JFK can't be worth it.

They certainly are not going out of business. If they were, this would not be the first clue.

Honestly, I was surprised they chose to operate out of both EWR and JFK. For an ULCC, it seems costly in terms of ground staffing. Perhaps they are testing out the feasability of combining ops to JFK only.

Mortyman · Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:19 pm

brian415 wrote:
spinkid wrote:
They certainly are not going out of business. If they were, this would not be the first clue.

Have a look at the two leehamnews links in an above post. Their solvency depends on a few factors. One of the big factors is whether The Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway (Finanstilsynet) will allow/disallow Norwegian Air's change to accounting practices.

Norwegian concludes on accounting treatment of Norwegian Finans Holding (NOFI) - no impact on the book value of equity in Q1 2018

https://media.norwegian.com/uk/?_ga=2.1 ... 18-2449221

brian415 · Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:20 pm

spinkid wrote:
They certainly are not going out of business. If they were, this would not be the first clue.

Have a look at the two leehamnews links in an above post. Their solvency depends on a few factors. One of the big factors is whether The Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway (Finanstilsynet) will allow/disallow Norwegian Air's change to accounting practices.

spinkid · Sun Mar 18, 2018 6:12 am

brian415 wrote:
spinkid wrote:
They certainly are not going out of business. If they were, this would not be the first clue.

Have a look at the two leehamnews links in an above post. Their solvency depends on a few factors. One of the big factors is whether The Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway (Finanstilsynet) will allow/disallow Norwegian Air's change to accounting practices.

I may have mispoken a bit. What I meant is I don't think they are going out of business this week. If that's the case. Then the only reason I can see them moving flights to JFK is if they are missing payments to EWR, but since both airports have the same owners, that's not the case.. I don't believe this would be the indicator.

Your references are certainly valid. They certainly are spreading themselves thin.

flyguy84 · Sun Mar 18, 2018 6:20 am

a340crew wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
I have to wonder how much is because of winds restricting capacity. Today, all arrivals had to do 22L circle 29.

This is most likely the issue. Norwegian doesn't not allow "circle to land" maneuvers per there ops specs, there for, if the crosswind component to land on 22L was too much, that would explain the reason for moving the flights to JFK.

All 3 flights operated to/from JFK today instead of Newark, with Norwegian providing ground transportation to passengers who could not get to JFK.

Circle To land is different from a circling approach. Also, there is a visual 29 approach available. Dispatch legality isn’t based on winds.

NYCVIE · Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:22 am

spinkid wrote:
ual777 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:

There's something else going on because it doesn't make any sense.

I agree, there is something else going on here. If its just the wind pattern forcing this kind of landing, you have to figure that is going to happen fairly often, and the cost in dollars and cost in reputation to bus your passengers to JFK can't be worth it.

They certainly are not going out of business. If they were, this would not be the first clue.

Honestly, I was surprised they chose to operate out of both EWR and JFK. For an ULCC, it seems costly in terms of ground staffing. Perhaps they are testing out the feasability of combining ops to JFK only.

They probably couldn't get new JFK slots at the times they wanted.

CPHBob · Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:56 pm

Hello! First post from a long time lurker! ... May i ask people in the know if there is any similarities between EWR and LAX regarding landing profiles? Reason for asking is: Norwegian delayed and ultimately cancelled their flights from CPH/LAX some days ago due to "restrictions"!

stlgph · Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:12 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Jouhou wrote:
a340crew wrote:

This is most likely the issue. Norwegian doesn't not allow "circle to land" maneuvers per there ops specs, there for, if the crosswind component to land on 22L was too much, that would explain the reason for moving the flights to JFK.

All 3 flights operated to/from JFK today instead of Newark, with Norwegian providing ground transportation to passengers who could not get to JFK.

I concur with this theory. The jet stream has shifted in a manner that currently has howling arctic winds passing through the northeastern US. Believe me the wind is brutal right now

And pretty typical for this time of year---strong northwest winds. When 31R/13L was closed for a time, the wrong time was picked to close that runway (for construction on 4L/22R) because the winds turned JFK into a single-runway operation with 4-hour delays.

AF022 wrote:
JFK terminal one is extremely busy - how can they handle three extra flights?

In the evening after the legacy carriers have departed, but not late enough to force a Terminal 4 arrival.

T1 is still pretty busy late into the night.

1. Turkish has a flight headed out around midnight.
2. Same with Air France.
3. Korean comes and sits until its early morning departure.
4. Eva Air comes and sits until its early morning departure.
5. China Eastern has a late evening arrival, early early morning departure.
6. Aeroflot has a flight now coming in around 11 and out around 1am.
7. Air China comes in at midnight and out early morning
8. Philippine Airlines comes into the mix at times.
9. Royal Air Maroc sometimes comes in early early morning.
10. Norwegian already has a flight that doesn't go out until 11.

I've seen "G12" listed for several Norwegian flights in the past. I can only presume, unless someone knows something, they're boarding by bus in a remote parking spot somewhere.

I guess Eva Air could get pushed out of the gate and towed back for its departure. Does anyone know if this is the case?

arcticcruiser · Sun Mar 18, 2018 7:45 pm

CPHBob wrote:
Hello! First post from a long time lurker! ... May i ask people in the know if there is any similarities between EWR and LAX regarding landing profiles? Reason for asking is: Norwegian delayed and ultimately cancelled their flights from CPH/LAX some days ago due to "restrictions"!

Could that be “financial” restrictions as in money losing?

Flypd · Sun Mar 18, 2018 8:52 pm

The Cancellations are due to no landing rights being established at the beginning of their operations. Only discovered after internal audit of CBP and Port Authority. All passengers from EWR are being Bussed over to JFK

CPHBob · Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:21 pm

arcticcruiser wrote:
CPHBob wrote:
Hello! First post from a long time lurker! ... May i ask people in the know if there is any similarities between EWR and LAX regarding landing profiles? Reason for asking is: Norwegian delayed and ultimately cancelled their flights from CPH/LAX some days ago due to "restrictions"!

Could that be “financial” restrictions as in money losing?

I have no idea tbh, and i did not at first think twice about the cancellations untill i found this thread, and went back and re-read the the explanation to cancel flights from/to LAX. According to Norwegian the cause is/was "Airport restrictions in LAX" (translated) so my guess is as good as yours! Even though i got a good imagination! But speculations is not my main reasoning to ask, and post.

codc10 · Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:34 pm

Flypd wrote:
The Cancellations are due to no landing rights being established at the beginning of their operations. Only discovered after internal audit of CBP and Port Authority. All passengers from EWR are being Bussed over to JFK

Wow... a pretty remarkable oversight if true!!

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net