Just posted on Norwegians Facebook page, they will increase LGW-JFK to 3 times daily. It appears to start the end of October per there website and flight times are as follows and all flights operated under Norwegian Air Uk.

DI7013 LGW 6:00 JFK 10:20
DI7017 LGW 9:50 JFK 14:00
DI7015 LGW 17:10 JFK 21:30

DI7014 JFK 11:20 LGW 22:50
DI7018 JFK 19:40 LGW 7:10+1
DI7016 JFK 22:30 LGW 10:00+1

My question is - are they increasing in on other routes or will one 787 coming from LGW and other cities be sitting off on the side? An hour to turn a 787? Can't wait to see this operation on days when everything is delayed.

My thoughts are that this is too much, they start competing with themselves. LCCs need to run at low frequencies in order to fill their planes, their passengers mostly aren't too picky about the flight times as long as it's cheap. Instead of using the planes on this route they could better use them on other routes where they got less competition, might get better load factors there.

NYC LON has plenty of low fare demand. I see no reason they can't succeed unless the airline itself is incompetent. 3 flights per day is nothing.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

My thoughts are that this is too much, they start competing with themselves. LCCs need to run at low frequencies in order to fill their planes, their passengers mostly aren't too picky about the flight times as long as it's cheap. Instead of using the planes on this route they could better use them on other routes where they got less competition, might get better load factors there.

I disagree as this does something different for them: it gives them a competitive edge in the business market with mid-evening, late-evening, and morning JFK departures. They also have the earliest LON departure for NYC by 2 hours with this schedule. 3 flights is probably the smallest number required to compete business-wise in this market.

A nonstop r/t ticket for economy without a stayover on JFK-LHR is over $2200 on AA/BA or DL/VS, regardless of when booking. Norwegian's premium product is $1745 and Y is $700. Even adding meals, seats, and a bag to Norwegian is still under $900.

I could see biz travelers normally forced into Y willing to do Gatwick in exchange for flying Premium and small businesses flying people into LGW for the significant cost savings.

I also wonder if this is a big "screw you" at IAG for the takeover discussions...

1- hour turnaround time for a 787-9? Oh my... tight.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Instead of using the planes on this route they could better use them on other routes where they got less competition, might get better load factors there.

They don't even have the planes. Currently, DI7013/DI7014 frequently has to be operated by Hifly due to lack of planes.

lowfareair wrote:

I disagree as this does something different for them: it gives them a competitive edge in the business market with mid-evening, late-evening, and morning JFK (New York [John F. Kennedy], USA) departures. They also have the earliest LON departure for NYC by 2 hours with this schedule. 3 flights is probably the smallest number required to compete business-wise in this market.

A nonstop r/t ticket for economy without a stayover on JFK-LHR is over $2200 on AA/BA or DL/VS, regardless of when booking. Norwegian's premium product is $1745 and Y is $700. Even adding meals, seats, and a bag to Norwegian is still under $900.

I could see biz travelers normally forced into Y willing to do Gatwick in exchange for flying Premium and small businesses flying people into LGW (London (Gatwick) - England) for the significant cost savings.

That's all aimed at the business traveler, but that's not what Norwegian is for. Don't forget that they're an LCC, business traffic is a niche market for them.

The average LCC passenger couldn't care less what time the flight goes as long as it's cheap. If it goes in the morning, they fly in the morning. If it goes in the evening, they fly in the evening. If one day is expensive and the next day is cheap, they fly the next day. You can also say the passengers adapt to the airline instead of the airline adapting to the passengers.

And yes, Norwegian does have the first flight in the morning to New York. In fact, it's so early it's not able to capture any transfers. They all arrive in London later in the morning or afternoon. This flight relies strictly on local demand. My guess is that it's not very busy and therefor doesn't make much money. The later flights capture transfer traffic and can therefor be filled better.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

lowfareair wrote:

I disagree as this does something different for them: it gives them a competitive edge in the business market with mid-evening, late-evening, and morning JFK (New York [John F. Kennedy], USA) (New York [John F. Kennedy], USA) departures. They also have the earliest LON departure for NYC by 2 hours with this schedule. 3 flights is probably the smallest number required to compete business-wise in this market.

A nonstop r/t ticket for economy without a stayover on JFK-LHR is over $2200 on AA/BA or DL/VS, regardless of when booking. Norwegian's premium product is $1745 and Y is $700. Even adding meals, seats, and a bag to Norwegian is still under $900.

I could see biz travelers normally forced into Y willing to do Gatwick in exchange for flying Premium and small businesses flying people into LGW (London (Gatwick) - England) (London (Gatwick) - England) for the significant cost savings.

That's all aimed at the business traveler, but that's not what Norwegian is for. Don't forget that they're an LCC, business traffic is a niche market for them.

The average LCC passenger couldn't care less what time the flight goes as long as it's cheap. If it goes in the morning, they fly in the morning. If it goes in the evening, they fly in the evening. If one day is expensive and the next day is cheap, they fly the next day. You can also say the passengers adapt to the airline instead of the airline adapting to the passengers.

And yes, Norwegian does have the first flight in the morning to New York. In fact, it's so early it's not able to capture any transfers. They all arrive in London later in the morning or afternoon. This flight relies strictly on local demand. My guess is that it's not very busy and therefor doesn't make much money. The later flights capture transfer traffic and can therefor be filled better.

Norwegian is a leisure LCC first, but not sure why that means they aren't allowed to go after business traffic. If anything, targeting business travelers more will help them in the difficult winter TATL leisure market.

asuflyer wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Instead of using the planes on this route they could better use them on other routes where they got less competition, might get better load factors there.

They don't even have the planes. Currently, DI7013/DI7014 frequently has to be operated by Hifly due to lack of planes.

Saw a Red Nose sitting at DEN on Mon afternoon. I imagine the shorter routes like NYC are getting the HiFly fill ins. I've seen where when it is known as a 787 sub, the fares are a bit cheaper.

One hour turn around, wheels down wheels up at JFK, yeah right!

The block times seem off. Too long westbound and too short eastbound.

Is BA still flying LGW-JFK? If so, only daily?

GolfBravoRomeo wrote:

The block times seem off. Too long westbound and too short eastbound.

End of October start time is in the weird period where Europe is off daylight saving time but the US isn't.

This notion that business travelers won't take LCCs is another a.net myth that needs to die. If I live in London and need to be in NYC before lunch and I see an early morning option that lets me spend the night at home and still make the meeting, I don't care how Norwegian brands itself, I'm taking the flight that's most convenient for me. Similarly, I personally hate red-eyes and their earliest eastbound option lets me avoid the red-eye without even having to get up early.

The idea that business pax are never price-sensitive is another fallacy. Quite a few people are in business for themselves and will find good value in their "premium" product which is enough space to get some work done on the flight at a price point similar to coach.

I'm sure it's an uphill battle against the entrenched carriers and their frequent flier programs, but we shouldn't be too quick to write off the new entrant. They're providing a competitive product at a competitive price.

They will also increase to 14 times weekly to Bangkok alltogether from the Scandinavian countries ...

Why is it a surprise they want to go after business passengers? This actually seems to be one of the few lh routes they are doing well on.

RamblinMan wrote:

If I live in London and need to be in NYC before lunch and I see an early morning option that lets me spend the night at home and still make the meeting, I don't care how Norwegian brands itself, I'm taking the flight that's most convenient for me.

If you're in London, then yes. But now you find yourself in Amsterdam and you need to be at that same meeting in New York before lunch. No way you can make it from Amsterdam to Gatwick before that flight departs, the first flight from Amsterdam to Gatwick arrives after the departure of the first flight from Gatwick to New York. And Amsterdam is just one example, it can be any place in Europe.

That's what I meant when I said this flight relies strictly on demand from London since it's too early for anything else. And that demand from just London, is it big enough? I highly doubt it.

New York to London is 4 million plus people per year. This isn't Tulsa to Toronto.

It's a huge market. I think they can do it. Norweigan has shown they can steal marketshare they don't have to stimulate more demand, they will grab low fare seekers from other airlines who will need to adjust their coach capacity.

As always PatrickZ80 is obsessed with connecting pax and will probably soon mention APD and how Norwegian should not be based in LGW. London and New York are among the world largest air markets and you still wonder if there is enough demand? Why dont you apply for a route planning job with DY as you always seem to know better than all those working there already?

PatrickZ80 wrote:

RamblinMan wrote:

If I live in London and need to be in NYC before lunch and I see an early morning option that lets me spend the night at home and still make the meeting, I don't care how Norwegian brands itself, I'm taking the flight that's most convenient for me.

If you're in London, then yes. But now you find yourself in Amsterdam and you need to be at that same meeting in New York before lunch. No way you can make it from Amsterdam to Gatwick before that flight departs, the first flight from Amsterdam to Gatwick arrives after the departure of the first flight from Gatwick to New York. And Amsterdam is just one example, it can be any place in Europe.

That's what I meant when I said this flight relies strictly on demand from London since it's too early for anything else. And that demand from just London, is it big enough? I highly doubt it.

What is this obsession with connecting pax? LON to NYC is a huge market.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

RamblinMan wrote:

If I live in London and need to be in NYC before lunch and I see an early morning option that lets me spend the night at home and still make the meeting, I don't care how Norwegian brands itself, I'm taking the flight that's most convenient for me.

If you're in London, then yes. But now you find yourself in Amsterdam and you need to be at that same meeting in New York before lunch. No way you can make it from Amsterdam to Gatwick before that flight departs, the first flight from Amsterdam to Gatwick arrives after the departure of the first flight from Gatwick to New York. And Amsterdam is just one example, it can be any place in Europe.

That's what I meant when I said this flight relies strictly on demand from London since it's too early for anything else. And that demand from just London, is it big enough? I highly doubt it.

If you find yourself in Amsterdam and it's critical you are in New York by a certain time, fly Delta, KLM or any of the other non-stop options. Who would seriously consider self-connecting (or semi-self-connecting via the Gatwick service) if time is that critical?

As a primarily P2P carrier, worrying about connections is not likely to be their prime focus particularly where there are multiple daily flights. And given the size (approx 4 million pax per year?) and affluence of the markets at both ends of this route, I doubt they'll have too much trouble to fill it. From my experience it's typically the cheapest of the daily flights so they may not make as much money on it, but it could be useful to be able to claim that they have the earliest arrival into NYC.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, they are likely to appeal to many different passenger types, including business. The pricing for their premium cabin is good and the product very competitive. A recent interview I read from the CEO stated that their premium cabins are often full.. Anecdotally, a friend who is cabin crew says she rarely sees empty seats up front so whether it's business traffic or affluent leisure pax, it's the sort of business they need more of.

Mark

4.4 million flew LHR/LGW-JFK/EWR in 2017. Ignoring seasonality, this means that LON-NYC, as a city-pair, had 6,051 passengers daily each way. So 12,000 a day return.

Source: http://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA/ ... alysis.pdf

lowfareair wrote:

I also wonder if this is a big "screw you" at IAG for the takeover discussions...

Would appear to have that effect. And a message to others sitting on the negotiating sidelines.

I am not a business traveller and go to New York lots, as I have another hobby that involves New York apart from aviation, so I am price sensitive, But I find the 6am too early and the 5pm too late. The 10am flight is perfect for me.

What I would find great if there was a flight back at midnight/1am, as this would allow me to be tired enough to sleep on the plane and spend the evening in midtown, before going home.

lol @ the folks who think this flight needs connections to survive. NYC-LON is one of the largest, if not THE largest longhaul markets in the world. LGW-JFK is literally the one flight that needs no connections to survive.

Also the flight times are not reflective of turn times as aircraft arriving JFK will be able to serve other destinations and vice versa.

Cheers

filipair wrote:

lol @ the folks who think this flight needs connections to survive. NYC-LON is one of the largest, if not THE largest longhaul markets in the world. LGW-JFK is literally the one flight that needs no connections to survive.

Also the flight times are not reflective of turn times as aircraft arriving JFK will be able to serve other destinations and vice versa.

Cheers

No other city right now is open for booking for a morning arrival into JFK except for London.

So either the plan is to turn a 787 in an hour or swap out from another route from the night before and leave a plane RON at JFK and send two to a remote stand for the day.

This is bonkers. You can get a decent fare with BA as they charge through the nose for J on 744s with a premium cabin up to door 4. Really. 86J cabins on the subfleet to JFK.

If DI want to lose money flying for peanuts just to build market share, at a loss at the bottom end, then yaaaay for the consumer. The late night JFK-LGW now gets into Crawley Intl after midnight. Imagine the yields on using a new B789 on THAT one.

They shouldn’t need feed BUT they should need to charge a decent fare to make money and there’s no sign of a reality check there. Overwhelmingly selling Y fares at bucket prices killed Laker, People Express and many more.

I flew on the 0600 LGW-JFK recently and it was pretty awful in terms of the time I had to be out of bed, but I did it because I needed a one-way LGW-JFK in a decent seat which was cheap - part of a business trip. For different reasons, that was exactly my reason for choosing Norwegian last time - for a leisure trip tied into a cruise. The Norwegian hard product (seat/IFE) is acceptable. Catering is dreadful but that's an observation and I wouldn't choose an airline or pay extra for it - but I do think they could get better value for the money they're spending with their catering contract than they do as it's been really poor on both occasions.

So my decisions to fly Norwegian were on price (as no-one else offers sensible one-way pricing) and departures from Gatwick. I'd have taken a flight at a more leisurely time ex LHR if the price had been similar, but it wasn't and so 0600 from Gatwick it was. And it was full, so I guess I'm not the only one.

I do not think the new schedule will work. Apart from the 1-hour turns which are madness (unless the block times are so padded that early arrivals are the norm), the 0950 ex Gatwick is still so early that it will not create any new connections or pick up inbound traffic, and it will simply move people off the 0600 flight as the 0950 is less bad. I'd have been very pleased to have an 0950 flight for my last trip, but I doubt there would have been enough people to backfill the vacant seat I'd have left on the 0600.

I can see why the 0600 is desirable from a utilisation point of view (sandwiched between overnight EZE or SIN rotations) but I can't see the point in tying up a whole 787-9 with no benefit to other routes with the schedule of the third flight. It surely would be better to space them more with a post-US clock change schedule such as:

LGW 0600 - 0905 JFK 1030 - 2230 LGW (aircraft then goes 2355 to EZE or SIN)
LGW 1710 - 2015 JFK 2200 - 1000 LGW (aircraft then goes to 1200 JFK)
LGW 1200 - 1505 JFK 1730 - 0530 LGW (aircraft then goes LAX around 0900)

You can get two consecutive days of LAX flying mid morning and mid afternoon in between the JFK arrival at 0545 and the departure at 1710 over successive days. The midday LGW-JFK will also pick up connections from all of Norwegian's Scandinavian flights into Gatwick and help to grow the market.

I think they've got this wrong, and it smacks of a short-haul scheduling mentality being applied to long-haul. Ultimately it's their business to run but I'll be interested to see if this lasts - or even if Norwegian themselves get as far as this debate being a reality instead of a notion on the drawing board. The price is good, the product is acceptable for what you pay for it, and the competition has left a gap with pricing policy particularly if you're flying one way or not including a Saturday night stay. Whether you can translate all that into a money-making plan for Norwegian is a different question.

PS - I found arriving in JFK at 0900 ish is no better than later in the day for CBP. There were a load of flights from other points arriving at that time which made life no easier to get through CBP.

readytotaxi wrote:

One hour turn around, wheels down wheels up at JFK, yeah right!

This is block times, so it's time on stand. Still punchy mind.

B747forever wrote:

As always PatrickZ80 is obsessed with connecting pax and will probably soon mention APD and how Norwegian should not be based in LGW. London and New York are among the world largest air markets and you still wonder if there is enough demand? Why dont you apply for a route planning job with DY as you always seem to know better than all those working there already?

ABSOLUTELY HERE HERE

At last other posters have sussed this guy out, absolutely excellent reply it was a joy to read, am sure Skipness will appreciate it as well:-)

Remember JFK is a base so the hour turn is not necessarily the same plan! They do W patterns s from other bases etc. Thecare not stupid to schedule an hours turn in the same aircraft!

Come on guys have some common sense.... think outside of the box!!!!

Zulu....

Norwegian is limited in their times they can get in and out of T1 hence the schedules.

But yes the 9/10 hour is still busy as TAME, Azerbaijian and Fly Jamaica come in followed by a possibly early JAL and EVA or a way early Korean 380.

stlgph wrote:

My question is - are they increasing in on other routes or will one 787 coming from LGW and other cities be sitting off on the side? An hour to turn a 787? Can't wait to see this operation on days when everything is delayed.

Ummm so with hub and or focus city operations, a flight comes in from one city and goes out to another...does no always turn and go back .

An AA 773 (one plane) could/does the following sometimes over multiple days. DFW-LHR-MIA-GRU-DFW-HKG-LAX-SYD-LAX-LHR and so on with deep-ish clean in LA and another good clean in LAX inbetween and look over etc, and another plane does something similar or other city pairs and it all works. VS LHR-JFK-LHR-LAX-LHR-JNB-LHR-DEL and so on. This is how all (most ) airlines maximize their fleets. DL and UA turn to other cities over LHR as well, and Im sure at other places like PVG, NRT and PEK.


I do see people on here (some) do not know the historical and still current importance of the London - New York market. Which is why BA has its own terminal at JFK still.

This was always DY's plan. To go daily and multiple daily to NYC and LAX. I think they are double daily to FL on some days if not x7. Expect ONE more LGW-JFK in a year or two. The market can handle this...and its twisting the knife in BA. It was expected!!

Also DY gets first arrival into NYC, someone correct me if anyone else arrives before - I just have not seen it, so I chuckle because this savvy LLC leaves early enough to arrive in JFK around the old Concorde time... granted that was a LHR 1030 dep, arr JFK 920 back in the day.

People love DY, and a lot of business travelers adore them. Nice Y service, and very good Y+ with better recline. They will secure more corporate contracts now. We should be rooting for them!

LAXLHR wrote:

stlgph wrote:

My question is - are they increasing in on other routes or will one 787 coming from LGW and other cities be sitting off on the side? An hour to turn a 787? Can't wait to see this operation on days when everything is delayed.

Ummm so with hub and or focus city operations, a flight comes in from one city and goes out to another...does no always turn and go back .

An AA 773 (one plane) could/does the following sometimes over multiple days. DFW-LHR-MIA-GRU-DFW-HKG-LAX-SYD-LAX-LHR and so on with deep-ish clean in LA and another good clean in LAX inbetween and look over etc, and another plane does something similar or other city pairs and it all works. VS LHR-JFK-LHR-LAX-LHR-JNB-LHR-DEL and so on. This is how all (most ) airlines maximize their fleets. DL and UA turn to other cities over LHR as well, and Im sure at other places like PVG, NRT and PEK.


I do see people on here (some) do not know the historical and still current importance of the London - New York market. Which is why BA has its own terminal at JFK still.

This was always DY's plan. To go daily and multiple daily to NYC and LAX. I think they are double daily to FL on some days if not x7. Expect ONE more LGW-JFK in a year or two. The market can handle this...and its twisting the knife in BA. It was expected!!

Also DY gets first arrival into NYC, someone correct me if anyone else arrives before - I just have not seen it, so I chuckle because this savvy LLC leaves early enough to arrive in JFK around the old Concorde time... granted that was a LHR 1030 dep, arr JFK 920 back in the day.

People love DY, and a lot of business travelers adore them. Nice Y service, and very good Y+ with better recline. They will secure more corporate contracts now. We should be rooting for them!

As I said, check the published schedule

And for a third time, since why read what was posted earlier (?), they're either going to try to get it out in an hour or keep an inbound from the night before RON and send it out in the morning and keep the 10 am and 1 pm arrival off camping somewhere for the day.

If they aren't off the gate by 1120 I imagine some of the carriers with their name slapped on the side of the building will be taking issue with that.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

If you're in London, then yes. But now you find yourself in Amsterdam and you need to be at that same meeting in New York before lunch. No way you can make it from Amsterdam to Gatwick before that flight departs, the first flight from Amsterdam to Gatwick arrives after the departure of the first flight from Gatwick to New York. And Amsterdam is just one example, it can be any place in Europe.

That's what I meant when I said this flight relies strictly on demand from London since it's too early for anything else. And that demand from just London, is it big enough? I highly doubt it.

It's really too bad that LON-NYC is such a small local market that relies heavily on connecting traffic then, right?

They fly AMS-JFK too ya know. And from CPH, MAD, OSL, CDG, and ARN. Plus EWR-FCO and SWF-BGO, SNN, DUB, EDI, and BFS. 13 nonstop routes from Europe to NYC airports. But yes they're clearly bound to fail because you can't connect to the early flight at LGW without spending the night.

In recent update Norwegian seems to have given up plans to launch LAX-MXP.
Reservation on all flights is now only available at full-fare Premium Class and Economy Class.
The airline originally planned to operate Milan-Los Angeles 4 times a week eff from 16JUN.

[photoid][/photoid]

SCQ83 wrote:

Is BA still flying LGW-JFK? If so, only daily?

Correct, arrives at Gatwick mid morning, and departs in the afternoon for JFK (777 operated). The loads on the DI flights are usually better/fuller than the BA operated flight when I've looked at them at work.

Ben

Small mystery solved.

Some days Norwegian's morning arrival is at 9:20, others, at 10:20. On the 9:20 arrival days, departure is 11:20, and 10:20 is 12:20. So presuming the source on this read mixed departure and arrival times.

Although it does appear there are some 90 minutes turn here and there in the schedule for their flights - which is still pretty tight.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

That's all aimed at the business traveler, but that's not what Norwegian is for. Don't forget that they're an LCC, business traffic is a niche market for them..

LCC do have business pax you realise that? Look at easyJet as an example a big chunk of their flying these days is business travellers hence the easyJet plus membership scheme and Flight Club.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

That's what I meant when I said this flight relies strictly on demand from London since it's too early for anything else. And that demand from just London, is it big enough? I highly doubt it.

London - New York is a huge market.

We currently have as an example on a June day... 34 flights between London and New York. So I don't see it being a huge deal DI upping their frequency from 2-3 flights a day. Also given its mainly an O&D city pair I don't think the 6am departure is an issue - if anything its a USP.

LHR-JFK 20 Daily flights

AA 4 Daily (2 x 772, 2 x 77W)
BA 8 Daily ( 7x744, 1 x 777)
DL 2 Daily ( 3 x 332)
VS 6 Daily (5 x 333, 1 x 346)

LHR-EWR 9 Daily flights
AI 1 Daily (788)
BA 2 Daily (777)
UA 5 Daily (4 x 764, 1 x 767)
VS 1 Daily (333)

LGW-JFK 3 daily flights soon to 4 daily flights
DI 2 Daily - going to 3 Daily (789)
BA 1 Daily (772)

STN-EWR
PF 1 Daily (752)

LCY-JFK
BA 1 Daily (318)

a340crew wrote:

Norwegians will increase LGW-JFK to 3 times daily.

Bring in the HiFly A380 . . .

anstar wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

That's all aimed at the business traveler, but that's not what Norwegian is for. Don't forget that they're an LCC, business traffic is a niche market for them..

LCC do have business pax you realise that? Look at easyJet as an example a big chunk of their flying these days is business travellers hence the easyJet plus membership scheme and Flight Club.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

That's what I meant when I said this flight relies strictly on demand from London since it's too early for anything else. And that demand from just London, is it big enough? I highly doubt it.

London - New York is a huge market.

We currently have as an example on a June day... 34 flights between London and New York. So I don't see it being a huge deal DI upping their frequency from 2-3 flights a day. Also given its mainly an O&D city pair I don't think the 6am departure is an issue - if anything its a USP.

LHR-JFK 20 Daily flights

AA 4 Daily (2 x 772, 2 x 77W)
BA 8 Daily ( 7x744, 1 x 777)
DL 2 Daily ( 3 x 332)
VS 6 Daily (5 x 333, 1 x 346)

LHR-EWR 9 Daily flights
AI 1 Daily (788)
BA 2 Daily (777)
UA 5 Daily (4 x 764, 1 x 767)
VS 1 Daily (333)

LGW-JFK 3 daily flights soon to 4 daily flights
DI 2 Daily - going to 3 Daily (789)
BA 1 Daily (772)

STN-EWR
PF 1 Daily (752)

LCY-JFK
BA 1 Daily (318)

Looking at the list, how competitive is UA with the B767s compared to the rest?

PatrickZ80 wrote:

lowfareair wrote:

I disagree as this does something different for them: it gives them a competitive edge in the business market with mid-evening, late-evening, and morning JFK (New York [John F. Kennedy], USA) departures. They also have the earliest LON departure for NYC by 2 hours with this schedule. 3 flights is probably the smallest number required to compete business-wise in this market.

A nonstop r/t ticket for economy without a stayover on JFK-LHR is over $2200 on AA/BA or DL/VS, regardless of when booking. Norwegian's premium product is $1745 and Y is $700. Even adding meals, seats, and a bag to Norwegian is still under $900.

I could see biz travelers normally forced into Y willing to do Gatwick in exchange for flying Premium and small businesses flying people into LGW (London (Gatwick) - England) for the significant cost savings.

That's all aimed at the business traveler, but that's not what Norwegian is for. Don't forget that they're an LCC, business traffic is a niche market for them.

The average LCC passenger couldn't care less what time the flight goes as long as it's cheap. If it goes in the morning, they fly in the morning. If it goes in the evening, they fly in the evening. If one day is expensive and the next day is cheap, they fly the next day. You can also say the passengers adapt to the airline instead of the airline adapting to the passengers.

And yes, Norwegian does have the first flight in the morning to New York. In fact, it's so early it's not able to capture any transfers. They all arrive in London later in the morning or afternoon. This flight relies strictly on local demand. My guess is that it's not very busy and therefor doesn't make much money. The later flights capture transfer traffic and can therefor be filled better.

Perhaps the passengers in the back of the plane might not care about timing for business travel, but if I'm a business traveler paying for my own ticket, I might be interested in their premium economy seats on their JFK-LGW flights.

As for having little feed on the morning flight, DY is an LCC. Is there any airline that has a contract to feed DY's flights in the US? When I tried dummy bookings on their website, all I got when using DEN, IAH, MIA, or ORD as an origin was "New York, Los Angeles or Oakland - San Francisco" under the greyed out origin airport box. It doesn't look like they bother with interline agreements to feed their flights. The three airports to which they fly in the US are all in metro areas that have heavy O&D traffic to London. Perhaps some people fly on their own to get to JFK, LAX, or OAK, but not with single ticket itineraries.

Look at the morning flight, DI7014 JFK 11:20 LGW 22:50, For someone living in the NYC area, that's not a bad flight time at all for leisure. It doesn't require passengers to arrive early in the morning at JFK. It also arrives just in time to go to a hotel to get a good night's sleep before hitting the tourist sites. If I am flying economy on a 787 that's much better than flying overnight in a 17.2" seat. If you're a tourist arriving in the morning in London, the hotels aren't ready for check in. You're likely jet-lagged due to the time change and difficulty sleeping in in a narrow seat.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

lowfareair wrote:

I disagree as this does something different for them: it gives them a competitive edge in the business market with mid-evening, late-evening, and morning JFK (New York [John F. Kennedy], USA) departures. They also have the earliest LON departure for NYC by 2 hours with this schedule. 3 flights is probably the smallest number required to compete business-wise in this market.

A nonstop r/t ticket for economy without a stayover on JFK-LHR is over $2200 on AA/BA or DL/VS, regardless of when booking. Norwegian's premium product is $1745 and Y is $700. Even adding meals, seats, and a bag to Norwegian is still under $900.

I could see biz travelers normally forced into Y willing to do Gatwick in exchange for flying Premium and small businesses flying people into LGW (London (Gatwick) - England) for the significant cost savings.

That's all aimed at the business traveler, but that's not what Norwegian is for. Don't forget that they're an LCC, business traffic is a niche market for them.

The average LCC passenger couldn't care less what time the flight goes as long as it's cheap. If it goes in the morning, they fly in the morning. If it goes in the evening, they fly in the evening. If one day is expensive and the next day is cheap, they fly the next day. You can also say the passengers adapt to the airline instead of the airline adapting to the passengers.

And yes, Norwegian does have the first flight in the morning to New York. In fact, it's so early it's not able to capture any transfers. They all arrive in London later in the morning or afternoon. This flight relies strictly on local demand. My guess is that it's not very busy and therefor doesn't make much money. The later flights capture transfer traffic and can therefor be filled better.

Perhaps the passengers in the back of the plane might not care about timing for business travel, but if I'm a business traveler paying for my own ticket, I might be interested in their premium economy seats on their JFK-LGW flights.

As for having little feed on the morning flight, DY is an LCC. Is there any airline that has a contract to feed DY's flights in the US? When I tried dummy bookings on their website, all I got when using DEN, IAH, MIA, or ORD as an origin was "New York, Los Angeles or Oakland - San Francisco" under the greyed out origin airport box. It doesn't look like they bother with interline agreements to feed their flights. The three airports to which they fly in the US are all in metro areas that have heavy O&D traffic to London. Perhaps some people fly on their own to get to JFK, LAX, or OAK, but not with single ticket itineraries.

Look at the morning flight, DI7014 JFK 11:20 LGW 22:50, For someone living in the NYC area, that's not a bad flight time at all for leisure. It doesn't require passengers to arrive early in the morning at JFK. It also arrives just in time to go to a hotel to get a good night's sleep before hitting the tourist sites. If I am flying economy on a 787 that's much better than flying overnight in a 17.2" seat. If you're a tourist arriving in the morning in London, the hotels aren't ready for check in. You're likely jet-lagged due to the time change and difficulty sleeping in in a narrow seat.

A deal with Frontier at DEN and MCO could be fruitful.

Would that even benefit anyone?

stlgph wrote:

Would that even benefit anyone?

Sure, someone that doesn't know about self connecting in markets with average TATL fares well over 1k yet finds rhey can fly and Feonttiwr and connect with a Norwegain flight. Places like TUL, LIT and MEM. Frontier gets some folks flying them that otherwise wouldn't have. Norwegian gets folks from markets they aren't in. What are we talking about here, another 100 to 200 bucks R/T.

There's no benefit. The cities you listed pretty much all require overnight stays in both directions.

Check the schedules.