# Norwegian Air: should more flights into US be allowed - or not?



## beautifulplanet (Dec 13, 2014)

For all who are interested in transatlantic travel - where rail currently is no travel alternative  - some exciting developments are going on in the last years: a European low-cost airline called Norwegian Air is trying to offer substantially lower fares also for long-haul transatlantic flights and is seeking a permit for a new Irish subsidiary it founded to be allowed to fly between Europe and the United States. So far, the United States Department of Transportation did not give the new Irish subsidiary called Norwegian Air International a permanent permission to fly freely into the United States.

In which ways the new carrier - already the third largest low-fare carrier inside of Europe - offers cheaper flights can be seen with the following example: Wanting to fly from Los Angeles to Copenhagen, Denmark, on March 14, 2015, returning on April 15, 2015, would cost $465.20 with Norwegian Air (not including meals onboard or a checked bag). Even the "LowFare+" including meals, one checked bag and seat reservation (exit seats available without surcharge) would just run up to $643.20.

In comparison, the next cheapest alternative around those days would be Turkish Airlines with $830, but with 18+ hours of travel time including a connection in Istanbul, instead of 11 hours non-stop with a brandnew Dreamliner when flying Norwegian.

The traditional carriers' round-trip fares start around $1,000 for a 1-stop itinerary for some travel dates, often it is $1,200 or more.

Some might say, as they would never fly Norwegian, this may not have an impact on what they would pay for transatlantic air fares in the future, but this might end up being incorrect: for round-trip fares out of Europe, traditional carriers already lowered their prices substantially when originating in out of the Scandinavian cities Norwegian flies out of. For example, since Norwegian starting flying from Copenhagen to New York, British Airways' fares for CPH-NYC have dropped from approx. 800 Euro to 400 or 500 Euro (depending on time of year). In the same way, since Norwegian started doing Copenhagen-Los Angeles, KLM/AirFrance started offering 500 Euro round-trip flights with a connection in Amsterdam/Paris, which used to cost approx. 900 Euro before. So even when not flying Norwegian, one benefits from lower fares. The same effect can not be seen yet for round-trip fares originating in the US, maybe as traditional carriers think that Norwegian is less established in the US yet, and consumers would be less inclined to fly with an airline that might seem unfamiliar and exotic to them, as Europeans are more likely to say, I've already flown Norwegian short-haul before and it was fine, sure I will also fly with them long-haul.

The most recent development is kind of ironic and unique, as the new spending bill by Congress includes both language aiming at preventing Norwegian Air to expand more in the US market, and language supporting their US expansion.

Here are a press report about it:

New Bill Is Great News, or Potential Disaster, for Norwegian Air

December 12, 2014

By Rich Thomaselli

http://www.travelpulse.com/news/airlines/new-bill-is-great-news-or-potential-disaster-for-norwegian-air.html


----------



## Anderson (Dec 13, 2014)

As far as I can tell, the main issue is that at the moment, the route is probably long enough to require some level of OBS be provided. I seem to recall that at one time there was a requirement that meal service be provided on flights over a given duration (though it was a pretty long duration, if I'm not mistaken, and really only applied to trans-oceanic/trans-continental flights), though I don't know if anything like that still exists.


----------



## jis (Dec 13, 2014)

That article is truly strange in its analysis....

It claims that the paragraph that:



> forbids the Department of Transportation from approving any application for foreign carriers ”where such approval would contravene United States law or Article 17 bis of the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air Transport Agreement.”


Somehow is at odds with the paragraph that says:



> Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict or otherwise preclude the Secretary of Transportation from granting a foreign air carrier permit or an exemption to such an air carrier where such authorization is consistent with the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air Transport Agreement and United States law.”


Both appear to say that the authorization needs to be "consistent with the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air Transport Agreement and United States law."

Seems to me that the exemption being talked about here is about other aspects of the application. It would be astounding for Congress to give the authority to allow the executive branch to pick and choose which American laws must be adhered to and which not, specially on a matter that does not involve national security in any way.

And at the end of the day, even if there is such a possible exemption, and the SecDoT actually grants such, and someone with standing is sufficiently ticked off with the possibility as appears to be the case, it is the Supreme Court which will eventually get to decide whether such is legal or not. Not the executive branch. So be ready to sit through this for the long haul before it has any chance of getting resolved. Watch for a rerun of the likes of the Amtrak performance standards circus.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Dec 13, 2014)

Thank you very much for your reply.



Anderson said:


> As far as I can tell, the main issue is that at the moment, the route is probably long enough to require some level of OBS be provided. I seem to recall that at one time there was a requirement that meal service be provided on flights over a given duration (though it was a pretty long duration, if I'm not mistaken, and really only applied to trans-oceanic/trans-continental flights), though I don't know if anything like that still exists.


As far as I know, the conflict about Norwegian Air expanding its air service into the US, is not at all about meal service. It's more about labor standards and protectionism (and protectionists might say f.e. it's supposedly about safety - though Norwegian Air has a stellar safety record with no casualties, no passenger injuries and no lost planes).

When selecting the right dates, it is possible to purchase a round-trip fare with nonstop flights from New York/Newark to Los Angeles for $340 from United to JetBlue.

It's approximately 6 hours of flight time, and about 2,500 miles.

To fly New York/Newark to London with British Airways/Virgin Atlantic/American/Delta/United etc. is about $820 for a round-trip ticket.

It's approximately 7 hours of flight time, and about 3,400 miles.

So it's a comparable flight time, still more than twice the fare. Even when going by distance, not flight time, it's only 40% more miles flown, but the fare is more than double. Also when considering in that aircraft utilization may not be as efficient when flying transatlantic, and additional security/immigration passenger fees being part of the ticket, there is no objective reason for transatlantic fares to be so high. And that's where Norwegian Air comes in.

Here's who's against Norwegian Air expanding US service, and here's who is for it.

Against:

- American unions, fearing a loss of jobs among US airlines

(See Air Line Pilots Association's popular campaign "Deny NAI" here:

http://sos.alpa.org )

- American air carriers, fearing a loss of business and profits, namely American, Delta and United

(See "Big Three U.S. Airlines and Labor Get First Round Win Over Norwegian Air" here:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12863991/1/big-three-us-airlines-and-labor-get-first-round-win-over-norwegian-air.html )

- AirFrance/KLM and Lufthansa, as well as unions working with those airlines

(See "Letter to European Commission" - in english - here:

http://www.aerotelegraph.com/sites/default/files/n238/norwegian_gegenpetition.pdf )

- a bi-partisan group of legislators in U.S. Congress

(See "188 House members urge Norwegian Air rejection" here:

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/225326-188-house-members-urge-norwegian-air-rejection )

For:

- Norwegian Air (obviously  )

- British Airways (surprisingly at least being neutral, see "British Airways: 'No impact' from upstart Norwegian" here:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/03/13/british-airways-no-impact-from-upstart-norwegian/6358629/ )

- Destinations served by Norwegian Air in the US, like the city of Orlando's mayor Buddy Dyer (D)

("Pilots oppose Dyer's support of Norwegian airline" here:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-02-27/business/os-airline-pilots-norweigan-orlando-20140227_1_vicki-jaramillo-orlando-international-airport-air-line-pilots-association )

- Free-market conservatives

(see "Republicans sell out free-market principles for union favors" here:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/209814-republicans-sell-out-free-market-principles-for-union-favors )

- the European Union, possibly coming to the conclusion the EU is playing by the rules of the U.S.-E.U. Open Skies agreement, and giving permission to all US airlines to freely fly into the EU, at the same time vice-versa the U.S. does not when it's not convenient for them

(see "EU says U.S. delay on Norwegian Air licence breaches aviation deal" here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/02/eu-usa-airlines-norwegian-air-idUSL6N0TM4EH20141202 )

So where does this leave this the U.S. Department of Transportation, and Secretary Anthony Foxx? Pro or Con? A temporary permit ("exemption"), that would have been valid while the department would have been still processing the application for the full-fledged foreign carrier permit, was denied in September. This way, the department of transportation was able to delay the process more, and bought time. Will the department of transportation actually go through with a denial of the actual regular foreign air carrier permit, for an airline that would be eligible for it due to the U.S.-E.U. Open Skies agreement? Only time will tell, and many might continue to keep an eye on this development with great interest...


----------



## beautifulplanet (Dec 13, 2014)

Thank you very much for your post.



jis said:


> Seems to me that the exemption being talked about here is about other aspects of the application. It would be astounding for Congress to give the authority to allow the executive branch to pick and choose which American laws must be adhered to and which not, specially on a matter that does not involve national security in any way.


No, the "exemption" being talked about is the "exemption" from having to have a full-fledged foreign air carrier permit. So the "exemption" is basically a temporary permit to operate flights while the application is still being processed by the Department of Transportation. The "exemption" does not mean in any way that any American laws must not be adhered to.

The lawmakers supporting Norwegian Air were able to get the second statement into the law: "Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict or otherwise preclude the Secretary of Transportation from granting a foreign air carrier permit or an exemption to such an air carrier where such authorization is consistent with the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air Transport Agreement and United States law". This says, DOT may grant a full foreign air carrier permit - or even just an "exemption" - so just a temporary air carrier permit, to Norwegian Air. Lawmakers who support Norwegian Air are happy.

The lawmakers opposing Norwegian Air were able to get the first statement into the law, that the law basically forbids the Department of Transportation from approving any application for foreign carriers ”where such approval would contravene United States law or Article 17 bis of the U.S.-E.U.-Iceland-Norway Air Transport Agreement". Lawmakers who oppose Norwegian Air are happy.

And here's some information about that "article 17":



> Article 17 bis says that the “opportunities created by the Agreement are not intended to undermine labour standards” of the countries that sign the agreement.
> 
> U.S. labor unions say that NAI uses non-union contractors and will undermine pilots and other employees represented by unions, although Bjorn Kjos, head of NAI’s parent company, said last month that many of his European employees are represented by unions and that he wouldn’t care if his American pilots wanted to be represented by the Air Line Pilots Association.
> 
> ...


source:

Norwegian Air Cites Supportive Language In Omnibus

December 10, 2014

By Tom Curry

http://blogs.rollcall.com/the-container/norwegian-air-cites-supportive-language-in-omnibus/


----------



## tp49 (Dec 13, 2014)

Turkish Airlines is a poor comparison because you get two free checked bags on flights to and from the US. This bumps the Norwegian fare to $743.20 if you have two checked bags. Additionally as a Star Alliance member I can accumulate miles on TK or on another *A carrier and TK has a very extensive network that Norwegian doesn't particularly in Eastern Europe. I've looked at them for flights out of OAK and found they do not fly to where I go in Europe and I just can't justify giving up some level of comfort on a twelve plus hour flight to make flying them worth my while.

I'll fly LCC's in Europe with no issue but not on a flight for more than four hours as it starts to become a comfort issue. However, so long as their business conforms to US law then I have no problem with Norwegian increasing frequency into the US especially if it forces the European legacy carriers (particularly LH, TK and KL) to lower fares then it works well for everyone.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Dec 13, 2014)

Thank you for your post. 



tp49 said:


> Turkish Airlines is a poor comparison because you get two free checked bags on flights to and from the US. This bumps the Norwegian fare to $743.20 if you have two checked bags. Additionally as a Star Alliance member I can accumulate miles on TK or on another *A carrier and TK has a very extensive network that Norwegian doesn't particularly in Eastern Europe. I've looked at them for flights out of OAK and found they do not fly to where I go in Europe and I just can't justify giving up some level of comfort on a twelve plus hour flight to make flying them worth my while.


Many might think it is certainly legit to compare airlines. It is likely that at no point of time Norwegian Air claimed "we will fly to where tp49 goes in Europe" - still their services seem to see good utilization and be beneficial for a lot of people. Of course many might think it is also very valuable that there are carriers like Turkish that shake up the market a little, while still operating the classic legacy airline hub system - being all centered on Istanbul airport. For example, a friend from Texas will possibly visit Europe in May, and if it ends up happening, then it will probably be a Turkish Airlines flight for $785 out of Houston, while all other carriers' fares start at $1,400. So even the detour through Istanbul with longer flights, and a longer total travel time would be preferred to paying nearly twice as much. Obviously when flying into Eastern Europe, Istanbul is not as much a detour and inconvenience as it is when flying into Central Europe, Western Europe or even to the United Kingdom. That's why for some it would be like giving up comfort when having one connection, f.e. with Turkish Airlines, compared to a nonstop with Norwegian.

With Norwegian, it is revolutionary that they operate long-haul flights beyond any legacy airline hub system. Currently, they already fly long-haul out of Oslo, Stockholm, Bergen, Copenhagen and London. And all of that with only 7 dreamliners. Norwegian Air already announced that with the new Boeing 737 MAX 8 coming in starting in 2017, they will consider to fly Edinburgh-Boston (and Norwegian does not have a base at Edinburgh) and Stockholm-Boston. So new nonstop connections that do not exist yet. In addition, Norwegian Air already had talks with officials in Hawaii about starting the first-ever Honolulu-Europe nonstop flights. The announcement to conduct long-haul flights from Barcelona was already made, currently indicating intentions to serve Africa and South America (possibly Cape Town in South Africa, Rio de Janeiro in Brazil and eventually Bogota, Colombia and Buenos Aires, Argentina), still if Norwegian Air got a regular US foreign air carrier permit there would be nothing preventing long-haul flights from Barcelona to the US as the 787-9 start coming in, beginning in 2016.



tp49 said:


> I'll fly LCC's in Europe with no issue but not on a flight for more than four hours as it starts to become a comfort issue.


Maybe some might be aware of it, and some might not, while also Norwegian Air's long-haul business could be called LCC, still it doesn't have much in common comfort-wise with the "LCC's in Europe" that some might have a comfort issue with after four hours. While Ryanair claims on its website to have a seat pitch of "up to 30inches" (meaning it can also very well be less than 30inches) and Easyjet just 29inches, Norwegian's Dreamliners have 31inches - so the same as legacy carriers like AirFrance/KLM, Lufthansa etc. Also, while Easyjet & Ryanair do not offer personal entertainment screens, Norwegian's dreamliners do of course - once again not being different than other long-haul carriers. So that way, it should not be so much of a comfort issue. The main difference might be, that there are no free blankets when flying Norwegian long-haul, you have to pay for it, there are no free headsets, you have to pay for them (also, there are some legacy airlines offering headsets for purchase only these days) - so those things can be remedied with paying extra and should not be much of a comfort issue.



tp49 said:


> However, so long as their business conforms to US law then I have no problem with Norwegian increasing frequency into the US especially if it forces the European legacy carriers (particularly LH, TK and KL) to lower fares then it works well for everyone.


Lufthansa already made the decision about a week ago to start its own low-cost long-haul operation out of Cologne-Bonn airport, beginning at the end of 2015. While it initially will be restricted to seven A330 operating long-haul "Eurowings", it shows how the pressure is on.

Regarding letting Norwegian increase frequency to the US, one has to be aware that it could possibly lead to some sort of job loss (and of course revenue loss as well) for legacy US airlines in case Norwegian starts to eat into their market share. Sure Norwegian also hires in the US, and increased business and tourism will also mean additional new non-airline U.S. jobs, still if all of that would completely offset the job loss at US legacy airlines might remain unclear.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 14, 2014)

I think the point on fares with bags is a fair one. AFAIK, at least one free checked bag is generally standard on transatlantic flights, so if you're making some sort of comparison that ought to figure into the equation.

The fight may effectively be on the protectionism issue (which is a complicated one to be sure), but there's still the underlying issue of how Norwegian _gets_ to those fares.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Dec 17, 2014)

Thank you for your post.



Anderson said:


> I think the point on fares with bags is a fair one. AFAIK, at least one free checked bag is generally standard on transatlantic flights, so if you're making some sort of comparison that ought to figure into the equation.


Yes, many might think the topic of bags is important, still often low-cost carriers might be cheaper even when paying extra for one checked bag. Among other things that's why it was included in the comparison in the first post: 



> [...] example: Wanting to fly from Los Angeles to Copenhagen, Denmark [...] would cost $465.20 with Norwegian Air (*not including* meals onboard or *a checked bag*). Even the "LowFare+" *including* meals, *one checked bag* and seat reservation (exit seats available without surcharge) would just run up to $643.20.
> 
> In comparison, the next cheapest alternative around those days would be Turkish Airlines with $830. [...] The traditional carriers' round-trip fares start around $1,000 for a 1-stop itinerary for some travel dates, often it is $1,200 or more.


Then again, some airlines like Turkish Airlines or Icelandair still offer 2 free checked bags when flying transatlantic, even in Economy - while most legacy airlines went down from two free checked bags in Economy to just one a lot of years ago.

Some travelers don't need two checked bags, some don't even need one, and outside of the United States, regarding short-haul air travel, this already is perceived to be one of the advantage of low cost carriers, that travelers only pay for what they use - there are very cheap base fares, and if travelers don't need any checked bag, they can take full advantage of them, and even if they pay extra to add a checked bag, often it's still substantially cheaper than legacy airlines. Norwegian is one of the airlines that works toward bringing this principle to long-haul air travel as well.



Anderson said:


> The fight may effectively be on the protectionism issue (which is a complicated one to be sure)[.]


What may seem surprising to some, is that in March 2014, the United States Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) granted Iceland's low-cost carrier Wow Air a foreign air carrier permit in March 2014, so Wow Air's low-fare transatlantic flights will start March 27, 2015. So low-cost airline Wow Air got a permit no problem, while low-cost airline Norwegian Air doesn't (at least for now, and the application is being reviewed for a considerable amount of time now already). One reason could be, that unions and the airline industry were not very worried about Wow Air, as they bring new competition, and legacy airlines might possibly lose some customers to them, still Wow Air only is a small airline, and currently operate with a fleet size of 5. Sure they announced to expand, and have orders for more aircraft, but still possibly not something unions and the industry is very worried about. Norwegian Air though, already has a fleet of 92, and already is the third largest low-cost carrier in Europe. Norwegian Air keeps adding new routes, both short-haul and long-haul, and they have firm orders for 100 Airbus A320 (coming in starting in 2016) and for 100 Boeing 737 MAX 8 (coming in starting in 2017), and has agreements to lease more dreamliners. This might be why the union and the industry conduct a "Deny NAI" compaign, as the airline - quite contrary to the case of Wow Air - seems big enough for them to feel threatened.



Anderson said:


> [...] but there's still the underlying issue of how Norwegian _gets_ to those fares.


Many might think that transatlantic fares are comparatively high currently, and long-haul transatlantic fares might be the last remaining field for legacy airlines to see very high profit margins. One way this appears to be clear to many is how due to the round-trip pricing, flight itineraries originating on different continents are priced differently.

As an example, say you want to fly from Houston to Paris in the second half of May.

Cheapest 1-stop fare is $1,200 with Turkish Airlines (yes, with 2 checked bags), but each time with an extra night's stay in Istanbul on the way back.

Then there's AeroMexico at $1,233, and United at $1,500 for a 2-stop, or Air Canada at $1,700 for a 1-stop.

Basically the same flights are much more expensive USA to Europe, than Europe to USA.

Cheapest 1-stop fare is 610 Euro with British Airways, so about $760.

Lufthansa/Air Canada 1-stop is 694 Euro, so about $860.

And even a United 1-stop fare is only 710 Euro, so about $880.

So it's substantially cheaper, sometimes half the price, to buy round-trip tickets from Europe to the USA, compared to USA to Europe.

This applies nearly always, not only on above route, and at all times of year.

When legacy airlines are able to fill their planes even when charging these relatively high fares, they will do it.

It also wouldn't be possible to charge these higher US to Europe round-trip prices, if the fare system was based on one ways, as it is for domestic US flights, or short-haul European flights.

So Norwegian and Wow Air bring these low one-way fares to transatlantic routes. If a New York to London one-way flight is $249, and a London to New York flight is $300, then the round-trip will be $549 - the sum of the two one-ways. There is no difference in price for round-trip tickets originating in the one country or the other (the amount will only be converted into a different currency). Also Norwegian and Wow Air are not public services, but for-profit private companies, so they have every intention to charge as much as they can, still they are willing to offer fares that sometimes are subtantially lower, in order to convince the flying public to give them their business. Some at least some might assume that some of the reasons Norwegian and Wow Air can get to these low fares is, by cutting into the large profit margin most other carriers enjoy on transatlantic routes, as well as with their no-frills and extras-cost-extra approach, and by keeping costs down.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 17, 2014)

This concept of LCC transatlantic comes up every so often. I'm old enough to remember Freddie Laker's Skytrain and People Express into LGW. Icelandair and to a lesser extent Aer Lingus have used the strategy sometimes. It hasn't caught on yet, although perhaps somebody will make it work someday.

The comparison of Norwegian Air's market entry price ($465) against established carrier prices might look impressive, but who knows whether Norwegian Air can sustain its operations on that basis -- or will be charging 1.5x or 2x that number 24 months later? No one can say.


----------



## jis (Dec 17, 2014)

Maybe I am remembering wrong, but I thought People Express was at Newark, where they occupied all of the then North Terminal and a hangar or two in addition. Eventually the whole thing got swallowed into Continental and moved to Terminal C, the expansion of which had started construction while People Express was still in existence. Incidentally, North Terminal, which does not quite exist anymore, was the original terminal of Newark Airport when it was originally build as the first airport serving the New York area.

I do agree with you overall though. airlines from Iceland have always been a bit of oddball, and they continue to be so.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 17, 2014)

I'm referring to the People Express flights from Newark to Gatwick. Didn't survive long.


----------



## jis (Dec 18, 2014)

It lasted a shade over 3 years as I seem to recall. Roughly 1983 to 1986.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Dec 18, 2014)

Thank you for your post. 



xyzzy said:


> This concept of LCC transatlantic [...] Icelandair and to a lesser extent Aer Lingus have used the strategy sometimes.


It's interesting to hear Aer Lingus mentioned here, as they seem to follow a "hybrid" model, being partially a low-cost carrier (f.e. when it comes to the availability of cheap one-ways, not being member of an alliance), and partially a traditional airline (f.e. sometimes having a hard time to compete on European short-haul flights with fellow Irish airline Ryanair). Aer Lingus might definitely seem like an interesting choice for many, especially because of the U.S. pre-clearance in Ireland - a valuable convenience that might enable Aer Lingus to charge higher fares than others.



jis said:


> [A]irlines from Iceland have always been a bit of oddball, and they continue to be so.


Maybe to some airlines from Iceland might seem like an oddball to some, and they might not seem so threatening to unions and legacy airlines, still for many they are an alternative when flying transatlantic. Some people who used Icelandair, told me about their experience, and they said it was fine, and also the connection in Reykjavik was quick and convenient. So while Icelandair might seem small compared to other carriers, they are constantly expanding (as is WOW air) and many probably would like to include them in their list of possible ways to cross the atlantic when they are about to make their travel choices.


As for different carriers have been mentioned in this thread now (Norwegian Air, as well as Aer Lingus, Icelandair and WOW air), here are some random comparisons regarding the price (first for round-trip, then for one-way), and regarding the services offered:



Comparison of transatlantic service of Aer Lingus, Icelandair, Wow Air and Norwegian:

Price for economy round-trip NYC-LON in March 2015:
Aer Lingus: $826 incl 1 bag, meal
Icelandair: $679 incl 2 bags, no meal
Norwegian: $549 without bag/meal, $711 incl bag/food/reservation
United: $695 incl 1 bag, meal (partially operated by Lufthansa, 1 stop)

In this scenario, Icelandair slightly undercuts legacy carriers like United.
Still Norwegian is more expensive than legacy carriers, once bag and meal are included.


Price for economy round-trip LAX-LON in February 2015:
Norwegian: $551 without bag/Meal, $713 incl 1 bag/meal/reservation
Vigin Atlantic: $888 incl 1 bag, meal (partially operated by Delta, 1 stop)

In this scenario, even with bag and meal included, Norwegian is cheaper than the cheapest other carrier (in this case, Virgin, and $888 is already a very low fare for a traditional carrier).


Price for economy round-trip BOS-LON in the second half of May 2015:
WOW air: $767 without bag/meal, $901 incl 1 bag, no meal
Icelandair: $883 incl 2 bags, no meal
British Airways: $1021 incl 1 bag, meal (partially operated by Iberia, 1 stop)

In a more expensive travel time of year, there are no $199 one-way fares by WOW air.
So including one bag (and of course with two bags), Icelandair is cheaper.
It also seems like Icelandair lowered its fares for flights beginning in late March 2015, when WOW air starts going transatlantic.


Price for economy one-way BOS-LON in the April 2015:
WOW air: $199 without bag/meal, $260 incl 1 bag, no meal
Icelandair: $373 incl 2 bags, no meal
Turkish Airlines: $538 incl 2 bags, meal
Aer Lingus: $670 incl 1 bag, meal
British Airways: $718 incl 1 bag, meal (operated by Iberia, 1 stop)

Icelandair already lowered fares for when WOW air starts on the same routes in March, and Icelandair fares a higher for flights on days of the week or hours of the day where there is no competing WOW air flight.


Price for economy one-way LAX-LON in March 2015:
Norwegian: $251 without bag/Meal, $333 incl 1 bag/meal/reservation
Turkish Airlines: $579 incl 2 bags, meal
British Airways and others: $800+ incl 1 bag, meal (partially operated by Delta, 1 stop)

For flying out of and into Los Angeles and the Bay Area, Norwegian offers significantly lower fares than other airlines, especially when booking one-ways.



The services offered:

Baggage included in cheapest Economy fare
Norwegian: no bags included
Aer Lingus: 1 bag
Icelandair: 2 bags
WOW air: no bags included

Cabin baggage included in cheapest Economy fare
WOW air: 5kg incl, to increase weight allowance for carry on to 12kg is $38
Norwegian: 10kg incl, plus one small personal item
Aer Lingus: 10kg incl, plus one small personal item
Icelandair: 10kg incl, plus one small personal item

Meals on board in Economy:
Norwegian: free water, other drinks and meals for purchase
Aer Lingus: free non-alcoholic drinks and meals, other drinks for purchase
Icelandair: free non-alcoholic drinks, other drinks and meals for purchase
WOW air: no free drinks or meals, for purchase only

Personal entertainment screens in Economy:
Norwegian: personal entertainment screens
Aer Lingus: personal entertainment screens
Icelandair: personal entertainment screens
WOW air: no personal entertainment screens, just TVs every couple of rows

WiFi on board in Economy:
Norwegian: not currently offered on long-haul flights, only on short-haul flights for free
Aer Lingus: WiFi on A330 transatlantic only, $9.95 1h, $18.95 full flight
Icelandair: WiFi currently on most flights, on all flights by "early 2015", for purchase in economy
WOW air: no WiFi

Legroom in Economy:
Norwegian: 31 inches
AerLingus: 31-32 inches
Icelandair: 31-32 inches
WOW air: 30-31 inches

Other cabins besides Economy:
Norwegian: 46 inch Premium cabin with angled seats, free meal service, lounge access
AerLingus: currently 58 inch Business with anlged lie-flat seats with free WiFi; all A330s to be converted to flat-bed business starting in March 2015
Icelandair: Saga Class 40 inch with free WiFi, and Economy Comfort 33inch
WOW air: only XL economy seats with more legroom, for $24 extra per segment


Many might think it's exciting, how many new affordable travel options seem to come up for flying transatlantic. And there seem to be more and more in the future, as WOW air already announced flying to more US destinations in 2016 (though it did not disclose yet which ones), and there are rumors that Aer Lingus might add flights to Texas soon (at least some might think the Texas-Europe air market is ready for more competition). Icelandair is a little restricted geographically as their aircraft doesn't have the range to reach Los Angeles for example, still they have been adding destinations and adding frequencies recently, and might continue to do so in the future. And Norwegian Air, they surely might want to shake up the air market more, in case they will be allowed to.


----------



## tp49 (Dec 18, 2014)

That's with the caveat that with Norwegian you're actually getting the 787 and not the wet leased EuroAtlantic A340 or the HiFly 777. In the majority of reviews I have read on Norwegian those who flew the wet leased aircraft had terrible things to say including no in flight entertainment and the meal they purchased when making the reservation not being on board. Additionally, with only one daily frequency on the routes Norwegian flies there is no room for error should an aircraft have a technical issue. I read a number of reviews from people who were stranded up to 48 hours with minimal assistance from the airline in those situations.

Norwegian should really make sure they have the aircraft necessary to cover their current long-haul routes before considering any expansion particularly to keep customer complaints to a minimum.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Dec 19, 2014)

Thank you for your post. 



tp49 said:


> That's with the caveat that with Norwegian you're actually getting the 787 and not the wet leased EuroAtlantic A340 or the HiFly 777. In the majority of reviews I have read on Norwegian those who flew the wet leased aircraft had terrible things to say including no in flight entertainment and the meal they purchased when making the reservation not being on board. Additionally, with only one daily frequency on the routes Norwegian flies there is no room for error should an aircraft have a technical issue. I read a number of reviews from people who were stranded up to 48 hours with minimal assistance from the airline in those situations.


Some might believe Norwegian, when Norwegian states that one way they can offer the low fares, is by only operating the cheapest, most fuel-efficient aircraft, so long-haul that's the 787 Dreamliner. On the other hand, in many cases Boeing was not able to deliver the 787 Dreamliner on time, and also Boeing was not able to deliver it without it repeatedly suffering technical problems. Using wet-leased EuroAtlantic aircraft to fill the gaps is not limited to Norwegian, f.e. Air Canada had to use wet-leased Euro Atlantic aircraft when their 787 Dreamliner deliveries were delayed. One article even claimed - though it's not known to me whether this is factual - that Boeing paid for the costs of the wet-lease, as it was due to them. The situation regarding Norwegian's dreamliners was worse in 2013 and in the middle of 2014, afterwards it got much better. Currently, AFAIK, the only routes operated by HiFly are CPH-FLL and CPH-JFK, otherwise the whole long-haul service is dreamliners. And to be fair, when visiting Norwegian's website, it also displays when selecting respective flights f.e. CPH-JFK, that they are operated by HiFly. At the same time, for those flights the info symbol saying "Dreamliner" is not displayed. For those flights were the aircraft was changed in the past, there are reports online that Norwegian informed passengers and even offered that if so desired passengers could cancel their booking and get their money back. Looking at recent online reviews, it seems that most passengers are satisfied with Norwegian's service, though repeatedly - also in the future - somebody might hop on a Norwegian plane without having informed themselves prior that it is a low-cost carrier, and that meals, headphones, blankets etc. are not included, and then these people might think it is a scandal while at the same time thinking that it was was no scandal at all that the fare was possibly purchased for hundreds of dollars less than other airlines' offerings.



tp49 said:


> Additionally, with only one daily frequency on the routes Norwegian flies there is no room for error should an aircraft have a technical issue. [...] Norwegian should really make sure they have the aircraft necessary to cover their current long-haul routes before considering any expansion particularly to keep customer complaints to a minimum.


Many long-haul routes by many airlines might just have one daily frequency. So the other airlines might continue operating these routes, and Norwegian might continue operating these routes as well. Some might think, the difference might be, that so far unfortunately the dreamliner had more technical issues than other types of aircraft, still hopefully the dreamliner will be just as reliable as other aircraft in the future. Probably also in the future, when Boeing states to Norwegian Air, the new additional aircraft will be delivered on a certain date, then possibly Norwegian will consider expansion for that certain date. And in case Boeing is not able to deliver, then instead of cancelling all passengers flights, the airline might try to bring people from A to B with other aircraft. It might seem as more and more of the planes are delivered (and Norwegian has a lot of planes on order, especially those starting to be delivered in 2016), more and more routes might be added - also new routes serving the United States, in case they will be allowed to.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 19, 2014)

When fuel prices are low, the differences in the remaining cost structures between LCCs and traditional airlines become more visible in pricing. When fuel prices are high, the differences are muted. At present we're at the low end of the cycle.

Look, there are three types of passengers who fly over the pond. There is the discretionary flyer who travels once a year between North America and western Europe; he or she will tolerate inconvenience for lowest price. There is the long-haul passenger who starts or ends the trip in Africa, eastern Europe, the Middle East, India, etc; he or she is more likely to use a traditional airline (or alliance) that provides connections. And there is the business flyer who flies over the pond once a month (or more). I'm in that category. Not all of us get to fly in business class, but we do require the absence of inconveniences.

Southwest, Easyjet, etc have flourished because they attract business travelers in addition to discretionary flyers. LCCs will never succeed in transatlantic unless they can attract business travelers. So far, no LCC has figured out how to do that over the long run.


----------



## oiky (Jan 7, 2015)

I'm taking advantage of their offer and flying Norwegian from London to Fort Lauderdale end of april for £239 ($350) inclusive of checked baggage and meals. i'm not expecting a perfect or undelayed service, i can definitely suffer slight inconvenience when the next cheapest direct one-way flight is at least £600 more expensive


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jan 7, 2015)

xyzzy said:


> This concept of LCC transatlantic comes up every so often. I'm old enough to remember Freddie Laker's Skytrain and People Express into LGW. Icelandair and to a lesser extent Aer Lingus have used the strategy sometimes.


Thank you for posting xyzzy because as I started to read this thread I was trying to think of the name of the 2 airline that were NOTORIOUS for this back in the 60s and 70s-_*Icelandair*_ and moreso _*Loftleiðir*_. Thery always had little ads in the back of travel magazines and crammed pax into 28 inch pitch on classic DC-6s, CL-44s and DC-8s for a backpacker's haul across the pond.


----------



## chakk (Jan 8, 2015)

Negotiation of Fourth Freedom and Fifth Freedom Rights for international airline flights date back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's presidency in the 1930s. I have no doubts that Norwegian Air will win such a transport certificate if they meet all of the necessary safety requirements. And whether or not they decide to offer food will depend on the market response. Even now I see lots of people bring their own food on international flights as an alternative to what the airline might be serving.


----------



## jis (Jan 8, 2015)

Wouldn't this be mostly third and fourth freedom with Norwegian subsidiary registered in a EU country? Is Norwegian actually asking for any fifth freedom onward rights? If so to where?

Wouldn't the "Open Skies" agreement between US and EU pretty much guarantee granting of permission anyway? I guess that is the point you are making chakk, right?


----------



## beautifulplanet (Jan 28, 2015)

While the United States Department Of Transportation seems to be still evaluating the case, and while recently a passenger group made the case for and a San Francisco professor of labor and employment studies made the case against Norwegian Air International, just today Norwegian Air announced the opening of their Southern Europe headquarters in Barcelona, as well as direct flights to 5 American cities from Barcelona starting in 2016:

Norwegian opens Southern Europe headquarters in Barcelona and announces flights to the US by 2016

January 26, 2015

By Catalan News Agency

http://www.catalannewsagency.com/business/item/norwegian-opens-southern-europe-headquarters-in-barcelona-and-announces-flights-to-the-us-by-2016

While the press report mentions San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Miami and Orlando, it is likely that Oakland is meant instead of San Francisco, and Fort Lauderdale instead of Miami, as those are already the airports of Norwegian's current US destinations, but maybe for the Spanish market it is more suitable to mention the larger cities. 

Especially for the west coast, already now to some it might seem amazing, how one can fly with Norwegian Air f.e. to Copenhagen in Denmark, from Los Angeles or Oakland, for just $540 round-trip (or $620 including one checked bag). For example in September, which is a beautiful time of year to visit Denmark, it would cost about $1,000 or even way more with traditional carriers, and then it's not even the convenience of a nonstop flight.

Now today's announcement, will bring the same cheap fares to Spain starting in 2016, and for the leisure market, Spain actually is an attractive place to visit nearly all year round.

This new situation starting in 2016 might especially put pressure on IAG Group's Iberia, which is currently operating most nonstop US flights from Spain out of Madrid. Also there might be more competition for American Airlines, which is currently flying to Barcelona from Miami and New York, Delta (New York) and United (Newark), as Norwegian will directly compete on their routes. The only US airline so far (except for on the London routes, there are more airlines there) having been affected by Norwegian's year-round competition was United, also operating direct year-round flights New York/Newark to and from Stockholm and Oslo, just like Norwegian does for a while now. And on those routes, United lowered the fares substantially: A round-trip from Oslo to Newark and back currently sells starting at 381 Euro (nonstop flights), and for Newark to Oslo round-trip it is $515, which used to be significantly more expensive, still now even undercutting Norwegian's prices. It is not known to me if United is basically forced to lower prices to this extent, in order to still be able to fill their B757 on those routes, or if it is like Pan Am vs. Skytrain/Laker Airways. In the latter case, the difference would be, with Norwegian Air already in 2013 being the ninth biggest European airline, and having nearly 24 million passengers in 2014, it won't be possible to force them into bankruptcy with a long-haul price war like it maybe was possible in the 1980s. Still, maybe in 2016 flights to and from Spain will see similar drops in prices like flights to Scandinavia already did - in case this time around, Norwegian Air's new Dreamliners will actually be delivered on time and in good working order.


----------



## jis (Apr 28, 2015)

Norwegian's various shenanigans are now coming home to roost in their home turf. Norway is threatening to prosecute them for violating labor and immigration laws of Norway. They have apparently already forced them to move the registration of their 787 fleet from Ireland back to Norway.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6384314/

So far from causing problems for any other airline, first they will need to sort out their own problems as it would seem.


----------



## Anderson (Apr 30, 2015)

jis said:


> Norwegian's various shenanigans are now coming home to roost in their home turf. Norway is threatening to prosecute them for violating labor and immigration laws of Norway. They have apparently already forced them to move the registration of their 787 fleet from Ireland back to Norway.
> 
> http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/6384314/
> 
> So far from causing problems for any other airline, first they will need to sort out their own problems as it would seem.


I'm wondering if we might not see some hilarity ensue with Norwegian not serving Norway (or at least not directly from a lot of places) at this rate.


----------

