How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights • Hacker News Board

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#101

Post by kristofferR » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 9:56 PM UTC

URSpider94 wrote: post #78

vanderZwan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big difference with Ryanair and other low-cost airlines is that Norwegian stays away from dark UI patterns in their website/app, and also doesn't use the "make it uncomfortable enough that you consider paying more, but not so uncomfortable that it stops you from using it" tactics in general. I think they'll be much better at customer retention.

You aren't kidding. We did a family vacation in Europe last year, and relied primarily on LCC's to do side trips. Buying tickets was like clicking through a Facebook clickbait story - packed with ads and confusingly named links that would add charges to your flight. You pay extra for: checking luggage, carrying on luggage, selecting your seat in advance, selecting any seat that's not a middle seat. And then -- for mo…

> And many of them make you check in your own luggage, all the way to the belt.

Is this uncommon in the US?

I'd much rather enter the airport, casually walk up to a touchscreen, print my boarding pass and label and drop off my baggage than queuing up in a long line when the check-in counter opens.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#102

Post by tomjakubowski » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 10:07 PM UTC

tacostakohashi wrote: post #42

alkonaut wrote: post #28

Norwegian is at the better end of the low fare airlines. They don't use shady UI patterns (or ads!) on their website. They don't walk around the aisle selling lottery tickets. And they don't land on third tier airports with ridiculous transfer times to cities. Basically they work like a full service airline, but of course they only work from A to B and don't offer the fancy guarantees you need with more complicated b…

Stewart Airport, N.Y. seems like the poster child for third tier airports with ridiculous transfer times everywhere.

Stewart is about a 20 minute ($35) cab ride plus 90 minute ($22) train ride from Grand Central Terminal. I've only flown to NY a couple times, and even I've experienced longer transit times than that between midtown and JFK.

source: https://thepointsguy.com/2017/06/norwegian-737-800-flight-re...

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#103

Post by jernfrost » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 10:13 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #80

alkonaut wrote: post #28

Norwegian is at the better end of the low fare airlines. They don't use shady UI patterns (or ads!) on their website. They don't walk around the aisle selling lottery tickets. And they don't land on third tier airports with ridiculous transfer times to cities. Basically they work like a full service airline, but of course they only work from A to B and don't offer the fancy guarantees you need with more complicated b…

I should add I meant for customers. They might well be treating employees like crap. But so does Ryan et.al. I suppose. As far as I'm aware they are at least not actively anti union and similar crazy things that Ryanair is known for.

Hard to be excessively anti union in Norway as being a union member is so normal. Something like 80% of the working population. Still Norwegian Air Shuttle has gotten a lot of flak in Norewgian news media for their confrontations with pilot unions.

As a Norewgian I got mixed feelings about them. It is cool with a Norwegian company doing so well and I like flying with them more than other low cost carriers. Ryan air is just too nasty for me to ever want to fly with. I got a minimum of principles and they border on being crooks.

Still I am not happy about many things Norwegian airshuttle does. I wish they played more fair with the unions and took safety more serious. They are pushing boundaries with safety with overworked pilots. Not sure how they are by international standards. Noregian labour regulations tend to be a lot stricter than most other places.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#104

Post by smachiz » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 10:14 PM UTC

tacostakohashi wrote: post #42

alkonaut wrote: post #28

Norwegian is at the better end of the low fare airlines. They don't use shady UI patterns (or ads!) on their website. They don't walk around the aisle selling lottery tickets. And they don't land on third tier airports with ridiculous transfer times to cities. Basically they work like a full service airline, but of course they only work from A to B and don't offer the fancy guarantees you need with more complicated b…

Stewart Airport, N.Y. seems like the poster child for third tier airports with ridiculous transfer times everywhere.

True enough - but they're flying 737s into SWF. I would bet they'll get plenty of people not going to or coming from NYC to fill the 183 seats on those planes.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#105

Post by arve0 » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 10:34 PM UTC

robocat wrote: post #91

corford wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is definitely true although in Norwegian's case they also benefited from some lucky timing: the GFC happened to occur just as Boeing were developing new aircraft that would finally be capable of offering low enough ops costs for the LCC model to work on longer sector times. I doubt too that Norwegian foresaw how long oil prices would remain low when they made the order. Norwegian are where they are today thanks…

Norway sells a lot of oil. As a country owning a large airline is good diversification?

Norwegian is not owned by Norway. SAS on the other hand...

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#106

Post by jpatokal » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 10:35 PM UTC

jk2323 wrote: post #66

corford wrote: post #7

Norwegian borrowed the same play book Michael O'Leary (of Ryanair) used ~6 years earlier: putting in a big, bold order for new Boeing aircraft just as the aviation market was tanking (due to 9/11 in O'Leary's case and the GFC in Norwegian's). Anti-cycle is the cheapest time to buy lots of new planes (if you have the balls and investor backing to do it). Underneath it all is the same operating model that allowed low c…

You are right but miss some things: 1. Planes are easier to clean 2. Even the Emergency board card can't get stolen (Printed on the chair) 3. Can't buy tickets on other websites 4. Point to point airline, luggage does not have to get transferred, no missed connection flights. One of the biggest advantages are the short breaks. Sometimes they even don't turn off the turbines before they fly back. I am skeptical if Nor…

Air Asia X and Scoot have been doing quite well in the medium-haul market (<8 hours) in Asia. However, Air Asia X just announced that they're abandoning a mooted 2nd attempt at long haul (Asia to Europe/US) because the numbers just aren't there; they'll fly Japan-Hawaii but no further.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#107

Post by abrkn » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 10:41 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #44

an_account wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snacks, food, alcohol, etc. IIRC, inflight entertainment is free. Scheduled meal costs extra at time of ticket purchase. Much better to bring your own food, or buy their decent snacks as you get hungry.

Oh wow I've never been on a transatlantic flight with pay-for food but I think it makes sense. I don't know why people feel the need to eat so frequently on flights and it clauses chaos for everyone while it's being served if you are in economy.

It's included in premium and paid for in economy. Some times they have steaks! The texture is quite a like sous vide. I have no idea how that's possible at that scale/altitude :-)

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#108

Post by URSpider94 » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 11:05 PM UTC

kristofferR wrote: post #101

URSpider94 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't kidding. We did a family vacation in Europe last year, and relied primarily on LCC's to do side trips. Buying tickets was like clicking through a Facebook clickbait story - packed with ads and confusingly named links that would add charges to your flight. You pay extra for: checking luggage, carrying on luggage, selecting your seat in advance, selecting any seat that's not a middle seat. And then -- for mo…

> And many of them make you check in your own luggage, all the way to the belt. Is this uncommon in the US? I'd much rather enter the airport, casually walk up to a touchscreen, print my boarding pass and label and drop off my baggage than queuing up in a long line when the check-in counter opens.

In the USA, it's not uncommon to check in at home and/or print your own boarding pass. It's far less common to print and attach your own luggage tags - United does it at SFO. However, US airline regs require that an employee checks your ID and compares it to the boarding pass before accepting luggage - so there's always a human in the loop.

However - a lot of Americans still aren't comfortable with this level of self-service, and want to go to a full-service counter.

What I was referring to specifically with LCC's is that they have zero personnel at the check-in counter -- self-checking your luggage isn't a nice option, it's mandatory. And there's not even a kiosk for printing your boarding pass (that would cost money to maintain, best to have you use your own paper and toner at home).

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#109

Post by muninn_ » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 11:27 PM UTC

kristofferR wrote: post #95

maaaats wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swedish vs Norwegian is mostly playful banter. Our lives, culture, values and language are all very similar, so being mistaken for the other is no big deal as it doesn't have any particularly negative connotations attached.

Yeah, it's like being called a Canadian as an American.

Yeah I've had that happen to me many times, and vice-versa.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#110

Post by bsder » Sun, Jun 25, 2017, 11:31 PM UTC

gsnedders wrote: post #39

alkonaut wrote: post #28

Norwegian is at the better end of the low fare airlines. They don't use shady UI patterns (or ads!) on their website. They don't walk around the aisle selling lottery tickets. And they don't land on third tier airports with ridiculous transfer times to cities. Basically they work like a full service airline, but of course they only work from A to B and don't offer the fancy guarantees you need with more complicated b…

Note that some of their upcoming long haul stuff is to obscure airports: their new flights from Edinburgh are to "Providence/Boston T. F. Green Airport" which is an hour+ away from Boston. (Well, it's a totally reasonable airport for Providence, but marketing it as Boston is dubious!)

> Well, it's a totally reasonable airport for Providence, but marketing it as Boston is dubious!)

If your destination is truly downtown Boston.

However, a lot of people are coming from the suburbs or going to somewhere on Route 128. In those instances, Providence (or Nashua) is WAY faster--especially even remotely close to rush hours. Digging your way into Logan is always a nightmare. And Providence is a vastly nicer airport experience.

The Boston airports really do qualify as close to each other if you're renting a car (less than an hour to Boston under most circumstances and probably less than 45 minutes if you're going to Route 128/I-495).

(Long Beach to Ontario in Los Angeles is nominally 45 minutes but WAY longer due to traffic).