Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 131 posts

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#111

Post by corford »

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 privately owned.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#112

Post by bronco21016 »

prostoalex wrote: post #97
bronco21016 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what expense of high paying, quality, American jobs? A huge cost advantage that NAI enjoys on many of their international flights is through a flag-of-convenience scheme. NAI is a Norwegian majority owned company but has established their base of operations for international flying in Ireland. Through this arrangement they are able to hire pilots and cabin crews under contracts and work rules of southeast Asia whe…

> At what expense of high paying, quality, American jobs? Are they high-paying because of the time and effort it takes to procure necessary skills (anesthesiologists) or are they high-paying through artificial throttling of the supply and monopolistic anti-competitive practices (taxi medallions)? One is the boon to the economy, another one is rent-seeking and employs a broken window fallacy to justify itself. > I thi…

Jobs at major airlines are high paying because of the high cost of time, effort, and dollars necessary to procure the skills necessary for the job. A new pilot can expect to spend at least $150,000-200,000 at a 4 year program largely due to the expense needed to gain those hours you mention that make him or her safer. Once that's done you'll spend at least a couple thousand hours working to get experience in low paying jobs like those explained in the article you linked. All of this experience is necessary to get those high paying jobs ($200,000+ within a few years) at a major carrier to make the pay off worth it.

The major airlines are paying high wages to attract the best, most experienced pilots in the world. There is definitely no rent-seeking in this employment market.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#113

Post by corford »

URSpider94 wrote: post #108
kristofferR wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>(that would cost money to maintain, best to have you use your own paper and toner at home).

Or... you can board with your phone :)

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#114

Post by prostoalex »

bronco21016 wrote: post #112
prostoalex wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At what expense of high paying, quality, American jobs? Are they high-paying because of the time and effort it takes to procure necessary skills (anesthesiologists) or are they high-paying through artificial throttling of the supply and monopolistic anti-competitive practices (taxi medallions)? One is the boon to the economy, another one is rent-seeking and employs a broken window fallacy to justify itself. > I thi…

Jobs at major airlines are high paying because of the high cost of time, effort, and dollars necessary to procure the skills necessary for the job. A new pilot can expect to spend at least $150,000-200,000 at a 4 year program largely due to the expense needed to gain those hours you mention that make him or her safer. Once that's done you'll spend at least a couple thousand hours working to get experience in low payi…

> Jobs at major airlines are high paying because of the high cost of time, effort, and dollars necessary to procure the skills necessary for the job.

An ATP license for a major airline is no different than an ATP license for Bob's Discount Airlines, so the costs of obtaining either one are the same. Airlines (or in the US, their unions, who usually govern this) generally promote on seniority, which does relate to the number of hours flown, but considering it's the hours that are flown on the job, it's airline's investment at that point.

In reality, though, jobs at major airlines pay well for senior pilots because the unions for major airlines are run by senior pilots, who see no problem in negotiating a payscale with significant income inequality between junior and senior levels. I'd urge you to read Philip Greenspun's "Unions and Airlines" to understand the way the industry is structured in the US http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines

> The major airlines are paying high wages to attract the best, most experienced pilots in the world.

If they were, senior pilots from United would be jumping ship for better compensation packages with Delta, and then American would have to raise the stakes to attract the best and the brightest. But a senior pilot at United will have to restart as a junior pilot with Delta, all that "high cost of time, effort, and dollars necessary to procure the skills" be damned.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#115

Post by Spooky23 »

bogomipz wrote: post #64
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…

>"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)." This doesn't sound quite right. Starting an airline is not a trivial undertaking, certainly not something you could hope to complete during a temporary downturn or use "marke…

If you have access to some cash, it's not as hard as you might think.

I worked with a guy in CompUSA in college who was literally a retail salesdude, who was on the phone all day trying to get some deal together to lease planes. He ended up hustling a deal with a travel agency his girlfriend worked for (this was the mid 90s) and getting his dad and a few investors to buy into the plane charter.

I thought he was just crazy, but he ended up running charters for at least a half dozen trips to the Carribean, and made a good buck on it.

Granted that he was doing charters, not starting an airline. But it was much easier than I had imagined.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#116

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

owenversteeg wrote: post #89
Theodores wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mistook a Swedish neighbour for being Norwegian, afterwards I felt stupid for this as clearly I had not been paying attention. (Her name begins with 'N' so that may be the cause of the 'senior moment'.) As an English person living in England I have no idea whether getting someone's country 'almost right' is a hurtful thing. Is the Norwegian vs Swedish thing real? If so, is it for the reason I give - not paying atte…

Some countries people will be very upset. I think these are the more sensitive ones: Pakistan/India Iran/its neighbors South Korea/North Korea (you'd be surprised how often people think South Koreans might be from North Korea) Mexico/its neighbors By "sensitive" I don't mean that people will get very offended, just that they might be mildly annoyed. Norway/Sweden as well as Netherlands/Belgium is mostly a playful riv…

At least in the case of India / Pakistan I don't think it's as much about being upset or offended as being worried of being subject to any potential negative connotations associated with the other country.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#117

Post by adomanico »

aphextron wrote: post #6

For anyone travelling to Europe from the bay area, you can't beat Norwegian. They have nonstop flights from OAK to Stockholm and Oslo on brand new 787's for as cheap as <$300 each way. It's another $50 to anywhere in Europe from those two cities on the budget lines like Ryanair.

They will be starting a new direct route to Rome FCO in the fall as well.

Bounviaggio!

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#118

Post by davidgh »

phil21 wrote: post #68
gambiting wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then what do you do if only Ryanair flies remotely close to where you need to be? Every time I go home I could either fly ryanair and be home in about 3 hours, or fly with someone else + take the train, total journey time = 9-10 hours. Free market competition is great if there actually is any competition.

The only way I'd take a LCC into an "alternate airport" would be if I lived closer to the alternate than major. For someone like you who is commuting home, it makes a ton of sense. For typical business/leisure travel it rarely is convenient, and like many folks I'm astounded at the level of inconvenience people will go through to save $50 on a flight.

I love the alternate airports. What I lose in being less conveniently located I more than make up in arriving at a generally much smaller, less busy, and quieter facility.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#119

Post by somecontext »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #19
aphextron wrote: post #6

For anyone travelling to Europe from the bay area, you can't beat Norwegian. They have nonstop flights from OAK to Stockholm and Oslo on brand new 787's for as cheap as <$300 each way. It's another $50 to anywhere in Europe from those two cities on the budget lines like Ryanair.

Some details: - They fly out of Oakland airport, OAK, not San Francisco Airport. - They don't fly non-stop to Oslo, apparently. Itineraries to Oslo from OAK connect in London, Gatwick. - OAK LGW September 18th - 24th indeed $499 - OAK LGW July 3rd - 10th $1,189. So you'll still want to buy tickets well in advance.

> They don't fly non-stop to Oslo, apparently. Itineraries to Oslo from OAK connect in London, Gatwick.

There is a non-stop flight, Norwegian Air Shuttle 7064. You can look at its flight path here: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/NAX7064

The flight leaving tomorrow was $340 one way when I checked now. Round-trip, I was able to find a non-stop OAK--OSL ticket for $510 (similar September dates to yours).

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#120

Post by piva00 »

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…

Cheaper secondary airports? Where?

At least here in Europe I fly Norwegian almost anywhere they go exactly because they are a low-cost flying through main airports.

I'm going to Amsterdam Schiphol this week flying from Stockholm-Arlanda, for an example.

What Norwegian really seems to do well is cramming rotations, I've seen a plane turn over from landing to take-off in about 30~40 minutes.

Also: Norwegian is by far one of the best companies I've flown, free Wi-Fi onboard, no one pesters me about backpack sizes, no dark patterns when selling me tickets to upsell something, most of my flights with them were on schedule or delayed by about 10 minutes or less.

All in all I wouldn't ever compare Ryanair to Norwegian, the only thing in common they have is being low-cost and probably the strategy for ordering tons of planes in a down market.

Post reply on HN