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

121–130 of 131 posts

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#121

Post by piva00 »

corford wrote: post #22
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.

Perhaps where Norwegian and Ryanair compete on the same routes (which isn't many). But even then, if there's more than a €10 difference in the headline price, most LCC flyers will pick the cheaper one regardless. I think just like with blindness to banner ads on websites, most consumers quickly learn to avoid the dark patterns during check out. To be honest, Ryanair's new web app is actually not that bad compared to…

As I stated in another comment: I'd never pick Ryanair over Norwegian, even as LCC flyer. I had flights with Norwegian where paying €100 more than with Ryanair was well worth it for the time I'd lose going to/from airports and the hassle it'd be to be sure I'd done everything against the dark patterns of Ryanair.

I really can't see myself getting a Ryanair flight to anywhere where I could get Norwegian, airBerlin, or other LCC that aren't as cheap as "Fly for €6.99" but at least treat you well.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#122

Post by lin_lin »

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…

> You pay extra for: checking luggage, carrying on luggage, selecting your seat in advance, selecting any seat that's not a middle seat.

Well, you do. But you're subsidising regular LCC users like myself :) I never bring check-in luggage, don't care where I sit and as regards printing out passes, most (including Ryanair) have decent apps that negate the need for that.

N.B. This applies to shortish trips, to places in Europe. If it's a long haul trip or long duration, I'll consider other airlines.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#123

Post by davidf18 »

saryant wrote: post #93
davidf18 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. The consolidation of major carriers under Obama administration (United buying Continental, and American buying US Air) has reduced competition and thus higher fares, worse service. They don't fly out of regional airports at least in NYC I think that is rare. I"ll bet there are a lot of operational issues. Delta, United and others own low-cost carriers (the famous United case where the senior was dragge…

> the famous United case where the senior was dragged off the plane screaming and kicking was not on United but a low cost fully owned subsidiary carrier of United United does not own Republic Airways and they are not a subsidiary of United Continental Holdings (United's parent). Republic is its own airline operating flights under contract for United, Delta and American. The legacies by and large do not own the regio…

According to Wikipedia, United Continental Holdings is the parent of United Express: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express

> "and result from union contracts that inhibit the legacies from profitably operating smaller (non-mainline) aircraft."

And it is these union contracts then that keep the US carriers from earning such low profits.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#124

Post by davidf18 »

coredog64 wrote: post #96
davidf18 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. The consolidation of major carriers under Obama administration (United buying Continental, and American buying US Air) has reduced competition and thus higher fares, worse service. They don't fly out of regional airports at least in NYC I think that is rare. I"ll bet there are a lot of operational issues. Delta, United and others own low-cost carriers (the famous United case where the senior was dragge…

In good years, airlines have some of the lowest profit margins of any industry. Maybe instead of allowing a bunch of crappy carriers to come and go, it would be better to allow consolidation into a few majors. Ticket prices might be somewhat higher, but they would still be more affordable than they were when the industry was fully regulated.

EasyJet, Ryan Air, and Norwegian are not crappy carriers that come and go. Low profit margins have to do with an industry that by-and-large is a commodity. But prices have to do with operating costs and Norwegian and Ryan Air and Easy Jet have done a better job of controlling their operating costs than US carriers.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#125

Post by davidf18 »

prostoalex wrote: post #114
bronco21016 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> "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."

That doesn't make any sense at all. That sounds like some sort of anti-trust issue that keeps airline costs low by making it impossible to "poach" highly qualified pilots from other carriers and raise wages.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#126

Post by saryant »

davidf18 wrote: post #123
saryant wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the famous United case where the senior was dragged off the plane screaming and kicking was not on United but a low cost fully owned subsidiary carrier of United United does not own Republic Airways and they are not a subsidiary of United Continental Holdings (United's parent). Republic is its own airline operating flights under contract for United, Delta and American. The legacies by and large do not own the regio…

According to Wikipedia, United Continental Holdings is the parent of United Express: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express > "and result from union contracts that inhibit the legacies from profitably operating smaller (non-mainline) aircraft." And it is these union contracts then that keep the US carriers from earning such low profits.

United Express doesn't operate flights themselves. They own no aircraft and employ no flight crews. They contract out all operations to carriers like Republic.

United Express is nothing more than a brand serving as an umbrella for a group of subcontractors.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#127

Post by prostoalex »

davidf18 wrote: post #125
prostoalex wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> "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." That doesn't make any sense at all. That sounds like some sort of anti-trust issue that keeps airline costs low by making it impossible to "poach" highly qualified pilots from other carriers and raise wages.

Seniority rules are written by unions, not airlines. From airline management point of view, they have a fixed liability (number of pilot man-hours) and a fixed resource (pool of money to pay for those man-hours). How that fixed resource is applied to the fixed liability is up to the union.

To quote a letter to the editor in 2003 WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB105149633146672400

"A 45-year-old captain who has been with an airline for 15 years cannot quit and go elsewhere, because doing so would mean starting all over at the bottom, earning $25,000 a year at a new airline and working every holiday. Imagine if a surgeon had to go back to being an intern every time he changed hospitals."

It's exploitable somewhat by airline management (definitely takes the metaphor of golden handcuffs to the next level), but then the number of airlines is not fixed, with new start-ups coming on board every few years or so, so you'd think that at least someone would exploit these inefficiencies, if it made economic sense for them.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#128

Post by bogomipz »

Spooky23 wrote: post #115
bogomipz wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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…

Sure, I don't think its that tough to lease a plane but the time consuming bits are things like the regulatory regime and obtaining takeoff and landing slots at airports.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#129

Post by davidf18 »

saryant wrote: post #126
davidf18 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia, United Continental Holdings is the parent of United Express: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express > "and result from union contracts that inhibit the legacies from profitably operating smaller (non-mainline) aircraft." And it is these union contracts then that keep the US carriers from earning such low profits.

United Express doesn't operate flights themselves. They own no aircraft and employ no flight crews. They contract out all operations to carriers like Republic. United Express is nothing more than a brand serving as an umbrella for a group of subcontractors.

United seems to have some operational control since the CEO of United said that they would no longer be dragging people off of flights and in the media that passenger was listed as being on a "United Express" flight.

These subcontractors seems to run with lower operational expenses and yet use Americans as pilots following FAA guidelines. United could have a similar arrangement with lower operational costs for overseas flights.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#130

Post by eru »

valuearb wrote: post #49
alkonaut wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And ensure that authorities are powerful enough to just make swift decisions about things like this. "Since this move accomplishes exactly the curcumvention of the strike, we consider the new company bound by the old company's agreements. Oblige by Monday or stop flying in Norway".

Why can't the company just fire the strikers and directly hire replacements?

That's what I was getting at, yes.

But as alkonaut was pointing out, the actual rules themselves don't matter as much to business as predictable and swift enforcement.

Post reply on HN