71–80 of 131 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You swipe your card below the entertainment system screen and order from there. Order what? Inflight videos?
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.
Some is.
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…
Re: leasing. This is true of virtually all airlines these days outside of some flag carriers - I was being sloppy with my wording :) However, you get much better lease rates if you're willing to commit to a very large order and are negotiating it during a downturn. Which is what both Ryanair and Norwegian did.
Airline manufacturers and leasing companies traditionally experience a large drop off in their deal pipeline at the beginning of an economic shock/downturn because most airlines are badly run, cash strapped, slow moving and have no appetite from their creditors to commit to multi-billion, multi-year leases just when the wider economy is going to shit (and hurting their passenger loads). Non-legacy airlines (mainly budgets) have more tools available: they quickly drop routes, slash staff count etc. to ride the downturn while at the same time investing for the inevitable swing back. Helps too that they are the last to be hit by falling pax numbers since their ticket prices are so cheap.
There's lots of other factors at play too that I haven't really touched on. How an airline hedges its fuel and forex, what deals they have with airports, which manufacturer they standardise on (Boeing or Airbus), where they get their crews from, how they retail their tickets, which markets they're strong in, what AOC(s) they have, who their investors/creditors are (state, bank, sovereign wealth fund, pe, private) and on and on and on.
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.
There used to be OAK OSL non-stop until last October but I guess there is not enough people to keep it sustainable.
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.
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…
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.
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…
Norwegian didn't start in 2007. They go back to the early 90's. Re: leasing. This is true of virtually all airlines these days outside of some flag carriers - I was being sloppy with my wording :) However, you get much better lease rates if you're willing to commit to a very large order and are negotiating it during a downturn. Which is what both Ryanair and Norwegian did. Airline manufacturers and leasing companies…
Sure, I didn't say that they started in 2007. I'm unsure why you are refuting that particular point. Norwegian did begin with leased planes however:
"Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAS) was founded on 22 January 1993 to take over the regional airline services produced by Busy Bee for Braathens in Western Norway. Busy Bee, founded in 1966, was a subsidiary of Braathens that operated a fleet of Fokker 50 aircraft on charter services. This included the network of regional services between cities on the west coast of Norway operated on wet lease for the mother company. Following Busy Bee's bankruptcy in December 1992, NAS took over three leased Fokker 50 aircraft, and started operating from Bergen Airport, Flesland to Haugesund Airport, Karmøy, as well as from Bergen to Molde Airport, Årø or Kristiansund Airport, Kvernberget, and onwards to Trondheim Airport, Værnes."[1]
While leasing is very common, bigger carriers are a mix of both purchase and leases, leasing is still only 40% of total of plane makers sales[2]. Leasing cuts both ways as plane is much cheaper for a carrier if it is used for its entire 30 year lifespan.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Air_Shuttle
[2] http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21699893-...
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…
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 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 most LCC's, you MUST print your boarding pass at home, or pay a 50 Eur service fee. And many of them make you check in your own luggage, all the way to the belt.
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?
Second - a company that would cross the unions by hiring new workers would be blockaded. First by the union itself, but very soon by other unions. For example a restaurant that doesn't pay the correct wages might not be able to get deliveries of certain products, garbage won't be picked up etc. Outside the entrance customers are handed flyers that the restaurant is mistreating staff. All of this is regardless of whether the restaurant staff wants to be union members and regardless of whether they are happy with their contracts.
And this is working very well actually - there is for example no need for minimum wages set by law. Strikes are rare, and "illegal/wild" strikes outside of contract periods are almost unheard of. Perhaps surprisingly, businesses are quite happy with this setup. Weaker unions would likely mean more unnecessary strikes, and definitely more regulation of things that are now covered by agreements.
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…