Live data from Hacker News

How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

fastcompany.com

81–90 of 131 posts

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!)

They fly direct to Logan and JFK from Gatwick. It probably doesn't make financial sense to connect "real" airports to relatively minor ones like Edinburgh.

United and American fly to Newark and JFK respectively direct from Edinburgh, FWIW. And United fly to Newark from Glasgow, 50 odd miles away, too.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#82
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>"Norwegian didn't start in 2007. They go back to the early 90's." 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…

Sorry, misunderstood when you said "Starting an airline is not a trivial undertaking, certainly not something you could hope to complete during a temporary downturn or use "market timing" like you would with equities.". I thought you were implying the founders of Norwegian spotted an opportunity and started-up during the downturn.

Outside of some state backed airlines, I would have thought any airline founded in the last 35 years will have started with 100% leased aircraft. For airlines that own their own equipment, in the first world at least, most of them tend to offload aircraft at the 17 to ~20 year stage (at which point they're usually sold on to leasing companies who then lease them out to charter/acmi operators or they find their way down to Africa or LATAM).

The problem with buying your own equipment (from a budget airline PoV) is that you can't benefit from newer model fuel efficiencies or improved pax capacity. They also put much higher pressure cycle loads on the hulls due to the increased rotation frequency of the short-haul point-to-point model (which reduces the serviceable life of the airframe and hence the re-sale value). Running a mixed leased/purchased fleet starts making more sense when your route network isn't dominated by short-haul.

As an example, Ryanair's average fleet age is < 6 years (across 300 aircraft).

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#83

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.

I call this a plus. Waiting to have somebody check your baggage when you could just do it yourself is a vast improvement.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#84
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…

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.

They actually offer some premium stuff in the price. Nice seats and free inflight wifi inside Norway (has been there for a few years).

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#85
post #67

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…

"Norwegian is at the better end of the low fare airlines." I saw a thread were pilots were freaked out by this: http://avherald.com/h?article=4a1ae8c4

I don't understand how your response relates to the statement about the quality of Norwegian Air.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#86
post #22

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…

  Ryanair's new web app is actually not that bad compared
  to the hostile site they had a few years back
Which is roughly when they refocused on customer-service, when their previous customer-hostile approach generated enough negative publicity to threaten their business model.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#87
post #68

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 often go to alternate airports. For me, that's Brussels Zaventem as well as Eindhoven. To both, it's about an hour and a half train ride: quiet, smooth, free Wifi. Versus maybe a 30 minute train ride from my apartment to the Schiphol airport in Amsterdam.

The price difference for my extra hour on a train is about $120-$150. I'd say earning $150 an hour for sitting in a quiet smooth train with free Wifi is almost certainly worth it, unless you're the kind of person who hates trains.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#88
post #86
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ryanair's new web app is actually not that bad compared to the hostile site they had a few years back Which is roughly when they refocused on customer-service, when their previous customer-hostile approach generated enough negative publicity to threaten their business model.

Threatening their business model is overstating it a bit I think. More like they had already successfully picked all the low hanging fruit and in order to maintain their stellar (multi) year-on-year passenger growth they needed to start trying other things (customer experience improvement, more focus on business flyers, serving more primary airports, dipping their toes in to offering a few connecting flights).

Short-haul LCC traffic in Europe is becoming a mature market and so budget airlines are on a drive to find ways to grow beyond simply offering "insanely cheap prices". However, it's important to remember that a bad/hostile customer experience didn't stop Ryanair getting to ~100 million passengers a year (note: not that I'm defending that!).

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#89

I Love flying with Norwegian. Painful to say as a swede but they are my go-to low price airline.

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 rivalry.

Re: How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights

#90

I Love flying with Norwegian. Painful to say as a swede but they are my go-to low price airline.

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…

Norway may well be considered the upstart little brother, or hick relative of the Scandinavian nations.

This partially because it was a long time the subservient partner of Denmark-Norway, and then later passed to Sweden as war-reparations after Denmark backed Napoleon (never mind the earlier event where Trøndelag was given to Sweden after the 30 years war, only to be handed back a decade later because Sweden found them to be unruly).

That said, mostly it is playful banter. For example, all nations have similar jokes where representatives of the nations try to one up each other, and the nation of the story teller always come out on top to a massive degree.

Post reply on HN