Norwegian Schedules the First of What Will Likely Be Many 737 MAXs Crossing the Atlantic

It’s been in the works for years, and now it’s official. Norwegian last week unveiled its first 737 MAX schedules for transatlantic flights and put them on sale. Three points in the US will be connected to five points in Ireland and the UK. This is actually a rather momentous occasion, and it’s without question the first of many more to come (not just at Norwegian) thanks to this bad boy:

Yes, there are 737s that have crossed the Pond before. PrivatAir 737s in an all-Business configuration have flown over the ocean for years. WestJet has done some flying from far Eastern Canada to Europe on its 737s. I do remember Icelandair flying a 737-400 from Halifax to Keflavik, but I can’t really call Iceland to Canada to be transatlantic. Those, however, are outliers. In the future, the 737 won’t be an outlier, and Norwegian is ushering in that era. The new 737 MAX has the range to finally connect some Eastern US cities with Western Europe. And Norwegian is happy to be a pioneer in using it for that purpose. Here’s the map:

For the airport-code-challenged, from left to right that’s Newburgh/Stewart (about 10 hours north of New York City by barge), Hartford (gateway to, uh, East Hartford), and the mighty Providence (preferred airport of Quahog residents).

It is no mistake that Boston and New York City are also on this map. Norwegian is really hoping that it can pull people from those monstrous cities out into these alternate airports, where gates are cheap and runways are empty. I’ve already written about Stewart.

Looking at all these routes, none of them have overlap with existing nonstop service, unsurprisingly. There is, of course, nonstop service from Boston to Dublin and Shannon as well as from New York to Dublin, Shannon, and Edinburgh. But Logan, JFK, and Newark are a long way from Providence and Stewart.

Norwegian is coming into this with differing summer and winter schedules, as you’d hope. Here’s a brief breakdown of how the flights will operate:

City Paris Summer Frequencies Winter Frequencies
Providence-Belfast 2x weekly
Providence-Edinburgh 4x weekly 2x weekly
Providence-Cork 3x weekly 2x weekly
Providence-Dublin 5x weekly 3x weekly
Providence-Shannon 2x weekly 2x weekly
Hartford-Edinburgh 3x weekly 2x weekly
Stewart-Belfast 3x weekly 2x weekly
Stewart-Edinburgh Daily 3x weekly
Stewart-Dublin Daily 3x weekly
Stewart-Shannon 3x weekly 2x weekly

When you first see all these lines on a route map, you probably assume there’s a ton of flying actually being done. But Norwegian is going Allegiant-style here with some sub-daily flying so there are fewer than 6 a day each way. This is very clearly aimed at the leisure traveler and not the business traveler, though undoubtedly Norwegian will attract some business travelers… the ones who aren’t on an expense account, at least.

To accomplish this flying, Norwegian is going to base two 737 MAX 8s at both Providence and Stewart. (Hartford presumably will be served by an aircraft based in Europe.) What’s interesting is how much extra time Norwegian will have available on those airplanes.

These flights aren’t being operated at crazy times just to ramp up aircraft utilization. Eastbound flights leave the US between 7:30pm and 10:30pm arriving in Europe in the morning. Westbound flights leave Europe between 3:30pm and 5:30pm. So we have four airplanes that will spend hours and hours just sitting on the ground in Europe, right? No way.

That kind of schedule means Norwegian can easily fly an intra-Europe roundtrip before having to head back to the US. Today, of the five cities seeing service to the US, only Edinburgh and Dublin have Norwegian service within Europe. And in both those cities, the handful of flights are operated by airplanes that come in from elsewhere and then turn right back around. I assume it’s only a matter of time before we hear about new flights from all these cities to points within Europe to keep aircraft utilization up and to build connecting options.

And really, connections are going to be hugely important over time. It will be easy for the big guys to compete out of JFK/Newark/Boston to these same cities if they so choose (and you know they will). But once you throw in connections to a bunch of smaller European cities without the same price pressure, it gets harder to compete. Is Norwegian going to be able to run enough connections to make a difference? No, but that’s what Ryanair and easyJet are for.

Looking at the seat map, Norwegian is going to put 189 seats on the 737 MAX 8, all in coach. That’s pretty similar to what Norwegian has on its 737-800s now, and it doesn’t leave much room for your legs. But for many people, a cheap fare is going to make it worthwhile anyway.

Norwegian did do some splashy intro fares for under $100, but there weren’t a ton of those. Still, fares are going to be pretty low, especially in the winter when Norwegian is going to have a heck of a time trying to fill these airplanes. In particular, with one-way pricing, this will be a huge bargain compared to the traditional airlines.

So for now, if you want a cheap flight, you’ll be able to find one… just not as cheap as you saw in the press release. I will remain skeptical that Norwegian can pull this off until I see proof otherwise, but I do think Norwegian is setting itself up as well as could be hoped for in a secondary airport. Even if this doesn’t work, others will find a way to make it happen. (It could be Norwegian with a revised plan, for all I know.) This is just the first attempt at what is bound to be a big change in transatlantic travel.

[Images via Norwegian/CC 3.0]

Get Posts via Email When They Go Live or in a Weekly Digest

Leave a Reply

82 Comments on "Norwegian Schedules the First of What Will Likely Be Many 737 MAXs Crossing the Atlantic"

avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Andrew
Guest

Queue the comments about “I would never dream of taking a narrowbody aircraft over the Atlantic” even though the distance from these airports to Ireland is only a couple hundred miles more than flying to San Francisco, for example – a trip most people wouldn’t think twice about doing in a narrowbody.

cpagan2
Member

Umm other that this thing of flying over land versus flying versus a large stretch of ocean, your comment makes sense

Oliver
Guest

How does it matter? Non-MAX 737s fly over a long(er) stretch of ocean every day between the west coast and Hawaii.

Jim G
Guest

Best flight in coach I ever had was on a BA 747, top deck, 3X3. Dis not miss the large mass of humanity below one bit.

cblock2
Member

And there are plenty of 757s crossing the Atlantic already. I flew EWR-BRS on CO back in the day, the slight additional discomfort of a narrowbody was more than offset by not having to deal with Heathrow when my destination was in Devon.

Oliver
Guest

The actual (dis-)comfort of the seat I am in is much more important to me than whether there is a second aisle that I likely will never walk in. I have crossed the Atlantic on United’s 757 and it was fine.

Kilroy
Guest

Exactly this. Narrow bodies generally have fewer “middle” (non-window, non-aisle) seats, more overhead bin space per seat, and typically load and unload faster as well. I am agnostic as to the number of aisles in a plane.

David M
Guest
Considering coach seats only: 737 (3-3): 1/3 of seats are middle 747 (3-4-3): 2/5 of seats are middle 757 (3-3): 1/3 of seats are middle 767 (2-3-2): 1/7 of seats are middle 777 (2-5-2): 1/3 of seats are middle 777 (3-3-3): 1/3 of seats are middle 777 (3-4-3): 2/5 of seats are middle 787 (3-3-3): 1/3 of seats are middle A320 (3-3): 1/3 of seats are middle A330 (2-4-2): 1/4 of seats are middle A340 (2-4-2): 1/4 of seats are middle A350 (3-3-3): 1/3 of seats are middle A380 lower deck (3-4-3): 2/5 of seats are middle A380 upper deck… Read more »
Bernardo Ng
Guest

Omg I’ve been on the second to last row of both a 757-200 (united, Denver-Boston) and a 757-300 (Continental, Houston-Los Angeles) and yes. It takes a while before 180 or so passengers deplane before you. Also on the continental flight the flight attendant asked us to please let a lady from around my row deplane first as she had a connection, everyone was upset as she wasn’t the only one who had a connection. Myself included.

steve
Guest

I don’t see this really working until they get some through ticketing arranged and take the risk away from the customer, on the surface a tie up with ryanair seems like win win for everyone. ( Unless ryanair is planning some its own routes of course!)

Kilroy
Guest

To be fair, BDL isn’t actually all that close to Hartford (or East Hartford, for that matter), at ~30 minute drive time. BDL is literally 1 town away from the Mass line.

The only real tourist attractions of note in the Hartford-Springfield area are the Mark Twain house, the Basketball Hall of Fame, and (and this is stretching it, I admit) UConn sports games.

southbay flier
Guest

There are about 3 million people in Connecticut (excluding Fairfield Country) and WMass. Plus, Springfield has a larger population than Hartford, though Hartford has the larger metro area. Building Bradley between those two cities made a lot of sense.

There are other things to do. The Berkshires aren’t all that far away and the Vermont-Mass border is only a bit over an hour up I-91.

StogieGuy 7
Guest

BDL is 15-20 minutes north of downtown Hartford and about 20 minutes south of downtown Springfield. It’s a lot less convenient to New Haven, but still easier than a traffic-clogged drive to LGA or JFK from there. And, it’s a rather convenient and user-friendly mid-sized airport.

Kilroy
Guest

Fair points on much of that. Western Mass and Central CT are stuck in a bit of limbo in terms of airports, in that they are 2-3 hours from the NYC and Boston airports… That’s too long for most people to travel for domestic flights, and at the edge of what many are willing to do for leisure international flights, so an international flight out of BDL will have some appeal to leisure travelers just because of the reduced drive time to the airport.

davidp627
Member

I’m surprised they aren’t flying to Europe from BWI since their shuttle operation flies from there to the French Caribbean. This type of service would seem well suited to airport, although I’d like to see more mainline transoceanic service.

David
Guest

UK/ Ireland to BWI is about 30 mins more flying time compared to SWF. Perhaps an idea to see how things go on routes where range is less likely to be an issue so as to get an idea as to whether BWI can be achieved on a consistent basis without needing to have refuel stops (which would wreck any profitability attempts) on the way whenever the weather is lousy ?

David
Guest

Additionally, many of the European visitors to the French Caribbean would be coming from France. Along with US transit immigration requirements, it’s a hard sell to persuade someone to fly Paris-Dublin-Baltimore-Guadeloupe, compared to Paris-Guadeloupe non-stop

davidp627
Member

I just meant that Norwegian is already flying from the airport, so they have an infrastructure in place, and that it fits the current discount carrier trans Atlantic service (Condor, WOW). But yes, that 30 extra minutes may make a difference.

Miss Informed
Guest
Well, I don’t expect to ever take a Norwegian flight, but I hope this has some effect on connecting fares to Europe via DFW, ORD, IAH and DEN on the majors. For me it would be a 3-leg trip just to get to BDL, PVD or SWF, and then 2 more legs to get to where I’m actually going, since the cities being offered are not where I want to go. That’s 5 legs to, say, London, while it’s only 3 legs to connect to London via DFW on AA. I know there are people cheap enough to do it… Read more »
David
Guest
CF – one thing you might want to add to the post – what’s the typical CASK (cost per available seat kilomtre) for a widebody like a B777 / B787 / A330 compared to a B737 Max ? Any comparison would of course need to also consider any differential in the cost of purchasing the plane in the first place. Will Norwegian see a compelling fuel saving that will allow them to offer substantially lower fares while still remaining profitable ? I imagine that there will be a non-trivial cost differential – would be interested to see just how much… Read more »
noahkimmel
Member
Would definitely be curious (CASM in the US!), but there is more than just the plane. I imagine these smaller airports have significantly lower fees for enplanements, gates, etc. Theoretically less taxi / hold time and fuel. And with the high seat counts (all coach config), definitely pushing average costs down. My guess is on the revenue side as well, they hope for higher load factors on the smaller plane (What good is CASM if you can’t fill the plane?) as well as significant ancillary revenue. Given the smaller aircraft, even if the spread isn’t as profitable as larger equipment,… Read more »
iahphx
Member
This seems like the dumbest business plan in modern aviation (I exclude service from the government-owned, heavily subsidized Middle East carriers, since profitability isn’t much of a consideration for them). I’m sorry, but there is exactly a zero percent chance of these flights being profitable. Who in their right mind is funding this airline? Are the investors simply stupid? We all know that transatlantic airlines generally need business class pax to operate profitably — at least in non-summer periods. Can anyone name an airline that’s ever been successful across the Atlantic without business class? Second, we also know that transatlantic… Read more »
Oliver
Guest

Regarding the last paragraph: the exact same was true in the inrta-European market (established players flying loyal customers into major airports) and yet it didn’t stop EasyJet, RyanAir, Norwegian… so what is different here?

Harrold
Guest

Since Norwegian has yet to go bankrupt like just about every airline in the US, this can hardly be called the dumbest business plan.

christophe.bottega
Member

Since all business class airlines between Paris / London and the US have mostly failed, … not sure your analysis is grounded in reality !…

Oliver
Guest

I assume iahphx meant that the conventional wisdom is that a mix of coach and premium is needed.

iahphx
Member

Of course, Oliver. And it’s notable that the established — and profitable — low fare airlines in the USA and Europe have not attempted this type of transatlantic service. I am certain that it’s not because they’re timid. It’s because the business model doesn’t work. The numbers just aren’t there.

David M
Guest
The thing is that, until relatively recently, aircraft size and range were roughly correlated. You needed a bigger plane to fly further distances, which meant more seats had to be filled. If you needed a DC-10 (Laker) or MD-11 (CityBird) or 767 (Zoom) sized aircraft to actually get across the Atlantic, that’s a lot of seats to fill in an all-economy configuration. But with the 737 MAX (and A320neo?), smaller aircraft become viable. You don’t have as many seats to fill, and in absolute terms, you need fewer people to make the flight profitable. Or, to put it another way,… Read more »
Anthony
Member

Yes…. and it makes me wonder why no one started a low-cost / low-fare transatlantic airline by acquiring some 757s. They have the range, and I assume they’d have been cheap, given their age. Since you wouldn’t have paid much for them, you wouldn’t need to keep them flying constantly to pay for themselves; that would also mean less of a fuel-cost penalty, vs a new a/c… And the passengers who shop lowest-fare-first presumably could do without the latest in IFE.

iahphx
Member

While I’m skeptical that the economics of transatlantic MAX’s are compelling for discount airlines (wouldn’t the unit cost be lower in a bigger plane?), this seems to be the least of your problems if you insist on flying routes than nobody is looking to fly. I know there are a lot of “hobbyists” in this business who love to see new airplanes and new routes but, at the end of the day, Norwegian’s current transatlantic expansion model seems mind-bogglingly naive and stupid.

matt weber
Member
The largest single cost in these operations is fuel. Fuel burn is a straight line relationship with weight. So the lower the dead weight of the aircraft per seat, the lower the fuel burn. This is one of the reasons the 757 is still around. Compared to a 767 or a 747 (and especially an A380), the dead weight per seat on a 757 or 737 isn’t a little less, it is a lot less. On the A380 the dead weight per seat is well in excess of 1000 pounds. On a 737Max it is probably closer to 500 pounds… Read more »
southbay flier
Guest

I’ve seen AC do YYT – LHR on a 320, so I know it can be done. I’m not sure I would want to fly any of those routes, since I would rather just fly from the west coast to Europe nonstop.

David SF eastbay
Member

So what’s the big draw between Rhode Island and Cork to have Non-Stop in that one market only?

That is a lot of flying between so many cities even if not daily. You would think they would have picked one city to start with first instead of trying to build up 3 US cities all at once.

Kilroy
Guest

As a guess… Lots of people with Irish roots in the Northeast and Boston area. That doesn’t explain why they aren’t running SWF to Cork, but might explain why PVD is running to all 4 Irish destinations.

christophe.bottega
Member

6 flights daily is about 1100 pax each way : not that many !!!

Oliver
Guest

Still 400,000 people a year that need to be interested in flying a sardine can from the middle of nowhere to not-London or vice versa :)

Alex Kim
Member

I guess they decided to try different options and see what sticks

Itami
Guest

I’m curious why they’d aim for BDL and PVD at the same time. I know that both are reasonable alternatives for people heading to/from Boston and have decent sized local markets, but you’d think that it would be more cost efficient in terms of ground operations and crew scheduling/basing to stick to one or the other, at least when starting out.

Kilroy
Guest

Agreed, but I don’t think people in Boston even think of BDL when considering airports. It’s ~2 hours drive time, vs ~1 hour for PVD, and that’s a lot for a big city with plenty of international options of its own.

Itami
Guest

They’d probably have to lean on those cheap promotional fares to get traction in an already fairly competitive market out of BOS, as you mentioned.

Norwegian always struck me as particularly dart-boardy with their network. When Ryanair or AirAsia make aggressive expansions, there’s generally a method behind the madness.

Kilroy
Guest

“Dart-boardy” would probably be a good way to describe Norwegian’s choice of US airports. Not quite the bullseye (major cities), but close… enough… Hopefully. Maybe Norwegian is playing horseshoes (where close enough counts), not darts.

christophe.bottega
Member

Spreading advertising $/€/£ over more seats for sale ?

christophe.bottega
Member

Instead of running ads for a specific route, they can do ads for New England to the British isles, for example

Kilroy
Guest

Any chance that Norwegian might try to offer easy connections to Israel out of, say, Edinburgh, via its own metal or that of a partner?

West Hartford has a huge Jewish population, as does Northern NJ, and Rockland County, NY (southernmost NY county on the Hudson) is the most heavily Jewish county in the nation (~1/3 Jewish). A one-stop trip to Israel at the right price could be interesting.

Todd Richardson
Guest
As someone said earlier Air Canada has run A320 service from Halifax to London on and off for years, though more recently it has tended to be operated using a 767 coming from Toronto first. I would like to see these 737s in Baltimore: Norwegian direct to Europe is better than Wow via Iceland. Norwegian already operates from BWI to Martinique and Guadeloupe in the winter, it would be nice to send those planes to European destinations in the summer. Also I can see the 737 service acting as a trail blazer to build interest until a service can support… Read more »
Anthony
Member

BWI would be a candidate for 787 service sooner rather than later, since it’s so much larger, and offers so many connection possibilities… might SWA be interested in being Norwegian’s Ryanair on this side of the Atlantic?

A
Guest

Cranky – you are forgetting that a few years ago SY was flying MSP – LGW on a 737-800 with a fuel stop in Gander. Believe you wrote about it at the time. Not sure how profitable it was but AFAIK that service has ended. They were competing with DL offering daily service to LHR on a 767 in the same market. Maybe Norwegian can do better since they don’t have direct competition at these airports but they aren’t exactly flying to London either.

jaybru
Member
To each his or her own! Of course, it’s all about where you are at this or that moment in your life. And, to anyone running an airline, and to those trying to match the competition (as you may think the competition is), that’s why they pay you the big bucks! I well remember Laker and People Express. That was then, but this is now. I don’t do Spirit, or Frontier, or Allegiant, or any code-share. Yes, sometimes I may use an EAS carrier, but I can’t image any of them will be left in a few years. UA’s reliance… Read more »
Simon
Guest

Am I right in thinking that there’s no UK Air Passenger Duty out of Belfast? And has it been devolved to the Scottish Parliament? Just means that the taxes on these flights will be much lower than ex London, so I can see it might be a cheap one stop from the rest of the UK.

How close are the US airports to the ski resorts? Ski tour operators might be a market to help fill the winter flights, especially given the unreliable snow in the Alps.

David
Guest

Flights from Belfast to the USA (or anywhere else more than 2000 miles from Belfast) do not incur UK Air Passenger Duty – this saves about £75 (US$ 93) per person compared to flights from mainland UK

David
Guest

Correction – direct flights whose destination is 2000 miles from London, not 2000 miles from Belfast.
So yes, anything non-stop from Belfast to the USA is free of APD

iahphx
Member

The lack of APD might make Belfast more competitive with Belfast but, obviously, doesn’t do a lot to make it competitive with other UK airports. It’s a long swim across the Irish Sea.

BTW, it can make sense to make a brief trip to Ireland on your way back across the Pond to avoid the hefty APD (especially if you WANT to visit Ireland). As a frequent visitor to both, I’d high recommend making that stop in Dublin instead of Belfast. I don’t think many people will disagree with me on this!

iahphx
Member

that’s “Belfast competitive with Dublin”

David
Guest

To all the naysayers – Norwegian is still using just B737s on this service. If transatlantic fails miserably, then a B737 can still be used for short haul within Europe – they won’t have great big 777s hanging around unwanted on the balance sheet

David M
Guest

Don’t forget though they’re already doing transatlantic with 787s to bigger markets and those out of reach of the 737 MAX (OAK and LAX).

Oliver
Guest

And Vegas, baby. Oh wait… they forgot it was located in the high desert and thus a hot high place. Wonder what they forgot when they planned these routes.

CP
Guest

Don’t forget that SAS already flies 737s across the Atlantic–BOS to CPH, albeit in an all-business configuration with 86 seats: http://www.sasgroup.net/en/sas-introduces-new-daily-service-boston-copenhagen/

CP
Guest
BO
Guest

People will do anything for a cheap ticket. This a bottom feeder airline who’s entire business model is based on exploiting tax and labor laws around the world to offer cheap fares ( Flag of convenience). And they will be starting a race to the bottom in safety and wages. No thanks I’ll take my business elswehere!

Andrew mondt
Member

As a kid we flew FI from ORD (sometimes also via JFK)-KEF-LUX-Bus on to Mannheim every summer to see my grandmother. At the time FI is much more low rent than now and particularly compared to LH,PA,TW. I can guarantee you that my very working class family would take Norwegian if they could get us even close to Mannheim at any kind of savings.

In short, these flights will work. Never underestimate the discomfort and inconvenience people will suffer through when taking the family over the pond.

Tim Dunn
Member
The only real surprise is how quickly Norwegian has moved to expand across the Atlantic once the opportunity was given to them. They do have a very impressive network between their narrowbody and widebody operations. Other carriers that thought they would get around in a few years to starting a low cost transatlantic operation may find themselves at a disadvantage in entering the marketplace. Narrowbodies are limited in what they can do and perhaps the 737MAX w/ a heavy passenger load more than other narrowbodies – which is why NAI’s joint widebody and narrowbody operation will give them far more… Read more »
Kilroy
Guest

To be fair, BDL and SWF are among the closest airports of their size to the major New England ski areas in VT and upstate NY. That said, I think it will take some very cheap vacation packages, low fares, and/or creative marketing by Norwegian to get Europeans to consider flying to the Northeast US for ski vacations.

Kilroy
Guest

The comment about how Norwegian and other carriers’ new flights affect Iceland based carriers is a good one. That topic would make for a great analytical post by Brett, either now or after the impact has begun to be seen.

USBT
Guest
“which is why NAI’s joint widebody and narrowbody operation will give them far more market penetration than other new carriers.” Tim, has Norwegian transferred the ex-LGW Dreamliners from DU to D8? I don’t think they have, so the widebodies are still flying using the Norwegian AOC. In any case the elephant in the room for Norwegian’s UK operations is Brexit. Norwegian does have the NAUK subsidiary with a UK AOC (yet to fly). But if the UK leaves the ECAA and hence the US-EU Open Skies, and the UK leaves the single market, Norwegian may have to (a) transfer NAI… Read more »
Dan
Guest
For many leisure travelers, a little extra driving to an out of the way airport is not a significant issue. In my own situation, my family of 5 has an upcoming Hawaiian vacation and rather than pay more for the benefit of traveling out of my local airport (Sacramento) I am just driving an additional 45 minutes to Oakland (45 minute drive time to Sacramento vs. 1 hour 30 min to Oakland). The hassle part – load the car, park the car etc. are the same with either airport, but saving $500 to travel out of Oakland is well worth… Read more »
Nicc Harris
Member
I am intrigued as to if/how IAG/BA will respond. They seem to have an antipathy towards Norwegian per their strategy at Gatwick, Will they return to the UK regions to fly to North America? Also there are suggestions/rumours IAG are going to: 1. Take more A321LRs than the 7 on order for EI. 2. Switch Manchester-ORD/NYC from AA to BA. (Read nothing substantive to back this up) After all it is all but forgotten (because so long ago) that BA was the original pioneer of 757 flights across the Pond. The economics and capabilities of the A321NEO and 737MAX seem… Read more »
Tim Dunn
Member
My consolidated response to several topics discussed above. Yes, Norwegian is a mish-mash of traffic rights but that really only matters to governments and aviation fans. They have a consistent public image and that is all that matters. Once the UK leaves the EU, Norwegian will have to shift traffic rights around but that won’t be hard to do. Every government wants to see growing business and tourism is a huge economic driver. Norwegian will have no problem showing that it is increasing tourism esp. to smaller/medium sized airports. The US will give Norwegian many passes for being a large… Read more »
James
Guest

This could hit the headwinds of reduced US travel thanks to Trump: https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/feb/28/us-tourism-experiences-a-trump-slump

alan
Member
Norwegian are no fools, the new 737 MAX are promised to have the lowest fuel cost per seat of any aircraft flying. They sold 5000 seats on the first day after announcing the new routes, so those who say there is no demand to out of the way airports may be proved wrong. Norwegian have already announced that the planes flying to Edinburgh will then go on to Oslo and return before starting the next transatlantic crossing, by my reckoning that means utilisation is up around 18 hours a day! The real problem may by the introduction of the new… Read more »
Dianne W
Guest

I will never, but never ever, take a 737 TATL. Nuts!

TRB
Member

Wonder what Norwegian will do with those A321LRs come 2019. Will it truly have a 4k nm range? If it does, Norwegian can about drop birds into any airport east or along the Mississippi River during the Summer as altitude isn’t much of an issue.

Hyun Gu Kang
Guest

And still, B6 is probably bemoaning the loss of the first mover advantage. Norwegian has made the splash, and there won’t be enough traffic to share. Will people fly jetBlue across the pond on the A321neo? they have their network to help them as well as Mint, but still, they can’t go after the Norwegian traffic or the Big 3 traffic without a big fight? Am I being pessimistic for them?

TRB
Member

What would Norwegian do with a twin aisle, 220 to 240 seater with a 5200nm range that it sure sounds like Boeing is going to announce for a 2025 entry into service date.

wpDiscuz