6 ms·

Norwegian Air Shuttle to offer $69 Transatlantic flights

72 points by martinald 10y ago

2bluesc 10y ago
> These are the routes that will launch with $69 fares and have average (round-trip) fares of $300 (to) $350, including taxes. The $69 number is only a launch promotion it seems.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  $300 r/t is still damned cheap.
  - gargarplex 10y ago
    Agreed. And, fwiw, I've found cheaper flights booking the same leg through https://www.norwegian.se https://www.norwegian.se as opposed to https://www.norwegian.com/en/ https://www.norwegian.com/en/
    - cwt137 10y ago
      Make sure prices are quoted in the same currency when comparing websites.
      - gargarplex 10y ago
        The price offered on .se was totally different and much lower after exchange rate conversion; .se was quoted and charged in SEK(kr) as opposed to the .com, quoted and charged in USD($). My browser was connecting from USA without VPN, heh.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
mynewtb 10y ago
Our environment is dying and we celebrate luxury that accelerates it. :(
- Gravityloss 10y ago
  Ah, but I get the benefit of a nice vacation or business trip, while everybody gets a worse environment. What's there not to like? After all, if the market doesn't solve something, there can't be a problem?
CPLX 10y ago
Stewart Airport is surprisingly awesome, it has a decent terminal, and some of the most impressive runways ever, as it is a training Air Force base for C-17's and was an alternate landing option for the space shuttle back in the day. With that said it is a place that historically interesting airline ideas have gone to die. It's not really accessible via transit, and despite being sort of kind of close to NYC, it's in the direction that has the least population density and lowest income. Every time interesting service has been announced there it seems to be quietly discontinued not too long thereafter. Maybe this time will be different but I am skeptical of their ability to break the curse.
peteretep 10y ago
The article implies that using a narrow body keeps costs low, which seems unlikely, and then later contradicts it and says that cost per passenger is higher on a narrow body, which seems likely. Any explanation? Does the 737MAX have some additional secret sauce over a 787/A350?
- thesumofall 10y ago
  Two factors there: - Yes, sure the new 737 MAX is cheaper to fly per seat mile than the old 737 - In addition, in absolute terms a 737 MAX is cheaper to fly per _mile_ than a large 777 allowing them to fly small routes to secondary airports that would otherwise not be economical
- notahacker 10y ago
  Nope. I mean, it has latest generation engines which are a significant fuel efficiency improvement on the engines on older 737s (which is what Norwegian were drawing their attention to in the original announcement about the MAX making these routes viable, since their MAXes aren't delivered yet) but so do the 787/A350. Similarly, for older generation engines transatlantic crossings are right on the limit of narrowbodies' range, which becomes less of a problem with the newer generation. It seems to clarify the real reason for preferring narrowbodies later in the article by pointing out that Norwegian would be reasonably confident of filling a 737 on a Dublin/Stewart route whereas they couldn't guarantee the same for the larger 787s without excessive price cuts.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
kitsune_ 10y ago
This is just awful. We have 800 gigatons of CO2 emissions left for having a 66% chance of staying under 2 degrees C of warming. We currently emit 40 billion tons of CO2 per year. We need to cut emissions drastically, starting yesterday. Frequent flyers emit a disproportional amount of green house gases.
- gaius 10y ago
  Any solution that doesn't involve producing fewer people in the first place is just window dressing.
  - kitsune_ 10y ago
    The billions of poor people on this globe have nothing to do with the current crisis. The vast majority of green house gases have been emitted by countries with a relatively stagnant population growth curve. The pareto principle roughly applies here as well. Here is a conundrum for you: Research shows that an increase in quality of life is inversely proportional to a drop in birth rate. Fossil fuels are also the cheapest and easiest way for poor countries to develop their economies. So if you are truly interested in stopping population growth the solution is rather simplistic from a carbon budget perspective. Meaning: rich countries need to drastically reduce their carbon emissions (read: 10% per annum starting now) while developing countries have a window of maybe 10 years where they can still increase their carbon emissions. After that they too have to start reducing emissions (you can think of a scheme where the reduction rate increases each year). Put more bluntly: Whenever you take a long haul flight you directly rob a child in Africa from using fossil fuels to better his or her life.
    - the8472 10y ago
      > Research shows that an increase in quality of life is inversely proportional to a drop in birth rate. Fossil fuels are also the cheapest and easiest way for poor countries to develop their economies. If decreasing carbon footprint is the goal then presumably the "easiest way" (spending more carbon) may not be the preferable option.
    - 10y ago
erokar 10y ago
I am Norwegian and I have stopped flying with this airline because of safety concerns. They are cutting costs everywhere, and they are leasing cheap flight crew who are not up to par. Discussion of recent incident in Norway on a professional pilot's forum: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/587827-norwegian-b738-kristiansand-04-nov-2016-a.html http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/587827-norwegian-b738-kri...
- PhantomGremlin 10y ago
  The flights must be incredibly uncomfortable. They are packing many more passengers into their planes[1]. E.g. that article linked to a previous one where Norwegian Air was unable to fly into Vegas during the summer, because their heavy planes couldn't legally take off in hot weather. [1]Norwegian packs 291 seats on to its Boeing 787 -8 models and 344 on to its bigger 787-9s. By comparison, United's 787-8 and 787-9 Dreamliner models seat 219 and 252 passengers, respectively. http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/11/17/too-hot-fly-norwegian-air-suspends-summer-las-vegas-flights/94025902/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2...
  - lucaspiller 10y ago
    The seats in economy are the same size (ok United is 0.1 inch wider), but Norwegian only fly two-class and their premium section is smaller. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Airlines_Boeing_787-800.php https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Air... https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Norwegian_Air_Shuttle/Norwegian_Air_Shuttle_Boeing_787-8.php https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Norwegian_Air_Shuttle/Norw...
jeffehobbs 10y ago
Nice
akhilcacharya 10y ago
Would these be the first 737s used for transatlantic in an economy configuration? JetBlue also plans transatlantic on their new A320Neos.

72 points by martinald 10y ago

> These are the routes that will launch with $69 fares and have average (round-trip) fares of $300 (to) $350, including taxes. The $69 number is only a launch promotion it seems.

Turing_Machine 10y ago
$300 r/t is still damned cheap.
- gargarplex 10y ago
  Agreed. And, fwiw, I've found cheaper flights booking the same leg through https://www.norwegian.se https://www.norwegian.se as opposed to https://www.norwegian.com/en/ https://www.norwegian.com/en/
  - cwt137 10y ago
    Make sure prices are quoted in the same currency when comparing websites.
    - gargarplex 10y ago
      The price offered on .se was totally different and much lower after exchange rate conversion; .se was quoted and charged in SEK(kr) as opposed to the .com, quoted and charged in USD($). My browser was connecting from USA without VPN, heh.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

mynewtb 10y ago

Our environment is dying and we celebrate luxury that accelerates it. :(

Gravityloss 10y ago
Ah, but I get the benefit of a nice vacation or business trip, while everybody gets a worse environment. What's there not to like? After all, if the market doesn't solve something, there can't be a problem?

CPLX 10y ago

Stewart Airport is surprisingly awesome, it has a decent terminal, and some of the most impressive runways ever, as it is a training Air Force base for C-17's and was an alternate landing option for the space shuttle back in the day. With that said it is a place that historically interesting airline ideas have gone to die. It's not really accessible via transit, and despite being sort of kind of close to NYC, it's in the direction that has the least population density and lowest income. Every time interesting service has been announced there it seems to be quietly discontinued not too long thereafter. Maybe this time will be different but I am skeptical of their ability to break the curse.

peteretep 10y ago

The article implies that using a narrow body keeps costs low, which seems unlikely, and then later contradicts it and says that cost per passenger is higher on a narrow body, which seems likely. Any explanation? Does the 737MAX have some additional secret sauce over a 787/A350?

thesumofall 10y ago
Two factors there: - Yes, sure the new 737 MAX is cheaper to fly per seat mile than the old 737 - In addition, in absolute terms a 737 MAX is cheaper to fly per _mile_ than a large 777 allowing them to fly small routes to secondary airports that would otherwise not be economical
notahacker 10y ago
Nope. I mean, it has latest generation engines which are a significant fuel efficiency improvement on the engines on older 737s (which is what Norwegian were drawing their attention to in the original announcement about the MAX making these routes viable, since their MAXes aren't delivered yet) but so do the 787/A350. Similarly, for older generation engines transatlantic crossings are right on the limit of narrowbodies' range, which becomes less of a problem with the newer generation. It seems to clarify the real reason for preferring narrowbodies later in the article by pointing out that Norwegian would be reasonably confident of filling a 737 on a Dublin/Stewart route whereas they couldn't guarantee the same for the larger 787s without excessive price cuts.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

kitsune_ 10y ago

This is just awful. We have 800 gigatons of CO2 emissions left for having a 66% chance of staying under 2 degrees C of warming. We currently emit 40 billion tons of CO2 per year. We need to cut emissions drastically, starting yesterday. Frequent flyers emit a disproportional amount of green house gases.

gaius 10y ago
Any solution that doesn't involve producing fewer people in the first place is just window dressing.
- kitsune_ 10y ago
  The billions of poor people on this globe have nothing to do with the current crisis. The vast majority of green house gases have been emitted by countries with a relatively stagnant population growth curve. The pareto principle roughly applies here as well. Here is a conundrum for you: Research shows that an increase in quality of life is inversely proportional to a drop in birth rate. Fossil fuels are also the cheapest and easiest way for poor countries to develop their economies. So if you are truly interested in stopping population growth the solution is rather simplistic from a carbon budget perspective. Meaning: rich countries need to drastically reduce their carbon emissions (read: 10% per annum starting now) while developing countries have a window of maybe 10 years where they can still increase their carbon emissions. After that they too have to start reducing emissions (you can think of a scheme where the reduction rate increases each year). Put more bluntly: Whenever you take a long haul flight you directly rob a child in Africa from using fossil fuels to better his or her life.
  - the8472 10y ago
    > Research shows that an increase in quality of life is inversely proportional to a drop in birth rate. Fossil fuels are also the cheapest and easiest way for poor countries to develop their economies. If decreasing carbon footprint is the goal then presumably the "easiest way" (spending more carbon) may not be the preferable option.
  - 10y ago

erokar 10y ago

I am Norwegian and I have stopped flying with this airline because of safety concerns. They are cutting costs everywhere, and they are leasing cheap flight crew who are not up to par. Discussion of recent incident in Norway on a professional pilot's forum: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/587827-norwegian-b738-kristiansand-04-nov-2016-a.html http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/587827-norwegian-b738-kri...

PhantomGremlin 10y ago
The flights must be incredibly uncomfortable. They are packing many more passengers into their planes[1]. E.g. that article linked to a previous one where Norwegian Air was unable to fly into Vegas during the summer, because their heavy planes couldn't legally take off in hot weather. [1]Norwegian packs 291 seats on to its Boeing 787 -8 models and 344 on to its bigger 787-9s. By comparison, United's 787-8 and 787-9 Dreamliner models seat 219 and 252 passengers, respectively. http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/11/17/too-hot-fly-norwegian-air-suspends-summer-las-vegas-flights/94025902/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2...
- lucaspiller 10y ago
  The seats in economy are the same size (ok United is 0.1 inch wider), but Norwegian only fly two-class and their premium section is smaller. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Airlines_Boeing_787-800.php https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Air... https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Norwegian_Air_Shuttle/Norwegian_Air_Shuttle_Boeing_787-8.php https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Norwegian_Air_Shuttle/Norw...

jeffehobbs 10y ago

Nice

akhilcacharya 10y ago

Would these be the first 737s used for transatlantic in an economy configuration? JetBlue also plans transatlantic on their new A320Neos.