The Downfall Of Norwegian
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 06. 2023
- The world's most unlucky airline, according to some, but were the cracks always there at Norwegian in the past 5-7 years that were only highlighted through aircraft issues and much more. Today, Norwegian is explored in-depth, and the many problems of recent times are uncovered, where I fundamentally see what they've learnt and how they've emerged.
🔔 Subscribe to GlobeTrotting: bit.ly/SubscribeGlobeTrotting
🖥️ Visit our website: djsaviation.net
CONNECT WITH US
🐦 Twitter: / djsaviation
👥 Facebook: / djsaviation
💬 Discord: / discord
💻 Patreon: / djsaviation
BUSINESS ENQUIRIES
📧 Email: contactdjsaviation@gmail.com
CHECK OUT THE PODCAST
🎙️ Spotify: bit.ly/DjsAviationPodcast
🎙️ Apple: bit.ly/DjsPodcastApple
SUBMIT VIDEO IDEAS
✍️ Form - bit.ly/SubmitVideoIdeas
===============================
ℹ️ MORE INFORMATION ℹ️
creativecommons.org/
Licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0
- • Time-lapse: Boeing 787...
- • Time-lapse: Norwegian ...
- • Time-lapse: Take offs,...
- www.flickr.com/photos/dylan33...
The video was written by Daniel Fowkes.
🎵 OUTRO TRACK 🎵
Krys Talk - Fly Away [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
• Krys Talk - Fly Away |...
Free Download / Stream ncs.io/flyaway
#aviation #news #norway #787 #europe #america #usa #a380 #flight #aircraft #avgeek #airplane #airlines #airport #planespotting #airbus #boeing
Boeing is not to blame for engine issues. That said, if Boeing was to blame for the 787 engine crisis, then by that logic, Airbus must be to blame for the PW issues that caused the GoFirst bankruptcy
Yup, DJ is a AB fan boy..
thats far too rational for this channel
@@matthewwindisch9449yeah because airbus is just better
I once flew a the 787 with Norwegians JFK-OSL back in 2017. I also used to fly Norwegians a lot back when I lived in Norway. I only have good experience with them. I agree that their expansion might have been too much. I think they even talked about start flying from Argentina to Australia once back in the days. Crazy plans when we look at it now.
Air anewZealand already flies to Buenos Aries, and then you can connect and fly onwards to Australia. Qantas & LATAM fly from Santiago to Sydney already. I seriously don’t know how they (Norwegian)would have made money on that route. I think they were also Losing money on their London to Singapore routine so they dropped it before the pandemic.
I was still cheaper to go from US-Europe-Argentina with Norwegian.
Norway has high labor cost and strict rules regarding foreign workers.
No wonder some crew bases and aircraft registration where outside norway...
Flew with them in May within Norway, they were excellent! On time and very curteous...
I have flown with Norwegian several times from US west coast directly to Scandinavia and it has been great experiences every time, except that one time in biz class and they ran out of the dinner option I preferred.
They used to land at my work airport and I loved their famous tails. I would drive my truck up to them to see who was painted on them. A lot of famous people I knew nothing about but learned of thru that small detail that made Norwegian famous and which now I miss since they don't land here no more. And to think it all started with engine trouble.
What airport do you work at?
No. It started far before the engine issues. They lost a lot of money on the long haul venture long before the engine issue. They were not able to handle it since in such a weak position. The model just never worked for them
I’m glad they survived; I love the vertical two-tone livery
Norwegian had a good transatlantic product but the competition is cut throat . The B787 was perhaps a step too far and perhaps the market might have been tested with single aisle aircraft such as the B737-900ER or second hand B757s . Icelandair has enjoyed some success with it's KEF stopover to the US with it's B757s . I agree , a most unlucky airline .
Norwegians goal was high utilation of their long haul planes, and they wanted, and got, the most fuel efficient plane ever made. Starting up with the 757 means they had to use wery old planes, and then, later on, change to another aircraft type, and that change would cost a lot of money. The 757 does not have enough range for the Oslo-Bangkok or Oslo-LA routes. The 787-8 doesn't take many more pax than the most densely seated 757-300 and the fuel efisient is much better on a 787. Actualy Norwegian consumed less fuel per seat tahn anny other airline company, across the Atlantic. Also a lot of people prefere to fly on widebody planes on long haul. Norwegian also had hoped to fly to more asian destinations like China, Japan, South Korea and Hongkong, butt where not alowed to fly over Siberia.
For Norwegian, the huge part of cutting costs after Covid was to keep a large amount of employees in the Baltics, where all costs are much cheaper than in Scandinavia.
I saw Norwegian Airlines 787 that flew from my house and my grandma house back in 2018 when I first started plane spotting. That plane was one of my favorite types I’ve ever seen in the sky. Now it felt weird because there’s no 787 that started flying over to Oakland.
Best airline in Scandinavia, new planes and friendly staff. Never flying on SAS’s old junk again, and I’m not gonna miss SAS’s old uptight cabin crew.
Avianca is taking most of those 787-8 but spare parts are hard to find to get them back in the Air .
Kind of sounds like the research proves the a380 contract along with the politics of JFK gates (a common problem on all a380 operations), led to the demise. I look at Norwegian much like Virgin Australia. The complications and costs of long haul with maintenance needs at all cities of service, (not to mention the shut down), broke these two and others.
Norwegian is doing great now! 50 Max’s on the orderbook and delivering over-estimate load factors!
Wheter Norwegian did make mistakes or not they will never be forgotten the way the revolutionized travelig in Norway. Competing in a monopoly market was never going to be easy, especially when the competitor has goverment backing. First of it’s kind with free Wi-Fi in a lowcost carrier and the greenest fleet at the time. It was simply the best.
Sounds fanstastic
One sad thing is that the free WiFi is gone. Also, it's the Norwegian Air Sweden branch that's getting the Maxes, making for a few salty souls like me who will never get to experience the 737 Max with Norwegian.
Flown a lot with Norwegian domestic and longhaul. Miss the longhaul to BKK, but will we se a merger with Norwegian and Norse Atlantic. I view this more than likely hence again a fully integrated short as well as longhaul option. Are we in for a surprise?
Norse Atlantic is run by the same people that ran Norwegian Long Haul.
There will never be a merger because Norwegian Long Haul owes a lot of money to vendors, airports etc since they filed bankruptcy during the pandemic.
It was a lot more cost effective to start a new airline with a different name then re-starting an operation and not having to pay your previous debt.
Right before corona mayhem hit, I did consider Norwegian for a transatlantic round trip to JFK. Sure it looked good at first glance, but once you added luggage + snack, prices were totally uninteresting. I therefore went with Delta, which all things considered came down cheaper than Norwegian. Plus they used that awful T1 in JFK, had very late arrival hours...yikes.
It's funny, I'm plane watching at Las Vegas and just across from me is a max 8 in Norwegian colors...being operated by lynx air on a flight to Montreal
I used them transatlantic and wasn't impressed by crew but was impressed by the 787. One was clearly unfit to fly and got dropped of at Gander. Rednose is not an airline I would fly again.
Sad 😔
The long haul arm of the airline was starting to turn a profit just prior to the pandemic after they made some significant operational changes.
The engine issues combined with earlier adopter issues that resulted in some challenges with reliability didn’t help, but they were looking towards having a successful summer. Then Covid happened.
The long haul division never turned a profit nor was it going to start. From day one long haul was a loss, and it was short haul that made money and was acting as long hauls piggy bank. The problem was the way they ran the airline. The pandemic saved them because they were able to file for bankruptcy and get rid of the long haul division. Had the pandemic never happened they would have all gone under (long and short haul). The Norwegians have to much pride so they would have never voluntarily closed down the long haul division.
@@user-hl3eq2sn8gIt did make a profit, only once.
@@user-hl3eq2sn8g Norwegian came out of the pandemic with flying colors. The company got far less government support than the competitors . The share price has steadily improved, and the government loans can eventually be paid back. The pandemic killed the long haul operation. But today the airline operate efficiently a fleet 85, B737-800/MAX throughout Europe. - My guess is that they eventually will merge with Norse, to include long-haul operations.
Our opinion in our end as far as international traveling message for all airlines: Make one class wide👈 first class seating with affordable pricing, and you will see plane fleet double, we would like to get out and visit you but it’s a big no no! Until seating gets fixed, the most recent insult to humanity is called XLR?! 😢
Norwegian might not be powerful Airline but it was my childhood Airline even if i can't fly them today bc my countryes Airline can go to Sweden directly its still my favorite
The problems Norwegian had with its aircraft is why, as an airline, you should never solely rely on one type of manufacture for airplanes. If issues come out and force the grounding of the aircraft (like what happened), then your entire fleet is grounded and you cannot make money. You saw this same issue with Southwest when the 737 Max was grounded. They had to cancel tons of flights as they are an all 737 airline, and they just didn't have enough of the older 737's to make up for the loss in Max's.
The whole reason airlines try to stick to one type or brand of aircraft manufacturer is type commonality, making it simpler & cheaper to maintain and to cross train pilots on different models of that same manufacturer. It’s just unfortunate that for Norwegian, it was those particular models that had the problems. Southwest’s success is also due to operating one type of aircraft- What did you think made them so successful up until they took delivery of the 737 MAX series?? 🤔
@@paulsz6194 Sure I understand the benefits, but those are the risks you take when you do that. A good airline will understand those risks and take steps to mitigate them.
They did order a bunch of a320 neos before Covid.
@@paulsz6194 I believe commonality between 737 and 787 is minimal. Norwegian could have chosen A330Neo as well. Then the outcome might have been different.
@@user-yt198 the A330NEO was not even launched when Norwegian started its long-haul opperations.
Used to fly NA, from Denver to Gatwick; and it was great. I really miss that run
sad 😢
Every time I see Norwegian planes, I keep thinking of used tampons so they're called "Flying Tampons"....
I prefer Rednose
Fixed a seat with Duck Tape
Norwegians problem was the Norwegians running the airline. I worked for them from 2015 until the pandemic hit. The 787 operation was a disaster from the start. They spent so much money on non-sense instead of focusing on running an efficient operation. Even with the early wing cracks of there first 3 Dreamliners and then the engine issues they kept adding new routes and selling tickets knowing they didn’t have the aircraft to operate those routes, which then led them to charter flights from other airlines to fly passengers. It wasn’t until shortly before the pandemic that they decided to scale back and start operating routes that they had aircraft for. But it was literally too late. The pandemic was an easy way out for them. Then they filed bankruptcy and avoided paying a lot of debt.
Now, Norse Atlantic is basically run by the same people (OSM Aviation now named Norse) using the same airplanes. They created a new company and leased those planes that nobody wanted because they are full of liens. That’s the reason why Norse got those planes for such a good deal because with those liens no other airline would want to lease them. For example, the Panasonic onboard system can’t be used unless the lien to Panasonic (money owed by Norwegian) is paid off. That’s why passengers can’t use the system to order snacks onboard like they did with Norwegian. The wifi is something that will never be an option on Norse because the satélites installed on the planes still have the liens from Norwegian. Etc etc.
So in conclusion, you have Norse which is run by the same people that ran Norwegian Long Haul and they are literally on track doing the same thing Norwegian did wrong. Adding flights, selling tickets and living off the future sales.
For example, Norse started operations in May 2022. Flights were empty, they needed cash. What did they do? They added a ton of routes that were suppose to start in October 2022. Mid summer they realized they didn’t have the money to survive the winter. So what did they do? They had a SUPER SALE on all those “new routes” selling tickets as cheap as 99 each way. Then in August they said “Hey sorry, we are not flying those new routes this winter because of fuel prices. If you bought a ticket you will receive a future travel credit, no refund.”
So yeah, a company operating today by using tomorrows revenue. That’s not going to get them very far!
Scandinavian countries have a low population, so yes, their markets are very seasonal.
firstly Norwegian has to shift from the low cost budget airline to a proper full fledged full service carrier . . . disinvestment through available equity consolidation (if any) or unmovable assets, is just one of the many steps that needs to be taken before you can start restructuring the airline . . . once everything is said & done, the new Scandinavian full service carrier will need a fleet of 13 - 18 brand new B787-9 & B787-10 wide body jets . . . 36 second hand refurbished B737-800 & B737-900 ER narrow body jets that'll cater to the air travel market within the EU . . .
Who is at the back of downfall?
It appears to be Rolls Royce
The Norwegians that ran the airline. The Long Haul division was separate from the short haul and it was run very inefficiently and the CEO at the time just wanted to take over the world without thinking of how much money he was pouring out
They should have chosen A330Neo. It is cheaper to purchase and maintain in medium haul flights. Another low cost carrier Airasia X had chosen A330 and they were doing fine before pandemic hit.
They would have spent more money on different fleet types
The engine issues on the 787 are not Boeing's fault. Norwegian could've also chosen GE powered 787s.
Problem would have happened either way. Lets say the engines maid by RR for the A330neo acts up like the Trent 1000. That would be a massive issue, reason why I like planes with multiple engine options.
It will be a great sadness if Norwegian is no more
Even flybe 2.0 is unlucky
Norwegian is pretty much thriving again today, revenue is healthy and debt is cleared.
Very misleading video. By blaming Boeing and Rolls Royce for an Airlines failure is pathetic. The way you choose to use your words could get you into legal problems. Everybody in the industry knows understands what happened. One reason I hardly ever watch your stuff anymore.
I'm sure he's quaking in his boots rn
Is he yawning during his narration?
Should have stuck to better built , Airbus
The engine issues are not Boeing's fault. Airbus also had their share of engine issues, which lead to the bankruptcy kf GoFirst
@@Blank00 EVERYTHING involved in that plane is Being fault. Just like the other dangerous plane they put out
@@tnickknight Yep, Yanks should not be allowed to produce commercial aircraft, there should be an embargo on US made planes.
Lmao!!!! Yeah.... Ok.
Okay so under your logic should Airbus themselves get penalized for QF32? Because further inspection of other RR powered A380s led to other RR powered A380s grounded for engine replacements. So therefore under your logic Airbus is at fault too.