
How Norwegian Air Upended Travel With Its Cheap Flights - prostoalex
https://www.fastcompany.com/40425836/how-norwegian-air-upended-travel-with-its-insanely-cheap-flights?utm_content=buffer2d42a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
======
corford
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 cost carriers
to flourish in the short-haul market: streamlined, standardized, modern, fuel
efficient fleet; non-unionised crews; using cheaper secondary airports; flying
direct; cramming in as many rotations in 24 hours as possible and flying
outside of peak hours to get cheaper landing slots.

The new Boeing and Airbus models make the LCC approach increasingly viable for
longer haul routes thanks to big fuel efficiency improvements and smarter
cabin interiors/materials that boost pax load without sacrificing comfort. Oil
prices are also helping since the price has remained low for so long now that
even if an airline hedged the wrong way a few years ago they're now all
enjoying better rates.

IAG (British Airways, Iberia) and Lufthansa are trying to get in on the action
too with Level and Eurowings respectively.

~~~
vanderZwan
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.

~~~
URSpider94
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 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.

~~~
kristofferR
> And many of them make you check in your own luggage, all the way to the
> belt.

Is this uncommon in the US?

I'd much rather enter the airport, casually walk up to a touchscreen, print my
boarding pass and label and drop off my baggage than queuing up in a long line
when the check-in counter opens.

~~~
URSpider94
In the USA, it's not uncommon to check in at home and/or print your own
boarding pass. It's far less common to print and attach your own luggage tags
- United does it at SFO. However, US airline regs require that an employee
checks your ID and compares it to the boarding pass before accepting luggage -
so there's always a human in the loop.

However - a lot of Americans still aren't comfortable with this level of self-
service, and want to go to a full-service counter.

What I was referring to specifically with LCC's is that they have zero
personnel at the check-in counter -- self-checking your luggage isn't a nice
option, it's mandatory. And there's not even a kiosk for printing your
boarding pass (that would cost money to maintain, best to have you use your
own paper and toner at home).

~~~
corford
>(that would cost money to maintain, best to have you use your own paper and
toner at home).

Or... you can board with your phone :)

------
alkonaut
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 bookings.

I regularly fly Norwegian but wouldn't fly Ryan again if my life depended on
it.

~~~
gsnedders
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!)

~~~
Xophmeister
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.

~~~
gsnedders
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.

------
chinathrow
I just leave those here in case you wonder how Norwegian works. They have
brand new planes for efficiency on one hand but on the other, they screw their
staff similar as to other budget airlines.

[https://www.quora.com/How-is-Norwegian-Air-so-
cheap](https://www.quora.com/How-is-Norwegian-Air-so-cheap)

[https://skift.com/2016/10/10/norwegian-air-accused-by-
critic...](https://skift.com/2016/10/10/norwegian-air-accused-by-critics-of-
flouting-labor-standards-will-hire-u-s-pilots/)

"Norwegian’s modus operandi does raise interesting questions. Should a carrier
established in one country be allowed to offer wages typical of another? And
should airline employees be given the same labor protections regardless of
where they are located?"

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/01/26/pot-
kettle-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/01/26/pot-kettle-black-
the-u-s-and-norwegian-air/#243ecb04169e)

~~~
digi_owl
One asshole move in recent history back in Norway was that when the pilots
were threatening to strike over long shifts or some such, the company spun up
a subsidiary, moved all the pilot employments to it, and leased foreign pilots
to fly domestic routes.

All under the pretext that this was not circumventing the strike, because the
pilots were not working for them but for the newly created subsidiary.

~~~
eru
This just shows that strikes aren't really a good tool in a dynamic economy
where you can just spin up companies as necessary, and would need
(increasingly complex) legislation to keep them relevant.

The right political response should be to strengthen workers bargaining
position---run the economy hot enough to turn the labour market into a sellers
market, and keep enough social safety net that even just saying No without
another job lined up would be feasible.

~~~
alkonaut
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".

~~~
valuearb
Why can't the company just fire the strikers and directly hire replacements?

~~~
_acme
In the US, this is often possible (see the Air Traffic Controllers situation),
but I think in many countries in Europe, it's not always legal.

~~~
coredog64
ATC was a different kettle of fish. As federal employees they were prohibited
from striking, and the strike allegedly caused a public safety issue. If you
break the law to strike, you get no protection.

(Police and school teachers have similar requirements in their contracts and
will use "sick-outs" to apply pressure without a full strike)

------
untog
When things go well with Norwegian it's a fantastic airline. But I've
witnessed some absolutely awful experiences others have had - fights delayed
11 hours, some even more than that, leaving everyone stranded in the airport.
Other times they've contracted out flights to a no-name airline that uses
ancient planes with no in flight entertainment.

I'm happy to take Norwegian when I'm travelling by myself, as I'm content to
take the risk. But if I'm travelling with family I'll usually avoid them.

~~~
javier2
To add to this, this is very much related to their schedule of keeping the
aircraft in the air 3 hours per day more than other airlines.

If they get off schedule, they will have to drop flights or rent an aircraft
and skip a flight to catch up.

------
morrbo
It cost my girlfriend more to get to the Gatwick airport than it cost to fly
to Madrid on Norweigan. We live in South London, let that sink in.

------
aphextron
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.

~~~
11thEarlOfMar
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.

~~~
somecontext
> They don't fly non-stop to Oslo, apparently. Itineraries to Oslo from OAK
> connect in London, Gatwick.

There is a non-stop flight, Norwegian Air Shuttle 7064. You can look at its
flight path here:
[https://flightaware.com/live/flight/NAX7064](https://flightaware.com/live/flight/NAX7064)

The flight leaving _tomorrow_ was $340 one way when I checked now. Round-trip,
I was able to find a non-stop OAK--OSL ticket for $510 (similar September
dates to yours).

------
abrkn
It's an amazing airline. Website and mobile apps are perfect. Planes are new
and clean. You swipe your card below the entertainment system screen and order
from there. Staff, especially when Thai, are outstanding. Prices are low and
the "Premium" ticket class has generous room without being excessively
expensive.

~~~
chrisseaton
> You swipe your card below the entertainment system screen and order from
> there.

Order what? Inflight videos?

~~~
an_account
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.

~~~
chrisseaton
Oh wow I've never been on a transatlantic flight with pay-for food but I think
it makes sense. I don't know why people feel the need to eat so frequently on
flights and it clauses chaos for everyone while it's being served if you are
in economy.

~~~
abrkn
It's included in premium and paid for in economy. Some times they have steaks!
The texture is quite a like sous vide. I have no idea how that's possible at
that scale/altitude :-)

------
virtualwhys
Normally I fly Delta when taking the Boston <> London route, but Norwegian's
prices have been too good to ignore of late, particularly one-way tickets
(since I'm not always sure of my return date).

Will be interesting to see how Delta, American, et al react to Norwegian's
Uber-esque pricing.

p.s. discovered Norwegian via Google Flights, which has supplanted pretty much
every other airfare search option I used to use.

------
qualalu
The founder of Norwegian:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L0N0yYeUuY&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L0N0yYeUuY&feature=youtu.be&t=1m39s)

------
laxd
Meanwhile, the two top stories on nrk.no, the norwegian state supported news
and tv network, are both about how Norwegian Air spoils peoples vacation with
their cancellations and poor service.

------
dev360
I love flying Norwegian.

I found a round-trip from Ft Lauderdale - Sweden for just $380 bucks in may
but you have to be flexible around the dates.

You just can't find prices like that with other carriers.

~~~
postsantum
Check WOW Air, they offer even cheaper flight between Europe and USA

~~~
davnicwil
True, but as far as I've seen they always have to route through Iceland,
correct? Norwegian fly direct form several big European cities. Also, how do
their planes / in flight entertainment etc compare to Norwegian?

------
coldcode
I hate flying any cheap airline, at 2m tall I don't fit in typical sardine can
seats at all. I always pay more to get a better seat, which I don't mind, but
often cheap airlines don't even offer better seat pitch except on exit rows
and unless you are lucky you can never count on getting one.

Now that all airlines are getting into the cheap category, I fear eventually I
can't fly at all.

~~~
talldan
I'm over 2m, and flew Norwegian last week. I just about fit into the seat, but
it was very uncomfortable. I wouldn't want to fly for more than 2 hours at
that kind of comfort level.

It is very frustrating just how much airlines fail to cater for tall
passengers. They all have different rules for emergency exit seats, and the
cost of upgrading can be quite high.

------
dorian-graph
As someone living in Oslo, I don't find them terribly cheap for flying within
Europe. It could be though that I've been spoilt on ticket prices from/to
London. They do have decent sales sometimes, unlike EasyJet, Vueling, etc.
whose sales barely amount to anything.

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

~~~
Theodores
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 attention
- or is there more to it than that?

~~~
maaaats
Swedish vs Norwegian is mostly playful banter. Our lives, culture, values and
language are all very similar, so being mistaken for the other is no big deal
as it doesn't have any particularly negative connotations attached.

~~~
kristofferR
Yeah, it's like being called a Canadian as an American.

~~~
muninn_
Yeah I've had that happen to me many times, and vice-versa.

------
martin_henk
I just flew with them from LAX to LGW. I think the experience was not bad, but
the staff seemed sometimes pretty overwhelmed with the logistics of which
passenger ordered what option.

------
davidf18
"The U.S. Department of Transportation, besieged with opposition from domestic
airlines, labor unions, and other interest groups, took three years to approve
Norwegian’s transatlantic plan."

This is the same government under Obama and Democrats that allowed for
consolidation of United buying Continental and American buying US Air which
resulted in less competition.

The Democrats used to represent regular people instead of favoring special
interests that result in higher prices.

Instead of allowing the legacy carriers to slow down Norwegian and other
innovators, the legacies should copy them. They have much more capital and
they can make it happen if they want to.

~~~
bronco21016
At what expense of high paying, quality, American jobs?

A huge cost advantage that NAI enjoys on many of their international flights
is through a flag-of-convenience scheme. NAI is a Norwegian majority owned
company but has established their base of operations for international flying
in Ireland. Through this arrangement they are able to hire pilots and cabin
crews under contracts and work rules of southeast Asia where wages are low and
work rules are less restrictive. You might imagine how cutting costs in that
regard might have an impact on quality of service and more importantly SAFETY.

If this precedent is allowed there is no doubt the major American airlines
will do the same in the interest of remaining competitive but shockingly
airlines in the US have actually resisted this in the interest of the jobs of
American people. I can't speak to each airline individually but for example
Delta Air Lines directly employs 80,000 people in addition to 10s of thousands
of contractors. Multiply that by 3 or 4 and you're looking at a ton of well
paying American jobs. Not to mention when is the last time you remember a
fatality on a major US airline?

I think the flag-of-convenience scheme leads us down a slippery slope where
getting the lowest bidding pilot cadets trumps safety.

~~~
davidf18
> "At what expense of high paying, quality, American jobs?"

When I fly to Israel with a layover in Istanbul to visit friends in Istanbul,
I am using Turkish pilots, thus depriving Americans of jobs. They are lower
cost than many European pilots. Are you saying I shouldn't be flying Turkish
Air? I don't understand? Incidentally, the flights from NYC to Istanbul use
very modern planes and are staffed with very friendly staff.

Direct flights to Israel on El Al use Israeli pilots whom I guessing don't get
paid as much as their American counterparts and yet, highly trained as
probably almost all of them were in the Israeli Air Force.

So, please explain your position.

I am concerned with safety and in fact part my work deals with safety in
healthcare. Airlines landing in US airports should be following FAA
regulations. It is important that the FAA regulate this.

I encourage US domestic carriers to change the way they operate so that they
can match the Norwegian fares while retaining American jobs.

But to complain that Norwegian is offering fares that make Europe more
accessible for people with fixed or limited income is just wrong.

~~~
_acme
How would you "encourage US domestic carriers to change the way they operate
so that they can match the Norwegian fares while retaining American jobs." I
think the point is that that is impossible.

~~~
davidf18
I don't agree. The consolidation of major carriers under Obama administration
(United buying Continental, and American buying US Air) has reduced
competition and thus higher fares, worse service.

They don't fly out of regional airports at least in NYC I think that is rare.

I"ll bet there are a lot of operational issues.

Delta, United and others own low-cost carriers (the famous United case where
the senior was dragged off the plane screaming and kicking was not on United
but a low cost fully owned subsidiary carrier of United) as it is, so they
could have a low-cost carrier that travels to Europe. These low-cost wholly
owned carriers are domestic only.

But none of them have them because they want to cannibalize the higher fares
charged. They enjoy their margins.

Norwegian (like Amazon, like Uber) is in a contest to capture market share and
thus may be willing to operate on thin margins or even take a short term loss
to capture share. The major American carriers may not want to invest the money
to retain share and prefer to use politics instead.

~~~
coredog64
In good years, airlines have some of the lowest profit margins of any
industry. Maybe instead of allowing a bunch of crappy carriers to come and go,
it would be better to allow consolidation into a few majors. Ticket prices
might be somewhat higher, but they would still be more affordable than they
were when the industry was fully regulated.

~~~
davidf18
EasyJet, Ryan Air, and Norwegian are not crappy carriers that come and go. Low
profit margins have to do with an industry that by-and-large is a commodity.
But prices have to do with operating costs and Norwegian and Ryan Air and Easy
Jet have done a better job of controlling their operating costs than US
carriers.

