Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

Norwegian ends all long haul flying – the end for low-cost long haul?

Links on Head for Points may support the site by paying a commission.  See here for all partner links.

After a number of recapitalisation and restructuring events, Norwegian Air Shuttle has confirmed that it will cease long haul flying.

This means the end of low-cost flights to the United States from London Gatwick.

The airline has outlined a simplified business structure that will focus on short haul flying with a reduced fleet of around 50 short haul aircraft, increasing to 70 in 2022.

It is also planning to raise £340 million to £450 million from a new share issue and a variety of other means.

A quick timeline of Norwegian’s woes

Covid-19 was the final nail in the coffin for Norwegian’s long haul route network, but it was not the start of its woes.

Whilst low-cost short haul flying has a proven track record, low-cost long haul has been a tricker nut to crack. Many airlines have tried and failed, going back all the way to low-cost pioneer Laker Airways, which survived for five years in the late seventies and early eighties.

The truth is that long haul economy flights were always subsidised by passengers in Business Class and, more recently, Premium Economy. The idea that you could somehow strip out those Business Class passengers paying £5,000 return, replace them with even more economy seats and somehow be more profitable was never sensible.

Norwegian’s strategy was to harness the efficiency of the Boeing 787. This was cheaper to operate than the older aircraft types established long haul airlines operated and a single fleet would further improve efficiencies. The snag is that all of the established airlines were also ordering the 787 and Airbus A350, so there was no cost advantage.

In the 2010s, Norwegian pursued rapid growth at the expense of all else. It quadrupled its fleet size to more than 160 aircraft whilst still offering long haul fares as low as €99 each way.

Unfortunately, Norwegian’s growth came at exactly the wrong time. It quickly became clear that there were issues with the Rolls Royce engines on the 787 which led to a number of aircraft being grounded. Norwegian spent a fortune renting replacement aircraft that wrecked its reputation for consistent on-board product and punctual departures.

This happened again, albeit less severely, with the grounding of the 737 Max in 2019.

In 2018 it became clear that this strategy was unsustainable. The Boeing 787 was efficient but new aircraft don’t come cheap. Norwegian’s liabilities were approaching $6 billion, and selling discounted €99 fares wasn’t going to get them very far.

BA’s parent company IAG attempted a takeover of Norwegian in 2018, followed by Lufthansa shortly after. Norwegian rebuffed both proposals. Shareholders, who were later wiped out by a recapitalisation, probably regret the day.

In late 2018 it announced its plans to shift “from growth to profitability” by restructuring operations and culling underperforming routes. The plan was to deliver a net profit in 2020.

To buy itself time, Norwegian launched a $348 million rights issue in early 2019 and delayed two bond repayments worth $380 million, using its Gatwick slots as collateral.

With financial pressures growing, it asked its 787 cabin crew to take unpaid leave or slash their working hours. In mid July, Norwegian CEO and founder resigned with the airline issuing the following statement:

It is crucial that we continue to deliver on our cost reduction initiatives and that we constantly ensure that we have a route portfolio that yields profit. It is also important that the new CEO develops an organization that embraces continued improvement and operational excellence.”

At the end of 2019 it toyed with launching Heathrow flights and was even awarded a handful of slots. It quickly decided not to proceed.

Further cuts occurred in early 2020, including the quiet withdrawal of lounge access for its ‘PremiumFlex’ customers.

Then Covid-19 happened

It quickly became clear that Covid-19 was snowballing into a global pandemic. Relatively early on – in mid March – Norwegian announced it was grounding 85% of its route network and temporarily laying off 7,500 staff, almost 90% of its workforce. All long haul flying ceased.

It needed more cash. Luckily, the Norwegian Government was able and willing, although it meant virtually wiping out all existing shareholders.

In July, it cancelled all remaining aircraft orders, including 92 x 737 MAX and five remaining Boeing 787s. It also predicted that longhaul flying would resume from Gatwick in December 2020.

This was delayed to March 2021 when it was clear it wouldn’t be possible. Norwegian entered another restructure and re-organisation in November, although it lamented the lack of any more Government bailouts. It has since publicised a plan for another rights issue.

Yesterday’s announcement of a simplified structure and the termination of the longhaul segment is part of the ongoing reorganisation plan.

Low-cost longhaul: forever doomed?

Norwegian’s withdrawal from the low-cost long haul market is just another entry in a long list of failed attempts.

It was good whilst it lasted. In general, Norwegian enjoyed a positive reputation and I was generally impressed by the premium economy offering when I reviewed it in 2019.

It is hard, however, to run an airline on discounted fares, particularly when you consider that premium cabins are typically where airlines make most of their money. Strip away business class and you’re left with impossibly low margins in an extremely competitive market place. Legacy carriers have been able to compete with Norwegian fairly successfully simply by offering hand-baggage only fares in economy.

IAG did feel sufficiently threatened by Norwegian that it launched ‘spoiler’ flights to second tier airports such as Oakland and Fort Lauderdale, which offered cheaper access to San Francisco and Miami. Both routes have since been withdrawn.

IAG also chose to launch its own low-cost long-haul subsidiary LEVEL, but this remained limited to a number of European hubs where Iberia or British Airways did not have a dominant presence. It closed LEVEL bases in Paris and Vienna last year as a result of Covid-19. A handful of long-haul flights remain from Barcelona.

Passengers have also grown wise to the low-cost strategy of selecting cheaper, second-tier airports or flying at inconvenient times, a strategy pioneered by Ryanair.

Whilst this may represent an immediate cost saving on the flight, the additional time and money required to get from the airport to the city negates any potential savings. Even Ryanair has moved into more established airports. A cheap flight which arrived into New York JFK after midnight meant a $70 taxi fare to your hotel – jumping on the subway at 1am isn’t something recommended.

Service recovery could also be a nightmare for Norwegian at airports it served infrequently. A friend of mine was once delayed by two days on a Norwegian flight because the airline only operated the route once a day and it would not re-accomodate stranded passengers on an alternative.

In truth, legacy carriers offer far more choice of cabins, fly to ‘main’ airports and can often outcompete low-cost carriers on frequency. Once you factor in the additional cost of a meal, some in-flight entertainment, luggage etc you were paying virtually the same whether you fly BA or Norwegian – and Norwegian had far fewer options if your aircraft broke down.

What does the end of Norwegian mean for the aviation industry?

Gatwick will bear the brunt of the changes, with a significant chunk of its long haul network collapsing as Norwegian and Virgin Atlantic withdraw from the airport.

In 2019, Norwegian operated 13% of Gatwick’s seat capacity. This is likely to drop substantially as the 787 fleet is withdrawn.

Ironically, Norwegian’s exit from the longhaul market may pose a particular headache for British Airways. It removes another competitor to the existing BA / American Airlines transatlantic joint venture. This is not good news as it will mean greater scrutiny in 2024 when the Competition and Markets Authority revisits the existing agreement.

Luckily for BA, a new low-cost but semi-premium airline is hoping to enter the transatlantic market. JetBlue still says it is on track to launch flights between Boston, New York and London later this year.

If successful, it may grow its route network enough to offset the loss of Norwegian and ensure the joint venture survives its next review.

Comments (99)

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

  • Baji Nahid says:

    I think the number one factor is the £££ which is the price for many customers/passengers. Many people are happily to be inconvenienced to get a cheaper fare to a destination. Plus it helps those who may not necessarily be able to afford To travel on an legacy airline to fly with airlines who offer cheaper fares (me included). Great for the consumer.

    However does this now leave BA with a monopoly on many long haul routes from Gatwick I presume? Feel for gatters too as they’ve really been hit severely by it all.

    “ jumping on the subway at 1am isn’t something recommended” – hahaha come characters you do see on the subway at 1am in the morning

    • Rhys says:

      But it isn’t necessarily cheaper. Often these second tier airports are less well connected, which means paying for a taxi etc. Once you add everything up it can be just as cheap to fly BA/Virgin.

    • Liam says:

      Yeah but the people on who write the articles are a little out of touch and don’t understand people on a budget. Which isn’t really a problem as many of the readers are probably upper middle class.

      • Rob says:

        These flights were only cheap because Norwegian was losing vast sums of money. It wasn’t proof of their business model working. It was proof of it failing.

        Anyone who thinks they are clever because they saved £50 on a flight, just to spend far more than that on extra train / taxi costs (vs BA from Heathrow), buying meals on the plane, paying for IFE on the plane, paying to check in a suitcase and getting a shorter holiday because their aircraft landed and took off at inconvenient times of day is just stupid, not “on a budget”. That is if they got lucky and their Norwegian flight actually departed at all.

        • Andrew says:

          Spending $99 on a flight to Boston was significantly more than $50 saving, but the real benefit of low cost carriers is forcing the rest of the industry to compete with them on price in my opinion

          • Alex Sm says:

            During a short period of time when EZY flew to Moscow, BA fares “suddenly” got 50-100% cheaper than before. And it was still the time of “To Fly.To Serve” BA, not a travesty airline which it is now. Competition with LCCs is a great thing for consumers

        • cinereus says:

          But nobody who is trying to save like this would dresm of taking a taxi over the subway, buying on board food instead of packing a couple of sandwiches, paying for ife instead of loading some actually good films on a tablet, etc.

  • Tom says:

    It’s a real shame. I found Norwegian excellent value for long haul with good flights to the US. Their premium cabin was ace. In many ways a budget business class. You could book a seat in their Premium cabin – much better than BA’s premium economy at the last minute for £1000 return to NYC – no saturday night stay required etc..

    I’ll miss Norwegian. I hope they make it out of covid-19 with their short haul plans.

  • Dubious says:

    I suppose one of the other issues is the point-to-point model reduces some opportunities for network efficiency.
    This is where Wizz’s medium haul plans might be interesting to watch – to get the low price you gave to connect…

    Some LCCs also seem to have targeted markets where the demographics are less price sensitive and tried to stimulate new market demand rather than position themselves in price-sensitive markets that already exist, e.g. LCC’s in Asia like Air India Express might find more success.

    • Rob says:

      LEVEL will succeed in Barcelona for that reason – enough demand but no long haul carrier based there. It will end up in a similar position to VS at Manchester.

      • Andrew says:

        With VS losing money even at the best of times does that really count as a ‘success’?

    • C says:

      Fwiw, my wife and I liked Norwegian long-haul. Sure, the seats were thin, and the add-on food package was overpriced (unless combined with a seat + bag package), but in our experience they did exactly what we wanted: an inexpensive flight with the flexibility to book one-ways. And those ‘secondary’ airports sometimes worked out very well: for a while my wife was travelling regularly to a location north of NYC; she usually flew Norwegian LGW-JFK and then connected to the train at Grand Central, but found EDI-SWF (preceded by LCY-EDI on BE, with a sufficiently long layover) plus a taxi to her destination was far less hassle and, all in, the same price as going via NYC. If they had done LON-SWF, they might even have been able to profitably fill a 737MAX (and this is the business case for the A321LR / 757 replacement / mooted A220ER). We’ll miss them.

  • Stuart Evans says:

    I wonder what the future holds for Westjet? They fly LGW to Calgary, which is good news since BA pulled out of Calgary recently. Plus they serve other Canadian locations and have a partnership with Delta. It also look as if they have a decent ‘Bus-lite’ offering.

    • tony says:

      With a 1-2-1 configuration in J, I’d say WestJet’s product is ‘Bus-plus’ compared to BA’s 2-3-2 on the same plane!

      • Jonathan says:

        That’s not a like for like comparison at all. If you look at the floor area of a business class cabin BA don’t fit anywhere near double the number of seats in. It’s 10-15% at best with old CW.

    • ChrisW says:

      WestJet is not a low cost carrier.

  • John says:

    Was Norwegian unlucky or was their model doomed from the beginning because statistically something bad would have been likely to happen no matter what?

    • ChrisW says:

      They were extremely unlucky with their 787 engine problems and 737 MAX grounding

    • Rob says:

      Always doomed. Look at BA and Virgin now – no gas guzzling 4-engine aircraft left. Even if the 787 had worked they were buying a cost advantage for 5 years max.

      • Dev says:

        Do you think they should have gone for a Business Class product? They managed to scale up pretty quickly which is key for the business class passenger. Gatwick is not the worst airport on the planet and combined with a half-decent J class, they would have still been able to subsidise cheap Y fares for the headline adverts. They would have also had the new entrant shine that people seem to fall for as well.

        • Rhys says:

          Business travel favours frequency, so Norwegian needed to focus on key routes rather than messing about with random (and infrequent) routes to South America and Asia that eventually got canned anyway.

    • ChrisBCN says:

      They weren’t doomed – they expanded too quickly, which compounded the technical problems they had

    • marcw says:

      They had just too much debt, from a rapid and massive expansion. Checking out their 2019 numbers, they had an operating profit – so the operations where profitable (don’t think they were in 2018, but 2019 was the first year of “from growth to profit”). They weren’t sustainable due to the massive debt package they were (and are) carrying.

  • Lumma says:

    I’ve always felt a major problem with Norwegian long haul was that it was never that cheap, it would be very rare indeed to be able to find any availability on the very cheapest fares so it would usually be around the same price as flying on a mainline airline.

    Arguably all they achieved is making the other airlines introduce long haul basic economy to compete with the headline price.

    The ability to not pay a premium for a one way ticket was a good thing if used wisely with a one way redemption but that’s a rather niche market.

    • ChrisW says:

      I flew LGW – BOS for £139.

    • Dubious says:

      I saw a one way ticket from Krabi, Thailand – Gatwick (Via CPH) for about £200 at Christmas time just over a year ago…but in the end I decided the hassle of adding on bags and (and getting to KBV) and potential onboard discomfort / boredom / hunger wasn’t worth the saving and spent $$ to book SQ Business instead.

      Strangely they only sold this flight in one direction – LGW-KBV wasn’t available, even as a return starting in KBV.

    • Paul says:

      I’d have said finding their cheapest fares was easier than finding them on legacy carriers. Certainly never as expensive as the big boys for a very nice ‘almost business’ fare. Very sad, cheapest ‘acceptable’ way to get to the US for me.

    • A13 says:

      I remember booking flights to JFK with Norwegian when they launched back in 2014. Looking back, paid £362.50 return, including seat reservation, baggage and food. I remember thinking it was incredibly cheap but not so much now.

      Likewise, flew BOS return with them in 2017, for £240 return with no frills. Good, but not unheard of on BA/VS this days.

      Finally OAK for £349 return with no frills in 2018, booked 3 weeks out.

      Good fares, but not unheard of on BA/VS these days, and would probably choose BA/VS over NAX just for frequency/miles/TPs these days. Only used Norwegian when the legacy carriers fares were significantly more. Enjoyed flying with them when I did though, shame not to have the option going forward.

  • Yorkieflyer says:

    Edinburgh to Stewart on the MAX and back was cheap and ok

    • Rhys says:

      But who wants to fly to Stewart?!

      • Peter K says:

        I did. But my friend I was due to fly with backed out.

      • yorkieflyer says:

        The bus from Stewart was no worse than the traipsing from Newark and the diddy airport was a doddle to arrive at, less good for departing as nothing to do besides a wee cafe

  • Jez Banks says:

    Low cost long haul isn’t dead, but it’s future isn’t wide body aircraft. The A321XLR really is a game changer for EU/US routes – as JetBlue and Aer Lingus are going to demonstrate. Once you are on the plane a seat is a seat, and the operating costs of the A321 are super low compared to even the B788.

    It opens up marginal routes and also allows you to operate a common fleet with A319/20

    • ChrisW says:

      And you have to sell far less tickets to fill the plane up!

    • DANP says:

      100% this -especially with demand down for a few years – unlike Middle east i don’t think people want to interline at US airports so smaller more efficient planes will keep routes open to smaller US cities.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

The UK's biggest frequent flyer website uses cookies, which you can block via your browser settings. Continuing implies your consent to this policy. Our privacy policy is here.