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.

  • Peter says:

    I flew Providence (near Boston) to Edinburgh on a MAX 8 back in 2018 for £60. The airport has a train station but only gets 4 trains a day from Boston, and the flight was so empty everyone had a row to themselves. Spent the weekend in Edinburgh before taking a train home to London. It was a great deal and I would do it again, but they clearly lost a ton of money on that flight.

  • Andrew says:

    That’s a terrible picture of the chap standing behind the model aircraft.

    Ever since someone pointed out (on here I think) that the Norwegian Livery looked like an inflamed circumcised gentleman’s appendage, I’ve never been able to unsee it.

    There’s going to be quite a pool of off-lease aircraft available should a future low-cost airline start up.

    • Rhys says:

      That’s Bjorn!

    • Andrew (@andrewseftel) says:

      I always thought it was more canine, personally

    • Matarredonda says:

      New 787 are going to be devalued from day one by this large pool of part used 787′ which the leasing companies will want out working so going to be some good deals.
      Always be people who think they can crack the low cost long haul market.

      • Doug M says:

        Maybe they can knock together enough engines to keep the wanted ones flying.

        • Rhys says:

          The engine problems are pretty much resolved now.

          • Rob says:

            I had this discussion at the Virgin 747 retirement event with one of the engineers. When you lease an aircraft it comes with engines. Once you have the aircraft, the engines effectively get pooled and moved around between planes. When a plane is being returned to the lessor, however, it must have exactly the same engines on it that it came with.

            This has been really complex for Virgin, albeit having the fleet grounded helped. You could have a 747 which currently has none of the original engines on it, so you need to get up to four other aircraft into the hangar, remove and replace an engine from that and then put it back on its original plane.

          • Doug M says:

            From a completely novice point of view I find that not usual in a lease agreement, but completely crazy. I suppose there must be some main part or chamber that is regarded as the engine, because over the life of a plane surely an enormous number of parts are replaced. I guess at some point an engine becomes unviable and is fully replaced, I assume they record that and some amendment is made to the lease?
            I wonder how this sits with modern engine sales/leases were I thought you could pay per hour, or is that something for planes you buy rather than lease.

    • kitten says:

      🙂 Similarly, I cant get the equivalent ‘dog’ comment out of my mind

  • Chris Heyes says:

    Sad to see Norwegian depart, not that I’ve ever flown or would fly with them.
    I’ve only ever flown BA or BAOC before.
    I find BA cheap and comfortable for our needs, don’t mind the service for what we pay
    We have only ever paid tax and surcharges on all flights.
    Which is only £50 Europe Club (Business) and between £1000–£2000 long haul Business/First (tried Economy once hmm wouldn’t again)
    Quite pleased with ourselves that we have never paid for a flight from UK
    Yes tax and surcharges are quite a bit long haul, but if that’s all your paying ?
    Only travelled first twice (Just for experience) rest Business
    I Preferred Air Miles (for those that remember totally free flights)
    The Cabin Crew was more at tentative back then (imv)
    Would i like to try a different airline no.
    I wouldn’t fly if i had to pay for flights now but at 73 my flying days are almost at an end lol

    • Chris says:

      Chris – your comment harks back towards simpler times but it put a smile on my face today

    • Unknown says:

      Yawn

      How many times are you going to tell us you haven’t paid for a flight ever. Are you trying to prove something to us or to yourself?

      • Mikeact says:

        I too, have rarely paid for a flight these last few years…thanks to Avios and KLM miles, and very enjoyable too.

      • Chris Heyes says:

        Unknown As many times as i feel like it, as long as you like reading it lol lol
        Buy the way I’ve never paid for a flight except £10 Manchester to Gatwick including Breakfast and back from house (Blackburn) to Flat (Bognor Regis)
        Please let me know if you want me to tell you again later (goodness you must read every post on here lol) I skip posts like beardy ect of no interest

  • Craig says:

    It is a shame, but not sure if low lost long haul is a “goer” in the first place. Many have tried. Low cost for a couple of hits is no problem, but if I be honest I prefer more comfortable long haul (business and upwards) and will try various methods to get this at a reasonable cost. Maybe the snob in me!

    • ChrisW says:

      A happy medium could be low-cost economy, full-service business class. The expensive seats at the front of the plane pay for the cheap ones at the back.

      I believe this is close to what JetBlue are planning for their European flights.

      • Rhys says:

        This has already happened, to some extent, at BA and Virgin. Look at hand baggage only fares in economy – they can be priced pretty competitively.

  • Bill says:

    I used Norwegian short haul ex LGW and was very impressed. Sadly I have uninstalled the app

  • ChrisC says:

    I flew with them twice – LGW-CPH and CPH-LGW as wrap around flights for an ex CPH BA deal

    IIRC booking was easy and clear what extras I needed to buy – luggage outbound but not return, reserved seats etc

    Crew were good especially on the way back when someone fell ill

    One of the TATLs had been cancelled at LGW but they were proactive in separating the queues and were handing out EU261 leaflets and apo;ogising for the delay in sorting out hotels and meal vouchers. I was actually quite impressed.

  • Roy Thomson says:

    Wide bodied aircraft for long haul flights are much preferable to narrow bodied aircraft in my opinion.

    • marcw says:

      How many times have you flown on a long-haul narrow body aircraft?

      • tony says:

        Yah, I don’t understand the hang-up here. My first long haul was in a DC8, but recall the BBJ from EWR to ZRH a few years ago quite fondly. Boarding took all of 5 minutes.

        So long as there’s a nice comfy seat, I’m happy.

      • The real John says:

        0, as I wouldn’t book it. I often walk around the cabin in circles and it is nicer when there are fewer obstructions. The max I would do with a single-aisle is maybe 6 hours.

      • Ming The Merciless says:

        C130 Brize Norton to Falklands- one row of seats down either side of the body so technically a single aisle plane. And definitely long haul.

        In flight catering was poor, with only a semi frozen meat(generic) and potato pasty, plain crisps and an orange panda pop.

        No flowers in the toilet reeked of cutbacks (reaping the peace dividend post Cold War) but not sufficiently strongly enough to disguise the smell of Private Smith’s 12 pints of Guinness from The Beehive 8 hours earlier.

        There’s only one outfit who can do low cost carrier on a premium budget, and they wear light blue.

  • TimM says:

    I have to agree with Jez Banks. Single-aisle extended range aircraft are the future of mainstream long-haul.

    The business market is likely never to recover to previous levels so the cash cow of legacy airlines has left the meadow, so to speak. Those business models that Rob says cannot work will have to work. There will always be a place for First for the super-rich and for premium economy for those who are prepared to pay disproportionately more for a little better than economy. However, the big difference is that most travel will be leisure and paid for personally. When customers are paying with their own cash, legacy airlines will compete on a level playing field.

    So yes, expect airlines to start ripping out those business class seats and replacing them with premium economy, a gradual churn to single-aisle extended range aircraft, airport lounges (and private terminals) to become pay-only, and frequent-flyer schemes such as Avios to be reduced to the status of Tesco Clubcard or Nectar – a means of profiling customers in return for 1% payback.

    Still, it won’t happen yet.

    • yorkieflyer says:

      I think there is likely a lot of truth in this, business is littered with failures who just assume things will carry on as before. Nimbler players will not expect the corporate business class revenues they used to bank on to return at anything like the previous scale.

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.