Norwegian vuole aprire una base Long Haul in Irlanda
- Autore Discussione kenyaprince
- Data d'inizio
US Delay On Norwegian License Breaches Aviation Deal - EU
The United States has violated an aviation deal with the European Union by taking too long to grant a license allowing budget airline Norwegian Air to boost trans-atlantic flights, the European Commission said on Tuesday.
Norwegian Air, which currently flies to the United States on a temporary license from non-EU Norway, is seeking a foreign carrier permit for its Irish subsidiary with the backing of the EU executive.
The move is opposed by US rivals such as Delta, American, United and industry unions. They are concerned it will undermine US wages and working standards.
EU and US officials met on November 25 to discuss the case.
"The European Commission considers that there is a breach of the EU-US air transport agreement by the US authorities... The US authorities are taking too long to process the application," the EU executive said in a statement.
It said previous applicants were given the go-ahead swiftly. The Commission said the next meeting of the EU-US joint committee is scheduled for January.
Under the 2007 open-skies agreement, EU airlines can fly to the United States from anywhere in the 28-country bloc, while the same holds for US airlines servicing Europe.
Norwegian Air's plans are backed by some leading industry executives in Europe. Willie Walsh, the chief executive of IAG, has said that he supports the discount carrier's expansion.
Norwegian Air, a unit of Ireland-incorporated Norwegian Air Shuttle, is seeking to bring long-cost flying to long-haul routes.
(Reuters)
The United States has violated an aviation deal with the European Union by taking too long to grant a license allowing budget airline Norwegian Air to boost trans-atlantic flights, the European Commission said on Tuesday.
Norwegian Air, which currently flies to the United States on a temporary license from non-EU Norway, is seeking a foreign carrier permit for its Irish subsidiary with the backing of the EU executive.
The move is opposed by US rivals such as Delta, American, United and industry unions. They are concerned it will undermine US wages and working standards.
EU and US officials met on November 25 to discuss the case.
"The European Commission considers that there is a breach of the EU-US air transport agreement by the US authorities... The US authorities are taking too long to process the application," the EU executive said in a statement.
It said previous applicants were given the go-ahead swiftly. The Commission said the next meeting of the EU-US joint committee is scheduled for January.
Under the 2007 open-skies agreement, EU airlines can fly to the United States from anywhere in the 28-country bloc, while the same holds for US airlines servicing Europe.
Norwegian Air's plans are backed by some leading industry executives in Europe. Willie Walsh, the chief executive of IAG, has said that he supports the discount carrier's expansion.
Norwegian Air, a unit of Ireland-incorporated Norwegian Air Shuttle, is seeking to bring long-cost flying to long-haul routes.
(Reuters)
Trip report sul 787 di Norwegian:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
Bella la premium di Norwegian, ma bisognerebbe confrontare bene i prezzi reali e non quelli base (anche se parliamo di Londra ma i ragionamento si basa se il modello sia replicabile anche altrove), perché con 390€ economy base, 480€ con bagaglio,catering e posto prenotato quindi confrontabile con la concorrenza, 1440€ per la premium non sono tanto diverse dalle tariffe base che un po' tutti offrono in offerta sul Nord Atlantico. Anzi abbiamo visto tariffe anche inferiori e perfino delle J in offerta poco sopra i mille euro.
Fronte comune di Air France-KLM e Lufthansa contro Norwegian
Air France-Klm e Lufthansa si preparano a un fronte comune contro la low cost Norwegian Air.
I due big del trasporto aereo europeo chiedono infatti alla commissione europea che venga negato il permesso a effettuare voli intercontinentali regolari tra Gran Bretagna e Stati Uniti, aprendo un nuovo fronte dopo quello avviato da Wow Air.
Secondo i due gruppi i meccanismi messi in atto da Norwegian in particolare sul fronte del reclutamento dei dipendenti, scrive preferente.com, rischia di mettere a repentaglio gli standard fissati nel Vecchio Continente, dando inoltre un duro colpo alla situazione occupazionale professionale del Continente.
TTGItalia
Air France-Klm e Lufthansa si preparano a un fronte comune contro la low cost Norwegian Air.
I due big del trasporto aereo europeo chiedono infatti alla commissione europea che venga negato il permesso a effettuare voli intercontinentali regolari tra Gran Bretagna e Stati Uniti, aprendo un nuovo fronte dopo quello avviato da Wow Air.
Secondo i due gruppi i meccanismi messi in atto da Norwegian in particolare sul fronte del reclutamento dei dipendenti, scrive preferente.com, rischia di mettere a repentaglio gli standard fissati nel Vecchio Continente, dando inoltre un duro colpo alla situazione occupazionale professionale del Continente.
TTGItalia
European airlines oppose Norwegian entrant
Alan Dron
Three major European carriers have made representations to the European Commission (EC), opposing plans by Norwegian Air International (NAI) to start transatlantic operations.
Air France, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Lufthansa have effectively joined US opponents of Ireland-registered NAI, which wants to start low-cost services to the US. They claim that, by using Thai personnel based in Ireland, the Scandinavian airline is attempting to circumvent expensive Norwegian employment legislation. NAI, a subsidiary of low-cost carrier Norwegian Air Shuttle, has repeatedly denied the charge.
NAI’s application to fly to the US has been stalled in the US Department of Transportation for months and the EC has been supportive of the Norwegian carrier’s application, calling on the US to observe the spirit of the Open Skies agreement.
Now, in an open letter to EC president Jean-Claude Juncker and several EC commissioners, Air France-KLM and Lufthansa—together with several European pilots’ and cabin crew unions—have urged the EC to oppose NAI’s proposals.
In the latest round of the increasingly heated argument over NAI’s plans, they accuse NAI of “abuses of European social standards in the field of aviation,” arguing that “they intend to employ crewmembers from Thailand that are hired through a Singaporean agency.
“Competition in aviation is intense and it keeps us sharp. However, through business models like this we risk entering a downward spiral to the social bottom, risking thousands of qualified European jobs. European aviation currently provides 9.3 million jobs and adds €512 billion ($638 billion) to European GDP.
“If we allow Norwegian Air International to start employing Thai crew on the EU-US routes, others will soon follow and jobs will be lost inside the European Union and created elsewhere. The US has temporarily denied Norwegian Air International’s request for a foreign carrier permit. The European Commission should now take a strong stance and prevent Norwegian Air International from abusing European social standards and legislation through employing Thai crew. We need to preserve European jobs instead of outsourcing them to other continents.”
Atwonline.com
Al fronte nord americano si aggiunge un altra battaglia legale di Norwegian che contesta alcuni privilegi e trattamenti di favore di SAS nell' assegnazione degli slot negli aeroporti scandinavi.
Norwegian submits formal complaint about differential treatment to the EU and ESA
Press Release • Dec 15, 2014
Norwegian wants equal conditions of competition in the Scandinavian aviation market and has therefore submitted a formal complaint regarding unlawful differential treatment in favour of SAS to the European Commission and ESA (EFTA Surveillance Authority). Discriminatory conditions and licencing practises prevent Norwegian from obtaining access to traffic rights on the same terms as SAS; in addition the differential treatment generates significant additional costs for SAS' competitors in Scandinavia. The authorities argue that the differential treatment is justified by "grandfathered rights" due to historic explanations mainly because of the fact that its majority owners are the governments of Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
Norwegian has for the past five years on numerous occasions applied for and requested equal treatment and conditions to no avail. Every time, the rejections by the Scandinavian national aviation authorities have been justified by SAS’ historically defined conditions and that its majority owners are the governments of Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
The issue at hand revolves around a joint Air Operator Certificate (AOC) that SAS benefits from and that Norwegian is denied access to on equal terms. Norwegian has not until now filed a formal complaint to European authorities, hoping and trusting that Scandinavian aviation authorities would create an equal set of rules for all the companies operating in the same market. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has also criticized the special treatment and concluded that the preferential treatment is in breach of European law. Still it has prevailed.
Limited access to traffic rights
A major competitive disadvantage for Norwegian compared to SAS is its limited access to traffic rights - or the ability to open new routes. The joint Scandinavian AOC, which only SAS benefits from, gives access to traffic rights both within the EU and EFTA (Norway), an advantage not available to Norwegian as Norway is not a part of the EU. If Norwegian had the same traffic rights, it would be able to operate, for instance, flights between Helsinki and Dubai, London and Tel Aviv and Barcelona and Tel Aviv. Norwegian recently applied to the authorities to get access to these routes, but was denied because the airline does not hold an EU AOC.
Higher aircraft and crew cost
Norwegian’s competitor is without restriction permitted to utilize its crews across the Scandinavian countries. SAS is also permitted to utilize aircraft registered in Norway, Sweden and Denmark seamlessly without approvals notwithstanding place of registry. The competitor must apply for wet-lease when aircraft from another AOC is used. Fees apply when the approval of such applications are requested. Norwegian and other airlines may only operate aircraft registered in another EU country for six plus six months. Although Norwegian’s competitor has to pay administrative fees to three authorities to obtain the joint AOC, it is not required to have three AOC organizations - one in Norway, one in Sweden and one in Denmark. Paradoxically, the latter is a compulsory EU requirement to obtain an AOC. The fees associated with obtaining the unique AOC is minor compared to the ones associated with obtaining three full administrative organizations.
Consistent long time criticism from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
The rules and regulations of European aviation safety are administered by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). It has on numerous occasions over the past years stated that SAS’ special treatment and “multi-country”-AOC is not in accordance with the requirement of a «principal place of business» under current EU-regulations. Based on an approved AOC, an airline is granted an operating license in the country where it has its «principal place of business» and it is the civil aviation authorities in that country that shall conduct and be responsible for performing the safety supervision. Norwegian and all other airlines in Europe have to abide by these rules. However, the Scandinavian aviation authorities have established and continued a special treatment in favour of SAS that is not in accordance with EASA rules and regulations.
Norwegian submits formal complaint about differential treatment to the EU and ESA
Press Release • Dec 15, 2014
Norwegian wants equal conditions of competition in the Scandinavian aviation market and has therefore submitted a formal complaint regarding unlawful differential treatment in favour of SAS to the European Commission and ESA (EFTA Surveillance Authority). Discriminatory conditions and licencing practises prevent Norwegian from obtaining access to traffic rights on the same terms as SAS; in addition the differential treatment generates significant additional costs for SAS' competitors in Scandinavia. The authorities argue that the differential treatment is justified by "grandfathered rights" due to historic explanations mainly because of the fact that its majority owners are the governments of Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
Norwegian has for the past five years on numerous occasions applied for and requested equal treatment and conditions to no avail. Every time, the rejections by the Scandinavian national aviation authorities have been justified by SAS’ historically defined conditions and that its majority owners are the governments of Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
The issue at hand revolves around a joint Air Operator Certificate (AOC) that SAS benefits from and that Norwegian is denied access to on equal terms. Norwegian has not until now filed a formal complaint to European authorities, hoping and trusting that Scandinavian aviation authorities would create an equal set of rules for all the companies operating in the same market. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has also criticized the special treatment and concluded that the preferential treatment is in breach of European law. Still it has prevailed.
Limited access to traffic rights
A major competitive disadvantage for Norwegian compared to SAS is its limited access to traffic rights - or the ability to open new routes. The joint Scandinavian AOC, which only SAS benefits from, gives access to traffic rights both within the EU and EFTA (Norway), an advantage not available to Norwegian as Norway is not a part of the EU. If Norwegian had the same traffic rights, it would be able to operate, for instance, flights between Helsinki and Dubai, London and Tel Aviv and Barcelona and Tel Aviv. Norwegian recently applied to the authorities to get access to these routes, but was denied because the airline does not hold an EU AOC.
Higher aircraft and crew cost
Norwegian’s competitor is without restriction permitted to utilize its crews across the Scandinavian countries. SAS is also permitted to utilize aircraft registered in Norway, Sweden and Denmark seamlessly without approvals notwithstanding place of registry. The competitor must apply for wet-lease when aircraft from another AOC is used. Fees apply when the approval of such applications are requested. Norwegian and other airlines may only operate aircraft registered in another EU country for six plus six months. Although Norwegian’s competitor has to pay administrative fees to three authorities to obtain the joint AOC, it is not required to have three AOC organizations - one in Norway, one in Sweden and one in Denmark. Paradoxically, the latter is a compulsory EU requirement to obtain an AOC. The fees associated with obtaining the unique AOC is minor compared to the ones associated with obtaining three full administrative organizations.
Consistent long time criticism from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
The rules and regulations of European aviation safety are administered by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). It has on numerous occasions over the past years stated that SAS’ special treatment and “multi-country”-AOC is not in accordance with the requirement of a «principal place of business» under current EU-regulations. Based on an approved AOC, an airline is granted an operating license in the country where it has its «principal place of business» and it is the civil aviation authorities in that country that shall conduct and be responsible for performing the safety supervision. Norwegian and all other airlines in Europe have to abide by these rules. However, the Scandinavian aviation authorities have established and continued a special treatment in favour of SAS that is not in accordance with EASA rules and regulations.
Norwegian Air to Fly Europe-U.S. Using Single-Aisle 737s
# First routes will be from Ireland to New York, Boston
# Carrier will lease out A320s, in talks on Ryanair partnership
Norwegian Air Shuttle AS will use single-aisle Boeing Co. 737 jets to connect smaller European airports with the eastern U.S., complementing busier North American routes out of London and Scandinavia that are operated by bigger 787 Dreamliners.
The latest 737 Max, which joins the fleet from 2017, has the range to fly from Europe’s “western coast” to most locations on the Atlantic seaboard of the U.S., Chief Executive Officer Bjoern Kjos said in an interview before announcing the first flights, from Cork in Ireland to New York and Boston.
“That’s going to be very interesting, because you fly direct so people don’t have to travel via hubs,” Kjos said in Oslo. “We believe that there is a large market.” Norwegian Air shares rose as much as 4.7 percent.
Already a major discount carrier within Europe, Norwegian is working to extend the model to long-haul flights. While low-cost inter-continental travel proved unsustainable for companies such as Laker Airways in the past, Kjos is betting a new generation of fuel-efficient planes will make the service viable.
Norwegian has 100 re-engined Max variants of the 737 on order from a 222-plane, $21.5 billion deal with Boeing and Airbus Group SE announced in 2012. The Cork-Boston service will commence next May and will initially be operated by current-version 737-800 aircraft, with New York following in 2017. The routes will provide the Irish city’s only trans-Atlantic links.
Permit Question
The carrier also has 17 Dreamliners due by 2018, of which eight are already in the fleet. Kjos said he’s holding off on a possible follow-on order while awaiting a foreign carrier permit from the U.S., where airlines and unions have queried the legitimacy of plans to register jets in Ireland to cut costs.
The CEO said the permit is needed before Norwegian can start “full-scale” flying with the 787 fleet, since aircraft that might operate routes to Canada, South America or South Africa would ultimately also serve U.S. destinations.
Ryanair Talks
“They have to fly in a combination because of the utilization of the aircraft,” Kjos said. “It’s long overdue.”
The CEO also confirmed that talks are under way on cooperation with Ryanair Holdings Plc, Europe’s biggest discount carrier, that could see the Irish company help feed passenger’s onto Norwegian’s long-haul flights “from every corner of Europe.” A deal could be concluded “shortly,” he said.
Fornebu-based Norwegian is stepping up plans to lease out a chunk of the 100 Airbus A320neos it also has on order, having already arranged to place 12 with third parties, the first four in 2016, Kjos said.
Shares of Norwegian Air advanced 15.20 kroner to 341.40 kroner before trading 4.4 percent higher at 340.40 kroner at 2:07 p.m. in Oslo. They’ve gained 24 percent this year, for a market value of 12.2 billion kroner ($1.4 billion).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-europe-u-s-links-using-single-aisle-737-max
# First routes will be from Ireland to New York, Boston
# Carrier will lease out A320s, in talks on Ryanair partnership
Norwegian Air Shuttle AS will use single-aisle Boeing Co. 737 jets to connect smaller European airports with the eastern U.S., complementing busier North American routes out of London and Scandinavia that are operated by bigger 787 Dreamliners.
The latest 737 Max, which joins the fleet from 2017, has the range to fly from Europe’s “western coast” to most locations on the Atlantic seaboard of the U.S., Chief Executive Officer Bjoern Kjos said in an interview before announcing the first flights, from Cork in Ireland to New York and Boston.
“That’s going to be very interesting, because you fly direct so people don’t have to travel via hubs,” Kjos said in Oslo. “We believe that there is a large market.” Norwegian Air shares rose as much as 4.7 percent.
Already a major discount carrier within Europe, Norwegian is working to extend the model to long-haul flights. While low-cost inter-continental travel proved unsustainable for companies such as Laker Airways in the past, Kjos is betting a new generation of fuel-efficient planes will make the service viable.
Norwegian has 100 re-engined Max variants of the 737 on order from a 222-plane, $21.5 billion deal with Boeing and Airbus Group SE announced in 2012. The Cork-Boston service will commence next May and will initially be operated by current-version 737-800 aircraft, with New York following in 2017. The routes will provide the Irish city’s only trans-Atlantic links.
Permit Question
The carrier also has 17 Dreamliners due by 2018, of which eight are already in the fleet. Kjos said he’s holding off on a possible follow-on order while awaiting a foreign carrier permit from the U.S., where airlines and unions have queried the legitimacy of plans to register jets in Ireland to cut costs.
The CEO said the permit is needed before Norwegian can start “full-scale” flying with the 787 fleet, since aircraft that might operate routes to Canada, South America or South Africa would ultimately also serve U.S. destinations.
Ryanair Talks
“They have to fly in a combination because of the utilization of the aircraft,” Kjos said. “It’s long overdue.”
The CEO also confirmed that talks are under way on cooperation with Ryanair Holdings Plc, Europe’s biggest discount carrier, that could see the Irish company help feed passenger’s onto Norwegian’s long-haul flights “from every corner of Europe.” A deal could be concluded “shortly,” he said.
Fornebu-based Norwegian is stepping up plans to lease out a chunk of the 100 Airbus A320neos it also has on order, having already arranged to place 12 with third parties, the first four in 2016, Kjos said.
Shares of Norwegian Air advanced 15.20 kroner to 341.40 kroner before trading 4.4 percent higher at 340.40 kroner at 2:07 p.m. in Oslo. They’ve gained 24 percent this year, for a market value of 12.2 billion kroner ($1.4 billion).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-europe-u-s-links-using-single-aisle-737-max
Daccordo che un 737 è piu' facile da riempire di un 787 ma mi chiedo che numeri ci possano essere su rotte da Cork verso Boston e NYC, mi sembrano molto di nicchia.
Inoltre qual'è il range massimo per operare coi 737 su rotte transatlantiche? Posso volare solo dall' Irlanda o ad esempio anche da altre destinazioni come il Portogallo?
Inoltre qual'è il range massimo per operare coi 737 su rotte transatlantiche? Posso volare solo dall' Irlanda o ad esempio anche da altre destinazioni come il Portogallo?
Ma scusate, se dei norvegesi iniziano con i 738 dall'Irlanda agli USA sono più furbi dello zio M'OL o c'è qualcosa che mi sono perso ?
Se FR vola dalla Norvegia alle Canarie perchè a questo punto non dovrebbe farlo dall'Irlanda a Boston ?
L'ETOPS costa tutti questi soldi ?
Se FR vola dalla Norvegia alle Canarie perchè a questo punto non dovrebbe farlo dall'Irlanda a Boston ?
L'ETOPS costa tutti questi soldi ?
Norwegian (DY, Oslo Gardermoen) has announced plans to commence longhaul flights out of Corkin Ireland later next year. In a statement, the carrier said it would use its Norwegian Air International(D8, Dublin Int'l) subsidiary to launch 5x weekly flights to Boston in May 2016 while flights to New York would likely launch a year later in 2017. Operations will be on-board B737-800 and eventually B737 MAX aircraft.
"This is only the beginning of our plans for new routes in Ireland but our expansion relies on the US Department of Transportation (DoT) finally approving Norwegian Air International’s application for a Foreign [Air] Carrier Permit," airline CEO Bjorn Kjos said. "Only DoT approval for NAI will unlock the door for these exciting new routes, creating more competition, more choice and better fares for business and leisure passengers on both sides of the Atlantic.”
NAI's entry into the trans-Atlantic market has encountered severe resistance from both US and European legacy carriers which collectively accuse the Norwegians of using the carrier's Irish registration to by-pass more stringent Norwegian labour laws. In addition, they have claimed Norwegian simply intends to use the airline's access to the EU market to open up more flights to North America while paying only token attention to the Irish market.
Last year, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) denied NAI's application for route exemption authority while indefinitely deferring its decision on an FACP.
ch-aviation
"This is only the beginning of our plans for new routes in Ireland but our expansion relies on the US Department of Transportation (DoT) finally approving Norwegian Air International’s application for a Foreign [Air] Carrier Permit," airline CEO Bjorn Kjos said. "Only DoT approval for NAI will unlock the door for these exciting new routes, creating more competition, more choice and better fares for business and leisure passengers on both sides of the Atlantic.”
NAI's entry into the trans-Atlantic market has encountered severe resistance from both US and European legacy carriers which collectively accuse the Norwegians of using the carrier's Irish registration to by-pass more stringent Norwegian labour laws. In addition, they have claimed Norwegian simply intends to use the airline's access to the EU market to open up more flights to North America while paying only token attention to the Irish market.
Last year, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) denied NAI's application for route exemption authority while indefinitely deferring its decision on an FACP.
ch-aviation
ROMA - Oltre due anni di attesa ma per Norwegian è una vittoria senza precedenti. La terza compagnia low cost europea che punta a effettuare voli diretti a basso prezzo dall'Europa verso gli Usa - Italia, Irlanda, Francia e Belgio compresi - incassa una prima vittoria.
Le autorità Usa hanno accettato in via "provvisoria" la possibilità di effettuare voli intercontinentali entro maggio. Un dossier, quello passato al setaccio dagli Stati Uniti fin dall'arrivo della richiesta, datata dicembre 2013, mai così difficile da gestire. Infatti la Norwegian, che punta a voli a basso costo da diverse città europee verso New York, Boston, Los Angeles e altre metropoli Usa, è anche riuscita a utilizzare l'Irlanda (una sorta di paradiso fiscale per molte compagnie aeree grazie a tasse minime sugli aerei registrati in loco e costi del lavoro inferiori al resto d'Europa), come cavallo di Troia per collegare i due continenti e in particolare dal Paese del trifoglio, da Cork a Boston.
Il vettore nordico si è subito trovato nel bel mezzo di una tempesta "politica" con l'opposizione di gran parte delle compagnie aeree europee, da Lufthansa a Sas e quelle Usa: American Airlines, Delta, United. Inoltre Alpa, l'associazione internazionale dei piloti, è scesa in campo per difendere i diritti di chi sugli aerei ci lavora, proprio per evitare un doppio trattamento: quello di chi vola in condizioni di parità di contratto di lavoro e chi su una low cost intercontinentale.
I grandi vettori a questo punto hanno ancora un mese di tempo per portare davanti agli uffici del Dipartimento dei Trasporti Usa le proprie osservazioni al preventivo via libera americano ai voli che è arrivato dopo due anni di approfondimento da parte di studi legali sulle complesse normative
internazionali e la collaborazione del Dipartimento di Stato e quello della Giustizia americani.
Alla fine però gli Usa hanno deciso che "nulla si oppone alla concessione del permesso" e i cieli per i big del settore appaiono sempre più turbolenti.
Le autorità Usa hanno accettato in via "provvisoria" la possibilità di effettuare voli intercontinentali entro maggio. Un dossier, quello passato al setaccio dagli Stati Uniti fin dall'arrivo della richiesta, datata dicembre 2013, mai così difficile da gestire. Infatti la Norwegian, che punta a voli a basso costo da diverse città europee verso New York, Boston, Los Angeles e altre metropoli Usa, è anche riuscita a utilizzare l'Irlanda (una sorta di paradiso fiscale per molte compagnie aeree grazie a tasse minime sugli aerei registrati in loco e costi del lavoro inferiori al resto d'Europa), come cavallo di Troia per collegare i due continenti e in particolare dal Paese del trifoglio, da Cork a Boston.
Il vettore nordico si è subito trovato nel bel mezzo di una tempesta "politica" con l'opposizione di gran parte delle compagnie aeree europee, da Lufthansa a Sas e quelle Usa: American Airlines, Delta, United. Inoltre Alpa, l'associazione internazionale dei piloti, è scesa in campo per difendere i diritti di chi sugli aerei ci lavora, proprio per evitare un doppio trattamento: quello di chi vola in condizioni di parità di contratto di lavoro e chi su una low cost intercontinentale.
I grandi vettori a questo punto hanno ancora un mese di tempo per portare davanti agli uffici del Dipartimento dei Trasporti Usa le proprie osservazioni al preventivo via libera americano ai voli che è arrivato dopo due anni di approfondimento da parte di studi legali sulle complesse normative
internazionali e la collaborazione del Dipartimento di Stato e quello della Giustizia americani.
Alla fine però gli Usa hanno deciso che "nulla si oppone alla concessione del permesso" e i cieli per i big del settore appaiono sempre più turbolenti.
Non so se è la il thread più corretto, (in caso spostate) cmq giusto per riportare una recente esperienza (positiva) su un BOS-LGW operato con EI-LNI, B787-9 di recente consegna a Norwegian.
Innanzitutto trovandomi nella necessità di ripianificare un rientro dagli Usa diverso rispetto all'itinerario originale, la questione prezzo risulta imbattibile. LowFare Plus, oneway, poco più di 300E (prezzo che si è mantenuto fin sotto data, nonostante l'aereo fosse quasi pieno). Nessun competitor, proponeva soluzioni simili al di sotto dei 700 E. Posso selezionare il posto con la tariffa scelta, e riesco a prendere, senza nessun supplemento, un posto corridoio sull'uscita d'emergenza. Sedile non certo più scomodo, a sensazione, di quello del 330 Alitalia utilizzato all'andata, spazio per le gambe a volontà, ne risulterà uno dei viaggi in Economica più confortevoli mai fatti. AV molto cortesi, questione pasti (la Low fare normale non li prevede), gestita correttamente, velocemente, e senza intoppi. Esperienza di volo che vede a mio parere il 787 surclassare per confort e silenziosità il 330. Trovo invece ridicola la questione delle cuffie e della coperta a pagamento, ordinabili tramite IFE, ma è davvero l'unica nota negativa relativa a questa tratta. Partito con aspettative bassissime mi aspettavo qualcosa di paragonabile al concetto di Low Cost di Ryan e similari, ed invece constato come l'esperienza di volo non sia affatto peggiore di quella che si ha in economy su una major.
Innanzitutto trovandomi nella necessità di ripianificare un rientro dagli Usa diverso rispetto all'itinerario originale, la questione prezzo risulta imbattibile. LowFare Plus, oneway, poco più di 300E (prezzo che si è mantenuto fin sotto data, nonostante l'aereo fosse quasi pieno). Nessun competitor, proponeva soluzioni simili al di sotto dei 700 E. Posso selezionare il posto con la tariffa scelta, e riesco a prendere, senza nessun supplemento, un posto corridoio sull'uscita d'emergenza. Sedile non certo più scomodo, a sensazione, di quello del 330 Alitalia utilizzato all'andata, spazio per le gambe a volontà, ne risulterà uno dei viaggi in Economica più confortevoli mai fatti. AV molto cortesi, questione pasti (la Low fare normale non li prevede), gestita correttamente, velocemente, e senza intoppi. Esperienza di volo che vede a mio parere il 787 surclassare per confort e silenziosità il 330. Trovo invece ridicola la questione delle cuffie e della coperta a pagamento, ordinabili tramite IFE, ma è davvero l'unica nota negativa relativa a questa tratta. Partito con aspettative bassissime mi aspettavo qualcosa di paragonabile al concetto di Low Cost di Ryan e similari, ed invece constato come l'esperienza di volo non sia affatto peggiore di quella che si ha in economy su una major.
Grazie della testimonianza, avresti qualche foto degli interni del 787 Norwegian?
Curiosità personale, ricordi i supplementi per i diversi servizi extra (pasto, coperta, cuffie e così via)? Sarebbe interessante per capire la reale differenza di costo tra Norwegian ed i competitors