Norwegian Airlines

Has anyone used Norwegian Airlines to fly from the USA to London (Gatwick)? I'm eyeing a direct flight from Oakland CA and the price is attractive, but wondering why. And is it true that you bring your own water? Thanks for any info.

They are a low cost carrier. Be sure to add in all the extra fees before deciding they are a bargain.

Low cost carrier... Seats are 31" seat pitch. (Thats REALLY tight for a long haul) and EVERYTHING you want is more money. (Seat selection, water or soda, all your bags, ALL food.)

 

But we are taking them from NYC (Stewart Airport) nonstop to Edinburgh this summer for $325 pp RT. For that I'll suffer a bit.

Yes the price is hard to beat! For a bit more I can get seat selection, a checked bag, and a meal included. That would be worth it as the five of us would want to sit together. At least they have TV's for entertainment (although probably minimum selection but better than nothing). I am mostly concerned when delays, since we would be headed to a cruise.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Yes, a delay or flight cancellation would be a big problem. Norwegian won't pay to put you on another airline's flight if there's a problem; you'd have to wait for available seats on their flights. And, I'm sure you noticed their limited schedule. You could be waiting a long time.

 

I wouldn't book them for time sensitive travel.

We used them last October to fly from NYC to Athens. We booked Lowfare which included seat assignments, 1 bag, and food. It worked out great for us.

We used them last October to fly from NYC to Athens. We booked Lowfare which included seat assignments, 1 bag, and food. It worked out great for us.

Which still does not address, or even recognize, the issue that airlines without a) multiple re-route opportunities and b) interline agreements with other carriers, are inherently riskier for time-critical travel.

 

If your aircraft goes mechanical, you will have to wait for an available seat on another Norwegian flight. And guess what - when that's once a day, that means you wait. Contrast with UA out of SFO. If there's a problem with your aircraft, you might be able to be rerouted to a different London flight through another hub. Or you might go on a code-share to FRA and get to London that way. Multiple path options mitigate risk.

 

Now, if you are going to London three or four days before a cruise, it's not as time-critical. If you were going day of cruise or one day before, you have to ask yourself how lucky you feel and what your risk tolerance was.

Which still does not address, or even recognize, the issue that airlines without a) multiple re-route opportunities and b) interline agreements with other carriers, are inherently riskier for time-critical travel.

 

If your aircraft goes mechanical, you will have to wait for an available seat on another Norwegian flight. And guess what - when that's once a day, that means you wait. Contrast with UA out of SFO. If there's a problem with your aircraft, you might be able to be rerouted to a different London flight through another hub. Or you might go on a code-share to FRA and get to London that way. Multiple path options mitigate risk.

 

Now, if you are going to London three or four days before a cruise, it's not as time-critical. If you were going day of cruise or one day before, you have to ask yourself how lucky you feel and what your risk tolerance was.

To add to this: There have been times recently when Norwegian's operational resilience has been really poor. It suffered very frustrating problems with its 787s, and it was one of the more vocal critics of the model - but that was possibly because its business model requires it to work its aircraft harder. Recently, there have been signs that Norwegian has been chartering in capacity from other sources to cover for shortfalls - I remember seeing a question somewhere from someone who'd been unhappy to have had notification that their Norwegian flight was to be operated by Wamos Air (of whom I'd never heard, although it turns out that it is the former Pullmantur Air).

 

I haven't personally known anyone yet affected by a long Norwegian delay, although I have heard about them. However, family members have suffered long delays on flights operated by airlines with similar business models, such as Westjet and Air Transat. Typically, once it goes wrong, it's a 24-hour delay. That's not to say that it can't happen on network airlines - we had a 24-hour delay ourselves from London to Johannesburg late last year - but on many routes a network airline can get you on your way on some other route. Someone I know has had a problem on a flight from London to Houston today, and there were immediately tons of options to get there today, such as another airline's non-stop flight or staying on the same alliance and connecting through Chicago or Dallas. With a ticket on Norwegian, you're likely to be at the airline's mercy as to when it can get your journey started.

 

None of this matters if your journey isn't time-critical (as ours wasn't). But if we'd been flying to a cruise and we only had 24 hours of margin, we'd have been a bit stressed.

Wow, thank you, those last three posters brought up points I hadn't even thought of yet. It sounds like I will stick with UA or BA out of San Fran. Definitely not worth the risk of delays headed to a cruise. And makes them worth the extra cost.

Wow, thank you, those last three posters brought up points I hadn't even thought of yet. It sounds like I will stick with UA or BA out of San Fran. Definitely not worth the risk of delays headed to a cruise. And makes them worth the extra cost.

Though I am not a big fan of using Norwegian to get to a cruise, you can do a different kind of cost/benefit decision.

 

Take the savings by using Norwegian and see how much that would get you in terms of staying a few days earlier in London (or wherever). If the analysis is that for the amount of savings, we could spend four days at our destination, it could now make Norwegian a better choice. You have four days of "cushion", plus additional vacation time in a foreign location. Now, if your vacation time is finite, that's off the table. But for those who have the time, one can ask themself which is the best allocation of money to get the most bang for the buck. Works on the return as well.

 

 

Of course, you have to factor in all of the additional fees/costs on Norwegian (and WOW and other LCCs) plus the onboard experience. Just want to give other thoughts for your consideration IF you are time flexible.

Thank you FlyerTalker! We are lucky to have your expertise on CC. :-)

This has been a helpful thread. I met some veteran cruisers last year who swear by Norwegian Air. We would still have to get to one of its airports to use it, and the cost therefore ends up becoming the same as flying from home. For those who have plenty of wiggle room and live near one of its airports, its probably a nice option.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

If your aircraft goes mechanical, you will have to wait for an available seat on another Norwegian flight. And guess what - when that's once a day, that means you wait.

 

Now, if you are going to London three or four days before a cruise, it's not as time-critical.

 

Not as time-critical, but keep in mind that in this scenario of extremely limited options, an entire plane full of people are also waiting to be rebooked on Norwegian's sole flight to XXX the next day. Ain't gonna happen, and some will likely be waiting 2 days or more for seats.

 

The same caveat is mentioned with certain other low cost carriers, such as Spirit for example. They are famous for flying to leisure destinations, but with service to any particular one only offered on, say, Tue, Thur or Sat, so it can be 2-3 days before they even have another flight available.