Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Norwegian Long Haul

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Norwegian Long Haul

    Normally, I refuse to be a passenger with airlines which have been established after I became a Jetphotos member. And imho, in case of Chapecoense, such an attitude would've helped...

    But in case of Norwegian Long Haul, it is not a small "airline", with only 1 or 2 aircraft. Something still rang a bell.

    "Two of the aircraft were later grounded because of technical issues." end of the quotation, taken from en wikipedia, January 2017.

    My question is, is this an US-American airline? Afaik, they come from Norway.

    So, who gave them the right to provide flights between JFK and Gatwick, a.o.?

    PS: Btw, that wouldn't be a topic which concerned me, if they weren't trying something comparable on my home airport!
    The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
    The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
    And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
    This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

  • #2
    The transatlantic flights operate with Irish registered aircraft under an Irish AOC.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, but they
      - as Norwegians
      gained permission to not only provide flights between
      - the USA (JFK)
      and
      - Great Britain (Gatwick)
      after Voldemort was inaugurated in D.C.? His real name was not a big fortune for me since Obama does no longer rule the German US-American friendship. Oh man, how much I'll miss the Big Hawaiian..!

      Back on topic. What I've just assumed can't be really the case. The Norwegians somehow slipped through the system, so that they today are able to call
      KJFK intercontinental airport
      their home airport?!?

      I mean, I know in how far a 747 is connected with JFK airport. But you'll never find a wikipedia entry where JFK appears as 'operating base' of LH, at least not with permission of Lufthansa!

      And the Norwegians use the Boeing 78 78. So, if my home airport were JFK, I had more than a very decent interest that an airline with "technical issues", end of the quotation, does not easily get the permission to enter and cross the US-American airspace.

      PS: Much what I've written so far has been taken from en wikipedia. Didn't the US Department of Transportation refuse the permission for Norwegian Long Haul to enter and cross US-American airspace?! And how this airline uses (or should I say misuses) the 787..
      Taken from Con Air, the movie (retranslated): The state of a society should be measured with the state of its prisoners.

      And the state of an airline should be measured with the maintenance state of its aircraft. In memoriam, Chapecoense.
      Last edited by LH-B744; 2017-01-26, 01:09. Reason: The later the evening...
      The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
      The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
      And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
      This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

      Comment


      • #4
        Call me an old-fashioned guy, but when I was a young boy, intercontinental airlines showed the flag, and the registration of their headquarters: British Air with G-.. registrations, Alitalia with I-.. registrations, and last but not least, Lufthansa with D-.. registrations.

        Why should that be changed?!

        Imho, that's a question of foreign affairs. I could imagine people who don't know at once, that LH is a German airline. But if they by chance see a LH-B744 on one airport, and they read the registration, they are able to ask one or two people at the airport, what country provides the D-.. registrations.

        That's an identification that shouldn't get lost.
        The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
        The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
        And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
        This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
          Normally, I refuse to be a passenger with airlines which have been established after I became a Jetphotos member. And imho, in case of Chapecoense, such an attitude would've helped...

          But in case of Norwegian Long Haul, it is not a small "airline", with only 1 or 2 aircraft. Something still rang a bell.

          "Two of the aircraft were later grounded because of technical issues." end of the quotation, taken from en wikipedia, January 2017.

          My question is, is this an US-American airline? Afaik, they come from Norway.

          So, who gave them the right to provide flights between JFK and Gatwick, a.o.?

          PS: Btw, that wouldn't be a topic which concerned me, if they weren't trying something comparable on my home airport!
          They bought American aircrafts, what did you expect? Perfection?
          Per

          Sent from my SM-G850F using Tapatalk
          Ancient Mariner
          Certified above and below...................sea level.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
            Call me an old-fashioned guy, but when I was a young boy, intercontinental airlines showed the flag, and the registration of their headquarters: British Air with G-.. registrations, Alitalia with I-.. registrations, and last but not least, Lufthansa with D-.. registrations.

            Why should that be changed?!

            Imho, that's a question of foreign affairs. I could imagine people who don't know at once, that LH is a German airline. But if they by chance see a LH-B744 on one airport, and they read the registration, they are able to ask one or two people at the airport, what country provides the D-.. registrations.

            That's an identification that shouldn't get lost.
            Not that hard to find them really! http://www.avcodes.co.uk/regprefixcur.asp

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
              Call me an old-fashioned guy, but when I was a young boy, intercontinental airlines showed the flag, and the registration of their headquarters: British Air with G-.. registrations, Alitalia with I-.. registrations, and last but not least, Lufthansa with D-.. registrations.

              Why should that be changed?!
              It HAS been changed what with Aeroflot having VP-registered birds, a whole bunch of Central and South American carriers flying N-reg, Alitalia with a few EI- tails, and, closer to home, Sun Country with a PH- bird or two.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
                Call me an old-fashioned guy, but when I was a young boy, intercontinental airlines showed the flag, and the registration of their headquarters: British Air with G-.. registrations, Alitalia with I-.. registrations, and last but not least, Lufthansa with D-.. registrations.

                Why should that be changed?!

                Imho, that's a question of foreign affairs. I could imagine people who don't know at once, that LH is a German airline. But if they by chance see a LH-B744 on one airport, and they read the registration, they are able to ask one or two people at the airport, what country provides the D-.. registrations.

                That's an identification that shouldn't get lost.
                Registrations get changed for political as well as insurance reasons. If I recall correctly, the reason why most Alitalia planes changed to Irish resgistry is because they are leased and not owned and it's cheaper to insure them in Ireland than in Italy. The same goes for the Russian planes with registrations in Bermuda (VP-Bxx).
                As for the Sun Country aircraft in the US flying under Dutch registry (PH-) these are winter leases from Transavia.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Norwegian just announced service between Denver and Gatwick using a 787 aircraft starting in September 2017. I will consider using them but the increased cost and time getting from Gatwick to my UK destinations are deterrents.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
                    Norwegian just announced service between Denver and Gatwick using a 787 aircraft starting in September 2017. I will consider using them but the increased cost and time getting from Gatwick to my UK destinations are deterrents.
                    'Increased cost'?! Compared to what on earth? As I understand the topic - which I've opened because I do not fully understand what they try to sell -
                    it indeed is low-cost carrier.

                    So, what do you mean by 'increased cost'?

                    Btw, is it correct that United Airlines calls Denver a hub, but neither UA, AA nor DL like to fly nonstop to Europe? Don't misunderstand me, I don't complain, especially with this nickname....
                    Denver is a very nice 747 destination. I haven't yet found out what a/c British Air uses for the mile high airport. The market seems to be big enough for more than one 747.

                    But instead of a ... Norwegian (really?) 787, with registration in Istanbul and pilots from Islamabad (?), I'd rather try a

                    VS-B744. If she were available at Denver. Registered and owned by a guy from London, i.e. with a G-.. registration, of course! Old school. I like that.
                    The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
                    The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
                    And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
                    This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      British Airways have been flying to Denver almost every day for close to 20 years now. Equipment has varied between 747 and 777.

                      United have operated non-stop to Heathrow from time to time since around 2000, but they've never really made a success of it. Or at least the aircraft and the Heathrow slot have more value on other routes.

                      Denver to London was first started as long ago as 1981/82 with Western Airlines (remember them ?) using DC-10s. As I recall, a through plane service starting in Anchorage. Amazing really, that long ago.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by HalcyonDays View Post
                        British Airways have been flying to Denver almost every day for close to 20 years now. Equipment has varied between 747 and 777.
                        Indeed. In fact, our gates are right next to them.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
                          ......................
                          So, what do you mean by 'increased cost'?

                          ............... I haven't yet found out what a/c British Air uses for the mile high airport.

                          ....................................
                          I travel to UK destinations north of London. I've flown into Gatwick and to get to central London I have to take a train each way plus I add another hour each way. Gatwick however is a much nicer airport than Heathrow.

                          BA uses a 747 for their LHR-DEN-LHR flight. My wife fly this route a few times a year. When we both travel I use Icelandair because we fly to Manchester or Birmingham (plus we can stretch our legs during the Iceland stop.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X