Norwegian Moves London Flights From Oakland And Fort Lauderdale To San Francisco And Miami

Despite a turbulent year where it looked like Norwegian could be acquired by their biggest competitor, IAG (which owns British Airways and Iberia), Norwegian continues to expand, and just recently announced a new route to Rio de Janeiro.

Norwegian operates a range of transatlantic routes using their 787 aircraft, with a particular focus on routes from London Gatwick to destinations in the US. They do mostly fly to the ‘primary’ airports in each US city they serve (like Los Angeles’ LAX and and New York’s JFK), though in San Francisco and Miami they have chosen to fly to the ‘secondary’ airports instead, Oakland and Fort Lauderdale.

This strategy makes sense where landing fees would be cheaper than flying to the primary airports in each city/region, given Norwegian is technically a low cost carrier.

Their biggest competitor, British Airways, already flies to Miami as well as San Francisco. British Airways is by far the biggest European airline in the US in terms of destinations served.

Once Norwegian announced flights to Oakland and Fort Lauderdale, British Airways followed. British Airways has since cancelled their Oakland route.

Norwegian has just announced they will be moving their Oakland flights to San Francisco’s SFO airport, and their Fort Lauderdale flights to Miami’s MIA airport, as of March 31, 2019 (update: Norwegian ended up moving all of their flights from OAK to SFO).

They have said given four reasons for the decision:

  • Better yields — by flying to the premium, primary airport in each city they should be able to charge more for their fares, noting the landing fees are likely higher in the primary airports so their costs will be greater, hence why they chose the cheaper secondary airports to start with
  • Better cargo opportunities — large logistics companies would rather collect cargo at primary airports where they already have facilities than secondary airports
  • Visibility in more search engines — if you search ‘San Francisco’ in a flight search engine some will only show SFO, while others will suggest adding OAK as well; some passengers would not realise Oakland is a secondary San Francisco area airport, so would not think to book a flight landing there
  • Attracting premium passengers — who would look to fly to the business airports of SFO and MIA rather than the less convenient, more leisure focused airports of OAK and FLL

Norwegian will continue to service Fort Lauderdale and Oakland from other European destinations like Barcelona, Copenhagen and Paris-Orly, but considers its London Gatwick flights as its most premium transatlantic flights, hence why they are the first to be ‘upgraded.’

Bottom line

Norwegian’s strategy has been unpredictable in the past, and Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary has again said Norwegian does not have enough free cash to last through this coming Northern winter, which is a much quieter travel period.

I really like Norwegian, so its great to see them ‘upgrade’ their flights to more premium, primary airports. If the four reasons they have given above are indeed true, it shows a maturity and focus that will be needed if they are to survive long term as a carrier.

What do you make of Norwegian upgrading these destinations?

Conversations (25)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Gray Guest

Switching Oakland to SFO makes a *lot* of sense (for the reasons you mentioned). Fort Lauderdale to Miami? Not as much in my mind, if only because Miami has a rather lousy reputation for being overcrowded and having issues with immigration lines (due to being a major hub for travel from the Caribbean). With that being said, MIA probably has more connection possibilities.

0
‼ 0
Credit Guest

Will they upgrade the passengers as well? Whereas Norwegian isn’t Ryanscare, they still fly way too many chavs across the world.

0
‼ 0
Greg N Guest

@pushslice - From someone who grew up in the Bay Area, nice use of the term, "hella".

0
‼ 0
EthaninSF Guest

As a 10 year+ resident of San Francisco and a California resident all my life, I can say that OAK has a perception/visibility problem (even though it is not deserved). I know many San Francisco residents who often overlook OAK as an option, simply because they forget about it. Or are not even aware of its international flights. At times, I even have to remember to go back and add in OAK into my searches when checking flight prices because it does not always auto populate when searching "San Francisco". Also since WN is the dominant carrier at the airport, a lot of fares won't show up in most OTA searches. I can understand that people who are from out of town don't even realize it is an option or realize that it is quite convenient to San Francisco itself. The truth is that OAK is actually fewer stops from downtown San Francisco than SFO when using BART public transit.

0
‼ 0
CraigTPA Guest

Not sure I entirely buy the move from OAK to SFO - the search engine visibility argument makes some sense, and if there's high-yield freight originating in SF itself or in San Mateo County their flights would be more attractive if shippers didn't have to cross a bridge. The "business airport" argument is more mixed - with the BART shuttle train to OAK you can get from OAK to downtown SF just as fast as you can from SFO. If your destination is on the Peninsula, then SFO has the advantage, and if you're going to the East Bay, "Contracostapolis", or further afield and you're going to rent a car, OAK is easier. Higher yields? Unless Norwegian really aims to attract a lot of business travelers, I just don't see yields increasing to the point of offsetting the increased expenses at SFO. I flew in and out of OAK for the first time for Thanksgiving travel, and while the airport could certainly use a fresh-up and some better food options (or at least some that open in time for the first flights of the day), it was convenient, especially as I was driving to Eureka and OAK meant one less bridge (or scenic but slow drive through SF itself) to deal with. Can't speak as readily to FLL vs MIA - perhaps some connecting freight from the smaller Latin American airlines?

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Keep Exploring OMAAT