Talk:Norwegian Long Haul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Head Office[edit]

Surly there head office is at Dublin, they are recruiting staff to manage the operation.

http://www.norwegian.com/about-norwegian/jobs-in-norwegian/

Jamie2k9 (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Longhaul is a sister company under the parent company Norwegian Air Shuttle. Norwegian Air Shuttle's head office is in Oslo, Norway. Not Dublin, Ireland. It would be wrong to claim that the headoffice is in Dublin, as the longhaul operation is just one part under the parent company. Mortyman (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mortyman Jamie2k9 This airline is Irish. The AOC is different from Norwegian Air Shuttle and given to Norwegian Air International (Collinstown House, Dublin Airport, Co. Dublin, Tel: +353 1 8141876, Fax: +353 1 8141839). If we follow your recommendations, I suggest Norwegian Long Haul article should be merged with Norwegian Air Shuttle article. If not, please consider to support correct head office address based on the actual AOC. Moresonic (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

I can see a reason for having a criticism section but it may be getting to big for the size of the article and with respect to WP:WEIGHT. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne: The first sections are newly revised, with some repeating information, however keeping solid context of information available with various references for content (pilots, mechanics, attendants, media, passengers, appeal board, other involved airlines, key politicians, parties and largest union in Norway). Some information, e.g. Qatar comparison and amount of information regarding Roger Handeland comments, can be considered repetitive and could be debated for removal(?). The last sections are still overlapping. There is a lot of information (repetitive) about USA unions' claims and similar, with the same overlapping amount of airline response, also unnecessary long text about Ireland. These sections should also be revised with better context and more references, but the author(s) has to be able to understand the context here and I suspect that until now this section has had NPOV issues. A way to easier and faster solve the problem you adress could be to make headings under the criticism section (as with Norwegian Air Shuttle). In this case e.g. delay related, outsourcing related, relocation related, USA operations related, would be a better option in my opinion, also regarding frames for clearer future revisions. What do you think? (Moresonic Moresonic (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The critisism section is getting way to large. If it's really nessisery to have this , then it should be made into a different article with only a link to this article. Otherwise, the critisism section here, seriously need to be reduced Mortyman (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check the previous point, Mortyman, "The last sections are still overlapping. There is a lot of information (repetitive) about USA unions' claims and similar, with the same overlapping amount of airline response, also unnecessary long text about Ireland." When these sections are revised the amount would not be inappropriate. Also, consider sub-indexing the criticism section as with e.g. Ryanair and Norwegian Air Shuttle. The same sub-indexing should be used in this article, as suggested. However, MilborneOne should give some feedback on this as a Wikipedia appointed administrator. Moresonic (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being an Admin doesnt give me any more rights in a discussion on content, that said it is way over the top and takes up a a large part if not most of the article. And anything that needs 11 citations like the first paragraph is a clear red flag that the content is dubious or non-neutral in some way. If others think that all this criticism is really needed then perhaps spin it of to another article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The critisism section had become to large and has now been moved to a seperate article. I decided to do it, as no one else seem to want to. Please continue adding relevant and neutral info to the new section.Mortyman (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne|talk made an expected remark to the article based on weight, not on content. He said he could see a reason for the section, but that its size was to big. Then, after revision, several solutions were presented to him/her along with recommendations to future revisions, and after months of his/her first initial remark to the article, no replies were made until a request was posted on his personal page. Whole section of users' contribution are now gone. As he/she is an admin, I would like to see him/her watch out for citations in the Norwegian article(s) with references made to Norwegian's own documents to U.S. authorities, clearly controversial, instead of being upset that that registered Wikipedia users follow Wikipedia recommendations to cite their sources properly from several neutral sources - especially when the airline has been found to use agencies for internet criticism of competitors in the past. Red flag, indeed... Mortyman|talk I can't find that new article of yours. Might it have been removed too? Moresonic (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Criticism against Norwegian Air International Limited was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism against Norwegian Air International Limited without anybody really involved in it. That said the discussion said we should add the criticism section back but we still need to be wary of weight and not let it take over the article. Clearly some smoke and mirrors going on with all the different companies but it cant be hard to find some sources to provide a balanced criticism section. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute recommendation followed after it seems everything has happened according to good Wiki-culture this far: I drastically reduced size of the section now. MilborneOne says it cannot be to hard to find balanced sources, so, 6 well used hours of my weekend should have been efficient enough to make the section more compact and less biased. If not, please revise and/or give some constructive feedback, it's not that hard... Moresonic (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some good work Moresonic reads and explains the issues a lot better. It may have be that you now have to many references for some of the individual sentences! that said I dont have a problem with the new content, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further info on controversy. TGCP (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I removed the critisism section as it was getting too large and was not really uppdated to give the reader insight into progression of the issues and how things stand today. The section gives a very one sided view and is clearly written by a person with a non neutral view. The airline has through several years of factchecking by both the EU aviation authroities and the US Dot been accepted and there has been found no legal reason to deny the airline any permits. " Wolbo " keep reverting my deletion back. Mortyman (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

It seems that the name of the airline is Norwegian Air International, whereas Norwegian Long Haul appears to be made-up. YSSYguy (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Long Haul AS is a Norwegian company with ICAO code NLH//NORSTAR, Norwegian Air International is an Irish company with ICAO code IBK/NORTRANS so two seperate legal entities. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand the situation, the Irish company is the operator of the aircraft, so perhaps we should move the article to the other name and deal with the situation regarding the two companies in the article text - or to put it another way, I see no need for two articles. YSSYguy (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree but the prime article should be the one who operate the aircraft on the Irish-AOC which I understand is Norwegian Air International although before it had a proper AOC the 787s sometimes used NLH/NORSTAR hence a bit of confusion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently contradicts itself, stating that Norwegian Long Haul operates the flights for Norwegian Air Shuttle, but later that NLH doesn't operate the routes it flies but instead uses its spare capacity to fulfill NAS's needs. Is it correct to say, then, that flights marketed as Norwegian Air Shuttle (or simply ”Norwegian”) on long-haul routes (eg. to US) are ”operated” by Norwegian Long Haul? Or Norwegian Air International? I'm specifically asking this to figure out what belongs in the Airline/Destinations section of airport articles. AHeneen (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AHeneen MilborneOne YSSYguy The difference between long haul / air int. and air shuttle are the companies registration and license localisations, not their public profile, flying aircrafts in identical livery and with media responses given by the same spokespersons and CEO. Consider merging the two articles into one, explaining the separation, or keep both articles and change "head office" to Ireland (country of AOC and recipient of all the airline's taxes). Moresonic (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, Norwegian Long Haul and Norwegian Air International are both subsidiaries of Norwegian Air Shuttle. Is this correct? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blaylockjam10 Norwegian Long Haul is registered in Norway with CEO Asgeir Nyseth. In Ireland he holds CEO position in Norwegian Air International, which is associated with 3 other companies also registered in Ireland: Norwegian air resources holding limited, Norwegian assets limited and Norwegian brand limited. All these 4 companies are located and registered in Ireland, along with all the Dreamliners operating in the Norwegian livery. The AOC is also given to NAI (registered and located in Ireland). Capital is transferred from Norway to Ireland, observed by the media and confirmed by Norwegian Air Shuttle. Their own name for their Dreamliner operations is Long Haul (as the name of this article), but the companies are Irish, though having their officially registered directors located in 3 different countries (Norway, Sweden and Ireland), and not Norway alone. Moresonic (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operating bases[edit]

Bangkok, Fort Lauderdale and New York-JFK are listed as operating bases. From what I understand, the airline simply bases its cabin crew at those locations. Shouldn't it be more appropriate to list Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm as operating bases? Thenoflyzone (talk)

Oslo and Stockholm are not Long Haul bases at all. CPH is pilot only.
Cabin crew are based out of JFK, FLL, LAX, BCN, FCO, CDG, and BKK. (NUK LGW)
Flight crew are based out of AMS, CPH, FCO, BCN, CDG, and BKK. (NUK LGW)
(AMS base has closed since I made the preceding post. It appears both BKK bases will also close. CPH while no longer a destination for Long haul NAS flights has had no announcements of closure as a base.)MrLincoln (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page should either be deleted or greatly modified to represent reality[edit]

NLH is not an operational AOC. All Norwegian Long Haul flights are operated by NAS/NSE(Long haul flights to Continental Europe) or NUK (Long haul flights to the UK). No flights use the DU code- All use DY (DI for flights to London). All flights have NOR SHUTTLE or REDNOSE callsigns, not NORSTAR.

This page should somehow reflect the reality of these operations (and therefore fully include Norwegian UK Long Haul), or perhaps simply be deleted. MrLincoln (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norwegian_Long_Haul&oldid=1204340286"