
Set on the beautiful island of Koh Samui, the third season of The White Lotus is sure to drive an influx of tourists to Thailand, and Norse Atlantic is hoping to tap into the insatiable demand from Brits to visit the popular Southeast Asian country with a new non-stop route from London Gatwick to Bangkok.
The low-cost, long-haul airline is set to go head to head with British Airways, which also operates non-stop flights to the Thai capital from London Gatwick. The carrier will also have to compete with Thai Airways and Eva Air, which operate direct flights from London Heathrow.
Set to take off in October 2025 as a winter seasonal service for Brits desperate to escape the cold for the sticky, tropical heat of Bangkok and surrounding tourist hotspots such as Phuket, Koh Phi Phi, and the aforementioned Koh Samui, Norse will operate up to four flights per week.
Return fares start from as little as £295, including taxes for the most basic Economy ticket, which doesn’t include checked luggage or even any complimentary food or drink onboard for the whole 11-hour flight.
It’s not, however, much more to upgrade Norse Atlantic’s Economy Classic fare which does include checked luggage and food, and it could work out to be more than half the price of choosing a similar ticket type with British Airways.
On the dates that I looked at leaving in October 2025 and returning the following month, Norse Atlantic cost just £407, whereas a comparable flight with British Airways would set you back as much as £827.
It’s also worth mentioning that while British Airways uses aging Boeing 777 aircraft, nearly a quarter of a century old, Norse Atlantic operates an all-Boeing 787 Dreamliner fleet with jet-lag-busting features.
Norse Atlantic offers 282 Economy Class seats and 56 Premium Economy seats on its Dreamliners, whereas passengers looking for a little more luxury will still be better off flying with British Airways for its Club World fully-flat Business Class cabin.
Although Norse Atlantic launched as a transatlantic low-cost airline, the carrier is no stranger to Bangkok, having already launched flights to the city from its Scandinavian hubs in Oslo and Stockholm.
“We’re excited to launch direct flights between London Gatwick and Bangkok, a top choice among our travelers,” explained Bjørn Tore Larsen, Norse Atlantic’s founder and chief executive.
“This addition not only strengthens our existing network between Asia but also builds on our routes from London Gatwick to destinations across the Atlantic and South Africa.”
Last October, Norse Atlantic also challenged British Airways by launching a winter seasonal service to Cape Town, and yet again, fares were more than half the price of the British flag carrier’s.
In recent months, Norse Atlantic has been pivoting its business strategy to become a hybrid airline in which it not only operates its own route network but also charters out its planes to other carriers.
Earlier this month, Norse Atlantic announced that it had reached an agreement with India’s largest airline, IndiGo, to wet-lease one of its 787 Dreamliners for at least six months starting in March to help IndiGo expand its international route network with long-haul destinations.
Norse Atlantic is hopeful that it can wet-lease even more of its planes to IndiGo on a longer-term basis, although negotiations are still ongoing.
Mateusz Maszczynski honed his skills as an international flight attendant at the most prominent airline in the Middle East and has been flying ever since... most recently for a well known European airline. Matt is passionate about the aviation industry and has become an expert in passenger experience and human-centric stories. Always keeping an ear close to the ground, Matt's industry insights, analysis and news coverage is frequently relied upon by some of the biggest names in journalism.
bullshit! the prices quotes are ONE WAY. When you get a return tickey from BKG to LON its EXACTLY the same price. What shit journalism!
“More than half….” What does that mean?
Absolutely – what he means is LESS than half the price, although I’m not entirely sure that’s true. Lousy writing / poor English either way.