Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Latest On SAS Widebody Fleet  
User currently offlineFlybynight From Norway, joined Jul 2003, 1031 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5891 times:

There was talk about all sorts of things that SK might do to extend their long haul fleet.
We've discussed wet lease of some 767's (esp 762 ER's). Or purschase of an A332 or two. Even a 757 for a EWR to OSL flight.

Anything new come out of all this?  scratchchin 


Heia Norge!
38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKLM685 From Mexico, joined May 2005, 1577 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5812 times:

Quoting Flybynight (Thread starter):
We've discussed wet lease of some 767's

Right now MX is leasing one of SK's 767 for their MEX-EZE route. Bad strategy from SK to lease airplanes that they are now desperate to use. Ever since CO started the EWR - OSL route, SK has been losing quite an interesting amount of market that they should be taking. Though if CO uses the 757, then they should think wisely and not use something crazy, otherwise the excess of supply will affect SK more than it will to CO. They have to make some smart moves there.

OTOH, as far as I know there are no plans to move more to this crazy widebody fleet that SK has. They are focusing more in their single aisle aircrafts for their European market.

Alonsou



KLM- The Best Airline in the World!
User currently offlineBaw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2028 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5723 times:

Why is SK leasing aircraft to MX when they need capacity of their own?

Also, can someone explain to me why people are criticizing SKs long haul fleet? They have a mix of A340s and A330s for long and medium haul flying. Is the issue they do not have enough of them? or is it that they are badly utilized?

Can someone explain further...I don't have enough information to comment on SKs fleet situation.

Thanks
baw716



David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offlineMaersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 717 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5664 times:

Are you sure you know, what you are talking about Alonsou ?

Cheers

Peter



I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 859 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5629 times:

How about those A332 *BlueWings* standing on the tarmac in Germany (Stuttgart?) for SK?

I dont think SK getting B767´s back in the fleet again, but thats my humble opinion.

Hejdå

Mike//SE Big grin



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineOrion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5598 times:

Dont get me started BAW716 on SAS's fleet planning!

For a start they pruchased aircraft which were far too big for their many of their long-haul routes. They should have opted for the A330-200 as opposed to the larger 300 for kick off. They had to scrap the OSL-EWR and cant restart because they dont have a suitably sized aircarft, the smallest they can put on to that would be the 330-300, way too big.

They also have trouble starting new long-haul routes as they dont have a smaler aircarft to build up a new route.

I bet at this very moment, the moron at SAS fleet planning are thinking secretly of ordering a couple of A340-600s or even perhaps an A380 Big grin

As for short haul, well just dont get me started


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 859 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5575 times:

Orion737;

Ill get you started: Youre thoughs about the SAS short houl?

Mike//SE  Confused



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineBaw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2028 posts, RR: 27
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5273 times:

Orion,
Thanks for your post. I thought my Scandinavian friends were a little more astute about their fleet planning.

Back in the late 1980's, one of SKs issues was that they had too much capacity and that they had to slim it down to one fleet type. Hence, they replaced their DC-10s with an all 767 fleet. This was a good idea from the passenger side, but it killed them for cargo. In fact, they had to wet lease 747s from Atlas Air to function as their cargo operation, because they could not utilize the 767 for cargo. Some of the routes they flew with the 767, e.g. ARN-SIN, nonstop, required certain weight restrictions to make it nonstop with a full passenger load, hence all the cargo was pulled off. I flew many times in all classes on the DC10 and on the 767; I must admit that the DC10 was a much more comfortable seat; however, the 767 introduced leg rests to Euroclass for the first time and that made a considerable difference in comfort. In fact, the day after I got married, SAS flew me to Europe on my honeymoon, in Business Class no less (courtesy of SAS....I was an RVC Member Travel agent at the time). I just remember getting the royal treatment, including a special ceremony on board with the Captain coming out and giving us a toast (he was drinking mineral water...no worries) and sharing around a cake boarding from the station, which we shared with everyone else in Business Class.

Back to the subject. According to SAS, they needed the greater capacity and did not want to be constrained by ETOPS, so they opted for the A340. I felt personally that this was a bad error, in that they could purchase the 777 for their long haul needs and keep the 763s for there thin market needs and they would have been much better off. Later they purchased the A330-300, again which also baffled me, since it had the same configuration as the A340, but was used on transatlantic routes to the east coast of the US.

I try not to be critical of SK, because over the course of twenty years, I have had a close personal relationship with the Seattle office and there is nothing that I would not do for them, and of course, the reverse is also true.

That said, I do have to question the wisdom of disposing of the 767s they had in their fleet for operating thin passenger routes like OSL-EWR and ARN-EWR. Of course, from CPH, you could fill up a A330 or A340 (the Seattle loads are pretty consistently full, even in winter they run with about an 80% load factor) and run it to any SAS destination in North America. I cannot speak to the Asian markets, because I don't have access to those figures.

I believe a better mix would have been the 777-200ER and the 767-300ER, and if the aircraft were becoming old, then they could have ordered more 767-300ERs and sold the old ones. They would have fetched top dollar due to the top notch condition they would have been in due to the quality of SAS Maintenance.

My recommendation at this stage would be for SAS to purchase and or lease 777-200ERs and retain the 763s they have, purchase some good second hand 763 equipment, preferably a fleet sitting on the ground (there are also 777-200ERs fleets sitting on the ground in the desert). They could acquire them quickly, have them refit for their business class product, which needs to be updated to a bed product anyway, and fix the seating with the PTVs in the back and start introducing them into their intercontinental market.

As for Europe, they need to dump every MD80 they have in favor of the 737NG. More economical, more flexible, longer range. They ordered quite a lot of them from Boeing, in fact they were the launch customer for the -600. The MD80, 50s etc. are older and gas pigs. If SAS needs to acquire more 737NGs, they lease them. There are plenty sitting around.

The time is now for SAS to move, before the Kroner starts to move down against the US dollar, then it will be more difficult to obtain these aircraft at an economical price.

Orion, does this make sense?

baw716



David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offlineSAS_A330-300 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5163 times:

Quoting Baw716 (Reply 7):
That said, I do have to question the wisdom of disposing of the 767s they had in their fleet for operating thin passenger routes like OSL-EWR and ARN-EWR.

It's hard to say where the lines goes between routes which thin and not thin. But I wouldn't say that ARN-EWR is a thin route as it is currently operated by three carriers (SK/333, MH/744 and CO/752).

Quoting Baw716 (Reply 7):
The time is now for SAS to move, before the Kroner starts to move down against the US dollar, then it will be more difficult to obtain these aircraft at an economical price.

It's already falling....


User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3186 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5111 times:

Quoting Baw716 (Reply 7):
As for Europe, they need to dump every MD80 they have in favor of the 737NG. More economical, more flexible, longer range.

I think for now it is wise to keep the MD80s for a while. They have many routes that don't need the extra range, all kind of intra-scandinavian routes, routes, to the Netherlands, Germany and the UK, etc. Leases on new airplanes cost money too!

Quoting Baw716 (Reply 7):
If SAS needs to acquire more 737NGs, they lease them. There are plenty sitting around.

AFAIK, the 737NG's are very hard to obtain and there are only very few on the 2nd hand market. Do you have more information?

Quoting Baw716 (Reply 7):
My recommendation at this stage would be for SAS to purchase and or lease 777-200ERs and retain the 763s they have, purchase some good second hand 763 equipment, preferably a fleet sitting on the ground (there are also 777-200ERs fleets sitting on the ground in the desert).

Why 777-200ERs? They do have the A340-300s, and have no complaints or whatsoever about those aircraft. They are new, working well in the fleet on the longer routes (you just stated that SEA-CPH gets filled easily) - why change it for a type similar in capacity and range. And all the costs involved: aquiering new aircraft, retraining cabin crew, having to do with ETOPS, etc, etc. That will be a waste of money!

A more logical choice IMO would be to acquire some 332s, to meet demand on routes likes EWR-OSL. It will also fit easily in their fleet. But those 332 are very rare on the 2nd hand market.

I think that acquiring 763s only for the OSL-EWR route would just be another step in the program "how do we get as much types in our fleet as possible". Why don't they just forget about the OSL-EWR route, and focus on other things? (like the rumoured CPH-SFO)


User currently offlineDABZF From Germany, joined Mar 2004, 1202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5035 times:

Quoting Baw716 (Reply 7):
Later they purchased the A330-300, again which also baffled me, since it had the same configuration as the A340,

... Referring to above... As far as I'm aware only difference between SK A343 and A333 is that later has 2000Km less range, has slightly smaller fuel consumption, and slightly smaller payload (a ton if I remember correctly). I also assume that A333 is slightly cheaper than A343? From the range point of view I think that the A333 range would just be enough for their longest route - assuming CPH-BKK?

What have made them buy both of them?

[Edited 2005-07-27 23:23:16]


I like driving backwards in the fog cause it doesn't remind me of anything - Chris Cornell
User currently offlineSAS330GOT From Sweden, joined May 2004, 252 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4996 times:

I am with the people saying that SAS will not get the 767, the cost behind introducing a new kind of aircraft is to big. There are probably still SK pilots that have 767 rating but the A333 pilots would not need anything but know the route for the A332. I love to fly the A333 but I also agree that the best thing they could do is A332's as they could open flights ending in MSP or BOS ,like GOT-MSP (where I get a plane for myselft!). At least ARN-BOS. I belive there would be a good load factor on these, As many swede's have relatives in the states. The options from Sweden is ARN-EWR, ARN- ORD, Or ARN-SEA, With SAS. FI flies to CPH and ARN through KEF. A 757 going direct routes would be good. Finnair flies HEL skavsta BOS with a 757. This is what SAS needs.

The problem is the cash. I think there is a market but it is not year round. I love SAS, I am booked to GOT-MSP on 5th sept. But they have two big problems. One, The website, Good looking and quite functional but not compatable with Mac, And many PC's.
Two, money. They are not as bad as others but everyone needs it especially an airline.

I love SAS, they have pulled up from the dirt and offers a good product but a little outdated Busniess product. But the window in the Lav is nice.

my  twocents 

Sas330got


User currently offlineBaw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2028 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4786 times:

If SAS is intent on staying with the A330, then I agree, it should be the A332 and not the A333. BTW, the A332 can make it all the way to the west coast from CPH and should be used on CPH-SFO if they decide to open that route. I think that CPH-SFO is going to be a little risky, since the Scandinavian base in SFO is not as solid as in SEA. SFO also does not have the feed in traffic either (nor does SEA, but SEA fills the aircraft on its own, which is why the route is so unique for SAS).

I only suggested the 763 since they still have some in their fleet. As to the 777-200, it was my impression that they were unhappy about the performance of the A340s and might be interested in making a change. If they did so, they need to make a fleet simplification, down to three aircraft types. This is why I suggested the 772ER, the 763 and the 737NG. With these three aircraft, SAS can cover its entire route net and have the proper size aircraft to be able to meet the needs of its entire route net, from intra Scandinavia all the way to CPH-SIN (which I believe is their longest nonstop route).

I am very much on fleet rationalization, not adding more aircraft to the mix. I'm sorry if I gave that impression, but that is not what I was attempting to communicate.

baw716



David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3186 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4707 times:

Quoting Baw716 (Reply 12):
SFO also does not have the feed in traffic either

Isn't SFO a UA / Star hub anymore??

Quoting DABZF (Reply 10):
only difference between SK A343 and A333 is that later has 2000Km less range, has slightly smaller fuel consumption, and slightly smaller payload (a ton if I remember correctly). I also assume that A333 is slightly cheaper than A343 (...)
What have made them buy both of them?

They bought the A333 because it has smaller fuel consumption and it is cheaper, to use on routes where the 343 range is not needed.


User currently offlineHeisan67 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4707 times:

SAS shouldn't have any problems starting a longhaul route from OSL...if they just start thinking long term.
Today many Norwegians fly Finnair to HEL to board planes to Asia...Finnair is planning even more nonstop flights from Bergen and Stavanger in Norway to HEL in order to get even more Norwegians on their planes. SAS does "nada".

Norwegians find it strange that SAS let CO operates the only USA-route from Oslo. PIA operates 2-3 weekly wide body flights to Pakistan.

SAS should start a service to USA from OSL, but not perhaps New York isn't the right destination...why not try someting else....

Oslo-Bangkok nonstop wouldn't be any problem. Who comes first...Thai or SAS? My guess is Thai of course.


User currently offlineMaersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 717 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4629 times:

Quoting Heisan67 (Reply 14):
Oslo-Bangkok nonstop wouldn't be any problem. Who comes first...Thai or SAS? My guess is Thai of course.

Yes, if SAS can´t get hold of some extra widebody planes in due time.

Cheers

Peter



I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
User currently offlineDABZF From Germany, joined Mar 2004, 1202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4620 times:

Quoting Joost (Reply 13):
They bought the A333 because it has smaller fuel consumption and it is cheaper, to use on routes where the 343 range is not needed.

... yeah but I think A333 would do all the routes of SK?

Quoting Baw716 (Reply 12):
CPH-SIN (which I believe is their longest nonstop route).

... isn't CPH-SIN via BKK?



I like driving backwards in the fog cause it doesn't remind me of anything - Chris Cornell
User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3186 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4621 times:

Quoting Heisan67 (Reply 14):
Oslo-Bangkok nonstop wouldn't be any problem. Who comes first...Thai or SAS? My guess is Thai of course.

I suppose that a OSL-BKK flight will be mostly tourists. Nothing wrong with that, but that is very seasonal. And a daily widebody is a whole lot of people. However, for vacation flights, frequency is less important. They can work very well on a once- or twice-weekly basis.

Thai has an advantageous position here, as they can easier offer connections in BKK, to other asian and australian destinations.

There is another reason why it is difficult in Norway, that is that so many people live so far away from OSL that they'd fly to OSL anyway. Here, it does not matter timewise if people fly BGO-OSL-BKK, BGO-CPH-BKK, BGO-AMS-BKK or BGO-HEL-BKK. Due to this geographics, it is not such a strange choice for SAS to focus everything to one hub - CPH - that is strong for O&D (intrascandinavian) too.


User currently offlineFBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4578 times:

Any plans for Boeings in SAS Intercont. division has been abandoned.The only plans for the time being is the lease of 2 new-build A332's.
Problem is that the board of Directors want the pilot union to agree on further concessions (and ONLY the pilots,not flight attendants,ground handling,technical services,etc.) before the planes will be leased.The union opposes this as we have an agreement that last until next spring (2006).If the pilots are to give concessions every time the company needs a new plane,we're in deep s***! We've got well-paid people in the organization to decide whether we need new planes or not.It's not the pilots job to do that.
Start-up of OSL-EWR v.v and ARN-PEK v.v. is now scheduled for fall 2006.I'm transferring from the MD-80 onto the A340 this coming winter because of this.
Seems our worst enemy these days is our leadership,not competition!



"Luck and superstition wins all the time"!
User currently offlineMaersk737 From Denmark, joined Feb 2004, 717 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4562 times:

Quoting FBU 4EVER! (Reply 18):
Seems our worst enemy these days is our leadership,not competition!

Or maybe the pilots  Wink

Cheers

Peter



I'm not proud to be a Viking, just thankfull
User currently offline747400F From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4567 times:

SAS will in its present form not survive long! Why?

1) Slow And Sloppy Shorthaul: They cant seem to decide what the want to be full service or lack of service. The total disregard SAS have for European shorthaul economy pax is a disgrace. How can they expect punters from all over Europe to fly to CPH to connect to the intercontinental routes when they experience two very different products? One might aswell fly FRaudAir rather that SAS, at least FR is cheaper and more reliable.

2) Strike Always Strike: Is there any other airline with staff that go on strike more often that SAS?

3) Sorry About Service Longhaul: The 340/330 yet no so old - are starting to look very worn and tired already on the inside. The staff attitude onboard leaves a lot to be desired - very clearly there is no enjoyment on their part with the job they are doing. The inflight entertaiment system is outdated compared to quality airlines like QF's aircraft of same type (330)
The network is too stable at the moment - no expansion when all competitors are all on the move. Other airlines expand in India - SAS closes down their only route! (DEL)
Middle east is expansion area big-time for most other airlines - what does SAS do? They send a few stray 737-800 in all economy config (i.e.. no-service config) from ARN-THR and CPH-BEY/CAI)

Today we see LH posting an increase in pax load ex Norway for June of 30+% could that be because pax choose a carrier that provides a decent product in all classes and in fact fly where people need to go - and still get good Euro-bonus points? Maybe SAS should learn from LH - or even better for the Scandinavian people LH could take over SAS.


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2305 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4511 times:

Quoting Baw716 (Reply 12):
I only suggested the 763 since they still have some in their fleet. As to the 777-200, it was my impression that they were unhappy about the performance of the A340s and might be interested in making a change. If they did so, they need to make a fleet simplification, down to three aircraft types. This is why I suggested the 772ER, the 763 and the 737NG. With these three aircraft, SAS can cover its entire route net and have the proper size aircraft to be able to meet the needs of its entire route net, from intra Scandinavia all the way to CPH-SIN (which I believe is their longest nonstop route).

I really think that getting more airplane types into their fleet is the last thing SAS needs. Instead of introducing 772ER now, I suggest that it would be far wiser for SAS to lease a few A332s until the B787 or A350 comes along. And then to switch the whole long haul fleet to one of those two types.

But when it comes to SAS, I would not be surprised if they would introduce a couple of 763ERs now, and then also order the A350, so that in a few years time, they will operate the 763, A333, A343 and A350!

Quoting Joost (Reply 17):
I suppose that a OSL-BKK flight will be mostly tourists. Nothing wrong with that, but that is very seasonal. And a daily widebody is a whole lot of people. However, for vacation flights, frequency is less important. They can work very well on a once- or twice-weekly basis.

Thai has an advantageous position here, as they can easier offer connections in BKK, to other asian and australian destinations.

Thai does not have any advantage over SK here, since they are in Star together. SK sells tickets to all over Asia with TG as the connecting carrier. If you buy a ticket in Oslo to Hong Kong, you will be routed OSL-CPH-BKK with SK and then BKK-HKG with TG. And that means that an OSL-BKK flight could also be used for business passengers destined for all kinds of Asian destinations. And by routing pax from BGO and SVG through OSL, a few seats on CPH-BKK would be freed up.

Quoting 747400F (Reply 20):
Today we see LH posting an increase in pax load ex Norway for June of 30+% could that be because pax choose a carrier that provides a decent product in all classes and in fact fly where people need to go - and still get good Euro-bonus points? Maybe SAS should learn from LH - or even better for the Scandinavian people LH could take over SAS.

This is really true. SK is more and more becoming a feeder carrier for LH flights.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineJoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3186 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4415 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 21):
Thai does not have any advantage over SK here, since they are in Star together.

Being in the same alliance is not at all the same as being one company. When SK puts people on TG flight, they just pay TG for that. They need to earn their money on the legs they operate themselves. For the OSL-HKG flight, SAS needs to earn enough on the OSL-CPH-BKK legs to cover the costs to pay TG for BKK-HKG. Yes, they will have a good deal due to the amount of passengers they feed, but they are still two different companies. Thai instead, can earn money on both the OSL-BKK leg and the BKK-HKG leg. When they would do a NW-KL like codeshare with shared revenue, it would be difference of course.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 21):
SK sells tickets to all over Asia with TG as the connecting carrier. If you buy a ticket in Oslo to Hong Kong, you will be routed OSL-CPH-BKK with SK and then BKK-HKG with TG. And that means that an OSL-BKK flight could also be used for business passengers destined for all kinds of Asian destinations. And by routing pax from BGO and SVG through OSL, a few seats on CPH-BKK would be freed up.

Is the CPH-BKK flight so full that they actually want to free up seats?

Next to that, to make a business flight OSL-BKK-HKG work fine, you need it a thigh frequencies, preferably daily. And as I mentioned above, I just think there is not enough market from the 500.000 people in Oslo to asian destinations to fill up 250 seats every day. That would mean that one out of 5 inhabitans of Oslo will go to Asia at least once a year. From BGO and SVG, connecting in OSL is not so much easier than CPH.

And for business travelers from BGO and SVG: they can get daily to the most important asian destinations on KL and LH by connecting in AMS or FRA! I assume BGO-AMS-HKG or BGO-FRA-HKG are still prefered above BGO-OSL-BKK-HKG.


User currently offlineSk945 From Sweden, joined May 2002, 432 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4385 times:

SAS have stoped all code share with TG from Scandinavia to BKK, so I can't see that a there will be any SAS pax on a future OSL-BKK flight with TG.

From November this year TG will fly 6 weekly ARN-BKK and daily CPH-BKK with B744 without any code share pax from SAS.

And a coment to the discusion about SAS choise of l/h planes and thin routes. I know that the bot US routes from ARN have a very high load factor. That's not the problem. The problem is the yield.


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2305 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4354 times:

Quoting Joost (Reply 22):
Yes, they will have a good deal due to the amount of passengers they feed, but they are still two different companies. Thai instead, can earn money on both the OSL-BKK leg and the BKK-HKG leg.

Correct. But the situation today is that many people in Norway fly SK from OSL to CPH or BKK, and then continue with TG from those cities. In this case, SK will only make money on the intra-Scandinavian flight.

Quoting Joost (Reply 22):
Is the CPH-BKK flight so full that they actually want to free up seats?

I don't know about SK load factor from CPH. But TG is this year increasing their capacity to ARN with 50 percent (from 4 to 6 weekly), and at CPH with 17 percent (from 6 to 7 weekly). The overall TG capacity between Scandinavia and Thailand is far above the SK capacity.

Quoting Joost (Reply 22):
And as I mentioned above, I just think there is not enough market from the 500.000 people in Oslo to asian destinations to fill up 250 seats every day.

Stockholm is approximately twice as big as Oslo. This coming winter, there will be 6 weekly TG 744 ARN-BKK, 3 weekly MH 744 ARN-KUL, plus SweFly will launch a daily 762 service NYO-BKK. That's more than 5,000 scheduled seats per week between Stockholm and South East Asia, plus the charter carriers. A daily A332 from OSL-BKK would only be 1,500 seats per week, or one third that of Stockholm's flights. (By the way, I don't know if the A332 would be able to do OSL-BKK nonstop with an economical load.)

Quoting Joost (Reply 22):
they can get daily to the most important asian destinations on KL and LH by connecting in AMS or FRA! I assume BGO-AMS-HKG or BGO-FRA-HKG are still prefered above BGO-OSL-BKK-HKG.

I agree that most pax from BGO and SVG would prefer a single transfer in AMS or FRA. But even without the pax from these cities, I think that Oslo and the rest of Norway could support a daily A332 flight to Bangkok, IF it's possible to do it nonstop, that is.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
25 Billy : Sas' problems are more fundamental than dropping one fleet and acquiring another. They are screwed financially. Even if they wanted (and they do) they
26 Post contains images RedChili : Hmmmm. I don't want to help them in that way. I want to help them by giving them all kinds of expert advices (I'm sure the SAS board reads my posts o
27 Post contains links 747400F : And their decission seems to be that even the pilots should contribute to making it economically viable. That is not the quite impression one gets wh
28 Caravelle : I've been reading this thread, trying not to interfere. My opinions being covered by other members. But: Let's get back to where this thread began, Fl
29 N77014 : Perhaps IAD/ORD; the only way to guarantee feed to sustain the flight.
30 Vadheim : I think both OSL-EWR and OSL-BKK would be routes that would work perfectly well for carriers that commited themselves to serve this market. Approximat
31 RedChili : May I add that I saw some statistics a few years ago saying that 70 percent of all Norwegians fly at least once a year. And that number is probably h
32 Joost : Because Helsinki is functioning as a hub for Europe - Asia traffic. And the hub for SAS is Copenhagen. They could make OSL work as a hub, but then no
33 RedChili : This is exactly what I'm saying. AY only had one city that they could make into a hub, and that was HEL. And they realized the potential, so during t
34 Post contains links Vadheim : Joost: Do you have some information sources about this? I am very interested in this kind of demographics You can read more here; http://www.ssb.no/en
35 Post contains images KaiGywer : Well, the do have Wireless Internet onboard all their long haul planes, so I'd say that's pretty awesome. Following Vadheim's link (if you aren't too
36 Flybynight : I thought part of the reason SK didn't go for the 777 was because Boeing was late on some of the deliveries of the 737NG. I wonder how much this pushe
37 EddieDude : As Alonso mentioned, the only 767-300ER in MX's fleet is a plane leased from SK. I guess that at the moment when the agreement was signed, SK did not
38 Starlionblue : I think the European charter airlines have this market pretty well sown up.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Question On SAS 737 Fleet/destinations posted Thu Feb 5 2004 23:06:49 by Mozart
Info On Nigerian Presidential Fleet posted Tue Nov 21 2006 01:33:31 by ENU
Latest On BA Pensions posted Fri Nov 17 2006 23:15:16 by Bongodog1964
Lufthansa Airbus Widebody Fleet posted Mon Oct 23 2006 06:12:48 by AA777223
What's The Latest On The Bmi Pilots Strike? posted Tue Sep 5 2006 23:55:00 by APP
Delta Widebody Fleet Decision - When? posted Tue Aug 1 2006 19:47:57 by 1337Delta764
Continental Future Widebody Fleet posted Sat Jun 24 2006 16:07:17 by CB777
JL & NH Widebody Fleet Allocation posted Mon Jun 5 2006 06:47:20 by Centrair
Bmed With Avod IFE System On New A321 Fleet posted Fri Apr 14 2006 14:58:22 by PlaneHunter
New Info On Finnair's A340-fleet posted Tue Mar 28 2006 21:20:51 by OHLBU