8herveg From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1105 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3173 times:
I know this might have been discussed before, but I was wondering, why is SAS Scandinavian at Heathrow Terminal 3 and not at Terminal 2 with most of the other European carriers.
I thought it might have to do with connections to other Star Alliance members.
If it is, why arent OZ, OS, BD, LO, LH, SA, LX & TP in T3 as well? Is it just because of lack of space to fit all the carriers in? If it is, why did they choose SK over all the other Star Alliance carriers?
Tristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3689 posts, RR: 34 Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3164 times:
SAS used to be in T2. I remember flying with them from there on an A300 to ARN in 1981. As I recall they were offered a move away from T2 when T3 was enlarged and accepted it, long before allaince days.
IADLHR From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3139 times:
I heard that for some reason SAS , for a long, long time had a large number of connecting pax from UA and AA flights originating in the USA. So SAS moved into T3 , long, long before Star Alliance to make connections easier for a large number of passengers.
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7342 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3099 times:
SAS has been at T3 since the late 1980's. T2, which handles most European and North Africa flights, is actually going to be torn down.
Jlb From Denmark, joined Nov 1999, 68 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2954 times:
That actually makes LHR bearable as a connection point for scandinavia-US flights. The funny thing is that AA often have better prices for interlining on SAS to CPH rather than using their alliance partner BA. It's far more convenient for us pax as well, since you don't have to transfer T3 to T4. So I guess everybody are happy, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.
RedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2053 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2701 times:
Quoting 8herveg (Thread starter): I thought it might have to do with connections to other Star Alliance members.
I do know that SK has a lot of transfer passengers continuing on UA and AC to various North American airports, so staying in the same terminal as UA and AC is obviously important.
FBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2625 times:
Yes,SAS got a good offer from Heathrow.The move to Terminal 3 came about when SAS started flying 767's on the routes to LHR.The plane was a little too big for comfort at T2 and by replacing 2 narrowbody flights with one widebody,slots were released.In the event,the lower landing fees offered by Heathrow/BAA never really amounted to much,and SAS dropped the 767 flights.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1105 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3689 posts, 
From Italy, joined Apr 2005, 668 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7342 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Nov 1999, 68 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2053 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
