Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why The Absence Of Nordic Carriers At LAX  
User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3376 times:

Possibilities of Finnair or SAS landing at LAX in the not so distant future?????

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCopaair737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3374 times:

Quoting Juventus (Thread starter):
SAS landing at LAX in the not so distant future?????

With SAS starting SFO next year, I wouldn't bet on SAS showing up at LAX.


User currently offlineBicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3366 times:

SAS just announced they'll be flying to SFO (a larger United/Star Alliance hub than LAX) in 2008. Finnair would do better flying to DFW or ORD...both hubs for Oneworld member, American Airlines.

User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32192 posts, RR: 72
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3350 times:

Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 2):
Finnair would do better flying to DFW or ORD...both hubs for Oneworld member, American Airlines.

Finnair will resume Miami flights when/if they add another U.S. destination. Miami was halted in 2006 as they needed planes to build-up Asia (it was re-started, ironically, in 2003 because of a heavy drop in Asia travel due to SARS). Useless fact, and not much to build a profitable flight on, but South Florida has the world's largest Finnish ex-pat community outside of Stockholm.

As for why SAS and Finnair will likely not be seen in LAX in the near or long-term future: too long, too thin, too low-yielding. I was a little surprised SAS is giving SFO a shot. Hopefully it works better for them than it did for Icelandair.

[Edited 2007-11-12 18:11:59]


a.
User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3350 times:

Quoting Copaair737 (Reply 1):
With SAS starting SFO next year, I wouldn't bet on SAS showing up at LAX.

I know, that's why I'm asking. Why SFO and not LAX?? just curiosity


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32192 posts, RR: 72
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3336 times:

Quoting Juventus (Reply 4):

I know, that's why I'm asking. Why SFO and not LAX?? just curiosity

SFO provides much better connecting opportunities.



a.
User currently offlineJRDC930 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3306 times:

For some reason, i dont think the LA area has a very large Nordic population, and there just doesn't seem to be much of a tourist demand for LA either. Though I really wish LAX would get Nordic service, so i didn't have to connect 1000 times just to get to CPH or Stockholm, but with SFO starting up which i was unaware of, it likely wont happen. I guess when i finally take my trip to Scandinavia ill just have to put up with the connection times.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24084 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3235 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 5):
Quoting Juventus (Reply 4):

I know, that's why I'm asking. Why SFO and not LAX?? just curiosity

SFO provides much better connecting opportunities.

Ironically, CPH-LAX-CPH was the first scheduled direct route between the West Coast of North America and Europe when SAS DC-6Bs commenced service in November, 1954 with fuel stops in Greenland and YWG. The route became nonstop a couple of years later when DC-7Cs replaced the DC-6Bs, followed not long after by DC-8s, DC-10s and 767s. SAS served LAX continuously for almost 40 years, dropping the route in August 1995.


User currently offlineBoeing744 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1819 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3163 times:

I also wonder why Austrian Airlines doesn't fly to LAX or SFO. I know they have some issues at the moment, but you'd think that one of those routes would be a no-brainer for them. There are no cities anywhere near Vienna with direct service to LAX (to be convenient I mean), so travellers are forced to fly through IAD, ORD, JFK, etc. I think Vienna could easily sustain a flight, especially with SFO being a big star hub.

On a slightly related note, there were LOTS of passengers on my flight in the summer from VIE-YYZ who started their trip in Copenhagen. My seat mate was one of them, and there were many other people I noticed speaking Danish. I wonder why this was? I didn't hear anything about any delays or re-routings, so why did all these Danes fly to Toronto through Vienna (when LHR or FRA would make much more sense)?


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32192 posts, RR: 72
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3154 times:



Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 8):
I also wonder why Austrian Airlines doesn't fly to LAX or SFO. I know they have some issues at the moment, but you'd think that one of those routes would be a no-brainer for them. There are no cities anywhere near Vienna with direct service to LAX (to be convenient I mean), so travellers are forced to fly through IAD, ORD, JFK, etc. I think Vienna could easily sustain a flight, especially with SFO being a big star hub.

Same exact reasons that many other European airlines don't: yield. Yield on California-Europe is weak outside of the traditional markets, and it typically requires two dedicated aircraft. When you can make significantly more money on passengers and cargo flying to Asia with the same utilization, or make roughly the same or more money flying to the East Coast (and have the added bonus of only using up one air-frame instead of 1.5), it is a no-brainer for smaller European airlines to ignore the California market.



a.
User currently offlineGARUDAROD From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1503 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3137 times:



Quoting JRDC930 (Reply 6):
For some reason, i dont think the LA area has a very large Nordic population

Actually there is a large Norwegian population in LA. There is a monument to Norwegian seaman in
San Pedro, I believe. In the past, SAS, Finnair, Lauda Air all had flights to LAX as well as numerous
charters, Unfortunately changing economic conditions forced the airlines to change their route
structures and resulted in the LAX flights being cancelled.



Cargo doesn't whine, moan, or complain
User currently offlineBoeing744 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1819 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3135 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 9):
Same exact reasons that many other European airlines don't: yield. Yield on California-Europe is weak outside of the traditional markets, and it typically requires two dedicated aircraft. When you can make significantly more money on passengers and cargo flying to Asia with the same utilization, or make roughly the same or more money flying to the East Coast (and have the added bonus of only using up one air-frame instead of 1.5), it is a no-brainer for smaller European airlines to ignore the California market.

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the quick answer!


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24084 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3082 times:



Quoting Boeing744 (Reply 8):
There are no cities anywhere near Vienna with direct service to LAX (to be convenient I mean), so travellers are forced to fly through IAD, ORD, JFK, etc.

MUC, ZRH and FRA aren't far from VIE (192, 327, 337 nm respectively) and all have daily LH or LX Star Alliance nonstops to LAX with good connections from VIE. I would much rather connect at any of those points (especially MUC or ZRH) than at IAD/ORD/JFK. Also good connections on KL via AMS, AF via CDG, and BA via LHR.

As already mentioned, OS would also have the problem of needing more than one aircraft to operate a daily nonstop to LAX which they'd need to have any hope of being competitive. I'm sure OS has many much more lucrative potential markets for their limited longhaul fleet than the US west coast.


User currently offlinePgtravel From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 446 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2863 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7):
Ironically, CPH-LAX-CPH was the first scheduled direct route between the West Coast of North America and Europe when SAS DC-6Bs commenced service in November, 1954 with fuel stops in Greenland and YWG. The route became nonstop a couple of years later when DC-7Cs replaced the DC-6Bs, followed not long after by DC-8s, DC-10s and 767s. SAS served LAX continuously for almost 40 years, dropping the route in August 1995.

And there is a little plaque dedicated to SAS' inauguration of service on the Polar Route that you can see when you go to LAX. On the lower level roadway, go to the northern end of the Bradley terminal, just as it starts curving toward Terminal 3. There you'll see the plaque on a rock in a small grassy area.


User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6004 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2843 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 9):

Well explained

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
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...
Why The Lack Of Fossett Coverage? posted Fri Sep 7 2007 08:19:02 by PiedmontINT
Why The Lack Of Interactive Moving Maps On US Domestic Service? posted Tue Aug 7 2007 01:31:38 by RUHFlyer
Status Of New Carriers At SEA posted Thu Jul 12 2007 05:18:45 by RwSEA
Chinese Carriers At LAX posted Wed Jan 10 2007 20:27:49 by LAXdude1023
City To Buy Back Term 2 & 5 From Carriers At LAX posted Mon Jan 8 2007 14:31:03 by Lowecur
Why No Automated People Mover Train At LAX? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 02:04:14 by 1337Delta764
767 With RR Engines - Why The Lack Of Orders? posted Mon Sep 25 2006 00:06:13 by 1337Delta764
Why No Pics Of DL 777 At TLV Yet? posted Tue May 2 2006 06:42:35 by Jumbojet
WHY The Change Of CO 1636/1637 To Barbados posted Thu Jun 16 2005 20:55:05 by Aerofan
A Complete List Of The Benefits Of Legacy Carriers posted Thu Mar 10 2005 06:52:42 by UnitedStarGold