Orion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5442 times:
I know SK operated several wide bodied A300s and these were meant for busy European routes such as CPG-LHR, STH-FRA etc etc. They didnt keep them long at all before shoving them over to Scanair for holiday flights. Did SK just find them too big or were they unhappy with there performance? they didnt really fit in with the MD fleet anyway.
SK made a clanger with the 747 too, they dont have the best record for fleet planning. look at the diversity of todays fleet.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26384 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5348 times:
Quoting Orion737 (Reply 2): Yet they couldnt forsee this before they ordered them?
SK wasn't the only carrier that ordered early widebodies they really had no logical use for. Look at all the U.S. carriers that bought early 747s when they only operated domestic routes (AA/DL/CO/National etc.). AZ also bought a few early A300s they probably could have done without. And BA had a large fleet of L1011-1s used within Europe in the 1970s. They turned out to be much too large and were transferred to their charter/leisure subsidiary.
LHRBFSTrident From UK - Northern Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 664 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5273 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7): And BA had a large fleet of L1011-1s used within Europe in the 1970s. They turned out to be much too large and were transferred to their charter/leisure subsidiary
well, it's true that they turned out to be too large 'in the end' - however I am of the opinion that in the 1970s and 1980s air travel within Europe was very different and these a/c actually suited the routes on which they were deployed for a significant period of time.
LHR-CDG was then a prime business route with few of the alternative methods that exist today - these were the days before Eurotunnel, LCC/LFCs and LCY...
Any photo of 1970s/1980s CDG shows BA TriStars parked at their satellite. They gave many years of service when they were well-suited to the network.
Only as the industry changed did they become too large for those routes. There was also a huge amount of transfer traffic to CDG, which IIRC, was the reason CDG was one of only 3 'European' routes transferred to LHR T4 when that facility opened in the mid-1980s.
These were even directly replaced by the 763s when they were delivered, with CDG, FRA, DUS, ATH, ARN all receiving 763 service. That seems like a distant memory now that most of these routes are lucky to see a 757 at the 'rush-hour' rotations...
Loj From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5270 times:
The 747 was just too big for SAS longhaul net. When SAS got rid of the last 747 the SAS pilots were quit disapointed.
"No major airline without a 747". Damn the dragon on the side of the SAS 747 looked great!!
I believe also the A300 was too large for the european destinations.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26384 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5246 times:
Quoting LHRBFSTrident (Reply 8): These were even directly replaced by the 763s when they were delivered, with CDG, FRA, DUS, ATH, ARN all receiving 763 service. That seems like a distant memory now that most of these routes are lucky to see a 757 at the 'rush-hour' rotations...
Yes, I recall that almost all BA flights LHR-GVA were 763s 10 years ago. Then it became almost all 757s. Now it's all A319/320 and occasionally A321 except B737s to LGW and Avro RJs to LCY. However service is more frequent than when 763s were the primary type.
When BA was using L1011s LHR-CDG etc. (and AF using A300s), there also weren't any major low-cost carriers to compete with so frequency was less of a competitive factor than today.
BrisseDK From Denmark, joined Nov 2007, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5137 times:
Quoting Loj (Reply 9): The 747 was just too big for SAS longhaul net.
The 747 wasn't "too big" in the sense that SK couldn't fill them, but in those days the F cabin was often referred to as the most expensive flying personnel lounge around - SK had difficulty filling F with paying pax, and thus it wasn't feasible to keep those big birds.
Frequent flyer based in CPH - mostly heading to: OSL, HEL, KEF, FAE and EWR
Mortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4192 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4983 times:
It's funny to think abut the fact that SAS's competitor in Norway for many, many years Braathens S.A.F.E, in 1984 got themselves two Boeing 767's and used them both on charter and DOMESTIC routes in Norway...
They only had them for two years though. They became to big...
But those were the days, when an for the most part domestic carrier in little Norway flew around in 767's
You can all search for pictures of the 767 from Braathens here on this site.
MAS777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2937 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4634 times:
IIRC - one of SAS' A300 was leased to Malaysian Airline System (before it became Malaysia Airlines) and crashed short of Runway 33 into a swamp at Subang Airport in Kuala Lumpur in Dec 1983 on a routine Singapore-KL shuttle service. was it OY-KAA?
MadViking From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4537 times:
From what I recall, these early production models were B2's with shorter range than later B4 models. Thus high density short hops to/from CPH to LHR, CDG and ARN were the main routes. They were later converted to B4's allowing a range increase to Mediterranean holiday destinations and seemed to be ideal for use for this market, thus transferring to the leisure Scanair fleet.
As for the 747, SAS was on the same "band wagon" as the rest of the late 60's early 70's pattern of thought, but realisticly they were put to good use during the peek summer season. It was the low seasons that hurt. Though the first two were full pax models, later deliveries of combis proved to be profitable. The fact that additional 200s were ordered for servies to LAX and BKK means the aircraft had some value to them. There were days in summer when three 747s visited JFK, 911/912 from CPH, 901/902 routing ARN-->GEN-->JFK, and 913/914 combi from CPH and occationally GOT. What a view from the Pan Am roof parking lot!
With the addition of DC10-30ERs, and more point to point routing, not to mention intense trans-atlantic competition, the 747s saw their use deminish for smaller, higher frequency DC10s. I believe LAX was 3-4 weekly 747s before going to daily DC10s. And with the introduction of 767s, NYC for the first time saw non-stop daily service from all three Scandinavian capitals. And after a long time SAS could operate from Fornebu with the 67s verses the long trek, in those days to Gardermoen as the big 10s and 47s couldn't use Fornebu.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16404 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4343 times:
Quoting MadViking (Reply 17): From what I recall, these early production models were B2's with shorter range than later B4 models. Thus high density short hops to/from CPH to LHR, CDG and ARN were the main routes. They were later converted to B4's allowing a range increase to Mediterranean holiday destinations and seemed to be ideal for use for this market, thus transferring to the leisure Scanair fleet.
SAS was also the first customer for the PW A300, which, if memory serves, was less efficient than the GE A300. But satisfied SAS's pro-PW stance at the time.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3810 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4193 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10): However service is more frequent than when 763s were the primary type.
Frequency, as in being able to offer more, was one of the reasons SAS gave for retiring their A300s after only a few years in service. During the early 1980s under the leadership of Janne Carlsson, SAS placed and emphasis on greater appeal to business travelers with one part of the overall strategy being more frequencies with DC-9s rather than fewer with larger aircraft, namely the A300s. Another part of the strategy was to provide more non-stop and direct services from various Scandinavian cities to points in their European network rather than routing predominantly via connections at CPH, which also favored aircraft smaller than A300s. Also, as I recall, SAS stated that the capacity of the A300 was suited to very few of their markets, and generally only at peak departure times.
717SK From Sweden, joined Sep 2001, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4068 times:
In response to REP 16.
OY-KAA converted to B4 (center tank), Lemwerder, per 04JUN83.
OY-KAA was in SAS TRF 20dec80.
Overhaul relief to MAS, Malaysian Airlines System 11OCT83-18DEC83.
A/C was leased and operated by Malaysian per 11OCT83.
Crashed during landing in Kuala Lumpur 18DEC83.
All on board survived.
TristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4114 posts, RR: 33
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3985 times:
Quoting BA319-131 (Reply 1): My understanding was they were just too big for European routes, shame really.
Well I flew on a SAS A300 only once. SK528 LHR-ARN 9 Aug 1981. OY-KAA.
Nice surprise as I expected a DC9. My memory was a sea of economy seats in the main cabin, and most of them empty. The surprise was getting a seat at check in on an ID90, instead of the usual hassle of waiting in the T2 check in area till the last minute.