ARN From Sweden, joined Feb 2001, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1398 times:
HGK aswell as Shanghai and San Francisco are thought to be the next SAS intercontinental destinations. There has been some discussions about it in the media. Apparently the chinese authorities are not keen on a SAS presence in Shanghai because they claim that the number of transfer passengers (from other european countries than the scandinavian ones) would be too high. So no agreement has been reached.
In my opinion a HKG-flight is not very likely either, for the moment. Finnair will start a direct service to HKG, four times weekly, from Helsinki in springtime 2002. That flight will be very suitable for the scandinavian market for many reasons and a SAS-operation is therefore a tough thing to launch.
Gardermoen From Australia, joined Jul 1999, 1520 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (12 years 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1383 times:
The reason they pulled out of HKG was because of high airport fees at CheK Lap Kok, the same as Lauda Air. I think by now, the airport authorities have lowered their fees in an attempt to gain more flights.
I really hope SAS will return to HKG - their flights always did well. At one point, it was up to 5 flights a week. And ever since SK dropped Osaka, there is no transfer point for Ansett's service to Sydney.
Econojetter From Malaysia, joined May 2001, 430 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (12 years 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1347 times:
I believe one other reason for SAS' withdrawal from HKG was the lack of suitable equipment. CPH-HKG is on the limit of the B767-300ER's range capability, especially westbound, even if SAS B767s carried only about 190 passengers. Operating on the limit introduces a certain amount of uncertainty in operations e.g. costly unscheduled fuel stops, and impacts the overall profitability of the service. SAS probably decided that the B767 could be deployed elsewhere with better returns.
With the A340-300X, the aircraft performance is no longer a limitation. But there's still the question of priority. SAS receives 4 A340s by the end of this year and 3 more next year until summer. The first A340s are likely to be put on routes to SIN, BKK, DEL, NRT and PEK. I would expect ORD to get the A340 as well, and EWR. This should tie up the A340s pretty much until the A330s start to arrive and take over transatlantic duties. So I guess we won't see HKG until the end of 2002.
ARN From Sweden, joined Feb 2001, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1330 times:
You are right about the range capability, Econojetter.
Knowing a 767-pilot I know for a fact that when westwinds were strong they made flightplans from HKG to ARN instead of CPH. ARN is about 20-30 minutes closer to HKG than CPH and transfers could easily be made in case of a diversion.
A couple of hours before landing the crew could estimate if CPH could be reached instead of ARN and mostly they could. But quite a few flights landed at ARN and there has been quite a few HKG-flights landing at CPH within the very limit.
ARN From Sweden, joined Feb 2001, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (12 years 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1314 times:
LAX have not been mentioned in the newsletters i´ve seen, But I might have missed it. There are always speculations, of course.
SAS withdrew from LAX because they could not deploy just a single aircraft on that route on a daily basis. Given flight-time and turnaround-time a 767 could not be back in CPH and ready for takeoff within a 24 hours limit, so at least 2 aircrafts were needed for that route. And since revenue were low the flight were terminated. This was SAS own statement at the time. It puzzles me a bit because aircrafts bound for NRT and BKK - SIN are not back in CPH within 24 hours either.
SFO have been mentioned many times and that development is logical given the UA position in SFO and the growing business ties between Scandinavia and the Bay Area. Stockholm is the most important teletronic city in Europe and San Francisco of the world so a link between those cities is not impossible. But flights could also originate in CPH, of course. Anyhow SFO will probably be a SAS destination in the future and therefor direct flights to LAX again is not, in my opinion, very likely the next coming years.
FBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (12 years 6 months 7 hours ago) and read 1274 times:
You're both essentially correct,only minor things need to be added.
As a 767 co-pilot,the main concern with HKG was the payload.If the wind changed and the take-off had to be performed towards the city and raising terrain,some 15 tonnes of payload had to be off-loaded,even then a fuel stop had to be reckoned with.
Alternatively,a take-off towards the sea with a 10 knot tailwind (max. certificated) meant a load reduction and fuel stop enroute.
HKG is on the list over possible Intercont. destinations,according to information received at management/pilot meetings recently.LAX is mentionned as a possibility ONLY if the business pax percentage shows significant improvement over the figures obtained while the route was operative.The commercial yield was not enough to warrant the use of a 767 on this sector.SFO is a most likely candidate for a new U.S. destination.Some people in the Business Division use the term "SFO and/or LAX",so it's not completely out of the running.If LAX re-opens,it will be from CPH as this is in accordance with SAS' present policy;all new European and Intercontinental destinations will initially be served with a daily flight from CPH.Only when this is running well,and demand exists,will ARN be considered and finally,OSL.