Godbless From Sweden, joined Apr 2000, 2752 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1824 times:
My sister who works for SAS as a FA told me, maybe a year or maybe even longer ago that SAS really wasn't that excited about the 736 anymore and that they wanted to replace them by the A320. It seems as if they have solved the problems they had with it since I havn't heard anything about an order for Airbus besides the A321.
I really wanna fly on those birds once! I once was booked on a 736 from FRA to ARN but the flight was cancelled so I had to fly on a MD-80...
FBWless From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1767 times:
I flew on a SAS 736 this past weekend and I wasn't that impressed. There was a report here earlier that SAS wasn't happy with the 736 because it is unstable in cruise and I thought it was obvious that this is true.
I also flew a Dash 8-Q400 and while it was not as spacious as the 736, it was much more stable in cruise.
Heisan67 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1725 times:
SAS have many B737's in different versions.
SAS have ordered A340 and A321, and some time agor there were some speculations that SAS would replace the B737 with Airbus aircraft in order to get a more Airbus fleet. Lufthansa operates Airbus and is SAS closest partner.
Doug_or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3399 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1637 times:
the -400 is still having pretty nasty dispatch reliability problems, as the fact of the matter is, they just aren't very well built/designed a/c. Though from what I've heard its a godd ride with great fuelburn. (this is all second hand information from magazines and QX people)
FBU 4EVER! From Norway, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1556 times:
There will be definitely no new orders from SAS regarding the 736.It turns out to be a lot more expensive to operate than expected,being very close to the DC-9-41 that it replaced when it comes to fuel consumption per seat/kilometer.
The combination of a wing with a span longer than the length of the fuselage and an inadequate yaw damper results in poor flight characteristics in cruise,especially if there is just the slightest hint of turbulence.Many passengers and even flight attendants have been airsick,some of the latter have been flying for 23 years without being sick.Now they can be sick for up to 4-5 times a year!
There are also great costs with maintenance of the whole 73NG fleet in SAS.Main problem is corrosion in the main gear wheel wells since there are no main gear doors to cover the well during operation in wet and slush conditions.
There were plans to start replacing the MD-80's from 2004,but this will now start in 2006-7 at the earliest,more likely than not the replacements will be various versions of the Airbus narrowbodies.The palletized baggage holds on the Airbus are a lot more practical than the 73NG's,and one of the reasons SAS chose the A321 instead of the 739.
Fsimmer From Norway, joined Jun 1999, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 16 hours ago) and read 1490 times:
They really are uncomfortable on cruise. I flew their 736 from SVG-CPH and vice versa, also from OSL to SVG, and all flights, I felt that mother nature was playing with the plane, throwing the tail back and forth up and down. Probably the worst plane I've ever flown on.
TR From UK - England, joined May 2001, 953 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 years 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 1454 times:
I have to say that this is new to me. Actually all my flights on SAS 736s has been as comfortable as on any other SAS aircraft (I fly with SAS at least twice every week). There might have been slight turbulence now and then, but nothing that has made me aware of anything unnormal going on. I have never seen anyone being sick due to turbulence on a 736 nor have I heard anyone complain about the aircraft. Of course I might just be one lucky guy, but I find it hard to believe that I should be the only one to 'miss all the fun'!
CPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5974 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (12 years 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 1452 times:
I thought it was due to Boeings slow delivery of the 737NG's that caused SAS to go to Airbus for its new planes.
If I remember correct, SAS placed some orders with Boeing before the Airbus orders were placed, and those planes haven't been delivered yet!
SAS-A321 From Denmark, joined Mar 2002, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 1425 times:
SAS didn't order the Airbus A321 because they where unhappy about the cargo hold in the B738, because they don't fly on the same routes. The B738 are mostly used for domestic flights and the A321 is used for European flights and in the triangle EKCH-ESSA-ENGM.
CPH-R: I have heard the same.
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 1415 times:
I've flown on them alot, and I like them! Only problem is that when I sit by the window, the top of the window is so low, I have to really bend down to be able to look out. But I guess it's the same on most aircraft..
My current altitude record was in a SAS 736, FL 410 on a flight BRU-ARN.