The reason the A321 has a quicker turnaround time is because the cargo and luggage is contained in containers and not in the old,"loose bag" system.Also,the loading crews would not accept loading/de-loading such long cargo compartments as those found on the -900 unless there was an option to install a sliding carpet system which is found on the SAS MD
-series.Apparently,this is not feasible on the 737's
The A321's were originally ordered for the intra-Scandinavian routes with excess capacity being used on "heavy" European destinations like LHR
. 8 were originally ordered and delivered.Outstanding options have been deferred several times due to the economic situation SAS finds itself in these days. The A300's ordered at the end of the 70's were intended for the same sectors which at that time at a lower,but higher capacity,frequency. Jan Carlzon's new ideas were that destinations should be served more frequently but with smaller planes.Thus the A300 became too large and was relegated to SAS' subsidiary charter Scanair. The 767-200 was ordered to operate long,thin,non-stop flights from CPH
.Equipped with 150 seats,a huge complement of business pax was required.It didn't turn out the way it was intended,and the 2 planes were the first of SAS' 767's to leave the company.They were used briefly on the CPH
run during the summer seasons.
In SAS,a fleet of some 16 a/c individuals is needed in order to make the fleet profitable.With only 8 A321's,and being the only short/medium haul type in the SAS fleet with a potential market,the type is the most likely a/c to be disposed of by SAS if they determine to sell off some part of the fleet.