According to Swedish media SK is getting even closer to bankruptcy. The major banks are refusing to extend their loans and the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian governments has already recived complaints for helping SK witk loans from the European Commission.

If SK wants their loans to be extended they have to come up with a plan to be profitable as soon as this weekend.

In Swedish only: http://www.expressen.se/ekonomi/uppgifter-i-natt-sas-hotas-av-konkurs/

From what I understand, the SAS managmnet has announced an adittional plan to save money for SAS, wich include a possible 15 - 25 % cut in salaries and possible sales of SGH, bonus program Eurobonus and Widerøe Airlines.

Don't understand what they can gain from a possible sale of Widerøe wich is one of the few parts of SAS that really ean money. But from what I have read, the Widerøe airline can be worth as much as 1 - 2 billion NOK and a sale can give SAS parts of the money it needs. Still I am very sceptical of how smart it would be in the long run ...

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 1): Don't understand what they can gain from a possible sale of Widerøe wich is one of the few parts of SAS that really earn money

Agreed, but the dark cloud for WF it has a lot of old Dashes that will need to be replaced or expensively renewed. Wideroe operates 19 DHC-8-100s, 3 DHC-8-200s, 8 DHC-8-300s and 9 DHC-8-400s. IMHO, about the only a/c that can currently replace the 100s-200s-300s is the ATR42

As someone who is unfamiliar with the SAS situation, there is now way they will be going out of business like Malev anytime soon right? I have a ticket booked on them in December... should I be nervous?

-ATLFlyer323

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 2): Agreed, but the dark cloud for WF it has a lot of old Dashes that will need to be replaced or expensively renewed. Wideroe operates 19 DHC-8-100s, 3 DHC-8-200s, 8 DHC-8-300s and 9 DHC-8-400s. IMHO, about the only a/c that can currently replace the 100s-200s-300s is the ATR42

I am not sure if the ATR 42-600 can really make it into all of these small airports in Norway where the Dash 8-100 currently operates.

Quoting Thomas_Jaeger (Reply 4): I am not sure if the ATR 42-600 can really make it into all of these small airports in Norway where the Dash 8-100 currently operates.

You are right, it can't...

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 1): plan to save money for SAS, wich include a possible 15 - 25 % cut in salaries

15-25% cut in salaries would be massive, any ideas what the unions would say? Would that mean a totally new SAS, with new contracts and such?

Quoting ATLFlyer323 (Reply 3): As someone who is unfamiliar with the SAS situation, there is now way they will be going out of business like Malev anytime soon right? I have a ticket booked on them in December... should I be nervous?

I wouldn't be nervous flying them, I really don't believe anything happens that soon, SAS is not Malev.

One of the problems with SK, in my opinion, is that their fares are just way too high for the service levels they offer.
I remember them offering very competitive fares from Germany to the US, to SE Asia and to various European destinations. Nowadays it seems that you cannot fly with SK on a budget anymore. If they didn't make any money back then, at least they had some additional revenue.

Quoting ATLFlyer323 (Reply 3): As someone who is unfamiliar with the SAS situation, there is now way they will be going out of business like Malev anytime soon right? I have a ticket booked on them in December... should I be nervous?

You shouldn't. I think if things go bad so fast, they will not go down like Malev.

Don't airlines have agreements with partners when they are almost bankrupt? When Sabena went bankrupt, several airlines took care of passengers who booked a flight a few days after the bankruptcy.

Enjoy your flight!

Photoshooter   

Quoting robbie86 (Thread starter): According to Swedish media

Well, it's just Excessen,,,,,

Quoting ushermittwoch (Reply 7): One of the problems with SK, in my opinion, is that their fares are just way too high for the service levels they offer.

They are, indeed, if one travels from one non scandinavian airport to another non scandinavian airport. MUC-EWR via CPH or ARN is just unpayable if one buys a direct ticket. However, purchasing MUC-CPH and CPH-EWR separately may result in a considerably lower ticket price. And leave you stranded in CPH and with a useless ticket to EWR if MUC-CPH was late...
On the other hand, SAS offers quite a nice - to my mind - premium economy class. 2-3-2 instead of 2-4-2 and quite a friendly amount of leg space on the 333 and 343, which neither Swiss nor LH or OA have, even if LH seems to be planning for one. Somebody, who is not willing to pay for Business but wants more than Tourist will find SK's premium eco quite appreciable.
Also, there are frequent reports that SAS staff would be way too well paid. One has to keep in mind, however, that a) Norway is an extreme example of a high price country and b) the gradients in salaries in Scandinavia are relatively modest compared to other countries (some would call it "socialist") and it's close to impossible to tame the trade unions.

Best,
Ferroviarius

SK is a lost cause, only nostalgic Scandinavians care about them anymore, there are so many options really, I would not feel sad if they go. Why should scandinavian taxpayers sink billions to keep them alive?! There are so many other areas that need money better IMO.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 1): a possible 15 - 25 % cut in salaries and possible sales of SGH, bonus program Eurobonus and Widerøe Airlines

I'm not sure I understand this correctly... Sell Eurobonus? How, to who, and what's it's value?

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 9): They are, indeed, if one travels from one non scandinavian airport to another non scandinavian airport. MUC-EWR via CPH or ARN is just unpayable if one buys a direct ticket. However, purchasing MUC-CPH and CPH-EWR separately may result in a considerably lower ticket price. And leave you stranded in CPH and with a useless ticket to EWR if MUC-CPH was late...

Yeah, it's really too bad. I enjoyed flying with them, which I did fairly often prior to about 2004 when they stopped offering good fares from Germany.
If they disappear, I'll be sad. Especially since I find their livery to be one of the three best ones out there.

Quoting downtown273 (Reply 11): I'm not sure I understand this correctly... Sell Eurobonus? How, to who, and what's it's value?

It's not an unprecedented step. Air Canada did the same with Aeroplan a while ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroplan

I don't see much of a future for SAS, or any other European legacy carrier with a relatively large EU network feeding a relatively small intercontinental ditto.

There are two possible scenarios. One is that SAS closes shop outright, to re-emerge SN/SR style in a much trimmed and reduced version. Second is being taken over by somebody, which due to EU ownership laws would have to be a EU based somebody. Of those I think the first is the most plausible, not least because the ownership structure of SAS does not lend itself to being an object of possible take-over. Far easier, from a political point of view, to let it sink and have the private sector take over the bits and bobs it fancies.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 14): I don't see much of a future for SAS, or any other European legacy carrier with a relatively large EU network feeding a relatively small intercontinental ditto. There are two possible scenarios. One is that SAS closes shop outright, to re-emerge SN/SR style in a much trimmed and reduced version. Second is being taken over by somebody, which due to EU ownership laws would have to be a EU based somebody. Of those I think the first is the most plausible, not least because the ownership structure of SAS does not lend itself to being an object of possible take-over. Far easier, from a political point of view, to let it sink and have the private sector take over the bits and bobs it fancies.

Well, I do not really agree. The fact is that politics is too much involved here. The losses are not so dramatic that they would really demand a solution, which would put a definitive end to the losses. I think there is still a majority of people in Scandinavia, who prefer to have a carrier like SAS, anchored in state ownership, in service (besides smaller private carriers like Norwegian or Mærsk), even if the same majority of people will continue to curse and shout because of the losses. It's contradictory, indeed, if seen from outside, but many Scandinavians, possibly the majority of the electorates, when being faced with the alternatives of either paying the losses or giving up SAS, will reluctantly accept the former.
There had been long discussions here in Norway when Braathens was taken over by SAS, also when Color Air was competed to ruin by SAS, and the final upshot was that "everybody" insists on TWO carriers for Norway in order to get a kind of competition keeping the prices low. I personally do not understand how this works at the low density of population in major parts of the country, I fear that I anyway do pay a lot of taxes to keep airports like Kirkenes open for traffic. It's really stupid, but a huge part of the taxes paid in Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim goes to the so called "district" in order to grant some guys out there a life in the luxury of fresh air, water, silence, landscape, cell phone, TV, supermarket and I-do-not-know-what without being of ANY use for people in Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim (unless they have a cottage out there, which only a wealthy minority do have).

Best,

Ferroviarius

I have long feared this was getting close.

From the outside I can see a few things wrong with SAS but as I keep on saying, Finnair proves its possible.
The first and I think most important, is to redefine what it is SAS does. Finnair's mission statement is clear.
To fly people from Europe to Asia, via 'the short cut' of helsinki. Note it is From Europe, not from just Finland.
SAS must stop thinking purely in terms of Scandinavia.

I can see lots of ideas and Arguments for change, but is it culturally impossible now? Inside europe SAS certainly
doesn't feel like much of a full service carrier. It feels like a carrier you pay expensive prices for but get a LCC product,
never really a great way to win over loyalty. Yet apparently it offers complimentary breakfast inside Sweden?

Business Class - attention is needed here. It needs to be something exportable to both the rest of Europe and to Asia. That means more luxury, which will ruffle the nose of some scandinavians. But remember the question to Ask is why should I fly J SAS long haul and not Air France or Lufthansa etc. It's either price or product or a combination of both.

Sorry i know rebrand doesn't solve financial issues but if they're not sunk yet maybe a revised livery and marketing campaign is needed. Always thought the blue/red livery was bland.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 16): From the outside I can see a few things wrong with SAS but as I keep on saying, Finnair proves its possible. The first and I think most important, is to redefine what it is SAS does. Finnair's mission statement is clear. To fly people from Europe to Asia, via 'the short cut' of helsinki. Note it is From Europe, not from just Finland. SAS must stop thinking purely in terms of Scandinavia.

But that is easier said then done as you are competing with other larger, more established, European carriers. Finnair, while seen as doing better than SAS, hasn't been profitable for several years and has been constantly outsourcing its European network as much as possible.

Quoting Polot (Reply 18): Finnair, while seen as doing better than SAS, hasn't been profitable for several years and has been constantly outsourcing its European network as much as possible.

Yes Finnair has been in troubles as well but it looks the wind has changed. They just made the best quarterly result in the company's history and year 2012 should show profit.

http://www.finnairgroup.com/group/group_11_1.html

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 1): From what I understand, the SAS managmnet has announced an adittional plan to save money....

During the last fifteen years they have announced at least a dozen plans to save costs.

In my business, then making ends meet has always been a two way street, to save costs and to increase revenue. SAS seems to totally ignore the second part.

Let me tell about a recent experience I had with SAS. I am on a regular basis on a CPH-ZRH roundtrip, and has been so for quite some years. I always book with Swiss because they operate that route with real aeroplanes, A320 or ARJ instead of the cramped SAS CRJ-900 straws. But last time schedule convenience took priority over comfort, so homewards I chose a codeshare flight operated by SAS. After all, the suffering takes an end when it is only one and a half hours flight. For that flight....:

At the gate before boarding a gate agent made an announcement on the gate PA system in Swiss German dialect and broken English, neither of which I understood. I went up to the gate agent and asked him what had been told. He told me that because the plane is small, then big handbags should be put on a cart at the gate and on arrival be picked up from a cart at the arrival gate. I asked him if my bag was big, which he declined. So far so good.

Then we boarded. Then the gate agent said something in Swiss German dialect to the gentlemen in front of me in the queue line. That gentlemen answered with a "What?" in Swedish language with a distinct Scania dialect.

Now followed a long ping-pong conversation in English:
Gate agent: Your handbag is too big, you must put it on that cart.
Passenger: No, my hand bag is not too big.
G: You must put the hand bag on the cart, it is too big and it has to be carried in the baggage hold.
P: No, my hand bag is within limits.
G: Yes, it is within limits, but you must put down your handbag because this is a small aeroplane with limited space for handbags.
P: No, I cannot leave my hand bag out of sight.

This ping-pong game continued for about five minutes, the last two or three minutes with two gate agents telling the same story at the same time.

Then the passenger said: "Now please listen. My hand bag is within limits, and I cannot leave it out of sight. Even if the risk may be small, I am not allowed leave it out of sight because it potentially could jeopardize the health of my company, and it sure jeopardizes my job. We are not discussing whether I leave my bag or not. There are two options: 1) I am on this plane with my handbag. 2) I am not on the plane, you deliver me my checked bag, I go by other means, and when home I report to the company travel manager never to use your airline again.

Here followed a short conversation (in Swiss German) between the two gate agents. Then the passenger was boarded with his handbag in his hand.

That means we went into the bus which drives us to the plane parked way out on the tarmac. In the bus the passenger met a colleague. He wondered, "where have you been? weren't you just behind me in the line? I was afraid you had fallen ill". But he of course got the full explanation for the delay.

The colleague then responded: "Okay, I understand. Problem solves itself sooner or later, likely sooner. It is just amazing what effort this airline company puts into driving itself into the ditch".

Sure here were two businessmen who won't fly with SAS again any time soon, when it can be avoided.

This time I was on a private trip, and I wouldn't have had any problem with surrendering my handbag. But I have been on many business trips where I would have had to act the same way.

It seems like SAS simply doesn't understand what it means to run an airline. On a route like CPH-ZRH with two competing operators one cannot offer such an inferior product without suffering.

There is of course nothing wrong with the CRJ-900 plane as such. If only SAS removed two seat rows, making it a 80 seats plane instead of 88, then the problem was solved, and they would soon have to upgrade to A320. And more important, pax would book with them on regular basis, and not just when they are much cheaper than the competitor, or when the competitor's planes are fully booked.

If SAS were going bankrupt in the morning, the one people who would be watching this like a hawk would be Norwegian.

Norwegian opened a base in Gatwick this week.

That alone points to the fact that SAS will be flying for a lot longer than anyone expects.

SAS has no routes... ok "no routes" , but in an example, I can say that I can use KLM and get to where I want, usually within 2 flights. With sas its often 3 or 4.... That in itself should be enough of a point. I cant be ass'd to get to frankfurt or Munich, too much hassle !

Norwegian is eating them alive! Their prices are better, their costs are lower and their planes are mostly newer. They have also turned a profit for the last 5 years. Hopefully SAS can come up with some sort of restructured business plan in the near future.

Quoting ushermittwoch (Reply 7): One of the problems with SK, in my opinion, is that their fares are just way too high for the service levels they offer.

I don't doubt your comment, but having done a general search for fares TG vs SK from Australia to Norway, the Y fares are comparable and the business class fares are AUD$2000 cheaper than on TG. But I would not claim that TG offers a better seat or f&B service in J than SK. BTW fares in J were a bit more than $5000 Vs TG's $7200.

If SK went bankrupt, who would (suddenly) fill the void? Finnair?

Quoting bestwestern (Reply 21): If SAS were going bankrupt in the morning, the one people who would be watching this like a hawk would be Norwegian. Norwegian opened a base in Gatwick this week.

Quoting mah584jr (Reply 23): Norwegian is eating them alive! Their prices are better, their costs are lower and their planes are mostly newer. They have also turned a profit for the last 5 years.

I'm surprised that it took all the way to response #21 to mention Norwegian. When I first read this topic, that was the first thing that immeidately came to mind.

On shorthaul, I always prefer almost any other carrier. Last time I wanted to book a ticket to ARN, I tried to compare the fares between SAS and Norwegian. Even if I selected youth fare with SAS, Norwegian was still cheaper.

The Norwegian plane had the new Boeing sky interior and free wifi onboard. There would simply be no reason at all to select SAS over Norwegian, unless you want to try to catch a ride on a Mad dog... I've had plenty of flights on that aircraft so not really interested and except for a few aviation fanatics, all other passengers would prefer the more modern aircraft, especially if the ticket is cheaper at the same time.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 26):

The mad dog is horrible if you end up between the engines, your ears will ring for hours after. The seats between the engines should be 50% of the price IMO. Will people in Scandinavia even notice if SK goes? I have flown on many other airlines from ARN, plenty of options in these days. IMO they should sell it in pieces to who ever is interested in the guts.

SK is fighting with LCCs inside EU and big airlines on international routes, old worn cabins as well compared to others. Maybe it could survive as a part of BA/Iberia? LH has enough of small bits and pieces anyway.

Quoting sweair (Reply 27):

Completely agree.. I had the 'pleasure' of sitting between the engines on a SK MD on the way back from Paris last year. Couldn't even have a normal conversation with my girlfriend sitting next to me without raising my voice quite a bit. The front part of the a/c is OK though.

Quoting sweair (Reply 27): Will people in Scandinavia even notice if SK goes?

Kinda yes. Go to CPH airport and check out what % of the flights are SAS.

I fly CPH-AMS-CPH every week and there are around 11 frequencies on weekdays: 5 from KLM, 5 from SAS, 1 from Norwegian. I agree Norwegian are much cheaper and have newer aircraft. However, business passengers need more than 1 frequency per day.

What surprises me is that, if you need business-friendly flying times (first flight out in the morning, return flight departing around 530pm), and you book it 4-5 days in advance, SAS charge you DKK 5,000 (GBP 600, EUR 750, USD 1,000) for the ticket. Once onboard, the flights are fully packed. And they still can't make a profit?? And you don't even get a free sandwich.

Of course not everyone pays those fares, but if the flights are 100% full it means that there is demand.

Quoting trent1000 (Reply 24): If SK went bankrupt, who would (suddenly) fill the void? Finnair?

AY isn't in the position to take over SK routes from CPH and ARN. I would imagine that DY and BE would move in...

Quoting downtown273 (Reply 11): I'm not sure I understand this correctly... Sell Eurobonus? How, to who, and what's it's value?

You are not the only one who is wondering about Eurobonus. But apparently it's worth up to 2 billion NOK

Quoting sweair (Reply 27): Will people in Scandinavia even notice if SK goes?

Well I don't think that Norwegian can fill in the void at this point. Think it's to early for Norwegian to be ready for that. Especially on longhaul.

SAS is also part of Scandinavian culture and identity. Yes, I know that you are all gonna say that such thoughts has no place in todays business enviroment, but still I do beleave that alot of people are gonna miss SAS, despite all it's problems.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 26): There would simply be no reason at all to select SAS over Norwegian

I don't agree. I can usually find pretty attractive fares if I book well in advance with SK. Actually then usually SK is cheaper. It is true that DY has a newer fleet than SK, but that will change a bit as SK is phasing out the MD' which I kinda like. I like the legroom and the configuration of only 2 seats in one side.

What people tend to forget is also when things go wrong. I would choose SK over any LCC if there is a cancellation or heavy delay. With SK you get rebooked either with a later flight or partner airline. With DY???

Quoting downtown273 (Reply 29): What surprises me is that, if you need business-friendly flying times (first flight out in the morning, return flight departing around 530pm), and you book it 4-5 days in advance, SAS charge you DKK 5,000 (GBP 600, EUR 750, USD 1,000) for the ticket. Once onboard, the flights are fully packed. And they still can't make a profit?? And you don't even get a free sandwich.

Not everyone pays that for the flight. First, you have people who connect at CPH and they don't generate EUR 750 per return. Second, not everyone buys its ticket 4-5 days in advance (thus there will be ample of people who pay less, though there will also be people whi pay more). Third, isn't EUR 750 the max on AMS-CPH? Not many will pay that (those travelling on corporate contracts get very big discounts even for last minute travel) Finally, those midday flights orbably cost more than the revenue they generate.

Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 32): With SK you get rebooked either with a later flight or partner airline. With DY???

With DY you get rebooked on a later flight

Quoting downtown273 (Reply 11): I'm not sure I understand this correctly... Sell Eurobonus? How, to who, and what's it's value?

A properly run loyalty scheme should make a profit. The airline pays the loyalty operator for points and the loyalty operator pays them for flights, but they also get revenue from the credit cards, the third party airlines that issue points (if any), the hotel and car hire partners, etc, buying points. This should then return a profit to the parent airline.

It should work out the same as selling any other profitable part of the business - cash now, less revenue after.

Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 32): What people tend to forget is also when things go wrong. I would choose SK over any LCC if there is a cancellation or heavy delay. With SK you get rebooked either with a later flight or partner airline. With DY???

That's unfortunately not true and probably one of the most common benefit falsehoods of SAS network and partners.

If you buy connecting flights with SAS operated by their partner airlines, it's up to that other airline to assist you through cancellations and delays. If the airline does not take this responsibility, SAS will refuse to assist you, even though the ticket was bought through the SAS.dk.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 36): That's unfortunately not true and probably one of the most common benefit falsehoods of SAS network and partners. If you buy connecting flights with SAS operated by their partner airlines, it's up to that other airline to assist you through cancellations and delays. If the airline does not take this responsibility, SAS will refuse to assist you, even though the ticket was bought through the SAS.dk

You are correct. The operating airline almost always handles the delays or cancellations of their flight.

What I believe the post you responded too meant was that if his SAS flight is cancelled or delayed, they (SAS) will rebook you on a later SK flight or on a partner airline. That is also typical airline policy.

SAS has been very focused on cutting costs, but they havent focused on increasing revenue; as someone already mentioned.

They have sold off areas of the business that were pulling a profit, in order to try to buy time for the other areas of the business, or their core business.

My understanding is alot of their financial woes come from high costs accured during the late 80's-90s(e.g. inflated salaries) They also have a low rate of natural attrition (retirement). Aviation, and SAS in particular, is one of the few fields where I've noticed people don't seem to retire when they are eligible for retirement. That as well leads to higher costs as they cant replace high cost senior staff with new blood at the beginning of the pay scale.

Additionally, they've lost that innovative edge that made them such a trendsetter back in the day.....

The days of a "national" airline in Europe--unless the airline has huge number of international routes like AF, BA and LH--appears to be coming to an end. Don't be surprised that SK does shut down and massively reorganize into something like Brussels Airlines, and it has become a subsidiary of AF, BA or LH, in my humble opinion!

Finnair is not interested in a cooperation with SAS or buying the airline:

There has repeatedly been rumors about a merger of the two companies, and in some areas Finnair is also looking for partners.

But a cooperation with SAS is not interesting for Finnair says Chief Kenneth Gillberg to Dagens Industri.


- We would like to have their passengers, we are bloody rivals, and it will continue to be so, says Gillberg to Di.

He can also confirm that it will be out of the question to buy the competitor.


Article in Norwegian:

http://e24.no/naeringsliv/finnair-utelukker-samarbeid-med-sas/20292212

Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 32):

To be fair, the reason why we used SK to CDG was because they were marginally cheaper. The flight was delayed both ways with around an hour each time, but the pilot promised us that they would be on time the next time.....:/

Quoting Ferroviarius (Reply 9): They are, indeed, if one travels from one non scandinavian airport to another non scandinavian airport. MUC-EWR via CPH or ARN is just unpayable if one buys a direct ticket. However, purchasing MUC-CPH and CPH-EWR separately may result in a considerably lower ticket price. And leave you stranded in CPH and with a useless ticket to EWR if MUC-CPH was late...

You have to define unpayable? If unpayable is More than 500 euros, then you will be hard pressed to find any airline that offer this kind of fare nowadays.

I just managed to find myself a excellent fare IAD-CPH-BRU-CPH-SFO. It wasn't 500 euros but also not a 1000 euros. My point is fares have to make sense. Consumer want the cheapest but that is not always possible in a high cost environment!

My question then becomes: Should I become seriously worried about my SFO trip which is in august 2012?

I wouldn't be vinniewinnie since it already looks like you have flown the flight  

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 42): Should I become seriously worried about my SFO trip which is in august 2012?

If your trip was in August 2012 I hope you had a nice trip  

Now seriously, if something went wrong, I would assume Star Alliance (UA/LH) would try to rearrange some of the pax, at least if any of the sectors is not operated by SK.

Let's look at a scenario where SAS does go bankrupt.

Denmark:
Most parts of Denmark would hardly notice that SAS didn't exist anymore. Many of the larger Danish airports have better alternatives than what SAS could offer. The only exception is Aarhus where SAS in practice has a monopoly (the only non bucket and spade route to a large European city is with Ryanair to London Stansted). Passengers in the Oresund region will have to pay more for their tickets, and may need to transfer to get to a destination they with SAS could fly them directly. The activity at CPH will go down. Like turning off the light all SAS hub activity will grind to a halt, and with that I fear the Star Alliance partners will halt their activity too since they have no feed anymore. This transfer activity at CPH vouch for around 25% of the passengers and this will be gone. The result will be a loss of jobs at the airport in addition to SAS flying and ground crew without work.

Sweden:
23% (7 million) of the passengers at Swedish airports are domestic passengers. At many of the Swedish airports, SAS is their only link to the outside world. For those airports it will be devastating with a SAS bankruptcy and I doubt the two large domestic competitors, Malmö Aviation and Norwegian, can cough up in a hurry new planes and crew to cover for this void. For airports where Malmö Aviation and/or Norwegian fly to I doubt they have spare capacity for the SAS passengers. Ticket prices will unavoidably go up. Many will either have to pay much more to fly or have to find other means of transport since there are no more tickets in the short term. The prices for the international flights will clearly go up, but the alternatives to the SAS system is very good. Passengers may have to use a different hub than CPH to get to their destination (DY will still have a CPH hub). There are though a number of small Swedish airports in the southern part of Sweden that have shuttle flights in to CPH in cooperation with SAS as their only international connection and this will be gone with SAS gone. Since the transfer activity at Arlanda is rather limited to the two TATL - EWR and ORD + a number short haul links to the east either on own wings or with partners, the job loss will be rather limited at the airport, but then there is the SAS main office and its workers, the maintenance crew at the ARN facility, flight crew and ground crew that all be without work.

Norway:
The Norwegian domestic market is over three times larger than the Swedish and five times larger than the Danish - and we may see a passenger void larger than the total Swedish domestic market that has to be filled after a SAS bankruptcy. With a cabin factor of around 80% for the equally large competitor Norwegian, the spare capacity can only absorb around 10% of the SAS passengers. This will be devastating for Norway since domestic flights plays such a vital role for individual businesses, I would say the whole society. In reality traveling with trains, coaches and cars isn't an alternative to flying. A four hour business meeting in Oslo can easily be done in one day from a place like Bodø (BOO) with the 07:15 departure and you will be back for supper around six. Traveling by car will take one way around 17 hours (without stops), so we are talking about a more than three day trip for a short four hour business meeting in Oslo. An equivalent trip with the train will take almost 69 hours (18 hours 28 minutes travel time to the south, 9 hours and 24 minutes in Oslo and then 17 hours and 6 minutes travel time back north again). I would not even dare thinking about Wideroe being dragged into the undertow of a SAS bankruptcy (25 STOLport + a number of other rural airports with PSO routes without any connection to the outside world). For the international routes the situation may be even less chaotic than for Sweden. KLM have today flights to five (six from S13) Norwegian airports in addition to OSL, Lufthansa serve SVG and BGO in addition OSL and also British Airways serve SVG and BGO in addition OSL. I don't think these three airlines will object to get more passengers and even add more capacity. Not even Norwegian Air Shuttle will let this pass on home turf unnoticed - the "In case SAS goes bankrupt" manual will be out in no time. They can not just wave the magic wand to get crew and aircraft, but I guess they'll try their utmost.

The loss of jobs will be temporarily for a share of the flying crew. I guess many of the younger will be offered contracts with Norwegian, but to different (read lower) pay than they have today and the attitudes acquired at SAS have to be left at home. The former main office at Fornebu is now almost empty, so not many will loose their jobs there. Then there is SAS Technical at OSL that will be closed down with a bankruptcy. SAS Ground Handling (SGH) may or may not be still for sale (it all depends on what department you are talking with). If it's shifted to a different owner, then there will necessarily also have an impact with their largest customer closing shop. If SGH has not left the mother at the time of bankruptcy, we're talking about very many lay offs and large share will be at other airports than OSL.

Finland:
Since Blue1 is a member of the SAS Group, we need to say some words about what may happen in Finland. With the changes to the Blue1 schedules, the impact to domestic capacity in Finland I suspect will be minimal. A number of Finnish regional airports will loose their connection to ARN and CPH, but some of the newly introduced routes is about to be terminated even without a bankruptcy so .... Clearly, Finnair and Nordic flybe will be delighted with SAS/Blue1 going bankrupt. The Finnish will have harder to find tickets and ticket price will go up. I don't know a lot about the Blue1 activity at HEL, but I guess the pilots will find it hard to get new employment without an expensive conversion to a more normal aircraft type than the B712.

Conclusions:
1. Of the Scandinavian airports Copenhagen will suffer the most. It can even end up as only the third largest airport in Scandinavian overnight. Loosing up to 25% of its passengers and its self-appointed status as the Scandinavian hub will be hard.
2. Looking from the passenger's point of view, Norway will clearly suffer the most.
3. Sweden may well be the biggest monetary looser with the Swedish government and the largerest public shareholder coming from that country.

We Swedes did already sink 2.5Bn SEK into SK, probably lost right now anyway. Do someone expect us to keep paying for SKs survival when we have other areas that have urgent need of more money?

I vote to cancel the next bailout with tax money, I rather see my taxes pay for health care than fat salaries at SK or CPHs HUB status, we send no love across Öresund now  

It annoys me that I pay for Danish employment..Barsebäck was enough..

Quoting kyrone (Reply 38): Additionally, they've lost that innovative edge that made them such a trendsetter back in the day.....

Just who was it ... Carlzon? ... who came along and seemed to get the carrier in shape for the environment of his time. Perhaps that environment has morphed once more (the high salaries cited in this thread originated in his time) I have never flown SAS but I have loved their branding through all the color schemes. However, I do have to ask if simultaneously operating almost every narrowbody twin available (and I'm counting only the latest color scheme) hasn't made a bad dent on the corporate bottom line:

DC-9-41
MD-80
MD-90
737-500
737-600
737-700
737-800
A320
A321

Was this really necessary from a business standpoint? How much was going to spares to support this festival of aircraft? One thing I thank them for is a really interesting model collection I have made from their fleet planning.

Let's concentrate on the current fleet CF-CPI, and it's like this:

Airbus A319-100
Airbus A321-200
Boeing 717-200 (the Blue1 fleet is now included in the SAS fleet)
Boeing 737-400
Boeing 737-500
Boeing 737-600
Boeing 737-700
Boeing 737-700w
Boeing 737-800
Boeing 737-800w
Canadair CRJ-900
McDonnell Douglas MD-82

The last McDonnel Douglas MD87 was flown over to the US only days ago. The McDonnell Douglas MD90 went six years ago. Then you have the two MD-83, all the DC-9s (-21,-33F,-41,-51), the lease of Avro 146-RJs from Transwede, and if you also count turboprops they had the Saab 2000, Saab 340, Fokker 50 and the Dash 8-Q400.

Quite a collection I would say.

Quoting sweair (Reply 46): We Swedes did already sink 2.5Bn SEK into SK,

I beleave we Norwegians have payed atleast 1,4 billion NOK.