CPH presented today their plans for the future - Expanding CPH. The intentions is to expand capacity to 40 Million pax. One of the first steps is to make more room for long haul routes.

Press release:
http://www.cph.dk/om-cph/presse/nyheder/expanding-cph/

More info:
http://www.cph.dk/expandingcph/
CPH_21x21_expandingCPHbook_Digital.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cph.dk/Documents/Om%20CPH...21x21_expandingCPHbook_Digital.pdf

Specific development plans:

Pier B to be extended The many new flights to destinations in Scandinavia and the rest of Europe will require additional gates and aircraft stands for the medium-size aircraft used for this traffic.

Pier C to be extended With the expansion of the route network for long-haul services, more space will be needed for the big aircraft used to fly to destinations in south-east Asia and South America.

Terminals to melt together The terminal structure of the future will be expanded and designed so that arriving and departing passengers can be separated in a better way. That will give passengers a better experience when they arrive at the airport, and it will ensure a more efficient and intuitive passenger flow on their departure.

More options for the business community Better options must be created for relevant companies to locate at and near the airport. Moreover, a new hotel will provide additional conference facilities and better overnight accommodation opportunities near the airport in connection with visits to Copenhagen.

Space for very large aircraft The expansion will create even better facilities for the huge aircraft seen at many of the world's megahubs. As and when the airlines deploy those aircraft for their scheduled services, the runway system will be expanded, and a new Pier E will be built.

Station for high-speed trains A station for high-speed trains that bring travellers from both Oslo and Hamburg to Copenhagen Airport will play an important role in paving the way for growing towards 40 million passengers.

New arrival experience The arrivals area will be changed considerably to make room for more large baggage conveyors. New natural light intake, striking Danish design and better facilities will help improve passengers' perception of the airport while they wait for their bags and ensure that they feel welcome in Denmark.

More space for extraordinary experiences The shopping area will be expanded to create room for new open zones with lots of light, high ceilings and opportunities for both experiences and relaxation in a casual "Danish" atmosphere.

[Edited 2014-01-30 05:04:26]

Should have provided links to the english version of course.

http://www.cph.dk/en/about-cph/press/news/expanding-cph/

Expand CPH

It looks like two A380s on the picture. So they are going to make the runways suitable for A380 operations in the future?

Three A380s actually.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 2): It looks like two A380s on the picture.

I can see three A380s, one each from TG, SQ and EK. Now arent they dreaming a little too big?  

I saw this coming after Swedavia releasing the plan for Arlanda   The big question in this case is which airline promising routes to ". sydøstasien og sydamerika" as stated in the Pier C expansion plan. I can understand South Asia, but South America? Is this a hint of SAS or Norwegian planning to launch these routes? I hoped that SAS was planning future routes from Arlanda!

Otherwise, I think the expansion plan is excellent, expanding the check-in and arrival area (opposite to Swedavias plan). What will happen to CPH Go after the E Pier is built?

Quoting simpan97 (Reply 5): can understand South Asia, but South America? Is this a hint of SAS or Norwegian planning to launch these routes?

I believe DY has mentioned that they want to expand their long haul network to include South America.

I really liked transferring in CPH on SK a few months ago. The transfer from my flight from AMS to the PEK bound flight was very smooth. I'm hope they keep up the good work with their future terminal layout. I assume SK will remain operating from one terminal?

Quoting simpan97 (Reply 5): The big question in this case is which airline promising routes to ". sydøstasien og sydamerika" as stated in the Pier C expansion plan. I can understand South Asia, but South America? Is this a hint of SAS or Norwegian planning to launch these routes? I hoped that SAS was planning future routes from Arlanda!

As much as I would like to see more SK long haul from ARN, isn't it better to consolidate their long haul operations at one airport (i.e. CPH)?
As for the airline promising routes to SE Asia and S America, DU (Norwegian Long Haul) to BKK seems like a no brainer. S America would also fit the DU plans or perhaps it might be SQ or TG (or EK) via a stop in CPH? That would also explain the A380's in the rendering. 

I guess the EK A380 is not completely unrealistic if the facilities are there. Keep in mind the A380 service to Hamburg for example. Maybe even the occasional Thai A380 during the high season.

Otherwise really good news. CPH is my favourite airport  

With the extension of finger B, won't runway 12/30 either have to be moved or removed entirely?

40 millions within 25 years is in line with their historic growth, so good to se an airport planning for whats comming.

However I still love their benchmarking......

From Standby.dk:
Ifølge Københavns Lufthavn har lufthavnen 140 ruter, 110 i Europa, 24 oversøiske og seks indenrigs. Oslo har 119 ruter, 87 i Europa, 6 oversøiske og 26 indenrigs, mens Stockholm har 101 ruter, 71 i Europa, 11 oversøiske og 19 indenrigs.

Why this eager to always deliberately presents incorrect facts about Oslo and Stockholm, while they at the same time says;

From the same article:
Ole Wieth Christensen tilføjer, at Københavns Lufthavn ikke konkurrerer med lufthavnene i Oslo og Stockholm, men lufthavnene i Amsterdam, Berlin, Bruxelles og Zürich, skriver Flygtorget.se

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 10): mens Stockholm har 101 ruter

101 destinations..? Stockholm ARN has over 160 destinations.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 8): I guess the EK A380 is not completely unrealistic if the facilities are there. Keep in mind the A380 service to Hamburg for example. Maybe even the occasional Thai A380 during the high season. Otherwise really good news. CPH is my favourite airport

I think this plan with A380:s is very much realistic.

By the way, if you asked people in 1960 if there would be two SAS Boeing 747-200:s based in CPH in 1971, would they have believed you?

I think that we could even have scheduled A380:s at both ARN and OSL inside an 8 year timeframe... not at all impossible depending on world developments...

[Edited 2014-01-30 23:19:28]

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 9): With the extension of finger B, won't runway 12/30 either have to be moved or removed entirely?

I guess we should ask the question positively because it seems that the runway will be removed (or used for other puproses).  
Is it still in use nowadays? If yes, how often?

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 10): Ole Wieth Christensen tilføjer, at Københavns Lufthavn ikke konkurrerer med lufthavnene i Oslo og Stockholm, men lufthavnene i Amsterdam, Berlin, Bruxelles og Zürich, skriver Flygtorget.se

Ah yeah? In terms of quality, it can compete. In terms of network, I think it is too far nord. But we will see.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 12): I think this plan with A380:s is very much realistic.

It could certainly handle some A380s for leisure destinations such as BKK or NYC (or DBX). But SK will never get any A380s! The 747s by that time had way less seats (2-4-3 config) than the current versions.

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 13): Is it still in use nowadays? If yes, how often?

Yes it is. It's used when there is a strong crosswind with gusts on the other runways. I've even seen A330s using it since when they take off on 30, they usually fly close to my home

I've also experienced on a flight that it was used to make a shortcut since there was an ill passenger onboard.

Quoting SASMD82 (Reply 13): It could certainly handle some A380s for leisure destinations such as BKK or NYC (or DBX). But SK will never get any A380s! The 747s by that time had way less seats (2-4-3 config) than the current versions.

The A380 would most probably go to Dubai and Bangkok on both leisure and business traffic. New York will probably not be an A380 destination from scandinavia in the next 10 years.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 15): New York will probably not be an A380 destination from scandinavia in the next 10 years.

Unless Emirates or Singapore Airlines will fly to NYC as a tag on from CPH - just like EK does from MXP (and previously HAM) and SQ does from FRA. Would be fun.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 10): From Standby.dk: Ifølge Københavns Lufthavn har lufthavnen 140 ruter, 110 i Europa, 24 oversøiske og seks indenrigs. Oslo har 119 ruter, 87 i Europa, 6 oversøiske og 26 indenrigs, mens Stockholm har 101 ruter, 71 i Europa, 11 oversøiske og 19 indenrigs. Why this eager to always deliberately presents incorrect facts about Oslo and Stockholm,

Reassuring to see something never changes….:D.

In addition CPH has been losing ground and lost importance as a hub for Scandinavia with a significant increase of direct routes from OSL and ARN the past years. The result is clear:

"På 12 år har Københavns Lufthavn mistet knap 1,5 mio. transferpassagerer. I 2002 skiftede næsten hver anden CPH-passager fly. I 2013 var det under hver fjerde."

CPH#.UutbF_ldXbN" target="_blank">http://www.check-in.dk/Faerre-skifter-fly-i-CPH#.UutbF_ldXbN

Then I find it a bit interesting that they now according to themselves do not compete against ARN and OSL anymore, when the gap has never been smaller.

But that being said, CPH and Denmark is again launching a great project to defend CPH and prepare for the future.

Quoting arn777 (Reply 17): Then I find it a bit interesting that they now according to themselves do not compete against ARN and OSL anymore, when the gap has never been smaller.

I agree with them here. They do not compete with OSL nor ARN anymore. With increase of direct and nonstop flights from Sweden and Norway CPH relies more om the catchment area in Öresund rather than transit (which is still there but to a lesser extent). But still SAS reluctance to start nonstops from OSL and ARN puts restraints on the development of those airports. It has less to do with CPH but rather with SAS old fashioned policy.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 14): Yes it is. It's used when there is a strong crosswind with gusts on the other runways. I've even seen A330s using it since when they take off on 30, they usually fly close to my home

12/30 indeed still is in use, to my big enjoyment! They also fly pretty much over where I live (Vesterbro), either on approach or on take-off. Just last week they were using 12, among other a/c, the GL 332 passed above me. A couple of months ago, during a hefty winter storm, they used 30 for take-offs (and landings) for two full days; I saw them all: SK 330 and 340, QR787, DY787, EK777, TG777 etc. So despite 30 being relatively short for take-off (12 is somewhat longer for take-offs because of a displaced threshold), it's apparently still long enough for even the biggest birds going long-haul (although on exception I could imagine: The SK 340 to SFO might have to take the 4/22's for take-offs despite poor weather??

Quoting Navigator (Reply 15): The A380 would most probably go to Dubai and Bangkok on both leisure and business traffic. New York will probably not be an A380 destination from scandinavia in the next 10 years.

During a few days in February, EK will actually go double-daily 773 to CPH because of high demand. So I don't think that a daily 380 to DXB is that far-fetched, actually. BKK I'm not so sure.. not least because of EK! EK and QR (and EY eventually) are mass transporting pax CPH-BKK offering very attractive low fares to a clientele who don't mind connecting if they can save 50 Euros versus nonstop. Let's not forget that SK pulled the plug on summer traffic to BKK last summer (and many doubt they'll retrun next winter). TG is really hurt by the ME carriers (generally in Europe), and as long as we have the aggressive ME carriers (which are here to stay), we will not see a 380 to BKK.

EWR/JFK I agree, no 380 potential (and from which airline??). Before EWR/JFK would reach 380 potential volume wise, you'd have introduced more frequencies (as has happened).

Kevin777  

Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 19): the GL 332 passed above me. A couple of months ago, during a hefty winter storm,

Maybe we witnessed the same departure   I live a little further west though.

When I went to pilot school, the controllers let me do a low pass over the runway one day when I had my uncle up for a sightseeing flight. I think I was about 1 meter or lower above the runway. So I owe the controllers a big thank you for an awesome experience.

Quoting EBGflyer (Thread starter): Station for high-speed trains A station for high-speed trains that bring travellers from both Oslo and Hamburg to Copenhagen Airport will play an important role in paving the way for growing towards 40 million passengers.

Interestingly, replacing the existing train station has been a key issue in the recent railway infrastructure debate. At the moment, trains are queued on either side waiting to enter the train station under CPH, since the planners neglected to factor in the time it takes for people to get in and out of the trains with luggage etc. There's been some talk of a new-build train station out by the Metro station, which frankly I think would be a disaster (it's way to far away from the terminal for a start).

Quoting Navigator (Reply 12): By the way, if you asked people in 1960 if there would be two SAS Boeing 747-200:s based in CPH in 1971, would they have believed you?

It would be unlikely, not least because the aircraft hadn't been launched in 1960  

But, good to see standards are being kept, and the usual moaning is steadily emanating from posters with Swedish and Norwegian flags next to their handles. Then again, it's been like that for the last 40 years, and if SAS lasts that long we'll hear the same endless nonsense for another 40 as well.

The simple fact that SAS cannot operate more than one intercontinental hub seems to escape nationalism, as does the fact opening direct routes from secondary bases will serve to dilute it's main base, decreasing the attractiveness of their network offerings. Luckily there are people way smarter, and in positions of actual power, who are less nationalistic and far more pragmatic about things. Hence, CPH will continue to be the main base of operation for SAS, as well as the gateway to Scandinavia, and that is where SAS will place most - if not all - of it's intercontinental growth.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 22): The simple fact that SAS cannot operate more than one intercontinental hub seems to escape nationalism, as does the fact opening direct routes from secondary bases will serve to dilute it's main base, decreasing the attractiveness of their network offerings. Luckily there are people way smarter, and in positions of actual power, who are less nationalistic and far more pragmatic about things. Hence, CPH will continue to be the main base of operation for SAS, as well as the gateway to Scandinavia, and that is where SAS will place most - if not all - of it's intercontinental growth.

The thing is that the need to let all intercontinantal traffic go through only one hub does not exist anymore now that smaller and more economical long range types than 747:s and DC-10:s are in operation worldwide. The whole concept with the 787 is to allow Point to Point Intercontinental traffic from lesser populated areas. And I Think if you have a Three nation cooperation it is pretty obvious that all countries should benefit from the arrangement. You can not allow the cooperation like SAS to prevent nonstops from two of the countries by means of bilaterals that feed into just one of the nations. Then it is better to do like Finland and stay out.

Just a bit of moaning on a saturday morning   Cheers

Quoting Navigator (Reply 23): The whole concept with the 787 is to allow Point to Point Intercontinental traffic from lesser populated areas.

Well, yes, that is what the marketing blurb out of Chicago will have you believe. Fact of the matter is, though, that not a single B787 network carrier are flying, or are planning to fly, their shiny new carbonfibre ships out of anywhere but a main hub*. They might very well reach a non-hub at the other end, aka NRT-SAN, but they always start from 'home'.

So, essentially, what this suggests is the opposite of your conclusion. SAS should - had they bought a fleet of 787s - have based the vast majority out of CPH and used them to offer a wider range of long-haul destinations than today, instead of having them fly to the same destinations from different bases.

*With the exception of JAL and ANA, who will operate P2P domestic services on a bird designed to go for 15 hours doing the work the -3 was meant to do, and DY/DU - of which the jury is still out on whether it's a valid business plan.

http://airlineroute.net/2013/10/18/787current-w13/

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 24):

Completely agree with your analysis which I've been trying to say in other threads as well.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 24): not a single B787 network carrier are flying, or are planning to fly, their shiny new carbonfibre ships out of anywhere but a main hub*.

Norwegian,s main hub is?

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 24): So, essentially, what this suggests is the opposite of your conclusion. SAS should - had they bought a fleet of 787s - have based the vast majority out of CPH and used them to offer a wider range of long-haul destinations than today, instead of having them fly to the same destinations from different bases.

Again, Norwegian thinks the other way around it seems,since they do exactly the opposit from what you are suggesting....

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 24): So, essentially, what this suggests is the opposite of your conclusion. SAS should - had they bought a fleet of 787s - have based the vast majority out of CPH and used them to offer a wider range of long-haul destinations than today, instead of having them fly to the same destinations from different bases.

Before SAS started using 767:s. SAS considered for instance EWR as a base for he plane and started flying EWR-FBU, EWR-ARN and EWR-CPH. And for your information ARN, OSL and CPH are all hubs for SAS each with a capacity to base intecontinental jets. Each with line maintenance for A330/340 and each with crewbases for A330/340 etc etc I dont really know where you are going with this but the Point is that SAS should and could easily serve more longhaul from ARN and OSL. This has been debated over and over so pls to take this route, it is exhausting   Cheers

And by now the following destinations could easily be served from all Three SAS Scandinavian hubs and some are served from more than one base:

Tokyo NRT
Newark
Beijing
Chicago
San Francisco

And a number of Points not yet served by SAS

[Edited 2014-02-01 05:26:24]

Quoting Navigator (Reply 27): Before SAS started using 767:s. SAS considered for instance EWR as a base for he plane and started flying EWR-FBU, EWR-ARN and EWR-CPH. And for your information ARN, OSL and CPH are all hubs for SAS each with a capacity to base intecontinental jets. Each with line maintenance for A330/340 and each with crewbases for A330/340 etc etc I dont really know where you are going with this but the Point is that SAS should and could easily serve more longhaul from ARN and OSL. This has been debated over and over so pls to take this route, it is exhausting Cheers

Imagine if KL divided their base into three instead of one. Or if BA did. They would not be nearly as powerful as they are today.

Even LH has one main hub even if they have a few others as well.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 27): the Point is that SAS should and could easily serve more longhaul from ARN and OSL.

Maybe, if it wasn't for the lack of longhaul equipment  

I still think, It's good to see CPH isn't sleeping the day away.

Peter

Let us be realistic about Norwegian. They are going after low-yield leisure routes using their low operating cost model. They are not a viable alternative to a network carrier; their schedule is not built around connections, where are their interline agreements, frequent flyer program, alliance affiliation, lounges, priority lanes etc.?

Besides, let us wait a bit and see whether DU and the B787 can indeed make long-haul low-yield travel economically viable. And, if they do, whether there is political will to allow DU to continue pretending to be an Irish carrier with a Norwegian HQ, using contract labour from SE Asia in the cabin, and self-employed crew in the sharp end, all allegedly based in BKG. It's the Ryanair model with intercontinental aspirations, and we all know the salivating interest with which various tax authorities around Europe is looking at that.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 27): And by now the following destinations could easily be served from all Three SAS Scandinavian hubs and some are served from more than one base: Tokyo NRT Newark Beijing Chicago San Francisco

Except if they served these destinations from all three bases, the yield would be lower on each flight compared to getting the feeder traffic from the other two bases and launching the flight from the third.

CPH have understood something many forum members have not. The fact that the day of SAS defining the traffic patterns of Scandinavia is over. That the hub structure of SAS cannot survive with their current model. Increasing aircrafts and destinations served from CPH will not bing the airport back to it’s role 10-20 years ago. The rise of the Scandinavian airline model could also ironically be the fall of the airline. The one hub policy, that is the fundament of the airline, could also be it’s end.
Even though SAS and CPH have done everything to keep other airlines out of Oslo and Stockholm to protect the role and significance of CPH for Denmark and SAS, more and more routes are launched from Norway and Sweden. Looking at how these airlines are reporting yield and performance on these routes, is a proof of the problems facing SAS.

DK/NO/SE are to small to sustain a significant amount of LH routes based on their home market, yet SAS are not able to feed these markets through their one hub strategy. It used to work well and was the foundation of the economical performance of the airline 20 years ago. We all learned that you could reach all corners of the world though Kastrup. With more competition and liberalization of the market, SAS are loosing their grip on their home market. Operating through diverse national interests are being increasingly difficult to defend. At the same time media and politicians are starting a debate witch is new to most Swedes and Norwegians. A demand and public debate for more direct services. With more direct services, the demand gets bigger through the proven benefits and convenience of travelling directly.
A situation SAS never ever have been faced with before and a situation that they seems very uncomfortable about. Uncomfortable because it’s the opposite of what they have told us. I guess we all agree that the best way for an airline is to have one hub, but with the competition lying ahead, SAS won’t be able to defend their home market through CPH. Simply because Scandinavia is not Germany or France. It’s 3 different countries, not counties. Focusing on Poland and the Baltic’s to build up for lost transfer from NO/SE shows the total lack of understanding of the importance for SAS to be an Scandinavian airline if they are to succeed under their current brand. Augmenting for CPH being close to the continent, is just another proof of SAS loosing the grip on where its focus should be.

Long haul have for ages been the holly cradle of SAS and Denmark. The propaganda machinery of SAS telling Swedes and Norwegians that there are no market potential for LH backfires through the success of other carriers operating services almost solitary based on O&D traffic. With Norwegian, Emirates and Qatar among others, expanding rapidly into SAS backyard, SAS will have to think differently about their future. Just look at how the airline in few years, completely have changed their communication about these issues. Issues they used to control or had influence on, but now is giving the airline great concerns. Therefore SAS have openly discussed and confirmed that they are considering a DU approach to the Scandinavian Long haul market in the future. Simply because they are not able to attract their most solid customer base one a hub policy.

And that’s what CPH have understood a long time ago. They backed by the whole country in the hunt for more routes, more passengers at any cost in order to secure the role of CPH in the future.
Simply because they know that SAS is not the key to the future success of CPH.

The only problem I se is how CPH will be able to serve a significant number of new IC services to destinations with little O&D traffic. Star airlines will to some extend have the backing of SAS, but I can’ se how other airlines can find it profitable. (except the Gulf carriers).
I think Norwegian will be the rescue to CPH with many new routes to be launched from CPH.
The only problem for CPH hub strategy is that they probably will also be offered directly from other Scandinavian airports….

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 32):

After reading your post, I don't see the connection between what you say CPH has understood and the strategy they have revealed for their future. If their future is not being a hub, why are they expanding, making room for up to 40m pax a year? If SAS can't keep their main hub at CPH, why do CPH want to expand further?

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 31): Except if they served these destinations from all three bases, the yield would be lower on each flight compared to getting the feeder traffic from the other two bases and launching the flight from the third.

No that is not a correct observation. Because those markets are nowadays separate and if SAS does not go nonstop from also ARN and OSL they lose the traffic alltogether.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 32): CPH have understood something many forum members have not. The fact that the day of SAS defining the traffic patterns of Scandinavia is over. That the hub structure of SAS cannot survive with their current model. Increasing aircrafts and destinations served from CPH will not bing the airport back to it’s role 10-20 years ago. The rise of the Scandinavian airline model could also ironically be the fall of the airline. The one hub policy, that is the fundament of the airline, could also be it’s end. Even though SAS and CPH have done everything to keep other airlines out of Oslo and Stockholm to protect the role and significance of CPH for Denmark and SAS, more and more routes are launched from Norway and Sweden. Looking at how these airlines are reporting yield and performance on these routes, is a proof of the problems facing SAS. DK/NO/SE are to small to sustain a significant amount of LH routes based on their home market, yet SAS are not able to feed these markets through their one hub strategy. It used to work well and was the foundation of the economical performance of the airline 20 years ago. We all learned that you could reach all corners of the world though Kastrup. With more competition and liberalization of the market, SAS are loosing their grip on their home market. Operating through diverse national interests are being increasingly difficult to defend. At the same time media and politicians are starting a debate witch is new to most Swedes and Norwegians. A demand and public debate for more direct services. With more direct services, the demand gets bigger through the proven benefits and convenience of travelling directly. A situation SAS never ever have been faced with before and a situation that they seems very uncomfortable about. Uncomfortable because it’s the opposite of what they have told us. I guess we all agree that the best way for an airline is to have one hub, but with the competition lying ahead, SAS won’t be able to defend their home market through CPH. Simply because Scandinavia is not Germany or France. It’s 3 different countries, not counties. Focusing on Poland and the Baltic’s to build up for lost transfer from NO/SE shows the total lack of understanding of the importance for SAS to be an Scandinavian airline if they are to succeed under their current brand. Augmenting for CPH being close to the continent, is just another proof of SAS loosing the grip on where its focus should be. Long haul have for ages been the holly cradle of SAS and Denmark. The propaganda machinery of SAS telling Swedes and Norwegians that there are no market potential for LH backfires through the success of other carriers operating services almost solitary based on O&D traffic. With Norwegian, Emirates and Qatar among others, expanding rapidly into SAS backyard, SAS will have to think differently about their future. Just look at how the airline in few years, completely have changed their communication about these issues. Issues they used to control or had influence on, but now is giving the airline great concerns. Therefore SAS have openly discussed and confirmed that they are considering a DU approach to the Scandinavian Long haul market in the future. Simply because they are not able to attract their most solid customer base one a hub policy. And that’s what CPH have understood a long time ago. They backed by the whole country in the hunt for more routes, more passengers at any cost in order to secure the role of CPH in the future. Simply because they know that SAS is not the key to the future success of CPH. The only problem I se is how CPH will be able to serve a significant number of new IC services to destinations with little O&D traffic. Star airlines will to some extend have the backing of SAS, but I can’ se how other airlines can find it profitable. (except the Gulf carriers). I think Norwegian will be the rescue to CPH with many new routes to be launched from CPH. The only problem for CPH hub strategy is that they probably will also be offered directly from other Scandinavian airports….

Dear g2scandinavia. May I add you to my respected members list. This is the best entry I have seen so far in this forum. I would gladly discuss this over a beer some day. Congratulation to the best analysis so far of the SAS/ CPH discussion.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 30): And, if they do, whether there is political will to allow DU to continue pretending to be an Irish carrier with a Norwegian HQ, using contract labour from SE Asia in the cabin, and self-employed crew in the sharp end, all allegedly based in BKG. It's the Ryanair model with intercontinental aspirations, and we all know the salivating interest with which various tax authorities around Europe is looking at that.

All this leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I hope the EU and any other relevant authority comes down on this operation like a ton of bricks.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 33):

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 33):

If you look at the broad picture here you will see that if SAS continues the Way they do they will lose the swedish and norwegian markets and be mainly a danish Airline albeit much smaller than now. The rest of the space in CPH will be norwegian... That creates a hub even if SAS ir out of ARN and OSL in future.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 36):

Completely agree. DY is destroying the industry and is trying to destroy the Scandinavian model by dumping the working conditions and trying to circumvent unions at any cost. Hope the EU kicks their ass.

Quoting simpan97 (Reply 5): I saw this coming after Swedavia releasing the plan for Arlanda   The big question in this case is which airline promising routes to ". sydøstasien og sydamerika" as stated in the Pier C expansion plan. I can understand South Asia, but South America? Is this a hint of SAS or Norwegian planning to launch these routes? I hoped that SAS was planning future routes from Arlanda!

This has been in the planning for a long time. It is not like CPH made this in a hurry when ARN presented their plans

And no airline has promised anything, this is simply CPH's own targets. Nothing wrong with that, but don't read to much into it

Quoting Navigator (Reply 27): And by now the following destinations could easily be served from all Three SAS Scandinavian hubs and some are served from more than one base: Tokyo NRT Beijing [Edited 2014-02-01 05:26:24]

If you ignore things like slot and the most impornat thing: Russian airspace rights

Same reason you will not see any Norwegian flight to Japan or China for a long time (the latter also have a few Noble price "hurdles"...)

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 38): DY is destroying the industry and is trying to destroy the Scandinavian model by dumping the working conditions and trying to circumvent unions at any cost. Hope the EU kicks their ass.

I can't see any reason for asskicking here..... If EU was in a position to kick ass, they would have kicked Ryanairs a long time ago  

Peter

Quoting Maersk737 (Reply 40):

They are just extremely slow at responding.. but it will happen once they open their eyes.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 38): Completely agree. DY is destroying the industry and is trying to destroy the Scandinavian model by dumping the working conditions and trying to circumvent unions at any cost. Hope the EU kicks their ass.

It never occurred to you that the current developement in the industry could be an result of the past?

Quoting EBGflyer (Thread starter): A station for high-speed trains that bring travellers from both Oslo and Hamburg to Copenhagen Airport will play an important role in paving the way for growing towards 40 million passengers.

That is a very interesting proposal, though the proposed location for the station seems too far - it should be built under the terminal.
As for passengers from Hamburg, the Fehmarn tunnel would have to be built first, which is still some years away.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 42): It never occurred to you that the current developement in the industry could be an result of the past?

Something in between must be achieveable.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 35): Dear g2scandinavia. May I add you to my respected members list. This is the best entry I have seen so far in this forum. I would gladly discuss this over a beer some day. Congratulation to the best analysis so far of the SAS/ CPH discussion.

And may I quote him from another similar thread:

"You are presenting a typical theory and solution that many shares, but unfortunately do not have the knowledge to process correctly. Stockholm in particular is indeed embarrassingly underserved.
Blaming “if there was a market, there would have been flights” is a fundamentally wrong statement proving how little people actually knows about the politics involved in route development.
I’m not attacking you personally as this is a common phrase. However I’ll try to outline some of the issues here.

Although the Scandinavian countries are very similar in many ways (Sweden and Norway in particular), they do at the same time represent some of Europe’s larges contrast when it comes to economical structure and topography. That means that the 3 countries are driven by very different economical interest. Trade in general and countries of national interests are not shared by the 3 countries. As a result, there is an increased attention and effort around route development to secure direct links to important trade partners. 20 years back in time, SAS could pretty much dictate the market. Now, all 3 countries plays an significant role in the world’s economy and politics, although in very different fields and interests. This is challenging the whole structure of SAS and will just increase in the years to come.

Comparing SAS to KLM, Lufthansa and others are therefore a wrong entry to the core issue.
While Germans fights of where Lufthansa should base their LH operations, It’s still one country, one economy , one ministry of foreign affairs and so on. Even with it’s political and historical background with large differences, Germany is still more synchronized than the Scandinavian countries. Therefore the Hamburg and Berlin lack of LH services cannot be translated to the Scandinavian fight for more LH attention. Simply because they are domestic issues, not national interests as they are in Scandinavia.

Route development are politics and for Scandinavia in particular. All bilateral agreements are still negotiated together with the ministry of transportation in all the 3 countries. This was started back in the golden age of SAS to secure the interests of the airline on the global stage. It makes it very difficult for airlines outside Copenhagen to open Scandinavian routes. It’s still done the same way today, although the game has changed totally. With Norwegian now entering the game of LH, they do at the same time challenge the bilateral structure of the Scandinavian countries as they have never in history been confronted by another airline than SAS. The negotiations have also been tailor made for SAS. In the union fog of criticism in regards to the Irish registry of DU’s 787, few seems to learn that traffic rights is a big part of the issue. Most of the agreements are old and have not been negotiated with another airlines than with SAS in mind. New or updated agreements takes years to complete.

Therefore SAS cannot be successful as a Scandinavian airline with one hub. Simply because the different interests in Norway, Sweden and Denmark are to divided and strong.
Ironically SAS is also to small to divide their LH operations into 3 hubs. It would also under their current economical performance, not be profitable. The problem with all the 3 countries is that they are to small to sustain a wide range of LH services. Filling up the front of the cabins to important destinations is not a problem. However filling up the 250 economy seats is a challenge without the support of a hub structure and feeding services. SAS have done everything they could to keep airlines away from ARN and OSL. Even STAR partners US Airways, Continental/United, Thai and Air China have started services to OSL and ARN without the backing of SAS. Without a hub, It’s nearly impossible to secure new LH services and as long as CPH are the main priority of SAS, ARN will not be able to feed in enough pax to help filling the LH routes.

A short summary of the issues in regards to some of the obvious candidates for ARN.

Cathay Paccific will not launch a service to Stockholm because they will then enter the gold mine of Finnair. At the same time Cathay does not have a Oneworld partner to feed in traffic to ARN.
(same case with JAL)

ANA will have difficulties serving ARN because SAS are refusing to cooperate with them outside of their own hub. ANA will therefore have to fight economy pax against EK , QR and others in order to
Make it economical sustainable.
(same with Asiana)

Korean (and Asiana) have a problem serving Scandinavia due to very limited traffic rights.
If I remember correctly, there are only room for 2 or 3 weekly flights from Scandinavia to Korea with Russian bilateral included. With Seoul on the top list of Copenhagen World Connected and a service on the pipeline to OSL, they are unlikely to land at Stockholm. Also if Oslo or Copenhagen would secure a service, they will fill all the bilateral pax capacity to Korea, effectively stopping any other carriers from entering the market.

Chinese carriers are international political tools and route development are strictly controlled.
China Eastern could be an option to Shanghai, however this will probably be to GOT.
Together with local interests around GOT, China Eastern are now considering a 2 weekly 330-200 service to GOT.

Singapore Airlines is an interesting card as they now are the only true friend of SAS and the only true feeding hub left for SAS in Asia. A service from ARN could also effectively stop some of the leakage to Finnair as SAS then will be able to offer a very good and effective eastbound product from ARN.
The SIA agreement with SAS are now up to investigation is some Norwegian medias as it’s rumoured from involved representatives from the airlines that there is a separate line in the contract refusing any SIA service to Oslo.

Add to all this, both Arlanda and Gardermoen are not near or even close Kastrup when it comes to
Route development. On the global stage, Arlanda is not only competing with Kastrup and Gardermoen, but Perth, Nairobi and all destinations possibly served from one of the Asian hubs.

With Norwegian now entering SAS’s back yard of LH, I think much will change in the years to come.

Finnair, Finland and Helsinki do not have this political challenges as they serve one market interests only!"

Quoting 777klm (Reply 7): As much as I would like to see more SK long haul from ARN, isn't it better to consolidate their long haul operations at one airport (i.e. CPH)?

Not in my opinion.. and not in SK pilots' opinions either.

As to the expansion plan.. sounds great.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 22): The simple fact that SAS cannot operate more than one intercontinental hub seems to escape nationalism, as does the fact opening direct routes from secondary bases will serve to dilute it's main base, decreasing the attractiveness of their network offerings. Luckily there are people way smarter, and in positions of actual power, who are less nationalistic and far more pragmatic about things. Hence, CPH will continue to be the main base of operation for SAS, as well as the gateway to Scandinavia, and that is where SAS will place most - if not all - of it's intercontinental growth.

I couldn't disagree more with you. You're thinking about it from one side only. There is demand in Oslo and Stockholm for long haul traffic. Why on earth should Norwegians or Swedes choose to fly to Copenhagen, when they can fly non-stop from their home cities? The single long haul hub idea works as long as there's very little competition, but the fact is that competition is growing rapidly. In the end, there's absolutely no incentive left to fly to CPH to go anywhere. The pax will be all swallowed up by another airline. And if there was no direct flight from OSL or ARN, they could just as well fly via AMS or LHR or FRA. Again a bad deal for SK.

All statistics are pointing in the opposite direction of your logic. CPH is losing transfer pax, OSL and ARN are both growing.

And trust me, CPH is not the gateway to Scandinavia. Copenhagen is a nice city, but it's a small part of Scandinavia. OSL has a lot larger network to Scandinavian destinations.

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 46): And trust me, CPH is not the gateway to Scandinavia. Copenhagen is a nice city, but it's a small part of Scandinavia. OSL has a lot larger network to Scandinavian destinations.

I may need to correct you a bit here.

Out of OSL you can fly direct to 37 Scandinavian destinations, but since we are talking about a hub operation this is also linked to an airline and its code share partners. There are flights from OSL to 4 Danish airport (CPH + AAL, AAR and BLL), but only two of them are flown by SAS. If we look to Sweden from OSL only two destinations are flown of SAS (ARN) and code share partner WF (GOT). Of the 30 domestic destinations with direct flights from OSL, only 24 of them are flown to either SAS or its partners.

At ARN on the other hand SAS and its partners covers/will cover in 2014 three Danish airports (AAL, BLL and CPH), six Norwegian airports (BGO, BOO, OSL, SVG, TOS and TRD) and 29 domestic destinations.

CPH has only direct flights to 20 Scandinavian airports: 5 domestic, 9 Norwegian and 6 Swedish - all flown of SAS and code share partners.

I would say ARN is a far better option to CPH for a SAS hub than OSL is, but then if you is flying westbound I guess you would loose a large share of Norwegian passengers that need to transfer at OSL on their way to ARN to BA, KL, AF (they're stating to fly from SVG S14) and obviously also to DY/NLH. I have not said anything about the capacity at OSL today or what comes in 2017, but it is obvious that OSL will be too small for such an operation now and also after 2017 (at the opening of Pier North OSL already operate very close to the new max capacity).

Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 47):

You're right, numbers are slightly skewed towards ARN. OSL = 37 destinations, ARN = 38 destinations, CPH = 20 destinations. But the point still stands, CPH is not the "gateway to Scandinavia". In my opinion.

And completely agree about the OSL expansion, it's already too small. But I also know that OSL has been talking to Ullensaker Kommune about starting another expansion process already before the current one is finished, and it has been informally green-lit by them.

Quoting g2scandinavia (Reply 32): Long haul have for ages been the holly cradle of SAS and Denmark. The propaganda machinery of SAS telling Swedes and Norwegians that there are no market potential for LH backfires through the success of other carriers operating services almost solitary based on O&D traffic. With Norwegian, Emirates and Qatar among others, expanding rapidly into SAS backyard, SAS will have to think differently about their future. Just look at how the airline in few years, completely have changed their communication about these issues. Issues they used to control or had influence on, but now is giving the airline great concerns. Therefore SAS have openly discussed and confirmed that they are considering a DU approach to the Scandinavian Long haul market in the future. Simply because they are not able to attract their most solid customer base one a hub policy.

This is similar to the crowds complaining that BA is London Airways (or QF is Sydney Airways)... if EK can fly several daily flights to the Middle East from second-tier cities, why can't BA (or QF... in which case the question is often why doesn't QF also serve dozens of European destinations like EK)? And although I agree that the obligatory stopover in CPH puts SK at a competitive disadvantage, the comparison is, as with BA, not fair. They are serving their home hubs in DOH and DXB (just like SK is in CPH) and connecting passengers onto other services there. The problem then is that from CPH the connections can't compete with the likes of DXB or even FRA and LHR. So if you're going to have to connect anyway, you may as well use a different hub. But the range of destinations served is not going to get better by requiring all destinations to be served by OSL, ARN AND CPH.