CPH Longhaul Thread

brissedk · Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:18 am

Hi all

A whole thread dedicated to Long Haul development out of CPH.

Currently being served Non-Stop, Scheduled

EWR - SK, CAL
IAD - SK
SEA - SK
ORD - SK
ATL - Delta
SFO - SK 2008
DXB - SK
DEL - SK 2008
NRT - SK
BKK - SK, TG
SIN - SQ
PEK - SK
ISB/LHE - PK
DAM - RB
THR - IR

That leaves quite a few of the worlds largest airports un-served according to this list from CPH:

# Airport City Departing Passengers
1 LAX Los Angeles 29.929
2 SFO San Francisco 26.669
3 JFK New York - JFK Airport 26.223
4 MIA Miami International 20.406
5 HKG Hong Kong International 18.262
6 HKT Phuket 18.126
7 BOS Boston Logan Int. 17.588
8 MCO Orlando International 15.970
9 MNL Manila 13.983
10 YYZ Toronto 13.238
11 SGN Ho Chi Minh City 12.287
12 ICN Inchon Int. Airport 11.271
13 AES Aalesund Vikra 10.672
14 JNB Johannesburg 10.632
15 LAS Las Vegas McCarran Intl. 10.015
16 YVR Vancouver 9.563
17 HAN Hanoi Gialam 9.374
18 KBP Kiev Borispol 9.263
19 DEL Delhi 9.059
20 NAP Napoli 8.856
21 GRU Sao Paolo Guarulhos Airport 8.532
22 ZAG Zagreb 8.460
23 SAN San Diego Intl. 8.248
24 MSP Minneapolis 8.142
25 CPT Cape Town 7.870

SFO and DEL has already been announced for 2008. But what will be next for SK and CPH?

New routes / Airlines:

DXB - has EK dropped all plans of serving CPH since SK now flies to DXB?
CPT/JNB - SA has served CPH in the past, but isn't exactly flourishing and making money on their EU Long Hauls. Would SK consider service to SA or other parts of Africa?
GRU/GIG - Varig is not likely to return to CPH in the near future. Could we see TAM or SK picking up the slack?
KIX/NGO - NRT is a moneymaker for SK. What other markets could we see from CPH?
PEK/PVG/HKG - SK recently pulled out of PVG and launched ARN-PEK instead. Will we see ARN going daily, before a return of CPH-HKG.
JFK - Will Delta start service? JFK is the 3rd largest un-served market from CPH.
LAX - Will UA start service? Star-Alliance partner UA is missing in CPH. Service from ORD, IAD or SFO doesn't make sense with SK on these routes. How about LAX? UA has a phenomenal presence and LAX is the single largest market without non-stop service from CPH.
YYZ - AC has previously served the route with very decent loads. I don't know about the yield though.
ICN - Korean must be coming to CPH soon. Business between DK and S.Korea is booming, and Korean seems very eager to expand. I never quite understood why they chose to serve PRG before more established/mature markets.
PHL - Could we see US move from ARN to CPH or even serve both?

Upgraded service:

TG - Possibility of seeing A380 on the route or increasing to 10x weekly, with 3 continuing to OSL (Has been rumoured before, but never materialised). Would a route from HKT be viable? HKT is high in the top 25 in spite of several charters doing CPH-HKT.
SQ - has flown to CPH for years. It is long overdue for an increase in frequency. How is SQ Cargo doing in CPH?

Airport Competition

OSL - That airport is growing and attracting a lot of new european service. CO is doing very well on their route to EWR. SK is not likely to expand IC from OSL due to focus on CPH/ARN and having the wrong equipment, but will OSL be able to lure other Long Haul airlines in competition with CPH?
ARN - seems to be strugling with limited growth. Recently overtaken by OSL in terms of passengers. Succesfully attracted MH on KUL-ARN-EWR, US to PHL and now DL to ATL. Will Emirates choose ARN over CPH? In what aspects are ARN more attractive than CPH? Sweden is of course a bigger country/market, but 50% of Sweden has easier access to CPH than to ARN, and combined with the rest of DK, would make CPH the absolutely most attractive candidate for IC service. Does anyone know the yield or loads for the services out of CPH and ARN for comparison?
HEL - AY has it's eyes set on Asia and is quite succesful. What impact has AY expansion had on SK service out of CPH? From who are the AY passengers coming? Are they growing the EU-ASIA market or simply stealing from others? Will HEL be able to attrach IC carriers or rely solely on service by AY?

Connecting point from the Baltics
The baltics are growing, yet neither of the markets seem large enough for significant IC service. Would it make any sense for SK, Air Baltic and Estonian (all part of the SK group of airlines) to establish a TATL scissor hub in CPH like seen in BRU by Jet? Having same-plane service from either of the baltic countries and even LED.

Let's discuss!

Regards,
BJ

Doona · Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:25 am

Quoting BrisseDK (Thread starter):
EWR - SK, CAL

China Airlines do not operate CPH-EWR. duck

Cheers
Mats

mozart · Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:47 am

Quoting Doona (Reply 1):
China Airlines do not operate CPH-EWR.

But Continental does. That's what he meant. Continental is often referred to as "CAL".

longhaul67 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:21 am

Quoting BrisseDK (Thread starter):
13 AES Aalesund Vikra 10.672

Aalesund Vikra does not have 10.672 departing passengers pr year

Someone83 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:24 am

Quoting LongHaul67 (Reply 3):
Aalesund Vikra does not have 10.672 departing passengers pr year

This number represent passengers leaving CPH whos final destination is AES

AES is anyway getting one daily (x6) flight to CPH from March 30. The flight will be operated by Cimber on behalf os SAS using a CRJ-200

[Edited 2007-11-25 03:31:37]

flyboy_se · Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:21 pm

Quoting BrisseDK (Thread starter):
seems to be strugling with limited growth. Recently overtaken by OSL in terms of passengers. Succesfully attracted MH on KUL-ARN-EWR, US to PHL and now DL to ATL. Will Emirates choose ARN over CPH? In what aspects are ARN more attractive than CPH? Sweden is of course a bigger country/market, but 50% of Sweden has easier access to CPH than to ARN, and combined with the rest of DK, would make CPH the absolutely most attractive candidate for IC service. Does anyone know the yield or loads for the services out of CPH and ARN for comparison?

Dont forget QR ARN-DOH

brissedk · Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:13 pm

Quoting LongHaul67 (Reply 3):
Aalesund Vikra does not have 10.672 departing passengers pr year

Well, they do have that many passengers arriving from CPH every year. I suppose AES has other routes as well.

Do you think we will see SK starting more regional feeder routes from Norway, Sweden and Finland? Still lots of cities without service to CPH: SDL, LLA, UME, OSD, KRN, TOS, ALT, BOO, RYG, EVE, KUO, KTT, JYV. They could all help build the IC routes just like NWA is doing in MSP and DTW and giving the regions a one-stop option to major destinations. What aircraft would be needed for such long and thin regional routes, and would the setup of SAS Commuter be the optimal way to do it? SK could adopt the american approach with designated regional affiliates and clear seperation from mainline service.

Quoting Flyboy_se (Reply 5):
Dont forget QR ARN-DOH

True, forgot about the QR A319.

Also forgot about MEA seasonal to BEY-CPH

Regards,
BJ

B747forever · Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:32 pm

Quoting BrisseDK (Thread starter):
1 LAX Los Angeles 29.929

Wow, the demand is really big for LAX.

Can we see in the future SAS operate both LAX and SFO???

Someone83 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:42 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 7):
Wow, the demand is really big for LAX.

Can we see in the future SAS operate both LAX and SFO???

One thing is the passengers numbers, another issue is connecting pax and yield. SFO has traditionally had slightly higher yield than LAX from Scandinavia, although California is not particulary high yield anyway. Another issue is that SFO have much better connection and feed posibilities with UA (and Star Alliance) than LAX. Remember that these numbers presented here represent the number of passenger travelling through CPH with SFO/LAX as their final destination. Hence, I don't see any SK flights to LAX in the future as LAX is now "covered" by SK using UA from SFO

[Edited 2007-11-25 06:43:08]

Basefly · Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:47 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 7):

I think SK will stay on SFO for now, they simply do not have the birds to do otherwise.

However there is an huge demand to LAX from CPH, and in my humble opinion SK is leaving a huge door open for competition by not having LAX on the route map.

I wonder how many SK passengers really has Seattle as their final dest??.

B747forever · Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:51 pm

Quoting Basefly (Reply 9):
SK is leaving a huge door open for competition by not having LAX on the route map.

Who will close that door??? AA??

Someone83 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:00 pm

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 6):
Do you think we will see SK starting more regional feeder routes from Norway, Sweden and Finland? Still lots of cities without service to CPH: SDL, LLA, UME, OSD, KRN, TOS, ALT, BOO, RYG, EVE, KUO, KTT, JYV

Maybe a few, but not that many. The problem with cities north of Trondheim is both that they are rather small and the distance from CPH is just to long as feeder routes. And at least today is it easier to connect those pax via OSL to CPH as the volumes in the Norwegian domestic market is large enough to have a decent frequency using 737

B747forever · Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:06 pm

Quoting BrisseDK (Thread starter):
PHL - Could we see US move from ARN to CPH or even serve both?

That is a interesting question. I have not heard anything about US moving the ARN flight to CPH. and I doubt that it will happen. Think that US did look on both ARN and CPH. And they didn't choose ARN for just fun over CPH. Think that US did the right choose.

jetsetter629 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:16 pm

Does most inter-continental traffic come from Maersk exec/employees shuttling around the world? Do they have a special agreement with SK as well?

Rob

LHboyatDTW · Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:02 pm

Interesting thread.

Is there any feasibility to have NW serve CPH? I've been dying for a DTW-CPH route!!

Someone83 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:21 pm

Quoting LHboyatDTW (Reply 14):
Is there any feasibility to have NW serve CPH? I've been dying for a DTW-CPH route!!

KLM/NW prefere to route all passengers going from the US til Scandinavia via AMS, so its unlikely we will see NW at either CPH, OSL or ARN

Robbie86 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:10 pm

Quoting BrisseDK (Thread starter):
PEK/PVG/HKG - SK recently pulled out of PVG and launched ARN-PEK instead. Will we see ARN going daily, before a return of CPH-HKG.

CPH-HKG is a high priority from SK and I don't think we'll have to wait to long to see service start. Liked said in other threads, SK's problem is the lack of Long-Haul equip.

Robbie86 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:14 pm

Quoting BrisseDK (Thread starter):
YYZ - AC has previously served the route with very decent loads. I don't know about the yield though

Quoting BrisseDK (Thread starter):
LAX - Will UA start service? Star-Alliance partner UA is missing in CPH. Service from ORD, IAD or SFO doesn't make sense with SK on these routes. How about LAX? UA has a phenomenal presence and LAX is the single largest market without non-stop service from CPH.

I've heard somewhere that a route from LAX to Scandinavia has very low yield (as it would be mostly tourists travelling on coach). So I think CPH will see AC before UA.

B747forever · Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:46 pm

Quoting Robbie86 (Reply 16):
SK's problem is the lack of Long-Haul equip.

That is a really really big problem for SAS.

LAXintl · Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:52 pm

Quoting B747forever (Reply 7):
Wow, the demand is really big for LAX.

Quoting Basefly (Reply 9):
However there is an huge demand to LAX from CPH

You guys call 82 passengers per day "really big" or "huge"?

Look at it this way, London generates over 1,000 daily local O&D passengers to Los Angeles.

Kevin777 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:56 pm

DXB - SK has started DXB, and with feeder agreements with EK, so... but another ME carrier (DOH, AUH) is not unlikely IMO..

CPT/JNB - Doubtful... Market is simply too small, and connecting possibilities at either end would be, relatively speaking, limited. SAA were very close in 2001, but only thrice weekly

GRU/GIG - No way... Market just too small, no VFR relations between Scandinavia and Latin America etc. Varig only survived for 25 years because of 5th freedom traffic to London, filling up 2/3 or more of the plane on the CPH-LHR leg

KIX/NGO - Expensive, but could be indeed in the near future

PEK/PVG/HKG - HKG indeed.

JFK - Will Delta start service? JFK is the 3rd largest un-served market from CPH.

Naaa, those who fly from CPH to JFK are low-yields who don't want to pay the premium SK and CO charge for a nonstop flight to Newark; direct JFK service would steal from CO/SK, not connecting JFK traffic

LAX - As mentioned above, too low-yield and too far away

YYZ - Possible, at least in summer

ICN - Possible too, by either Korean or SAS

PHL - US, maybe, but there is some issue with the whole * alliance thing; I've heard that SK will not allow feed to US at CPH if they come

TG - Possibility of seeing A380 on the route or increasing to 10x weekly, with 3 continuing to OSL (Has been rumoured before, but never materialised). Would a route from HKT be viable? HKT is high in the top 25 in spite of several charters doing CPH-HKT.

HKT: Never, A380: Can't land at CPH, and it would be far down the line (+10-15 years) anyway. But additional capacity definitely likely, at least in wintertime (maybe 10x weekly 744)

SQ - I'm also a bit puzzled why they haven't increased at all for many, many years - but I guess it could have somehing to do with stiff competition on EU-Aus routes.

Regards,

Kevin777 Smile

brissedk · Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:27 pm

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 11):
Maybe a few, but not that many. The problem with cities north of Trondheim is both that they are rather small and the distance from CPH is just to long as feeder routes. And at least today is it easier to connect those pax via OSL to CPH as the volumes in the Norwegian domestic market is large enough to have a decent frequency using 737

I certainly see your point, while I'm not asking for 737 or A32X equipment for such feeder flights. Even smaller cities would have a need for long haul connections, and it is definitely not easier for them to double connect in OSL and XXX to go see the world. A small RJ would do the trick, though not everybodies favorite on +2h flights which some of them would be. In the US such flights a done on a daily basis to secure viable connections for smaller cities. Don't see why we can't in Scandinavia.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 12):
Think that US did look on both ARN and CPH. And they didn't choose ARN for just fun over CPH. Think that US did the right choose.

I'm sure they did their research, but personally I can't tell if they made the right choice. I guess the fact that the seasonal flight is coming back this summer, should tell something. But who knows if a flight to CPH would have year-round potential instead? Maybe SK convinced US that CPH was off limits due to EWR and IAD being just down (and up) the road from PHL. stirthepot

Quoting JetSetter629 (Reply 13):
Does most inter-continental traffic come from Maersk exec/employees shuttling around the world? Do they have a special agreement with SK as well?

The guys at Maersk certainly travels a lot, but DK and Southern Sweden has a lot of other businesses contributing eg. clothing, medico, IT, furnitures.

Quoting LHboyatDTW (Reply 14):
Is there any feasibility to have NW serve CPH? I've been dying for a DTW-CPH route!!

NW and DTW would certainly be interesting. Unfortunate NW seems to have absolutely no interest in EU destinations outside London, Paris, Frankfurt and their home-away-from-home Amsterdam. Will be interesting to see how far they will go with the 757 experiment. DTW-CPH should be well within the realm of posibilities if NW really want's do expand in EU with 757.

Quoting Robbie86 (Reply 16):
SK's problem is the lack of Long-Haul equip.

Agreed, but that hasn't kept them from announcing SFO and DEL. Currently they haven't procured equipment for those destinations. One would think, that if they care to procure 1 aircraft, they might as well take 2 or 3 at the same time to secure growth.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 19):
You guys call 82 passengers per day "really big" or "huge"?

Look at it this way, London generates over 1,000 daily local O&D passengers to Los Angeles.

London vs Copenhagen is like compairing apples and oranges. It is well proven that non-stop flights stimulate traffic. Just look at SFO and DEL, both has lower un-stimulated demand than LAX, and both are now getting a non-stop. That should tell you something.

Regards,
BJ

Someone83 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:40 pm

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 21):
NW and DTW would certainly be interesting. Unfortunate NW seems to have absolutely no interest in EU destinations outside London, Paris, Frankfurt and their home-away-from-home Amsterdam. Will be interesting to see how far they will go with the 757 experiment. DTW-CPH should be well within the realm of posibilities if NW really want's do expand in EU with 757.

As I already mentioned. KLM won't let them. This is one of the reasons NW MSP-OSL was stopped, as the loads during the summer was good

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 21):
I'm sure they did their research, but personally I can't tell if they made the right choice. I guess the fact that the seasonal flight is coming back this summer, should tell something. But who knows if a flight to CPH would have year-round potential instead? Maybe SK convinced US that CPH was off limits due to EWR and IAD being just down (and up) the road from PHL.

SK is not very happy with US flying into ARN and I've heard that they refuses to feed into their ARN-PHL route

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 21):
I certainly see your point, while I'm not asking for 737 or A32X equipment for such feeder flights. Even smaller cities would have a need for long haul connections, and it is definitely not easier for them to double connect in OSL and XXX to go see the world. A small RJ would do the trick, though not everybodies favorite on +2h flights which some of them would be. In the US such flights a done on a daily basis to secure viable connections for smaller cities. Don't see why we can't in Scandinavia.

The problem here is still the yield. It is cheaper to route passengers from TOS to CPH via OSL using 737 than sending a CRJ-200 CPH-TOS twice a day

MAH4546 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:44 pm

If SAS stabilizes their long-haul network and expands on the East Coast, I can definitely see Boston, Miami, and/or Toronto as strong candidates for new destinations.

[Edited 2007-11-25 13:45:36]

brissedk · Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:55 pm

Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 20):
Naaa, those who fly from CPH to JFK are low-yields who don't want to pay the premium SK and CO charge for a nonstop flight to Newark; direct JFK service would steal from CO/SK, not connecting JFK traffic

Spot on!

Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 20):
PHL - US, maybe, but there is some issue with the whole * alliance thing; I've heard that SK will not allow feed to US at CPH if they come

I think you are right, but really, what is up with that? It's an alliance, and Star is THE most aggressive alliance when it comes to recruiting new members. Maybe they should start working on the QUALITY of the alliance instead of the QUANTITY. Come on people, think win-win! It's one of the 7 habits, shouldn't be so difficult! Big grin

What is your view on the feed for the CPH long hauls. I still see a lot of potential in the rest of Scandinavia, the Baltics, Russia (expansion not allowed, maybe?), Eastern Europe, Northern Germany and even UK/IRE for Asia flights. Maybe it's just me not acknowledging SKs efforts, but why haven't SK been more aggressive linking smaller cities to CPH? Being first-mover does have some benefits.

Regards,
BJ

flyguy1 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:58 pm

I'm really surprised JFK has no service to CPH, ARN, or OSL. Most major European cities have service into Kennedy, excluding LIS. For some reason, EWR has multiple services to these 3 cities, ARN with 3per day at times. Has SK ever considered moving back to JFK? I know they were there as of the late 1980's., and moved for the CO partnership. They could have a nice monoply now, if they considered this. The passenger #s are obviously there.

Someone83 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:02 pm

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 24):
What is your view on the feed for the CPH long hauls. I still see a lot of potential in the rest of Scandinavia, the Baltics, Russia (expansion not allowed, maybe?), Eastern Europe, Northern Germany and even UK/IRE for Asia flights. Maybe it's just me not acknowledging SKs efforts, but why haven't SK been more aggressive linking smaller cities to CPH? Being first-mover does have some benefits.

I would say they are linking the rest of Scandinavia, the Baltics and Northern Germany pretty well with CPH, either on their own metal or with AirBaltic, Blue1, Estonian and WiderÃƒÂ¸e, which all are member of the SAS Group and work as regional feeders

2travel2know · Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:13 pm

Quoting BrisseDK (Thread starter):
8 MCO Orlando International 15.970

So many passengers and no charter services?

Quoting BrisseDK (Thread starter):
15 LAS Las Vegas McCarran Intl. 10.015

Same question as MCO.

Quoting BrisseDK (Thread starter):
21 GRU Sao Paolo Guarulhos Airport 8.532

I don't see SK ever returning to GRU as long as they remain in Star Alliance with LH. JJ or the new RG back in CPH, I really don't think so. Are there charters from CPH/MMX, ARN or HEL to North East Brazil (REC, FOR, SSA)?

krje1980 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:15 pm

Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 20):

SQ - I'm also a bit puzzled why they haven't increased at all for many, many years - but I guess it could have somehing to do with stiff competition on EU-Aus routes.

Anybody know the yileds for this flight? I flew CPH - SIN and SIN - CPH on SQ last Christmas, and the flights were 100 per cent full (at least in Y, but I also saw quite a lot of C passengers boarding).

wfm · Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:19 pm

Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 20):

GRU/GIG: I do think Varig did make money on the flight. They had a lot of cargo and Maersk, ISS, Novo Nordisk, Erricson are very well represented Brazil. My father worked for Varig and they did quite well on the 3 flights per week. Also alot of tour operators in Scandinavian has success with Brazil.

SAS used to fly to Brazil via Lisbon with the DC10 and I am not sure if they did nonstop with the B767-200ER.

- Michael

brissedk · Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:38 pm

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 22):
As I already mentioned. KLM won't let them. This is one of the reasons NW MSP-OSL was stopped, as the loads during the summer was good

Wasn't it very very short-lived? All I've heard about the route was, that it was the kind of route which works out perfectly on paper, but not in real life. I honestly don't know, but find it perfectly believable that KL might pulled the plug on it. KL does have strong feelings about Norway - well haven't we all kiss

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 22):
The problem here is still the yield. It is cheaper to route passengers from TOS to CPH via OSL using 737 than sending a CRJ-200 CPH-TOS twice a day

Of course it is cheaper for SK, but does it stimulate any traffic? No. Does it provide the optimal feed to a hub? No. Is it the most convenient for the local passengers? Absolutely not!

I fly to Oslo 1-2 times every month and during winter I always pray

that the weather gods don't throw a major snowball and mess up my schedules. The RJ could easily provide connections to IC flights, but also open up the rest of Europe. I know that Oslo is gaining a lot of Euro-flights at the moment, but still CPH has a plethora of destinations which today require double connections from TOS and the rest of the lot.

Now TOS is getting 737 flights to LGW a few times a week on Norwegian. If those flights can succeed, I honestly don't see why a 2x daily RJ flight to CPH with O/D, IC and EU connections shouldn't be viable.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 23):
If SAS stabilizes their long-haul network and expands on the East Coast, I can definitely see Boston, Miami, and/or Toronto as strong candidates for new destinations.

I hope you are right, though from what I hear, Miami is low yield from Northern Europe, High Yield from Southern Europe. Might make it hard to work pessimist

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 26):
I would say they are linking the rest of Scandinavia, the Baltics and Northern Germany pretty well with CPH, either on their own metal or with AirBaltic, Blue1, Estonian and WiderÃ?Â¸e, which all are member of the SAS Group and work as regional feeders

Sorry to keep at it, but isn't it just the "usual suspects" they've got cornered? I mean

Capitals
2nd largest city
3rd largest city
True regional Cities very few.

I know that some regional cities in the baltics asf. might not be worth going after, but a lot of Scandinavian cities see multiple 737-sized services to either Oslo, Stockholm or Helsinki without service to CPH. I dare to claim that a lot of Scandinavians, Finns, Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians double connect with this setup. And it pretty much goes against the whole hub-and-spoke idea.

Regards,
BJ

Viscount724 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:02 pm

Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 20):
YYZ - Possible, at least in summer

But highly unlikely it would be operated by AC. Possibly a leisure carrier like Air Transat where the yield is more in line with their cost structure. I don't think AC is interested in seasonal low-yield transatlantic routes with very little business traffic, especially considering their aircraft reconfiguration focusing on their improved business class product with flat-bed seats etc. They tried CPH 2 or 3 times on a seasonal basis without success but that was before the current management was in place. At one time AC served CPH year-round. When they began service to Moscow around 1967, CPH was an intermediate stop. That service didn't last very long either.

SK also served both YUL and YYZ at various times in the past, most recently CPH-YYZ with 767-300ERs for a couple of years in the early 1990s if memory correct.

Someone83 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:07 pm

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 30):
Of course it is cheaper for SK, but does it stimulate any traffic? No. Does it provide the optimal feed to a hub? No. Is it the most convenient for the local passengers? Absolutely not!

Remember except for KLM AMS-TRD route and WFs TRD-CPH route, there are currently no feed from Norway north of Oslo, which means SAS doesn't need to focus feeding to CPH from here as they have a monopoly from these places. It is cheaper for both the passengers and SAS to route them via OSL going to CPH. And it's not breaking the hub and spoke system, it just takes it into another dimension. Also remember that Norway is thinly populated and it is the same distance from the south to the north as it is from Oslo to Rome

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 30):
KL does have strong feelings about Norway - well haven't we all kiss

And the main reason for that is that Norway is one of KLMs most profitable markets in Europe with 5 or 6 daily flights to OSL (737), 3 or 4 to both SVG and BGO (737) and 2 or 3 too TRF, KRS and TRD (F70) all getting KLM alot of feed into their network

flyguy1 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:17 pm

Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 20):
JFK - Will Delta start service? JFK is the 3rd largest un-served market from CPH.

Naaa, those who fly from CPH to JFK are low-yields who don't want to pay the premium SK and CO charge for a nonstop flight to Newark; direct JFK service would steal from CO/SK, not connecting JFK traffic

Why would EWR have higher yielding O/D than JFK?

MAH4546 · Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:19 am

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 30):

I hope you are right, though from what I hear, Miami is low yield from Northern Europe, High Yield from Southern Europe. Might make it hard to work

Correct, that's typically true. SAS would have to capitalize on connections to make it work. I'm not sure of the strength of their CPH hub, but if they can capitalize on connections from Eastern Europe, combined with the local market from Scandanavia, they could possibly make a go for it at 3-5x weekly. I think they could make it work, but it wouldn't be a "sure thing".

OA412 · Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:45 am

Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 20):
Naaa, those who fly from CPH to JFK are low-yields who don't want to pay the premium SK and CO charge for a nonstop flight to Newark; direct JFK service would steal from CO/SK, not connecting JFK traffic

Source? I'll echo others on here by asking you why exactly you assume that CO/SK are able to command a premium on a nonstop out of EWR but that DL would not be able to command a premium on a nonstop out of JFK. If you're going by current passenger numbers, then it would make sense that JFK would show lower yielding traffic to CPH given that all passengers currently have to connect somewhere to get from JFK to CPH whereas passengers are currently able to fly nonstop from EWR which should account for any premium you are seeing.

brissedk · Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:11 am

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 32):
SAS doesn't need to focus feeding to CPH from here as they have a monopoly from these places

No need? Non-stop service stimulates traffic, commands better yields, strengthens the hub, provides real value to the local communities and definitely builds loyalty. 5 very good reasons in my book.

Quoting Flyguy1 (Reply 33):
Why would EWR have higher yielding O/D than JFK?

EWR wouldn't nessecarily have better yields than JFK, but commenting on the number of passengers currently going to JFK from CPH would most certainly be low-yielding. If they where high yielding, they would probably take advantage of either of the non-stops. Not saying that DL wouldn't be able to attract a high-yielding crowd, should they start service.

Regards,
BJ

hodja · Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:12 am

Quoting Krje1980 (Reply 28):
Anybody know the yileds for this flight? I flew CPH - SIN and SIN - CPH on SQ last Christmas, and the flights were 100 per cent full (at least in Y, but I also saw quite a lot of C passengers boarding).

Ever since SK stopped flying to SIN last year SQ flights have been packed.

It's definitely due for a frequency upgrade, 3 times a week is a bit low.

However, I suspect this route isn't sufficiently high profile for SQ to increase the frequency and the yield might suffer with daily service.

krje1980 · Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:40 am

Quoting Hodja (Reply 37):
Ever since SK stopped flying to SIN last year SQ flights have been packed.

It's definitely due for a frequency upgrade, 3 times a week is a bit low.

However, I suspect this route isn't sufficiently high profile for SQ to increase the frequency and the yield might suffer with daily service.

Maybe an upgrade to 5 times a week might be feasible? Singapore is one of the few destinations which I believe have quite a lot of potential business travelers from Scandinavia. A lot of Norwegian shipping companies have offices in Singapore, and the people I know who work in such companies usually fly business class. Also, SQ's flight out of CPH is one of the best ways for Scandinavians to get to Australia/New Zealand, and going down under is one of the most popular travel choices for young people in Norway at least. In addition, Changi is excellent as a South East Asian hub with connections to basically any place in Asia, and SQ's reputation as a quality airline further attracts customers. And, lastly, let's not forget the increasing number of Asians going to Europe on vacation.

My point is that I think a 5 x a week schedule is certainly feasible.

2travel2know · Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:44 pm

Quoting WFM (Reply 29):
SAS used to fly to Brazil via Lisbon with the DC10 and I am not sure if they did nonstop with the B767-200ER

Yes they did, late 80's early 90's. And there was the huge complain in the SAS countries as why fly to GRU and not GIG.

brissedk · Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:08 pm

Quoting Krje1980 (Reply 38):
My point is that I think a 5 x a week schedule is certainly feasible.

Will the introduction of the A380 result in more capacity (= more planes) for SQ, or will the older frames be sold and keep a status quo? I know that SQ are rather age-scentric, but if they don't keep any of the older frames, they really don't have the capacity to expand any of the existing routes like CPH.

Does anybody have indications about yields for SQ on SIN-CPH, especially before and after SK stopped flying to SIN?

Regards,
BJ

brissedk · Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:57 pm

SK International Chief Lars Sandahl disclosed today, that SK profitmargin for IC currently is 2%, and that they aim for 7%. This from a yearly turnover of 7,8 billion SEK. ($1,6 billion).

http://www.standby.dk/4435.0.html?&t...i1[showUid]=26305&cHash=82cb883948

I guess that isn't a stellar performance by SK, but by all means better than previous years. How does it compare to other carriers of similar size eg. Austrian, Swiss etc.?

Regards,
BJ

B747forever · Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:01 pm

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 41):
How does it compare to other carriers of similar size eg. Austrian, Swiss etc.?

I do dear to say that they makes more profits than SAS.

Kevin777 · Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:27 am

Quoting WFM (Reply 29):
My father worked for Varig and they did quite well on the 3 flights per week. Also alot of tour operators in Scandinavian has success with Brazil.

Well, still, I don't think they could have done it without stopping in LHR.

Quoting WFM (Reply 29):
SAS used to fly to Brazil via Lisbon with the DC10 and I am not sure if they did nonstop with the B767-200ER.

He he.. at one point, SK had 50 people working full time in LIS...! WHat a joke...! Still, I cannot see SK going back to South America anytime soon...

Quoting OA412 (Reply 35):
Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 20):
Naaa, those who fly from CPH to JFK are low-yields who don't want to pay the premium SK and CO charge for a nonstop flight to Newark; direct JFK service would steal from CO/SK, not connecting JFK traffic

Source? I'll echo others on here by asking you why exactly you assume that CO/SK are able to command a premium on a nonstop out of EWR but that DL would not be able to command a premium on a nonstop out of JFK. If you're going by current passenger numbers, then it would make sense that JFK would show lower yielding traffic to CPH given that all passengers currently have to connect somewhere to get from JFK to CPH whereas passengers are currently able to fly nonstop from EWR which should account for any premium you are seeing.

As BrisseDK points out (thanks!):

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 36):
EWR wouldn't nessecarily have better yields than JFK, but commenting on the number of passengers currently going to JFK from CPH would most certainly be low-yielding. If they where high yielding, they would probably take advantage of either of the non-stops. Not saying that DL wouldn't be able to attract a high-yielding crowd, should they start service.

Exactly. A onestop CPH-NYC is a damaged product in microeconomic terms - you can fly a convenient nonstop CPH-NYC, or take a damaged product - the onestop. Assuming that, say, KLM or BA's product isn't so superior to SK's product, that for instance business pax would choose a onestop over a nonstop with SK/CO, one-stops to NYC from CPH (that often go to JFK) will be left with low-yields who don't mind the "damaged" product. SK doesn't want these pax because they would dilute their yield on those pax who are willing to pay the nonstop premium.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 42):
I do dear to say that they makes more profits than SAS.

Well, don't know... At least OS hasn't been performin too well recently...

Kevin777 Smile

Robbie86 · Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:44 pm

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 36):
EWR wouldn't nessecarily have better yields than JFK, but commenting on the number of passengers currently going to JFK from CPH would most certainly be low-yielding. If they where high yielding, they would probably take advantage of either of the non-stops. Not saying that DL wouldn't be able to attract a high-yielding crowd, should they start service.

I don't think PAX travelling from CPH thinks about going to EWR or JFK. They are thinking about going to New York.

brissedk · Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:30 pm

Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 43):
SK had 50 people working full time in LIS

What did all those people do? Bring each other coffee? Big grin

Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 43):
As BrisseDK points out (thanks!):

My pleasure!

Quoting Robbie86 (Reply 44):
I don't think PAX travelling from CPH thinks about going to EWR or JFK. They are thinking about going to New York.

The seasoned traveller probably would. However the question is how strongly he/she feels about it. If going to Manhattan, both airports would be fine. If your final destination is north/east of JFK it actually would be a hassle to fly to EWR. If your final destination is south/west of EWR, then JFK would be hopeless. In both cases I would actually consider a one-stop option, but that's just me.

Regards,
BJ

B747forever · Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:37 pm

Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 43):
At least OS hasn't been performin too well recently...

Hmm, has not heard anything about OS profit.

brissedk · Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:56 pm

Earlier today I flew SK CPH-OSL from Pier B and noticed a lot of construction work between Pier B and C. Can anyone tell me what the construction is for?

I took a photo with my cell - I apologize for the low quality:

Found out it's old news. Rebuilding Pier C to give better access for non-Schengen passengers and bigger lounges. Will allow complete seperation between arriving and departing non-Schengen passengers who account for 1/3 of all passengers. Completed by Sep. 2008.

In danish:
http://www.cph.dk/CPH/DK/OmCPH/Her+bygger+vi/Ombygning+af+Finger+C.htm

Regards,
BJ

[Edited 2007-11-29 13:15:26]

Kevin777 · Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:41 pm

Quoting BrisseDK (Reply 45):
Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 43):
SK had 50 people working full time in LIS

What did all those people do? Bring each other coffee

Highly likely - a couple of daily flights a best doesn't leave that much work to be done.. although I'm sure 25 of the 50 were constantly on leave because of stress.. Naturally, SK wanted to get rid of 80 % of LIS staff badly, especially after the GIG flight stopped, but it was difficult politically to do - what they did was to discontinue LIS altogether, and "coincidently" Maersk Air started up CPH-LIS the day after SK stopped, and SK entered into a code-share with DM... nice one... They did the same thing with KRS later..

Kevin777 Wink

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net