planespotter20 wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Hmm, sounds like a good move for the airline, but not sure I would be happy about going transatlantic on a narrow body.

One of the most comfortable TATL flights was from JFK-PSA with a 757-200. The cabin was fresh, had mood lighting, and was just in general a great flight. Plus you don't have to worry about being stuck in the middle seat section which I personally hate.

Narrowbody TATL is not bad at all

Well good for you. I personally find around 5 hours on a narrow body the limit for comfort. I actually really like the middle seat section. It's a very spacious feeling compared to sitting at a window seat.

Andy33 wrote:

And yet quite large numbers of people already fly transatlantic on 757s, and have done for years. In fact United send 757s to lots of destinations across the western fringe of Western Europe.

And how is that going to benefit me as a traveler? This is also the reason why I never flew transatlantic on a 757. I even started out by saying that it's probably a good move by the airline, but personally I prefer wide bodies for the longer flights. Relax

Polot wrote:

There are going to be some people on A.net (not necessarily saying AirPacific747) who after years of bashing the TATL 757s and particularly favoring Airbus/the A321[LR are going to be having an existential crisis when they learn A321LR TATLs will not be some revolution in pax experience.

Not necessarily me, because I never bashed the 757. Jesus what is it with you people. You get offended just by the slightest comment or criticism. And no I don't care if it is an A321neo or 757, but I just find a widebody more comfortable regardless of the manufacturer.

airbazar wrote:

keesje wrote:

.
As said they are operating CPH-BOS already. SK927 & SK928. 3200NM, apparently that works well.

Even with a tiny 737, their LF is terrible. They just can't compete with DY.

A few reasons why they aren't filling the 737 in BOS. DY may be the least of the problems.

-The flight time isn't the greatest for both connections and departing from BOS - I'd rather leave for Europe from 7pm on or the early LHR flight.
-Price wise they are not competing against anyone- I think the goal is to get enough business pax to break even or bleed a little - they are not the cheapest in coach on any European route I've priced this summer and I've been looking at all of July and August.
-WW and FI do not help either and sometimes the JV airlines have been pricing low in defense against DY.
-They are not in the JV with LH/AC/LX/UA
- I've read they do not interline with AC on the route either but do get UA feed.

klm617 wrote:

They should move that route to DTW they can have the market to themselves and probably get higher yields plus cheaper landing fees.

They would upgauge BOS and/or send the plane back on IAH-Stavanger or EWR-BGO just to poke DY in the eye before adding DTW. Even though the data is getting older by the minute you may want to educate yourself on the Brookings 2011 O+D report: https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/ ... n-america/ CPH-DTW was under 10 PDEW in 2011. Also that year 2.26 million O+D to Western Europe for BOS which is actually more than all of Detroit's International O+D (around 550K for Detroit-Western Europe)

There are rumors SK is looking to bump up BOS but they would have to buddy up with B6 to do so. B6 could be a big problem for SK when they get their A321LR's since B6 BOS-CPH could be possible if DY still pokes around with a seasonal BOS-CPH and SK cuts BOS.

I'm not going to pass judgement, but DTW is not the center of the universe. Like me near DFW, I want to see as many new tails as possible (especially female tales: -) )

I'm going to give DTW the benefit of the doubt, but some of these route requests/updates will even make the most loyal DTW question some topics.

But when I set DTW-OSL kicks OSL-ORD ass, I'll call BS.

AirPacific747 wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

And yet quite large numbers of people already fly transatlantic on 757s, and have done for years. In fact United send 757s to lots of destinations across the western fringe of Western Europe.

And how is that going to benefit me as a traveler? This is also the reason why I never flew transatlantic on a 757. I even started out by saying that it's probably a good move by the airline, but personally I prefer wide bodies for the longer flights. Relax

How does it benefit you as a traveller? Well, it gives you non-stop flights between city pairs that couldn't conceivably support widebody flights. I'd certainly take a transatlantic flight in a decently fitted out narrowbody over miss-connects in hubs. delayed baggage, and an extra 3-4 hours or so on the journey time.
Now would I take a 757 from NYC to LON as an O&D passenger? No way, when there are large numbers of non-stops on widebodies every day.

Eivind Roald mentioned new routes to India and Iran with the A321LR or 737MAX too. I'm guessing they'll be Copenhagen - Tehran, and probably Stockholm - New Dehli. But if Sweden goes ahead with the new airfare tax, I doubt we'll see more long haul from Stockholm.

I believe they'll go for the A321LR over the 737MAX because all new narrowbody orders have been with Airbus. A few years ago when SAS wanted to order new long haul aircraft, Boeing refused them a good deal on the 787 (according to my sources).

Andy33 wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

And yet quite large numbers of people already fly transatlantic on 757s, and have done for years. In fact United send 757s to lots of destinations across the western fringe of Western Europe.

And how is that going to benefit me as a traveler? This is also the reason why I never flew transatlantic on a 757. I even started out by saying that it's probably a good move by the airline, but personally I prefer wide bodies for the longer flights. Relax

How does it benefit you as a traveller? Well, it gives you non-stop flights between city pairs that couldn't conceivably support widebody flights. I'd certainly take a transatlantic flight in a decently fitted out narrowbody over miss-connects in hubs. delayed baggage, and an extra 3-4 hours or so on the journey time.
Now would I take a 757 from NYC to LON as an O&D passenger? No way, when there are large numbers of non-stops on widebodies every day.

I don't need those nonstop city pairs

AirPacific747 wrote:

Hmm, sounds like a good move for the airline, but not sure I would be happy about going transatlantic on a narrow body.

The scandinavians has been using the 737/a320-family to the max range going to the canary islands
For almost 30 years. Large percentages of the population several times a year.
The east coast US is just marginally more.
They are also used to travelling 757 to the US.

This is a non-issue imho.

adamh8297 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

keesje wrote:

.
As said they are operating CPH-BOS already. SK927 & SK928. 3200NM, apparently that works well.

Even with a tiny 737, their LF is terrible. They just can't compete with DY.

A few reasons why they aren't filling the 737 in BOS. DY may be the least of the problems.

-The flight time isn't the greatest for both connections and departing from BOS - I'd rather leave for Europe from 7pm on or the early LHR flight.
-Price wise they are not competing against anyone- I think the goal is to get enough business pax to break even or bleed a little - they are not the cheapest in coach on any European route I've priced this summer and I've been looking at all of July and August.
-WW and FI do not help either and sometimes the JV airlines have been pricing low in defense against DY.
-They are not in the JV with LH/AC/LX/UA
- I've read they do not interline with AC on the route either but do get UA feed.

klm617 wrote:

They should move that route to DTW they can have the market to themselves and probably get higher yields plus cheaper landing fees.

They would upgauge BOS and/or send the plane back on IAH-Stavanger or EWR-BGO just to poke DY in the eye before adding DTW. Even though the data is getting older by the minute you may want to educate yourself on the Brookings 2011 O+D report: https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/ ... n-america/ CPH-DTW was under 10 PDEW in 2011. Also that year 2.26 million O+D to Western Europe for BOS which is actually more than all of Detroit's International O+D (around 550K for Detroit-Western Europe)

There are rumors SK is looking to bump up BOS but they would have to buddy up with B6 to do so. B6 could be a big problem for SK when they get their A321LR's since B6 BOS-CPH could be possible if DY still pokes around with a seasonal BOS-CPH and SK cuts BOS.

What do you suppose the PDEW was on MSP-KEF was before FI started the route and now it's 2 X Daily in the summer sometimes you have to make your own opportunities. Why keep putting you assets in a market where you have to compete when you can carve out a niche for yourself and be the only player on the block and build up the route. I see no difference in have to sell your seats at a lower price because you are fighting for market share verses starting a new market and being able to sell your seats at a higher fares because you own said new market.

Polot wrote:

There are going to be some people on A.net (not necessarily saying AirPacific747) who after years of bashing the TATL 757s and particularly favoring Airbus/the A321[LR are going to be having an existential crisis when they learn A321LR TATLs will not be some revolution in pax experience.

I was flying open skies 757s to Paris last year and their Y seats looks like the most uncomfortable things in the world. I don't know how you fall asleep in them without taking melatonin.

I'm sure nobody will mistaken A321 Y seats for 777 9 across, but they should feel a lot more comfortable than 757 Y seats. After all, I always feel squeezed on AA's 738 transcon flights but not when I am on VX's A320.

That extra inch of width from 17 to 18 makes a large difference and 18 to 19 makes a large difference too. After seat gets to about 20 inch with its own arm rest, any additional width doesn't add that much.

adamh8297 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

keesje wrote:

.
As said they are operating CPH-BOS already. SK927 & SK928. 3200NM, apparently that works well.

Even with a tiny 737, their LF is terrible. They just can't compete with DY.

A few reasons why they aren't filling the 737 in BOS. DY may be the least of the problems.

-The flight time isn't the greatest for both connections and departing from BOS - I'd rather leave for Europe from 7pm on or the early LHR flight.
-Price wise they are not competing against anyone- I think the goal is to get enough business pax to break even or bleed a little - they are not the cheapest in coach on any European route I've priced this summer and I've been looking at all of July and August.
-WW and FI do not help either and sometimes the JV airlines have been pricing low in defense against DY.
-They are not in the JV with LH/AC/LX/UA
- I've read they do not interline with AC on the route either but do get UA feed.

klm617 wrote:

They should move that route to DTW they can have the market to themselves and probably get higher yields plus cheaper landing fees.

They would upgauge BOS and/or send the plane back on IAH-Stavanger or EWR-BGO just to poke DY in the eye before adding DTW. Even though the data is getting older by the minute you may want to educate yourself on the Brookings 2011 O+D report: https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/ ... n-america/ CPH-DTW was under 10 PDEW in 2011. Also that year 2.26 million O+D to Western Europe for BOS which is actually more than all of Detroit's International O+D (around 550K for Detroit-Western Europe)

There are rumors SK is looking to bump up BOS but they would have to buddy up with B6 to do so. B6 could be a big problem for SK when they get their A321LR's since B6 BOS-CPH could be possible if DY still pokes around with a seasonal BOS-CPH and SK cuts BOS.

Also while you're at it can you look up the PDEW on PIT-KEF I would be curious on that one too. There is plenty of untapped potential out of Detroit it isn't a Delta hub for no reason as we all know Delta is about maximum return on investment. So that being said DTW has a lot of potential.

klm617 wrote:

Also while you're at it can you look up the PDEW on PIT-KEF I would be curious on that one too. There is plenty of untapped potential out of Detroit it isn't a Delta hub for no reason as we all know Delta is about maximum return on investment. So that being said DTW has a lot of potential.

2011 DTW-KEF <2 wasn't in their top 100 destinations
2011 PIT-KEF <1

I'm sure both of these are larger now- even the B6/FI relationship stimulates this. I was on a PIT-BOS flight with 3-4 people connecting to FI in 2015 and we have heard than 10-15% BOS-DTW connects onto partner airlines going to Europe/Mid-East

If anything - DTW should be rolling out the red carpet for TK if things improve in Turkey or a ME3.

AA737-823 wrote:

To me, with the 320neo already in their fleet, this is Airbus' order to lose.
Though I'd love to see some MAX love at SAS!

There is a very strong tradition in SAS for american aircraft. It goes back to when every pilot, was ex mil, and all the danish and norwegian pilots were US trained and flew american aircraft in the military.
Extremely conservative, dogmatic and entiteled, which their usage of Douglas aircraft up until very recently, and extreme customization of aircraft options for different routes shows.
737-600... that's how special they felt.

I suspect the only reason Airbus got in to the fleet was the realities of economy. They probably got very good deals.
Even today I know SAS pilots who claim the A320 series to be absolutely impossible to use in winter conditions in nothern Norway, and consider them toys. They are wrong of course, and the charter companies flying from those destinations to the canaries and southern europe year around proves them wrong with MOTW airbuses each and every day, but still that attitude is there. And I suspect it plays a role in OSL still being a Boeing only base.

Wether this will influence future purchases I don't know. Depends on which fraction is in power I guess.

Hey Jetbuddy,
I had heard a similar story to what you hint at about SAS and the Dreamliner ... And that a similar thing happened with Sri Lankan around the same time.
Can you provide any more details please? I would've thought that the various models of the 787 would've suited SAS perfectly...
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

It is a terrible idea. It is not viable. And the TATL business on narrow bodies will never be sustainable.
I know that I have some fixation on A-388.
But wherever I fly, I fly on Emirates via Dubai.
I fly 13 hours IAD-DXB, stay a day or two in Dubai - and fly to Moscow or Europe/Asia.
Same money - more time.
But A-388 has changed everything for me.
Even my previous favorite B-773 seems to be too noisy and too unstable. And too often unexpected landings due to some malfunction in one of engines. I have experienced this twice within the last four years.

SAS is an icon company. They should change their business.
It works bad when all TATL pax should fly to Copenhagen for a long-haul on a widebody.
However. Maybe they consider some other business model. Like spreading long haul flights between CPH, Gardemoen and Arlanda?
It may be more difficult in terms of logistics. But the narrow body TATL or Asia flights is not a solution.

M564038 wrote:

What a load of nonsense.

M564038 wrote:

There is a very strong tradition in SAS for american aircraft.

There was a very strong tradition in SAS for Douglas aircraft. With the exception of the 767, they almost never ordered any Boeings until the late 90s. On the other hand, they were a very early Airbus customer with the A300.

M564038 wrote:

It goes back to when every pilot, was ex mil, and all the danish and norwegian pilots were US trained and flew american aircraft in the military.

First of all, most of that generation has already retired. Second, the RDAF flew Swedish Drakens and British Hunters, while the Swedish AF never flew anything by homemade aircraft. Explain that.

M564038 wrote:

I suspect the only reason Airbus got in to the fleet was the realities of economy. They probably got very good deals.

Airbus was selected because they offered the best product for SAS' needs. The aircraft were superior to what Boeing could offer for the same role. Besides, as mentioned above, SAS has no particular love for Boeing. It's just another manufacturer.

M564038 wrote:

Even today I know SAS pilots who claim the A320 series to be absolutely impossible to use in winter conditions in nothern Norway, and consider them toys. They are wrong of course, and the charter companies flying from those destinations to the canaries and southern europe year around proves them wrong with MOTW airbuses each and every day, but still that attitude is there. And I suspect it plays a role in OSL still being a Boeing only base.

I know plenty of SAS pilots who have flown both the 737, A320 and A330/A340, and they all agree that Airbus beats the 737. The lack of a tray table and noisy cockpit are two points that that they always bring up with regards to the issues with the 737.

VSMUT wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Even today I know SAS pilots who claim the A320 series to be absolutely impossible to use in winter conditions in nothern Norway, and consider them toys. They are wrong of course, and the charter companies flying from those destinations to the canaries and southern europe year around proves them wrong with MOTW airbuses each and every day, but still that attitude is there. And I suspect it plays a role in OSL still being a Boeing only base.

I know plenty of SAS pilots who have flown both the 737, A320 and A330/A340, and they all agree that Airbus beats the 737. The lack of a tray table and noisy cockpit are two points that that they always bring up with regards to the issues with the 737.

First off usually pilots don't have the final say. I don't think everything posted by M564038 is nonsense but some of the points might be controversial.

With that said, I totally believe M564038 that there may be some pilots have a preference for the 737 including possibly northern Norway. I don't think the A320 is absolutely impossible to use.

I also agree with VSMUT that there may be sone who think the A320 is better. I do not believe that plenty of pilots all agree that the Airbus beats the 737 unless you are talking to a very small group. I have talked to many pilots in my life and the one thing I know is that if you get a decent sized group of pilots together, they never will agree that one airplane is best.

pylon101 wrote:

It is a terrible idea. It is not viable. And the TATL business on narrow bodies will never be sustainable.
I know that I have some fixation on A-388.
But wherever I fly, I fly on Emirates via Dubai.
I fly 13 hours IAD-DXB, stay a day or two in Dubai - and fly to Moscow or Europe/Asia.
Same money - more time.
But A-388 has changed everything for me.
Even my previous favorite B-773 seems to be too noisy and too unstable. And too often unexpected landings due to some malfunction in one of engines. I have experienced this twice within the last four years.

SAS is an icon company. They should change their business.
It works bad when all TATL pax should fly to Copenhagen for a long-haul on a widebody.
However. Maybe they consider some other business model. Like spreading long haul flights between CPH, Gardemoen and Arlanda?
It may be more difficult in terms of logistics. But the narrow body TATL or Asia flights is not a solution.

None of this seems relevant. The narrow bodies allow point to point, and hub to small market. SAS geographically is in a great position to fly to many points in North America and then Middle East with longer rang, efficient narrow bodies. SAS is trying to compete with the Mega hubs of LHR, AMS, CDG, FRA, JFK, EWR, ORD, YYZ etc. Rather than funnel passengers 1 stop, they can keep passengers on their planes.

I think SAS has huge potential with either 737Max or A321NEOs. EI is in a similar position too.

Side note, is there a plane that is more operationally reliable than the 777?

There is an interesting gap in product offerings between the increasing number of Norwegian all-ultra-economy 737 routes, which offer no premium product, and the nice, and well-priced, premium product they sell on their 787 routes, vs. the C & Y pricing on SK. BOS-CPH, which SAS and Norwegian compete directly on, is a good example: Lowest SK C I've seen is $3500+ roundtrip, while Norwegian Premium is usually about $1000 each way. But all these new 737 routes out of PVD, BDL and elsewhere are not going to attract premium passengers as they are all economy.

bunumuring wrote:

Hey Jetbuddy,
I had heard a similar story to what you hint at about SAS and the Dreamliner ... And that a similar thing happened with Sri Lankan around the same time.
Can you provide any more details please? I would've thought that the various models of the 787 would've suited SAS perfectly...
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

I just know that they were looking for new long haul aircraft, and very interested in the Dreamliner. At the time SAS was in fairly bad shape economically, and the 787 was selling like hot cakes. Boeing refused them a good deal on the aircraft - and SAS then turned to Airbus.

Regarding the A321LR or 737MAX, I think SAS would be smart to install the same cabin as in their long haul aircraft. SAS Business, SAS Plus and Economy. Like Roald said in the article, they're going for the frequent flyers. I think we'll see routes open up to the US east coast from BGO, GOT, maybe even SVG. Probably also a some new routes from OSL. Maybe OSL-IAD or OSL-ORD.

In my experience, pilots are quite particular in what they like flying. And there's also a lot of bias going on. For example, I know a SAS pilot who is an ex-military C-130 pilot. He loved the DC-9, especially the -21. He was sceptical towards the MD-80 (because of EFIS), but when he started flying them he got used to the half-digital cockpit. The MD-90 was no different. While being an MD-80/90 pilot, he always talked bad about the 737NG coming into the fleet. Then he transferred to the 737NG, which he didn't like. Too noisy and cramped cockpit. The 737-600 was the worst, it had a tendency to be more unstable, especially in cross wind conditions. The 737-700 was the best, because it felt sportier than the -800 and didn't suffer from the stuff the -600 did. While he was an MD or Boeing pilot, he always had a bad view of the Airbuses. Just a bunch of electronics and joysticks. After a few years he became captain on the A330/A340. His opinion changed completely. It was the best aircraft he had ever flown. Lots of room in the cockpit, less workload, less noise, very sharp and instant response from the sidestick - just a pleasure to fly. So there's probably some truth to both what M564038 and VSMUT said.

klm617 wrote:

Bostrom wrote:

klm617 wrote:

They should move that route to DTW they can have the market to themselves and probably get higher yields plus cheaper landing fees.

DTW is not a hub for any Star Alliance airline, is there enough demand for trips to Detroit from Scandinavia and v.v.? Detroit has a reputation as a city in decline.

Neither is Boston a Star Alliance hub. That is where the perception of Detroit is wrong right now it is in the top 10 fastest growing regions economically in the United States. There is a lot going on in the Detroit area for those who care to do the research rather than just believing what they hear. SK should be able to fill a 737 3 or 4 times a week on a DTW-CPH route. Back in the day Northwest ran a daily 747 in the summer with one stop DTW-JFK-CPH service so there is demand.

I would say the JFK stop on the DTW-JFK-CPH flight is what made it work, alone DTW could not be profitable.

cheapgreek wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Bostrom wrote:

DTW is not a hub for any Star Alliance airline, is there enough demand for trips to Detroit from Scandinavia and v.v.? Detroit has a reputation as a city in decline.

Neither is Boston a Star Alliance hub. That is where the perception of Detroit is wrong right now it is in the top 10 fastest growing regions economically in the United States. There is a lot going on in the Detroit area for those who care to do the research rather than just believing what they hear. SK should be able to fill a 737 3 or 4 times a week on a DTW-CPH route. Back in the day Northwest ran a daily 747 in the summer with one stop DTW-JFK-CPH service so there is demand.

I would say the JFK stop on the DTW-JFK-CPH flight is what made it work, alone DTW could not be profitable.

Nobody said it would work alone but a 737 is 1/3 the size of a 747 so with the right size aircraft feeding connections at CPH to eastern Europe it shouldn't be an issue.

VSMUT wrote:

M564038 wrote:

What a load of nonsense.

M564038 wrote:

There is a very strong tradition in SAS for american aircraft.

There was a very strong tradition in SAS for Douglas aircraft. With the exception of the 767, they almost never ordered any Boeings until the late 90s. On the other hand, they were a very early Airbus customer with the A300.

M564038 wrote:

It goes back to when every pilot, was ex mil, and all the danish and norwegian pilots were US trained and flew american aircraft in the military.

First of all, most of that generation has already retired. Second, the RDAF flew Swedish Drakens and British Hunters, while the Swedish AF never flew anything by homemade aircraft. Explain that.

M564038 wrote:

I suspect the only reason Airbus got in to the fleet was the realities of economy. They probably got very good deals.

Airbus was selected because they offered the best product for SAS' needs. The aircraft were superior to what Boeing could offer for the same role. Besides, as mentioned above, SAS has no particular love for Boeing. It's just another manufacturer.

M564038 wrote:

Even today I know SAS pilots who claim the A320 series to be absolutely impossible to use in winter conditions in nothern Norway, and consider them toys. They are wrong of course, and the charter companies flying from those destinations to the canaries and southern europe year around proves them wrong with MOTW airbuses each and every day, but still that attitude is there. And I suspect it plays a role in OSL still being a Boeing only base.

I know plenty of SAS pilots who have flown both the 737, A320 and A330/A340, and they all agree that Airbus beats the 737. The lack of a tray table and noisy cockpit are two points that that they always bring up with regards to the issues with the 737.

I don't disagree with you at all, I just pointed out that there were/is people within SAS that have a strong preference for american made aircraft. wether they're still a "force" to be reckoned with I don't know. And yes, a few of them ended up as longhaul airbus pilots, happy as fiddles with the table in front of them.

But the notion that orders from SAS are Airbus' to lose, is not entirely correct.

I think in this case it is Airbus' order to loose. Because they are operating A321 iso 739s, selected NEO's over MAX' and have NEO's in operation and most airlines apparently prefer A321s for these requirements at this stage. Pilots are not the ones deciding on new fleet. They are in the spec teams with other airline specialists.

keesje wrote:

I think in this case it is Airbus' order to loose. Because they are operating A321 iso 739s, selected NEO's over MAX' and have NEO's in operation and most airlines apparently prefer A321s for these requirements at this stage. Pilots are not the ones deciding on new fleet. They are in the spec teams with other airline specialists.

They already stated that they have plans to eventually move over to a 100% A32X fleet, and have made noises in the past about converting a number of the A320NEOs to A321LRs. Stockholm will gradually transfer to A32Xs, ATRs and CRJs instead of 737s. All of that indicates that this is merely a ploy to get better prices from Boeing.

VSMUT wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think in this case it is Airbus' order to loose. Because they are operating A321 iso 739s, selected NEO's over MAX' and have NEO's in operation and most airlines apparently prefer A321s for these requirements at this stage. Pilots are not the ones deciding on new fleet. They are in the spec teams with other airline specialists.

They already stated that they have plans to eventually move over to a 100% A32X fleet, .

I would be super happy about that, but I've failed to hear or read about that statement until now.
Do you have some sort of link?

M564038 wrote:

I would be super happy about that, but I've failed to hear or read about that statement until now.
Do you have some sort of link?

Bostrom wrote:

I haven't heard that either. But if that is their plan, I guess they would keep it secret to be able to get a better deal on a new Airbus order.

It usually gets brought up during their investor meetings on one of the slides (future fleet or something). Nothing definitive, but it certainly shows what direction the management is ultimately headed.

And that is more or less where my first post began..

I also believe they'll go for the A321LR as well as further A320neo-series orders for replacements of their aging 737NG fleet. But if Boeing suddenly offers them an incredible deal on the MAX, I wouldn't be surprised if they chose that. I wish they'd look at the C-Series, but I see no signal from them indicating that.

Some things to consider, and much the reason why SAS retains the current composition of their fleet.

Historically OSL and ARN only had 737 maintenance and Pilot base which means that this will have to be changed if/when they weigh in new fleet additions. All of SAS Airbus fleet is maintained and based in CPH (at least historically) which means all plane have to come back there for any maintenance, with a small, currently, sub fleet of 32X this makes sense but changing it would need some reshuffling. I would think that ARN, due to the new swedish taxes and so on, will go all Airbus if this trend continues and only OSL will maintain the 737 fleet since the majority of 737NGs actually are SAS Norway anyway.

I believe that with the 350s somewhat hanging in the balance they might look at smaller planes like the 321LR or similar in a medium density 2-class layout for transatlantic and middle-east routes. The 343s will probably disappear in 3-5 years unless we'll see a deferral of the 350 order. Personally I had hoped for SAS to pick up some 332s from EK to start phasing the 343s out and pick up the slack and for thinner routes in Asia f.ex.

And, since i didn't see it mentioned, the 737s flying CPH-BOS is wet leased from PrivatAir and is a BBJ with extra fuel tank.

Someone83 wrote:

affirmative wrote:

Some things to consider, and much the reason why SAS retains the current composition of their fleet.

Historically OSL and ARN only had 737 maintenance and Pilot base which means that this will have to be changed if/when they weigh in new fleet additions. All of SAS Airbus fleet is maintained and based in CPH (at least historically) which means all plane have to come back there for any maintenance, with a small, currently, sub fleet of 32X this makes sense but changing it would need some reshuffling. I would think that ARN, due to the new swedish taxes and so on, will go all Airbus if this trend continues and only OSL will maintain the 737 fleet since the majority of 737NGs actually are SAS Norway anyway.

I believe that with the 350s somewhat hanging in the balance they might look at smaller planes like the 321LR or similar in a medium density 2-class layout for transatlantic and middle-east routes. The 343s will probably disappear in 3-5 years unless we'll see a deferral of the 350 order. Personally I had hoped for SAS to pick up some 332s from EK to start phasing the 343s out and pick up the slack and for thinner routes in Asia f.ex.

And, since i didn't see it mentioned, the 737s flying CPH-BOS is wet leased from PrivatAir and is a BBJ with extra fuel tank.

Most (if not all, but it might had been some Airbus pilots coming from the CPH base AS well) of the current ARN based Airbus A320neo pilot are former 737 pilots that has been converted.

Substituting their A343s for former EK A332s makes no sense at all. 7 of 8 A343s are from 2001/2002, so not only are the EK A332 not much younger, but they are also rather worn out, with rather high cycles. In addition, it will be a reduction in capacity, both passenger and cargo wise. And SAS has no problem filling their their A343s
SAS has also bought back several A343s coming of lease, thus they now own 7 out of 8 A343s

And about SAS, don't rule out the A330-900neo

My point with the 343s are just that they are paid for but contains very little residual value and are quite heavy in maintenance cost compared to a similarly aged 332. The 332 would be a cheap addition compared to a new plane and since they have 330s already this will be quite easy/cheap to integrate, compared to a new 321LR frame I'm guessing the used 332 would be slightly cheaper in acquisition but slightly more expensive in maintenance but with the longer range it could be swapped around between a bigger number of destinations doing the Canaries as well as seasonal up gauges in equipment for about the same cost. In terms of flexibility there are some advantages, as well as some drawbacks, but in the end it could be a viable option pitting a used 332 against a new 321LR particularly if you're looking at a two-class layout. I might be completely off but it seems like a logical position..

I'm definitely not counting out the 339neo, but it's a bigger plane to fill and a new frame with associated costs.

Come back to JFK.

Interesting post and interesting comments.

SAS is not doing well financially. They ended the last reported Financial Quarter with a USD 75 million loss. They have A320 neos on order and are awaiting to take delivery of several A350. I am pretty sure that SK will think more than twice to add more factory new aircraft, especially as they can not make "bargains" by picking up used aircraft of the mentioned types.

Also, they have to "guard" their feed to the current long-haul flights they operate. There has been a lot of talk about "long-haul should work" from Bergen, Stavanger and Gothenburg for example. How ever, many passengers from these cities are already helping with the load factors on current flights originating from OSL, CPH and to some extent ARN. They need to "protect" these transfer passengers as well. They need to be able to add a considerable amount of new passengers to new routes, not just "move" transfer passengers to direct flights in smaller aircraft.

Leisure passengers are getting used to cheap fares over the Atlantic. To lure passengers to new routes SK need to offer competitive low fares = low RASM.

Polot wrote:

Andy33 wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Hmm, sounds like a good move for the airline, but not sure I would be happy about going transatlantic on a narrow body.

And yet quite large numbers of people already fly transatlantic on 757s, and have done for years. In fact United send 757s to lots of destinations across the western fringe of Western Europe.

There are going to be some people on A.net (not necessarily saying AirPacific747) who after years of bashing the TATL 757s and particularly favoring Airbus/the A321[LR are going to be having an existential crisis when they learn A321LR TATLs will not be some revolution in pax experience.

Agree. I like wider seats, bigger bins and quieter cabins, but that's personal.

CPHFF wrote:

Interesting post and interesting comments.

SAS is not doing well financially. They ended the last reported Financial Quarter with a USD 75 million loss. They have A320 neos on order and are awaiting to take delivery of several A350. I am pretty sure that SK will think more than twice to add more factory new aircraft, especially as they can not make "bargains" by picking up used aircraft of the mentioned types.

Also, they have to "guard" their feed to the current long-haul flights they operate. There has been a lot of talk about "long-haul should work" from Bergen, Stavanger and Gothenburg for example. How ever, many passengers from these cities are already helping with the load factors on current flights originating from OSL, CPH and to some extent ARN. They need to "protect" these transfer passengers as well. They need to be able to add a considerable amount of new passengers to new routes, not just "move" transfer passengers to direct flights in smaller aircraft.

Leisure passengers are getting used to cheap fares over the Atlantic. To lure passengers to new routes SK need to offer competitive low fares = low RASM.

But if you look at a yearly basis they made profits for a few years now and expect to do so this year again. Which is at least better than their main competor.

CPHFF wrote:

Interesting post and interesting comments.

SAS is not doing well financially. They ended the last reported Financial Quarter with a USD 75 million loss. They have A320 neos on order and are awaiting to take delivery of several A350. I am pretty sure that SK will think more than twice to add more factory new aircraft, especially as they can not make "bargains" by picking up used aircraft of the mentioned types.

Also, they have to "guard" their feed to the current long-haul flights they operate. There has been a lot of talk about "long-haul should work" from Bergen, Stavanger and Gothenburg for example. How ever, many passengers from these cities are already helping with the load factors on current flights originating from OSL, CPH and to some extent ARN. They need to "protect" these transfer passengers as well. They need to be able to add a considerable amount of new passengers to new routes, not just "move" transfer passengers to direct flights in smaller aircraft.

Leisure passengers are getting used to cheap fares over the Atlantic. To lure passengers to new routes SK need to offer competitive low fares = low RASM.

You're right, but people in Bergen, Stavanger, Trondheim, Gothenburg and so on often fly KLM or BA to AMS and LHR. The amount of flights between these cities is staggering. These are the pax that SAS could get back with direct routes to the US East Coast. OSL, ARN and CPH each have a great catchment area and should be able to support wide body routes on their own. CPH, which is the largest long haul hub - might suffer some though.

reidar76 wrote:

JetBuddy wrote:

Regarding the A321LR capabilities, it seems like Norwegian, TAP and now probably SAS have faith in Airbus being able to achieve the range targets.

Yes, I agree. Norwegian is currently selling tickets for transatlantic flights that will be operated by 737-8 MAX starting this summer. They will have 189 passengers onboard. The longest flight will be from SWF to BGO, a great-circle distance of exactly 3000 nm. Against the headwind (eastbound) the scheduled flight time is 7 hours and 45 minutes. This flight will only be operated during the summer months, probably to avoid the strong winter headwinds. I think it is yet to be seen how often the 737 will need a fuel stop at Nova Scotia on this leg.

At the press conference, when Norwegian ordered the A321LR, the CEO said that Boeing didn't have any aircraft that could compete with the A321LR. This aircraft were even more fuel efficient than the 787 per seat, and additionally we don't have to fill all those seats, he said. The LR would open up new routes that could not be served with the MAX, do to the lack of range. As an example he mentioned connecting the Scandinavian capitals to Washington/Baltimore and to India. ARN to BWI is almost 3600 nm great-circle distance, or approximately 9 hours of scheduled flight time eastbound (against the headwinds). Norwegian will have 220 seats onboard the A321LR.

The A321LR seems like an excellent choice for SAS. If real world performance of the A321LR is 3600 nm with 220 passengers onboard eastbound over the Atlantic, then the A321LR could fly from the Scandinavian capitals to New Deli, Mumbai, Islamabad, Tehran, all of the Middle East, all of Canada, all of Africa that is north of Equator, and the US cities Chicago, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Washington, New York, Boston, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Cincinnati will all be within range.

Everyone seems to be forgetting the headwinds. ARN-ORD with winds would be out of range.

airzona11 wrote:

pylon101 wrote:

It is a terrible idea. It is not viable. And the TATL business on narrow bodies will never be sustainable.
I know that I have some fixation on A-388.
But wherever I fly, I fly on Emirates via Dubai.
I fly 13 hours IAD-DXB, stay a day or two in Dubai - and fly to Moscow or Europe/Asia.
Same money - more time.
But A-388 has changed everything for me.
Even my previous favorite B-773 seems to be too noisy and too unstable. And too often unexpected landings due to some malfunction in one of engines. I have experienced this twice within the last four years.

SAS is an icon company. They should change their business.
It works bad when all TATL pax should fly to Copenhagen for a long-haul on a widebody.
However. Maybe they consider some other business model. Like spreading long haul flights between CPH, Gardemoen and Arlanda?
It may be more difficult in terms of logistics. But the narrow body TATL or Asia flights is not a solution.

None of this seems relevant. The narrow bodies allow point to point, and hub to small market. SAS geographically is in a great position to fly to many points in North America and then Middle East with longer rang, efficient narrow bodies. SAS is trying to compete with the Mega hubs of LHR, AMS, CDG, FRA, JFK, EWR, ORD, YYZ etc. Rather than funnel passengers 1 stop, they can keep passengers on their planes.

I think SAS has huge potential with either 737Max or A321NEOs. EI is in a similar position too.

Side note, is there a plane that is more operationally reliable than the 777?

I beleive the 737NG might match the 777 operationally for reliability.

rbavfan wrote:

Everyone seems to be forgetting the headwinds. ARN-ORD with winds would be out of range.

ARN-ORD might be a stretch, but I believe TAP, Norwegian and SAS know the capabilities of these aircraft - at least what Airbus and Boeing are promising. It will be interesting to see what the final product will be able to do. I hope SAS will use a premium heavy interior, similar to that of the A330/A340 fleet. That would mean better range, maybe allowing routes like ARN-ORD.

I think we'll see more routes from smaller markets in Europe to major US cities. Like BGO-EWR or GOT-EWR. Routes like OSL-ORD might start with an A321LR, but then could be upgraded if necessary. Kind of like how SAS is using Privatair's 737-700 between CPH and BOS.