As I was checking in at the premium check in at AKL yesterday, the check in agent for Air New Zealand on upon seing that I was flying Air New Zealand from AKL to London but SAS from London to my home in Norway said that the latest he had heard was that SAS will fly to AKL ... He was excited about the prospect of such a long flight and "exotic" airline flying to AKL ...


Sounds a bit far fetched to me ...


Anyone else heard anything about this ?

Could it be a joint venture with Air New Zealand ?

What kind of equipment would SAS use on such a route from Scandinavia ?

The Chances of this happening have to be less than zero. It would take too much resources to make work and no way would SAS be able to compete with the Asian and middle eastern carriers. Didn't they sign a partnership with SIA so maybe the agent was confused.

I could see Norwegian eventually launch such a route but not SAS.

I would think SAS would be more likely to fly to Australia before NZ, and even that would be a stretch. How much traffic even exists between CPH and AKL? This sounds like a pretty far-fetched rumor to me.

SAS to New Zealand doesn't sound believable. Maybe it's increased cooperation with Air New Zealand to improve connections between ARN-HKG on SAS and HKG-AKL on Air NZ?

So far as great circle distances go, the third closest major European airport, and closest European Star Alliance hub, to Auckland is... Stockholm, at 9178nm.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=AKL-SVO%2F ... =wls&DU=nm

Personally I would prefer a FRA flight for the increase in connections possible, but ARN still offers many options for European cities one-stop from Auckland. One of the big competitive advantages out of Australia and New Zealand of the Middle Easten airlines over the South East Asian airlines is the number of destinations in Europe they serve from their hubs, so if a European hub can offer those destinations and be within range of a non-stop flight from this side of the world, it is entirely possible that they would be competitive.

The distances are very long to Scandinavia, but according to Airbus would be within range of an A350-900 at its longest range, and presumably also the 777-8.

V/F

It's always amusing when staff (who are more likely to be from an outsourced agent than the airline itself) who really don't have confirmed facts casually throw out chinese whispers as "news". Zero chance of this ever happening. Heck, SAS cant even get Singapore or Bangkok to work for them properly, zero chance of ultra long haul to Auckland ever working. Maybe the story was SAS will fly to OAKLAND (more chance of that happening over AKL!)

Agree, less than zero chance.

VirginFlyer wrote:

The distances are very long to Scandinavia

Only 2 hours longer than Air New Zealands AKL-LAX-LHR

SAS has made many network cuts over the years. It had to cut SEA back in 2009, and BKK in 2013 because it ''wasn't profitable'' despite the fact that it had high load factors. There is no way SAS would fly to AKL. SAS will never return to SEA (most likely because of too much European and Icelandair competition) and BKK (because it was not profitable for years).

Mortyman wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

The distances are very long to Scandinavia

Only 2 hours longer than Air New Zealands AKL-LAX-LHR

I'm not sure I get you? In terms of great circle distance, AKL-ARN is 9,178nm, versus 10,393nm for AKL-LAX-LHR.

V/F

Working for a Scandinavian company and having a family based in AKL I tend to get pretty decent advance notice on new travel options back to HQ. Especially when we have travel agreements in place with the airline. I can safely say that no approach has been made in regards to a flight from anywhere in Oceania, especially not AKL, to Scandinavia.

The VFR traffic would be minimal. The business traffic is minuscule. Few Scandinavian multinationals bother with a regional HQ downunder. Most handle the Oceania market from a HQ based in Singapore, Hongkong or Bangkok. The market is approximately 30 million people and very spread out. Local business (HQ in NZ) with ties to Scandinavia is limited as well. In fact New Zealand business in general tend to be small and medium enterprises who are adequately served by present Air New Zealand network.
The number of Scandinavians living on the North island is a few thousand and half of that group are second/third generation Danes who arrived here before the world-wars. Danes traditionally have been the largest Scandinavian group in NZ. Thats why the Scandinavian communities gather, and the Scandinavian Christmas bazaar is always held, at the Danish house in Auckland.

Anyway, should we ever, and I really doubt we will, see a route between Scandinavia and Oceania the likely port is Melbourne. Melbourne is the city with the largest Scandinavian community in Oceania and where for some reason most Scandinavian owned regional HQ are located. Here, Swedes are the majority both historically and present and they have a wonderful Swedish house in Toorak where the annual Scandinavian Christmas bazaar etc is held.

When elephants fly:-)

All sense aside and theoretically;

New Zealand Southern Island is a beauty beyond any imaginations.
The only problem is that SAS already has their largest precent in the only country in the world more spectacular diverse and scenic than New Zealand.

All Nordic countries together could probably not even be able to fill a daily Cessna of business pax to AKL.

Sorry, but the Q400 will fly supersonic before this route is even considered in SAS's board room.

Highly unlikely, think if anyone from the Lufthansa Group we would see either LH or LX here first. ZRH/FRA make much more sense for the transit market for New Zealand.

Perhaps Norwegian can do it via an existing destination such as Bangkok. You need the most fuel efficient aircraft you can get to have a chance of making it work. But I would think Sydney would be their first destination as tourists would be their primary target group.

Surely we would see BA or LHhere before SAS? Could be alternate truths though, I remember overhearing an NZ in flight supervisor tell the flight attendants he was working with that CX is Star alliance because NZ code share with them, could be something similar in terms of misunderstanding

There is no way that we would ever see SAS down in this part of the world. I don't think there is the business between Sweden, Norway and Denmark and Australia/New Zealand
In the late 80s early to mid 90s we lost all the European airlines to Australia since alliances and partnerships between the airlines were formed there were no need for them to fly all the way down to here or New Zealand. British Airways is the only airline that flies to Sydney only, that last European Airline that flew to Australia was Austrian. I do miss the days when we use to see the European Airlines here in Melbourne but its the way of the World now. So I don't think SAS would ever fly to Auckland yet alone Australia. If anything it would be a closer partnership with Air New Zealand to Hong Kong and then SAS to Copenhagen and Stockholm.

NichCage wrote:

SAS has made many network cuts over the years. It had to cut SEA back in 2009, and BKK in 2013 because it ''wasn't profitable'' despite the fact that it had high load factors. There is no way SAS would fly to AKL. SAS will never return to SEA (most likely because of too much European and Icelandair competition) and BKK (because it was not profitable for years).

I can understand why BKK wasn't profitable. The cabin was probably mostly filled with Scandinavians going on vacation, looking for a warm climate, and the cheapest possible flight.

Mortyman wrote:

Sounds a bit far fetched to me ...

You answered your own question.

If this now is true, wouldn't this be a possible direct flight with the A350-900ULR?

Highly doubt SAS would attempt to serve such an ULR & not to mention the ME3 have made strong presence in Australiasia.

EK413

I feel sure what we are talking about here is a code share / schedule alignment through one or two common stations that will come into effect soon and yet to be officially announced.
No chance of SK in NZ IMHO.

When was it that a European airline flew to NZ (except BA)? Correct me if I'm wrong but even Australia which is a larger market doesn't see a European carrier (again except BA).

Bostrom wrote:

NichCage wrote:

SAS has made many network cuts over the years. It had to cut SEA back in 2009, and BKK in 2013 because it ''wasn't profitable'' despite the fact that it had high load factors. There is no way SAS would fly to AKL. SAS will never return to SEA (most likely because of too much European and Icelandair competition) and BKK (because it was not profitable for years).

I can understand why BKK wasn't profitable. The cabin was probably mostly filled with Scandinavians going on vacation, looking for a warm climate, and the cheapest possible flight.

Most of the traffic from Scandinavia to NZ is quite the same. Maybe a bit more adventurous then the people going to BKK, but still the same when it comes to the flight, cheapest possible. I've met Scandinavians who happily flew OSL-LHR-HKG-AKL with 3 hours London and around 9 hours in HKG. Not a chance SAS is going to fly to AKL anytime soon.

A lot much change before that happens.. Hard to see it making any sense economically. But how cool it would be to see a Nordic carrier down there in NZ or AU one day.

A couple of years back Finnair's CEO answered "never say never" when asked about Sydney, though stressed there are no such plans. He said Australia is a surprisingly import market for AY, around 5th - 7th best selling country. Funny detail is that according to the Great Circle map HEL-SYD is the shortest direct route between SYD and EU, even shorter than ATH-SYD .

https://www.ausbt.com.au/finnair-to-fly ... innair-ceo

Bostrom wrote:

I can understand why BKK wasn't profitable. The cabin was probably mostly filled with Scandinavians going on vacation, looking for a warm climate, and the cheapest possible flight.

I think it was more about SAS rearranging their business concept back then than BKK being non profitable. North-Europeans still fly to Thailand and they are now more willing to pay extra for better services, for Business seats and such. It looks Finnair trusts this trend, next winter they'll have 21 weekly flights to Thailand (BKK 16 HKT 3 KBV 2), mostly with A350.

[photoid][/photoid]

Bostrom wrote:

NichCage wrote:

SAS has made many network cuts over the years. It had to cut SEA back in 2009, and BKK in 2013 because it ''wasn't profitable'' despite the fact that it had high load factors. There is no way SAS would fly to AKL. SAS will never return to SEA (most likely because of too much European and Icelandair competition) and BKK (because it was not profitable for years).

I can understand why BKK wasn't profitable. The cabin was probably mostly filled with Scandinavians going on vacation, looking for a warm climate, and the cheapest possible flight.

And SAS has a very premium dense configuration with just 245 seats in the A340. I'm sure they make more money flying to San Francisco than Bangkok.
And for this route I think it's just a code share with a SK9000 flight number maybe from Hong Kong.

SAS flying in New Zealand or Australia will happen only when Alitalia makes a profit and Air India is privatised.

SAS service is nothing to write home about.... certainly does;t stack up to NZ or LX

Clearly what happened is that someone heard "Oakland" and thought "Auckland" since the two sound familiar. SK launching OAK would make a ton of sense since their biggest competitor DY has multiple flights to OAK and SK's recent US expansion to LAX and MIA has really been to catch up with DY. AKL, though, has a 0% chance of happening so we might as well close this thread or change the title to refer to OAK.

DolphinAir747 wrote:

Clearly what happened is that someone heard "Oakland" and thought "Auckland" since the two sound familiar. SK launching OAK would make a ton of sense since their biggest competitor DY has multiple flights to OAK and SK's recent US expansion to LAX and MIA has really been to catch up with DY. AKL, though, has a 0% chance of happening so we might as well close this thread or change the title to refer to OAK.

The OP is pretty clear about where the ovehearing took place: AKL!

My guess is that this person heard about a new flight with a SAS code on it, assuming it would be a SAS flight but in reality it's only going to be a new codeshare.

ro1960 wrote:

When was it that a European airline flew to NZ (except BA)? Correct me if I'm wrong but even Australia which is a larger market doesn't see a European carrier (again except BA).

Technically Air Tahiti Nui is a European carrier - they serve AKL. For a carrier based on the European continent though I would guess you have to go back to UTA.

Dave

stratacruiser wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

When was it that a European airline flew to NZ (except BA)? Correct me if I'm wrong but even Australia which is a larger market doesn't see a European carrier (again except BA).

Technically Air Tahiti Nui is a European carrier - they serve AKL. For a carrier based on the European continent though I would guess you have to go back to UTA.

Dave

That's what I thought. Any other big EU based carrier ever served the downunder countries? LH, KL? AF certainly a short while after absorbing UT.

Conversely QF and NZ only serve London, so not much of market outside the UK. The likelihood of SK flying to AKL is rather thin.

DolphinAir747 wrote:

Clearly what happened is that someone heard "Oakland" and thought "Auckland" since the two sound familiar. SK launching OAK would make a ton of sense since their biggest competitor DY has multiple flights to OAK and SK's recent US expansion to LAX and MIA has really been to catch up with DY. AKL, though, has a 0% chance of happening so we might as well close this thread or change the title to refer to OAK.

SK already fly to SFO, OAK wouldn't make any sense at all.

I bet this rumor started with some code sharing / Star Alliance data misinterpreted.

Again, I would say that DY has a slight chance of succeeding on BKK-Australia since they already have all the feeder traffic from all three Scandinavian capitals with three different incoming flights and therefore would have an easier time filling just a single outbound BKK-Australia flight a few times a week.

787Driver wrote:

Again, I would say that DY has a slight chance of succeeding on BKK-Australia since they already have all the feeder traffic from all three Scandinavian capitals with three different incoming flights and therefore would have an easier time filling just a single outbound BKK-Australia flight a few times a week.

What about traffic rights? Will they have them?

ro1960 wrote:

787Driver wrote:

Again, I would say that DY has a slight chance of succeeding on BKK-Australia since they already have all the feeder traffic from all three Scandinavian capitals with three different incoming flights and therefore would have an easier time filling just a single outbound BKK-Australia flight a few times a week.

What about traffic rights? Will they have them?

I don't know

stratacruiser wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

When was it that a European airline flew to NZ (except BA)? Correct me if I'm wrong but even Australia which is a larger market doesn't see a European carrier (again except BA).

Technically Air Tahiti Nui is a European carrier - they serve AKL. For a carrier based on the European continent though I would guess you have to go back to UTA.

Dave

I'm pretty sure Lufthansa used to fly to New Zealand, they had a building in Auckland for many years.

rebr wrote:

Most of the traffic from Scandinavia to NZ is quite the same. Maybe a bit more adventurous then the people going to BKK, but still the same when it comes to the flight, cheapest possible. I've met Scandinavians who happily flew OSL-LHR-HKG-AKL with 3 hours London and around 9 hours in HKG. Not a chance SAS is going to fly to AKL anytime soon.

OSL-LHR-HKG-AKL worked well when it was NZ metal all the way, there was no 9 hours wasted on HKG. If you want to go OSL-LHR-AKL the you're much better off using NZ1 via LAX.

As a kiwi in Norway we've travelled back to NZ via different routes almost every time, we've gone via Thailand, China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo and the other way via LA, San Fransicso and Vancouver.

You should expect something more realistic. Like a dragon.

Kiwirob wrote:

I'm pretty sure Lufthansa used to fly to New Zealand, they had a building in Auckland for many years.

I don't think so. My bulletproof evidence: The a.net picture database doesn't have any pic of an LH bird in New Zealand (except for cargo flights)...

Additionally, I don't recall ever having heard of this.

Kiwirob wrote:

I'm pretty sure Lufthansa used to fly to New Zealand, they had a building in Auckland for many years.

Absolutely not!

Ok sweet, but are you sure, I think they did back in the 80's and Wikipedia lists Auckland as a terminated destination for Lufthansa, along with Sydney and Melbourne.

Kiwirob wrote:

Ok sweet, but are you sure, I think they did back in the 80's and Wikipedia lists Auckland as a terminated destination for Lufthansa, along with Sydney and Melbourne.

LH did indeed serve AKL for quite a long time with its 747s.

ro1960 wrote:

stratacruiser wrote:

ro1960 wrote:

When was it that a European airline flew to NZ (except BA)? Correct me if I'm wrong but even Australia which is a larger market doesn't see a European carrier (again except BA).

Technically Air Tahiti Nui is a European carrier - they serve AKL. For a carrier based on the European continent though I would guess you have to go back to UTA.

Dave

That's what I thought. Any other big EU based carrier ever served the downunder countries? LH, KL? AF certainly a short while after absorbing UT.

Conversely QF and NZ only serve London, so not much of market outside the UK. The likelihood of SK flying to AKL is rather thin.

If you by "EU based" mean "European", then BA (who still serves SYD, of course), VS, KL, LH, AF, UT, NG, AZ, OA and even JU and SU have all served Australia. And from the Middle East, also MS, ME and IR (I think), apart from the current onslaught of the ME3.

Flyingsottsman wrote:

There is no way that we would ever see SAS down in this part of the world. I don't think there is the business between Sweden, Norway and Denmark and Australia/New Zealand
In the late 80s early to mid 90s we lost all the European airlines to Australia since alliances and partnerships between the airlines were formed there were no need for them to fly all the way down to here or New Zealand. British Airways is the only airline that flies to Sydney only, that last European Airline that flew to Australia was Austrian. I do miss the days when we use to see the European Airlines here in Melbourne but its the way of the World now. So I don't think SAS would ever fly to Auckland yet alone Australia. If anything it would be a closer partnership with Air New Zealand to Hong Kong and then SAS to Copenhagen and Stockholm.

That wouldn't have been Austrian, but rather Lauda Air (NG). And a small correction: OA, for example flew to SYD and MEL at least until 1998. NG a few years after that. So you were a couple of years off there.

Kiwirob wrote:

Ok sweet, but are you sure, I think they did back in the 80's and Wikipedia lists Auckland as a terminated destination for Lufthansa, along with Sydney and Melbourne.

I couldn't find anything about LH serving AKL but LH did fly to SYD with DC-10s in the 70s:



http://timetableimages.com/ttimages/lh/lh7504/lh754-11.jpg

ro1960 wrote:

When was it that a European airline flew to NZ (except BA)? Correct me if I'm wrong but even Australia which is a larger market doesn't see a European carrier (again except BA).

Well, Air France still flies to Tahiti.

Lufthansa used to fly both to Auckland and Sydney but they have now been terminated. Don't know when.

MalevTU134 wrote:

If you by "EU based" mean "European", then BA (who still serves SYD, of course), VS, KL, LH, AF, UT, NG, AZ, OA and even JU have all served Australia. And from the Middle East, also MS, ME and IR (I think), apart from the current onslaught of the ME3.

I already excluded the POME airline from my previous post.

ro1960 wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

If you by "EU based" mean "European", then BA (who still serves SYD, of course), VS, KL, LH, AF, UT, NG, AZ, OA and even JU have all served Australia. And from the Middle East, also MS, ME and IR (I think), apart from the current onslaught of the ME3.

I already excluded the POME airline from my previous post.

And POME stands for...???

787Driver wrote:

Perhaps Norwegian can do it via an existing destination such as Bangkok. You need the most fuel efficient aircraft you can get to have a chance of making it work. But I would think Sydney would be their first destination as tourists would be their primary target group.

SAS already flies to Los Angeles. They could continue the flight to Auckland. They get New Airbus 350-900 from 2019.