Back when the Boeing 777 was first introduced, it was also presented to SAS as a possibility. Why didn't SAS buy it ? Too much of an aircraft for them ?

I think you've answered your own question. Essentially SK's widebody fleet history is 747 > DC10 > 763 > A330/A340. The 787 might be a good fit for them when they next look at their widebody requirements.

FlyCaledonian wrote:

I think you've answered your own question. Essentially SK's widebody fleet history is 747 > DC10 > 763 > A330/A340. The 787 might be a good fit for them when they next look at their widebody requirements.

They have the A350 on order as their future long haul fleet. Mind you, they are switching to an all Airbus fleet with new A320NEOs as replacement for their 737s. Doubt we will ever see the 787 in SK’s fleet.

Concern over the slightly larger size of the 777 at the time, you have to remember at the time of the orders there was an Asian economic crisis... a major market for SAS.

Flight Global article on the decision;
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sas-opts-for-a330a340s-but-order-awaits-cost-cuts-to-47044/

Regards
CROSSWIND

SK was in talks with Boeing about a 777-100 that would have been shorter than the -200 and also with longer range but program was never launched and SK went with Airbus instead. Not sure how far the discussions went about the 777-100.

The 333/343 are almost the same size as the 777-200 so I guess SK to a better deal from Airbus than Boeing. Too bad......

The777Man

They considered the 777 too big, which was probably true. They were replacing the 767-300ERs after all, and just going from that to the A330-300 and A340-300 was quite an increase in capacity. The A330-300 also proved ideally suited for transatlantic flights, and Airbus offered a package which included the A319s and A321s.

The777Man wrote:

The 333/343 are almost the same size as the 777-200 so I guess SK to a better deal from Airbus than Boeing. Too bad......The777Man

The 777-200 is somewhat larger than the A330-300 and A340-300. In terms of seating, the 777 seats typically 20-30 more passengers, and the 777 is a much heavier aircraft. In terms of MTOW, I believe the 777 lies at around 297 tons, while the A330-300 was 212 tons and the A340-300 is 276 tons.

The A330/340 fleet has served SAS well, but more than once was cargo left behind in BKK back in the days when SAS flow there.
For South East Asia routes, the 777 would have been a better option.

Well, TBH we don’t know, AsiaFlyer. Just because cargo may have at occasion been left, doesn’t mean transporting it even that instance would have been profitable, let alone flying all those years with much heavier plane. I’m sure they also occasionally run out of seats and tickets for passengers, but it doesn’t imply they should have been flying 747s or 380s...

It would be good B747-8i or B77W or the new B777-9

AIRTRANSAT767 wrote:

It would be good B747-8i or B77W or the new B777-9

Those are probably far too big for SAS.

VSMUT wrote:

and the 777 is a much heavier aircraft. In terms of MTOW, I believe the 777 lies at around 297 tons, while the A330-300 was 212 tons and the A340-300 is 276 tons.

In terms of weight comparisons, airlines typically care far more about the OEW than the MTOW, especially since the latter can be changed depending on needs.

The 77E was still the heaviest of all, the actual weight difference was "only" 8 tonnes with the A343... but it was also the most capable of all, seeing that it could out-lift the A343 by 21 tonnes, while still offering more range (at least before Boeing completely redid its publicized charts).

Which (setting aside acquisition options) brought the question to what the airlines were seeking between efficiency and capability, and at what ratio.

The 777-200ER was too big for SAS, the A330/340 combination worked well for the medium hauls to the North American east coast and the A340 for the long hauls to Japan and Asia.

VSMUT wrote:

They considered the 777 too big, which was probably true. They were replacing the 767-300ERs after all, and just going from that to the A330-300 and A340-300 was quite an increase in capacity. The A330-300 also proved ideally suited for transatlantic flights, and Airbus offered a package which included the A319s and A321s.

The777Man wrote:

The 333/343 are almost the same size as the 777-200 so I guess SK to a better deal from Airbus than Boeing. Too bad......The777Man

The 777-200 is somewhat larger than the A330-300 and A340-300. In terms of seating, the 777 seats typically 20-30 more passengers, and the 777 is a much heavier aircraft. In terms of MTOW, I believe the 777 lies at around 297 tons, while the A330-300 was 212 tons and the A340-300 is 276 tons.

I came here precisely to say that, but with some corrections: the four A333s (earlier ones) are 233t, while the 4 that arrived a few years ago via sale-leaseback with BoCom are 242t. The direct order A343s are 271t, and I'm not sure about the ex-LAN frame. The 777 is 299t...which would have been too heavy from an airline going from 185t 763s (which numbered 14-strong when the A330s and A340s began to arrive). SAS' philosophy when it ditched the DC-10s and 747-200Bs was that smaller is better...they were probably the first legacy European flag carrier to embrace that concept and value frequency over plane size.

However, that said, why has SAS historically had a small wide-body fleet? It was 11 for nearly a decade (and for a time just 10 while OY-KBM was leased to Hi Fly) until SAS leased in an additional A343 from Airbus and ordered 4 additional A333s (the BoCom sale-leasebacks). It's also interesting that they have had so few A321s, which could allow the airline to serve destinations like DXB with right-sized aircraft instead of the A343 which served it before the service was cut. The A321LR could function very well as a medium-haul plane, depending on cargo needs, on routes like CPH-BOS, CPH-DXB, and OSL-EWR (freeing up wide-body aircraft) in a 170-seat configuration with 20-24 business class seats.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

However, that said, why has SAS historically had a small wide-body fleet?

The 767 fleet was slightly bigger, I think it numbered between 14 and 16 depending on when you count.

As for why? Scandinavia isn't big in terms of population. In year 2000, right about when the A330s and A340s were ordered, the total population of Denmark, Sweden and Norway numbered just 18,7 million, spread out across an area that is quite a bit bigger than Texas. By comparison, the Netherlands had about 16 mio at the time all living within 1 or 2 hours of AMS.

The inaccessibility of Scandinavian geography meant that SAS had a short haul fleet that was (and still is) pumped up by unique demands not relevant to competitors like KLM. Before the Great Belt bridge you had loads of domestic flights in Denmark, Norway speaks for itself with all the fjords and mountains and the massive length of the country, and Sweden is just massive.

SAS was always required to split operations across 3 major hubs, which is a disadvantage for feeding long-haul traffic. Think of KLM in comparison, all of their flights were concentrated in one airport.

And finally, my own observation is that most Danes (and I would presume that goes for Norwegians and Swedes too) didn't really discover the world of long haul travel until the start of the 00s/late 90s. It was mostly package charter holidays to beach resorts in places like the Balearic islands, trips in the caravan all over Europe and other sorts of mediocrity up until then. The package charter thing is why you had a lot of charter airlines of Scandinavia, quite a few of them with long-haul aircraft of their own.

SAS considered MD11,777 and A330/340. They wanted 777 for Asian routes but A330 for east coast USA. In the end A330 and A340 were chosen for fleet commonality. Apparently SAS had an offer from all manufacturers and during SAS evaluation Boeing suddenly raised the price for 777. Might have changed the final decision. Anyway I’m sure SAS did a good decision going for the smaller planes considering the planes were delivered in recession after 9/11.

Is the A350- 900 the right next plane for SAS or is it too big ? 787-9/10 would be better for SAS allowing longer range for Asia & California plus 787-10 to New York, Chicago, Washington and MIA.

B787-10 would be the perfect aircraft for SAS

jfk777 wrote:

Is the A350- 900 the right next plane for SAS or is it too big ? 787-9/10 would be better for SAS allowing longer range for Asia & California plus 787-10 to New York, Chicago, Washington and MIA.

The A350-900 has more range than the 787-9. For a smallish airline it is perhaps sensible to keep to one type.

Slash787 wrote:

B787-10 would be the perfect aircraft for SAS

Elaborate...?

Slash787 wrote:

B787-10 would be the perfect aircraft for SAS

When the plane only have (IIRC) 9-10h range and might not even reach PVG from CPH? Plus the fleet commonality?

This is getting a bit old and tiring, virtually in all airline fleet replacement threads someone will pop up and say "787-10 is perfect" without even considering the fact.

MIchael

mjoelnir wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Is the A350- 900 the right next plane for SAS or is it too big ? 787-9/10 would be better for SAS allowing longer range for Asia & California plus 787-10 to New York, Chicago, Washington and MIA.

The A350-900 has more range than the 787-9. For a smallish airline it is perhaps sensible to keep to one type.

They would still have the four 242t A330-300 frames.

eamondzhang wrote:

Slash787 wrote:

B787-10 would be the perfect aircraft for SAS

When the plane only have (IIRC) 9-10h range and might not even reach PVG from CPH? Plus the fleet commonality?

This is getting a bit old and tiring, virtually in all airline fleet replacement threads someone will pop up and say "787-10 is perfect" without even considering the fact.

MIchael

I guess it’s because it looks perfect so it has to be perfect

aemoreira1981 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Is the A350- 900 the right next plane for SAS or is it too big ? 787-9/10 would be better for SAS allowing longer range for Asia & California plus 787-10 to New York, Chicago, Washington and MIA.

The A350-900 has more range than the 787-9. For a smallish airline it is perhaps sensible to keep to one type.

They would still have the four 242t A330-300 frames.

Looks like a sound strategy to me; A359 for long-haul and A333 for trans-Atlantic.