Originally Posted by
RedChili
But other carriers are filling it: Air China, China Eastern, Emirates, Qatar, Ethiopian, Air India, Singapore, All Nippon, Icelandair, United, plus lots of passengers on connecting flights via HEL, AMS, CDG, FRA, ZRH, LHR, IST and others.
That is one way of viewing it. Another is:
- Airlines feeding their global network. Not a business SAS could meaningfully replace by flying to Dubai/Qatar/Singapore.
- no US carriers flying anywhere SAS is not flying. Not a single US carrier has a flight to a large hub (other than United’s flight to Stockholm). Not a single west coast flight. If it is such a good business case why is SAS moving the flight and nobody filling it?
- Iceland-air has a business model based on fuel savings. They have one narrow-body departure daily. Hardly a meaningful comparison.
- Carriers with local regional network which it is very difficult for SAS to tap in to (Singapore, Thai, Ethiopian)
- some carriers with significantly lower staff costs having a few weekly departures (China eastern, Thai, Ethiopian etc).
- A couple of carriers mainly based in immigrant demand (PIA, IranAir).
- Ana to try. Maybe it works. Let’s see.
The bottom line is that there are not many examples of routes that SAS could fly being served by others. The Tokyo route may of course be one.
The data points would indicate it is difficult in Stockholm. Airlines are closing routes. This has been true for Norwegian (all routes), SAS (Hong Kong, LA), Delta (Atlanta) etc.
Needless to say you are right that demand will be served through hubs if direct routes are not profitable. That however does not make a direct route a viable alternative. The fact that Singapore, which you mention goes through Moscow is an interesting indication that a direct route is not viable.