SK future???
 

A lot of talk during the last year of future ownership and sales to LH. Any news on this front now when it looks like SK will make positive results again! The A330/340 fleet start to get old (10 years) is there a plan or order to replace the longhaul fleet within the coming years? Grazie

Longhaul aircraft are considered 'old' after aprox 20 years, assuming they fly normal patterns. SK has to start thinking about replacements in 5-7 years, since the last round of replacements was in 2001-4.

The fleet: http://airfleets.net/flottecie/SAS.htm

I don't think there are any plans in change of ownership. SAS still has a lot of issues to deal with before someone like Lufthansa would be interested in taking over.
Regarding the fleet there is longterm plan for replacement of MD80s, B737classics, F50s and A330/A340s. I think the Fokkers are beeing replaced by Wideroe very soon?!..
I could see SAS ordering more A319/A321s for CPH and B737NGs for OSL & ARN. Maybe also some CRJ900s for regional routes. The longhaul fleet needs be replaced more efficient aircrafts like A350 or B787 to be able to compete internationally. BUT, the current situation is that they don't have the founds to order that many new planes...

Why should SAS have different plane types in OSL/ARN vs CPH :confused: I honestly don't know why and asking for some clarification?

Also, what I don't understand is why on earth the company doesn't stick to one manufacturer (either Boeing or Airbus) as this obviously would keep costs down both H/W and employee wise?

The name of the game is to stay in touch with more than one supplier and buy when they are either developing (SK did that with MD/DC) or when they are in a downturn (SK bought some A330s that way)

Cost wise that doesn't seem to make much sense, as it seems like most of the LCC stick to one manufacturer so a better price can be negotiated.

Still doesn't explain why there should be a split of manufacturers between OSL/ARN/CPH?

It makes sense for crew issues. If you split the Airbus & Boeing between all three hubs, then it could be that due to illness, or unplanned last minute changes that you only have say airbus crew in ARN when you need Boeing (or vice versa). This might be better for smaller hubs.

Also, having different suppliers allow you to do a couple of things;
1) It keeps them competitive against each other, otherwise the prices can be kept higher. (When BA applied for a new short haul flight in the 90's then Airbus didn't want to answer fully as they saw BA as a Boeing only supplier and had been messed about by them before. BA had to reassure them that they were serious in considering Airbus, and did actually buy planes from them in the end).

2) It gives you more flexiblility. Different planes in different configs and different capacities allows you to change things around easier and last minute if required, especially if a plane goes tech and you need more seats on a route for the rest of the day for example.

the LCC's also have a different operating model. They focus on specific segments, such as intra-european medium haul routes. All Ryanair's routes, for example, are pretty much similar in size and distance so it makes sense for them to stick with 737's. But if they would start doing domestic and/or intercontinental flights they would also need different aircrafts, possibly different brands as well.

Sure but as already mentiond having both an Airbus and an Boeing fleet is more competitive when negotiating with the manufacturers. (For example has Ryanair stated that they are not afraid of ordering Airbus if Boeing doesn't give them the price they want.) And secondly, the A321 transports a whole lot more people and freight than the B737-800s. Therefore it's more suitable on the major trunk routes.

SAS operates diffrent aircrafts from it's three bases that is most suitalbe for the routes flown.
ARN has B737NG and MD80s
CPH has A319/321s, MD80s and CRJ900s
OSL has B737s (both Classics & NGs) and F50s

All the A330/340s are based at CPH and the A330s rotates trough ARN

I have no inside information, but from what I've read in the papers here in Norway, LH is no longer interested in buying SK - it would make more sense for them to wait for a bankruptcy and pick up the bits they want at a cheaper price. A bankruptcy may also free SK from some of the disadvantageous labor agreements they have.

WF took over some routes within Norway that were served with Fokkers by SAS Commuter.
http://www.wideroe.no/modules/module...=12&I=6148&D=2

The last Fokker is leaving the fleet November 1. and by the remaining Fokker 50 routes will be taken over by Widerøe

Only 737s. The Fokker 50s has not been used at OSL for a few years and they have all been based on the Norwegian West Coast

But for SK to go Bankrupt the three governments will have to see their "investment" disappear. Somehow I still think SK is able to pull in more money from the respective governments with yet another stock deal.

I think you might be right about SK getting money from one of the three governments for yet another stock deal. Not so sure about the time after that - it's getting tougher each time and at some point they will stop. If the non socialists get the next Storting in Norway that could be the time of change.

I'd like to see SK survive, but I can't see how they can do it with the three country model. There's not enough solidarity between the various govt.s and unions.

Sorry my bad, was thinking SAS Norway ;)