|
Originally Posted by FlyingMoose
(Post 23616853)
And please EVERY Swedish customer. They are loosing business because Swedes opt for other airlines as SK keeps underserving ARN with long haul traffic. Since SK doesn't have an advantage in service it needs to come from direct routes and saving time.
1) Quite a few Swedes has CPH as their closest large airport - just over 1m inhabitants in Skåne alone. And I am guessing that pax from e.g. Göteborg could not care less if it is CPH or ARN (or AMS?) they connect in. So it is not EVERY Swede - but likely those living in and north of Stockholm. 2) Of course SAS is loosing revenue by not having a ARN-SFO flight - as they are for not having a OSL-SEA or a BLL-EWR flight. The trick is that not all revenue is worth pursuing. Where do SAS believe they can gain the most (or loose the least...) 3) As stated previously I am not arguing for CPH per se (but will of course prefer it) I am arguing for 1 hub. If SAS can gain more pax by moving their IC flights to ARN (and adjust their full European set-up thereafter) than they would loose in CPH. Then by all means they should do it. |
Originally Posted by wazow
(Post 23617442)
This argument is of course only valid if it can gain more Swedish customers in ARN than the amount of non-scandinavian customers that would connect in CPH (or any other proper hub for that matter).
ARN-SFO and ARN-HKG would make a lot of sense. The CPH crowd can transfer in ARN instead of the other way around (and not add 3+ hours of travel) for an Asian destination. It would open up the necessary extra capacity to SFO with better connection times. |
Originally Posted by FlyingMoose
(Post 23616853)
And please EVERY Swedish customer. They are loosing business because Swedes opt for other airlines as SK keeps underserving ARN with long haul traffic. Since SK doesn't have an advantage in service it needs to come from direct routes and saving time.
|
Originally Posted by FlyingMoose
(Post 23619509)
No it is not - if people systematically avoid SAS for their flying business simply because it can not meet their IC travel they will loose money in more verticals than just a single IC route. There has been an outcry for over a decade for more IC from ARN. Especially for frequent travelers who can not rely exclusively on SK to begin with, even for European travel. Now DY has proven that there is plenty of room for additional IC (and EK + QR for that matter) and thereby killing SK's argument that there wouldn't be, it's time to act. Same goes for OSL, QR even has 2 flights a day from there.
ARN-SFO and ARN-HKG would make a lot of sense. The CPH crowd can transfer in ARN instead of the other way around (and not add 3+ hours of travel) for an Asian destination. It would open up the necessary extra capacity to SFO with better connection times. Nobody disputed the size of Stockholm market for intercontinental travel, all that is being disputed is the financial viability of having more than one IC hub with the small fleet that SK has. As for people not being able to rely esclusively on SK, I live in Tokyo and I can't rely exclusively on JAL. I can't even rely on JAL and ANA combined. |
I wonder why the supporters of the multi-hub strategy really only hate SK for that, and have nothing against KL or BA or LH for not opening a hub in ARN and OSL (or CPH for that matter). Is SK the only airline they want to kill? If its about convenient and profitable connections, this should be as convenient for you and as profitable for the ariline if we talked other operators than SK.
PS. There is some difference between starting a completely new destination from ARN (like HKG) and opening a duplicate (like EWR). In the latter case, I believe, SK does this because there is traffic out of ARN to EWR that is sufficiently good for business, and it does not really hurt the passangers connecting in CPH to EWR, as this traffic can still be captured by CPH-EWR connection. Opening a non-duplicate route from an alternate hub is quite a bit worse. Because SK does not offer a good network of feeding flights to ARN. So the connection becomes essentially unavailable for PAX from German, Eastern Europe and alike. Given the language distribution in TATL cabins, I do not think that this is an ignorable part of the market (it is worth remembering that PAX connecting in CPH are not only coming from OSL and ARN). |
Originally Posted by wazow
(Post 23622540)
PS. There is some difference between starting a completely new destination from ARN (like HKG) and opening a duplicate (like EWR). In the latter case, I believe, SK does this because there is traffic out of ARN to EWR that is sufficiently good for business, and it does not really hurt the passangers connecting in CPH to EWR, as this traffic can still be captured by CPH-EWR connection. Opening a non-duplicate route from an alternate hub is quite a bit worse. Because SK does not offer a good network of feeding flights to ARN. So the connection becomes essentially unavailable for PAX from German, Eastern Europe and alike. Given the language distribution in TATL cabins, I do not think that this is an ignorable part of the market (it is worth remembering that PAX connecting in CPH are not only coming from OSL and ARN).
|
Originally Posted by wazow
(Post 23622540)
I wonder why the supporters of the multi-hub strategy really only hate SK for that, and have nothing against KL or BA or LH for not opening a hub in ARN and OSL (or CPH for that matter). Is SK the only airline they want to kill? If its about convenient and profitable connections, this should be as convenient for you and as profitable for the ariline if we talked other operators than SK.
If you need to transfer anyway and there is no notable difference in time lost when you opt between AMS, CPH or LHR the decision making process will quickly change to service, product and price. In which all three cases SK comes out on the bottom. Ignoring other items where SK is vastly inferior such as meals, IFE, old aircraft etc. I would be considerably more likely to opt for SK connections in CPH (or OSL) if the airline could serve my travel needs better. At this point they seem to simply not care about the Stockholm based customers and I have zero incentive to be loyal, especially since an almost 70 year old airline still hasn't figured out how a FF program, priority boarding and priority luggage should work. Apparently there are a lot of travelers with a similar opinion if you look at the number of locals transferring to IC with other airlines daily. There is a reason BA has 9 flights a day to Stockholm and that number seems to ever increase for example. I'm well aware of the difficulties SK is facing and to some point agree they need to simply decide on a course, but I'm very confident that at this point there is more revenue in new IC from ARN than there is from any other hub. New planes, new locations and the new cabins is exactly what SK needs at this point to retain and attract more passengers. Their game should really be time saving - which is something they have been trying to do with the punctuality PR and very short transfers. |
Originally Posted by FlyingMoose
(Post 23632823)
It has nothing to do with wanting to kill an airline. The problem is that for the majority of Stockholm based frequent long haul flyers SK is not a viable option. They fly to EWR and ORD - which are terrible airports and I simply do not fly US domestic unless there are zero direct flights with any airline directly from Europe. Unless they are your final destination - which in my case they seem to never be - you don't opt for SK. Then there is the complete lack of Asia routes.
If you need to transfer anyway and there is no notable difference in time lost when you opt between AMS, CPH or LHR the decision making process will quickly change to service, product and price. In which all three cases SK comes out on the bottom. Ignoring other items where SK is vastly inferior such as meals, IFE, old aircraft etc. I would be considerably more likely to opt for SK connections in CPH (or OSL) if the airline could serve my travel needs better. At this point they seem to simply not care about the Stockholm based customers and I have zero incentive to be loyal, especially since an almost 70 year old airline still hasn't figured out how a FF program, priority boarding and priority luggage should work. Apparently there are a lot of travelers with a similar opinion if you look at the number of locals transferring to IC with other airlines daily. There is a reason BA has 9 flights a day to Stockholm and that number seems to ever increase for example. I'm well aware of the difficulties SK is facing and to some point agree they need to simply decide on a course, but I'm very confident that at this point there is more revenue in new IC from ARN than there is from any other hub. New planes, new locations and the new cabins is exactly what SK needs at this point to retain and attract more passengers. Their game should really be time saving - which is something they have been trying to do with the punctuality PR and very short transfers. You will enjoy BA based on the priorities you mention. ;-) For priority boarding, Bronze members boards with first class on long haul. And Siver, Gold, Business class, and the whole group of OneWorld elites. That should account for somewhere around half the plane boarding in the same group. I don't know if that is better than SK's not having any priority boarding. Their delivery of priority bagage is not much better than SK. The food in business class is not really worth mentioning. The one point where they are very good is the number of US destinations from LHR. (PS there are only 5 flights a day from ARN to LHR) |
Originally Posted by FlyingMoose
(Post 23632823)
It has nothing to do with wanting to kill an airline. The problem is that for the majority of Stockholm based frequent long haul flyers SK is not a viable option. They fly to EWR and ORD - which are terrible airports and I simply do not fly US domestic unless there are zero direct flights with any airline directly from Europe. Unless they are your final destination - which in my case they seem to never be - you don't opt for SK. Then there is the complete lack of Asia routes.
If you need to transfer anyway and there is no notable difference in time lost when you opt between AMS, CPH or LHR the decision making process will quickly change to service, product and price. In which all three cases SK comes out on the bottom. Ignoring other items where SK is vastly inferior such as meals, IFE, old aircraft etc. I would be considerably more likely to opt for SK connections in CPH (or OSL) if the airline could serve my travel needs better. At this point they seem to simply not care about the Stockholm based customers and I have zero incentive to be loyal, especially since an almost 70 year old airline still hasn't figured out how a FF program, priority boarding and priority luggage should work. Apparently there are a lot of travelers with a similar opinion if you look at the number of locals transferring to IC with other airlines daily. There is a reason BA has 9 flights a day to Stockholm and that number seems to ever increase for example. I'm well aware of the difficulties SK is facing and to some point agree they need to simply decide on a course, but I'm very confident that at this point there is more revenue in new IC from ARN than there is from any other hub. New planes, new locations and the new cabins is exactly what SK needs at this point to retain and attract more passengers. Their game should really be time saving - which is something they have been trying to do with the punctuality PR and very short transfers. |
Originally Posted by CPH-Flyer
(Post 23632938)
(PS there are only 5 flights a day from ARN to LHR)
|
Originally Posted by FlyingMoose
(Post 23639033)
BA has 6 and 3 flights to LCY.
|
Originally Posted by CPH-Flyer
(Post 23641399)
Did not look at LCY, but they are hardly for IC connections. But yes they are there. I checked for 5 weekdays in late October, and not on any day did ba.com offer me more than 5. But maybe I chose a bad week, or I should have looked in the weekend.
BA771 BA777 BA775 BA779 BA781 BA783 Details but the point is that feeder flights are increasing. There are 9 flights a day to LH hubs as well etc. |
Originally Posted by FlyingMoose
(Post 23647092)
ARN-LHR Today:
BA771 BA777 BA775 BA779 BA781 BA783 Details but the point is that feeder flights are increasing. There are 9 flights a day to LH hubs as well etc. No doubt there is a market in Arlanda, but is there a market that on the current and planned SK fleet size can support a dual hub strategy profitably? I don't really care where they place the hub, just only do one. If they move it to Arlanda or Oslo watch the BA and LH feeder flights from CPH grow dramatically. Alternatively, if SK boosted their fleet size enough they could have an operation from two hubs. But that is not in the cards with the current orders. (or finances) |
Still, this are feeder flights to LHR, not BA having a hub in ARN. For passengers that travel far, LHR might be a reasonable airport to transfer in. But for most of European trips it is the worst choice in Europe. I would always prefer to transfer in CPH over LHR. Even on TATL connections I would say LHR is not that attractive. The Eastbound flight is too short to sleep enough, and then the trip is getting 1-2 hours longer than through the other hubs, you spending most time running around the gigantic terminal and its queues (the BA lounges are fine though, if you get to spend any time in them, that is).
|
Just FYI, from CPH
BA has 6 daily flights to LHR - same from ARN (5?) + 3 LCY flights LH/SK has 9 daily flights to FRA - vs. 8 from ARN LH/SK has 6 daily flights to MUC - vs. 5 from ARN KL has 6 daily flights to AMS - vs. 5 from ARN AF has 4 daily flights to CDG - vs. 3 from ARN I have not counted the number of seats - but regardless the connection traffice to other European hubs is substantial from both ARN and CPH. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:33 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.