ScandiGB

In simplistic terms. They have tried and the economics don’t work. Other airlines also don’t seem to be able to make those routes work.

oliver2002

The team deciding where the new A321 should fly have access to the data via the IATA BSP. They can see exactly what seats were sold on certain city pairs. BOS is a weird market. Even though Norwegian was pumping in seats into the region from various EU places, the majors still fly big planes into BOS. LH just decided to send a A380 there next summer.

East_and_West

Similarly for ORD and LAX. Speaking about O&D traffic, I remember reading somewhere that the trip for 2 out of 3 passengers on long haul flights either does not begin at the airport of origin or does not end at the destination of that flight (or both). Even cities larger than Stockholm struggle to fill long-haul flight with just locals...

In the meanwhile SAS has been operating long-haul routes
1. at times impossible for connections, excluding all potential transfer passengers
2. from an airport where one of the few LCCs that offered long-haul flights was super active in most of the past years
3. while offering unattractive prices
4. and a most unappealing experience in the Y cabin

So being able to run high load factors on these routes despite all of the above gives just a glimpse of how things could be if simply SAS scheduled their ARN departures at more reasonable times, especially now that DY is out. (Just that, without even adding to the equation "and if they also offered a decent --not even good, just decent-- Y product, and slightly better soft product on their premium classes" as I have long given up hope that this will happen...)

oliver2002

Its worse: in normal hubs the transit pax ratio is often 50:50. You need a massive feeder network to your hub(s) to consistently fill all cabins on longhaul flights.

RedChili

When I first moved to Sweden back in 2003, the following long-haul routes existed at ARN:
SK to EWR and ORD
CO to EWR
TG to BKK
CA to PEK
MH KUL-ARN-EWR

MH cut their route (only one of many routes which they were forced to cut), and CO became UA. But in the years since then, the following routes were added and still exist today:

ET to ADD in 2003 (now daily)
QR to DOH in 2007 (now up to 3x daily)
EK to DXB in 2013 (now up to 2x daily)
AI to DEL in 2017
SQ to SIN in 2017
MU to PVG in 2018
NH to HND in 2020

Some other routes were added but then later removed, such as a lot of DY routes, DL to ATL and JFK, US to PHL.

So, while lots of routes have been added, SAS has basically only increased with one destination: MIA.

While it is true that the A343 is a gas guzzler compared to airplane like the B787 or A350, it is quite okay compared to the B77E, B763 and B744, and SAS has plenty of competitors that still fly A343, B763, B744 and B77E.

When SAS was first formed, it was decided that Norway would get the language, Sweden the headquarters, and Denmark the long-haul hub. At that time, it made a lot of sense, since all long-haul flights to Asia refueled in the Middle East, flights to North American refueled at Shannon, and SAS also had flights to Africa and South America. Nowadays, it would make sense to do as you suggest, but the problem is that the infrastructure for long-haul out of CPH already exists, including the feeder flights to various European destinations.

Please note that DL cancelled their flights to ARN, and UA reduced their year-round EWR to a seasonal summer service, because they couldn't compete with DY. The simple truth is that it was very difficult for any airline to compete with DY's multiple daily flights out of ARN. Now that DY is cancelling their flights, I wouldn't be surprised to see UA returning to year-round, DL return, and perhaps even AA if we're lucky.

Last summer, Icelandair had up to 3 daily flights on the B752, B753 and B763, and most of those passengers continue to the U.S.A.

Both Thai and Ethiopian have daily departures.

Norwegian has lost a lot of money on their long-haul venture, so it's not surprising that they're closing routes from ARN and CPH. You shouldn't take their cancellation as an indication of the opportunities at ARN.

The SQ flight ARN-DME-SIN is a direct route as it's the same plane and same flight number.

Tango Alpha

SAS' yield is doing quite good at present - at average at least. Don't know about long haul separatly, though.

For the A340's I'm quite sure they are a good businesscase with oilprices in their 60's.

highupinthesky

Your are talking since 2003, I wrote the last couple of years. We are not talking about the same period. If you go back to 2003, you also need to add the SK route ARN-PEK, ARN-LAX and probably other which all has existed at some point in time between 2003 and now.

SQ is doing CPH-SIN direct without stop over. There is no reason to do a stop over on ARN-SIN unless it's because you can't fill the bird when doing ARN-SIN direct.

RedChili

Well, if we're talking the last couple of years: Since 2017, flights have been added by SQ SIN, AI DEL, and MU PVG, while ADD has become a daily nonstop instead of one-stop via VIE, DXB has gone double daily, and DOH has increased from (IIRC) 10 per week to 17 per week.

Since 2003, SAS has operated and cancelled routes from ARN to PEK, BKK, HKG and LAX.

SQ has a history of double destination flights in Europe. For them, it's quite normal to launch a flight in this way. Personally, I think that they would get more passengers from ARN if they made it into a nonstop.

GUWonder

For nearly 40% of the Swedish flying public, CPH is probably at least as convenient as ARN. For those in the coastal west of Sweden and in the southern parts of Sweden, CPH works better than ARN for most of their travels.

SAS has tried a lot of things with ARN long-haul over they years, but it just doesn’t seem to work for SAS. And now with so many other carriers having taken the non-EU, immigrant-related VFR and other leisure long-haul traffic to warmer climates in and around the “Old World”, SAS seems to be left to hunker down into CPH and have the US be it’s last great hope for long-haul success overall.

MatthiasWagner

I dont think its fair to add DXB and DOH to the list of long-haul flights:
1. They are not that long...
2. Its transfer destinations, and therefore, in my mind, the reason for why there isn't more real Asian Long-haul out of ARN (and a lot of other airports as well)

GUWonder

CPH has seen way more international long-haul capacity come to it from non-EU carriers than ARN has. And given how DL and CO/UA have dealt with ARN and with CPH — with or without Norwegian in the picture for long-haul service covering the same city pairs (distinct from same airport pairs) or anything else in this century — and given all the other non-EU long-haul carrier activity I’ve seen at ARN and CPH, I think it is pretty clear to me that: ARN struggles more than CPH for a variety of reasons that aren’t a product of Norwegian; and SK and ARN will continue to struggle with long-haul flights operated out of ARN by high cost flight/cabin crews even as SK’s fuel and plane costs may be in the same range as those non-EU long-haul flying carriers serving the big three SK hubs.

ARN won’t be able to do for SK what CPH can do for it. And that’s not going to change anytime soon.

GUWonder

2800 to 3000 miles — not Swedish miles — is also long-haul service as far as I’m concerned. 5+ hours at a stretch? That’s way better characterized as long-haul than as short-haul.

IST, DOH, DXB, AUH aren’t the only reason why SK struggles with Asia service. The other Star Alliance carriers, the Oneworld carriers and the SkyTeam carriers are eating massively into SK’s home markets when it comes to Asia and Africa and even North America.

Daner

I agree. I would like to visit Singapore (and points beyond), I would like to try SQ, and I would like to try their A350, but the fact that it is not a nonstop discourages me. If forced to accept some form of stopover, I would rather layover in Doha or Dubai than Moscow. Heck, I would even rather risk a bus ride while transferring at FRA mid-winter.

ScandiGB

That looks a bit tough on airline which has grown its long haul fleet by c50% in the last 5-6 years, is introducing the A321LR and has A350s being delivered.

I think it will be interesting whether the A350s will “only” replace the a340s or also partially be additional capacity. Similarly it will be interesting to see if the options for more A350s are exercised.

GUWonder

Sure, but it’s also a game of “you grow or you’re beyond your prime and are prey”.