For the bit of inside information I got, the B73G and 73H will remain based in OSL due to staff apparently being unwilling to get a new type rating, Airbus being scary and if it's not Boeing then they're going, things like that (which might also be a good thing, given the low quality of SAS staff in OSL). Which means that they will also use the non-wingletted 738 on longer routes from OSL. In fact, I've been on quite a few trips over 2 hours where this aircraft has been used. I understand that OSL-TRD/BGO/SVG is highly doubtful, as regular cruising altitude will never be reached, but LHR, CDG, KKN or even further away is different, imho...

Agreeing that they used quite a bit of marketing lingo on insideflyer. Perhaps as a response to this typical Swedish flygskam movement? I hope Swedes do understand that their precious trees remain intact as aircraft fly above them while they have to be cut down to make room for railways?

And for the SAS B747, I believe they never had a B744, only 3 B742 which they phased out in 1987. And which they mainly used on intercontinental routes (between Copenhagen and New York). Not sure if Visby even can handle a 747, actually.

I expect BMA to remain open as long as airlines and passengers use it and it remains viable, and as of today, there are more than enough that do so. It would be crazy if an airline that doesn't even fly there suddenly can decide the faith of an airport. On the other hand, it's Sweden we talk about, and there's already strong enough sentiments against flying there...

What is scary about flying an airbus vs flying a Boeing? Not having the stick between the legs? To be honest, at the moment all the Airbus automation seems to play out rather well compared to the latest Boeing software disasters. I have some friends who operated on MD-11, A319/320/321, 737 and 777 and of course it is a difference, all with their special quirks to know about, but I have not yet heard any pilot telling me "Airbus" is scary. Quite on the contrary.

Not scary as in it will run down their pants, but more scary as it means a need to change, I guess. And change, I've noticed, is not something Norwegians are very fond of. On the contrary, in fact...

I think you are right about safety issues. It seems that Airbus currently is a tad more reliable than Boeing with first their Dreamliner issues and now their bunch of MAX issues. Fortunately, SAS is so little progressive that I won't see any MAX there before the successor already is announced.

I'm not sure if it's software issues or just appalling design at Boeing. As usual, software gets the blame, even if it's being used as the digital equivalent of duct tape to hold some of the weirdest stuff together. New software doesn't mean that those MCAS sensors will suddenly not give any faulty indications or that they can't break down. It doesn't mean that suddenly all pilots got mandatory proper training on those new systems either. It just means that new software is abused to patch up previous stupidity. As usual.

I don't know what the mix is between 737-800 with and without winglets in the SK fleet is. Back in the day when they started retro fitting and getting deliveries there was a remark somewhere from SK that they would not refit all planes for this reason. Honestly, from a fleet management perspective, it would probably be easier to just have them all with winglets, as the extra cost of having to send a plane with no winglets to Tenerife probably out weighs the extra cost of having one with winglets flying to SVG.

But with the choice taken, and all 737 eventually being based on Norway, you'd think they could optimise the usage of the types.
​​​​​​

Question about clarification: A 73G is a 737-700 without winglets. The same type with blended winglets is called 73W. A 73H is a 737-800 with winglets. Without winglets it's called a 738.

So, did you intend to say that the 737-700 without winglets, and the 737-800 with blended winglets, will remain based in OSL?

Bundling a fleet sub type in one hub makes sense, that way you save on MRO. The A vs B discussion is as old as the A320 (happy 30th birthday, BTW). As one MD80 pilot (who switched to A320) put it at the MD80 farewell do some years ago: "An DC9/MD80 is like a girlfriend you know since years: you push the right buttons and treat her with respect and she loves to give you what you want. An A320 is a fancy french lady who keeps telling you what you didn't do right and does things how she thinks they ought to be done". Changing type rating between A & B is to also rethink things.

I strongly doubt it has anything to do with crew or union wished. The crew I talk to all prefer the Airbus over the B73x's

But there will still be some B73x's for a quite a while, and it makes perfectly sense to consolidate the few which will be left at one hub rather than splitting them between OSL and ARN (No B73x's at CPH today)

Finally able to reply again (really this 5 post per week quota is quite silly).

I learned something new, thank you. I have been told that the only reason why the Boeing 737 NG uses G and H is to avoid confusion when using B737 as type, as that's already a 'generic' Boeing 737. Or so I have been told. No one told me that winglets make the difference here.

To reply to the rest of the posts: I'm not an insider myself, but I know people on 'the inside' at OSL. As such, I can confirm that the rest of the short/medium haul Boeing fleet remains at OSL, and for what I understood, it may take quite some time and effort for SK to get rid of it. According to what I understood, this is apparently preferred by a good part of staff there, as apparently Boeing is highly preferred over Airbus. I never mentioned onions or their influence, as I don't know how big their impact was here. But it sounded to me that staff in OSL got it the way they wanted.
I got the impression that it's more dissatisfaction with change in general and 'scared' with stepping into the unknown, as Norwegians tend to have quite a bit, than that it runs-down-their-pants kind of scared for having an Airbus to fly instead of a Boeing. My usage of the word "scary" was of course a bit theatrical, as I'm still not used to Scandinavian/Norwegian oversensitivity to basic issues like a change in type rating, even after all these years of living there.

Just a question from my side: if one was to renew a whole short/medium haul fleet, wouldn't it make sense then to order just enough aircraft to actually phase out the whole short/medium haul fleet that should be phased out instead of keeping a bit of the old fleet in a specific hub for whatever reason?

You had me laughing out loud on this one....

I do wonder whether other vegetables have a similar influence on what and where SK flies.

KR

Steen

I think this quota disappears when you have submitted enough posts to reach next level.

For sure it will take a while for SK to get rid of all the B737's. First of all. 21 of the birds are not 15 years yet with 9 being between 5-7 years, so they will most likely stay for another 10-15 years. Secondly SK has only around 50 A320's on orders with 3 already converted to A321LR. With 61 B737's in the fleet, 8 A321's at 16-17 years and 15 A319/A320's at 11-13 years, SK needs to order another 40 birds before all the B737 and the "old" A32x can be replaced.

As I wrote before, I doubt crew wishes had anything to do with OSL being the hub for the remaining B737's. All crew I have talked to over the last couple of years prefer the Airbus's over the B737's. It's more likely that the fuel hungry B737's fits the Norwegian routes better than from ARN or DK.

When you order short/medium haul aircraft's you need to look at your whole fleet for this segment. As stated above, SK has a number of A32x's which are close to retirement. In total SK would have to order around 90 A320's in order to replace all the B737's and aging A32x's. With about 15 B737's being younger than the youngest of the "old" A32x's there is enough birds to keep a critical mass if consolidated in one hub. As long as you can keep the critical mass, there is no issue in keeping a model. Add to that, that the price SK will get for a 10 year old B737 isn't high compared to the cost of running it another 10 years together with another 10-15 B737's.
Doing a gradual refresh of the fleet as SK does, means they can switch models at fairly low costs should one of the manufacturers come up with a unique new model. If the issues has been solve and reputation restored, I wouldn't be surprised if SK announces they will buy a bunch of B737-max in 5 years time. Also having different models in their fleet, means the impact of a grounding like the B737-MAX will hit less hard.

Don't underestimate the power of vegetables.

I would.

When you quote, please be fair and quote the whole context. I did write that a prereq. for SK to order B737-max would be that the current issues has been solved and the reputation has being restored. It's an important part of the sentence IMHO.