OSL larger than ARN

Old Jul 12, 06, 2:02 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: oslo
Programs: SK Eurobonus
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by OFFlyer
That is one surprise - based on most of your posts you must have the swedish genes - as your posts all are very pro-Sweden

National issues aside. An airlines as small as SAS would ideally want only one intercontinental hub (regardless of which of the three capitals would be the hub). There are only 10-11 routes. You dilute operations feeder traffic etc by having more int hub. There is basically only one reason to have 2 or more and that is a pure defensive strategic move to prevent other airlines from take large share of that particular market.
I agree in principle. But a more direct route will also increase traffic. Itís not pure cannibalism. On the other hand KLM and Continental is having a real party in the Norwegian playground, and Finnair in the Swedish. So I say that SAS have to increase production, both in CPH and ARN. Since Iím Norwegian I would love to see more long haul on OSL, itís more important with the two others. Since ARN already has LH operations will the cost of increasing capacity be lower than on OSL.
Storg is offline  
Old Jul 12, 06, 3:00 am
  #17  
Hilton Contributor BadgeMarriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 7,317
Originally Posted by OFFlyer
National issues aside. An airlines as small as SAS would ideally want only one intercontinental hub (regardless of which of the three capitals would be the hub). There are only 10-11 routes. You dilute operations feeder traffic etc by having more int hub. There is basically only one reason to have 2 or more and that is a pure defensive strategic move to prevent other airlines from take large share of that particular market.
I'm not that sure. I think we need to think the other way around. All the people traveling from Norway to Florida, the west coast, mexico and pretty much all destinations in the US would have a great *hub at ORD, much better than EWR. It would be the quickest way to most business destinations, except NYC where CO serves with a whopping 16 C seats . Remember that SAS now puts more seats on the A330. They could even skip 2 rows of Economy Extra to out more economy seats on board IMO.

The traffic growth at OSL is pretty much all international, SK has become a lot more attractive since they expanded their non stop European network and stopped feeding people through CPH to all European destinations

For sure, SK will do well with a trans Atlantic from OSL
tommy777 is offline  
Old Jul 12, 06, 3:28 am
  #18  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,935
I will not argue that European traffic must be based on a hub operation. I am only thinking of the troubled Intercontinental operation.

Clearly with only around 70 Intercontinental flights a week SAS does not have critical mass. From an operational point of view it is clearly an advantage with as few hubs as possible (read one hub). You simply have the scale advantage - both on ground services, on feeder flights and on optimising the capacity on any given route. If there is room for several flights these can be spread over the day or adding destinations thereby serving a wider audience and providing more options to your customers.

If for examples all SK intercontinental routes were at OSL, imagine daily flights to NYC (hopefully not EWR), IAD, ORD, SEA, MIA/SFO/evening departure to NYC, NRT, PEK, BKK, PVG, SZX/XMN/CAN

The big question is would SAS's (potential) customers feel they are better served if they would potentially have to go via OSL (as an examples) - but in exchange get a wider selection of departures and/or destinations. Or would a majority jump ship to the alternatives.

I realise that just the mere impact of change in itself and the national/political issues will play an important role here, but apart from that.
FT Guest xyzpdq is offline  
Old Jul 12, 06, 3:54 am
  #19  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 88,266
Originally Posted by OFFlyer
That is one surprise - based on most of your posts you must have the swedish genes - as your posts all are very pro-Sweden
You won't find me cheering for the Swedish teams (generally), nor for the Detroit Red Wings hockey team. Perhaps the above hypothesis needs to be reconstructed in the absence of wasting some money on one of those "celebrity" genetics tests.

And let us all take a moment to remember that CPH is a much better airport than ARN, the latter of where I have yet to get a free shower or bedroom in the lounge.

Originally Posted by OFFlyer
National issues aside. An airlines as small as SAS would ideally want only one intercontinental hub (regardless of which of the three capitals would be the hub). There are only 10-11 routes. You dilute operations feeder traffic etc by having more int hub. There is basically only one reason to have 2 or more and that is a pure defensive strategic move to prevent other airlines from take large share of that particular market.
I like the idea of CPH as a hub more than ARN or OSL -- both of which are somewhat out of the way geographically-speaking for much of the regional market.

OSL-ARN
... \/ ...
--CPH--

Last edited by GUWonder; Jul 12, 06 at 4:07 am
GUWonder is online now  
Old Jul 12, 06, 4:01 am
  #20  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 88,266
Originally Posted by tommy777
I'm not that sure. I think we need to think the other way around. All the people traveling from Norway to Florida, the west coast, mexico and pretty much all destinations in the US would have a great *hub at ORD, much better than EWR. It would be the quickest way to most business destinations, except NYC where CO serves with a whopping 16 C seats . Remember that SAS now puts more seats on the A330. They could even skip 2 rows of Economy Extra to out more economy seats on board IMO.

The traffic growth at OSL is pretty much all international, SK has become a lot more attractive since they expanded their non stop European network and stopped feeding people through CPH to all European destinations

For sure, SK will do well with a trans Atlantic from OSL
SK needs to fly into United/* Alliance hubs to make things work better for me. EWR was lousy in that regard and was mostly limited to O/D traffic for SK. While O/D traffic alone may or may not be sufficient to sustain a route, through(-hubs) traffic can make all the difference. It's not just CO's little jet that helps make the difference for CO; it's also CO going through a hub of their own that makes a huge difference.

I often found myself skipping SK's flights since EWR didn't work for me (vis-a-vis Manhattan or DC) and because connecting via EWR had fewer options than the rest when wanting to use * Alliance.
GUWonder is online now  
Old Jul 12, 06, 4:28 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,935
Originally Posted by GUWonder
You won't find me cheering for the Swedish teams (generally), nor for the Detroit Red Wings hockey team.
FT Guest xyzpdq is offline  
Old Jul 12, 06, 5:38 am
  #22  
Hilton Contributor BadgeMarriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 7,317
Originally Posted by GUWonder
SK needs to fly into United/* Alliance hubs to make things work better for me. EWR was lousy in that regard and was mostly limited to O/D traffic for SK. While O/D traffic alone may or may not be sufficient to sustain a route, through(-hubs) traffic can make all the difference. It's not just CO's little jet that helps make the difference for CO; it's also CO going through a hub of their own that makes a huge difference.

I often found myself skipping SK's flights since EWR didn't work for me (vis-a-vis Manhattan or DC) and because connecting via EWR had fewer options than the rest when wanting to use * Alliance.
EWR has few options?? How about no options.

ORD is by far the best *hub in the US
tommy777 is offline  
Old Jul 12, 06, 5:45 am
  #23  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: oslo
Programs: SK Eurobonus
Posts: 13
What other options do SAS have. If they goes east i belive they probably would get Rio and ORD to work. But what about the florida region?
Storg is offline  
Old Jul 12, 06, 6:05 am
  #24  
Hilton Contributor BadgeMarriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 7,317
Originally Posted by Storg
What other options do SAS have. If they goes east i belive they probably would get Rio and ORD to work. But what about the florida region?
US is pretty good on Florida, but UA has over 20 non stop flights a day to Florida (MIA-TPA-MCO-FLL comes to mind) from ORD. I don't think CO has any more than that from EWR. And CO are hard core SK competitors, so why not route the traffic within the alliance so people can get miles/points?

Also, ORD has excellent connections to SFO, LAX, SEA, DEN, LAS and many other business destinations
tommy777 is offline  
Old Jul 12, 06, 6:46 am
  #25  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 88,266
Originally Posted by tommy777
EWR has few options?? How about no options.

ORD is by far the best *hub in the US
There are some * Alliance options from EWR, at least on a separate ticket to fly on another * Alliance carrier to its hub. Just nothing widely useful.
GUWonder is online now  
Old Jul 12, 06, 7:07 am
  #26  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,468
Originally Posted by OFFlyer
Clearly with only around 70 Intercontinental flights a week SAS does not have critical mass. From an operational point of view it is clearly an advantage with as few hubs as possible (read one hub). You simply have the scale advantage - both on ground services, on feeder flights and on optimising the capacity on any given route. If there is room for several flights these can be spread over the day or adding destinations thereby serving a wider audience and providing more options to your customers.
I must say, and it pains me somewhat, that SAS should centralize all IC ops at a single hub and that hub should be CPH. As much as I want OSL to get a transatlantic flight, there's no getting away from your point regarding economies of scale.

Originally Posted by OFFlyer
I realise that just the mere impact of change in itself and the national/political issues will play an important role here, but apart from that.
Of course, this is the big issue and probably the reason why SAS is struggling on so many levels. The ability to adapt, innovate and evolve has been more affected than many competitors.
view is offline  
Old Jul 12, 06, 7:24 am
  #27  
Hilton Contributor BadgeMarriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 7,317
Of course it's best for SAS having all the 330s and 340s at one place. But now they fly out of both ARN and CPH. I don't see any reason why SAS shouldn't fly out of OSL. In fact, it makes more sense to move both ARN-EWR and ARN-ORD to OSL since it is.. ehhh on the way???

Besides C checks and other heavy maintenance, there's no problems operating OSL-ORD with only one AC, fly out of OSL at 1015, land at ORD 1200, return 1530 and land back at OSL at 0645.
I mean, C checks take a couple of weeks, for the AC to get to the maintenance base at ARN or CPH and to get the replacement AC from these bases to OSL takes 50 minutes..

SAS has all the equipment needed to serve the 330 at OSL already
tommy777 is offline  
Old Jul 13, 06, 4:02 am
  #28  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,935
Originally Posted by tommy777
Of course it's best for SAS having all the 330s and 340s at one place. But now they fly out of both ARN and CPH. I don't see any reason why SAS shouldn't fly out of OSL. In fact, it makes more sense to move both ARN-EWR and ARN-ORD to OSL since it is.. ehhh on the way???
I can certainly appreciate the fact that as a traveller you would want as many direct options as possible. However, with a total Scandinavian population of less than 20m - it is hardly good business to have two let alone three international hubs. As stated above you dilute you scale advantages and you loose flexibility.
FT Guest xyzpdq is offline  
Old Jul 13, 06, 4:43 am
  #29  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 88,266
Am I just lucky or are the fares from OSL to most places in Europe generally cheaper than from ARN to those very same places?
GUWonder is online now  
Old Jul 13, 06, 5:31 am
  #30  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Travelling the skies over Europe
Programs: Lufthansa Senator, Hilton Diamond VIP, Marriott Gold Elite, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 1,819
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Am I just lucky or are the fares from OSL to most places in Europe generally cheaper than from ARN to those very same places?
SAS Braathens is earning money, growing and essentially doing goood. They are also operating out of a highly-competitive market. In addition they have tried to add many direct routes for business and pleasure into Europe. Lets see what will happen with that now that SAS wants to centralize management again.
larsll is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread