Maybe SAS will move from two-hub system to one-hub system - ARN as an only hub. The recent changes actually look like that.

I really hope you are wrong - CPH is a much nicer airport and much better located for european feeder flights (in case they should ever get their act together and provide an attractive product)....

Unfortunately you may be very right - FRA here I come....

I was surprised to see them drop PVG. It seems like a good business destination. For what it is worth, only HKG beat PVG in the number of business customers I handled for my airline, this of course being my very rough estimate :-) . Waitlist for business can be very long especially when there was a show or congress going on there.
Whether SAS go for ARN or CPH as their long haul hub doesn't matter to me. CPH seems to be better placed with the shorter connection time, but perhaps other people prefer it the other way around, AY certainly seem to manage with their hub.

If I remember correctly, ARN is actually a better located (ie closer) airport for Asian flights and CPH is better for atlantic flights. As for european flights, I doubt it makes much of a difference (location at least). So maybe SAS can run a viable two hub operation with one focussing on atlantic and the other on asian routes. But I don't know how many pax transfer from one intercont to the other, if this is a problem.

CPH is definately nicer and the set up is much more logical but I find CPH does become a bit like FRA sometimes - a zoo. ARN in my experience is a bit crowded at check in but then pretty quiet from there, even if it needs a bit of a spruce up.

Still it is difficult to understand, they probably design their longhaul strategy and make shorthaul fleet decisions at the pub with help of a dartboard.

Finnair is doing good job as they concentrate themselves to Asian traffic.
It's understandable when you think about location of Finland.

Iberia has good network to South America. So does Austrian to Eastern Europe & Middle East.

What SAS needs to do? Start flying to East Siberia and Alaska? :)
There may be high demand from oil/gas industry businessmen. Who knows.

One good advice is: Do something with SAS IT at first! :mad:

It always surprises me how HKG, being such a large business centre, does not attract more direct flights through *A. From europe you have to either go through LHR (uck) with NZ, FRA/MUC with LH or ZRH with LX, otherwise through the Asian hubs like SIN, ICN, NRT or BKK (I think I just answered my own question there :) ). Even though it is solid OW territory, there should be enough of a business market to sustain a service no?

[QUOTE=THD; So maybe SAS can run a viable two hub operation with one focussing on atlantic and the other on asian routes. But I don't know how many pax transfer from one intercont to the other, if this is a problem.
.[/QUOTE]

No. SAS is far to small for that with a far to small home market. It has to be a one hub system. Show me one other player the size of SAS which can operate a tho hub intercon system. The only reasons for operating a two hub system is 1) lack of competence at SAS and 2) Political in-fight between the Scandinavian countries.

Now SAS is moving focus to ARN - which is fine. Personally I do not believe in it - but at least it is decision (sort of).

Alitalia has 2 intercon hubs; Milano and Roma.

They had similar amount of passenger traffic as SAS during 2006.

Passenger traffic JANUARY - DECEMBER 2006:

• AZ - ALITALIA: 24 089.9k
• SK - SAS - SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES: 25 098.8k

Source: AEA - Association European Airlines

I wouldn't be in a rush to compare anything to AZ at the moment. Perhaps he should have stated "successful two hub system" :)

I understand OFFlyer's point, there are efficiencies in the single hub system but I would argue that SK aren't going to win the european hub wars but can *MAYBE* run a point to point service filling the scandinavian niche. But without the actual numbers, it is just an FFs guess.

Fair - and as pointed above AZ is hardly the bench mark in this industry. SK is certainly not going to win the hub war (has already lost ground to AY) - but in my book there is no such thing as a niche intercon player. I think it is fine if SK finally has realised this - and seems to move to ARN. Personally I would switch most of what is left of my SK business to other carriers - and I doubt that ARN can fill the role as the one hub. But that is just my personal belief.

Well CO seem to be doing alright with their 757 routes across the atlantic.

OK, I see your point.

What's about Gulf Air?
Their passener volume is not close to SAS(7 500k in 2004), but they do have 2 hubs; Bahrain and Muscat. And they seem profitable.

Oh btw, they have also bad economy class too. :p

Gulf Air was new to me - and I know very little about them. Point taken.

CO is hardly niche from an intercon aspect. Actually there are the US carrier with the most international destinations. True they found a place in the market flying to a vast number of destinations from their main hubs (Newark, Houston, Guam). A very clear strategy which is now sought copied by a couple of others - but hardly niche.

well if SK is moving HUB to ARN, then all the feeder flights to europe also have to go from there. Since i fly SVG-ARN quite a bit, thats all good for me. But if i am going somewhere else in europe, arn is just WAAAY of the beaten track (ok, i mostly go to ABZ and LHR, and both those routes must be doing ok... usually just a row or two rows of P class). KL (and to a less degree LH, only from SVG) will most likely grab the not-from-OSL norway - europe trafic, which mostly is shipping/oil&gas related (i.e. high yield).

Speaking of GUM, as i was heading for my NH flight to KIX in december, i noticed that the CO lounge in GUM would let in SK gold passengers... too bad it was 3 am and closed lounge...

Yeah, and AZ is a HUUUGE success :p