[SimonRowberry]

HT

You are bang on the nail about the fact that SAS don’t really sell discounted business class tickets, apart from the usual summer sale.

Unlike echk067, I don’t want to see SAS go to the wall (not least for the petty reasons of some kind of revenge that seems to underlie his/her postings). What I would like to see, however, is a return to the positive, innovative airline that it was, even 10 or so years ago.

I remember:

One of the earliest (if not the earliest) Business Class in Europe

Some of the first Business Lounges in Europe (then called Scanorama Lounges)

Pump-priming Thai International

Early ventures with Western International Hotels (latterly Westin) to create SAS International Hotels

Part ownership of InterContinental Hotels

Creation of Air Baltic

Purchase and development of Air Botnia (latterly Blue 1)

And doubtless many more innovations. A great history, now bogged down in a mire of woes, not least of which seems to be the lack of a coherent strategic direction. I really hope they survive (even if I think the current Business Class product is pants – they can always improve it). But to do so they must change in a positive way.

Let’s hope that some form of stability, seemingly gained in the last 24 hours, is the start of this process.

Cheers, Simon

[SimonRowberry]

echk067

Can I give you a parallel to your experience, if I may?

Jan 03, 2011. Warsaw, Poland. My young son and I are booked on LO281, WAW – LHR, with an 07.45 departure on a non-flexible ticket. We are staying at the Hotel Bristol. We both set our iPhones for an 05.00 alarm.

This was the morning that iPhone alarms had a worldwide software/system breakdown (Google the event if you doubt me). All alarm calls went tits up and didn’t happen. Worldwide.

Dan and I woke at around 07.00. Getting the plane was not an option. We went out to WAW around lunchtime, knowing that, due to our no show we would have no redress at all with the airline LOT (irrespective of the Apple worldwide cock-up, it was OUR no show).

There were few staff around as it was still a public holiday then (check the dates). Despite the problems, I at least had the cohones to realise that it was entirely my fault for not asking for an alarm call from the front desk at the Bristol and relying on our iPhones. Mea culpa. Just like you.

In short, it it cost us over USD 1,000 to get home, WAW – BRU – BHX in economy on LOT and Brussels Airlines; considerably more than the UDS 1,800 it would’ve cost you (for similar reasons to us – i.e. we both caused our own problems) pro rata, taking account of distances.

Like you, we also had limited service as it was a public holiday. To be expected. Frankly.

However, as a result of our mutual experiences:

1. I don’t want to see LOT or Brussels Airlines go bust. It was my fault. NOT theirs.

2. You want to see SAS go bust, despite the fact that it was YOUR fault. NOT theirs.

Oh yes. You don’t bear “SOME responsibility”, as you suggest. Bullshine – you bear 100% responsibility, mate! YOU screwed up, the same way I did in Warsaw. The difference is that I have the cohones to accept FULL responsibility for that screw-up and you do not. Period.

With respect, you have a self-centred focus and cannot see the big picture about job losses at the airline and resultant hardship at the personal level, social exclusion caused by a break in necessary air links to spatially remote communities, economic investment and regeneration issues, etc, etc. No, because the issue is you and a single bad experience that YOU created.

You are a single-issue poster with one single-issue view:

“ME, ME, ME.”

I am glad that you don’t live in Tromsø, Luleå, Narvik, Bodø, Rovaniemi, Alta, Hammerfest or countless other communities who will be affected if your egocentric and vengeful wish is realised.

Mind you, I equally bet that they are glad that YOU don’t live there either.

Goodbye.

Simon

Edited several times as a response to my personal anger in the face of echk067’s unbridled arrogance, ignorance and total lack of emotional intelligence. And the fact that (s)he’s yet another spouter of ill-informed and ignorant vitriol who hides behind a pseudonym.

[Bucksnet]

A little bit too strong Simon to be fair.

In defence of echk067, although missing the flight was his own fault, the service he received was terrible. He should accept responsibility for his actions, but SAS need to provide proper customer services no matter if it’s a public holiday or not, after all planes were flying that day.

In his shoes I probably would not fly SAS again. If airlines, or other companies, provide good service then they should be rewarded with my business.

[Senator]

Dear all,

I am happy to see that SAS seem to have survived this time… I am afraid, that unless it changes its course dramatically, this is only delaying the inevitable.

I have true affection for my national carrier. However, SAS is like BA; thin line between love and hate. The amount of venom is overwhelming. Though, praise and wish for the best has outnumbered the negatives this time around. Now, I hope the home market will vote with their feet/wallet.

My good man Simon is spot on; SAS used to be innovative and a though leader. No more. It became stale and high on itself.

I said I would make provide you with my layman’s world view and here it is:
A flag carrier (in this case three flags) can’t compete on European point-to-point with the LCCs. The only airline I see with a reasonable success in this is Air Lingus. I have not looked the traffic split for EI between their US network and European routes, but it looks like they have figured it out.

SAS strategic mistake is that continue to believe they can get to cost base that will make them profitable flying customers between Scandinavian and both business and leisure destinations in Europe. It will not work. Their cost per passenger kilometre is still far above the LCCs.

I would like to compare it to the automotive industry. I think it was Sergio Marchionne, the Italian behind Fiat/Chrysler who stated that each Automotive group needs to make around 6m vehicles per annum to survive, unless you have a unique niche in the market.

To support my argument, I point to the fact that we essentially now are consolidated down to AF/KLM, IAG, and LH Group leaving smaller niche players out there. We only need to look about 300km across the Baltic Sea to see what niche can do for you:

Finnair has 45 short-haul aircrafts, including 15 used by other carriers in their name. AY has 15 larger airframes for long-haul and four hybrids (B757-200) they use for both. They have already decided to outsource much of the European production to FlyBe at a lower cost base. Their “Go East” strategy with connections through HEL has been successful for many years. They only have one year-around US gateway (JFK), the rest is India and Far East.

SAS on the other hand, has 11 long-haul aircrafts and 134 short-haul airframes including nine B717 formerly Blue 1, and 27 MDs that are being disposed of in the next eighteen months. The strategy is to have an all Airbus A32x fleet based in CPH, and all B737NG in OSL/ARN.

The number of strategic changes for SAS is astonishing. They are now making investments in the A320 and B737NG when they should be making investments in A350s or B787s. They will not succeed if they continue to focus on short-haul.

[SimonS1]

Unfortunately yesterday’s innovation is today’s millstone. These days it’s all about sticking ruthlessly to a business model that works.

The days of dabbling around in property are long gone as is trying to run a LCC within a full service airline. This only leads to disappointment when customers end up on the wrong equipment and some form of delusion that it’s possible to run a low cost model with a high cost base.

I think your comments are a bit harsh Simon. I think the point being made by echk067 is something we all encounter – the airlines are happy to take your money but when something goes wrong the service is non existent. OK it wasn’t the airline’s fault he/she missed the flight, however that doesn’t excuse the execrable customer service that often results.

[SimonRowberry]

Chaps,

I don’t think my post was harsh or strong.

To have a bad experience and never wishing to use the carrier again is a fair response. Wanting the carrier to go bust because of a single bad experience, ignoring the human, social and economic impacts on innocent parties is, in my view, a revolting view to express.

I wouldn’t even wish that on Ryanair, a carrier I absolutely loathe.

So no, I don’t think my comments are strong or harsh.

Regards, Simon

[Henkel.Trocken]

I would support your comments Simon, I agree, wishing a business, whatever it may be to go bust because of one bad customer experience is uncalled for.

I wonder in the world of business, if that were applied to the companies we own or work for, how many of us have never upset a customer? Follow the logic and we would not be in business either.

[echk067]

Gentlemen,

I never said I wished they went under. I said they deserve to go under. There is a difference.

Yes I missed the flight due to my not knowing that Europe changed times a week after the US. However, When SAS had mechanical problems in Billund and I missed my connection back to the US did they offer to pay for my missed day with clients at the day rate? Instead I had the choice of connecting via another city or taking a flight the next day (both with a middle seat rather than my window seat). So where was THEIR responsibility for that? That was not what I agreed to when I booked. Responsibility and understanding go BOTH WAYS.

My point was we put up with many issues from airlines when they have problems (and I flew SAS every 6 to 8 weeks at that point so it wasn’t like I was a one time customer). So when I had an issue it was basically FU from them.

And yes. One bad experience is enough for people to say I won’t ever fly that airline again. In this case yes it was my mistake but their complete lack of caring about the circumstances and (yes I know it was a holiday but if you want to take the holiday then don’t fly. If you fly provide the same level of service you would otherwise. If you are open for business then provide the same level of service as other times. Otherwise close down for the day.) what I would consider a lack of customer service at the most basic level leaves me to make a choice and I did. I went to Maersk Air when they flew and never had an issue again.

[transtraxman]

Now that SAS have the agreements in place with all the unions it is planning its counter attack.

This has been posted on Breaking Travel News in the last 24 hours.
“SAS confirms 45 new routes for 2013”

http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/sas-confirms-45-new-routes-for-2013/

Most seem to be European leisure routes from ,Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. Just one route, from Copenhagen, is long-haul to San Francisco.
So they are expanding out of the crisis. Isn´t that a dangerous strategy, without attacking structural problems? Or are they going to do it with 6000 fewer employees?

http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/sas-signs-deals-with-trade-unions/

Or is the cull just 800?

http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/sas-group-to-cut-800-jobs-in-final-call-restructuring/

[AMcWhirter]

transtaxman

Bear in mind the route from CPH to SFO is a replacement for CPH-BKK service which will be suspended from next April.

It is unclear whether or not CPH-SFO will continue through the winter season of 2013/2014. Plans call for SAS to return next winter to CPH-BKK but that is some way off so anything is possible.

http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/sas-to-axe-bangkok-route-after-63-years

[transtraxman]

@London City
quite so.
However, don´t you think the plans are rather overambitious considering the state SAS is in? Even considering that it has achieved agreement with the unions SAS is receiving a credit facility which will have to be paid back, if used, according to EU rules.

[AMcWhirter]

Couldn’t agree more, especially as Norwegian will be expanding in the years ahead both on short and long-distance routes.

[Senator]

transtraxman,

The redundancies are mostly connected to the assets being sold:
Ground Handling
Wideroe
+ consolidation of admin in Sweden

“The devil is in the details” regarding the new routes. Many are seasonal; low frequency routes that allow SAS a higher utilisation of the fleet.

In regards to Bangkok, it further emphasis the Middle Eastern airlines are winning the battle. Yields for SAS are down on the route, and they believe they can get a better mix on the SFO-CPH route. They probably wish they had more A330/A340 available.

[transtraxman]

In that case is it not wiser, or even more beneficial for shareholders to see that the culls are affecting the core business.
To say they sell off peripheral businesses but to maintain the core without change is certainly not beneficial.Obviously what has to be done is to increase the productivity in the core business. That we have to see.

[flyingcanadian]

With the ceasing of CPH-BKK flts within the next 24hrs, it reminds me of my late Uncle, who was a Judge in the Old Bailey, and became the lawyer for the Sultan of Brunei. In those days, SAS had F/C, and often he was the only one in F/C, along with a Russian Pilot, for translation, on the flt from Copenhagen. Apparently, they flew over Tashkent, and on more than one occasion, they were buzzed by MIG fighters! It was the Russian pilot who told them it was a Pax flt, and return to base!Perhaps, we will need a translator again if we fly over North Korea!
There are so many other airlines on the Scandanavian-Thailand route, that perhaps SAS could not compete and get the yield. Thompson have charters on a regular basis, and Air Berlin is also tapping into the Scandanavian market. TUI are also there on some routes.Thai offer a non-stop CPH-HKT flt missing out the change in BKK. Too much for SAS to compete. Even the Scandanavian flts need tri-lingual cabin crew, and a colleague tells me it causes trouble between the bases.

[Author]

Posts