GOODnight?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Costa del Thames
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might be on thin ice here (pls God don't let it crack, the water I'm sure must be freezing cold) but profits earned by SAS/Radisson hotels aren't included in what is now SAS Ltd.. It used to be a part of mainline-SAS but is now a separate company??
--Stand/sit to be corrected on this one--
--Stand/sit to be corrected on this one--
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Suit Low Cost????????
If SAS would have dump the prize in a time with a good economy that would be one thing. But being in the time that they r now they won’t make there situation better for them! You can’t play on the low cost market with as big suit as they have now.
Question? Why haven’t SAS taken the same step as many of there competitors to start a low prize company on the side of The Big SAS for example SAS Express? Smaller suit, lower costs and then being able to start competing whit the Southwest copycats. Southwest, which the airlines in the US have been able to compete with for so many years.
T Man.
Question? Why haven’t SAS taken the same step as many of there competitors to start a low prize company on the side of The Big SAS for example SAS Express? Smaller suit, lower costs and then being able to start competing whit the Southwest copycats. Southwest, which the airlines in the US have been able to compete with for so many years.
T Man.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Labyrinth Seal:
Who is "we"??? And how on earth can "we" "let" Ryanair have more routes in Norway? Ryanair are welcome to start to compete on any route they want, and so is any other airline.
What Ryanair wants, however, is lower fares at the airports in Norway for them exclusively, so that in effect all other airlines pay for Ryanair's use of these airports. (Ref the Västerås-case in Sweden)
T Man:
SAS have bought Skyways, Braathens, Widerøe and Air Botnia. What do you think their plans are? (I know what I think their plans are.)
Brenoch: You can find the organization of SAS Group here. (Ooops! That link doesn't work. You'll have to find it yourselves under "SAS Group" in the "SAS Facts"-part of www.scandinavian.net) But what difference does the organization make? It changes every other month anyway.
Skunkworks: You are probably right. SAS did not plan for profit in 2002. But you seem to think that the profit made is purely coincidental. The sale of SMART is good business for SAS simply because SAS have turned SMART into a company that is worth almost a billion kroner.
The profit from the failing dollar is also partly due to an other smart (
) move by SAS. Most international companies secure their loans in USD, to prevent losses if their own "home currency" should fail. This costs a whole sh!tload of money, and is basically a bet between the companies an the finance institutions on how the USD will develop. When SAS started it's new long-haul programme, the SEK was very weak, and SAS decided not to secure their loans in USD, reckoning that the SEK would get stronger. At first the SEK weakened, but lately the USD has failed severely, which means that SAS' loans on the A340's and A321's gets smaller every day. Since SAS did not secure their loans in USD, this means that SAS keep every penny which is saved.
A lot has been said about the economists (blåruss
) in SAS. These two cases show that at least some of them know what they are doing.
-Which is comforting in times like these.
(Sorry for keeping this topic off track...)
maybe we should let RyanAir have more routes in Norway
What Ryanair wants, however, is lower fares at the airports in Norway for them exclusively, so that in effect all other airlines pay for Ryanair's use of these airports. (Ref the Västerås-case in Sweden)
T Man:
Why haven’t SAS taken the same step as many of there competitors to start a low prize company on the side of The Big SAS for example SAS Express?
Brenoch: You can find the organization of SAS Group here. (Ooops! That link doesn't work. You'll have to find it yourselves under "SAS Group" in the "SAS Facts"-part of www.scandinavian.net) But what difference does the organization make? It changes every other month anyway.
Skunkworks: You are probably right. SAS did not plan for profit in 2002. But you seem to think that the profit made is purely coincidental. The sale of SMART is good business for SAS simply because SAS have turned SMART into a company that is worth almost a billion kroner.
The profit from the failing dollar is also partly due to an other smart (
) move by SAS. Most international companies secure their loans in USD, to prevent losses if their own "home currency" should fail. This costs a whole sh!tload of money, and is basically a bet between the companies an the finance institutions on how the USD will develop. When SAS started it's new long-haul programme, the SEK was very weak, and SAS decided not to secure their loans in USD, reckoning that the SEK would get stronger. At first the SEK weakened, but lately the USD has failed severely, which means that SAS' loans on the A340's and A321's gets smaller every day. Since SAS did not secure their loans in USD, this means that SAS keep every penny which is saved.A lot has been said about the economists (blåruss
) in SAS. These two cases show that at least some of them know what they are doing. -Which is comforting in times like these.
(Sorry for keeping this topic off track...)
Last edited by Nick Figaretto; 8th Sep 2002 at 01:04.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: EU
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NickFig, a very good post!
But I dont think that SMART just happened, I think the people behind any company that shows such a development should have all the credit!
Whether not securing your foreign currency loans, in general, is such a smart move - I dont know. Of course most people were quite sure that the $ would fall, but on the other hand most people were quite sure a year ago that the Ericsson stock would NOT fall to 6 SEK. But, sure credit to the economists at SAS.
About "SAS Express", like you are saying about Skyways and the others - its already happening. SAS has given up alot of routes to be taken over by these other companies.
And if your economist at SAS are so smart as we have credited them with being, it will be an interesting time ahead when they realize that the subsidiaries can do most of the flights at a much higher profit!
(and I suppose I should also apologize for keeping "my own" thread off-topic)
But I dont think that SMART just happened, I think the people behind any company that shows such a development should have all the credit!
Whether not securing your foreign currency loans, in general, is such a smart move - I dont know. Of course most people were quite sure that the $ would fall, but on the other hand most people were quite sure a year ago that the Ericsson stock would NOT fall to 6 SEK. But, sure credit to the economists at SAS.
About "SAS Express", like you are saying about Skyways and the others - its already happening. SAS has given up alot of routes to be taken over by these other companies.
And if your economist at SAS are so smart as we have credited them with being, it will be an interesting time ahead when they realize that the subsidiaries can do most of the flights at a much higher profit!
(and I suppose I should also apologize for keeping "my own" thread off-topic)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which of the companies?
Which of the companies that you have mention, Skyways, Braathens, Widerøe and Air Botnia have the capability to compete with the low fair companies? Skyways owned by 25% of SAS, SF34, F50 and EMB 145 with what I would call a none slim organization. Braathens, none slim organization with a negative cash flow. Widerøe, not as they r today. Air Botnia, the only one that could challenge them. How would the BIG expansion look for them with the change in fleet, training of new and old personal?
Do you think that it is only SAS that have stocks in other companies? Look at virgin, KLM, and many more and they r still choosing to start companies from scratch.
Do you think it is a small process to change the whole organization of a company, for example Air Botnia?
Best regards.
Do you think that it is only SAS that have stocks in other companies? Look at virgin, KLM, and many more and they r still choosing to start companies from scratch.
Do you think it is a small process to change the whole organization of a company, for example Air Botnia?
Best regards.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Svarte granskauen
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, fairly heated discussion here! Let me put my $0.02 in. There is a case being heard in Japan where an airline (Skymark) has opened new domestic routes as a result of steady growth. ANA, JAS and JAL --the big guns in Japan-- slashed their fares just in advance of Skymark starting their services. This move prompted Skymark to go to the Fair Trade Commission, and their case is being heard there now. (I read about this in Fridays Financial Times) I agree that any airline should be able to compete with any other, but that this competition should be on a level playing ground. Anytime SAS or anyone else for that matter opens a new route, there will be special deals in order to stimulate interest in the new route. So now GOODjet are doing the same, except SAS dump their prices as well, which in the short term benefits us passengers, but in the long run detroys competition because the new operator is never able to get a foothold in the market. Personally, I think it his highly unrealistic for a 'high-cost base' airline like SAS to venture anywhere near the low cost airline business. There is room for both SAS as well as one or two low cost carriers in Sweden and Norway, and this is good for competition. Let SAS handle the high yield passengers and let the low cost airlines handle the lower yield passengers who would otherwise take the train. In the UK this is what has happened. BA still have full flights domestically, but do not even try to offer flights for less than £60 roundtrip, while Ryanair and Easy offer loads of flights at low fares. BA do not try to run every new competitor off the market.
Freak on a leash - when you and everyone else compare SAS number of employees pr. passenger, don't forget that many of the low cost carriers subcontract ie. groundhandling, maintenance, IT etc. to external companies, which makes their employee-to-passenger ratio look even better............
