The fleet of SAS have to many elements in each group

Scandinavian Airline Systems have 3 types of long haul aircraft, 2 types of regional and no less than 6 types of short haul medium size aircraf in their fleets.

I know SAS has historically been able to sell used aircraft for more than they bought them due to being early on new types and moving on quickly, but that is many years ago now. Low cost competitors have gone for single type and big orders. Ryanair 's fleet of 340 aircraft are all Boeing 737-800's. Even though SAS is a full service (somewhat) network airline of the hub and spoke model a certain reduction in fleet disparity can only be good. Who these days adjust the aircraft used exactly to load instead of adjusting price to fill the seats available.  

Let's take long haul first. A330, A340 and A350. Simple choice. Everybody is getting writh of the 4 engine A340. And SAS have now got the last out of operation. If the market is light and SAS could ramp up cargo maybe a couple of cargo conversions could have been in order. The A330 is a good size for the Scandinavian market with just the right amount of seats for fairly regular direct flights from Scandinavian capitals to both US and Aisan cities. Remember SAS have the rights to overfly Russia that Norwegian didn't. It is also the Aer Lingus pick for the similar sized Ireland to US direct routes market. However the extra cargo capacity of the newer A350 might make it a keeper at least in the medium term even though since its more modern nd even more fuel efficient per seat than the A330 it would probably be an easier sell. 

A 250ish seat plane would be the most suitable for more regular and direct services in the relatively smallish Scandinavian long haul market. However the narrow body long range aircrafts we see emerging would proably not be a good choice for an airline that also have a sizeable cargo operation. And cargo have shown to be very resilient, and in part seriously increasing, in a time when the passenger market is in the doldrums. One should consider additional pure cargo flights using existing capacity on legs where passenger flight frequency is currently down due to the pandemic. 

Regional is also easy. It's the CRI900 jet and the ATR propeller. Both demand 2 cabin crew so more passengers is better. Much is to be said for an all jet operation but the ATR has a lot less fuel burn per passenger seat. Maybe not so important on very short routes. And they are all wet leased anyway. 

Which brings us to another problem.. SAS has not been able to reduce their wet lease costs much in the pandemic. It must be an irritation to have to furlough ones own crew and ones own aircraft sitting idle at the same time as paying big for wet leasing. Maybe taking the fleet inhouse for more coordination and better flexibility is on the cards.

Short haul is the real headache. Having 4 types of Airbus and 2 types of Boeing, and all with different engines, is a big waste of money and a maintenance nightmare. On the Airbus side one could see the A319s and  A321's go and keeping the A320(incl. Neo). The 1 cabin crew saved for the 737-700 doe not either make sense for the complication of keeping both them and the 737-800. However some Boeing's could be good regarding maximising possible discounts on future aircraft purchases.  

In sum, bringing the SAS fleet types down from 11 to 6 would be a good 3 year target. Partially because the market prices for most aircraft is currently depressed so a big fire sale now would not be ideal for maximising returns. At least one would know which ones to bring back last from their current hibernation, or park in a desert somewhere. Even 6 types is in reality many for a total fleet size of around 100. But when competing in in 3 markets (sh, lh, regional) and in reality at times moving from old to new takes 2 types in each, its bearable.