Why can't Scandinavian airlines manage to do dedicated cargo flights in passenger planes

Virgin Atlantic got going with it already in March 2020 managing 4000 cargo only flights in the year.. And with the panemic continuing into 2021 they are regularising the service offering 33 flights per week.


Why haven't Norwegian managed do even 1, instead parking the whole fleet of 787 's resulting in its complete demise. Did they fall foul of internal resources with an all is difficult attitude. That didn't see how the new cargo market differentiated from that of previous. 

Why haven't SAS managed to take advantage of the booming cargo only flight market due to the lack of passenger flights to send cargo with. They do have a sizeable cargo division with a precense in many locations and all the wide body containerised capcity that was needed. Even planes that was being retired/scrapped where seats could have been stripped for extra capacity and nobody would care about some extra cosmetic damage. All they lacked was vision, fantasy and a can-do mentality.


Both airlines have been poorly managed in the CoVid19 pandemic. Failing to take advantage of the opportunities that have presented themselves. Maybe because they both have prefered financial solutions and a wipe out shareholders and start again solution rather than out of necessity finding the operational solutions airline with strong owners that wanted to hold on to their stakes have forced others to do.  

This is Leading to a belief that operational leadership has been lacklustre in both Norwegian and SAS. I can understand Norwegian where the 2 top men both have a financial background, and for one non and for the other short airline experience. But SAS that had the same CEO for 10 yeras. He must have fallen asleep at the wheel. At least he now is out of the industry.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is this the endgame for Norse, not necessarily

Norse have again announced that they need another capital injection. This time it might be different because last time they needed money the ceo and large owner Larsen said that it was the last time he injected more from own funds. Thi reminds me of the endgame ein Flyr where major investor Braathen said something similar in the autumn. When they agin needed money the following Januar nobody came forward and that was the end for an airline that could have been saved after the October refill with some major mangement changes that could have implemented even stricter cost savings, found income immediately and not paid out cash  immediately for possible charter incomes in the future. If Norse turns to more subleasing out of planes or charters they need to ensure that there will be upfront payments because it will mean upfront costs. Difficuolt concept for underfinanced charterers but rquired for an airline on the brink. Norse management also need to be based closer to where the action...
Read more

When will Boeing's new chief get around to solving problems instead of letting new ones happen

So far the new Boeing CEO is not standing out as a problem solver. His first couple of months has more been a deepening of the Boeing rut. Maybe his immediate and well announced (partial) relocation to Seattle was not such a smart move after all. It certainly have given the machinists the guts to demand back stuff they gave up 10 years ago because Boeing then threatened to move more production away from the area. He needs to be careful with letting his division leutenants run the show by playing hardball with the unions at a time when Boeing needs to ramp up production, not let it grind to a halt altogether. They may have more experience from within Boeing and been seen by the previous CEO as leading lights but it is time for a new regime. The previous one created and proeeded with more trouble than it was worth for both customers and the company itself. Boeing might be too critical to the for all practical purposes duopoly in passenger plane making in the western world, but that deepl...
Read more

Questionmarks over how Boeing saved costs when using plug instead of door

 What on the overwing exits stop them physically from being opened by a passenger with poor survival instincts during flight and did Boeing design engineers remove this safety mechanism from instructions for when installing a plug instead of a door. What other safety features did they omit on the grounds of cost saving in the design for using a door plug instead of a real emergency exit.  Normal cabin doors can't be opened during flight by design since they swing forward into the wind. There are few comments around on how this door (when installed) pivots. Is it up like the overwing exits or is it down since with such a small door there are probably no self inflating slide like the normal cabin doors. Or is it left or right. On the 737-200 the emergency exit overwing door came out loose and into the cabin. On the 737-NG-800 they swing up and out of the way. I doubt it just is pushed out and fall down because that could damage it during testing / maintenance. Would the overwing...
Read more