Last week, I told United CEO Scott Kirby that I thought the airline would announce new service to Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Oslo. He broke into a big smile and walked away without answering me. Well, now we know: United is not returning to Scandinavia in 2027, and Patrick Quayle explained why.
United Passed On Scandinavia Again, And Patrick Quayle Explains Why
Last week in Denver, Scott Kirby walked past me after an event at United’s Flight Training Center, then turned around and came back.
“So Matthew, what do you think we are going to announce next week?”
I thought for a moment and told him:
“Scandinavia. I think you’ll announce service to Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Oslo.”
A big smile spread across his face.
He walked away.
I called after him, “Am I right?!”
He just kept smiling.
Well, I was wrong…and it seems that Kirby, at the time, wasn’t even told what the new routes would be because his colleagues know he cannot keep his mouth shut.
United’s huge 2027 international expansion includes Luxembourg, Toulouse, Marseille, Ibiza, Valencia, Ljubljana, Sardinia, Sicily, Terceira, and Okinawa, but not a single new destination in Scandinavia.
And when Patrick Quayle, United’s Senior Vice President of Global Network Planning and Alliances, was asked directly about that omission, he offered a fairly candid explanation.
United Has Tried Scandinavia Before…And It Didn’t Work Very Well
On a media call ahead of the route announcement, Quayle was asked why United was not adding service to Scandinavia now that SAS has left Star Alliance.
His answer:
“Scandinavia is something we always evaluate, but going north of the Lufthansa hubs has been a challenge for us. We tried Bergen, Norway, and we previously had service into Stockholm, and neither of those flights did particularly well.
“There may be a time in the future when we add those cities, but right now we’re going into markets and geographies that have served us really well.”
That’s pretty straightforward.
United has already tested Scandinavia and apparently did not like the results enough to rush back.
Bergen was one of United’s more adventurous pandemic-era additions, launched from Newark aboard a Boeing 757-200. It did not last.
United has also flown Newark-Stockholm in the past (I’ve flown it myself), another route Quayle specifically said did not perform particularly well.
That history matters more to United right now than the fact that SAS is no longer in Star Alliance.
I Still Thought Copenhagen Made Sense
I remain a little surprised about Copenhagen.
When SAS was a Star Alliance member, United could rely on a partner hub at CPH for connections throughout Scandinavia and beyond. Now SAS is aligned with SkyTeam and Air France-KLM, giving United less incentive to funnel its passengers through Copenhagen on another airline.
But that made me think the opposite approach might follow: United establishing its own nonstop presence in Copenhagen to address the very busy summer cruise season.
The Airbus A321XLR also seemed to solve the capacity problem, b apparently that’s still not enough to overcome United’s past experience in the region.
At least not yet.
The Lufthansa Hub Deference?
I also found Quayle’s comment about operating “north of the Lufthansa hubs” interesting.
United has enormous transatlantic strength through its joint venture with Lufthansa Group, which gives it excellent connectivity through Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich, Vienna, and Brussels.
For many Scandinavian journeys, that means United can already carry the passenger across the Atlantic and hand the final segment to a partner.
There is no need to open every dot on the map simply because an A321XLR can technically fly there.
Yet today’s new routes like Luxembourg, Toulouse, Ibiza, Valencia, Marseille, and Terceira also offer one-stop service from the USA, though in markets that are not as “busy” as Copenhagen (easily reached from Frankfurt, Munich, Vienna, or Zurich).
That makes me wonder whether the Lufthansa Group asked United not to fly to Scandinavia?
But I Wouldn’t Write Off Copenhagen, Stockholm, Or Oslo
Quayle did not rule Scandinavia out. He specifically said United continues to evaluate it and that there “may be a time in the future” when those cities return.
And I still think the A321XLR eventually makes at least one of them likely.
If I had to rank them today, I’d still say:
- Copenhagen
- Stockholm
- Oslo
Copenhagen still strikes me as the strongest market, even without SAS feed, but I would think all three might work at some point.
And About That Scott Kirby Smile…
So what exactly was Kirby smiling about when I guessed Scandinavia?
I have no idea.
Maybe he enjoyed watching me confidently walk into the wrong answer.
Maybe Scandinavia really is on a longer-term list and I got close enough to amuse him…
Or maybe he simply has a very good poker face.
Fair enough. I’ll take the loss.
CONCLUSION
United’s 2027 route announcement confirms that Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Oslo will remain absent from its network for another year.
Patrick Quayle offered a simple explanation: United has tried Scandinavia before, Bergen and Stockholm did not perform particularly well, and the airline currently sees better opportunities elsewhere.
Indeed, the A321XLR may open many new possibilities, but aircraft capability alone does not create a viable market.
Still, Quayle left the door open. And I’m not giving up on Copenhagen yet…
SAS is making a killing on their flights to Washington DC, despite it being a Star Alliance hub and zero connecting traffic. During the winter schedule it operates with an A321LR, and the A350 in the summer.
first, SK was never part of the UA-LH Group TATL JV so UA never got the benefit or had the reason to build Scandinavia that it has with LH Group airlines.
and, as much as some people love to think that UA can make anything work, UA is run by reasonably competent people that understand that other carriers have advantages that UA cannot overcome. With SK on the verge of joining the AF/DL/KL/VS JV and with TAP leaning toward AF/KL, there will clearly be markets where DL and UA – which largely split continental Europe among US carriers are stronger while AA/BA will benefit from dominance in the UK w/ a relatively small presence in Spain compared to the UK.
Matthew last week: Scandinavia, or bust!
This week: Bust.
Yep. I got that totally wrong!
Eh, you were at least in the ballpark of the ‘possible’. I’m still pitching EWR-MLE, and I don’t even think United has the viable aircraft necessary for that particular routing (as a nonstop, at least). When’s that a350 due? (Oh, never. Yikes. Thanks RR. https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-ceo-rolls-royce-doghouse-means-45-airbus-a350s/)
The Lufthansa hubs are all a mess, and a reason to avoid Star Alliance to Scandinavia if that’s the only option. FRA is especially bad – nothing like getting off a UA 777-300er, boarding buses in the rain that are packed like sardines, being driven 15-20 mins to a gate where you have to climb stairs to the terminal, and then wait in huge lines for passport control (and often security – you never know when you’ll have to re-clear or not!), just to get to your next ‘gate’ where you see a plane there but have to board buses in the rain yet again to get to your connecting flight.
The others are a bit better than FRA, but all require at least an hour of backtracking.
also noteworthy that the rumored route LAX-ICN is not happening which means that UA gets weaker to S. Korea as OZ leaves Star.
They say they “tried” various places and they didn’t work. Most of those places they “tried” were flying from EWR.
What kind of idiot actually wants to fly through EWR? Especially in the summer?
“Trying” a destination when the only “try” you have made requires one to fly through a dystopian nightmare airport is not a fair test. If United has decided that you can only get to half of their international destinations by flying through Newark, that’s their problem, not mine. I’d rather take two connections somewhere else.
I like to travel to places like those they are adding (and in fact, have been to many of them). But I’d rather fly to Europe, connect there (even in some airports I dislike). But a connection in EWR? No thank you. In my house, EWR gets a loud reaction: “Ewwwwwwwww!”