Scandinavian Airlines has announced plans to launch service to another city in the United States, and it seems like a pretty logical addition.
In this post:
SAS adds Copenhagen to Seattle route
Scandinavian Airlines will launch 5x weekly year-round flights between Copenhagen (CPH) and Seattle (SEA). The new service will launch as of May 21, 2025, and will operate with the following schedule:
SK937 Copenhagen to Seattle departing 1:05PM arriving 1:50PM
SK938 Seattle to Copenhagen departing 4:00PM arriving 10:30AM (+1 day)
The 4,869-mile flight is blocked at 9hr45min westbound and 9hr30min eastbound. The flight will operate in both directions every day except Tuesdays and Thursdays. SAS will initially use an Airbus A350-900 for the route, though as of June 26, 2025, it’ll be operated by an Airbus A330-300.
This route actually represents a resumption, as SAS last flew between these cities in 2009, so the service has been on a 15+ year hiatus. With the addition of Seattle, SAS will fly to 11 gateways in North America.
Here’s how SAS CEO Anko van der Werff describes this new service:
“We are excited to expand our North American network with Seattle. The route from Copenhagen will provide more travel options for our customers and strengthen the connection between Scandinavia and the Pacific Northwest, a region of growing economic importance with deep Scandinavian roots.”
“This new addition to our network further expands our global reach and underscores our commitment to providing travelers with more direct route options. Seattle has been a highly requested destination by our customers, and we are excited to respond to their needs by launching this route. Additionally, Seattle’s growing cargo operations make this expansion even more strategically valuable.”
This is a logical addition to SAS’ network
A lot has changed at SAS in recent times. The airline just emerged from bankruptcy protection, and has a new ownership structure. Air France-KLM now has an ownership stake in SAS, and on top of that, SAS has left Star Alliance and has joined SkyTeam.
So the Seattle route makes more sense than ever before. For one, there is legitimately a fair amount of demand between Seattle and Northern Europe, and it’s why SAS used to operate this route back in the day, even when it didn’t serve many of the gateways in North America that it now serves.
On top of that, with SAS now being in SkyTeam, this is even more logical. Delta has a hub in Seattle, so can provide connectivity throughout the Pacific Northwest and beyond with this new service. When it comes to SkyTeam transatlantic service in Seattle, this complements Air France’s flight to Paris (CDG), Virgin Atlantic’s flight to London (LHR), and Delta’s flights to Amsterdam (AMS), London (LHR), and Paris (CDG).
SAS indicates that it plans to announce several new routes in North America in the near future. I suspect that will be heavily based around SkyTeam hubs. Just as SAS recently launched flights to Atlanta (ATL), perhaps we’ll see service to Detroit (DTW) and/or Minneapolis (MSP) as well. Then again, that would be heavily focused on connecting traffic, as those aren’t very big O&D markets.
Bottom line
As of May 2025, SAS plans to launch a new service between Copenhagen and Seattle. This new route announcement comes just shortly after Air France-KLM took a stake in SAS, and SAS also joined SkyTeam.
This seems like a logical addition to SAS’ network. This is a route that SAS served back in the day, and demand should be stronger than ever, between Seattle’s growth, as well as SAS’ partnership with Delta.
What do you make of SAS adding Seattle flights?
Minneapolis makes a lot of sense given the prevalence of Nordic heritage in the region. Same with northern Michigan. In fact, Northwest used to serve Copenhagen from MSP, back in the day, expressly for this reason.
Northwest also served Oslo.
If/once SAS joins the Delta, Virgin, and KLM/AF Transatlantic joint venture, do you think SAS business class passengers will be admitted to the Delta One lounges? Currently SAS passengers are not listed as eligible at JFK, though the investment by AF/KL is very new. I ask because I am wondering if SAS passengers would get access to the upcoming D1 lounge in SEA.
Yes, by all expectations, they will stay consistent w/ JFK D1 access rules and admit only JV partners.
Think about it from a business perspective. Most people don't understand how JVs work, they see a Delta fare being sold on the Delta website, they will expect Delta lounge access.
SK used to fly CPH-SEA-LAX starting the late 1960's, including a DC8 crash landing in the ocean on LAX approach in 1969.
Later, there were separate SEA nonstop. Now there are insufficient Norwegian-Americans to support a flight but possibly business demand.
I see this flight as being shaky in the long run. In the 1980's and 90's, there was connecting traffic from other European cities through CPH to SEA but now, much more competition. Before,...
SK used to fly CPH-SEA-LAX starting the late 1960's, including a DC8 crash landing in the ocean on LAX approach in 1969.
Later, there were separate SEA nonstop. Now there are insufficient Norwegian-Americans to support a flight but possibly business demand.
I see this flight as being shaky in the long run. In the 1980's and 90's, there was connecting traffic from other European cities through CPH to SEA but now, much more competition. Before, there were just London and Copenhagen flights to SEA, no other European or UK non-stop flights.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out but I agree with your analysis of why SAS pulled out of the Seattle market in the first place. I would point out that being in SkyTeam this time around might be helpful. DL operates a lot of nonstops out of SEA although many of them are to the Midwest, Southeast, and East. It wouldn't necessarily make sense to connect to/from SEA for those markets....
It will be interesting to see how this plays out but I agree with your analysis of why SAS pulled out of the Seattle market in the first place. I would point out that being in SkyTeam this time around might be helpful. DL operates a lot of nonstops out of SEA although many of them are to the Midwest, Southeast, and East. It wouldn't necessarily make sense to connect to/from SEA for those markets. Most feeder traffic would likely come from WA, OR, and BC (yes, Vancouverites and Seattleites often shop each others' airports for long-haul flights). We shall see.
SAS also used SEA for flights to other centres on the West Coast. I've flown from Norway to SFO several times myself, connecting at SEA. Obviously that traffic is less relevant today with non-stops CPH-SFO/LAX.
Welcome back, SAS! We have missed you!
Any idea when those can be booked?
It’s not new. SK flew to SEA from CPH for 42 years until 2009 including operating from LAX via SEA.
Isn't there a significant Scandinavian diaspora and people of Scandinavian background in the upper midwest making MSP a logical destintation for O+D and connecting traffic?
Well, since they lost connectivity at ORD, MSP might be a good back-up for that part of the US.
I agree completely. And, there is a large Scandinavian-American population in that area, much as around Seattle. MSP makes perfect sense to me.
Also a large Scandinavian population all across the northern tier states. I am thinking of the large population in Montana as well as northern Idaho
Ben do you have data to support that SAS flying to Seattle is “logical” and there is high demand, versus MSP and DTW having too little O&D traffic and having to rely on connections? In the end, these three metropolitan areas are 14, 15, and 16th largest in the country. Yes, Seattle probably has the strongest economy, but the other two are also home to major employers….
I mean Delta treats MSP, it’s second biggest hub, as an afterthought due to the lack of competition it faces and the perception, wrongly, that MSP and MN as a whole is some sort podunk place. I remember all the people on here befuddled at Lufthansa starting a route to connect people to Africa as if we don’t have a huge East African population.
"due to the lack of competition"
You seem to have misspelled "demand, at yield"
Unlike United, most of Delta's hubs are at low O&D markets, focused on connecting traffic.
SEA has 50% more domestic O&D then MSP and DTW, you can't put them in the same ballpark. Foreign carriers can't afford to connect pax at random interior hubs.
They will always start with coastal hubs where O&D demand is the highest. SEA is very logical, as the East Coast penetration is already there and the LAX hub already has SAS flights.
MSP is treated as a second tier gateway, because that's exactly what it is. It doesn't generate a fraction of the international demand that the coastal gateways do, nor command the revenue that they do.
So why would it be treated as anything but a large domestic connector, with hub2hub longhauls in a few select mega-markets, where the incumbent carrier can drive competitive yield by essentially being the only game in town?
It's not an addition, it is a resumption. SK flew CPH-SEA for years. There is a sizable Scandinavian population in the PNW, Delta is now a partner to SK among other things, and DL run a hub (sort of) in SEA, though connectivity via SEA on DL is fairly limited relative to what AS runs there.
Delta seems pretty focused on growing in Seattle and beating Alaska. Why wouldn't they just launch more European routes from SEA themselves rather than relying on their SkyTeam partners to do so? Is it just because Delta can't get enough widebody aircraft fast enough?
Beating Alaska? I don't think so. Alaska dominates SEA. DL does not. It can't even make most TPAC routes work out of SEA daily. DL's SEA hub is heavily subsidized by profit at other DL hubs. DL also struggles to Europe from SEA, and isn't short wide bodies. They will maintain SEA because they have to, as they have no other viable West Coast gateway to Asia, but ultimately, SEA for DL will go the way of what PDX was for it decades ago.
this exactly!! for DL, SEA is high-cost and struggling, being propped up by fortress hubs inland. launching more european routes would throw even more money down the drain
Not to mention seasonal, meaning SEA demand is stronger in Spring/Summer over Winter.
Oh boy, you've triggered Daddy by asserting Alaska dominates Delta in Seattle...he'll be along shortly to set you straight with his opinion-based facts!
We really just make stuff up on the internet here, especially when it comes to Delta's SEA hub.
These are their May international LFs in 2024
DL:
SEA-SJD: 86.5%
SEA-PVR: 90%
SEA-CUN: 91%
SEA-LHR: 68.5%
SEA-CDG: 88%
SEA-AMS: 85.5%
SEA-HND: 86.5%
SEA-ICN: 91%
SEA-PVG: 84%
Obviously, the weak link is LHR, but that'll get a bump since LAX-LHR was axed in May.
Note that AMS was...
We really just make stuff up on the internet here, especially when it comes to Delta's SEA hub.
These are their May international LFs in 2024
DL:
SEA-SJD: 86.5%
SEA-PVR: 90%
SEA-CUN: 91%
SEA-LHR: 68.5%
SEA-CDG: 88%
SEA-AMS: 85.5%
SEA-HND: 86.5%
SEA-ICN: 91%
SEA-PVG: 84%
Obviously, the weak link is LHR, but that'll get a bump since LAX-LHR was axed in May.
Note that AMS was so successful that Delta bumped it up to a 2x frequency.
Alaska certainly wins domestically vs Delta, but Delta's international at SEA is the only thing that they are doing well at currently.
SAS joining up at SEA is logical, as SAS will be part of the SkyTeam JV, so it'll be a practical connecting traffic route. This isn't exactly groundbreaking territory.
@solodwag420--Thank you! I am truly puzzled by the continuing BS I read here about DL's Seattle operations. Facts just don't seem to matter to many posters so thanks for providing some.
It's true that DL came in here thinking they would force AS to its knees. Instead, AS has expanded greatly and offers many more nonstop destinations than DL. I don't hear anyone griping about DL's lack of dominance at LAX, where competition limits any...
@solodwag420--Thank you! I am truly puzzled by the continuing BS I read here about DL's Seattle operations. Facts just don't seem to matter to many posters so thanks for providing some.
It's true that DL came in here thinking they would force AS to its knees. Instead, AS has expanded greatly and offers many more nonstop destinations than DL. I don't hear anyone griping about DL's lack of dominance at LAX, where competition limits any one airline from truly taking over. Why the discrimination against SEA?
As for SAS's resumption of SEA-CPH service, welcome back! It makes perfect sense to me for all the reasons Ben stated but mostly for a lot of O&D traffic as well VFF traffic. BTW, SAS didn't pull out of this market for lack of traffic --they pulled out because of new entrants into the SEA-TATL market. Having DL as a partner will help them this time around
Thank you, Steve!
If anything Delta's international at LAX is worse than SEA. Their longhaul South Pacific routes are failing quite badly, some of them had as low as 30 to 40% LFs like AKL in some months, while most are only averaging in the 60s and having to axe LHR on their own metal
I think it's because there is no one dominant carrier to compare against at LAX, while AS are quite successful out of SEA, so the comparisons aren't equal.
The notion that Delta is trying to beat Alaska is internet fiction. Delta and Alaska run very different business models just as was true with B6 in BOS.
B6 just happened to fumble so DL overtook B6 in BOS just as they have done in other locations like LAX with AA.
But AS is a well-run airline and is years away from operating its own longhaul international filghts.
And, I am sure it is not...
The notion that Delta is trying to beat Alaska is internet fiction. Delta and Alaska run very different business models just as was true with B6 in BOS.
B6 just happened to fumble so DL overtook B6 in BOS just as they have done in other locations like LAX with AA.
But AS is a well-run airline and is years away from operating its own longhaul international filghts.
And, I am sure it is not lost on DL mgmt that the best way to make sure that AS thinks twice about growing into the longhaul international market is for DL to serve as much of SEA - on its own or via partners.
And I would bet that we might see another Asia-Pacific destination announced as soon as this week.
Even with just the current 4 destinations, DL serves more cities in E. Asia than any other US airline hub other than UA at SFO.
@Tim Dunn--what additional east Asia destination do you think DL will add at SEA and why? Personally, I would love to see a return of SEA-KIX nonstops.
As for Asian nonstops generally, I would point out that DL faces more competition at SEA than you indicated, although you are correct that DL has the most destinations. All of the following airlines operate long haul services out of Seattle:
Singapore Airlines
Korean (SkyTeam partner)
...
@Tim Dunn--what additional east Asia destination do you think DL will add at SEA and why? Personally, I would love to see a return of SEA-KIX nonstops.
As for Asian nonstops generally, I would point out that DL faces more competition at SEA than you indicated, although you are correct that DL has the most destinations. All of the following airlines operate long haul services out of Seattle:
Singapore Airlines
Korean (SkyTeam partner)
Asiana (soon to fold into Korean)
Japan Airlines
ANA
EVA Air
China Airlines (SkyTeam partner)
Starlux Airlines
Hainan Airlines
That's a lot of competitors. Note that some of them are allied with AS, making even the long haul Asia market competitive for DL or anyone else.
Finally, CNBC has reported DOT approval, with conditions, of the Alaska-Hawaiian merger. That will give AS access to widebodies capable of long-haul flights from SEA. I would view adding their own metal to this already highly competitive landscape as extremely risky, especially considering the amount of debt they will take on because of this deal, but the market could be shaken up even more.
KIX is not happening. UA's own SFO-KIX is underperforming and UA's SFO has much more going for it.
It's hard to see what else Delta would do to be honest considering MNL is low yield and PAL just entered. South Pacific is not optimal geographically. HKG was tried and failed. SIN is not going to be easy vs SQ, who was better cost structure and still hasn't run daily flights yet.
India is interesting since...
KIX is not happening. UA's own SFO-KIX is underperforming and UA's SFO has much more going for it.
It's hard to see what else Delta would do to be honest considering MNL is low yield and PAL just entered. South Pacific is not optimal geographically. HKG was tried and failed. SIN is not going to be easy vs SQ, who was better cost structure and still hasn't run daily flights yet.
India is interesting since there's a huge demand given the amount of tech workers in the area from India, but it's also a relatively low yield market and the distance makes it suboptimal as well.
I wonder if they could support a seasonal BKK flight (AC seems to have been successful with theirs from YVR, though yields may be low) or MNL (United reportedly was pretty happy with their new SFO-HNL route).
HKG would typically be a good option, though HK today is a bit different from what it was before. Having said that, UA seems to be doing well enough there that they went up to 2x daily SFO-HKG...
I wonder if they could support a seasonal BKK flight (AC seems to have been successful with theirs from YVR, though yields may be low) or MNL (United reportedly was pretty happy with their new SFO-HNL route).
HKG would typically be a good option, though HK today is a bit different from what it was before. Having said that, UA seems to be doing well enough there that they went up to 2x daily SFO-HKG and even daily LAX-HKG; there are also lots of folks from Hong Kong in YVR that they could potentially draw from.
I don't see DL resuming SEA-HKG service. UA inherited that route from Pan Am (or at least the 747SP planes that used to operate it) but stopped all direct international service from SEA after failing to get government approval for SEA-NRT service as well as running into financial trouble (in the 1990s). As noted previously, DL operated the route for a while but eventually dropped it. I suspect that onward connectivity from HKG could have...
I don't see DL resuming SEA-HKG service. UA inherited that route from Pan Am (or at least the 747SP planes that used to operate it) but stopped all direct international service from SEA after failing to get government approval for SEA-NRT service as well as running into financial trouble (in the 1990s). As noted previously, DL operated the route for a while but eventually dropped it. I suspect that onward connectivity from HKG could have been a problem for DL. Pre-pandemic, Cathay Pacific operated the route daily but ran into its own financial headwinds and has not returned post-pandemic.
As for the YVR traffic, that works both ways. That is, Seattleites wishing to travel to HKG can go via YVR. A lot of what drives traffic to choose SEA over YVR or vice-versa is price. Yes, there is a large HK diaspora in the Vancouver area but those are mostly people who came to Canada pre-1997 and brought their wealth with them. I am not sure how price sensitive they are, especially since many of them live in Richmond, adjacent to YVR, which has nonstops.