Brussels Airlines' monthly traffic figures

[sn26567]

Also I wonder what will happen once the flights for Thomas Cook will be integrated. As now the pax for charter flights are not counted into the total amount of pax. It depends if these flights will be scheduled flights or continue as charter flights...

They will be scheduled flights, available for everybody, and not only Thomas Cook customers.

[DeltaWiskey]

But like you've said, compared to 2 years ago, there's a volumetric monthly growth of almost 18% over the same period; about 9% when annualized, so definitely another strong performance of theirs in a market where others, including ryanair, are massively cutting back due to fierce direct competition.

What numbers did you use? I have calculated it as well and my numbers are 22-25% (total passengers or RPK). So annualised 11-12%.

I seem to remember that it was announced that the Thomas Cook numbers will be integrated in the Brussels Airlines passenger figures as from November 2017.

[convair]

As a side note, there was a total of 729 passengers on the 4 (to and fro) Bombay flights; an average of 182, i.e. a load factor of 67% (272 seats according to seatguru) for the first 2 days of operation. Not too bad.

[RoMax]

As a side note, there was a total of 729 passengers on the 4 (to and fro) Bombay flights; an average of 182, i.e. a load factor of 67% (272 seats according to seatguru) for the first 2 days of operation. Not too bad.

Actually only 3 flights were performed in March, as the return from Mumbai leaves after midnight. Especially in the first days the load factor on BOM was extremely high. It normalized a bit, but in terms of loads there is definitely nothing to complain about.

[convair]

As a side note, there was a total of 729 passengers on the 4 (to and fro) Bombay flights; an average of 182, i.e. a load factor of 67% (272 seats according to seatguru) for the first 2 days of operation. Not too bad.

Actually only 3 flights were performed in March, as the return from Mumbai leaves after midnight. Especially in the first days the load factor on BOM was extremely high. It normalized a bit, but in terms of loads there is definitely nothing to complain about.

You're right of course; I overlooked that detail. So it was practically a 100% load factor. Quite understandable as you have the VIPs, the press and a number of people who want to be part of the event in the very first days.

[Oiseau du Ciel]

I think we should also look at the historical figures of SN. I'll do some integration in a few weeks but I think the last few years they grew from a Load Factor in the range of 60 - 65 % and now reaching allready 70 - 75% (with peaks to 80%). After years of losses they managed to obtain almost a break even in 2014, and turn over in 2015 and 2016. So I think there is a positive evolution going on

[Inquirer]

But like you've said, compared to 2 years ago, there's a volumetric monthly growth of almost 18% over the same period; about 9% when annualized, so definitely another strong performance of theirs in a market where others, including ryanair, are massively cutting back due to fierce direct competition.

What numbers did you use? I have calculated it as well and my numbers are 22-25% (total passengers or RPK). So annualised 11-12%.

I stand corrected indeed.
I can only assume to have looked at the wrong line/month in Wikipedia when searching for their 2015 figures, so indeed, it's an even more impressive double digit growth than I'd said at first.

I seem to remember that it was announced that the Thomas Cook numbers will be integrated in the Brussels Airlines passenger figures as from November 2017.

In De Tijd they've mentioned Thomas Cook having about 1M airline passengers per year, of which about 30% already fly with Brussels Airlines today. That is expected to go up to close to 90% after the deal, so I think it's a safe bet to say about half a million extra passengers annually are to be accounted for as from Nov. onwards.

Of course most of them are going to be flying with them during (next) summer season, but still it guarantees them a nice growth basis to start of from, to which they can add their own organic growth path, once more.

A no longer completely improbable forward projection for their passenger headcount is to see them welcome 1M additional passengers in 2017 vs. what they did last year and to possibly be the first airline in Belgium to welcome 10M passengers in 2018 already, provided they can keep growing as they did in the past.

[Oiseau du Ciel]

Well I did some basic statistics (I have to little things to do, except improving my English ) on SN's monthly figures. And I think the figures are improving.

I took the PAX and Passenger Load Factor from january 2014 until march 2017 as I could find them on the official Brussels Airlines website. I don't know exactualy where I got it from, but I once heard that from a load factor about 68% your flight is more or less break even/profitable. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

During the 39 months there were 9 months with a passenger load factor lower than 68% (mostly 2014 and 2015), two months with a PLF between 68 and 70%, 16 months with a PLF between 70% and 75%, 5 months between 75% and 80% and 7 months with a PLF +80% (all of them a july, august or september). Months with a PLF below 70% were mostly the month january (2014, 2015, 2017), february (2014, 2015) march (2014, 2015, 2016).

Comparing the first trimester of these four years, we see a small yet steady growth with a hold in 2016 due to the attacks:
2014: 1 307 989 pasengers - PLF [62,5% - 66,8%]
2015: 1 442 662 pasengers - PLF [63,5% - 69,1%]
2016: 1 442 260 pasengers - PLF [68,0% - 71,4%]
2017: 1 745 230 pasengers - PLF [65,0% - 74,8%]

Comparing the number of passengers of all the months with the months of the year before we only have a relapse in march and april 2016 as a result of the attacks. Comparing the PLF with the year before there is a relapse in january 2015, oktober 2015, march, april, july august, novembre and Decembre 2016 and january 2017. Yet January 2015 had +/- 10 000 pax more than the year before, octobre 2015 knew a pasenger growth of 10% but the PLF relpased with 11% (starting new routes I asume). March and April 2016 don't need an explanation I think, July and August 2016 were verry good with PLF around 80% wheras July and August 2015 had a PLF around 82%, but here the absolute number of PAX grew again (+/-6%). Novembre and Decembre 2016 had also a lower PLF compared with the year before despite the increased number of PAX (+11% and +17%).

So I think they were adding new routes and maybe bigger aircrafts than PAX could follow. It may be to early but Sabena also knew a significant PAX Growth without the PLF that followed so. But I don't think we can compare the two companies at all.

Please correct me mannerly if I'm wrong with interpretating stuff.

[luchtzak]

April traffic figures: https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/lufthan ... -of-april/

[convair]

April traffic figures: https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/lufthan ... -of-april/

Comparison with 2016 is of course meaningless, but if you take april 2015, the increase in RSK is 37% (over 2 years). Impressive!
And reaching 81% lf should be comforting news in the context of a growing fleet.

[Oiseau du Ciel]

As far as I can see, this is a record month in their history (Figures I have, starting from feb. 2014): 837 646 passengers, beating september and july 2016 (813 982 and 788 491 PAX). On Passenger Load Factor this was the seventh best month 81% is pretty good I asume, yet the summermonths (mainly july and august) did better w ith 81,1% upto 83,9%. Yet I think they did a good job.

[nordikcam]

April traffic figures: https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/lufthan ... -of-april/

I think it's better to compare 2017 to 2015...because terror attacks @ BRU.

2017 passengers > 837.646 vs 2015 passengers > 652.532 = + 28,36 %
2017 passengers lf > 81 % vs 2015 passengers lf > 73.9% = + 7,1 %

They are doing a very good job !

[Inquirer]

They are, and although it's hard to analyse any figures YTD due to the exceptional circumstances of last year, it's clear they are growing very aggressively and putting a lot of pressure on their direct competitors, something which was already evidenced by the fact nobody seems to be growing at BRU any longer, quite on the contrary even: ryanair had to admit to massively scaling down, while easyjet and vueling are as good as gone already (apart from 1, 2 core markets of theirs)! Is it their plan to simply drive them out completely? It definitely is within reach, I'd say, should they want to.

[Inquirer]

Once again, I've tried to extract Brussels Airlines' results from the combined figures posted by the Lufthansa group to see where they are, although the conclusions hardly differ from last month's, except on the last one;

1- load factor stands at just under 81.0% vs. 82.3% for the entire Lufthansa group, thus once again showing the often heard comment about their 'unsustainably low loadfactor' is largely hyperbolic: its actually fairly standard within their group, comfortably beating Austrian's occupation ratio for instance.

2- with almost 838,000 customers flown last month, Brussels Airlines represent slightly more than 30% of the total traffic volume of Eurowings, based on a simple head- or flightcount.

3-Brussels Airlines stands for almost 40% of the consolidated business even when basing the comparison on the industry standard ASK figure, thus making up for the many shorter flights of Eurowings: probably a lot of very short domestic flying is being done by them?

4- on the intercontinental front alone, Brussels Airlines stands for more than 55% of the consolidated business of Eurowings in the month of April, with 126,000 of the 224,000 passengers flown: this is a significant increase vs the result of last month (some 4%): probably the effect of them launching non-stop flights to India.

[Stij]

I must admit I'm impressed as well: and larger aircraft and such an increase in load factor... well done.
It indeed ends the problem of the systematically lower load factors from the pasts.
But to play the Devil's Advocate... any news on the bottom line???

Cheers,

Stij

[Jetter]

1- load factor stands at just under 81.0% vs. 82.3% for the entire Lufthansa group, thus once again showing the often heard comment about their 'unsustainably low loadfactor' is largely hyperbolic: its actually fairly standard within their group, comfortably beating Austrian's occupation ratio for instance.

When it's been said that SN's loadfactor is unsustainable they had a much smaller loadfactor; it's weird to apply the comments about their loadfactor in the past to the current numbers. SN's loadfactor is increasing and that's definitely a good sign. To say that 70% loadfactor is unsustainable for an airline that wants to make a consistent profit isn't hyperbolic at all. Also take note that even after the significant increase over the past month SN still has twice as much empty seats as KLM and 4 times that of FR. These are their main competitors, not Austrian for instance.

[Stij]

When it's been said that SN's loadfactor is unsustainable they had a much smaller loadfactor; it's weird to apply the comments about their loadfactor in the past to the current numbers. SN's loadfactor is increasing and that's definitely a good sign. To say that 70% loadfactor is unsustainable for an airline that wants to make a consistent profit isn't hyperbolic at all. Also take note that even after the significant increase over the past month SN still has twice as much empty seats as KLM and 4 times that of FR. These are their main competitors, not Austrian for instance.

I can agree with the general message, 80% is nice, but not the end.
However, I do not agree with the comparisons:

KLM: They have a much larger portion of long haul what in general attains a much higher LF.
FR: They're an ULCC, not a hybrid.

Cheers,

Stij

[OO-ITR]

When it's been said that SN's loadfactor is unsustainable they had a much smaller loadfactor; it's weird to apply the comments about their loadfactor in the past to the current numbers. SN's loadfactor is increasing and that's definitely a good sign. To say that 70% loadfactor is unsustainable for an airline that wants to make a consistent profit isn't hyperbolic at all. Also take note that even after the significant increase over the past month SN still has twice as much empty seats as KLM and 4 times that of FR. These are their main competitors, not Austrian for instance.

I can agree with the general message, 80% is nice, but not the end.
However, I do not agree with the comparisons:

KLM: They have a much larger portion of long haul what in general attains a much higher LF.
FR: They're an ULCC, not a hybrid.

Cheers,

Stij

Indeed and 8 empty seats is indeed 4 times 2 empty seats so such a comparison is ridiculous...

Also I heard the "unsustainable load factor"comment not that long ago, like two months ago...lol

[brusselsairlinesfan]

April traffic figures: https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/lufthan ... -of-april/

Again, congrats to brussels airlines & staff for these nice figures... keep up the good work!

Waiting for the Brussels airport april figures right now in order to evaluate the SN market share @ BRU

[Inquirer]

April traffic figures: https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/lufthan ... -of-april/

Again, congrats to brussels airlines & staff for these nice figures... keep up the good work!

Waiting for the Brussels airport april figures right now in order to evaluate the SN market share @ BRU

http://www.brusselsairport.be/pressroom ... s-airport/

With both figures now available, the market share of brussels airlines at its home airport for the month of April can be calculated at 39,04%: a figure of >40% seems to be likely if it may also include all their charter passengers like it will be doing once the takeover of Thomas Cook's airlines is concluded.