Air Belgium in 2018

Acid-drop · Post by **Acid-drop** » 19 Mar 2018, 22:11

The same shareholder has parts of SN.
So many calimero's on this forum !
Calimeros applauding calimeros, how usefull.
(Probably inspired by calimero politics that we hear too often)

lumumba · Post by **lumumba** » 19 Mar 2018, 22:25

Atlantis wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 21:58 If Air Belgium is partially owned by U-Tour and if they are so sure that with each flight they can fill the plane for 90%, why they are afraid of competition with Hainan and Cathay??? If they have the "feeder" of their own tourists why they choose then a secondairy airport like CRL instead of an airport like BRU who is really in the middle?
Are their costs so tight? Or what is behind it.

If you really think logically about it and you know that they for sure can fill the plane, why they make is more difficult for them?

I imagine that they don't need the hub of Brussels and it's a cheaper airport a lot cheaper and today in aviation the margins are tiny.
It's just a supposition.

flightlover · Post by **flightlover** » 19 Mar 2018, 22:32

Acid-drop wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 22:11 The same shareholder has parts of SN.
So many calimero's on this forum !
Calimeros applauding calimeros, how usefull.
(Probably inspired by calimero politics that we hear too often)

Back at the demise of SN nor CRL or LGG was capable of offering a suitable alternative to BRU. By the time CRL became an option SN was in the hands of LH and they where not able to influence any decision with huge impact on the operation of the company.

Now they have the opportunity and the ambition of developing CRL by means of an airline in which they invest without any historical hindrance.

lumumba · Post by **lumumba** » 19 Mar 2018, 23:31

flightlover wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 22:32
Acid-drop wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 22:11 The same shareholder has parts of SN.
So many calimero's on this forum !
Calimeros applauding calimeros, how usefull.
(Probably inspired by calimero politics that we hear too often)
Back at the demise of SN nor CRL or LGG was capable of offering a suitable alternative to BRU. By the time CRL became an option SN was in the hands of LH and they where not able to influence any decision with huge impact on the operation of the company.

Now they have the opportunity and the ambition of developing CRL by means of an airline in which they invest without any historical hindrance.

That's not true,Brussels Airlines could never use LGG or CRL because they are using Brussels has a hub with there partners .
LGG or CRL could never be an option for SN maybe they can move there point to point flights to these airports but that's it!

flightlover · Post by **flightlover** » 20 Mar 2018, 01:24

lumumba wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 23:31
That's not true,Brussels Airlines could never use LGG or CRL because they are using Brussels has a hub with there partners .
LGG or CRL could never be an option for SN maybe they can move there point to point flights to these airports but that's it!

As I said, it wasn't an option because CRL and LGG were way to small. Extra hindrance was the lack of partner flights at CRL because at that time it was an almost exclusive Ryanair airport. These days there are other companies flying there. Whether they are suitable partners is open for debate.

But you can't deny the main link between airline and airport and, in my opinion, the issue with the flag.

As a last point, U-tour has a co-operation with that same party by their flights at LGG. Need some more arrows pointing the same direction?

Desert Rat · Post by **Desert Rat** » 20 Mar 2018, 05:48

flightlover wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 22:09

Might as well be the reason why they put the red first iso the black.

The best one for today so far...

SLM · Post by **SLM** » 20 Mar 2018, 05:55

Still no timetable? No reservations possible? ...

lumumba · Post by **lumumba** » 20 Mar 2018, 07:30

flightlover wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 01:24
lumumba wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 23:31
That's not true,Brussels Airlines could never use LGG or CRL because they are using Brussels has a hub with there partners .
LGG or CRL could never be an option for SN maybe they can move there point to point flights to these airports but that's it!
As I said, it wasn't an option because CRL and LGG were way to small. Extra hindrance was the lack of partner flights at CRL because at that time it was an almost exclusive Ryanair airport. These days there are other companies flying there. Whether they are suitable partners is open for debate.

But you can't deny the main link between airline and airport and, in my opinion, the issue with the flag.

As a last point, U-tour has a co-operation with that same party by their flights at LGG. Need some more arrows pointing the same direction?

But what's the problem if Air Belgium chose CRL instead of BRU?

flightlover · Post by **flightlover** » 20 Mar 2018, 09:16

lumumba wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 07:30
flightlover wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 01:24
lumumba wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 23:31
That's not true,Brussels Airlines could never use LGG or CRL because they are using Brussels has a hub with there partners .
LGG or CRL could never be an option for SN maybe they can move there point to point flights to these airports but that's it!
As I said, it wasn't an option because CRL and LGG were way to small. Extra hindrance was the lack of partner flights at CRL because at that time it was an almost exclusive Ryanair airport. These days there are other companies flying there. Whether they are suitable partners is open for debate.

But you can't deny the main link between airline and airport and, in my opinion, the issue with the flag.

As a last point, U-tour has a co-operation with that same party by their flights at LGG. Need some more arrows pointing the same direction?
But what's the problem if Air Belgium chose CRL instead of BRU?

No I just wanted to make the obvious link between the strange decisions in the start-up of this airline. Though not many are willing to see it, there is just too much circumstantial evidence to ignore.

Post by **sn26567** » 20 Mar 2018, 10:55

Acid-drop wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 22:04 In the middle of what ?

Speaking of BRU? In the middle of traffic jams on the Ring?

Passenger · Post by **Passenger** » 20 Mar 2018, 11:25

lumumba wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 07:30 But what's the problem if Air Belgium chose CRL instead of BRU?

If they will operate as a legacy carrier, thus offering scheduled flights to Hong Kong and other Chinese destinations, it's commercially unwise to operate from an airport that is difficult to reach for many of their potential clients unless you have no competition. So you have to seduce them with better rates - but that's going to be difficult because Cathay benefits the Brussels-Airport-new-airline-incentive.

If they will operate as a charter airline for U-Tour, then LGG then is a much better choice: no night curfew, long runway without load limitations for their A, and cargo facilities.

Is that U-Tour story correct? Will they indeed drop their inititial business concept = offer direct, affordable scheduled flights from Belgium to Hong Kong?

Passenger · Post by **Passenger** » 20 Mar 2018, 11:35

sn26567 wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 10:55
Acid-drop wrote: ↑19 Mar 2018, 22:04 In the middle of what ?
Speaking of BRU? In the middle of traffic jams on the Ring?

People from Brussels and people from the north (Ghent-Antwerp) who want to go to CRL by car, also have to pass via the Brussels Ring. And they have an alternative: a good railway connection.

Only for people living south of Brussels (Halle-Waterloo-Wavre), CRL is easier by car then more nearby BRU.

Vic Diesel · Post by **Vic Diesel** » 20 Mar 2018, 13:09

flightlover wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 01:24As I said, it wasn't an option because CRL and LGG were way to small. Extra hindrance was the lack of partner flights at CRL because at that time it was an almost exclusive Ryanair airport. These days there are other companies flying there. Whether they are suitable partners is open for debate.

Some 3-4 WIZZ flights per day, an occasional Pegasus or TUI and Jetairfly flight... and the rest all the white-and-blue planes. CRL is still considered "LCC hell": poor facilities, poor connectivity to other companies' flights, long ways to bigger cities (that is: Brussels itself). Much like "Brussels Hahn", without all the cargo activities... And if that is fine for a Chinese TO, that is willing to get its paxes into busses to transfer them to Brussels: why not? This could provide for a cheap alternative for Chinese tourists to visit Western Europe, as they would likely tour not only Belgium but possibly also the Northern part of France.

Edited by moderator because of offensive language... Please choose your words wisely... Verba volant, scripta manent...

Passenger · Post by **Passenger** » 20 Mar 2018, 14:52

flightlover wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 01:24 As I said, it wasn't an option because CRL and LGG were way to small. Extra hindrance was the lack of partner flights at CRL because at that time it was an almost exclusive Ryanair airport. These days there are other companies flying there. Whether they are suitable partners is open for debate.

I don't think that any of the other operators at CRL is a suitable partner as feeder = an add-on flight that includes responsability in case something goes wrong, like long delay or missing luggage. Air Belgium passengers will allways have to book another tickets (Wizz, Ryanair). So when the incoming long haul is delayed because of extreme circumstances like weather, nobody will assist them for free. And with limited alternatives (due to LCC's excellent load factors), they become stranded. In Charleroi...

Passenger · Post by **Passenger** » 20 Mar 2018, 16:03

"...Ex Hong Kong that means up to 14 tonnes, conversely eastbound from Brussels South it will be 2 to 6 tonnes for the time being, depending on the weather circumstances and the number of passengers...”

https://www.cargoforwarder.eu/2018/03/1 ... hong-kong/

FLYAIR10 · Post by **FLYAIR10** » 20 Mar 2018, 17:32

"...Ex Hong Kong that means up to 14 tonnes, conversely eastbound from Brussels South it will be 2 to 6 tonnes for the time being, depending on the weather circumstances and the number of passengers...”

https://www.cargoforwarder.eu/2018/03/1 ... hong-kong/
Re: Air Belgium in 2018

How much 'cargo' is CRL currently handling?
How organized is this airport to handle 'perishables',Controlled temp products,HAZMAT(limited/excepted quantities) ,etc.. What is their cargo storage capacity ? anyone familiar with this aspect overthere?

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 20 Mar 2018, 18:05

Once an airline takes a decision, it's a choice. DOT
We can discuss and discuss about it, but they decide.

It's AB problem ! (and choice)

SLM · Post by **SLM** » 20 Mar 2018, 18:14

Can not wait for reservations...

Acid-drop · Post by **Acid-drop** » 20 Mar 2018, 19:23

Passenger wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:03 "...Ex Hong Kong that means up to 14 tonnes, conversely eastbound from Brussels South it will be 2 to 6 tonnes for the time being, depending on the weather circumstances and the number of passengers...”

https://www.cargoforwarder.eu/2018/03/1 ... hong-kong/

Now thats awsome !
If CRL starts cargo, LGG can have some pax !
Clearly the only question now is : why not LGG ?
Its by far the best option for them.

Passenger · Post by **Passenger** » 20 Mar 2018, 20:17

Acid-drop wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 19:23
Passenger wrote: ↑20 Mar 2018, 16:03 "...Ex Hong Kong that means up to 14 tonnes, conversely eastbound from Brussels South it will be 2 to 6 tonnes for the time being, depending on the weather circumstances and the number of passengers...”
https://www.cargoforwarder.eu/2018/03/1 ... hong-kong/
Now thats awsome ! If CRL starts cargo, LGG can have some pax!
Clearly the only question now is : why not LGG? Its by far the best option for them.

Maybe that's the "small detail yet to be fixed" before they publish their flight schedule: that it will be LGG, not CRL.

After all, with the new "investors" SIRW and FPM, and with Sowaer already involved, they're very close to a EU investigation into forbitten state aid. Specially when even more taxpayers money will be invested in a runway extension that is a waste of money (the EU doens't make a difference between federal and regional authorities).