He's babbling about "some high seatmile-costs A332 operating on transtatlantic bloodbath routes"
As everybody understands all too well by now, SN only needs 1 widebody plane for its planned daily transtatlantic flight, not 2 like is casually claims, yet more importanly even: it's utterly naive to assume that just because a plane joins the fleet at the time of the opening of a new destination, it is automatically that specific plane which is going to be used for that route.
Here's a little theoretical scenario just to illustrate a much better use of slightly smaller A332s within SNs fleet: currently, SN operates 5 times weekly (iso daily) to DKR after it was forced to discontinue the tag-on flights by the Senegalese government: replacing the A333 currently used with a slightly smaller A332 on the BRU-DKR route would allow SN to go back to daily flights, without increasing its total weekly capacity dramatically, while the larger A333 that comes off the 5 weekly DKR route could than be used to serve the USA on weekdays for instance. In short: SN gets to free a low seatmile cost A333 for its transatlantic route (thus not having to lease another one of these much searched after and highly expensive planes) and at the same time it can use a more optimized smaller A332 with a lower trip costs on a detriangled run to AFI thus allowing to increase frequency and yields on the route... My god, what a bad idea indeed!
Your scenario is a disaster.
New York is already operated out of BRU by DL, AA, UA, 9W.
JFK would barely justify a B757-200 for SN, the A332 will be already overkill and an A333 absurd.
Remember that JFK is low yield due to excessive competition and its purpose as a feeder route. Feeding is composed of connecting passengers and are one of the lowest yielding segment of travelers.
Those extra seats and cargo space of the A333 are of better use on the DKR route than the bloodbath JFK route. After some years and 5 extra daily widebody rotations in Africa, we can talk about it again.
Here are some posts of HB-IWC relating to the years of Sabena operating the JFK route.http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... id=2028689Quoting SNBru (Reply 12):
Does anyone know on which routes (out of Europe) Sabena was making a lot of money.
As sated before, the money was being made mainly on certain parts of the Africa network. All the rest was pretty much loss making. Even some of the key transatlantic routes never made any real money, notwithstanding great performance during the summer.
Quoting SNBru (Reply 12):
I guess the BRU-JFK/BRU-BOS route was a profit maker, together with a lot of European routes (BRU generates a lot of diplomatic and political traffic due to the headquarters of NATO and EU institutions). Is this assumption correct?
The BRU-BOS route lost money because of weak performance outside the summer season, the BRU-JFK/EWR routes suffered from overcapacity most of the year. Overall transatlantic yields were also down because Sabena would attract up to 80% connecting traffic on those flights, and only about 20% higher yielding O/D traffic.
Sabena used to have 80% connecting and 20% O&D. The overcapacity was already there back then.
What SN will be doing by operating the A332's to JFK is very likely to be a zero operation or slightly negative. No extra loss but no extra profit.
No extra loss because what they're paying CO (soon UA) for the connecting traffic is coming directly on the A332's and the rest of the seats will probably be compensated by low-yield leisure pax. No extra profit because the traffic from the US to Africa isn't going to increase just because SN is doing the NYC-BRU leg itself instead of CO.
The only ones that are winning from this are some petrol refineries and some Sheiks who own the oil wells.