Flanker wrote:Let's compare the price difference for EWR-BRU-DLA with BRU-DLA to see how much the EWR-BRU sector yields to feed the BRU-DLA sector.
Dep 01/10, Return 10/10.
EWR-BRU-DLA-BRU-EWR 1203 euro.
BRU-DLA-BRU 862 euro.
This means that EWR-BRU + BRU-EWR yields only 340 euro.
If you take out the taxes, we come closer to 300 euro or 150 euro one-way.
Good luck breaking even with that.
A more realistic way to look at it, is to say pax will pay 1,200 euro to fly from EWR to AFI (over BRU) and back, a total fare which is more than reasonable in all
For reference: 1,200 euro is still far more than what pax pay to go from somewhere in Europe to the West coast of the USA over hubs like LHR, CDG, FRA or AMS, a distance roughly comparible with a JFK-BRU-AFI.
What your little analysis does demonstrate is WHY transatlantic codeshare partners aren't very keen on adding capacity to give SN ample seats across, but WHY it does make sense for SN to offer a transatlantic link itself nevertheless: the transtatlantic leg in itself isn't of much value, yet the combination with an AFI leg is what makes it worth.
Flanker wrote:That's why I'm saying that an A332 is already overkill and an A333 absurd. The B752 would have been more manageable for both SN and UA as it will have given them room to keep cooperating.
As you've calculated yourself, 5 A330s operating to AFI means SN has roughly 110 pax a day going to the NY area today
. Assume a 6 A330s operating to AFI and this becomes 135 pax or so, and this is without
taking into account the positive effect operating to JFK will certainly have on their passenger numbers between the US and AFI as they will no longer have to rely on their reluctant partners to give them ample seats across the pond.
It's hard to estimate, but I'd estimate SN can be sure of anything between 170 (+25%) to 200 (+50%) of AFI connecting pax a day if they operate to JFK themselves: that's a full 757, so that plane is definitely too small as you'd want to improve the results of any BRU-JFK flight by as much local intake at both ends as you possibly can. If you fly it, better do it properly, or don't do it at all, yet operating anything smaller than an A332 will prevent you from offering the flight to any pax other than the ones which will be paying least of all for their transatlantic journey.
Flanker wrote:I do wish SN to succeed on this adventure but it's not going to be as easy as you and Tolipanebas insinuate.
All the low hanging fruit has long been plucked by SN on AFI, so it's definitely time for them to step up a bit and the idea to serve the US on its own metal is definitely to be seen in this context.
Flanker wrote:I actually like the idea of the 2 additional long-haul aircraft. I also do like the idea of long-haul expansion.
I'm not sure JFK is the right answer but I like the idea that they're looking.
additional long haul aircraft will indeed make it far easier to help succeed the transatlantic flight. I'd say 6 is about the minimum number of planes from which you'd want to start considering it, yet 7 is definitely better and 8 would be simply great, but then having the JFK flight will more easily make the case for further additional expansion on AFI later on too, as this is clearly a case of communicating vessels.
Flanker wrote:All we've been reading in the past days and weeks is an easy but risky course of action that is difficult to revert.
Doing nothing is definitely not an option either, so I prefer SN to take this road which isn't entirely risk free, rather than sit idle at the T-junction or even worse, go round in circles like they've been doing too often the past couple of years.
In my eyes, SN is finally doing what should have been done years ago: that is to more aggressively expand its long haul. Let's just hope it's not too little, too late. I bet they'd love to have done this years ago already...