Must Brussels become a real hub for Brussels Airlines?

[sn-remember]

So, here we go.
Disclaimer : I might state the obvious or seem pompous to some seasoned contributor on this forum, please bear in mind that it takes time to put a coherent model together. I am stating my opinion based on my limited decades long vision of the airlines industry. Fortunately or not, it can bear no consequence ..
..
My purpose is to suggest a long/haul network and operational model which is not frozen, a sort of global framework that could progressively be implemented during the next 5 yrs. I am aware of the challenges it represents. About 23 w/body aircrafts will eventually be needed. On the s/hauls register let me just stress again the importance of LON and PAR (lgw/ltn and ory should be considered at some point)

First some guidelines :
1. A hub network is needed. Obviously the main departure wave (24 departures) lies in the late morning timeframe (10:15-12.15). The secondary wave leaves in the early afternoon (14-15h) and is lighter (7 departures) . The 2 waves structure is required (a) for operations purpose taking care of possible late arrivals from the morning bank (b) relieving the trafic pressure during the morning peak time. Only 1 late evening flight in my model. The arrival wave is mainly concentrated in the early morning (06.00 to 08.30). The purpose is not to build a w:w hub like MUC that was created from scratch, the goal is to give some solidity to bru'operations and perennity to the African network. In that regard I feel SN should feel free to develop the African routes as they wish, notwithdstanding the possible lh's wishes to limit their ambition on the continent.

2. In the hub model, each destination is arbitrarilly paired to another. I think it's a good practice because it widens the codesharing portfolio and validates the hub effectiveness. Of course we know the competition is rough that's why I would assume reaching the 25% O/D trafic min threshold is desirable as a rule of the thumb, with some few exceptions I guess.

3. Aircaft type : the network is based on the A333 operation. In practice the A332 could be useful when starting new routes or when the market is light but I am not sure the A332 is absolutely required. Now if the A330 is too much plane, the A321LR should replace it. Note that a/c change can be performed dynamically (on short notice) like tk constantly does with great success. To summarize, the A333 is backed up with the A332 which is backed up with the A321LR itself backed up with the A320 then A319 and then the SSJ and finally the Bombardier Q400. Aircraft type change ripples dynamically through the network from wider to smaller frame.
The purpose here is double : (a) better leave a wider aircraft on the apron rather than make it fly at a loss. (b) better have a surplus of smaller frames rather than wider ones.

4. Frequencies : Daily is the objective on the main markets but not a religion. Focusing on the main markets, once defined, is the priority. Some tweeks to the network might be required in order to reach the daily frequency, if not possible consider a 5wkly.
Some examples :
If a daily bru-nas-hav is not sustainable, it might be desirable to fork the route bru-nas-hav/vra.
If a daily bru-fna-bjl/rob is not sustainable then consider splitting the route with a new destination like bru-bko-bjl (3wky) and bru-fna-rob (4wky)
Likewise, a daily bru-lun-jnb could be forked into bru-lun-jnb(4) and bru-hre-jnb(3)
Or a daily bru-lbv-fih could be forked into bru-lbv-fih (4) and bru-pnr-fih (3)
However I do not favor splitting as it requires a new station but it can be useful on a temporary basis to defend a market position or if there is no other choice.

5. Rely on codesharings and make partnerships work. For instance there is little to no sense to make the MS cairo flight arrive at 15h00 because it is outside the l/h departure window. Of course the flight will be axed or severly downgauged later in the day. The same holds for the NH flight from nrt. It's a win/win for both carriers when they synchronise on a wave of arrivals/departures. And too bad if the morning trafic gets close to saturation. SN will rely of course on *A codeshares, I would add B6 in the US and UP/B6 in nas.

Possible network model, described by means of route pairing (guideline #2)
Note0: SN operated A330 routes are in bold
Note1: italic means : operated by *A partner or HU using multiple codeshares
Note2: the african complete routing is given (in parenthesis)
Note3: bey is operated using the A32X twice daily, bey coupled with lca
Note4: tlv is operated twice daily, morning flight using the A32X and in evening the A333 (plus PEK = 2 A333)
Note5: nas and jnb are singletons, together they require a subfleet of 3 A333.
Note6: all flights are daily or splitted 4,3wkly as the route detail is expanded in parenthesis.

1. Morning bank :
pek-fih (lbv-fih)
nrt-acc (acc-coo)
pvg-abj (oua-abj)
iad-fna/lad (fna-rob,bzv-lad)
ord-nbo (ebb-nbo,nbo-jro)
ewr-kgl (ebb-kgl,kgl-bjm)
jfk-bey (morning bru-bey-lca-bru, evening bru-lca-bey-bru)
yul-tlv
iah-del
sfo-bom
bos-bkk
yyz-cai

2. Afternoon bank
pek-dkr (dkr-cky)
ewr-dla (dla-nsi)
iad-los/bjl (los-lfw,bjl-fna)
nas (nas-hav) possibly seasonally alternating with jfk early evening flight ?

3. Evening departure
jnb (lun-jnb)

Conclusion :
I am convinced the future of bru and sn lies within the model briefly presented here.
In this model, 21 A330 family aircrafts are used (+ 2 spares?) I guess that 22 to 23 frames would make it. It would be less if complemented with some A321LR.
A A321LR subfleet is assigned to the european thick routes. However they can be used or swapped as a long-hauler whenever a A330 is deemed unprofitable and a type change is required that will percolate through the fleet.
Welcome to all questions and remarks

[Stij]

Thanks for your thoughts sn-remember!

A lot to digest and understand, but I'll give it a thought and formulate my constructive feedback during the weekend!

Kind regards,

Stij

[sn26567]

Wow! Nice in-depth analysis, sn-remember. Even in the most glorious Sabena times the long haul network hasn't been so extended.

Knowing how cautious the management of Brussels Airlines is, it would probably take 20 years to implement such an ambitious plan. But it looks feasible ... if Mama Luftie allows.

[sn-remember]

Haha ! If they wait 20 yrs, it's useless. It's already late in the day to save the ship.
BTW the Sabena demise was on 7th nov 2001 .. some 16 yrs ago! And Sabena was not a big airline.
Oddly I don't find this plan so ambitious and I do think they are trying to implement some parts of it very soon.
But like you say there are some clouds in the sky ...
Thank you for your appreciation.

[convair]

Interesting vision sn-remember.
However, I don't quite understand the pairing system you describe in your point 2. How does it work? Do you put limitations for the connexions?
For me, the hub system means that each lh connects with as many sh (and hopefully other lh as well) as possible. That gives you the best chance to fill-up your planes, doesn't it?
The 3 morning flights to/from CDG, e.g., were established specifically, I believe, to connect pax with all Afi lh flights. To make this effective, all these lh were rescheduled to depart in the morning.

Otherwise, I agree that their lh expansion is much too slow and cautious. They made a bold decision (under sharp critisim, even from some members on this forum) to expand the sh network by adding a good number of A319s and A320s over a relatively short period of time, and it worked well.
For lh, there are many opportunities open. They should not wait until other airlines grab them.
The Bombay episode is a good example: if JetAirways had not started it and then left it, SN would never had thought of opening the route, but now it is there.
What are they waiting for to start the obvious ones, like BOS, SFO, Houston, Sao Paulo? They won't buy the planes so, if it doesn't work as expected, they just have to discontinue the service and try another one.

[sn-remember]

Oh it's just a way to present how the long-hauls (sn and partners *A and HU) can interoperate together. The purpose is to show that the feeding is well balanced (inflows vs outflows) and how diversified it can be (what is their hub l/h portfolio). Of course there is short-hauls feeding as well but my focus was on the long-hauls.(Note that I included Middle-East as l/haul)
..
As you mention, I included bos (sn), sfo (ua) and iah (ua), while having in mind the feeding issue these new routes can bring/get (hence the "pairing" thing :del,bom,bkk in my example but it's of course arbitrary). The reason I suggest sfo being operated by UA is because they can squeeze into the morning bank and thus maximize the hub function, and iah bcs UA could use the B788 and they control the market better.
GRU is probably for later if ever.
Thank you for your appreciation.

[sn-remember]

Your post is not too long as far as I am concerned it could have been longer !
I can share most of your concerns.
..
LOS is indeed controversial, as are most of my suggestions. It can only work in a hub context, relying on the NAtlantic and NEAsia, Japan included. Btw I was intentionally cautious on los (4wkly to start with) coupled with LFW in my model.
..
I think there are big challenges on the NEAsia market too. NH wants to modify the scheduling of the nrt flight and synchronise on the morning bank in order to codeshare on the AFI network. Likewise HU would like to partner and codeshare with SN more deeply, despite not being part of *A. The China market is still a challenge and a big question mark. That's why I suggest SN starting a 2nd pek while consolidating AFI.
..
BOM has a new player in the backyard, KL are not giving a free ride to SN.
..
US is dirt cheap but doing nothing is not the solution. I suggested 4 additional routes because they are fair me think : sfo and iah for UA and bos and 2nd ewr for SN. Again it can work only if you grow the l/hauls elsewhere to offer/get additional feeding.