Brussels Airport's potential cooperation with Brussels Airlines

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

User avatar
Conti764
Posts: 1933
Joined: 21 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: Brussels Airlines' fleet renewal

Post by Conti764 »

737MAX wrote: 30 Oct 2019, 18:43
sn26567 wrote: 30 Oct 2019, 16:49
Treeper wrote: 30 Oct 2019, 15:49 This discussion has nothing to do with SN’s fleet. Stay on topic please
Sorry to have deviated from the topic, but the discussions are related: SN will be able to renew its fleet only if it can show a healthy profit, and BRU can and should help SN make a profit. It's in everybody's interest!
Complete nonsense. BRU shouldn’t do anything for SN. It’s up to SN to become healthy/profitable/whatever...
It's the main operator at BRU and as such it is in BRU's own interest to have a strong and reliable partner in SN. Not out of compassion but for commercial reasons. SN going belly up would set BRU back many years.

JOVAN
Posts: 488
Joined: 08 Jun 2006, 00:00

Re: Brussels Airlines' fleet renewal

Post by JOVAN »

Conti764 wrote: 01 Nov 2019, 04:58
737MAX wrote: 30 Oct 2019, 18:43
sn26567 wrote: 30 Oct 2019, 16:49
Sorry to have deviated from the topic, but the discussions are related: SN will be able to renew its fleet only if it can show a healthy profit, and BRU can and should help SN make a profit. It's in everybody's interest!
Complete nonsense. BRU shouldn’t do anything for SN. It’s up to SN to become healthy/profitable/whatever...
It's the main operator at BRU and as such it is in BRU's own interest to have a strong and reliable partner in SN. Not out of compassion but for commercial reasons. SN going belly up would set BRU back many years.
We have seen that in 2001.

An old politician then said " with Sabena bankrupt, there will not be any PAX less at BRU";
well reality was that PAX numbers dropped drastically for many years.
It took BRU years and years to recover.

Every airport needs a strong home-player.

Let us see how many more years it will take them to reach the 30million PAX at BRU.
At least 15 years with this present strategy of caring only about shareholders.

Jetter
Posts: 480
Joined: 06 Nov 2015, 21:07

Re: Brussels Airlines' fleet renewal

Post by Jetter »

JOVAN wrote: 01 Nov 2019, 08:35
Conti764 wrote: 01 Nov 2019, 04:58
737MAX wrote: 30 Oct 2019, 18:43

Complete nonsense. BRU shouldn’t do anything for SN. It’s up to SN to become healthy/profitable/whatever...
It's the main operator at BRU and as such it is in BRU's own interest to have a strong and reliable partner in SN. Not out of compassion but for commercial reasons. SN going belly up would set BRU back many years.
We have seen that in 2001.

An old politician then said " with Sabena bankrupt, there will not be any PAX less at BRU";
well reality was that PAX numbers dropped drastically for many years.
It took BRU years and years to recover.

Every airport needs a strong home-player.

Let us see how many more years it will take them to reach the 30million PAX at BRU.
In a way BRU is still recovering: currently there are 70.000 less yearly flights than in 2001. I believe BRU is the only airport in the world to have lost so many flights in that time period.

User avatar
Atlantis
Posts: 5116
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 00:00

Re: Brussels Airlines' fleet renewal

Post by Atlantis »

The number of flights are not saying anything.

We have much more pax now, close to 26 million a year, with less flights. Why? Bcs operators, airlines are use much bigger airplanes then in the time of Sabena.

Less flights are even better, more pax per bigger plane is much more convenient for the whole environment.

Less flights are also much better for the fact that the airport has a lot of margin to grow. The plafond is not reached yet. And this makes us more attractive then our neighbour airports.

So what is written here in the last couple of posts is completely not relevant and is just writing to write sth as long as it can be negative. But you forget that a few people here can counter this

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 40934
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: Brussels Airlines' fleet renewal

Post by sn26567 »

Ansett wrote: 01 Nov 2019, 13:51 What about getting back to the topic of this thread: SN's fleet renewal? Isn't there a thread where the latest post could it in? If not, let's create one!
I just created that new topic and moved a number of posts to this new topic.
André
ex Sabena #26567

Jetter
Posts: 480
Joined: 06 Nov 2015, 21:07

Re: Brussels Airlines' fleet renewal

Post by Jetter »

Atlantis wrote: 01 Nov 2019, 11:50 The number of flights are not saying anything.

We have much more pax now, close to 26 million a year, with less flights. Why? Bcs operators, airlines are use much bigger airplanes then in the time of Sabena.

Less flights are even better, more pax per bigger plane is much more convenient for the whole environment.

Less flights are also much better for the fact that the airport has a lot of margin to grow. The plafond is not reached yet. And this makes us more attractive then our neighbour airports.

So what is written here in the last couple of posts is completely not relevant and is just writing to write sth as long as it can be negative. But you forget that a few people here can counter this.
I said 'in a way' for a reason. But I do disagree that bigger planes are always better. For connectivity they aren't: smaller planes means more frequencies thus more connection option and more convenient flight schedules for pax.

Now I wouldn't want to see a lot of Q400 and ATR's arriving, but a lot of Embrear's and A220's would definitely be good for BRU's connectivity.

User avatar
Conti764
Posts: 1933
Joined: 21 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: Brussels Airlines' fleet renewal

Post by Conti764 »

JOVAN wrote: 01 Nov 2019, 08:35 At least 15 years with this present strategy of caring only about shareholders.
I see you often repeat this statement. But let's not forget that 'caring of shareholders' means 'caring for passengers' as well since it are passengers that bring in profits. If BAC wouldn't give a damn about passengers as you seem to be convinced of, it would negatively impact profits and thus the shareholders.

Everything they do takes time, but that's pretty common in Belgium. And they need to take on things step by step. BRU has positively evolved since becoming private owned. And things are in the planning as well, but can't be all done at once.

User avatar
Atlantis
Posts: 5116
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 00:00

Re: Brussels Airport's potential cooperation with Brussels Airlines

Post by Atlantis »

Living and doing business in Belgium with 5 governments is making everything more complicated and very slow in action.

To give again the example of Poland, LOT polish airlines received today their 15th B787. They have already a much bigger LH fleet then SN which is a West European country. In 2012 they were even almost bankrupt. But they have the government and a very powerful private company as shareholder.
As second. Close to Radom, in Poland, they are creating one of the biggest airports in Europe. We will see if it will be like this. But the government is pushing to get it forward

In Belgium it takes years but BRU became much better since Macquarie took over and after the Canadian ones. Macquarie BTW has still a small part of shares in BRU.

The mentality in Belgium is that they prefer to concur each other dead instead of working together. Look at this new Trambus. Delayed again bcs of Brussels. West Europe, one of the richest areas in Europe but so stupid and childish mentality. The work and efforts which many people do to attract more traffic is turned back many times bcs of external events

Poiu
Posts: 897
Joined: 14 Nov 2015, 09:38

Re: Brussels Airlines' fleet renewal

Post by Poiu »

Conti764 wrote: 01 Nov 2019, 22:02 let's not forget that 'caring of shareholders' means 'caring for passengers' as well since it are passengers that bring in profits. If BAC wouldn't give a damn about passengers as you seem to be convinced of, it would negatively impact profits and thus the shareholders.
Strange logic, Conti!
Eg: Forcing passengers to walk along the shops is good for share holders, but quite annoying for the passengers, some even miss their flight because of it.
Increasing fees is another of those examples where the interests of passengers and share holders are completely opposite
Reducing waiting time at security requires more staff, so a cost for the shareholders whilst positive for passengers.

Your statement is correct for businesses where customers have a choice and good service leads to more customers and more profit. With airports passengers have hardly any choice.

Post Reply