The merger of SNBA-TV

airazurxtror · Post by **airazurxtror** » 03 Apr 2006, 22:24

It seems it is feared that low priced seats will divert customers from more expensive ones.

But the number of customers is not fixed once and for all - it depends amongst other things on the prices. "Pile them high, sell them cheap " was the motto of Herb Kelleher, I think.
Really attractive fares will bring a lot of new customers who would otherwise have travelled by car or train, or would even have remained at home !

A good example is Italy : some years ago, most people went to Italy by train (there were even "charter" trains for Belgo-Italians, set up by Wasteels, CIT, and the like). Nowadays, there is hardly any train going farther than Milano - because the custom has disappeared : Ryanair is a lot more convenient, faster and even cheaper than train, not to mention car and bus. Many go much more frequently to Italy, for tourism (city trips) or for family reasons : instead of going only for funerals, they go for birth, christenings, communions, marriages, etc. You see what I mean.

Another thing : the low-cost concept is not easy to implement in a two-classes airline. The pilots are the same for the two classes, I presume, with the same pay and the same flight hours per year; will the travellers in the cheap seats get less paid flight attendants ? In case of cancellation, will there be the happy few getting free meals and accomodation, and the others left to care themselves ?

It will be interesting to see how it will turn out in the new company...

LJ · Post by LJ » 03 Apr 2006, 22:55

I don't think you can compare the new airline to AF/KL flying from CDG/AMS. The BRU market is smaller, for both business and leisure pax. The new airline will be able to focus on both, which seems to be strange. But right now SN has an overcapacity during the summer season, when a lot of the business travellers are enjoying their holiday. TV on the other hand needs extra capacity during the summer to fly BRU pax to their holiday destinations.

I disagree. Market size is not relevant as this only means that the fleet of both the leisure airline and the business airline are smaller in the VEX/SN scenario. If you look at KL you see the same. KL leases their planes to transavia (in full HV livery if possible to make sure that the pax don't view KL as a "leisure airline") when they need the capacity and KL doesn't need it (thus in the summer). Although I acknowledge that SN has probably a more stronger seasonal pattern here (as they depend more on point-to-point traffic), mixing your perceived high profile brand with perceived low cost leisure is not wise. If you look at BMI or SAS you'll see what happens if you don't make a choice.

Really attractive fares will bring a lot of new customers who would otherwise have travelled by car or train, or would even have remained at home

You don't make a lot of money on those low end fares. I remember the old Sabena was doing well selling AMS-BR-JNB for around EUR 500 at one time. Needless to say it generated a lot of traffic. However, which airline can make money on such fares? No one. In the end you can only sell very cheap tickets if you have very low costs. I don't think the current SN (or even VEX) has this and the mergerv won't change this (it's a common misbelieve that mergers reduce costs, they usually add costs).

Sometimes it is better to fly your plane with a 70% load on which pax have paid a reasonable price.. than try to fill it for 100% .. and in the end notice that your total revenue is lower than with 70%.

A concept that many (even in the aviation industry) can't understand but it's oh so true.

AirDupont · Post by **AirDupont** » 04 Apr 2006, 14:09

Since Mr Burrows was saying that the African routes should be direct flights, why not opt for a 737-900ER? How nice would this be? It would also be cheaper to keep crews abroad as you'll only have 5-6 cabin crews + 2 pilots (total of 7-8 iso 10, sometimes 11 when more then 30 c class pax).

Greetz

SilverJET · Post by **SilverJET** » 04 Apr 2006, 14:47

b-west wrote:
lumumba wrote:Hi everybody.
I can tel you that for poeple in Congo it's stil SABENA and the same in Angola or Cameroun.
Regards
Patrice
I think almost the entire world still uses Sabena...

Even I still call it Sabena when I'm telling somebody on which carrier I flew

because when I say SN Brussels or SNBA the look at you with these " " eyes

Comet · Post by **Comet** » 04 Apr 2006, 15:39

SabenaRebirth wrote:It would be GREAT if the Sabena name, known all over the world, would return!

Let's face it: SN Brussels Airlines is not a great name! Some people say SN, others say SN Brussels or SNBA or Brussels Airlines......It's too long and it doesn't sound well! And outside Belgium 'SN Brussels Airlines' is not widely known.

In Africa 'Sabena' is even a synonym for 'airplane'! We still have Sabena Technics and the Sabena flight academy ( www.sfa.be ), so it would be logical if the great Sabena name would return! (with ofcourse a new an modern logo)

:kvole: :kvole:

I totally agree with you, nothing would beat seeing Sabena again, SN Brussels Airlines is a stupid name and a mouthful as well. But I would miss the sight of the Sabena "S" logo on the tail, that was a very smart design, the nicest that Sabena had.

an-148 · Post by **an-148** » 04 Apr 2006, 17:20

The "S" logo should ABSOLUTELY remain.

If the name SABENA is available, something including SABENA is as well ABSOLUTELY needed for image abroad!
(if anyone of the readers saw the reedition of the 3 cockpit DVD's of Worldairroutes, HE will understand what I'm speaking about!)

so, something like SABENA EXPRESS (to include former SN and EXPRESS titles and to show that thoffer is bipolar:
business: tiltle "SABENA" (80 years of tradition)
low-fare p2p: "EXPRESS" (modernity and renewal)

Ovostar · Post by **Ovostar** » 04 Apr 2006, 18:15

i am not sure if they have the right to call it sabena, they must maybe pay the sabena dept to take the name...

LJ · Post by LJ » 04 Apr 2006, 22:11

AirDupont wrote:Since Mr Burrows was saying that the African routes should be direct flights, why not opt for a 737-900ER? How nice would this be? It would also be cheaper to keep crews abroad as you'll only have 5-6 cabin crews + 2 pilots (total of 7-8 iso 10, sometimes 11 when more then 30 c class pax).
Greetz

This in not viable as you can't offer a descent C-class product on the B737-900. Furthermore, cargo capacity will be very small and no possibility for the bigger cargo.

lumumba · Post by **lumumba** » 04 Apr 2006, 22:20

Hi LJ.
I'm not so sure about your point with the C class .
Look to the ONLY business flight's are with A319 and 737 or the Dedicate product from Air France also very appreciated.
But for the Cargo you are very right.
Regards
Patrice

are very right.

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 05 Apr 2006, 20:17

About the expansion of the mid-haul and long-haul. Why don't take one or two A321 in the fleet? They have a range of 5600 km and can take 185 to 220 ( in a high density) pax. I think this plane is good for flights to Africa and they can serve one destination, point to point.

They have already Airbusses in the fleet, so extra training is not necessary.

Is this possible or rather stupid.

blackhawk · Post by **blackhawk** » 05 Apr 2006, 20:22

Atlantis wrote:About the expansion of the mid-haul and long-haul. Why don't take one or two A321 in the fleet? They have a range of 5600 km and can take 185 to 220 ( in a high density) pax. I think this plane is good for flights to Africa and they can serve one destination, point to point.

They have already Airbusses in the fleet, so extra training is not necessary.

Is this possible or rather stupid.

Instead of A321's, find some A310-300, can take 200 passengers, can fly further and take much more cargo.

BrightCedars · Post by **BrightCedars** » 05 Apr 2006, 20:51

Atlantis wrote:About the expansion of the mid-haul and long-haul. Why don't take one or two A321 in the fleet? They have a range of 5600 km and can take 185 to 220 ( in a high density) pax. I think this plane is good for flights to Africa and they can serve one destination, point to point.

They have already Airbusses in the fleet, so extra training is not necessary.

Is this possible or rather stupid.

The Airbus A321 cannot fly 5 600 km with 220 pax: airbus.com says up to 5 550 km with 185 pax and that would be at sea level with prevailing winds. It simply cannot be considered a longhaul aircraft, hardly a medium haul one.

Middle East Airlines operate A321 at 93 tons (the highest I think) and they are fitted with a decent (48") 2-2 business class and a decent (32") economy class with PTVs in true longhaul comfort. The total seating is 149... Far from the 220 stated by SN. Either its the 767-300ER, the 787-8, or a very comfortable anything else. MD-11ER combis would be ideal.

blackhawk · Post by **blackhawk** » 05 Apr 2006, 20:59

A 787 for SN, right, how are they going to pay that? And everyone knows A 767 can not carry enough cargo and flying to Africa means cargo. You need to take as much cargo as possible.

MD-11ER Combis? Heu, the only combis I know can not carry cargo and passengers at the same time. Only the B747 can do this job, I think (I'm not a specialist).

TWA · Post by **TWA** » 05 Apr 2006, 21:27

I was more thinking of an A332 iso A333 or a mix of both like aer lingus is doing.

BrightCedars · Post by **BrightCedars** » 05 Apr 2006, 22:51

blackhawk wrote:A 787 for SN, right, how are they going to pay that? And everyone knows A 767 can not carry enough cargo and flying to Africa means cargo. You need to take as much cargo as possible.

MD-11ER Combis? Heu, the only combis I know can not carry cargo and passengers at the same time. Only the B747 can do this job, I think (I'm not a specialist).

There always was a "special" relationship between Sabena and Boeing and maybe Boeing would support the new Sabena in a way that it could afford 787-8s. The problem would be that an interim solution may be needed.

Actually, I don't know if the MD-11 or MD-11ER exists in Combi at all. I know the DC-10 did. And surely it would be a good aircraft for SN's typical operations. However, as for the A310, it is kind of a fuel guzzler by today's standards.

Tjipke · Post by **Tjipke** » 06 Apr 2006, 13:44

Dear Comet and other readers,

Do you realize how painful it should be for all those people who lost their job when SABENA went bankrupt ?????
SABENA is over and out and they should never use this name again !
I cannot imagine seeing a plane in the sky with the name SABENA painted on it and me and so many other colleagues not being part of it .
We are not in a" so happy situation" and this would hurt alot. There are still a lot of older ex-colleagues without a job and having difficult times.

:frusty:

lumumba · Post by **lumumba** » 06 Apr 2006, 16:39

Hi tjipke.
I can understand your point of view but it's not enough not to use SABENA has name again.
SABENA was loosing money for years so for sure they had to do something.
SABENA was always overstaffed and undercapitalized.The plan that Muller had in his head will become approximately the new company .
My point here is if it happened another way it was always with a lose of a lot of staff and decrease in salary.
Regards
Patrice

LJ · Post by LJ » 07 Apr 2006, 23:18

lumumba wrote:Hi LJ.
I'm not so sure about your point with the C class .
Look to the ONLY business flight's are with A319 and 737 or the Dedicate product from Air France also very appreciated.
But for the Cargo you are very right.
Regards
Patrice

are very right.

I don't think the new airline intends to have only 42 seats in their aircraft (the maximum for a BBJ) or a few more if they use a B737-900, for their Africa routes. I'm not familiar with the Dedicated product, but from my understanding the C-class isn't as good as C-class on an AF widebody.

MD-11ER Combis? Heu, the only combis I know can not carry cargo and passengers at the same time. Only the B747 can do this job, I think (I'm not a specialist).

The MD-11 Combi did exist. AZ had a few but if I'm not mistaken these have been sold to FEDEX or UPS and have been converted into full cargo.

worldspotter · Post by **worldspotter** » 08 Apr 2006, 10:40

Many of you (ex-Sabeniens?) think SABENA would be a good name.
IT IS NOT !
You don't seem to realise that SABENA was a bad company. Few passengers liked it and only flew the airline if they had no other choice.
The service was far below standards and on many occasions the cabin-crew was lazy and even rude.
This is the image most ex-passengers have about SABENA.

DannyVDB · Post by **DannyVDB** » 08 Apr 2006, 12:07

Dear worldspotter,

Of course you have the right to have your own opinion and stating that you were not happy with Sabena.

However don't speak in the name of 'the' passenger because myself and a lot of my colleagues were 'heavy' users of Sabena and I (and they) liked it very much.

It is true that sometimes a flight was less for whatever reason, but this is the case everywhere ...

Regards,
Danny

Aviation24.be

The merger of SNBA-TV

Not 5 600 km at full capacity