I found this on CH-aviation:
29.04.2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virgin Atlantic (VS/London Heathrow) has ordered 15 B787-9s and has secured options for another eight aircraft of the type. It has also announced plans to launch new routes from continental Europe to New York JFK over the next couple of years making use of the EU-US open skies treaty.
VIRGIN ATLANTIC starting US-flights out of BRU?????
Moderator: Latest news team
-
BrightCedars
- Posts: 830
- Joined: 01 Sep 2005, 00:00
- Location: Brussels, Belgium
I think that as a direct result of the open skies , we will see a lot of different airlines crossing the atlantic from a lot of different airports , sometime in the future Brussels is bound to profit from this new era in aviation . It may not be virgin or BA but someone will pick up the slack . Really it should be Bru Air , but we all know that it is just existing from day to day without any solid future plans .
-
spotter1102
The winner on the BRU-LAX will be Jet Airways, certainly operating a Boeing 777-300ER on the routepressman wrote:I think that as a direct result of the open skies , we will see a lot of different airlines crossing the atlantic from a lot of different airports , sometime in the future Brussels is bound to profit from this new era in aviation . It may not be virgin or BA but someone will pick up the slack . Really it should be Bru Air , but we all know that it is just existing from day to day without any solid future plans .
-
spotter1102
-
concordino
- Posts: 645
- Joined: 06 Oct 2003, 00:00
Point taken. My apologies. As you can see from the number of my posts I'm new to this. I'll try to better my life.
Anyway, the announcement of Jet Airways seems (for the moment) to conclude further guesswork on the LAX subject (
Los Angeles International Airport, California, United States of America).
Intercontinental destinations like LAX can only be viable if you can take business passengers. To get business travel, you need to offer AT LEAST 3 to 4 weekly flights, ideally daily operations.
Destinations at the US West Coast are difficult for BRU. The market of direct passengers to almost any US destination is too small to fill a daily flight.
Airlines who can offer a domestic US network, are able to offer their full destination network on flights from BRU to their hubs at the east coast, or at least a place where enough onward travel is offered.
American Airlines takes you to their whole network from ORD and JFK, United offers its whole network from IAD, etc.
When you fly to the west coast however, there is no onward travel (except for a handful passengers to Hawai). Your whole plane needs to be filled with passengers who select this west coast city as a final destination.
Alternatively, carriers like Air France, Lufthansa, KLM, Brithsi Airways fill their plane with passengers that are fed from all over Europe to their transatlantic flight. That works, too.
Thus, destinations as San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Vancouver... are very attractive but won't fill your aircraft from BRU enough to allow daily operations. We're almost there, but Citybird and VGA cases show how hard it is.
Since Brussels AIrlines (with European feeder network) has no current ambitions to become a transfer airline with a transatlantic mission, they won't offer US West Coast destinations either.
The situation is very different for Jet Airways, however. They fill their aircraft with passengers from India, and can add passengers from BRU and European and African cities that are linked to BRU with Brussels AIrlines.
Once Jet Airways starts to operate the ???-BRU-LAX route, they also feed LAX-bound passengers from their other four Indian departure airports, who can transer at BRU.
Anyway, the announcement of Jet Airways seems (for the moment) to conclude further guesswork on the LAX subject (
Los Angeles International Airport, California, United States of America).Intercontinental destinations like LAX can only be viable if you can take business passengers. To get business travel, you need to offer AT LEAST 3 to 4 weekly flights, ideally daily operations.
Destinations at the US West Coast are difficult for BRU. The market of direct passengers to almost any US destination is too small to fill a daily flight.
Airlines who can offer a domestic US network, are able to offer their full destination network on flights from BRU to their hubs at the east coast, or at least a place where enough onward travel is offered.
American Airlines takes you to their whole network from ORD and JFK, United offers its whole network from IAD, etc.
When you fly to the west coast however, there is no onward travel (except for a handful passengers to Hawai). Your whole plane needs to be filled with passengers who select this west coast city as a final destination.
Alternatively, carriers like Air France, Lufthansa, KLM, Brithsi Airways fill their plane with passengers that are fed from all over Europe to their transatlantic flight. That works, too.
Thus, destinations as San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Vancouver... are very attractive but won't fill your aircraft from BRU enough to allow daily operations. We're almost there, but Citybird and VGA cases show how hard it is.
Since Brussels AIrlines (with European feeder network) has no current ambitions to become a transfer airline with a transatlantic mission, they won't offer US West Coast destinations either.
The situation is very different for Jet Airways, however. They fill their aircraft with passengers from India, and can add passengers from BRU and European and African cities that are linked to BRU with Brussels AIrlines.
Once Jet Airways starts to operate the ???-BRU-LAX route, they also feed LAX-bound passengers from their other four Indian departure airports, who can transer at BRU.
9W ex BRU to DEL, BOM, EWR, YYZ, LAX, ORD, JFK, ...does this mean they will open a base (with BRUbased crew) at BRU?
Last edited by TWA on 03 May 2007, 18:45, edited 1 time in total.
-
FLY4HOURS.BE
- Posts: 454
- Joined: 01 May 2007, 22:13
- Location: Antwerp, Belgium
-
spotter1102
I think luchtzak should tag airline and airport codes in messages automatically, like a.net does. Then you hover your mouse over it, and it says '9W - Jet Airways'.concordino wrote:@ Ghandi
Still the jargon! How many times has it been asked for posters to write the airline or airport name rather than the code. How difficult is it to write Jet Airways instead of 9W, especially ina post about Virgin???
C
-
spotter1102
I don't think it's a good idea because in a.net I can't understand some topics because there are IATA codes that I don't know from wich city or airport they belong.earthman wrote:I think luchtzak should tag airline and airport codes in messages automatically, like a.net does. Then you hover your mouse over it, and it says '9W - Jet Airways'.concordino wrote:@ Ghandi
Still the jargon! How many times has it been asked for posters to write the airline or airport name rather than the code. How difficult is it to write Jet Airways instead of 9W, especially ina post about Virgin???
C