Long haul plans at Brussels Airport by 2011

[Atlantis]

And some more good news for Brussels Airport.

Lufthansa decided to cancel some African destinations ex-FRA. They are going to put those flights to Brussels Airport. At this moment it's not known which destinations but the agreement is almost 100%.

I think that we will hear soon which new destinations and extra aircraft will be served ex-BRU.

[HighInTheSky]

Accra for sure by June or July 2009.

[AirDupont]

LAD is impossible to be served out of BRU as there's an agreement that 1 flight per week between BRU and LAD can be operated by SN.

[BrightCedars]

LAD indeed can't simply be moved to BRU as it is a cash cow but airlines usually get just 1 weekly frequency there. LH will keep its own and SN its own. Maybe LX can add one if they don't already do, so might OS?

All in all it could be a much better offer than say AFKL or BA.

Very good to read that LH will be transferring some African operations to SN, and some hardware along!

[AirDupont]

I do wonder though which destinations????

[outofafrica]

LH flies to Accra, Abuja, Lagos, Port Hacourt, Malabo, Luanda, Karthoum,Asmara, Addis Abeba and Cairo with A333's and also to Capetown and J'bourg with other equipment.

I put my bet on Accra and Nigerian destinations.

There are also rumours about SN going to YUL and BOS, any more news about that?

[Conti764]

And some more good news for Brussels Airport.

Lufthansa decided to cancel some African destinations ex-FRA. They are going to put those flights to Brussels Airport. At this moment it's not known which destinations but the agreement is almost 100%.

I think that we will hear soon which new destinations and extra aircraft will be served ex-BRU.

It's good news indeed. By funneling all or most *A flights trough BRU, it could mean there will be more long haul flights apart of Africa as well, since airlines (esp. N-American airlines) will connect to BRU for transfers to Africa.

Will LH fly these routes under it's own flag or will they transfer some long haul equipment to SN or buy new/second hand aircraft?

[Atlantis]

Will LH fly these routes under it's own flag or will they transfer some long haul equipment to SN or buy new/second hand aircraft?

We will see about that, but the real question you can ask is: "will LH use bigger metal between FRA and BRU?" Are they going to use a daily A300 or more frequenties to bring all those pax to BRU?

[Conti764]

Will LH fly these routes under it's own flag or will they transfer some long haul equipment to SN or buy new/second hand aircraft?

We will see about that, but the real question you can ask is: "will LH use bigger metal between FRA and BRU?" Are they going to use a daily A300 or more frequenties to bring all those pax to BRU?

How much pax are we talking about? I did some 'research' and found out they have at least 2 daily flights to black Africa on their own metal (I assume North Africa will still be served from FRA), with 3 flights a day on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday. They have 1 A343 each day and 1 or 2 A333 on other days. So we are talking about 700 passengers on Mon, Wed and Sat and about 500 on the other days. If they would have an average LF of 70%, this means 490 on Mon, Wed and Sat and 350 on the other days, so I assume a daily A300 from FRA is enough, given the fact that a lot of these pax ex-FRA are transfer pax from either Germany or Europe.

Maybe on very busy days, and given the availability we might even see some bigger equipment on the FRA - BRU leg although an A346 is a little overkill for a 55' flight
But most of the days an extra A300 above the regular service FRA-BRU should be enough, no?

[Lamal]

Hi,

And what about the african carriers flying to FRA today? Will they add BRU to there destinations in the way ET did? Can imagine it'll be cheaper for these carriers to be parked at BRU for the day instead at FRA.

Greetz,

Lamal

[tolipanebas]

Lufthansa decided to cancel some African destinations ex-FRA. They are going to put those flights to Brussels Airport. At this moment it's not known which destinations but the agreement is almost 100%.

Interesting.

I do wonder though which destinations?

Let's do an educated guess, shall we?

LH flies to Accra, Abuja, Lagos, Port Hacourt, Malabo, Luanda, Karthoum,Asmara, Addis Abeba and Cairo with A333's and also to Capetown and J'bourg with other equipment.

I think we can forget about South African destinations as well as Cairo for the simple fact there is way too much O&D traffic on those routes. On top of that, it would take more than just one plane to serve South Africa daily, so that’s not something which will happen I think.

Luanda can't be transferred to BRU because of bilateral restrictions (SN already operates 1 flight a week, which is the maximum allowed), so that's a no-brainer too really.

East African destinations aren’t very likely either IMO, since SN traditionally hasn’t been such a strong player there, and it is more of LX’ territory. Besides SN code-shares with ET, so why bother competing with a partner, when there are far better oportunities available to you?

West Africa looks like a good choice: Flights between Germany and Nigeria have very low numbers of O&D traffic, West Africa sees a huge SN presence already, it would be relatively short flights thus not requiring more than 1 plane, etc... etc…

will LH use bigger metal between FRA and BRU? Are they going to use a daily A300 or more frequenties to bring all those pax to BRU?

Why would they have to do that?

LH is likely going to relocate only those flights to BRU which don’t see a lot of O&D traffic. As such, it is not like they plan to fly everybody from all across Europe to FRA first and then on to BRU to get on the flight to Africa. Those few hundred pax will simply be flown in to BRU on the many SN flights from allover Europe, as well as on the LH flights from Germany and then get straight on their flight to AFI next: no need to pass through FRA at all!

As such, relocating some AFI bound flights to BRU would not only help grow SN's low haul network, it would also prop up the load factor on their European network (something which is really needed, they have a lot of open seats you know), while at the same time it frees up valuable slots at FRA which can be used for higher yielding O&D flights: remember LH has quite some heavy metal on order: 15 A380s, 20 748s, 6 A340s, XX A330s, some of which in replacement of older planes, but half of them for expansion. As such LH really NEEDS slots at FRA to be able to deploy them optimally and relocating the lower yielding long haul flights which have very low numbers of O&D traffic to regions where they have been traditionally relatively poorly represented might be a good solution.

What is interesting in all this, is that LH is apparently NOT going to wait till they get the full 100% of SN, before starting to re-build their newest airline. No surprise to me, since they’ve done exactly the same at LX, but I know many here probably can’t believe it until it is officially announced. It might take a while yet though, since I can’t see this being announced before SN and LH officially start code-sharing and before that can happen, SN first needs to re-allign its short and medium haul product to LH standard's again, but hey, they are taking care of that: the ‘inventors' of b.flex/b.light have felt where the wind was blowing from and have already decided to leave the building, now only their product has to go...

Another point of interest is that this would be futher proof that BRU really needs to focus more on what SN/LH asks of them, rather than try to go its own way. Whether BRU likes it or not, its future is very much dependent of SN's, so better work closely together with the home carrier, rather than to piss them off like they have been doing in the recent past with the Low Cost Terminal: SN and LH offers far more potential for growth for BRU, than any other set of airlines ever will.

[Conti764]

Another point of interest is that this would be futher proof that BRU really needs to focus more on what SN/LH asks of them, rather than try to go its own way. Whether BRU likes it or not, its future is very much dependent of SN's, so better work closely together with the home carrier, rather than to piss them off like they have been doing in the recent past with the Low Cost Terminal: SN and LH offers far more potential for growth for BRU, than any other set of airlines ever will.

Why on earth does this low cost terminal piss LH/SN off? It pissed off SN when they where a hybrid carrier and couldn't choose between being a full service carrier or a low cost carrier. Being alone made them fear of the low cost competition by Easyjet and others.

Now they are with LH and they don't have to fear for the low cost threat anymore. Their *A partners will supply them with more passengers so they don't need to compete with EZ anymore. Now they have to distinguish themselves again from the low cost market and focus on traditional service. With making BRU the alliance gateway for African flights, European flights of SN will be fuller anyway. SN doesn't care about this low cost project anymore, or at least they shouldn't.

[tolipanebas]

Why on earth does this low cost terminal piss LH/SN off? It pissed off SN when they where a hybrid carrier and couldn't choose between being a full service carrier or a low cost carrier. Being alone made them fear of the low cost competition by Easyjet and others.

Now they are with LH and they don't have to fear for the low cost threat anymore. Their *A partners will supply them with more passengers so they don't need to compete with EZ anymore. Now they have to distinguish themselves again from the low cost market and focus on traditional service. With making BRU the alliance gateway for African flights, European flights of SN will be fuller anyway. SN doesn't care about this low cost project anymore, or at least they shouldn't.

Indeed.

Read the text again please, I was merely giving this as an exemple of how BRU has managed to piss off what will undoubtably become their key partner for the future, rather than to work closely with them. As such I am expressing my hopes that they will learn from this mistake and focus more on SN and on STAR alliance from now on... BRU future is best guaranteed through SN and STAR: looking at the shortlist of priorities BRU has, I fear they might not have understood it (yet), unless these plans were drawn up PRIOR to SN teaming up with LH.

[AirDupont]

Indeed, they would need more then 1 aircraft to fly to South Africa...only if this would become a daily flight....

[Conti764]

Read the text again please, I was merely giving this as an exemple of how BRU has managed to piss off what will undoubtably become their key partner for the future, rather than to work closely with them. As such I am expressing my hopes that they will learn from this mistake and focus more on SN and on STAR alliance from now on... BRU future is best guaranteed through SN and STAR: looking at the shortlist of priorities BRU has, I fear they might not have understood it (yet), unless these plans were drawn up PRIOR to SN teaming up with LH.

Who says that many Star Alliance carriers are willing to fly to BRU? The African gateway will attract some carriers, but it's not that big that all of the sudden all of them want a connection with BRU. I wonder who's initiative this list was. Is it a hope expressed by Brussels Airport or did these carriers in some way said they were interested to fly to BRU? I don't think the airport management would be so into details if it was there 'plan' and not an intent of the proposed carriers. So if, let's say, AA states it's intention to open a minihub in BRU, flying to ORD, JFK, BOS and DFW, why would they turn it down? Even with two and soon three American carriers in Star Alliance.

[Conti764]

And what's more, it would make good sence for both of them to do so, because for SN Newark offers far better connectivety than JFK and for CO, because they can then offer something really different from UA, which has been code-sharing with LH for a very long time already...
2 completely different STAR offerings between the US and the EU: CO with SN or UA with LH/LX...
Product diversification is important, especially amongst competing alliance members, you know?

Not gonna happen... CO is applying for anti trust immunity, together with UA, LH and AC for a joint venture on transatlantic flights.

I can see them fill a second daily EWR rotation (772 + 752 or maybe even 762), on behalf of SN the way AA operates their JFK flight these days. Maybe, in the future and given a good global economy, they might ad a daily flight to HOU on a 762 as well, but that's about it for CO I guess.

Other transatlantic developments I see:

UA splitting up the ORD-IAD-BRU rotation into two rotations ORD-BRU and IAD-BRU, with 2 x 763 or 772 + 763. Maybe UA will also start up a flight to the west coast (SFO or LAX) since there is no such connection at BRU at this moment.

If US remains in Star Alliance they might upgrade PHL to a daily 762 or maybe even 332/333.

AC who might start to open up an YVR - BRU rotation.

And finally there may be some bits and spares for SN to start, in cooperation with their alliance partners. I could see them operate two daily flights to the USA, one to BOS (if AA drops the plans for this route) and a second flight, possibly connecting two cities with BRU.

[tolipanebas]

Who says that many Star Alliance carriers are willing to fly to BRU?

Aren't there already enough (future) STAR alliance airlines at BRU present right now to make the voice of STAR be listened to? How much market share do you need to have as an alliance before you are allowed to set the agenda? BRU needs to get of its high horse and understands that it needs to develops a much better relationship with its key customer, rather than think of them as just another customer from their ever growing list. As such it may be considered common sense to keep some airlines out, rather than give them price breaks just to attract them like BRU is doing right now, because the last thing you'd be wanting to do as an airport is to help compete against the home based airline (and its partners) from which you are so dependent for your own survival really!

[tolipanebas]

Not gonna happen... CO is applying for anti trust immunity, together with UA, LH and AC for a joint venture on transatlantic flights.

I can see them fill a second daily EWR rotation (772 + 752 or maybe even 762), on behalf of SN the way AA operates their JFK flight these days. Maybe, in the future and given a good global economy, they might ad a daily flight to HOU on a 762 as well, but that's about it for CO I guess. .

Allow me to say that is a strange post you've written there. First you disagree, then you fully agree with me?

My bet is that CO will replace AA as SN's American partner airline, thus SN putting its code on a number of CO flights through EWR, and CO doing the same on SN's flights throughout Europe. By adding a second daily EWR flight, the offering could even be extended to beyond that of SN/AA today even. This would give CO a good alternative for flights throughout Europe next to and on to op the LH options, which is also available to CO's competitor UA, a concept which I've called product diversification.

So just where are we differing on this then? I am pretty confused here now?

In theory, UA could also start code-sharing with SN and I do expect them to do so on transatlantic flights, but somehow, I don't feel as if SN and UA will enter into a widespread code-share agreement for onwards flights on both sides of the atlantic, for the simple reason UA would then have to increase the number of flights to BRU, something I don't see happening right away (contrary to you, which is the only point I see any difference on really). Not that I wouldn't like to see it happen! In fact, I'd prefer to see UA rather than CO as SN's US main partner airline, but I fear it won't be that way.

Anyway, all this was just the result of a personal thought I've expressed in relation to the pretty strong rumour LH is about to decide on relocating some of its flights to AFI from FRA to BRU. Anybody cares to discuss this interesting piece of news, since it might be materializing much sooner than any SN + CO/UA tie-up...

[Atlantis]

SN is at this moment no member of Star Alliance. And if they will become a member means not that Oneworld carriers like British Airways, Iberia or Finnair and next year Royal Jordanian has to leave the airport. Don't forget that Finnair brings a lot of pax daily to Brussels Airport for their connections to Africa.

It's a good thing that new carriers like CI, SQ, etc could join our tarmac. More pax via Brussels Airport is more money and more airlines means more jobs.

Its clear that SN will have two priorities: Africa and Europe. The other stuff has to come via other and new carriers.

[Conti764]

Not gonna happen... CO is applying for anti trust immunity, together with UA, LH and AC for a joint venture on transatlantic flights.

I can see them fill a second daily EWR rotation (772 + 752 or maybe even 762), on behalf of SN the way AA operates their JFK flight these days. Maybe, in the future and given a good global economy, they might ad a daily flight to HOU on a 762 as well, but that's about it for CO I guess. .

Allow me to say that is a strange post you've written there. First you disagree, then you fully agree with me?

You said CO would work with SN alongside the LH/UA tie up, thus creating two duo's. That's what I responded to since CO, UA, LH and AC are seeking antitrust immunity to start a joint venture across the Atlantic.

My bet is that CO will replace AA as SN's American partner airline, thus SN putting its code on a number of CO flights through EWR, and CO doing the same on SN's flights throughout Europe. By adding a second daily EWR flight, the offering could even be extended to beyond that of SN/AA today even. This would give CO a good alternative for flights throughout Europe next to and on to op the LH options, which is also available to CO's competitor UA, a concept which I've called product diversification.

So just where are we differing on this then? I am pretty confused here now?

Well, it's my bet CO will start a second EWR rotation on behalf of SN because the market is there (as proven by the AA flight on behalf of SN). But CO will gain no profit from putting its code on SN flights trough BRU because it is likely to do so on LH trough FRA (as the joint venture supposes). Maybe to some key destinations and the African destinations, but the main European partner of CO will probably by LH.

In theory, UA could also start code-sharing with SN and I do expect them to do so on transatlantic flights, but somehow, I don't feel as if SN and UA will enter into a widespread code-share agreement for onwards flights on both sides of the atlantic, for the simple reason UA would then have to increase the number of flights to BRU, something I don't see happening right away (contrary to you, which is the only point I see any difference on really). Not that I wouldn't like to see it happen! In fact, I'd prefer to see UA rather than CO as SN's US main partner airline, but I fear it won't be that way.

Well, CO's service is better then UA's, so as pax you be better of with CO then with UA. But that aside, IAD is highly profitable flight for UA ex-BRU. ORD and SFO are hubs of UA and their is currently no connection to the west coast from BRU. ORD may change, depending on what AA will do (will they keep the ORD-BRU rotation or drop it?). So I can see UA operating three (daily) flights out of BRU. Not tomorrow, but it could be.