future of BMI, SN to Heathrow

[RoMax]

Just like BMI said already in their press release. They and the travel agents can give more information from 2 December.

[NCB]

So the SN A319 for BRU-LHR will be a wetlease from BD?

See, what I don't get is why they can so easily shift an A319 to SN to help out BD instead of using SN's stored Bae 146's to support SN's overstaffing issues while they can't shift some A300/A330's on wetlease to SN when LH and LX have a clear overcapacity situation in the longhaul fleet and SN is in need for longhaul capacity.

Of course (depending on wetlease conditions) it's a win-win situation for both BD and SN, but the above proves that LH is not planning to give unconditional love to SN, or at least not until SN is all theirs.

[euroflyer]

See, what I don't get is why they can so easily shift an A319 to SN to help out BD instead of using SN's stored Bae 146's to support SN's overstaffing issues

Hm, Don't know, but maybe the Avros do not have enough capacity at least for the early morning connections with a load of connecting pax on both ends? Or they are simply more expensive to operate? Or a 'parking problem' at LHR for the small Avros?

while they can't shift some A300/A330's on wetlease to SN when LH and LX have a clear overcapacity situation in the longhaul fleet and SN is in need for longhaul capacity.

Well, I guess the only answer is here that LH obviously does not see the point so far in enlarging SN's long haul capacity. Many here in the Board would like that to happen, many claim it would be profitable, but maybe LH is not so convinced of that so far as you are ?? The management of SN will need to show a valid and sustainable business plan for the respective destinations AND - if they want they will need to show that serving that destination via BRU with SN is better and MORE profitable than to do it from ZRH with LX, from FRA or MUC with LH, from VIE with OS and so on ...

LH is not planning to give unconditional love to SN, or at least not until SN is all theirs.

Unconditional love? Forget it! They want to make money, not love SN will have to show hard facts and not nice dreams ..

[airtrotter]

does anybody already has some more information regarding BD and SN to LHR ???

[Bralo20]

does anybody already has some more information regarding BD and SN to LHR ???

Probably after December 9

[regi]

Just contacted my travel agent and they still have no answer. But they think it will be SN, with extra flights. ( taking over the slots of BMI ? )
Problem now is that some connecting flights come in danger, certainly at LHR where transfer time between terminals can easely be 1.5 hours. The partners are not happy, such as Qantas. If it can not be confirmed, the customers don't buy it. Because the danger exists that you get stuck at LHR for 8 hours...

[Established02]

The partners are not happy, such as Qantas.

Regi, I would expect that QF is teaming up with BA, rather than BD/SN, no?

[HighInTheSky]

The partners are not happy, such as Qantas.

Regi, I would expect that QF is teaming up with BA, rather than BD/SN, no?

Indeed, but let's not forget SQ who rely on the BRU-LHR route to feed their A380 from LHR to SIN and United for flights to the USA. So I can imagine that those partners indeed are not happy to be left in the dark on all of this...

[sn26567]

Indeed, but let's not forget SQ who rely on the BRU-LHR route to feed their A380 from LHR to SIN and United for flights to the USA. So I can imagine that those partners indeed are not happy to be left in the dark on all of this...

bmi is indeed codeshaing with a lot of airlines on BRU-LHR: Virgin Atlantic, Air Lanka, Air Canada, Singapore, Lufthansa, United, Qatar QAirways, etc. You name them.

Will SN take over all these codeshares?

[NCB]

Good post Euroflyer.

You are right that the Bae's would be too small for the morning feeders to/from LHR but the A319 is going to be too big for the other slots. My point was that it would have been easier and better for SN to take a Bae146 back in service and to shuffle between B737/A319 capacity to LHR in the morning and Bae capacity in the afternoon/evening.
Granted the Bae's aren't exactly efficient aircraft but sitting on the tarmac they only generate lost opportunity and other costs whereas the wetlease BD A319's operating only LHR flights have no advantage whatsoever.

[Conti764]

Granted the Bae's aren't exactly efficient aircraft but sitting on the tarmac they only generate lost opportunity and other costs whereas the wetlease BD A319's operating only LHR flights have no advantage whatsoever.

Since the Bae's are amongst the most unefficient aircraft in SN's fleet they were the logical first choice to be grounded in SN's capacity reducing plan. I assume these planes are owned by SN since they rest inactive at the SN technics hanger, so if they are paid for they actually cost about nothing to the company and definitely less then when they are loosing money in the air.

[cathay belgium]

Since the Bae's are amongst the most unefficient aircraft in SN's fleet they were the logical first choice to be grounded in SN's capacity reducing plan. I assume these planes are owned by SN since they rest inactive at the SN technics hanger, so if they are paid for they actually cost about nothing to the company and definitely less then when they are loosing money in the air.

Why don't sell these planes then ? No market anymore? (AFI?)
Just stocking costs also money, space of stocking, little maintanance,..
Use them or get rid off them,no ?
Or am I missing something?

CX-B

[HighInTheSky]

Since the Bae's are amongst the most unefficient aircraft in SN's fleet they were the logical first choice to be grounded in SN's capacity reducing plan. I assume these planes are owned by SN since they rest inactive at the SN technics hanger, so if they are paid for they actually cost about nothing to the company and definitely less then when they are loosing money in the air.

Why don't sell these planes then ? No market anymore? (AFI?)
Just stocking costs also money, space of stocking, little maintanance,..
Use them or get rid off them,no ?
Or am I missing something?

CX-B

They need a 3 million dollar overhaul... Who want's to pay that kind of money for old, ineffecient planes?

[tolipanebas]

Since the Bae's are amongst the most unefficient aircraft in SN's fleet they were the logical first choice to be grounded in SN's capacity reducing plan. I assume these planes are owned by SN since they rest inactive at the SN technics hanger, so if they are paid for they actually cost about nothing to the company and definitely less then when they are loosing money in the air.

Why don't sell these planes then ? No market anymore? (AFI?)
Just stocking costs also money, space of stocking, little maintanance,..
Use them or get rid off them,no ?
Or am I missing something?

CX-B

They need a 3 million dollar overhaul... Who want's to pay that kind of money for old, ineffecient planes?

This is indeed fully correct; in short:

the frames are fully owned and fully depreciated indeed, so NOT flying them doesn't cost SN any money at all.

They are parked on the Brussels airlines premisses, so parking them doesn't cost SN any money.

they get long storage maintenance done to them by Brussels Airlines technicians, so this costs SN only minimal money.

they've neared a certain number of flight hours, so they'd need to undergo a full overhaul before they can be used for a long time again, which would cost several million euro's.

they are up for sale, but due to the crisis, nobody is in search of planes close to their overhaul limits and SN has opted to keep them and wait for better times, rather than to let them go below real world value now.

2 planes have already undergone the full overhaul (notably those for Air DC), but those won't be put back in service in Europe, as there are still other plans for those...

[NCB]

The storage and little MX don't cost alot of money but lost opportunity cost have a price.
Lost opportunity cost is a very important factor in this case since SN also has a crew overstaffing issue. SN lost the opportunity to generate revenue with this stored equipment using their own staff and will have to do so with wetleased equipment. Even though the aircraft have already been depreciated, the true cost of operation is a combination of purchase cost, lifecycle cost, residual value in the market and inflation:

[(Purchase cost corrected for inflation - residual value) / hours (cycles or years) operated in revenue generation]
Ex.: Aircraft A used full time for 20 years, Aircraft B stored for 6 years during 20 years of ownership
($20M - $1M) / 50 000 hours = lifecycle cost of 380$ per hour
($20M - $4M) / 35 000 hours = lifecycle cost of 457$ per hour
Lost opportunity cost due to storage = 77$ per hour over full lifecycle = 2 pax revenues lost on every flight!!

Since there is no market for these birds right now nor in the foreseeable future, we can regard SN extending the leases on some of their leased Avro's as a strategic mistake. Using your owned equipment is always better than leasing equipment and keeping your own owned aircraft in storage...
SN is not the only one trying to get rid of their Bae's. The entire LH Group (and their respective lessors) has some 100 Bae's they need to get rid of...

Whoever told you about the 3 million dollar overhaul was not being frank with you, even if it were for a D-check. SN does its own base maintenance and for a RJ, I wouldn't budget alot more than 1 million dollars (cultivated guess) even for a very big check with some unforeseen repairs, unless you plan to replace the engines with brand new ones, for which there is no need since SN has its own engine shop and a decent amount of engines to rotate.

[LX-LGX]

[(Purchase cost corrected for inflation - residual value) / hours (cycles or years) operated in revenue generation]
Ex.: Aircraft A used full time for 20 years, Aircraft B stored for 6 years during 20 years of ownership
($20M - $1M) / 50 000 hours = lifecycle cost of 380$ per hour
($20M - $4M) / 35 000 hours = lifecycle cost of 457$ per hour
Lost opportunity cost due to storage = 77$ per hour over full lifecycle = 2 pax revenues lost on every flight!!

It's obvious, once again, that you are excellent with Google but not familiar with aviation and not familiar with Brussels Airlines.

($10M - $1M) / 50 000 hours = lifecycle cost of 180$ per hour
($10M - $4M) / 35 000 hours = lifecycle cost of 171$ per hour

Brussels Airlines has not bought or leased aircraft valued at 20m USD. Actually, it was the big boss himself who did the negociations with the lease companies, back in 2002, and the result was spectacular. I've witnessed another deal at that time from very closeby: the lease of a wide body in excellent shape just for back up was signed "paid by the hour" (yes, Google will tell you all about this). I've visited the storage at Chateauroux in 2002, and lease companies were desperate at that time.

So your calculation is worthless.

The more Brussels Airlines uses its BAe's, the closer they come to the C or D. The non hostile agreement with British Midland makes sense.

[NCB]

It's obvious, once again, that you are excellent with Google but not familiar with aviation and not familiar with Brussels Airlines.

($10M - $1M) / 50 000 hours = lifecycle cost of 180$ per hour
($10M - $4M) / 35 000 hours = lifecycle cost of 171$ per hour

I'm going to make 2 points clear:
In the above you're presuming that I'm talking of the Bae146.
This is just an example and does not relate to any aircraft type, it's comparatively applicable for most aircraft types.
Not only did you not realise that but your assumption that you can buy any aircraft type for $10M and resell it for $4M 20 years later is very naive. Amen to that.

Second, you're supposing that British Aerospace sold their new -146's to DAT, for $10M a piece corrected for inflation. As a matter of fact, they didn't even sell their ATP's at those prices, no matter how many you ordered.

Last but not least:
Just in case you're not following, we're talking of the stored ex-DAT aircraft that are going to be kept on the ground and not the leased ones.

C or D check don't matter since SN is not going to START replacing their Avro's until 2013/2014.
Better do a D-check now and use the Bae's until they're replaced (and even after as charter/spare/summer hike) than storing them, stubbornly try to sell them for peanuts and nod at LH's attempt to save money on SN's behalf. Just do your math, BD's wetlease even at cost would cost SN $300K per month. If instead they would have taken one of the stored aircraft, they would have only paid around $20-30K per month for insurance and maintenance and relieved part of the overcrewing issues (10 crews = 50 000$ per month of savings!!), meaning that even a D-check would have been a great bargain.
That is my point.

It's time that you stop taking your cheap shots at me, you're making yourself ridiculous and turning every thread on the forums into your personal frustration relief center.

[LX-LGX]

Just do your math...

I can't. I don't have access to the software that airlines use to calculate OPS, lease costs, maintenance, etc.

It's time that you stop taking your cheap shots at me, you're making yourself ridiculous and turning every thread on the forums into your personal frustration relief center.

NCB, why don't you stay on topic? This should go about SN/BD on LHR, not about another discovery by you of yet another financial disaster at Brussels Airlines (again). Trust someone will open another topic "should Brussels Airlines operate the 146 or the ARJ?" for you.

Fact is : you are totally unaware of the lease conditions, signed in 2002. I'm telling you that it is impossible to calculate operational costs if you have to guess for them.

[HighInTheSky]

I just noticed that BMI removed the message concerning the BRU and AMS flights from there homepage. Why do BMI and SN have to make it such a soap?

[Conti764]

Since there is no market for these birds right now nor in the foreseeable future, we can regard SN extending the leases on some of their leased Avro's as a strategic mistake. Using your owned equipment is always better than leasing equipment and keeping your own owned aircraft in storage...

The leasing rates on the Avro's are known to be (very?) positive for SN and the Avro's are far more efficient then the Bae's... The Bae's are paid for, unefficient and SN had an overcapacity. It is wise to ground them. And a problem of overstaffing is not as big as the problem you would have from deploying your crews on thirsty planes on very thin routes...

SN is not the only one trying to get rid of their Bae's. The entire LH Group (and their respective lessors) has some 100 Bae's they need to get rid of...

Says enough, doens't it?

Whoever told you about the 3 million dollar overhaul was not being frank with you, even if it were for a D-check. SN does its own base maintenance and for a RJ, I wouldn't budget alot more than 1 million dollars (cultivated guess) even for a very big check with some unforeseen repairs, unless you plan to replace the engines with brand new ones, for which there is no need since SN has its own engine shop and a decent amount of engines to rotate.

Well, you guess. Says enough for me...