Brussels Airlines' fleet renewal

[TUB023]

i can't say more then i just did

edit:

for the record, what i say, is what i hear, not what i know.
i don't know nothing for certain:)

[NCB]

The diameter of the cabin of the Q400 is much smaller than on the E-jets while they have the same 2-2 configuration. What do you think is the most comfortable, NCB?

The Q400 cabin is 23cm narrower and 5cm less tall, 57cm less long compared to the E170.
There is almost no difference, so I think that you are waisting your time.
But the Q400's interior design meaning overhead bins and seats give a roomier feeling because of better space management. The E-Jets seatbacks have a strange circular shape on the top that is very disturbing.



The fact is that the E170 needs to fly at 58% load factors to break even. The Q400 breaks even at 42%.
This according to airline data on the basis of actual fuel prices, on a 1000km sector sold at an average 70€ (fare only) per person. The E170/E190 would improve SN's economics by about 10%, the Q400 can improve it by 40%.

But again, I think there is too much ego on the board to come up with such a blunt move. Looking good is as important as making money, isn't it?

SN will announce it whenever it fits for LH.

[tolipanebas]

The E170/E190 would improve SN's economics by about 10%, the Q400 can improve it by 40%.

The above is all based on the assumption the type of plane doesn't have an influence on revenues or loadfactors...

Needless to say the type of plane DOES matter for a thousand of reasons, ranging from something as easy to understand as offering the shortest flight times in the GDS, to the more complicated network issues like making sure you still have a real wave movement in your European network by the time also your slowest plane comes back from a destination far away...

As many A380 operators have already been able to experience first hand and have been very vocal about, some planes actually ATTRACT pax, whereas others actually DRIVE them AWAY if there's another option available on the route: the Q400 is in the last category, as also timidly admitted by BE, hence them switching to newly purchased E175s to be deployed on non-UK routes which see fierce competition....

But hey, feel free to create your own company with 40 Q400s feeding your 20 planes strong A320 longhaul fleet... Oh, don't forget to contract a moving company to ship the luggage to destination!

[134flyer]

The Q400 cabin is 23cm narrower and 5cm less tall, 57cm less long compared to the E170.
There is almost no difference

23cm narrower and 5cm less tall; in an environment where every cm counts, I would rather call this a substantial difference...

But hey, feel free to create your own company with 40 Q400s feeding your 20 planes strong A320 longhaul fleet... Oh, don't forget to contract a moving company to ship the luggage to destination!

At least some savings could be made by letting the luggage being shipped by same company who will move the catering around Africa, sorry couldn't resist...

[Captain Remi]

Almost every day, I have a look at this page, hoping to read some news and facts about the possible replacements for Brussels Airlines' ageing fleet...
But each time, it saddens me to see that there are only speculations and people's wildest dreams being discussed here, by self acclaimed fleet managers....


I'm open to anyone's opinion really, but there are +100 posts in this feed, and none of it is a relevant feed with facts and figures. Only imaginative stuff of what each member would do if they would be in charge.
A pitty there is no real news to be shared yet, as at this rate, we will have 500+ similar posts by the time Brussels Airlines (or Lufthansa may'be) decide what they'll actually do...

[cathay belgium]

Ahoy captain !

What did you expect, the announcement will be made al least end 2010 beginning 2011,
if you want real news don't check this page daily !

Altough maybe it isn't the purpose a lot of these discussions give more info on actual
working conditions,planetypes and so on ..
( THX toleplanebas,NCB ,Regi,Boeing and all others ... )
And some off the postings/discussions are funny to read and to follow ..

If you won't real news check daily luchtvaartniews.nl, deredactie.be..

Hi,Thats the fun of this forum ..

And besides.. real info could be blocked by moderators/members because the info contains
strategic info for others companies ...

CX-B

Maybe we can start a poll
SN should buy/lease :
* EMB ( 1 vote )
* ATR
* Q400
* A318
( until CS available )

[Megaman]

* EMB ( 1 vote )
* ATR
* Q400
* A318
* A380 (1 vote)

[diminbru]

* EMB ( 2 votes )
* ATR
* Q400
* A318
* A380 (1 vote)

[fretn]

* EMB ( 3 votes )
* ATR
* Q400
* A318

[* A380 (1 vote)]

[RoMax]

* EMB ( 3 votes )
* ATR
* Q400
* A318
* A380 (1 vote)

[Bralo20]

* EMB ( 4 votes (if 17x/19x) )
* ATR
* Q400
* A318
* A380 (1 vote)
* B747-8i (1 vote)

[RoMax]

* EMB ( 4 votes (if 17x/19x) )
* ATR
* Q400
* A318
* A380 (1 vote)
* B747-8i (1 vote)

Why not. Let Boeing build a Combi version, could be interesting for SN. The right amount of seats and much cargospace. Ok, let's dream on.

[luchtzak]

To avoid a wild-cat poll in this topic an official https://www.aviation24.be poll has been launched, when you disagree vote other and have your say in the poll-topic: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=42682&start=0

[NCB]

I stand by my point and invite other people to discover the Q400 NextGen:


It will change your mind on the Q400 as a contender for SN's fleet replacement.

The CS100 is not suitable at all for SN. For LX that fills its RJ100 fleet at 85%, maybe but not for SN that barely achieves 60% on a mixed fleet of RJ85/100. The CS100 is equivalent to ERJ195 or CRJ1000.
Also, the capital investment is too big for SN.
SN needs to streamline its shorthaul fleet and buying (or leasing) the CS100 means buying (or leasing) something else to replace the RJ85 capacity. That would result in SN having 3 types within its shothaul fleet, which the airline can not afford.

I think that it will be E170/E190's but I do not believe that it is the most financially and environmentally responsible solution.

Bombardier has interesting information on http://www.q400.com/q400/en/turbo.jsp

[Sikiri]

Having flown both the E-195 and the Q-400 with flybe on the AMS-SOU (Southampton) very recently, I have to say that the E-195 is a lot better from the passengers point of view. The problems I had with the Q-400 were as follows. The overhead lockers could not contain a normal travel suitcase. Also, when you are seated next to the window, there is a little plateau in the flooring. This means that you can not put your legs next to each other. Even for this short flight, I did not sit comfortably. If you don't understand what I'm trying to explain. If you look at the movie NCB posted, it can be seen at 4:01. It's the dark grey stuff in the lower left corner.
Also, I experienced turbulence on both the planes, and since the E-195 is bigger, it handles turbulence better.
So, if I, as a passenger, could choose, I would opt for the E-Jet family. Not that the Q-400 is a bad plane, but the E-195 was the obvious winner.

[NCB]

Needless to say the type of plane DOES matter for a thousand of reasons, ranging from something as easy to understand as offering the shortest flight times in the GDS, to the more complicated network issues like making sure you still have a real wave movement in your European network by the time also your slowest plane comes back from a destination far away...

As many A380 operators have already been able to experience first hand and have been very vocal about, some planes actually ATTRACT pax, whereas others actually DRIVE them AWAY if there's another option available on the route: the Q400 is in the last category, as also timidly admitted by BE, hence them switching to newly purchased E175s to be deployed on non-UK routes which see fierce competition....

The Q400 classic compared favorably with the ERJ135/145 in terms of customer attraction.
The updated Q400 NextGen will compare favorably with an E-Jet.
The shortest flight time in the GDS does not matter at all. If anything, frequency is a far better selling point.
Right, the A380 and its popularity. What do you think is going to happen when SN downgrades to E-Jets?
Real wave movement hun. Well SN has only one longhaul departure and one longhaul arrival wave. Waves really only matter for feeding intercontinental flights.

You are very ill-informed. Flybe is not switching to E175's. Flybe has clearly stated that the E175's are for expansion in continental Europe, not as replacement for Q400's. Flybe use the Q400 on thin routes and on business routes that required frequency, no matter the range. The E195 came to replace Flybe's BAe146 routes at its BHX base.

So Tolipanebas, what is your take on SN's fleet renewal? Besides alot of nonsense based on old idea's about turboprops, I haven't read what you suggest for the fleet yet.

The Sukhoi Superjet is a better contender than the E-Jets and a better choice if the board is afraid of turboprops. Really, the Avro RJ85/Avro RJ100 were already too big for SN. Now some long routes they operated with empty RJ85's would better be switched to Q400.

Oh and I still hope that SN goes red eye to Africa with A319, lately I have even been studying an A320 with 2 auxiliary tanks. Am I the only one to want this airline to actually make money and become the pride of a small nation?

[NCB]

Having flown both the E-195 and the Q-400 with flybe on the AMS-SOU (Southampton) very recently, I have to say that the E-195 is a lot better from the passengers point of view. The problems I had with the Q-400 were as follows. The overhead lockers could not contain a normal travel suitcase. Also, when you are seated next to the window, there is a little plateau in the flooring. This means that you can not put your legs next to each other. Even for this short flight, I did not sit comfortably. If you don't understand what I'm trying to explain. If you look at the movie NCB posted, it can be seen at 4:01. It's the dark grey stuff in the lower left corner.
Also, I experienced turbulence on both the planes, and since the E-195 is bigger, it handles turbulence better.
So, if I, as a passenger, could choose, I would opt for the E-Jet family. Not that the Q-400 is a bad plane, but the E-195 was the obvious winner.

The overhead lockers on the Q400 Nextgen are larger than on the E-Jets but I agree that on the Q400 Classics they should have designed them bigger. The Q400 has a larger cabin than the CRJ and saves alot of usable volume over the stylishly round shaped E-Jets overhead bins. I personally find the Q400 to be alot more stable in turbulence than its direct equivalent, the E170. Like on the CRJ (and if my memory serves me well, the E-Jets as well), the floor fittings are there as a cover for air circulation and to optimize the shape of the cabin, so passengers can easily put their foot on them and use them as a partial footrest.
On the E-Jets, you have the same fittings but they are taller and thus uncomfortable to use as footrests, so pardon me if I believe that you are biased.


http://www.flybabooit.com/press_serveur ... t_smal.jpg

[makala]

Good evening,
if I can give a simple personal opinion, a turboprop will always remain a turboprop performance wise.
It can never be beated fuel consumption and noise side but from a certain range (+-300nm?) the flight
time and passenger confort (altitude,speed ,cabin) is becoming an issue and certainly more if there is
a competition with jet airplanes in the same sector with same prices.
The q400 is certainly a good aircraft (as long the anti-vibration system works) but it is just a "niche" tool for
brussels airlines. Th ERJ are already "old" concept aircrafts and not really so competitve if we compare-it to
the Avro RJ familly.(The rj 85 have no equivallent and the RJ100 if you compare-it with the ERJ190 is lighter
and burn more fuel with less cargo capacity...).
In my opinion (just a personal opinion), a good choice can be, why not, the crj705 and/or the crj900 awaiting an all new and ambitious CS series...
When a fleet change work is in progress, the only querry is what the company is looking for and after have
a look in what exist in the market, our own preferences have nothing to do.

[Sikiri]

Like on the CRJ (and if my memory serves me well, the E-Jets as well), the floor fittings are there as a cover for air circulation and to optimize the shape of the cabin, so passengers can easily put their foot on them and use them as a partial footrest.
On the E-Jets, you have the same fittings but they are taller and thus uncomfortable to use as footrests, so pardon me if I believe that you are biased.

Dear NCB, feel free to call me biased. But I have nothing to gain from SN (or any other airline) ordering Embraers. Neither I am one of the many Airbus vs Boeing, or Embraer vs Bombardier people that have been hounting these fora for (what seems like) ages.

My flights on the E-195 and the Q-400 where my first flights on both types, and I was looking forward to experiencing both aircraft. In the end, I found the E-195 the most enjoyable flight of the two. I prefer my foots to stand/lay next to each other. I don't like that my right foot (I was on the starboard side of the plane) is resting (approximately) 10 cm higher then my left foot. I'm sorry if this doesn't fit your preference for the Q-400, but everyone has his own thoughts on what they like or dislike. I'm just sharing my experience with bot types.

[NCB]

That is your opinion and I wouldn't exactly call it a obvious win for the E-Jets.

I see things slightly differently.
Let's play a little game and copy-paste SN's shorthaul network:

Alicante, Athens, Barcelona, Basle, Bergamo, Berlin, Bilbao, Birmingham, Bologna, Bristol, Bucharest, Budapest, Catania, Copenhagen, East Midlands, Edinburgh, Faro, Florence, Frankfurt, Funchal, Geneva, Gothenburg, Hamburg, Hannover, Helsinki, Heraklion, Ibiza, Kiev, Krakow, La Coruña, Larnaca, Leeds, Lisbon, Ljubljana, London, Lyon, Madrid, Malaga, Malta, Manchester, Marseille, Milan, Munich, Naples, Newcastle, Nice, Nuremberg, Oslo, Palermo, Palma de Mallorca, Paris, Porto, Prague, Rhodos, Riga, Rome, Seville, Stockholm, Strasbourg, Stuttgart, Tenerife, Thessaloniki, Toulouse, Turin, Venice, Vienna, Vilnius, Warsaw, Zurich.

Out of these 68 destinations, about 1/3 or 26 destinations can be described as business destinations with high-yields. All the rest are pretty much low yield, leisure, VFR and seasonal destinations.
Now, out of those 26 high yield destinations, the Q400 is within 75 minutes reach of 21 destinations.
68 destinations, 26 high yield of which 21 within 75 minutes from BRU with a Q400.
I think that SN can cover the main high-yield citypairs with A319/A320 and operate all the rest with Q400.

Take a 3 hour (2,5 hours with E190) Q400 flight BRU-Palermo. SN can sell tickets an average of 150 euro cheaper return, fill the entire aircraft, make life tough on Ryanair and make money; or operate with 10 passengers on a E170, lose alot of money and find itself in the same situation as it is now.
As I said, SN doesn't need E170 flying empty on 3 hour sectors in the winter.

SN can cover all leisure and feeding destinations with the Q400 by filling aircraft at reasonable fares, use A319/A320's on those business routes beyond an hour and wherever they need more capacity. That would be very rational as it streamlines the fleet into 2 types which further reduces cost through better leasing contracts and commonality advantages.

If you put RJ's in SN's fleet, on the short routes they are going to be too expensive to operate, the low yield routes can not be sold at attractive fares so they will fly empty in the winter, and otherwise they are going to do a job that the A319's/A320's can do better on the high yield citypairs.
SN is also hampered by Eurocontrol that requires aircraft to fly longer below optimum flight levels above Belgian airspace. No problems for Q400's but huge penalties for jets that have a higher optimum altitude.

And from 2012, emissions trading, airlines will start to pay for every gram of CO2 they generate too much.