Brussels Airlines to start US service in 2012

[Atlantis]

And the evening flight, if the main purpose of this route is feeding the African network would an evening flight be logic? On the other side like mentioned before there is a gap in the afternoon.

Greetings,

Hi SNAM,

Yes it is logic because an evening flight to JFK means that the airplane will land back at BRU just after noon. Then you have the second Africa wave of SN.

[SN1203]

Yes it is logic because an evening flight to JFK means that the airplane will land back at BRU just after noon. Then you have the second Africa wave of SN.

So what do you do then with your passengers arriving out of Africa in the morning? Let them wait for half a day? And even if SN would have two afternoon departures to Africa, what do you do with the other African destinations? It doesn't sound so logic to me...

[geoffrey11]

The T-pier will now almost filled with A333's? And what will they do with Jet Airways, Jet may fly to Miami or Chicago. Or Jet will fly direct to JFK from India or Jet and SN on the same morning flight to JFK. Competition on the other hand, Delta Airlines and American Airlines will be feeling that SN flies to JFK.

[SNam]

So what do you do then with your passengers arriving out of Africa in the morning? Let them wait for half a day? And even if SN would have two afternoon departures to Africa, what do you do with the other African destinations? It doesn't sound so logic to me...

You clearly stated what i was thinking of, i have some mixed feelings about this.
For me it is more logical that Brussels Airlines invests more in Africa and try to gain a better presence over there then operate to an already good served market by alliance partners.

Greetings,

[cnc]

So what do you do then with your passengers arriving out of Africa in the morning? Let them wait for half a day? And even if SN would have two afternoon departures to Africa, what do you do with the other African destinations? It doesn't sound so logic to me...

You clearly stated what i was thinking of, i have some mixed feelings about this.
For me it is more logical that Brussels Airlines invests more in Africa and try to gain a better presence over there then operate to an already good served market by alliance partners.

Greetings,

IF its going to be JFK there's still 9W for the morning flight

[Shuttie]

No one has mentioned the other part of the announcement today... that they have purchased a hanger and are moving more into maintenance.
Which hanger have they purchased ?
Any thoughts on how much maintenance services can be supplied to other airlines ?

[jan_olieslagers]

No good if you must buy your hangers. I was lucky to get mine from creation...
Or could it be you meant a hangar?

[Kabila]

If there is one destination that they should consider, it's definitely Houston. And there are some very good reasons for them to pick Houston:

1. No one operates non stop service on the Brussels - Houston - Brussels stretch. No direct competition.
2. Houston is the 4th largest city in the USA, population wise
3. Houston is a typical business destination
4. Oil capital of the world, with headquarters of some of the largest oil companies
5. Usually high yielding destination. The oil dollars usually pay for premium business class
6. Natural location. Possibility to offer code share connections to the west, east, north and south from Houston, thanks to the soon to be biggest UA hub. This will permit SN to offer one stop South and Central American destinations such as Mexico City, Cancun, Buenos Aires, Lima, Quito, Guatemala and many more from Brussels.
7. If timed well, possibility to feed African and European flights into the Houston flight and creating unique city pairs with little or no competition
8. Lure away passengers from AF and KLM, who make huge profits on their oil run to Houston
9. Houston has a considerable Indian population. Code share possibilities with 9W, who can offer Houstonians one stop service to Chennai, Mumbai and Delhi and offering 9W a fourth destination in the USA without own investment and risks.

[cnc]

If there is one destination that they should consider, it's definitely Houston. And there are some very good reasons for them to pick Houston:

1. No one operates non stop service on the Brussels - Houston - Brussels stretch. No direct competition.
2. Houston is the 4th largest city in the USA, population wise
3. Houston is a typical business destination
4. Oil capital of the world, with headquarters of some of the largest oil companies
5. Usually high yielding destination. The oil dollars usually pay for premium business class
6. Natural location. Possibility to offer code share connections to the west, east, north and south from Houston, thanks to the soon to be biggest UA hub. This will permit SN to offer one stop South and Central American destinations such as Mexico City, Cancun, Buenos Aires, Lima, Quito, Guatemala and many more from Brussels.
7. If timed well, possibility to feed African and European flights into the Houston flight and creating unique city pairs with little or no competition
8. Lure away passengers from AF and KLM, who make huge profits on their oil run to Houston
9. Houston has a considerable Indian population. Code share possibilities with 9W, who can offer Houstonians one stop service to Chennai, Mumbai and Delhi and offering 9W a fourth destination in the USA without own investment and risks.

did you take the distance and SN fleet in consideration? IAH is too far away for the A333's

[sn26567]

did you take the distance and SN fleet in consideration? IAH is too far away for the A333's

Dallas Fort Worth (also in Texas) was not too far away for Sabena's A332s! Are you sure the next acquisition will be an A333?

[Bralo20]

The "old" A333's have a range between 4.500 en 4600nm depending on the engines though the newer ones are having a range of about 5.500 to 5.800nm... So if they aquire a later model IAH should be possible. Even SFO should then be possible though I doubt that 300nm of spare range would be enough.

I guess we'll have to wait a couple of months to see which plane they acquired and what route they be flying... AFAIK there are still 2 A332's owned by LX up for sale, maybe they can be transferred to SN?

[cnc]

did you take the distance and SN fleet in consideration? IAH is too far away for the A333's

Dallas Fort Worth (also in Texas) was not too far away for Sabena's A332s! Are you sure the next acquisition will be an A333?

thats true but its not a smart move to have a route only 1 of your aircrafts can fly without heavy load restrictions and if its an A332 it will be much harder to rotate aircrafts when one go's technical.
i guess we'll know a lot more once we know which aircraft nr6 will be

[Boavida]

It's time for some SN 747's!

[BrusselsAirlines]

http://m.standaard.be/artikel.xhtml?contentid=1786909

Basically they are putting 3 aircraft on the ground versus 1 330 in the air.

Anybody knows which aircraft these will be - cutting capacity on Faro, malaga, catania - will this probably result in end of lease of 2 737 & 1 rj85??

What with the (regional) capacity for next summer?? We're already in under capacity and (too) many wetleases... fi flight to Bristol - almost fully booked 2 months in advance - but with only 45pax possible on the Embraer - how many potential pax are we leaving behind??
Will this mean many more 319-320 for S2012??

What if its 73's leaving the fleet with the pilots not willing to abandon their old Sabena-Virgin contracts...
Maybe they'll stay on B with a 747 indeed

Soit, many questions that remain open!

[BrusselsAirlines]

About the 330 300/200, rumour goes ClubM would like us to fly pax to Mauritius...

[HighInTheSky]

About the 330 300/200, rumour goes ClubM would like us to fly pax to Mauritius...

I wouldn't count on that if I were you

[diminbru]

It's time for some SN 747's!

no it won't be a 747

[DannyVDB]

Hi all,

I just read on airliners.net:

"All current A333 will be sent for a complete cabin upgrade (with the new LH-group IFE) from the beginning of 2012. 6th 330 will be A332 from LX entering SN fleet late 2011. At first it will only replace the A333 getting its cabin upgrade, once all are refitted, it will be deployed on the new US-route."

Can anyone confirm? Would make sense. In addition, 7th plance could be an A332 as well ... I wandered if LH would keep all its A340 when more and more A380 are coming in ...

If they will start flights to JFK or EWR, I will book immediately my tickets

Cheers,
Danny

[tolipanebas]

I strongly feel that for their first US destination, they should play it safe and head daily for New York, given this is still the main gate of entry to the US market and the point of origin for most of their current US customers. It's all very nice to dream about new transatlantic destinations served from BRU, but why should SN have to create a completely new pax flow from a place like BOS when they can just make live easy by funneling long-established pax flows from the NY area -now inconveniently spread out over a UA and two 9W flights, or worse even a DL or AA flight- onto a single flight of their own? Consolidating all their customers from New York onto a single flight of their own will give them a good headstart for sure!

Now, as to the question which airport to serve in New York, I'd opt for JFK, because it is nearest to the districts which see large African communities and it is not being served from BRU by STAR.
Sure, a JFK flight woudn't offer much connectivity at the other end, but then that's not the aim, IMHO.
SN just wants to fly passengers connecting through BRU across the pond on their own metal, just like UA wants to fly pax connecting through EWR across the ocean themselves too, so whoever connects through EWR will preferably be booked on the existing UA flight anyway, meaning there's no real added benefit left in serving EWR, other than the fact EWR is somewhat more convenient to get to from Manhattan than JFK, but then we're really starting to talk details here.

Given an SN flight to NY is going to be aimed mainly at attracting connecting pax to/from Africa it needs to offer good connectivity, so I'd step out of the way and say it should be a morning flight just as all the other transatlantic flights serving BRU, rather than an evening flight like many seem to expect; on JFK, a single daily evening flight just doesn't make sense for SN.

Now, if they'd go to EWR over JFK after all, then of course they'd better serve it in the evening and take full benefit of the connectivity offered by UA, but such an evening flight would make far more sense for UA than it would for SN, hence I feel it should be operated by UA (for instance on 757), if ever.
Seriously, SN better add a lot of other and far more lucrative destinations in the USA before they ever turn their eye to an evening EWR flight!

[sn-remember]

Totally agree with previous post of Tolipanebas.
To me it's a no brainer it will be JFK.
And that they will use the A332 on the route.
However as was agreed by most luchtzakkers in different threads, I would have thought expansion in AFI would have had the priority. So much opportunities for SN on this market still to be exploited.
BRU growing as an AFI hub for *A is still to me the obvious priority.
I should have thought next 3 or 4 A33x would serve AFI and only the 4 further NA.
But it's interesting they seem to think at last about new markets and l/h expansion.