BrusselsAirlines - the TURBOPROPS will come!

[RoMax]

Hmm, I must admit I didn't read your whole post NCB/Flogger/Flanker/???, but really... Your idea was that SN should order A LOT of Q400NG's to form almost the whole European fleet (combined with A319LR's for long haul...). And now SN is thinking about more turboprops to save fuel. But you seem to believe they will now really replace the whole fleet with Q400's?

NO: The 3 B737's will leave, to costly and not needed in winter (AGP, PMI, ... need less frequenties in winter). They are NOT replaced by turboprops, probably they will be replaced with A319/A320's after summer (will probably depend on the financial situation of SN at that time). The RJ's are being replaced partly by A319's, a part will stay until a ordered replacement will come (at least I assume) and some may be replaced by turboprops in the near future. For the reason so many people already explained, some routes just do not support the expensive RJ's wich they can't even fill on some routes. There are routes wich would be better operated by turboprops. This doesn't mean the whole RJ fleet will be replaced by turboprops.

BTW, do you remember the time SN announced the extra A319's and A320's? I found the routes where they would deploy them (GVA, CPH, HAM, TXL, PRG...). And I said: "you see it was true, LH will to the same with SN as it did with OS, like Tolipanebas tried to explain to you". You said to me that you don't believe these A32S would stay on that routes, you were convinced that it wouldn't work. Did you see the most recent June numbers, the pax numbers are up very much, the loadfactor is up more than 5% while they are using bigger aircraft... Ok the financial part is another story, but that is highly affected by the high fuel 'costs for the B737's and Avro's. Earlier this year SN confirmed that their new strategy of bigger aircraft (on certain routes wich can sustain that, whe never claimed something else) and the more aggressive way of pricing is working.
So is it really SO difficult to convince that you were not true "at a certain moment"?

[Flanker]

The issue is that we're mixing up 2 things here.
Mainline and regional are perhaps the right terms to use here.

-On mainline routes, SN needs to replace the Avro's by A32S's, so yes to larger aircraft!
-On regional routes, SN can't replace the Avro's by Cseries. No to larger aircraft! Here SN needs the TP's.
Also, as I said numerous times and surprisingly now Tolipanebas agrees, some TP's can operate along the A32S on the mainline routes to add frequency and operate the less busy flights.

I think that SN have already done an assessment of their needs.
My guesstimates are that the 26 Avro's and several B737's will be replaced by 30 TP's + options for new routes.

The reason why I think that some of the B737's will be replaced by TP's:
-SN will probably have a 15 strong A32S fleet by end 2012, plus some B737's, which is sufficient to cover the mainline routes.
-Some less busy frequencies of the mainline routes currently operated by A32S/B737 will be flown by TP's, so that the B737/A32S can be used to operate other mainline flights. Example: NCE.
-Some routes like Berlin, could become high frequency operations.
-Some seasonal holiday routes like PMI can better be operated with TP's rather than B737/A32S. In the summer the B737/A32S are fine, in the winter you wish you could cut them in half and use them separately. With the smaller TP's you can increase frequency during the summer to maintain the capacity to A32S/B737 levels, during the winter you can reduce the frequency on the seasonal routes, while still operating them profitably.

[RoMax]

Well at least we agree at some points. Yes certain routes or certain frequenties can/should be flown with TP's to optimise these routes. And yes the TP's and the A32S can co-exist in SN's fleet. But I don't agree with the number of TP's you give: 30 TP's...really I think this is too much. SN can use a certain amount of TP's, but not 30.

[SN1203]

At that time, I wrote to b.air customer relations to suggest they try out a wet-leased 50-seater turboprop. The answer was : wet-leases are too expensive ! Now they are apparently going for such an option (was I such a bad armchair manager to suggest something which is now going to be put into practice ?).
Or is it just again the usual "over-careful" attitude of b.air ?

Sorry to say so but you are an 'armchair manager' indeed. A wetlease for the SXB route in the past would have been nonsense, and in fact even today it would still be a challenge and pose problems. But I can understand that if you combine "empty flights" with "short regional destination", you could think that SXB could just be shifted to a turboprop without any further impact.

[cnc]

I think that SN have already done an assessment of their needs.
My guesstimates are that the 26 Avro's and several B737's will be replaced by 30 TP's + options for new routes.

5 to 10 TP's seems more realistic.
i guess you can't know this but even though the avro's have a low average LF the belly space is far from underused.

[Flanker]

There's also another way of viewing it that's maybe more clear.
Let's look at SN's short to medium haul fleet in 2014.
It will be composed of TP's and A32S.

My assessment:
35 TP's, 20 A32S most likely
30 TP's, 20 A32S, possible but then there would be no new routes with the TP's
25 TP's, 25 A32S, not likely until the TP's have the time to develop the routes into A32S routes.

Interesting facts that can be found using Google:
The Q400 burns 750kg/h cruising at 580km/h. (2,3l per 100km)
The A319 burns around 2300kg/h cruising at 820km/h. (2,5l per 100km)
The Avro RJ85 burns around 2100kg/h cruising at 760km/h. (4,2l per 100km)
1 LITER ~1.00$

Also interesting for the professionals: the Q400NG don't require a daily maintenance check (if approved by the local authority).

i guess you can't know this but even though the avro's have a low average LF the belly space is far from underused.

I've never heard of significant amounts of cargo being loaded on the Avro's. I just don't know, so I'll have to take your word for it.


The people living in the surroundings of the airport will be the greatest beneficiaries. The TP's have very small noise footprints compared to the jets.

[tolipanebas]

Your idea Flanker, was that SN should order A LOT of Q400NG's to form almost the whole European fleet (combined with A319LR's for long haul...).
NO: The RJ's are being replaced partly by A319's, a part will stay until a ordered replacement will come and some may be replaced by turboprops in the near future.
For the reason so many people already explained, some routes just do not support the expensive RJ's wich they can't even fill on some routes. There are routes wich would be better operated by turboprops. This doesn't mean the whole RJ fleet will be replaced by turboprops.

Indeed.

This is called fleet diversification, driven by the simple fact that using the biggest possible plane for any route is the best way to have both the lowest unit costs as well as the biggest chance to take the largest possible market share.

I've said numerous times and surprisingly now Tolipanebas agrees, some TP's can operate along the A32S on the mainline routes to add frequency and operate the less busy flights..

No you didn't say that, sir: as Mr_Boeing reminded us off once more, you've promoted beyond any reasoning the insane idea SN needed to replace pretty much all of their current RJs with Q400s while at the same time they should also be getting rid of their A330s in favour of much more A319LRs for Africa and they could then mis-use some of them on some trunk EU routes only...

So in essense, you were dead wrong as you were thinking too small all the time, not just once (on the A319 being far too big to ever replace a single RJ even), not even twice (on the A330s needing to be replaced by scores of A319LRs), but trice even (on the huge fleet of Q400s).

Really, it's the same as if a family of 4 is getting a new car, with you calling for just a Renault Clio as this is the cheapest car around and offers all that is needed, whereas others in the family think ahead and want something bigger. In the end an SUV is taken so as to have more comfort, flexibility and space, always interesting as the kids are growing up. Now a couple of years later, as the famiy has more individual needs, they are also thinking of getting a second hand Renault Clio so mum can drive around town in it or the grown up kids can get their drivers license all while dad is away with the SUH, yet you see it as proof your original idea to just get the Clio was spot on!!!

Besides, you have a bad memory if you think I have never seen the need for some turboprobs!
In fact I have been calling for fleet diversification for a long time as Mr_boeing or Cathay Belgium has reminded you off, INCLUDING turboprops.
I even went as far as to suggest the ATR-72-600 and got flamed all over by you as I dared to question the superiority of your so beloved Q400, still remember that? If I suggested the 600 series, I can not have been blind for turboprobs like you suggest, can I?

While I sort out some username issues with the moderators, I, Flogger or NCB...

Username issues aside, you still need to publically appologize for some very inappropriate comments made towards serveral members of this forum while posting as NCB. As you have been explained by the moderators, the standards of behaviour are quite a bit higher on this site than they are on the ones you seem to frequent a bit all too often, hence your rather straight forwards black-and-white thinking...
On this site, there's no such a thing like a penalty box (e.g. a 30 day ban) after which you can return full blast and continue with the usual ranting or name calling: here we stand up to the challenge and take full responsability for what was said. I expect you to do just that, just like we all do.

If you really want to push avant gardist ideas for SN, why don't you spend your time on 2 concept planes that do have great potential to significantly turn around things, WITHOUT any of the commercial handicaps a turboprop comes with?
the Cseries as A319 replacement at SN
the A321NEO as A330 replacement at SN

[diminbru]

I guess that Flanker or NCB or whatever username this person is using, he/she must be a Bombardier sales rep/turbo prop devision...lolol...
just a joke, sorry bout that
now serious, anyone an idea where these TB's will come from? Is there any availability within the LH group?

[HighInTheSky]

Just found out that SN is now on the costumer list of Bombardier...
http://q400nextgen.com/en/#/q400/worldw ... orseurope/

Maybe a mistake? As far as I know there hasn't been a final choice yet...

[BrusselsAirlines]

now serious, anyone an idea where these TB's will come from? Is there any availability within the LH group?

Ok,we're back on track:)

Anybody any more short term info???

Btw: flying the lower levels = less eurocontrol slots...

[RoMax]

Just found out that SN is now on the costumer list of Bombardier...
http://q400nextgen.com/en/#/q400/worldw ... orseurope/

Maybe a mistake? As far as I know there hasn't been a final choice yet...

Don't know for how long it is there, but it may just be the Q400 wet lease of Austrian Arrows. It may be a mistake, but the wet lease sounds more logicall.
Anyway if SN would like to use TP's, they could order some. The Q400NG is the (as far as I know) the best TP at this moment (there is also the ATR72-600, but isn't this one slower, much slower?). For short, thin routes it would fit SN's fleet (but we are not talking about 35-25 aircraft like Flanker/NCB says, seems way too much).
But I wonder if SN would order new TP's, just lease some, or even just wet lease them.

[Flanker]

Mr. Tolipanebas, relax.

Fact is, that in a dual fleet of TP's and A32S, there's going to be more than 10 TP's.
You can't replace 26 Avro's by 15 A32S and 10 TP's.
If you look at the end of the year, 6 A32S's will have replaced 4 B737's (LTM inclusive) and 5 RJ85's. As TP's start coming in next year, it would look more like a 4 for 4, B737 to A319 replacement, with 2 additional A320's for Club Med and the TP's replacing the 5 RJ85's. Even more RJ85's come off lease next year so it may become a very busy year.

The higher volume during the summer is great but we don't know the impact on the yields. Either way I think that it was a good move as it gave more passengers the possibility to fly SN instead of FR, which is publicity for SN and hits FR.

I still think that a red-eye A320 operation to Africa is a serious consideration.
The only problem right now and I remind you again of what I said back then, is that :
-SN doesn't have U.S. feeding in the evening, so any A320 operation would have to fly during the day, which is a no-go as it affects aircraft availability for intra-Europe.
-SN management isn't convinced that a real business class configuration is viable on intra-Europe, so A320 aircraft can't ideally cross-operate Europe and Africa.

For those who have seen it, the business class on LTM is exactly the business cabin I would put on every and each A32S and also on the TP's. I think that to have a successful short-haul operation, you need to maximize revenues from the business class by offering an adequate product that attracts passengers.
A full 12 seat business class on an A32S is a break-even on every flight.

[HighInTheSky]

Just found out that SN is now on the costumer list of Bombardier...
http://q400nextgen.com/en/#/q400/worldw ... orseurope/

Maybe a mistake? As far as I know there hasn't been a final choice yet...

Don't know for how long it is there, but it may just be the Q400 wet lease of Austrian Arrows. It may be a mistake, but the wet lease sounds more logicall..

Ofcourse, didn't think about that! Is the logical explanation indeed

[Flanker]

Don't know for how long it is there, but it may just be the Q400 wet lease of Austrian Arrows. It may be a mistake, but the wet lease sounds more logicall.

It's from the wet-lease. It's been there for months.

Btw: flying the lower levels = less eurocontrol slots...

The lower level slots are the easier to get. It's more difficult to get the higher slots because there's a huge flow of cruising traffic flying in the MUAC zone, hence why many SN flights are forced to stay at the lower, less crowded flight levels for longer. The much lower optimum altitude of the TP's will save SN a lot of fuel and the slots will get easier to get.

[BrusselsAirlines]

One austrian dash 8 for testphase = OK + Two embraer BMI for lack of summer capacity = troublesome but ÕK

More wetlease to take over production in winter = not OK, I guess operational crew will not be accepting any more outsider interference...

A hot social summer was predicted - I guess they ment winter

[tolipanebas]

you just dont want to get it, dont you?
there is not going to be a dual fleet at SN, but rather a diverse fleet, more suitable for the network. thinking any flight for which the A319 is too big is going to be operated by a prop is insane. OSL on a turboprop for instance? in your dreams maybe...
reality is there will be a 100-seater needed too and this is going to be the backbone of the mediumhaul.
props are going to be used on a limited number of shorthaul thin routes which can not be stimulated and lack much competition; thats about 20% of the network at present: on the rest they are a waste and a handicap due to their small size.

[Flanker]

SN doesn't need a 100 seater.

Let's take the example of OSL.
OSL is a 600nm/1100km route currently served twice a day by SN and twice a day by SK.
SN is using the Avro's and SK is using the B737's.
Ryanair operates to the other Oslo airport daily at sharp fares.

What does this tell us about the route?
It's a long thin route with little profit potential.
If you go twice daily with a CS100 instead of the Avro's, nothing changes except you have 10 to 20 more seats to sell but no way to convince new customers to come and fill them.
The amount you save on fuel compared to the Avro, you're going to pay more on leasing.

With a TP,
-you can go just replace the Avro's twice daily service and save a lot of money OR
-go 3 daily iso 2 daily to offer the same capacity but more frequency and at a lower cost as twice daily with CS100. With 2 daily CS100 flights you'll burn 14 tons of fuel while only burning 12 tons on 3 daily Q400NG flights.
The 3 Q400NG flights will cost slightly more on crew and handling costs, but be cheaper on landing fees, maintenance and leasing. Parking is also cheaper, for the night stops.

Once SN has established a good customer basis, it can gradually replace the frequencies by a A319.
To build a good customer basis you need to work with fares, network connections and frequency.
Those things matter to customers, not the airframe type.

If customers don't mind sitting on the new Lufthansa benches for 2 hours, they won't mind being on a good TP seat for 2.5 hours.

[Flanker]

It's also apparent that adding 10 x 100 seaters, beyond the economic viability, also poses a fleet complexity problem.

We get it. You want to fly a jet.
Besides you, there's over 3000 other people working for SN, among them a lot of people who have to work much harder for less money than you, whose future paychecks will depend greatly on this decision.
This is a time for all to come together and admit that it's in the interest of everyone: the staff, the shareholders, the management, the airport, the environment and the people living around the airport.

One more thing.
If really we have to wait for the CS100 to replace the Avro's, let that be in 2014 (very optimistic), then by the time they start rolling in, SN would still have only 6 A330's and have burned up all remaining liquidity due to high fuel prices.

With the savings made by the TP's, SN will finally be able to add A330 after A330 after A330 and make LH exercise its options.

[cathay belgium]

Hi,

@NCB/Flanker/Flogger ( our deathly communist bomber ),

Nice your review on a TP routing to OSL but this is the same story IMHO as few months ago..

Guess reports of June shows us you're wrong to downsize aircraft, and now you're trying to sell us
-again- the same stuff...

NO, OSLO won't be served with TP, yes for AMS-Bordeaux-Birmingham?-Cardiff?-UK/German/French cities..
everything beyong isn't worth the discussion I guess..

SN isn't Air Baltic or so.. yes TP are cheaper but people will prefer a FR bird and FR price above SN's TP..
simply because it's too small..for nice quality operations, people will say it was a bit more than FR but what a small plane it was ... people aren't right with it (yet).. so it's bad PR also..

If you want sell SN as a quality product above FR you don't have to push people in a economic prop for 2,5 hours !

30 props for SN at BRU ?? Maximum 5 I would say..

OLD SN had how many leasings of Schreiner Airways Props, I guess it were 3 and a lot of A32X and A330/A340,
so I think that's the future but replace the A340 by A332, B737/AVRO's replaced with A32X and for the 100 seater the CS-series when available or for the near future some EMB190..

More frequency isn't needed on every route.. what's the need for 5 flights with small TP instead of 3 flights, a gap of only 2/3 hours on a low density route BTW

>Maybe you need the extra props for flying the catering around , sorry couldn't help it>

CX-B , still the same backpacker

NCB ,what's next ? I guess you''re next return is 'Fishbed'

[tolipanebas]

assume 2 airlines: 1 with Q400 the other A319. Both start selling seats at the same time, months in advance, with high yield only at the end. Using the smallest plane of both operators on the route means you'll either have to increase ticket prices as first one and thus content yourself with the smallest market share, or you end up with a full plane filled up at rock bottom fares and high yield going to your competitor. both situations put you in an unfavourable position as a network carrier, is really isn't rocket science! I have told you before: where ever you got your ideas from, it was NOT a network airline unless maybe OS until LH came along and applied exactly the same strategy as SN is now also following
You keep thinking BRU to XYZ, whereas it is really ABC to XYZ and so both the total daily market as well as the number of competitors is much bigger; unless ABC or XYZ is an absolute sh*thole a network carrier is badly off with a small plane on the route to it from its hub!