BrusselsAirlines - the TURBOPROPS will come!

[cathay belgium]

Besides,

After I reread my post ; the next question is; how can we replace the AVRO with a cheap economic available JET ?
A 100 seater, not so many options I guess, how is EMB190 on the market ? Some old Austrian F100? (could be cheap in meanwhile) ,old B735 of LH , what have LX for cheap birds at the market, as we got too look in the LH family..

That's the question !

CX-B

[tolipanebas]

the RJ100 are going to stay, just as the A330 are going to stay with leases having been extended till 2018. FACT.

[diminbru]

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...

I think it has been there since a few weeks and my idea it's because they wetlease one A/C of Austrian Arrows

edit : sorry Mr Boeing, you already answered this

[Flanker]

the RJ100 are going to stay, just as the A330 are going to stay with leases having been extended till 2018. FACT.

If all the Avro RJ's have the same contract periods, then the RJ100's may indeed stay well into 2014 and even 2015. However, the dual fleet strategy is what's being eyed, see the thread-starter. It's probably going to be A32S and TP's and no other types.
I just don't see a place for the CSeries within SN's fleet in the next decade.

Actually, I'm one of the first to have talked about the Cseries in SN's fleet, dating back to 3 years ago.
Back then, the Cseries was this promising platform of a narrowbody mid-haul jet with RJ economics.
The CS300 has some of that but the CS100 is just useless.
The latest numbers of the CS100 just don't make it a rational fleeting choice. I have no idea why LX has ordered them, it doesn't make sense.

[tolipanebas]

one day back online and you're back at it; LX are just idiots right? Just as LH and more so even SN for using bigger planes on routes where they can't even fill an RJ!

Your turboprop theory is disproved on a daily basis; if I were you I'd stop pushing it: there's only a limited use in turboprops for a network carrier and that is in serving shorthaul thin routes; capacity shrinking \ frequency fragmentation is not an option if one is to grow in the face of competition which is why nobody does it. I hope Air Baltic isn't your inspiration as they are about to go bust! welcome to reality of network carriers;quite something else than VLM type airlines!

[Flanker]

What's Air Baltic got to do with TP's at SN?

If anything, Air Baltic is the perfect example of the airline that realized a little bit too late that it's not sustainable to operate large aircraft on thin, small demand routes.
The Q400's came to the rescue to replace the B737-500's, but it may be too late.

However Air Baltic's issues go beyond its fleet.
For starts, it's operating out of a very small market and its political involvement is horrendous.

Face it, you're showing proof of lack of research and poor market knowledge.


Wait and see how SN turns around in a very short time.
The day the TP's will join the fleet will mark a turning point for SN.

Sure, SN should get a 100 seater in the future but not until it has a fleet of 20 A330's and a real hub like LX in ZRH. And even then, I'd rather choose a CRJ1000 or even E195 solution (with GTF?) over the CS100.
By then (2020?), there will also be 90 seat turboprops available on the market.

[cathay belgium]

Hi,

Air Baltic hasn't anything to do with Sn ( except their code-share to Riga), but they operate a large fleet of props even to BRU's / together with B735.
Don't see a big replacement as there are a lot of B735 with thin seats ( so I don't guess these will be replaced soon) flying around.

But what I meant is the thing you can't push SN into an Air Baltic point of view,regarding fleet as Air Baltic isn't a company like SN, you want to push a prop srtory,like BT in an SN company, it won't work for SN !

TP are/will be the SN solution for short /very short hauls not anything medium,
therefor the RJ100 will stay some more years until another suitable JET will be announced.. a CS?

Don't underestimate the market out of RIX, FR is there a lots of people flying over even in winter ( when I expierced RIX ).
Lot of people are working here and family/business (green markets ) transfers are quite good.

Ncb, are you now talking about 20 A330's for SN, guess that would be great but don't see this happen (1 A330 each next years... maybe ).
Don't expect a large growth of the euro economy in the next years facing our euro problems,financial crisis in Italy-Spain-Greece... think we'll have to wait some 5 years or so at least ( I know I'm pessimistic now,but maybe realistic.. )
In that time the AVRO's are getting really old and Dash8's up to 100 people won't be the big thing to follow IMO.
If cheap the E190 maybe or the CRJ900/1000 but by then CS-series are already in the fleet of the LH group,so we'l see.

NCB, must admit you must be working for Bombardier or so..

We'll see what strategy SN will decide (again )..

CX-B

[Flanker]

Ncb, are you now talking about 20 A330's for SN, guess that would be great but don't see this happen (1 A330 each next years... maybe ).
Don't expect a large growth of the euro economy in the next years facing our euro problems,financial crisis in Italy-Spain-Greece... think we'll have to wait some 5 years or so at least ( I know I'm pessimistic now,but maybe realistic.. )
In that time the AVRO's are getting really old and Dash8's up to 100 people won't be the big thing to follow IMO.
If cheap the E190 maybe or the CRJ900/1000 but by then CS-series are already in the fleet of the LH group,so we'l see.

NCB, must admit you must be working for Bombardier or so..

We'll see what strategy SN will decide (again )..

I'd be more optimistic on the A330 end. I won't say more than that.

The Euro economy is stagnating for a fact. Intra-Europe will become tough in the coming years and worse even, if we have stagflation which seems to be what we're seeing now, oil prices are going to stay high.
However, this (TP's) is an opportunity for SN to save money on short-haul and expand long-haul. Africa won't stop its yearly double digit growth!

As to having 3 types for short-haul, it seems ruled out for now and the foreseeable future according to the thread starter post.

[Yuri166]

Hi,

OLD SN had how many leasings of Schreiner Airways Props, I guess it were 3

For the record, 8 at some point...
5x DHC8-300
1x DHC8-100
2x ATR72-210

[tolipanebas]

As to having 3 types for short-haul, it seems ruled out for now and the foreseeable future according to the thread starter post.

That's really not what he said and it's also not what he ment as I have a very strong feeling the thread starter is basing this topic on a very recent internal presentation by our top-management in which our CEO told us -I quote- "we are looking at some turboprops for thin routes" and also that "we will safe up to 8M by harmonizing our medium haul fleet (meaning exit 737 for more A319s)".

In no way was the comment about turboprops ment as meaning all RJs are going to be replaced by turboprops any time soon, more so even as it was further said that the best way to fight competition on our network is -and I quote again- by further implementing the "cost reduction per seat from using larger aircraft on routes with competition, which is currently 80% of our network."

If you genuinely think that SN will really operate 35 turboprops, you still haven't understood the weaknesses of your concept for a network carrier. Let me explain them to you a final time with clear facts and real figures from an existing airline, NOT some PR figures from google or flightglobal:

The Q400 burns 61% less trip fuel than the RJ on flights of 1 hour, the percentage difference reducing as flight time gets longer because of the slower cruising speed of the Q400.
Fuel is making up about 38% of the operating costs at SN, the rest is leasing, crew, landing and overfly costs etc, so given the rock bottom leasing prices of the RJ and the fact the Q400 needs the same number of crew as an RJ, it means the Q400 could cut the operating costs vs. the RJ with almost 23% per seat ( or 61% x 0,38). I deliberately disregard the landing and overfly fees, as you'll have to fly more on the dense routes with your Q400s to transport the same number of pax, so the lower fees per flight will ballance out pretty nicely with the higher number of flights.

Now, in contrast, you may not believe it, but it is true nevertheless, the A319 is able to offer SN an operating cost advantage of more than 17% vs. the same RJ, thanks to its only slightly higher trip fuel (significantly higher fuel flow, but also a much higher cruise speed) and its much higher seating capability, in part also thanks to the new Recaro seating configuration.

So, combining the 2 means you roughly have an operating cost advantage delta of just over 5% between your idea of downsizing to Q400s or upsizing to A319s.

Definitely far less spectacular than you'd have thought for sure, yet 5% still is not neglectable indeed; however I suggest you particularly pay attention to this part coming now, because here comes the really interesting thing were you keep going wrong, NCB.

Contrary to flybe or old VLM for instance, SN is a full service carrier, global member of the biggest alliance in the world, setting up a true European and long haul hub in BRU. While this clearly attracts far more pax than they ever could as a stand alone point-to-point airline (+18% YTD), it also means SN have a lot of extra costs linked to this strategy, costs which are pretty much fixed and mostly invariable no matter the number of pax. I will not bother you with the exact annual membership fee for STAR for instance, but its a multi-million euro payment and so logic dictates one better has as much pax as possible so as to dilute the cost per pax as far down as possible, and so it is with most of these fixed / overhead costs really...

As such, contrary to a LCC or a tiny little stand alone airline like VLM once used to be, unit costs are not roughly equal the total operating costs per seat for SN; in fact operating costs make up only about half the total costs of a ticket, meaning your total operating cost delta of just over 5% between the Q400 vs. the A319 of before is automatically halfed when you come down to the all important unit cost! So to put it clearly: a unit cost delta of about 2,5%.

Yet for that small residual delta, you get a plane which is more comfortable and more flexible, flies faster and higher (above turbulences or bad weather), can do more rotations a day as it is far faster and more importantly, allows you to transport far far more pax WITHOUT having to invest much in more planes, more staff, more overhead, more spare parts, more ground facilities and stuff if you want to grow further.
In short, for a network airline that wants to grow, it allows you to cut the unit costs far more agressively than the Q400 can, all without much structural expansion, not to mention it also has other revenue generating potential which the Q400 does not have: belly cargo for instance (Yep, 2 tons of African fish on a morning flight to Italy or Spain is really no exception for instance.) Or charter potential (see the Club Med contract). Or maintenance revenue potential (SN is a certified maintenance provider and the A319 is widely used in Europe)!
All that, and much more for a miserable 2,5%, not to mention that this 2,5% allows to grow with almost 20% this year, something you'd need quite a lot of additional Q400s for, and they don't come for free either!

Nope, SN is right: turboprops are good on thin routes only, where you can not play the advantages of the Airbus or even the RJ due to the very low demand and that's exactly why they are finally thinking of getting some, with the rest of the fleet moving towards bigger planes, being RJ100s and A319/A320 for the forseable future.

Besides, I'd love to see the numbers for the Q400 from above with the business class configuration you once proposed here: I am pretty sure any remaining unit cost delta would be whiped away in full, or even worse, be with the A319 now. Seriously, you have shown once more you still have not a single clue about how a network airline operates!

[regi]

As to having 3 types for short-haul, it seems ruled out for now and the foreseeable future according to the thread starter post.

That's really not what he said and it's also not what he ment as I have a very strong feeling the thread starter is basing this topic on a very recent internal presentation by our top-management in which our CEO told us -I quote- "we are looking at some turboprops for thin routes" and also that "we will safe up to 8M by harmonizing our medium haul fleet (meaning exit 737 for more A319s)".

In no way was the comment about turboprops ment as meaning all RJs are going to be replaced by turboprops any time soon, more so even as it was further said that the best way to fight competition on our network is -and I quote again- by further implementing the "cost reduction per seat from using larger aircraft on routes with competition, which is currently 80% of our network."

If you genuinely think that SN will really operate 35 turboprops, you still haven't understood the weaknesses of your concept for a network carrier. Let me explain them to you a final time with clear facts and real figures from an existing airline, NOT some PR figures from google or flightglobal:

The Q400 burns 61% less trip fuel than the RJ on flights of 1 hour, the percentage difference reducing as flight time gets longer because of the slower cruising speed of the Q400.
Fuel is making up about 38% of the operating costs at SN, the rest is leasing, crew, landing and overfly costs etc, so given the rock bottom leasing prices of the RJ and the fact the Q400 needs the same number of crew as an RJ, it means the Q400 could cut the operating costs vs. the RJ with almost 23% per seat ( or 61% x 0,38). I deliberately disregard the landing and overfly fees, as you'll have to fly more on the dense routes with your Q400s to transport the same number of pax, so the lower fees per flight will ballance out pretty nicely with the higher number of flights.

Now, in contrast, you may not believe it, but it is true nevertheless, the A319 is able to offer SN an operating cost advantage of more than 17% vs. the same RJ, thanks to its only slightly higher trip fuel (significantly higher fuel flow, but also a much higher cruise speed) and its much higher seating capability, in part also thanks to the new Recaro seating configuration.

So, combining the 2 means you roughly have an operating cost advantage delta of just over 5% between your idea of downsizing to Q400s or upsizing to A319s.

Definitely far less spectacular than you'd have thought for sure, yet 5% still is not neglectable indeed; however I suggest you particularly pay attention to this part coming now, because here comes the really interesting thing were you keep going wrong, NCB.

Contrary to flybe or old VLM for instance, SN is a full service carrier, global member of the biggest alliance in the world, setting up a true European and long haul hub in BRU. While this clearly attracts far more pax than they ever could as a stand alone point-to-point airline (+18% YTD), it also means SN have a lot of extra costs linked to this strategy, costs which are pretty much fixed and mostly invariable no matter the number of pax. I will not bother you with the exact annual membership fee for STAR for instance, but its a multi-million euro payment and so logic dictates one better has as much pax as possible so as to dilute the cost per pax as far down as possible, and so it is with most of these fixed / overhead costs really...

As such, contrary to a LCC or a tiny little stand alone airline like VLM once used to be, unit costs are not roughly equal the total operating costs per seat for SN; in fact operating costs make up only about half the total costs of a ticket, meaning your total operating cost delta of just over 5% between the Q400 vs. the A319 of before is automatically halfed when you come down to the all important unit cost! So to put it clearly: a unit cost delta of about 2,5%.

Yet for that small residual delta, you get a plane which is more comfortable and more flexible, flies faster and higher (above turbulences or bad weather), can do more rotations a day as it is far faster and more importantly, allows you to transport far far more pax WITHOUT having to invest much in more planes, more staff, more overhead, more spare parts, more ground facilities and stuff if you want to grow further.
In short, for a network airline that wants to grow, it allows you to cut the unit costs far more agressively than the Q400 can, all without much structural expansion, not to mention it also has other revenue generating potential which the Q400 does not have: belly cargo for instance (Yep, 2 tons of African fish on a morning flight to Italy or Spain is really no exception for instance.) Or charter potential (see the Club Med contract). Or maintenance revenue potential (SN is a certified maintenance provider and the A319 is widely used in Europe)!
All that, and much more for a miserable 2,5%, not to mention that this 2,5% allows to grow with almost 20% this year, something you'd need quite a lot of additional Q400s for, and they don't come for free either!

Nope, SN is right: turboprops are good on thin routes only, where you can not play the advantages of the Airbus or even the RJ due to the very low demand and that's exactly why they are finally thinking of getting some, with the rest of the fleet moving towards bigger planes, being RJ100s and A319/A320 for the forseable future.

Besides, I'd love to see the numbers for the Q400 from above with the business class configuration you once proposed here: I am pretty sure any remaining unit cost delta would be whiped away in full, or even worse, be with the A319 now. Seriously, you have shown once more you still have not a single clue about how a network airline operates!

How would it come that I read your reply here as just common sense , normal and understandable business language, causing no immediate blood pressure increase ? Could it be that it IS common sense, from somebody with indepth knowledge , used to handle these figures?
Thank you for your patience. But stay aware not to be dragged again for the third time in the same discussion. Before you know it, you would have to reply why it is no common sense to send Q400 with food, drinks and luggage chasing narrow bodies in Africa.

[Flanker]

Your numbers seem approximately correct in the A319 vs Q400 comparison.
However, the actual delta over the RJ isn't no-where near where described by you. The RJ's are high-maintenance aircraft that require intensive work. The cost delta on the Q400 in maintenance would be in the 70% region.
MRO work is usually at least a factor 5 over crew cost, unfortunately for SN, the Avro brings that to around 8.

The Q400, depending on lease rates, has a small cost per seat advantage over the A319 but none to the A320.
It also makes sense for me to use the A319/A320's to fly the larger routes and use the Q400 on the thin routes. As you said previously, less popular frequencies on the large routes can be done using Q400 equipment, as long as flight times are reasonable.

SN operates a huge amount of thin routes that can't be operated regularily with A319/A320:
PRG, SXB, TLS, HAJ, ATH, BUD, BLQ, CTA, FLR, SUF, MXP, NAP, TRN, VNO, KRK, WAW, FAO, OPO, BIO, AGP, PMI, SVQ, GOT, BHX, BRS, NCL, OSL. 27 routes

Then there are large routes that are better operated with a high frequency TP service:
HAM, MAN, LHR, CPH, CDG, TXL, VIE. 7 routes

Fly some frequencies on the following major routes to complement the A319/A320's:
LIN, GVA, LYS, ARN, MRS, VCE.

Potential new TP routes: LUX, LCY, BTS, AMS, RTM, HEL, DUB, IOM, SOU, BEG, BOD, OTP, LIL, NTE, TUF, and many many more.



Basically it means taking over the Avro's task and adding frequency and destinations.

[cnc]

flying TP's to congested airports where all slots are of very high value?
while you could idd support some of the A319 routes with a TP to add some frequency this would only be in a scenario where SN has more turbo props then they actually need

[Flanker]

flying TP's to congested airports where all slots are of very high value?

I agree that this isn't so ideal, but LHR is mostly operated by Avro's right now because there isn't enough traffic to fill A319's.
I see how this is happening. LHR is a nightmare for any passenger travelling short distances and being primordially a Oneworld hub, there isn't much connecting traffic and it's not sure that it's lucrative either. There isn't any LCC competition, just BA and the Eurostar.

That's why I mention LCY as well in the list of potential new routes. That way SN can shuffle the point to point traffic via LCY and use LHR for Star feed and tourists.
By limiting capacity, they can look for the most creamy yields.

[tolipanebas]

Your numbers seem approximately correct in the A319 vs Q400 comparison.
The Q400, depending on lease rates, has a small cost per seat advantage over the A319 but none to the A320.

Thank you.

However, the actual delta over the RJ isn't no-where near where described by you. The RJ's are high-maintenance aircraft that require intensive work. The cost delta on the Q400 in maintenance would be in the 70% region.MRO work is usually at least a factor 5 over crew cost, unfortunately for SN, the Avro brings that to around 8.

The Avro RJ is a labour intensive plane, but mind you however, maintenance is done entirely in house, including C checks. Whereas the Q400 would most likely be less labour intensive per plane, you'd have to have a much bigger fleet not to lose out on total seating capacity if you were to replace all of the AVROs by Q400s, so the total Mx cost delta isn't going to be as dramatic as you think it is.

Besides, this debate really isn't about how much better the Q400 is in relation to the AVRO RJ, but whether it makes much sense to prefer the Q400 over anything else like for instance the A319 to replace the RJ fleet with. In the overwhelming number of cases, I'd clearly say NO: the A319 is far better suited as a replacement for much of the AVRO RJs for as long as one can fill its capacity, hence the emphasis of the RJ replacement being on the A319, and NOT on a Q400. You once questioned SN's ability to fill the extra seats of the A319s to places like PRG, BUD, HAM, CPH etc, but figures show that they can indeed.

It also makes sense for me to use the A319/A320's to fly the larger routes and use the Q400 on the thin routes. As you said previously, less popular frequencies on the large routes can be done using Q400 equipment, as long as flight times are reasonable.

That is a fact, however in your assessment you show to have serious problems categorizing our routes, mainly because you are failing to see SN as a true network carrier, but rather still see it as just a point-to-point carrier. As such, you seriously underestimate our loads on quite some routes, basing your judgement purely on what you guess local demand to/from Belgium will be and thus hugely overestimate the need for the smaller Q400.
Do this estimate with me, will you?
With an average load factor of about 70% and an average seating capacity of 90 seats per plane in the AVRO fleet, even at present the Q400 would be tight for many of our routes, not taking into account any future growth from more long haul routes (self-operated or from STAR alliance) or increased networking within Europe. Definitely far from ideal for yield management and a poor choice for the future!

it means taking over the Avro's task and adding frequency and destinations.

Yet the idea to fragment daily capacity to add more frequencies isn't such a good one as you may think it is, as it assumes a rather constant demand throughout the day: reality is quite diferent, so you'd most likely lack capacity on premium timings while also operate flights at times hardly anybody really cares about: that's not the way to go really.

As you can see from the unit cost delta, the A319 is able to lower unit costs by about as much as the Q400 can, all without any of the handicaps the Q400 comes with and the Airbus has far more revenue potential really, while at the same time also helping to fill the remaining RJs with additional feeding pax, something the Q400 would never be able to do to the same extend. Seriously, the bottom line for the Q400 is not nearly as positive as for the A319, let alone the A320, hence it should only be the perferred plane if and when there's no other option...

[tolipanebas]

How would it come that I read your reply here as just common sense , normal and understandable business language, causing no immediate blood pressure increase ? Could it be that it IS common sense, from somebody with indepth knowledge , used to handle these figures?
Thank you for your patience. But stay aware not to be dragged again for the third time in the same discussion. Before you know it, you would have to reply why it is no common sense to send Q400 with food, drinks and luggage chasing narrow bodies in Africa.

Oh well, I believe that reason and common sense will always have it from passion and emotion, even in the most ardent discussions, but don't worry, I will not let myself be dragged into yet another blood pressure raising discussion like that one ever again!

As events have shown in the mean time, it suffices for me to let time go by, to be proven right...

Thanks for the compliment, btw.

[cnc]

still its better to have people with different idea's then people who just try to suck up and follow the popular mass.
tolipanebas and ncb, both of you must admit that this "competion" between both improves the knowledge found on this forum.

[Flanker]

I'll bite on the network carrier debate.

A network carrier is an airline that typically operates out of a hub, serving passengers who generate and fly to places other than the airline's hub.
Given Brussels' position on the world map, its use as a connecting hub for short-haul is limited to North-South movements and to the scope wherein there's no competitor operating the route with direct flights.

The problem with Europe is that there's too many airlines flying between EU countries, a web so tight that the only ones that can call themselves network carriers are massive airlines like Lufthansa that have huge long-haul networks.

SN doesn't have that network or hub to call itself a fully-fledged network carrier.
This could change in the future of course.
To do that, SN needs to start serving nearby regional destinations that can't be served point to point, so that they can attract passengers from places that have nothing to do with Brussels or Belgium to other such places, via BRU. Example, the passenger flying from Aberdeen to Rennes.
A decent long-haul network would also definitely help develop a decent hub requiring larger feeding aircraft.

However, SN can't develop a decent long-haul network as long as it keeps wasting money on short-haul.
A vicious circle. In absence of new investments, the only way out is through getting lean on short-haul so we don't need to fly around like crazy in Africa to subsidize Europe.
Once that is achieved, it will be a reversed circle wherein more long-haul aircraft will require larger feeding aircraft and the turboprops eventually become insignificant.

(Funny thing is that if you look at DAT's history, DAT already did this once in the past by developing itself with TP's (Embraer 120's) and replacing them later by the larger Avrojets)

What Lufthansa proves to us is that it's hard to make money on short-haul. They haven't made a profit in Europe since centuries.My belief is that Europe short-haul should become a very lean operation that goes after the "crème de la crème" of yields, instead of focusing too much on volume.

That's the advantage you have with less seats to fill: you take the 70 most paying passengers.
With big planes, you're forced to fill the plane from the back with low early-booking fares.
In such a strategy, 20% lower CASM is useless when you have to sell tickets 30%-40% cheaper.
You can also lose double because you also give potential high yield customers the chance to book cheap tickets.

We've seen volumes go up but there are question marks, financially. Fortunately it was more of a test than anything else, as capacity will be trimmed back in the winter and re-assessed for the new year, together with the phase-in/phase-out of the RJ85/TP's.

[RoMax]

SN operates a huge amount of thin routes that can't be operated regularily with A319/A320:
PRG, SXB, TLS, HAJ, ATH, BUD, BLQ, CTA, FLR, SUF, MXP, NAP, TRN, VNO, KRK, WAW, FAO, OPO, BIO, AGP, PMI, SVQ, GOT, BHX, BRS, NCL, OSL. 27 routes

Wow, what do you say: PRG (1 daily A319, the rest RJ), ATH (double daily A319/B737), CTA (A319/B737), MXP (1-2 daily A319 as from September, the rest RJ), FAO (A319/B737), OPO (A319/737), AGP (1-2 daily B737/A319/A320), SVQ (B737/A319), GOT (1 of 3 daily with B737, the rest RJ), PMI (737/A319), SUF (A319 in bussy summer month's). This seriously reduces your number of 27 routes wich "can't be operated regularily with A319/A320). And the remaining destinations and frequenties of the destinations I gave should be operated by Q400's according to you? Really? Well I would think the RJ100 (and a later 100-seater replacement) can do the job also.

Then there are large routes that are better operated with a high frequency TP service:
HAM, MAN, LHR, CPH, CDG, TXL, VIE. 7 routes

HAM (4 daily A319 comming winter, mix of RJ100 and A319 during summer): if there was a need for higher freq why aren't they doing it in order of upgrading to A319 (european slot restrictions maybe?)... CPH (5 daily mix of RJ and A319 as from September): really should there be a need for higher freq (SAS is also at 5-4 daily)... CDG (2 daily B737/A32S): really WHY higher freq with Q400, these two flights perfectly fit the feeding for AFI and the NB's have the capability of cargo (remember when RJ's operated CDG, extra RJ was needed for cargo and you want some Q400's on that route??) and really no need to try to compete the Thalys because they will fail... TXL (7 daily, mostly A319, 0-2 daily RJ100): why should this destination need higher freq with Q400 when it can sustain such a high freq with almost all A319's... VIE (4 daily B737/A32S or 2 daily RJ100 + 2 daily B737/A32S): in my opinion way too long for a Q400 rotation and not needed, the SN/OS coöperation of 7/day with mostly A32S/B737 works perfect I would think (btw, I suspect European slot restriction).

For the rest, I don't reply anymore, because you are so sure of your own that you are right (still have to find an airline wich believes you and succesfully operates your ideas)...

Anyway thanks Tolipanebas (and of course others)) for at least some 'logicall' things, otherwise reading this topic starts to become as every SN short/medium haul replacement topic...

[Flanker]

I'll keep it short, mr. Boeing.

Those destinations you mentioned are mainly Avro operations complemented by A320/B737.
They're not sustainable to operate on a regular all-A320/B737 operation.
You'll agree that ATH, OPO and FAO on A319/B737 are definitely not examples of lucrative routes.

As to CDG, if SN uses the TP's to open thinner routes all across neighboring countries, CDG will definitely be one of the destinations it will need to operate many times a day.
Last time I checked, the Thalys doesn't fly between Paris and East Midlands.

Now the only purpose of CDG is to feed the African flights, but new TP destinations can create new demand.