Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

cnc
Posts: 1311
Joined: 19 May 2009, 16:14

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by cnc »

Passenger wrote: For most people, a nonstop flight - or at least a direct flight - is more important then the Skytrax quality of the airline.
don't fool yourself!
first of all most people look at the price, direct flights are more expensive and once they find out TK has a better service for less money there's even less chance they'll fly SN the next time
secondly you seem to forget a lot of the africa pax are transfer pax so a stop at BRU or IST doesn't make too much difference does it?
i would love to defend SN but in this case there isn't much to defend about

HighInTheSky
Posts: 426
Joined: 29 Aug 2008, 12:58

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by HighInTheSky »

cnc wrote:
diminbru wrote: cnc, maybe you should read what Conti764 is saying : Once SN's new product is available
i wonder of which far future product you are talking about that could be superior to TK's product :roll:
C-class seats will be the same as the new LX seats, haven't seen the Y-class seats yet...

Flanker
Posts: 395
Joined: 16 Jul 2011, 21:05

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by Flanker »

The plane Turkish is going to use for this route, is not just a standard 739NG, it is a specially reconfigured version of the extended range version with merely 151 seats installed in it of which not all will be offered for sale even, this because of possible range issues.
Of course, that's exactly what anyone sane would do.
I expect nothing less from TK than to offer a very decent Business Class product, with more than 60 inch pitch.

My A319 proposal was also based on an aircraft equipped with 108 seats, 96Y/12C.

If anyone is interested, I know for a fact that SN's recently added A320's are the high MTOW versions, with range capability to do the fore-mentioned African routes with the typical international reserves (370km diversion) and indirect routing, winds, and spare tonnage for a 13 to 14 ton payload (or 138 seats).
They can be equipped to do these missions.

Narrow-body operations allow for a huge flexibility and operating efficiency that wide-bodies can't achieve on such short routes. Yields and capacity are difficult to manage in a triangular system and they have their share of additional costs, such as half-empty sectors, additional fuel and landing fees.
Even if SN doesn't cross-use aircraft between short-haul and Africa, it should be justified to have a dedicated A319/A320 fleet for Africa, to serve those destinations within range with high frequencies.

An A320 can operate 3 sectors per day between BRU and Africa or 10 frequencies per week.
If SN can replace 3 A333's by 4 or 5 A320's, and re-allocate those A333's to operate more destinations, it would give an immediate 50% boost in precious revenue from Africa.
It would also help create a long-haul wave in the evening, where SN can benefit from better European feeding and who knows, maybe its own evening TATL connection.

If SN can have its own evening US flights with good codeshares on the U.S.-end (Jetblue?), there would be no reason to operate the African flights in the morning/early afternoon.

cnc
Posts: 1311
Joined: 19 May 2009, 16:14

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by cnc »

Flanker wrote: If anyone is interested, I know for a fact that SN's recently added A320's are the high MTOW versions, with range capability to do the fore-mentioned African routes with the typical international reserves (370km diversion) and indirect routing, winds, and spare tonnage for a 13 to 14 ton payload (or 138 seats).
They can be equipped to do these missions.
unlike TK SN gets it profits from the belly cargo
on average you'll have a around 12ton just from pax+bags so that leaves you with only 2 tons of cargo left (not to mention belly space)
i agree that if SN had the luxery to dedicate some A320's for africa it could support the A330's to add some frequency to the current map but not to replace them

User avatar
Conti764
Posts: 1907
Joined: 21 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by Conti764 »

cnc wrote:
diminbru wrote: cnc, maybe you should read what Conti764 is saying : Once SN's new product is available
i wonder of which far future product you are talking about that could be superior to TK's product :roll:
I didn't say SN's (not so far) future product is superior to TK's, I only said I'd prefer flying direct from BRU on a widebody A330 then via a transfer at IST on two narrowbodies.

User avatar
Darjeeling
Posts: 313
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 10:13

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by Darjeeling »

Who are the "kings of Africa" that were watching TK with an arrogant look five years ago ??

TK will be dangerous for the lucrative Rwanda - US/Asia traffic. They are really doing good in the U.S and Asia. Their new product is fantastic.

The 739ER will have PTV and USB/Charger plugs. It seems TK is now in talks for FIH, DLA and LAD (amongst others...). They know have an excellent expertise in serving "difficult" countries (Iraq, Afghanistan,...).

sn-remember
Posts: 848
Joined: 13 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: Jodoigne/Geldenaken
Contact:

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by sn-remember »

Flanker wrote:
It would also help create a long-haul wave in the evening, where SN can benefit from better European feeding and who knows, maybe its own evening TATL connection.
If SN can have its own evening US flights with good codeshares on the U.S.-end (Jetblue?), there would be no reason to operate the African flights in the morning/early afternoon.
Lets be practical !
Can you give me a timetable ? Yes with times of departure and arrivals (for AFI and US cxs)?
One way and return?
Thank you :)

Flanker
Posts: 395
Joined: 16 Jul 2011, 21:05

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by Flanker »

unlike TK SN gets it profits from the belly cargo
on average you'll have a around 12ton just from pax+bags so that leaves you with only 2 tons of cargo left (not to mention belly space)
i agree that if SN had the luxery to dedicate some A320's for africa it could support the A330's to add some frequency to the current map but not to replace them
Very decent. I think that it's a good idea to do this in a progressive way, with frequency additions first.

My point of view is more focused on the pax revenue and cost/risk mitigation.

In a high fuel cost environment, narrow-bodies can provide an edge on fuel and other costs:
-2 direct A320 flights burn much less than one triangulated A333 flight
-No hotel accommodation required under certain duty time conditions (3rd crew member?)
-Higher utilization of aircraft reduces hourly aircraft and maintenance costs
-Route flexibility, highly required in Africa as seen in the last Abidjan and DKR situations
-Fleet flexibility, easier to swap between aircraft in case of multiple AOG's (happen several times a year)
-Immediate capacity expansion possible, increasing revenue, profit and market share

Cargo revenue is important for SN in a A333 operation but optional in a A320 operation.
The cost savings of the A320's operation make it much more efficient and equally profitable without cargo revenue.

This would allow SN to keep the same profits on current destinations, increase market share on existing destinations and close the market to new competitors like TK by operating higher frequencies.
It would also allow SN to transfer the A333's to operate new destinations in Africa, to look for new profit-making opportunities and win even more market share in the continent.

Flanker
Posts: 395
Joined: 16 Jul 2011, 21:05

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by Flanker »

Lets be practical !
Can you give me a timetable ? Yes with times of departure and arrivals (for AFI and US cxs)?
One way and return?
Thank you
Sure why not?
There are many considerations for a schedule, like passenger convenience on both ends.
All matters considered, most of the 12 previously mentioned African destinations within A320 range are 7 hours flying time.

It takes days if not weeks to make a complete matrix but here's an example of a 3 sectors per day A319/A320 operation.

Wave 1 BRU-AFI 09:00-16:00 AFI-BRU 16:45-23:45
Wave 3 BRU-AFI 00:30-07:30 AFI-BRU 08:45-15:45
Wave 2 BRU-AFI 16:45-23:45 AFI-BRU 00:30-07:30

US flights, in the later afternoon, with 100% coverage of the U.S.:
Daily NYC with Jetblue feed for East Coast and Central
Daily DEN (Denver) and/or IAH (Houston) with United Airlines feed for West Coast and Central.

This is how it works:
Each of the 12 African destination gets a weekly mix of morning, evening and night departures from BRU, so each destination can get good feeding depending on where the customers come from and customers can choose their travel date depending on the day where arrival and departure time suits their convenience best.
This depends if the customer generates in the U.S., China, Europe, Brussels or somewhere else, or if the customer's final destination in Africa is in the vicinity of the African airport.
In this schedule, the 2 underlined flights won't see US connections unless a midnight transatlantic flight is launched. This doesn't seem viable. However, that is not an issue, this is why:
The few U.S. customers who have set travel schedules have a 66,6% chance of finding a flight connection that suits them, either through the morning Star flights or evening SN flights coinciding with the African flights. If they fall in the 33,4% where the African A320 flights don't coincide with US connections, ie the midnight BRU arrivals and departures, they only need to wait longer for the midnight African flight or morning U.S. flights

I know that this seems complicated but if you read it carefully, you'll see some sense coming out of it.

For example a return flight customer generating in NYC:

U.S. customer takes a UA flight departing EWR to connect in BRU on Wave 1 departure to Africa
U.S. customer takes Wave 3 flight back from Africa to connect on to Evening SN flight to NYC.

sn-remember
Posts: 848
Joined: 13 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: Jodoigne/Geldenaken
Contact:

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by sn-remember »

Hmm ...
1. Most WA flights have at most 6H30 duration on the main leg. (DKR,BKO,OUA,BJL etc.. would be less)
2. Check with local time ! 1hr correction west of Cotonou
3. Midnight arrivals in BRU is utopy.
4. You don't give the US cxs explicitely

What I was expecting is very simple !
For Instance (in case of morning and evening NA flights)
ACC(23.40)-BRU(7.00)/BRU(10.15)-JFK(13.15)/JFK(23.00)-BRU(13.00)/BRU(14.30)-ACC(19.50)

Everything from my head so some little inaccuracies are possible.

As you will probably see, only EA and CentralA (FIH/BZV/LAD) are feasable on a (late) evening departure.
COO/DLA/NSI/LBV are subject to discussion (feasable to me).
All the rest leaving BRU around midnight would arrive at 5.00 which is a bit unfriendly and unwelcome in some parts of Africa. Or you leave BRU at 2am which is equally unwelcome .. no?
And as you mentioned there is no NA feeding on evening departures, only FarEast feeding is possible (in theory).
Unfortunately BRU is not DXB (which is busy all the night)

So its seems to me you can rule out wave1 (bcs midnight arrival in BRU) and wave3 (bcs 5.00 arrival in AFI save for COO/DLA/NSI/LOS which would arrive around 6am)

---
Now lets see how a FEast flight would connect ?
ACC(23.40)-BRU(7.00)/BRU(10.30)TYO(6.00)/TYO(8.00)-BRU(13.00)/BRU(14.30)-ACC(19.50)
or
ACC(23.40)-BRU(7.00)/BRU(12.30)-PEK(05.00)/PEK(09.30)-BRU(13.00)/BRU(14.30)-ACC(19.50)
PVG,ICN would be similar.
So in theory, yes, SN could operate to the FE.
But the actual scenario is 3d party cx (Hinan) arriving very early (5.00) in BRU.

As you can see I leave 4hrs gap in ACC as most SN flights are triangular.
With good feeding and triangular flights its possible to operate with decent frequencies a w:b which has the advantage of the cargo hold. I know ... it's opposite to your point but I hope you understand my objections? Believe me I would like to give you right !

--
To be complete, lets consider the night departure scenario (meaning some longer flights thus banning the use of the A32X on some routes)
cx from FE feasable -> BRU(23.00)-FIH(7.00)/FIH(9.00)-BRU(17.00) -> cx to NA or FE feasable
Here we miss the down-feeding from NA. It's ideal however for FE.
In practice "only" FIH/BZV/LAD/DLA/NSI/LBV can be on this timeframe.
You could also include COO-ACC (but not ACC-COO) : BRU(23.55)-COO(06.10)/COO(7.10)ACC(7.00)
And LOS-LFW which used to be a Sabena route.
Also EA could fall in the evening departure wave but we loose the NA down-connectivity .. LX for instance serve EA with an evening departure. So SN are probably right to offer morning flights.

I suppose BRU is poised to become the *A gateway to AFI specially concerning the NA. TK might take a good share concerning the East.
Last edited by sn-remember on 29 Jul 2011, 00:41, edited 16 times in total.

Passenger
Posts: 7280
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by Passenger »

Flanker wrote:
IST (40°58'37"N 28°48'53"E) KGL (1°58'07"S 30°08'22"E) 178.0° (S) 2956 mi
BRU (50°54'05"N 4°29'04"E) LFW (6°09'56"N 1°15'16"E) 184.6° (S) 3087 mi
BRU (50°54'05"N 4°29'04"E) ABJ (5°15'41"N 3°55'35"W) 191.7° (S) 3181 mi
BRU (50°54'05"N 4°29'04"E) BKO (12°32'01"N 7°57'00"W) 199.3° (S) 2735 mi
BRU (50°54'05"N 4°29'04"E) FNA (8°36'59"N 13°11'44"W) 205.3° (SW) 3084 mi
BRU (50°54'05"N 4°29'04"E) COO (6°21'26"N 2°23'04"E) 183.0° (S) 3071 mi
BRU (50°54'05"N 4°29'04"E) OUA (12°21'11"N 1°30'45"W) 189.4° (S) 2678 mi
BRU (50°54'05"N 4°29'04"E) DKR (14°44'23"N 17°29'25"W) 214.2° (SW) 2778 mi
BRU (50°54'05"N 4°29'04"E) ROB (6°14'02"N 10°21'44"W) 200.7° (S) 3194 mi
BRU (50°54'05"N 4°29'04"E) CKY (9°34'37"N 13°36'43"W) 206.3° (SW) 3028 mi
BRU (50°54'05"N 4°29'04"E) ACC (5°36'19"N 0°10'00"W) 186.5° (S) 3132 mi
BRU (50°54'05"N 4°29'04"E) BJL (13°20'17"N 16°39'08"W) 212.2° (SW) 2848 mi

For your information ,the B739ER has nowhere near the range or field performance the A319 has. In fact, if the B739ER can do it, there's no reason why a packed A320 shouldn't be able to do it.
So far so good for the non-professional information on internet. Now, let's see what the real world says about this: "the maximum range for a A320 with maximum number of pax is 3.020 kms / 1.877 miles". Says Lufthansa.

Source: http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/fleet/m ... 0-200.html

sn-remember
Posts: 848
Joined: 13 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: Jodoigne/Geldenaken
Contact:

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by sn-remember »

With an additional tank AirIvoire used to operate a daily A321 ABJ-ORY.
It represents around 6.15 hours flying time.
Last edited by sn-remember on 29 Jul 2011, 00:12, edited 2 times in total.

cnc
Posts: 1311
Joined: 19 May 2009, 16:14

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by cnc »

Passenger wrote: So far so good for the non-professional information on internet. Now, let's see what the real world says about this: "the maximum range for a A320 with maximum number of pax is 3.020 kms / 1.877 miles". Says Lufthansa.
Source: http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/fleet/m ... 0-200.html
you realize you are doing the same right? besides LH's A320 are configured for LH's needs so your figures prove nothing ;)

Air Key West
Posts: 1107
Joined: 23 Jun 2007, 20:51
Location: BRU

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by Air Key West »

My (I admit) non expert contribution : one version of the A320 family of aircraft is not identical to another version of that same family of aircraft. One version of the 737 is not identical to another version of the 737. So, I have the feeling some members are comparing apples and pears. Airlines will order/configure aircraft (both on the technical side as on the passenger comfort side) according to their own wishes and needs.

To me flying in Economy on a narrow-body aircraft for a fairly long flight (e.g. 6 hours) is not really a different experience than on a wide-body aircraft. It's always cramped seating. Some airlines will throw in better meals and good IFE, others not. In Business class you will, of course, normally get a much better experience (more comfort) on a wide-body aircraft than on a narrow-body one, but the latter may offer a lower air fare.

I'm sure you all know this, but I would, however, like to recall it : TK has been flying for several years with a 737 (I don't know which version) between IST and NBO, a nearly six-and-a-half hours' flight (2,800 miles).
TK has become an agressive and succesful airline copying business models of Gulf carriers. These "New World" carriers will take a large share of the African market and "old world" carriers, especially the unforgivingly passive ones like b.air, are likely to loose ground if not simply loose the battle.
In favor of quality air travel.

sn-remember
Posts: 848
Joined: 13 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: Jodoigne/Geldenaken
Contact:

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by sn-remember »

Air Key West wrote: especially the unforgivingly passive ones like b.air, ..
So true ..
I would say IST-NBO is 6.00 hrs flying time ? (2568 nm)
I think they don't serve DAR non stop. That would be 6h45 flying time at least which is a bit longish for a 739 ...

User avatar
tolipanebas
Posts: 2442
Joined: 12 May 2004, 00:00

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by tolipanebas »

sn-remember wrote:But as Tolipanebas rightly stresses, TK are pushing the plane's possibilities to extremities.
Well, TK are definitely going beyond the possibilities of baseline 737NGs, hence them using a very low density configuration on what is all-in-all still a relatively short longhaul route like IST-KGL, a route which is roughly comparable to BRU-DKR, btw.

It's not because TK suddenly wants to be kind to its pax on 6 hour flights that they have decided to squeeze them in less tightly than they do on 5 hour flights (e.g. Turkey-UK), it's because even a 737-9ER can't possibly take more than 150 pax if they want to use it on 3,000nm long routes, so they have accepted the burden of inflexibility and decided to create a subfleet of dedicated narrowbodies with a low density cabin layout, thus effectively turning them into some sort of pseudo-BBJs.

Of course, artificially creating the capability to operate narrowbodies on 3,000nm routes still doesn't mean it is such a good idea to actually do it for long. Compared to for instance an A333 the CASM of such a pseudo-BBJ plane is still going to be much higher, so for markets with sufficiently high demand it isn't a brilliant idea. As so often, when you can successfully fill a larger plane, you achieve far superior CASM and thus lower unit costs, not to mention you also have the added benefit from cargo revenues AND higher comfort levels onboard, so don't for a second believe TK is planning on operating these 737-9ERs to KGL for a long time: they only do it because they absolutely want to start up the route, yet they'll switch to widebody as soon as it makes commercial sense: taking into account cargo revenues, that moment can come quite quickly. In this context it is interesting to refer to the topic concerning KL, LH and LX all insourcing previously outsourced long haul flights of theirs:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=45096

For SN however, doing exactly the opposite and downgrade from widebody to dedicated narrowbodies (albeit with more and non-stop flights) would indeed not be such a great move even if it were possibly under the often quite restrictive bilaterals which stipulate the number of weekly flights from Belgium, as it would automatically induce much higher CASM on the routes for no obvious additional yields and it would also give SN a subfleet of oddly configured narrowbodies with would be pretty much useless upon return from AFI for almost half a day then, given SN lacks the global feed to send them out to Africa a second time.

Seriously, narrowbodies on key long haul routes are only suitable as route builders, yet they can only be used cost efficiently and effectively by really large network carriers which see a lot of intercontinental feed passing through their hubs all day long: LH, LX, AF, KL and also TK can all make use of the concept on certain new and thin long haul routes to test the waters first and more rapidly open a route, yet not surprisingly all of them are also very eager to replace these planes by a true widebody as soon as it makes any financial sense, rather than build further on the concept... TK is no exception to this rule, really.

For an airline the size of SN however, it not an option to use pseudo-BBJs or A319LRs and they better stick to just widebodies and the proven concept of tag-ons and triangles to expand, with the added benefit of being able to use cargo revenues as bottom line improving element right from the start. SN can't seriously expect its partner airlines allover the world to turn upside down their own route networks just to feed a few longhaul narrowbody operations to AFI, yet without the possibility to get sufficiently high utilisation numbers from such a high CASM, high cost fleet of planes like pseudo-BBJs or an A319LRs, there's just no case to be made for it: it has been looked into in the past, and it has been discarted.

rwandan-flyer
Posts: 1017
Joined: 19 Dec 2010, 12:30

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by rwandan-flyer »

Thank you for your news about RwandAir, but the topic is about Turkish Airlines flying to Kigali ;-)
No problem ;)

With the opening of flights, TK will bring more pax from Asia, where the demand to Rwanda is becoming stronger (Japan, India, South Korea and Singapore). Thanks to the Transfers at Istanbul the time flight will be reduce.
Rwanda Aviation News (Drones, Air Force, Civil Aviation, Space, Air Balloon): https://www.facebook.com/RwandAn-Flyer-153177931456873

sn-remember
Posts: 848
Joined: 13 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: Jodoigne/Geldenaken
Contact:

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by sn-remember »

My understanding of the n:b range capabilities is set on the 2600nm limitation.
I base this conclusion on "borderline" existing routes such as abj-ory or ist-nbo.
Going further is tricky and imho not advisable and hardly doable.
To illustrate this, let's see on a map the range tresholds from Bru compared with ist.
From IST : http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/1772/ist2600nm.gif
From BRU : http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/8715/bru2600nm.gif

TK have taken SN over on the NA-EA market in a big quantum leap.
SN must react with at least the same aggressivity.
I wonder what they are waiting for at LH ? (I know what they would do in Paris)

rwandan-flyer
Posts: 1017
Joined: 19 Dec 2010, 12:30

Re: Turkish Airlines set for Kigali

Post by rwandan-flyer »

It seems that TK plans to fly daily to Kigali, from October 2013 :
The numbers are increasing. We started with three flights a week, and then increased to four. Now we have five flights a week. We plan to start daily flights by October. We have also launched the cargo flights, becoming the first airline here to do so.
http://rwandadispatch.rw/turkish-wings- ... skies.html
Rwanda Aviation News (Drones, Air Force, Civil Aviation, Space, Air Balloon): https://www.facebook.com/RwandAn-Flyer-153177931456873

Post Reply