Last A330-200 flight at SWISS

[RoMax]

This argument is only valid until the joint ventureUS is approved. When the JV is approved SN has a lot more access to UA/CO. Moreover why haven't UA/CO upgauged BRU when they are doing so great on EWR-BRU? Probably because they aren't earning much money even with high loads.

Not earning enough money? Than explain why UA is replacing the CO 777's as from 30 September with their own, more premium configured 777's? I can only think of one reason, too much high yield traffic to handle with a CO 777.
CO planned several times to upgrade the flight, but it still didn't make it. Don't know why actually. Maybe enough high yield demand, not enough to fill the low yielding part. A 752 is not really high yield, and it's not that they have 764's and 777's on spare (and it would be too much economy, I think).

A joint venture means that there is no reason for SN to start their own flights over the Atlantic. Unless the other partners don't have the spare capacity.....

SN does want to be part of the JV AND fly to the US themself. Hence why they (SN and all JV partners) requested the approval by the American DoT so that SN can join the JV and sources from inside the company said they wouldn't start the flights to the US before they are part of the JV (wich is expected later this year, according to an article some months ago)? According to you, SN wouldn't fly to the US if they would be part of the JV. Seems something different than SN wants, to me...

SN clearly has the demand for their own flights to the US. Why keep relaying on partners when you can do it better yourself? If you ask me it's becoming very important for SN that they are known in the US, and fly their pax with their own aircraft, under their own brand from the US, trough BRU to Africa.

[Bralo20]

Not earning enough money? Than explain why UA is replacing the CO 777's as from 30 September with their own, more premium configured 777's? I can only think of one reason, too much high yield traffic to handle with a CO 777.
CO planned several times to upgrade the flight, but it still didn't make it. Don't know why actually. Maybe enough high yield demand, not enough to fill the low yielding part. A 752 is not really high yield, and it's not that they have 764's and 777's on spare (and it would be too much economy, I think).

The reason why the CO764/772 is replaced by a UA772 is indeed that BRU is considered a premium market with loads of high yield demand. CO wanted to put a permanent 772 on BRU but this wasn't possible due lack of planes (AFAIK they needed the 772ER elsewhere for it's range?).

Now that UA has CO, the first thing they'll do (and did) is optimize routes and planes. BRU has a pretty high demand so the 772 is here to stay.

Regarding high yields... From time to time I do take UA950/1, the IAD flight and the last couple of years it seems that even first class is filled pretty good. One of my previous flights had even a nearly 100% load in F and C with a 70% load in Y... And I notice this also when checking loads from time to time, UA is doing pretty well in the premium market... So BRU is at this moment going to be one of the markets that will remain served with planes with a first class cabin.


This makes me wonder... Since the USA routes are premium heavy, wouldn't be a good idea to think about introducting a F class on the future SN flights to and from the US? I know it makes it complicated since the plane(s) wouldn't be easy to change but again, I think there's quite some money to make in the premium market... LH, AF, BA, LX,... all fly with a F class towards the USA... (except on some leisure routes)

[RoMax]

This makes me wonder... Since the USA routes are premium heavy, wouldn't be a good idea to think about introducting a F class on the future SN flights to and from the US? I know it makes it complicated since the plane(s) wouldn't be easy to change but again, I think there's quite some money to make in the premium market... LH, AF, BA, LX,... all fly with a F class towards the USA... (except on some leisure routes)

I agree that some first class seats may work, not only to the US, but also to some AFI destinations. But I think this makes the things a bit too complicated for SN as they have only a small fleet. More business seats on the other hand wouldn't be bad if you ask me (at least for certain routes). Didn't SN have 40 business seats before the Virgin merger in their A333's? Maybe they could configure the two A332's more premium (more business or some first class seats, also LX had A332's with first class and the others had 42 business seats)?

[Flanker]

LJ wrote:

This argument is only valid until the joint ventureUS is approved. When the JV is approved SN has a lot more access to UA/CO. Moreover why haven't UA/CO upgauged BRU when they are doing so great on EWR-BRU? Probably because they aren't earning much money even with high loads.

Not earning enough money? Than explain why UA is replacing the CO 777's as from 30 September with their own, more premium configured 777's? I can only think of one reason, too much high yield traffic to handle with a CO 777.
CO planned several times to upgrade the flight, but it still didn't make it. Don't know why actually. Maybe enough high yield demand, not enough to fill the low yielding part. A 752 is not really high yield, and it's not that they have 764's and 777's on spare (and it would be too much economy, I think).

UA/CO are probably anticipating SN's move into the market and want to secure the high yield portion of that market for themselves to avoid losing it to SN. UA/CO probably also anticipate losing a good portion of economy class traffic. Together, that gives them all the reasons for the shift to more premium configured 772's.

I'm also skeptical on the yields. Sure, the B772ER is the biggest thing UA/CO have got before the B744's, but if the market yield was worth it, they could just as well added capacity with an additional B763ER frequency with an arrival/departure closer to noon.
Where UA/CO didn't see this possibility, SN thinks that it sees an opportunity to fly a A330, according to tolipanebas, even an A333.

Next thing we've got to ask ourselves is if SN can match the product of its competitors. Even with the upgrade, SN's product is likely to be inferior to UA and 9W and on pars with DL, AA.

LJ wrote:

A joint venture means that there is no reason for SN to start their own flights over the Atlantic. Unless the other partners don't have the spare capacity.....

SN does want to be part of the JV AND fly to the US themself. Hence why they (SN and all JV partners) requested the approval

Language barrier? LJ's argument is that if SN is part of that JV, there's no reason for SN to want to fly to the US themselves.
I also think that many people close to the top of SN have been pursued by the JFK ghost for a very long time.

SN clearly has the demand for their own flights to the US. Why keep relaying on partners when you can do it better yourself? If you ask me it's becoming very important for SN that they are known in the US, and fly their pax with their own aircraft, under their own brand from the US, trough BRU to Africa.

I personally don't think that flying to JFK, among all the US cities that attract Africa traffic, is going to make any palpable positive difference for SN's African traffic or for SN itself at all. The demand isn't as obvious as it seems. What's the actual amount of the total AFI passengers that generate from outside Europe, and what percentage comes from the U.S., let alone NY?
I hope that I'm wrong.

No matter what, as long as they don't wake up with the "marvelous idea" of starting BRU-BOS or BRU-SFO with an A332, JFK is acceptable because you will always find a taker for a cheap seat, in order to contain eventual losses. If they play their cards right and they make it past the financial issues, they can make it hard on AA and DL on the long run.

[RoMax]

What's the actual amount of the total AFI passengers that generate from outside Europe, and what percentage comes from the U.S., let alone NY?
I hope that I'm wrong.

20% of SN's pax to AFI originate in the US. As explained by Tolipanebas you could see that in this way: SN flies 4-5 daily A333's to AFI. This is going to increase as there will be two A332's to enter service, so 5-6 daily flights to AFI. When you take 20% of that, you can easilly fill one daily A330 to the US. But of course not all pax fly to NYC (the majority, but not all). But SN will also get other pax and not only transfer pax.

Next thing we've got to ask ourselves is if SN can match the product of its competitors. Even with the upgrade, SN's product is likely to be inferior to UA and 9W and on pars with DL, AA.

Seriously? Ok maybe not better than 9W. But DL and AA?? As far as I heard, SN wants the same business seats as the new LX seats. I don't know if that's clear enough, but if that is true, I would say SN can easilly compete with the other airlines on the NYC-BRU market for business class (according to what I hear the service itself is not bad at all in long haul business at SN, so if they have new seats I don't think the american airlines can meet SN's offer).
About economy...still a question, but the IFE is supposed to be good, really good. It's a brand new AVOD system with 9in screens (not bad compared to others). Let's hope the seats itself are good and the service from SN too. But I'm quite sure SN can beat the american airlines based on service and comfort. UA improved in the recent years, but still many people are complaining about UA/CO when they compare it to European and Asian airlines.

[Bralo20]

The biggest advantage that UA has and the main reason I fly with them is that they have "economy plus" available... Which is even with the small amount of inches of difference a difference of day and night... (at least for me with my 2m03) I try to fly business (mostly through upgrades with miles) but if an upgrade doesn't pass I'm more then happy to cross the pond in economy plus...

And apparently a lot of people are thinking that way since DL is also introducing a similar product and the fact that the new UA decided to introduce economy plus throughout the whole (ex-CO) fleet...

Something that SN probably can't beat...

But the new product should be on par with the other carriers, especially the service which is one of the best on long haul if I may believe the people flying with SN...

[Flanker]

20% of SN's pax to AFI originate in the US. As explained by Tolipanebas you could see that in this way: SN flies 4-5 daily A333's to AFI. This is going to increase as there will be two A332's to enter service, so 5-6 daily flights to AFI. When you take 20% of that, you can easilly fill one daily A330 to the US. But of course not all pax fly to NYC (the majority, but not all). But SN will also get other pax and not only transfer pax.

20% of traffic of 5 daily African A333 flights originate in the U.S.
Supposing that a big 50% of that originates from NYC itself and that load factors on AFI flights are for instance 80% (I don't know the numbers but I suppose that it's in this region), you barely have 40% load factors on an A333 flight over the Atlantic and only 50% on an A332, approximately 110 seats.

This is low yield traffic.
For example let's compare the price difference for EWR-BRU-DLA with BRU-DLA to see how much the EWR-BRU sector yields to feed the BRU-DLA sector.
Dep 01/10, Return 10/10.
EWR-BRU-DLA-BRU-EWR 1203 euro.
BRU-DLA-BRU 862 euro.
This means that EWR-BRU + BRU-EWR yields only 340 euro.
If you take out the taxes, we come closer to 300 euro or 150 euro one-way.

Good luck breaking even with that.

The next problem you have is that by doing this, the competition for the non-African traffic will increase. SN will free up seats on the UA B772 flights by taking away the connecting passengers.
UA will have 110 seats to sell on its B772 and SN will have 120 seats to sell on its A332 (or 170 on its A333), for which both are going to compete very hard. This will also have an effect on the yields on the other 130 seats UA has to sell.

The outcome is even lower fares on the remaining seats to be sold to fill the SN aircraft..

That's why I'm saying that an A332 is already overkill and an A333 absurd. The B752 would have been more manageable for both SN and UA as it will have given them room to keep cooperating.
This will probably force UA to downgrade its capacity to something like a 763 and make them angry enough to contemplate how they can expand with direct flights to Africa themselves. UA has a bunch of Dreamliners on order, the perfect airplane to operate to Africa.

I do wish SN to succeed on this adventure but it's not going to be as easy as you and Tolipanebas insinuate.
Let's wait for the first results before opening the champagne bottles.

[OO-ITR]

Let's wait for the first results before opening the champagne bottles.

or even better; let's wait the first results before giving any comments and saying what SN wants to do is completely insane. This will be THE learning point for you

[Flanker]

Flanker wrote:
Let's wait for the first results before opening the champagne bottles.

or even better; let's wait the first results before giving any comments and saying what SN wants to do is completely insane. This will be THE learning point for you

I actually like the idea of the 2 additional long-haul aircraft. I also do like the idea of long-haul expansion.
I'm not sure JFK is the right answer but I like the idea that they're looking.

I like to grab some attention when there is something I don't like and the thing I didn't like is that there isn't a clear-cut and effective strategy for short-haul. All we've been reading in the past days and weeks is an easy but risky course of action that is difficult to revert. Once we take that road, there's no way back.

[tolipanebas]

Let's compare the price difference for EWR-BRU-DLA with BRU-DLA to see how much the EWR-BRU sector yields to feed the BRU-DLA sector.
Dep 01/10, Return 10/10.
EWR-BRU-DLA-BRU-EWR 1203 euro.
BRU-DLA-BRU 862 euro.
This means that EWR-BRU + BRU-EWR yields only 340 euro.
If you take out the taxes, we come closer to 300 euro or 150 euro one-way.
Good luck breaking even with that.

A more realistic way to look at it, is to say pax will pay 1,200 euro to fly from EWR to AFI (over BRU) and back, a total fare which is more than reasonable in all.
For reference: 1,200 euro is still far more than what pax pay to go from somewhere in Europe to the West coast of the USA over hubs like LHR, CDG, FRA or AMS, a distance roughly comparible with a JFK-BRU-AFI.

What your little analysis does demonstrate is WHY transatlantic codeshare partners aren't very keen on adding capacity to give SN ample seats across, but WHY it does make sense for SN to offer a transatlantic link itself nevertheless: the transtatlantic leg in itself isn't of much value, yet the combination with an AFI leg is what makes it worth.

That's why I'm saying that an A332 is already overkill and an A333 absurd. The B752 would have been more manageable for both SN and UA as it will have given them room to keep cooperating.

As you've calculated yourself, 5 A330s operating to AFI means SN has roughly 110 pax a day going to the NY area today. Assume a 6 A330s operating to AFI and this becomes 135 pax or so, and this is without taking into account the positive effect operating to JFK will certainly have on their passenger numbers between the US and AFI as they will no longer have to rely on their reluctant partners to give them ample seats across the pond.

It's hard to estimate, but I'd estimate SN can be sure of anything between 170 (+25%) to 200 (+50%) of AFI connecting pax a day if they operate to JFK themselves: that's a full 757, so that plane is definitely too small as you'd want to improve the results of any BRU-JFK flight by as much local intake at both ends as you possibly can. If you fly it, better do it properly, or don't do it at all, yet operating anything smaller than an A332 will prevent you from offering the flight to any pax other than the ones which will be paying least of all for their transatlantic journey.

I do wish SN to succeed on this adventure but it's not going to be as easy as you and Tolipanebas insinuate.

All the low hanging fruit has long been plucked by SN on AFI, so it's definitely time for them to step up a bit and the idea to serve the US on its own metal is definitely to be seen in this context.

I actually like the idea of the 2 additional long-haul aircraft. I also do like the idea of long-haul expansion.
I'm not sure JFK is the right answer but I like the idea that they're looking.

A second additional long haul aircraft will indeed make it far easier to help succeed the transatlantic flight. I'd say 6 is about the minimum number of planes from which you'd want to start considering it, yet 7 is definitely better and 8 would be simply great, but then having the JFK flight will more easily make the case for further additional expansion on AFI later on too, as this is clearly a case of communicating vessels.

All we've been reading in the past days and weeks is an easy but risky course of action that is difficult to revert.

Doing nothing is definitely not an option either, so I prefer SN to take this road which isn't entirely risk free, rather than sit idle at the T-junction or even worse, go round in circles like they've been doing too often the past couple of years.
In my eyes, SN is finally doing what should have been done years ago: that is to more aggressively expand its long haul. Let's just hope it's not too little, too late. I bet they'd love to have done this years ago already...

[LJ]

What your little analysis does demonstrate is WHY transatlantic codeshare partners aren't very keen on adding capacity to give SN ample seats across, but WHY it does make sense for SN to offer a transatlantic link itself nevertheless: the transtatlantic leg in itself isn't of much value, yet the combination with an AFI leg is what makes it worth.

Then explain to me why AF doesn't mind DL giving some transatlantic flying away to DL so they [AF] can deploy the aircraft on other markets. As said earlier, this is only valid in a pre-joint venture situation. Given that SN should be able to get into the JV before Spring 2012. When SN/UA/CO have a JV SN could better focus on the Africa flying as it doesn't matter who flies the plane, the revenue and costs are in one pool. Hence why AF and KL let DL do much of the transatlantic flying. DL has the aircraft and AF and KL can deploy their aircraft somewhere more profitable. In the case of SN, I wonder if the revenue opportunity of BRU-JFK exceeds the opportunity in other markets. Arguments like "SN doesn't get the seats" or "US/CO take away the premium traffic" (in know not used by you but it was mentioned by another member) because regardless who will fly the route all revenues are in a pool and yield management is not done (or should not be done) by either SN or UA/CO, but by all parties...needless to say, provided SN gets into the JV (shouldn't be a problem).

BTW are SN's Africa flights also covered in the joint venture? I know that this is the case in the AF/KL/DL joint venture, thus all flights between Europe and Africa are also done on a joint venture basis (will not be beneficial for Sn as this will mean that UA/CO will get more access to SNs flights).

[tolipanebas]

Then explain to me why AF doesn't mind giving some transatlantic flying away to DL so they [AF] can deploy the aircraft on other markets.
...
Are SN's Africa flights also covered in the joint venture? I know that this is the case in the AF/KL/DL joint venture, thus all flights between Europe and Africa are also done on a joint venture basis (will not be beneficial for SN as this will mean that UA/CO will get more access to SNs flights).

You've basically answered your own question: the SN/UA JV is a TRANSATLANTIC JV only.

[LJ]

Then explain to me why AF doesn't mind giving some transatlantic flying away to DL so they [AF] can deploy the aircraft on other markets.
...
Are SN's Africa flights also covered in the joint venture? I know that this is the case in the AF/KL/DL joint venture, thus all flights between Europe and Africa are also done on a joint venture basis (will not be beneficial for SN as this will mean that UA/CO will get more access to SNs flights).

You've basically answered your own question: the SN/UA JV is a TRANSATLANTIC JV only.

Yes,

But in the AF/KL/DL joint venture they defined transatlantic as being all traffic between the US/Canada and Europe/Africa/India. Thus anyone flying US-Africa (be it via Europe or direct) is also covered by the joint venture. However, I'm not familiar how they define transatlantic in the UA/CO/SN application (if I'm not mistaken the AA/BA joint venture only covers flights between the US and Europe).

[sn26567]

The first SN A332 will be operated to East Africa (Kigali, Bujumbura, Nairobi, Entebbe) and to Douala.

Details in this post: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44592&p=254462#p254462

[BrightCedars]

The first SN A332 will be operated to East Africa (Kigali, Bujumbura, Nairobi, Entebbe) and to Douala.

Details in this post: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44592&p=254462#p254462

Some of their longest routes, what a surprise really.

[shockcooling]

Bump;

Air Liveries next customer
http://www.flightradar24.com/#!/SWR5180
HB-IQC A332

[OO-ITR]

Bump;

Air Liveries next customer
http://www.flightradar24.com/#!/SWR5180
HB-IQC A332

http://www.skyliner-aviation.de/regdb.main?LC=nav4

Brussels International ???

[liebensd]

HB-IQC flew today back from MAN to it home base Zurich as SWR5181:

flight radar


Greetz,

Dave

[sn26567]

... and Brussels Airlines officially announced on Twitter today that a new A330 would join the fleet in April 2012.

[Boeing767copilot]

A new ??? A330 ?