African operations possible with narrow body equipment

[Air Key West]

I was probably not specific enough either. I wasn't suggesting any triangular flights, but in each case :
BRU-X-Z
Z-X-BRU
or for instance very approximately
BRU OUA 1400 - 1800 or 1030 - 1430
OUA LFW 1845 - 2000 or 1515 - 1630
LFW OUA 2100 - 2215 or 1900 - 2015
OUA BRU 2300 - 0700 or 2100 - 0500
But perhaps serving two destinations with one A319 is not a good idea ; however, you might have an excellent load factor then and, who knows, you might get traffic rights between X and Z.

Tolipanebas you say : "To put it simply in the case of SN: if AF is going there on A330/A340 or 777, don't even think about sending an A319 there!". Just a question because I don't know the answer : why is LH going to fly to ACC with a 737 when (AF-)KL and BA for instance fly there with a wide-body aircraft ?

[DeltaWiskey]

new routes cost way too much money for SN at this moment.

They are starting NY next year...

[Air Key West]

Indeed, and if you have a good business case, the money you invest (spend) now will bring in good money in the medium to long term. I don't understand why b.air would not get money from banks or a loan on a purchase or lease directly from Airbus for additional A330s, when b.air can prove that these aircraft will make a profit and will consolidate the airline's financial position.

[tolipanebas]

Many pax will prefer a morning departure option

A morning departure means your pax leaving OUA will have to spend the night at a hotel near the airport prior to their flight (unless they live nearby the airport), just as inbound pax to OUA do now after their flight (if they live too far to travel on).
In short: you're just reversing the problem with your schedule: what may be somewhat of a problem for the inbound pax now, becomes a problem for the outbound pax: not a big deal and definitely not a big improvement if you consider them being on a return trip.

SN would offer a timetable that AF can't match.

If AF wants to do this, they can do so in the blink of an eye.
In fact they could make it work much better than SN, because they have a huge ethnic catchment area right next to their hub in CDG which would far more easily allow for night (or very early morning) departures to AFI, but they don't do it either...

On a direct comparison, the A333 beats the A319 on CASM by 10% or more.

Indeed; apples to apples, the A333 is a hard nut to crack for any other plane, even the 787...

Sorry, I wasn't specific at first, I edited the post:
CASM on the same mission of 6-7 hours to Africa is 10% lower on direct A319 operations vs A333 triangle operations.

I see.
Mind you, the above statement is basically pointless as it can be made to be correct by simply extending the intermediate leg so as to fit the desired outcome...
I agree that on some itinaries, pax to the second destination fly a lot of extra miles with SN (whether or not that is enough to make their flight roughly 20% longer and thus turn a 10% CASM advantage into a 10% disadvantage, remains to be seen), but mind you, not all tag-ons are actually that badly paired: BRU-OUA-COO for instance is almost as good as a direct flight to COO and there are many others, like FIH-DLA-BRU.
This kind of combined routes which merely see a stop on the great circle route from BRU to the final destination are no triangular routes, they are just as good as 2 direct flights to each of them, while they allow to pluck almost the full benefit from the lower CASM of the A330!
In this context its interesting to note that the recent opening of BKO has once again allowed SN to make its route network in West-Africa more efficient, BTW.

It's SN's way of operating triangles to Africa that's costing money. That money needs to be compensated by cargo.

As I've just explained, not all triangles are badly paired: some routes are actually efficiently combined and this efficiency increases as SN adds destinations on the Sahel region: first OUA, now BKO, ...
Besides, the triangles allow SN to operate comfortable widebodies where it would simply not be possible.
Longhaul narrowbody service may be a nice alternative in theory, but lets face it: it just isn't popular with pax and it comes with a lot of operational problems too, given the fact those planes aren't really suited for those kind of missions.
BTW, I don't know if you have a good idea of just how much money SN makes from cargo per annum, but I can tell you they do a stellar job at more than offsetting the extra costs triangular flights bring them.

As long as your narrowbody flights are direct, you can be as profitable as the A333 without the pressure of cargo!

Again, cargo is not a bad thing, you know?
It's an extra business segment which allows you to diversify your revenue sources and lets you make extra money. A narrowbody effectively locks you out of this lucrative business segment: why would you deliberately want to let go of revenues which help improve the bottom line?

[Flanker]

Again, cargo is not a bad thing, you know?
It's an extra business segment which allows you to diversify your revenue sources and lets you make extra money. A narrowbody effectively locks you out of this lucrative business segment: why would you deliberately want to let go of revenues which help improve the bottom line?

I think that cargo is a good business as is the A333 operation. What I'm trying to present here as a message is a solid case for the narrowbodies. Cargo isn't part of that, unfortunately, for as long as SN doesn't get higher gross weight A320/A321's or NEO's.

If AF wants to do this, they can do so in the blink of an eye.
In fact they could make it work much better than SN, because they have a huge ethnic catchment area right next to their hub in CDG which would far more easily allow for night (or very early morning) departures to AFI, but they don't do it either...

They can and they won't at the same time. As long as they have a comfortable position and SN is only tickling them from below, they won't move anything.
If SN starts a program like this one let's say, in the winter of 2012/2013 (regardless of ownership saga's), you bet that some at the AF headquarters are going to have heart attacks.

A morning departure means your pax leaving OUA will have to spend the night at a hotel near the airport prior to their flight (unless they live nearby the airport), just as inbound pax to OUA do now after their flight (if they live too far to travel on).
In short: you're just reversing the problem with your schedule: what may be somewhat of a problem for the inbound pax now, becomes a problem for the outbound pax: not a big deal and definitely not a big improvement if you consider them being on a return trip.

I actually see it differently.
By giving customers all the options, you solve all their problems and offer them a complete solution.
Many customers will be willing to make the trip (train or plane) from Paris to BRU if SN can offer them the perfect schedule combination that tailors their needs.
Some pax need to arrive in OUA in the morning, some others in the evening.
Some pax want to depart from OUA in the morning, some prefer the evening.
The return ticket can be any of these combinations, but AF won't be able to offer it and SN could drain a significant portion of their customers.
Whenever you offer a solution that AF or your current flights can't offer, you can claim a small premium.

And of course, Niamey, Nouachkott, why not even challenge Nigeria when SN have all these excess A319/A320's on top of 8-9 B737's in the winter? I think that in the winter in Europe, 10 B737/A32S can do the job on the main routes, supported by the RJ100's/TP's and slashes in unprofitable frequencies.
At current fuel prices, I don't see much of a business case for RJ85's, but if they can negotiate darn cheap leases, for my part I can see the need of keeping some RJ100's for summer peaks and as spare aircraft.

If it works, SN would have a strong strategy that would enable it to combat the LCC's at full thrust during the summer, while cornering both AF and KL in Africa during the winter and positioning very well to compete the new market entrants.

It's not easy, it takes a lot of negotiating with governments and airports but if they pull that off, they would have my respects.
If that's their plan from the start with all these "new" A32S, it's really clever.
(Otherwise: what were they thinking? )

[tolipanebas]

What I'm trying to present here as a message is a solid case for the narrowbodies. Cargo isn't part of that, unfortunately, for as long as SN doesn't get higher gross weight A320/A321's or NEO's.

Mind you, the NEO isn't going to be a cargo-king either: after all, it's still comes with the same relatively small belly as before. The lack of cargo capability on any narrowbody is almost never because of weight limitations kicking in too early, but predominantly due to a lack of space: a higher MTOW nor the NEO are going to solve that, so narrowbody longhaul operations are in essence going to remain purely pax operations in future too, hence they will have to remain oriented at premium markets where yields are sufficiently high because there's no cargohold to fill for (almost) free and help offset cheaper tickets...

The ability of an A330 (or any other widebody, except the 767, for the matter) to make good revenues from its belly space is one of the main reasons why it is so extremely difficult to use narrowbodies as a good alternative on any point-to-point sector where both could theoretically be deployed on.

I can agree that IF you compare non-stop narrowbody operations to triangular widebody routes which were to be really poorly conceived and thus were to have a very long intermediate detour so to say, then indeed those widebody operations would be getting less efficient and possibly even less efficient than an A319 on a nonstop flight, but it's going to have to be quite some triangular routing to achieve that! SN indeed has some inefficient triangulars left, but other routes are actually quite efficiently paired and this efficiency is increasing as the longhaul network expands, so the business case to 'decouple' those routes becomes weaker with every additional destination, at least from an operating cost perspective.

Besides, some of those remaining inefficiently paired triangulars allow for some other aspects like 5th freedom traffic or tankering fuel (fuel prices in AFI can very greatly, up to 30% due to infrastructure constraints), so seriously, what may look at inefficient triangulars at first sight, may actually not be so inefficient as you may think and actually may have a good reason of being, so the business case for A319s as efficiency improving machines is limited to just a niche segment of the market at best, fully in line with how others use narrowbodies on longhaul too, BTW...

Now, if you absolutely want to serve a few thin niche routes which you think may be interesting to offer to Europeans and Americans, better than to serve them at high cost and only once or twice weekly from BRU on a dedicated narrowbody, why not set up a local base with a couple of narrowbodies somewhere in Central Africa and serve that base with a much more efficient widebody from BRU?
Okay, it going to be a hugely complex venture too, but it has the added benefit of being able to do the biggest part of the trip on a more comfortable widebody with lower CASM and as it allows you to fish into the local market too, thus allowing you to offer much higher frequencies to those Americans and Europeans and at an overall lower cost! Hey, wait a minute: isn't SN trying to do that for a couple of years already?

Here's a million dollar consultancy hint, so to say: rather than mess with the idea of refurbishing excess A319s to use them on longhauls from BRU to niche destinations in AFI during winter season, why not just look for a stable base somewhere in West-Africa to send a couple excess A319s to in winter and have them operate from there to the same nich destinations, yet without any cabin modifications to them whatsoever? Much easier and less expensive to achieve (barring the politics of course) AND with much more market potential too....

[LJ]

If it works, SN would have a strong strategy that would enable it to combat the LCC's at full thrust during the summer, while cornering both AF and KL in Africa during the winter and positioning very well to compete the new market entrants.

My understanding is that Africa is a market where most pax travel in November up until including January and July - August. How are you going to serve the busy months of July and August when they're flying on the European network? Moreover what do you do with the A319s in February and March (when both Africa and Europe are at its slowest point in the year)?

Indeed, and if you have a good business case, the money you invest (spend) now will bring in good money in the medium to long term. I don't understand why b.air would not get money from banks or a loan on a purchase or lease directly from Airbus for additional A330s, when b.air can prove that these aircraft will make a profit and will consolidate the airline's financial position.

The reason why SN will not get the financing is due to their financial track record. Moreover, leases are not cheap for A330s (which is a problem for more airlines).

[Flanker]

Now, if you absolutely want to serve a few thin niche routes which you think may be interesting to offer to Europeans and Americans, better than to serve them at high cost and only once or twice weekly from BRU on a dedicated narrowbody, why not set up a local base with a couple of narrowbodies somewhere in Central Africa and serve that base with a much more efficient widebody from BRU?
Okay, it going to be a hugely complex venture too, but it has the added benefit of being able to do the biggest part of the trip on a more comfortable widebody with lower CASM and as it allows you to fish into the local market too, thus allowing you to offer much higher frequencies to those Americans and Europeans and at an overall lower cost! Hey, wait a minute: isn't SN trying to do that for a couple of years already?

Here's a million dollar consultancy hint, so to say: rather than mess with the idea of refurbishing excess A319s to use them on longhauls from BRU to niche destinations in AFI during winter season, why not just look for a stable base somewhere in West-Africa to send a couple excess A319s to in winter and have them operate from there to the same nich destinations, yet without any cabin modifications to them whatsoever? Much easier and less expensive to achieve (barring the politics of course) AND with much more market potential too....

I would prefer such a solution but I don't see it happening.
The reason why is because
1. The lessor, insurer and BCAA wouldn't authorize SN to station their A319/A320's there.
2. The political and administrative hurdles to overcome are large.
3. Stability of the pacts and agreements can be jeoparized by local greed, competition.
4. You need more than a seasonal base, you need a permanent base that you can strengthen during the winter, otherwise what with infrastructure and personnel?
5. Requires huge investments to run a "second hub".

Korongo goes in that direction and is well positioned for central, East and South Africa, but as you see some of the above hurdles have already been dragging it for years.

Flanker wrote:
If it works, SN would have a strong strategy that would enable it to combat the LCC's at full thrust during the summer, while cornering both AF and KL in Africa during the winter and positioning very well to compete the new market entrants.


My understanding is that Africa is a market where most pax travel in November up until including January and July - August. How are you going to serve the busy months of July and August when they're flying on the European network? Moreover what do you do with the A319s in February and March (when both Africa and Europe are at its slowest point in the year)?

I can't verify nor confirm these market movements.
Let's suppose that you're right.
I think that if you consider the winter season as being from November through April, that ear-marking A319/A320's for Africa during this period would be a much better investment that leaving them in Europe.

I'll dig deeper to explain:

There's a reason why I have pushed for Q400's all this time. The Q's are the perfect airplane for SN's winter operations combined with summer operations. I'll explain why:
When you look at leasing an airplane in a (post-)peak oil environment you have 2 solutions:
A. Fuel efficient airplane, but expensive to lease. Examples Q400, A319/A320
B. Fuel guzzlers, cheap to lease. Examples Avro RJ85 (the champion), B737-300, CR1/CR2, MD80

The best plane for a typical low demand, low volume, low yield winter European operation is a very lean aircraft, with the lowest capacity x CASM coefficient.
Unfortunately, neither the A319/A320 nor the RJ85 fit this profile.
The A319/A320 will have good CASM but will essentially be competing against itself due to too much capacity. Acceptable load factors (50%) will come at too cheap fares, but if you raise fares, you're going to fly empty (20%).
The RJ85 will have less capacity but CASM will be too high. Here the problem will be that no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to cover your costs.

BUT, coming back to the above arguments of lease/fuel price combinations, the advantage of aircraft like the RJ85 is that when you park them, they don't burn fuel and leases are cheap. In the winter, you can just park them and in the summer you can make a little money with them.

The issue with A319/A320 is that you can make a lot of money during the summer but you lose a lot of money during the winter because if you park them, they cost a lot of money because you have to still pay the expensive leases; and if they fly they cost even more because revenues won't be able to cover fuel.


If sending a bunch of re-configured A32S can generate a profit 3 out of 6 months of the winter in Africa and perhaps break-even the other 3, for me that's good enough a reason to do it.

[RoMax]

I don't know if this the best topic to place this news. But at the World Routes 2011 event in Berlin, AirAsia X won the award for 'Best Network Performance'. A new award since this year.

But more interesting for us is that SN was one of the nominees. All nominees were: AirAsia X, Brussels Airlines, Air France-KLM and Delta Airlines.

Airlines are nominted based on several things:

Airlines are evaluated on their ability to demonstrate excellence in the field of Network Planning through efficient network management to deliver a strong shareholder return on the airlines assets and developing a clear network strategy based on the effectiveness of the airlines network performance.

Other criteria’s include identifying new emerging markets, maximising fleet utilization to deliver maximum return on the aircraft and developing strong partnerships with key stakeholders that attract strong support packages from tourism authorities and airports.

Ok, SN didn't won, but if they are nominated with 3 other big airlines (and it's not that it's some award by a magazine nobody knows, this organisation has become very important in the world of networking for airlines/airports), their route strategy is maybe not as bad as some people think.

Of course I don't want to prove with this that SN is perfect (you can always improve and especially SN could improve several things) but also not as bad as some people imply.

http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/B ... 4/Article/

[sn26567]

Lufthansa is to increase flights between Frankfurt and Accra from five a week to a daily schedule from November 1, operated by a PrivatAir 737-800 instead of an Airbus A330.

Configuration for LH/PTI 737 service to Accra has changed from C32/Y60 to C24/Y84.

There will be no Inflight Duty-Free Sale on Frankfurt - Accra route.

Source: Airline Route

[Air Key West]

Kenya Airways to operate NBO FCO with 737-700 (with winglets) with 16 Premier World seats (40 inches seat pitch) and 100 economy seats. Flight time 7h30. The trend continues....

[rwandan-flyer]

Also Ethiopian Airlines operated flights with b737-700s to Europe, this summer. Travel Service (Czech Republic) serves Mombasa (Kenya) with B737-800s.

[rwandan-flyer]

Yes Airways has just started flights from Warsaw, with A320, to Kenya (Mombasa) with a tech stop in Egypt.

http://in2eastafrica.net/airline-makes- ... o-mombasa/

[ticketbuyer]

Turkish airlines to fly to Africa with narrow body equipment.
http://www.centreforaviation.com/analys ... ndia-62632

[Flanker]

Turkish airlines to fly to Africa with narrow body equipment.
http://www.centreforaviation.com/analys ... ndia-62632

Very interesting, well-written article.

I said it numerous and numerous times already, but there's little arguing when the CEO of a thriving airline like TK says something like this:

Mr Kotil says that even with fewer seats, the smaller aircraft on longer sectors have unit costs equal to those seen with widebody operations, making increased frequencies financially viable.

Frequency is key in the future of Africa.

Looking at the Central and Eastern African operations of European airlines, many routes see limited frequency with the smallest aircraft that has the range to perform the mission, giving credence to Turkish's plan to boost all-important frequency and decrease daily seats.

Additional demand and market share will only be created by better frequencies and lower fares.

As Turkish's network and local markets grow, the B737-900ER routes could eventually be upgraded to widebody aircraft, permitting the B737-900ER subfleet to enter new emerging markets.

Good job TK. Keep reading luchtzak.be :wave:

[tolipanebas]

I said it numerous and numerous times already, but there's little arguing when the CEO of a thriving airline like TK says something like this

Indeed, and maybe you'll just accept it isn't possible from BRU then, as Turkish' CEO Temel Kotil basically underwrites what many here have been telling you all along:


Turkey is closer, making smaller aircraft possible
...
"It is an intriguing solution to a frequency problem that has plagued much of the African market for decades. With longer distances involved, this is a solution not available at the traditional European hubs."

Keep reading luchtzak.be

Hear, hear! :clap:

[Air Key West]

Indeed, you couldn't operate a narrow-body aircraft between BRU and, for instance, NBO, EBB, DLA or FIH.
However, if you look at the figures, you will see that IST LOS is 2864 miles (BRU LOS would be 3079 miles, not a large difference) and BRU to OUA, BKO or NIM, NDJ would be shorter than IST LOS and BRU BJL similar.
Several months ago, someone on this forum wrote it would be impossible to operate NB's to Africa, saying something like "BTW, nobody is doing it".
Now we see an increasing number of airlines starting such operations, even LH with FRA ACC (3127 miles).

[Flanker]

Indeed, you couldn't operate a narrow-body aircraft between BRU and, for instance, NBO, EBB, DLA or FIH.
However, if you look at the figures, you will see that IST LOS is 2864 miles (BRU LOS would be 3079 miles, not a large difference) and BRU to OUA, BKO or NIM, NDJ would be shorter than IST LOS and BRU BJL similar.

:thumbup:


Aaah mr. Tolipanebas, always so naive.
The last thing Mr. Kotil wants is for other airlines reading luchtzak.be to do the same. :shh:
That's also why he claims that the B739ER can do what the A321 can't. With sharklets, auxiliary tanks and a low density config, the A321 can do even better. but again :shh:

He stresses that this is for Central and Western Africa.
If you can do FNA/DKR from IST, you can cover 80% of SN's current African network.
Out of the top of my head, it would only exclude EBB, KGL, BJM, FIH and NBO.

From CDG, or even better from MAD, LIS or FCO, prospects are even better.

By 2020, I predict that 90% or more of Europe-Africa traffic will be flown using narrowbodies, simply because it's more efficient, you can offer better spreading of capacity and thus more frequencies and capture more market share.

TK will most certainly also not hesitate to use their aircraft on 3 sectors per day, a unique possibility offered by narrowbodies with shorter turn-around times.

All it takes is a bit of imagination, acceptance that cargo is only an ancillary revenue needed to fund less efficient indirect widebody operations.

After TK, let's see who'll follow suit.
With the NEO and the MAX in the picture, infrastructures upgrade investments in African airports, Africa is becoming more and more accessible for all airlines.

[tolipanebas]

The last thing Mr. Kotil wants is for other airlines reading luchtzak.be to do the same.:shh:

That's the second time you've posted something along those lines, hence me asking it: you don't seriously believe airlines need to get their network ideas from sites like these, do you?
You must take these forums much less serious, I tell you!

He stresses that this is for Central and Western Africa.

It doesn't matter where he sends them to really, it's where he thinks his pax will come from which matters.
IST may be enough to the South for narrowbodies to work, but IST is sadly also too much to the East to effectively link West and Central Africa with Western Europe: only places in East Africa can be reached through IST without a huge detour from Europe, so it should be no surprise he's thinking of NBO as first destination to test his idea of double dailies: TK is still very much relying on European feed for its long haul ops currently. As TK's Asian feed increases, I'd expect him to use this on West-Africa too, but without attracting much feed from Europe for the simple reason pax would be wasting half an additional day going through IST then. Simply going daily from EU is going to block that off completely.

From CDG, or even better from MAD, LIS or FCO, prospects are even better.

Which is basically what we've been telling you all along: it's a nice concept, but only for an airline based about 1,000 miles south of BRU. IST is a good example, but I'd locate the hub in Algiers or Tunis for it to be ideally situated for Europe to Africa.

By 2020, I predict that 90% or more of Europe-Africa traffic will be flown using narrowbodies, simply because it's more efficient, you can offer better spreading of capacity and thus more frequencies and capture more market share.

Without mentioning you'd first have to have new planes capable of doing it, I wish you good luck getting the bilaterals changed allowing you to spread capacity through multiple daily frequencies; as we've come to see, the bilateral between Belgium and Senegal was only recently changed after 9 months of hard negociations and it comes down to just 4 flights a week for SN, out of the 7 weekly flights allowed.

I predict that in 2050 we'll all be going to any place in the world in just 30 minutes on a suborbital spaceship... Meanwhile, in this day and age, we're still stuck which what he have available today and need to work within that framework, like it or not. Less sexy, yet much more real.

After TK, let's see who'll follow suit.

Airlines from north Africa are IDEALLY situated to make use of the capabilities of the recent generation of narrowbodies, as already known for years (and tested by Afriqiyah, BTW).

With the NEO and the MAX in the picture, infrastructures upgrade investments in African airports, Africa is becoming more and more accessible for all airlines.

So in essence: SN would need better planes and more liberal bilaterals, on top of better infrastructure to make it work as there are just too much limitations still.

In short: your proposal isn't very useful as a nework strategy from BRU right now, just as you've been told and contrary to what you've been pretending now for over 2 years: exciting visions for the distant future do not constitute a valid business plan for next season, sadly. Our geographical location is preventing it: nothing naive about it, just cold rational reasoning.

[DeltaWiskey]

I predict that in 2050 we'll all be going to any place in the world in just 30 minutes on a suborbital spaceship...

Not going to happen. The only trend airline travel has seen since the 70s is: cheaper, cheaper and cheaper. I see that continue for another few decades...
And half the globe in 30 minutes? That is faster than any LEO spacecraft. So that will require even more energy than a space shuttle launch (for example) to transport a couple of hundreds of people. It will be a huge wast of energy...

Maybe we will see half the globe travel in 2-3 hours (Mach 5-10) in 2100-2150 or so, but not in 40 years time. It will be far too expensive to make it viable... It's going to be way more expensive than a SpaceShip2 ride, and even that doesn't get close to a speed that can make half the globe in half an hour.