brussels airlines to New York!

[Conti764]

To be honesty, this is not correct. SN and UA have ATI between the US and as such it doesn't matter if SN or UA operates the flight.

Fair enough, but for UA it would mean opening a small base at JFK whilst their own NYC gateway, a true power house in their system, is only a few miles away. JFK is better located for the customer base SN is targetting, so it makes sense for SN to open up their own flight to JFK since UA has no reason whatsoever to do it themselves.

[tolipanebas]

OMG, didn't you guys pay any attention at all then?
I saw freight being mentioned by at least 2 members! Freight is completely useless payload!
Don't you ever mention it again or Flanker will feel greatly insulted once more and for sure he doesn't get insulted quickly, does he? After all: he's so kind as to be willing to try to educate even complete nitwits like us around here.... god knows it's useless anyway.

Seems from the answers this discussion has been getting that our resident wannabe consultant has once again been trying very hard to build any credibility for himself by presenting you his very best alternatives?
What has it been this time:
- range limited 757s to a remote place like DEN?
- A319s to central Africa?
- A330s to HKG or TPE?
Sure, the market must be huge for a daily HKG-BRU-NBO for instance!
Makes perfect sense if you look at the map: http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=HKG- ... MAP-STYLE=
Euh... well, it does when you are Flanker, anyway.

Seriously, let me take a wild guess without reading any of his new posts even: no credibility gained today?
I am so glad I needn't bother reading complete and utter bollocks every time I come by any longer.

[cnc]

To be honesty, this is not correct. SN and UA have ATI between the US and as such it doesn't matter if SN or UA operates the flight.

this is only half true!
for the O&D market its very true, for transfer pax however there are some sharp angles.
UA gains little from SN transfer pax but must fully take care of them when something go's wrong (and visa versa)
this is why UA doesn't add more seats on its BRU routes.
besides having an active presence in JFK will enforce the name Brussels Airlines a bit more in the US

[OO-ITR]

UA gains little from SN transfer pax but must fully take care of them when something go's wrong (and visa versa)
this is why UA doesn't add more seats on its BRU routes.

I hear that several North American carriers carry quiet some pax for SN. People from AC tell me that the flight from YUL has a lot of pax connecting to AFI. Is this true? Does anyone has figures of the percentage of SN-pax on these flights?

[RoMax]

I hear that several North American carriers carry quiet some pax for SN. People from AC tell me that the flight from YUL has a lot of pax connecting to AFI. Is this true? Does anyone has figures of the percentage of SN-pax on these flights?

There are indeed other airlines then United that carry pax from BRU to NYC, even while they are in another alliance, but SN had no other choice before they started their own flights.
And I have no exact numbers for YUL, but you can believe these people from AC. There are A LOT of passengers that are connecting with the SN network, mainly to Africa, but also to certain French destinations.

[lindahabana]

I fly often BRU YYZ HAV...and vv with AC. On the return flight a lot of passengers are connecting to Africa. A lot to Douala Yaoundé or Kigali but don't know the number...

[Inquirer]

To be honesty, this is not correct. SN and UA have ATI between the US and as such it doesn't matter if SN or UA operates the flight.

this is only half true!
For the O&D market its very true, for transfer pax however there are some sharp angles.
UA gains little from SN transfer pax but must fully take care of them when something go's wrong (and visa versa); this is why UA doesn't add more seats on its BRU routes.

It would be interesting to know how airlines split the revenue of a ticket which includes a second long haul leg.

Let's assume this scenario:
NYC-BRU-FIH; first leg on any US airline, second on Bru Air.
BRU-FIH alone regularly goes for 800 euro, yet NYC-BRU-FIH only goes for something like 1100: does this mean the US airline must fly the pax to BRU for a mere 300 euro then? No wonder none of them are very willing to add much more capacity to their daily flights only to allow Bru Air to fill their seats at high yield on their BRU-FIH! Or does Bru Air gives the feeding airline part of the 800 euro of their BRU-FIH to make it worthwhile for that US airline to act as feeder? In this case it makes sense for Bru Air to be serving the USA themselves in order not having to do this any longer and keep this money in house.

[Conti764]

It would be interesting to know how airlines split the revenue of a ticket which includes a second long haul leg.

Let's assume this scenario:
NYC-BRU-FIH; first leg on any US airline, second on Bru Air.
BRU-FIH alone regularly goes for 800 euro, yet NYC-BRU-FIH only goes for something like 1100: does this mean the US airline must fly the pax to BRU for a mere 300 euro then? No wonder none of them are very willing to add much more capacity to their daily flights only to allow Bru Air to fill their seats at high yield on their BRU-FIH! Or does Bru Air gives the feeding airline part of the 800 euro of their BRU-FIH to make it worthwhile for that US airline to act as feeder? In this case it makes sense for Bru Air to be serving the USA themselves in order not having to do this any longer and keep this money in house.

Isn't SN a member of the TATL JV of UA/LH/LX/... ? In that way all revenues are shared, no?

[Ricard]

I have a completely different question :
Which ETOPS-certification is SN going to have to start their JFK-operations during the first year ?

[Inquirer]

Isn't SN a member of the TATL JV of UA/LH/LX/... ? In that way all revenues are shared, no?

I was under the impression this is only for the transatlantic route itself, as the name says.

However, I am wondering how revenues are shared on more complicated routes like NYC-BRU-FIH?
And how it is done for those pax that come to BRU on a non-alliance partner, like AA for instance?

[convair]

My guess for a JV flight would be:

-all costs of the flight + a pre-determined profit for the operating airline are paid by the partners pro rata the number of passengers brought by each partner.

-revenues remain with each partner, so no problem in splitting the fare of a JFK-BRU-FIH in your example.

This however may look too simple to be right.

[Flanker]

I was under the impression this is only for the transatlantic route itself, as the name says.

However, I am wondering how revenues are shared on more complicated routes like NYC-BRU-FIH?
And how it is done for those pax that come to BRU on a non-alliance partner, like AA for instance?

The revenue sharing is only transatlantic.

For NYC-BRU-FIH, a typical fare in economy is 1300EUR, return, without taxes.
The fare can be split for instance 550-750 between the two legs.

Even though there is revenue sharing, the airlines in the JV have a benchmark fare or yield between them.
That way, SN can't split the 1300 EUR as 1-1299 between the two legs but has to allocate the same fare for this leg as UA selling a EWR-BRU as part of a EWR-BRU-FIH.

Basically there should be no fare difference between JFK-BRU-FIH compared to EWR-BRU-FIH.

In such JV's, the revenue sharing is indexed according to the city pairs flown.
This means that UA and SN will share revenue on New York-BRU in accordance to their contribution in capacity (asm/ask), not the amount of pax they bring like speculated above and in accordance with benchmark yields. Usually if one of the JV partner sells tickets at lower yields, the other partner will only feel it in a limited way, as the former will have to compensate the lower yield by a lower pay-out index.

Although the revenues are shared, risk-sharing is not the aim of the JV.
The main idea is to be able to offer capacity on each other's aircraft, while reducing competition on fares.

This is also why I think that UA will downgrade BRU to B767 soon and ask SN to downgrade to A332 after the summer. Otherwise, UA will have to carry SN's weight too much, while having so many problems on their own.

[sn26567]

Question to the moderators: Has any of you been tampering with some of the posts here?

I ask because for some reason there has been a very significant change made to one of my previous posts!

The post in question contained a rather shocking quote from Flanker on him being foed by several members of this forum, a remark which he removed again shortly after posting it, yet I had picked it up meanwhile and commented on it as it was extremely arrogant and defiant in tone: for some reason however, both the quote as well as my comment to it have been removed now?!

I agree that it became off topic after Flanker revoked his initial comment, but still it would be good if we'd be informed of editorial re-writes of our posts as I've always automatically assumed everything to be from the hand of the member posting it. It seems this is not so sure any longer?!

Care to enlighten us, please, because this is quite disturbing!

It appears indeed that one of the moderators (not me) has modified one post by removing some shocking sentences that could not be tolerated. He also had to modify one quote (yours) of one of these sentences. The author has received a warning and we shall warn in the same way all the participants in the forum who do not follow the forum rules, especially in the field of respect and politeness. After several warnings culprits will be banned temporarily, and then definitively.

But please understand tat the moderators cannot always read all the posts. Therefore, there is an alert button on top of each each post: use it to report any unsuitable language.

[Passenger]

About Cityjet, TNT Airways, Thomas Cook, Jetair, there's not much to say.

Indeed. If one does not take into account: the poor seat pitch for long haul flights (airline A), the +20 average age of the fleet (airline B), the range problem for QC aircraft (airline C), the initial technical problems with one particular OO-reg aircraft (airline D), the political discussion about position flights between BRU and OST or LGG (airlines E and F).

[Bralo20]

I have a completely different question :
Which ETOPS-certification is SN going to have to start their JFK-operations during the first year ?

AFAIK SN's A330 fleet is ETOPS120/138 certified. The newer A330's that roll of out of the factory can be delivered with ETOPS240 (standard ETOPS180) ratings but SN's birds (very early ones) have to do with ETOPS120/138.

[Ricard]

AFAIK SN's A330 fleet is ETOPS120/138 certified. The newer A330's that roll of out of the factory can be delivered with ETOPS240 (standard ETOPS180) ratings but SN's birds (very early ones) have to do with ETOPS120/138.

Thank you Bralo20, I was just wondering because of high fuel prices and schedules to keep, if it would make a big difference flying ETOPS180 versus ETOPS120.

So if I get this right, for SN's A330's it's not possible to obtain ETOPS180 or simply they can do without on this route ?

[Bralo20]

ETOPS120/138 is more then sufficient to fly TATL JFK ops. Look at the map with the ETOPS120/138 marked. Light grey is ETOPS120, darker grey is ETOPS138 (ETOPS138 = FAA/JAA approved ETOPS120 + 15% margin)

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=BRU-JFK&MS ... =138&E=180

So you'll see that ETOPS120/138 is all they need to operate JFK.

Regarding ETOPS180/207: I'm not sure if SN's A330 fleet can obtain this, i'll need to look into that but even if so they don't need it for current ops, even for future TATL routes they can do with ETOPS120/138. AFAIK SN's birds were delivered as ETOPS90 which became ETOPS120 after a year of service.

[Air Key West]

I presume we all know that transatlantic flights tend to be low yield. But which destinations are still (for how long) high yield ? Africa. B.air told they need more capacity on NYC-BRU to feed their African network. So, it's worth trying this out, I mean the JFK flights. If they manage to break even, it's a good enough, as it will in turn fill the high yield African flights. I'd even say (and said it before), b.air should quickly start an evening flight (leaving BRU around 1930 hours to be back to grant connections to the African flights leaving in the afternoon). Plus the evening flight out of BRU would certainly be appreciated by O&D business travelers.

Now, I know this is off topic, but since it was mentioned here by Inquirer and LJ (if I remember well), flights to Latin America should be considered quickly after the consolidation of the AFI network and the evening flight to JFK. I don't think PTY is such a "wild thought on a sunny Saturday afternoon". Panama is becoming the Singapore of Central America with a lot of potential and poorly served (certainly by *A) and Sao Paulo is a bustling city in a country with a booming economy. My guess is also that quiet a number of people of AB-Inbev in Leuven would love to have a nonstop flight to GRU (Ambev). Brazil is basically TAP territory. So, if they go to IAG/OW....

To get back on topic, my conclusion to the latest contributions would be : give b.air a break (on the JFK flights at tleast).

[sn26567]

United Airlines is placing its "UA" code on Brussels Airlines' New York JFK - Brussels flights.

Source: Airline Route

[RoMax]

United Airlines is placing its "UA" code on Brussels Airlines' New York JFK - Brussels flights.

Source: Airline Route

Nothing about connections to California (the only destinations served by UA in JFK are SFO and LAX if I'm correct) so far?