Brussels Airlines' second US destination

[Air Key West]

Newark? Is this confirmed somewhere?

It would be briliant to finally get an evening link to New York: the business community has been asking for this for ages, but I fail to understand the logic of selecting EWR for the second flight, when the first one is going to JFK? Wouldn't it be better to have both flights serve the same airport?

Anybody who has a better insight on this and wants to share the rational behind it all?

PS: thinking about it for a minute myself: if they really want to serve both airports, how about swapping the 2 New York flghts: have the morning flight go to EWR vs. JFK (more connection opportunities) and the new evening flight heading to JFK then, thus deliver New Yorkers on a terminator flight right at their doorstep?

I agree 200%, also with your P.S.

[crlhub]

According to l'Echo:

Montréal, Boston, Washington et New York-Newark.

http://www.pagtour.net/actualite/brusse ... index.html

[RoMax]

why shouldn't they fly to a skyteam hub?

In a Star hub they would have more connecting feeder flights. When Sabena flew to CVG it was a Delta hub, and Delta was in the same Qualiflyer alliance.

P&G is looking at a new contract for their feed from CVG to their most important European offices, meaning: Brussels, Paris, UK (I believe London) and Geneva. If I'm correct currently they are doing most things through CDG. BRU could be another possibility.
Yes Sabena flew to CVG in their "Delta-period", but the biggest money didn't came from the Delta feed, but it came from P&G... In that time they had several hundreds of high yield passengers per week from P&G. But I believe Delta and Air France achieved to get this traffic away from Sabena/BRU, but now apparently P&G is evaluating their feed to Europe again.

But this is not ment as thé new US destination. This MAY come if SN MAY get the contract with P&G.

I also heard a lot about BOS, EWR is new for me, but why not? UA and SN are in an Atlantic JV. SN can take over EWR (the full NYC region), possibly with an evening flight (huge demand as said before), UA can concentrate on optimising other routes. Some time ago I heard SN also looked at ORD. Maybe SN => NYC, UA => more ORD/IAD or even Houston?
On the other hand BOS remains a possibility, just as YUL (SN WILL do this, the only question is when, AC knows this, and because they are in the same JV it doesn't matter for them, it's more logicall that SN operates the route as the majority of the pax flies through BRU further to Europe or Africa with SN).

[Flanker]

Cincinnati is not that big a city.
Procter & Gamble is a big company but not big enough to fly A330's full of executives all year-round to BRU and Europe.

So CVG is too big a challenge.

EWR would be weird given that they already serve JFK and that UA is there.
The one I heard is ORD but that would be weird too since UA is doing it already.

I would prefer to see DEN, so that SN can start serving Belgium/Africa-US West Coast one-stop with UA feed, and also Europe-Denver and vice-versa.
Merits: A huge central UA hub to connect to Central US and the West Coast, high yield tourism both ways, all year round while low competition, daily service possible with A333.
This way you can cover the Eastern half of the US to Africa with the JFK flight and the Western half with DEN.

As for JFK, they need to get that Jetblue codeshare going, everyday they don't do it they are losing money.

[Air Key West]

Actually, there is difference or at least a nuance between "b.air's second US destination" and "b.air's second flight to the US".
As some members (including myself) already explained in other threads, the top priority should be an evening flight from BRU to NYC because business travelers are asking for it AND because on the way back the flight would offer good connections with the flights leaving for Africa in the afternoon (so that pax arriving in the early morning and connecting to Africa in the afternoon do not have to wait eight hours at BRU).
If someone does not understand the logic behind this, I'm getting desperate.
That's for b.air's second flight to the US.

If we are talking about b.air's second destination to the US, I tend to agree with Flanker and the reasons he gives to opt for Denver.

I fail to understand enthusiasm for BOS (not a Star hub as far as I know, and not enough demand Europe-BRU-BOS v.v. as there is already quite some competition). No need to fly to ORD. UA does that.
CVG because of Procter&Gamble ? Not convincing. And certainly not a priority. As to YUL (not US, but Canada : perhaps one day, yes, with a swap between AC and SN : SN to/from YUL + AC from/to YYZ).
But that's for LATER. With only one long-haul aircraft joigning the fleet each year, you cannot achieve much.
There should at least be two additional long-haul aircraft per year, but perhaps there is no money to do that, although it has been proven that long-haul operations bring in more money than European flights.

[Atlantis]

A flight of SN to EWR can make sense when they can maybe schedule this to a later moment on the day. SN is rather strong in this destination like NY, EWR can work too if they can feed this flight also with pax who missed their connection somewhere in Europe.
United is flying already this route but they can free this space for SN and they can deploy an other new route to BRU out of their hubs.

We can see the same with Canada. Sooner or later we will see them flying back to Canada. Montreal is a very good choice. Here the same. Air Canada is flying this route. They can free this space for SN and serve f.e. Toronto directly or maybe Vancouver.

[RoMax]

I wonder if United considers Houston-Brussels now they have their first 787's comming to Houston. I believe this route may work, considering the feed SN offers (including to some African oil destinations).
SN taking over the EWR flights doesn't have to mean a downgrade of UA's operation in BRU, a shift to other markets can be the solution as well.
And for Canada that's especially the case. SN will indeed return to Montreal, that's just a matter of time. But I believe that doesn't mean the end of AC in BRU. Toronto and/or Vancouver are other possibilities with 'proven' market demand (YVR may be difficult, especially in winter season, but through Toronto may work?).

[HighInTheSky]

...YVR may be difficult, especially in winter season...

YVR in winter = acces to North America's largest wintersport area: Whistler-Blackcomb.

[RoMax]

...YVR may be difficult, especially in winter season...

YVR in winter = acces to North America's largest wintersport area: Whistler-Blackcomb.

Yeay indeed, but still January/February is low season in YVR, especially for traffic from Europe which seem to love the Vancouver region more during the summer (the reason why YVR was a relatively smooth gateway for the Winter Olympics in 2010, without much temporary capacity expansion).

[DannyVDB]

Hi all,

Regarding Montreal I would also eventually see LH giving up its flight from Munich. It is FR-speaking territory, not really their core expertise. They might channel pax for Montreal through BRU (from all German cities). When I took their flight from Munich last May it was far from full.

Regarding EWR I think UA does not need to withdraw from the route. Don't forget capacity overall went down for the NY area. Still many people go to the area through LHR, AMS, ... which means a loss of part of the market. I would also not be surprised that Jet Airways will withdraw from EWR, then even more there will be a shortage rather than overcapacity.

If LH wants eventually invest (it is still not happening), and the idea is to have 6 additional A330's, then it means those should fit in an overall strategy of the group, not only seeking a SN 'solution'. I also hope they would extend at least with one of the planes in Africa, adding some destinations there ...

Just my 2 cents ...

Regards,
Danny

[tolipanebas]

If (...) the idea is to have 6 additional A330's, then it means those should fit in an overall strategy of the group, not only seeking a SN 'solution'.

SN is part of the A++ transatlantic joint venture between LH and UA, so every move needs to be well coordinated with all parties involved as it will come with cost and revenue repercussions to the other airlines in A++ too...

In the A++ context, it is indeed possible to envisage a change of operating carrier on a certain transatlantic route or even to see a change of hub for certain intercontinental pax flows (similar to how LX handed NSI/DLA to SN), but not before SN is well established on the Atlantic.

It's not a secret most of the additional long haul planes SN is planning on will be deployed on relatively short transatlantic routes and it's fairly easy to predict they will be sent predominantly to STAR hubs on the east coast in order to maximize feed at both ends, so EWR is definitely on the short list, but just as JFK was in fact an a-typical first destination from an A++ perspective, so could be their next one for the simple reason that SN is the natural first choice to fill the obvious black spots on the transatlantic route map out of BRU first: JFK was the most obvious one and the other one that is always mentioned is BOS.

FWIW, the first UA hub planned as a future SN destination isn't EWR either, so if indeed EWR gets launched next year as Atlantis claims without quoting a source, it certainly will have leapfrogged more than just one route then: only the surprise (and complete?) pull out of 9W -next to the planned pull out of AA- from the NYC market may trigger such a move, IMHO.

I also hope they would extend at least with one of the planes in Africa, adding some destinations there ...

Not before they have built themselves a bigger network in the USA first: remember they need to get sufficient feed for all those additional African flights as they wont be able to fill them with their current EU network alone so at least the first few additional A330s won't be heading south.

[BrightCedars]

Depending on traffic volumes it is in the realm of the possible to see SN open YUL as O/D and feed from/to Africa while AC concentrate on YYZ for O/D and Westbound connections.

I'm curious to see what SN might do in the US. We all say BOS is a low hanging fruit so why not. It also seems that it is time to take hold of the NY market as there is a lot of change going on there.

What I'm thinking is that SN is slowly replacing 9W on the Atlantic and that these two could form an alliance to fill each other's flights, therefore eliminating the costly scissor hub for 9W. 9W would fly in from several points in India, and SN would dispatch the passengers on its or partner flights to NY, BOS, YUL, YYZ, etc.

Is 9W eventually joining Star Alliance or what?

I still think there is enough potential for a direct BRU-West Coast flight (LAX or SFO) but it does come with strings attached (24h+ round trip, etc.).

[tolipanebas]

What I'm thinking is that SN is slowly replacing 9W on the Atlantic and that these two could form an alliance to fill each other's flights, therefore eliminating the costly scissor hub for 9W. 9W would fly in from several points in India, and SN would dispatch the passengers on its or partner flights to NY, BOS, YUL, YYZ, etc.

Good idea, but I can do even better: 9W moves its operations to MUC and makes a deal like the one you describe there but with LH.

No more 9W in BRU wouldn't necessarily be bad news for SN, because it opens transatlantic opportunities for them AND it teaches BRU a valuable lesson: that it better puts its money on the home carrier than on foreign projects, because those can and will go as quickly as they come.

[BrightCedars]

Off topic then but hell! SN could benefit from a 9W pullout to venture into the India market. Actually they should look at all the BRIC markets. Sure Brazil is far fetched but they ought to look at more Russia flying, and own metal China and India flying.

[Atlantis]

Good idea, but I can do even better: 9W moves its operations to MUC and makes a deal like the one you describe there but with LH.

This is already happening. See one of my posts in the topic about the future of 9W at BRU.
LH is the power of all this. LH proposed 9W to move "the new announced flights to BRU to move them to MUC".
LH is taking those pax then and ops the flights to the us. So for 9W it is only India to MUC, nothing more.

[tolipanebas]

Good idea, but I can do even better: 9W moves its operations to MUC and makes a deal like the one you describe there but with LH.

This is already happening. See one of my posts in the topic about the future of 9W at BRU.
LH is the power of all this. LH proposed 9W to move "the new announced flights to BRU to MUC".
LH is taking those pax then and ops the flights to the US. So for 9W it is only India to MUC, nothing more.

Indeed, which is why I've mentioned it here.

If SN has put EWR on top of their to do list and will indeed launch this destination in JUN 2013 as you have claimed, then it most likely means they already know for a fact from LH that 9W is going to accept the invitation to move their transatlantic operations to MUC and will thus most likely decide to close their EWR route from BRU.

In such a situation, I could indeed see SN open EWR to strengthen their recently acquired lead position on the BRU-NYC market, capturing the unique opportunity to be able to launch a second daily (evening?) flight to the NYC area: the fact EWR is a UA hub will only make it easier for them as UA will probably not mind seeing the additional feed to their hub in the evening too and may be willing to downsize from 777 to 767 for their morning flight to make it all work well.

So if you say SN will most certainly serve EWR already in JUN next year, it can only mean 9W will drop EWR and leave BRU completely, as I don't think they will keep BRU open for just 1 route.

[Atlantis]

I never mentioned the date June 2013

[HighInTheSky]

I never mentioned the date June 2013

No, but internally we know that the next destination will be launched June 2013, so 1 + 1= 2...

[RoMax]

I never mentioned the date June 2013

No, but internally we know that the next destination will be launched June 2013, so 1 + 1= 2...

June 1? Would be nice to celebrate the first anniversary of JFK with a second US flight, haha

[tolipanebas]

I never mentioned the date June 2013

No, but internally we know that the next destination will be launched June 2013, so 1 + 1= 2...

June makes most sense to launch any new transatlantic route as this comes right at the start of the summer peak, so indeed June 1st has been mentioned as launch date of the new US route, if any.
Offer-for-sale would then be around year's end, just as for JFK.

However, I remain curious as to what factual element has led Atlantis to say EWR would be the new destination for sure, because it contradicts with the plan as it has been communicated so far. I know EWR is/was actually quite low on the shortlist of future destinations, some of which have already been frequently mentioned here, others not, so I'd be very interested in knowing what has made it to leapfrog the others then: in there may very well lay a very interesting hint as to the future 9W has at BRU.