LH Group posts better than expected financial results

[Airbus330lover]

An ATR should be better, but forget it. Props are not the solution

[Flanker]

Like I said, if that's what they want to do, that's what they should do.

The Q400 does require a different approach to running an operation, but the easy route is not always the best route. However keep in mind that no regional jet with capacities of less than 90 passengers can make any money at current oil prices, and we're not even talking about filling those seats.

I personally don't think that SN is clever enough to endeavour on a full-scale Q400 operation. You need people who know how it works to be working on such a project, not a bunch of monkey see monkey do's.

You want to run BRU as if it were FRA, MUC or ZRH? Be my guest.
You want to follow LH into the mist, be my guest.



As to the discussion regarding the luggage, the following are the luggage hold volumes:
-Q400 14m3
-Embraer 170 14,5m3
-Avro RJ70 13,56m3
-Avro RJ85 18,25m3
-Avro RJ100 23m3
-A319 27,5m3

The overhead bins on the Nextgen are bigger than those on the Avro's and the Embraers.





Also, the Avro loses quite some hold capacity due to its cargo doors opening inwards, while the Ejets lose quite some hold capacity due to the fire suppression system. See the zebra pattern on those walls. You're not allowed to stagger luggage above that level in that compartment. ALso, the door opens downward, so basically you lose that space and you can't load any luggage near the doors without having them falling down when you open the cargo door.
Basically, it means that you won't be able to use the hold to its full capacity, especially due to the roundness of the fuselage.



Sure, with pax from Africa it's a challenge to fit the luggage, but it has always been a challenge.

[RoMax]

I personally don't think that SN is clever enough to endeavour on a full-scale Q400 operation. You need people who know how it works to be working on such a project, not a bunch of monkey see monkey do's.

Yeay of course, the whole LH Group is a bunch of monkey's, that's true. That's probably also the reason why LH formally voted against a dry leased fleet of Q400's in SN's fleet after these wet lease 'trials' (and the decision that the Q400 is not the aircraft of the future in the LH Group fleet). Seriously, if SN fails to do it like it should be, LH will not simply vote against a reall Q400 fleet, they'll force SN to get their mess together and try it again in the way it should be and let SN prove that they can sustain a full dry leased fleet of Q400's (which isn't that cheap either, as you seem to think, especially when you are the only airline having a small subfleet in the LH Group).

And about the luggage, all nice theory, but as with so many things, theory doesn't always turns 1 to 1 in reality...

[Inquirer]

I might be wrong, but its not just about the volume, but also the weight and the relation to the balance on the plane? I have experienced myself how they clearly have balance problems on the Q400 when the relation between the number of passengers and the wight of their luggage does not correspond to the ratio the manufacturer designed the plane for and it doesn't seem to have been designed with the idea in mind passengers have 2 suitcases each, which seems to be the ratio Brussels has to cope with...

It seems logic to me that a luggage hold that is located below the main deck is far less limitative for the balance of the plane than one that it located at the very end of the fuselage, no? If you happen to stow it to the max volume with luggage as heavy as lead, no wonder the last x rows must remain empty on the Q400 for instance! One has to ask the question however if that is still such an efficient plane then?

As to Lufthansa being not clever enough, I'd like to ask what practical experience you have flanker, to claim to be smarter than those who have real operational data from no less than 3 operators (i.e. themselves, Austrian and Brussels) to base operational decisions on? Somehow I feel temped to think they should know better than you, sir. Lufthansa isn't known to be just copy pasting their fleet decisions from others; in fact they often are trend setters and even dare to go against the flow (see the 747-800), so if they think the Q400 is too limited to be of much use, that will most likely have good grounds which you may never even have thought of before.

[FlightMate]

While I agree LH knows how to handle their business, I'm not sure they know how to deal with SN's (or OS's)
I agree, fleet harmony within the group will reduce the purchase cost. But are the needs of the different daughters companies the same?
BRU will never be FRA, MUC, or even VIE. BRU is BRU, with its own network, own niche market.

That's why I like Flanker's idea to try something new. Hey, everything "standard" tried before has failed, hasn't it?

What kind of "right airplane" would you suggest, inquirer? One that doesn't exist, or won't exist in the near future?
If there is none, SN is just meant to fail. With or without LH. And I wouldn't want to let it happen without having tried everything...

[Inquirer]

That's why I like Flanker's idea to try something new.

Which is what they did, yet it didn't turn out to be the holy grail of aviation either, it seems.

What kind of "right airplane" would you suggest, inquirer? One that doesn't exist, or won't exist in the near future?

Since this topic is also about OS' quick turnaround, I'd like to use them as an example of how you need to streamline your internal processes and control your external costs much more than try to be the smartest airline manager having the most original business plan or fleet. OS is flying the same planes as last year, you know? They are just getting more passengers on them, while having their costs brought back in line with those of competitors, thus being able to make a healthy profit from the very same operations that were loss making in much better times.

The same can also happen at BRU:it's not like nobody is flying Brussels or its passengers aren't paying any money for their ticket either, so there's a solid basis to work with, even more solid than at VIE I'd say?
I am pretty sure they will be able to be turned around, just as it is/was done in VIE too and Lufthansa seems to be convinced they can do so or they wouldn't want to stick around any longer, let alone invest another 100m euro. Unless you really think they are just idiots of course; idiots who manage to make loads of money then to relate back to the very topic of this thread.