Next A330 for SN: 200 or 300? What should/will it be?

convair · Post by **convair** » 17 Nov 2012, 12:34

Has the principle decision been made on the type? Assuming SN reaches agreement with its pilots, of course...

Duke · Post by **Duke** » 17 Nov 2012, 13:08

SN should try to lease 2 of the Kingfisher A330-200's.
But I guess these planes would need a cabin refurbisment since SN can't afford to have two different cabin layouts, especially as the new cabin layout seems to be really well accepted ad gets very positive comments...
A330-200's have the advantage to have a slightly longer range... this could be interesting for future North American destinations, where the range of the A330-300 might be a little short...
Just my 2 cents though..; I'm not an expert...
Regards,

Duke

convair · Post by **convair** » 17 Nov 2012, 13:45

I assume they will be leased. A cabin refurbishment will be needed in any case.

cathay belgium · Post by **cathay belgium** » 17 Nov 2012, 14:04

Hi,

Guess the A330-200 would be the better option for SN.. more range can lead to more different destinations, who knows what the future might bring.. Tokyo, Jo'burg, ...

CX-B

Post by **Bruspotter** » 17 Nov 2012, 15:34

Hi

Personally I hope it will be -200's. SN already has quite some A330-300's and only 2 -200's so far, they could more go to a 50/50 fleet of -300 and -200's then, would give them more flexibility.
As mentioned before the -200's are more suitable for longer stretches (up to 3000km further) and/or lower pax density (40-50 pax less depending the layout). As far as the engines that will the only difference issue I believe as for the rest it is unknown to me that the A330-200 and A330-300 have system differences that matter (except later retrofitted modifications of course).

Lets see what happens.

Best regards, Yannick

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 17 Nov 2012, 16:15

cathay belgium wrote:Hi,

Guess the A330-200 would be the better option for SN.. more range can lead to more different destinations, who knows what the future might bring.. Tokyo, Jo'burg, ...

CX-B

Forget about Tokyo or Jo'burg. They need to strenght their possition in Africa where they are flying now. Carriers like AF, KLM, TK, LH are not waiting and increasing their presence there.
Their first flight to NY is doing well and North-America was always very important at BRU, so second target should be America by opening more routes to that continent.

Routes like Tokyo or and other exotic one means a lot of investments and will be only profitable after 3 years. SN can not afford that at this moment. So focus on Africa and US.

cathay belgium · Post by **cathay belgium** » 18 Nov 2012, 01:48

Hi Atlantis,

With the future I meant in 10 years or so when economy is booming again ( yes once will come this time but not yet in sight,not even close I guess )..
A330-200 is more flexible for their use at this moment, don't need the more pax.. more flexible routes ..

Guess also the expansion of SN must be searched in AFI ( more frequencies and some new operations..,triangles to less flown new destinations ) and US ( extra JFK at first -consolidate the success of JFK- and then BOS or so .. Denver - Chicago and would prefer something more special instead of big competition SFO/LAX ..choose san Diego ... in the west.. lots of europeans and afro-americans over there..less competition.. )

And then.. do something about europe...swop/cancel/reform... but handle it ..

Just my idea..

So more flexibility will lead to A330-200 but for how long..this is now ..the future is LH and one brand for all no .. so i would say A350XWB

CX-B

Flanker · Post by **Flanker** » 18 Nov 2012, 11:40

Yes cx, but flexibility costs money.

The A332 has almost the same operating cost as the A333, but all it does is carry more fuel at the expense of payload. They already have 2 A332's, which is more than they need for range flexibility, they need more A333's that can carry loads and they need more routes in Africa.

I disagree with the Tokyo argument of Atlantis.
HND is wide open now and everyone wants to fly to HND iso NRT, but to tell you the truth, Japan would be hyper-thrilled to have a one-stop connection to most of Africa through BRU as an alternative to AF/CDG.
Once NH starts this route, SN can kiss Tokyo goodbye for the foreseeable future.
Tokyo opens up opportunities for tourism and trade. Belgium used to full with Japanese tourists that toured the large museum's, the chocolate trade, the diamond trade.
This is a route that SN should pursue with the (financial) support of the Belgian government, because tourism = revenue for local SME businesses = taxes. Japanese tourists used to go to Antwerp to buy tens of thousands euro's worth of diamond each, to keep as family treasures or for occasions such as weddings. In Japan, the same diamonds cost many times more.

There is also a hidden market that's booming. Following the disaster in Fukushima, there is a general tendency among the Tokyo population to seek imported foods. That rhymes with belly cargo...

So overall I think that even though Tokyo wouldn't make much money, it wouldn't cost much money.
It would also enable SN to use the A332's in a more meaningful way and it would put SN (once again) on the map of global airlines.
A 3 weekly service would enable SN to operate a A332 in a very efficient way (Sunday-Tuesday-Thursday), in combination with African departures in the early afternoon.

Plus, this is HND, 25 minutes in monorail from the heart of Tokyo.

Instead of seeking another US destination, I think once more that Hong Kong (Africa trade, belly cargo) should be pursued (3/4 weekly) and should be an absolute priority, then maybe HND, JNB, perhaps even something in Brasil, and after that maybe DEN to open up to the West Coast. But no more East Coast please, BOS is already saturated as opposed to the Sabena days, UA is sufficient for ORD and the A350-900 is just three years away. One daily A333 is huge enough for New York.

And of course Africa, where there is so much opportunity left to take.

RoMax · Post by **RoMax** » 18 Nov 2012, 12:30

Tough I agree on Tokyo, I don't believe this will come in the near future... ANA will take this route (just as AC took YUL, at least for the time being). SN will stay focused on Africa and the US for the next (at least) 4-5 years. Otherwise they risk they fly some important cities all over the world, but aren't really strong in any of these markets. If they expand the US and African network they can make a much tougher competition against AF (after all, the main goal of LH). Their long haul growth is too slow to expand in Asia/North-America/Latin-America/Africa and become strong in all these markets.
I don't say this is the way they should do it, they could also expand more aggressive and in more markets, but they aren't...

But I just tought about something. I believe ANA will start Tokyo (either NRT of HND) to BRU in let's say 2013-2015 with a 787 (seems to most logical). But ANA and the LH Group carriers (SN excluded) are in a joint-venture agreement with eachother. Eventually SN can join that JV and force their will to operate the BRU-Tokyo (HND) route, just as they will eventually do with BRU-YUL, as SN would probably be the natural operator. Tough I don't see that comming until SN has a replacement for their current A330's.

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 18 Nov 2012, 12:54

No need to guess: it's going to be an A333, followed by again an A332: 6 + 3 is what is planned.
The first for a new daily US destination, the second one for extra flights to Africa + new US destination (not a daily route).

Bralo20 · Post by **Bralo20** » 18 Nov 2012, 12:58

Both delivered in 2013?

Any idea which frames it will be?

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 18 Nov 2012, 12:59

Who said there will be any expansion at all next year even?
The way negotiations are going, don't count on it.

convair · Post by **convair** » 18 Nov 2012, 13:27

I agree with Flanker on this one. Aren't the 2 200s enough to serve one longer range destination, even on a daily basis? The current 2 almost exclusively serve East-African destinations on a triangle operation! Of course, 1 would not be enough for a longer range flight, as you need a back-up. Is the leasing cost a factor here?

cnc · Post by **cnc** » 18 Nov 2012, 20:00

you people seem to have no idea about how much it costs to start a longhaul destination like BRU-NRT or BRU-HND and the amount of planes needed to offer decent freq.

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 18 Nov 2012, 20:14

cnc wrote:you people seem to have no idea about how much it costs to start a longhaul destination like BRU-NRT or BRU-HND and the amount of planes needed to offer decent freq.

Any route between Japan and Belgium can only come after SN is included in the joint venture between the LH group and ANA, similar to how they launched JFK only after they joined the transatlantic joint venture A++.

cnc · Post by **cnc** » 18 Nov 2012, 20:25

tolipanebas wrote:
cnc wrote:you people seem to have no idea about how much it costs to start a longhaul destination like BRU-NRT or BRU-HND and the amount of planes needed to offer decent freq.
Any route between Japan and Belgium can only come after SN is included in the joint venture between the LH group and ANA, similar to how they launched JFK only after they joined the transatlantic joint venture A++.

unlike east coast US destinations i think it would be unwise for SN to start flying to japan in joint venture.

OO-ITR · Post by **OO-ITR** » 19 Nov 2012, 21:37

FYI
There are 5 ex-MAS A333stored

http://www.planespotters.net/Production ... etStatus=2

RoMax · Post by **RoMax** » 19 Nov 2012, 23:22

OO-ITR wrote:FYI
There are 5 ex-MAS A333stored
http://www.planespotters.net/Production ... etStatus=2

I don't know for all of them, but at least some will be scrapped. But if one or more remains, OO-SFV will be happy to reunited with an old friend.

Desert Rat · Post by **Desert Rat** » 20 Nov 2012, 06:56

I don't think that a 330 can make it to Japan...

Bralo20 · Post by **Bralo20** » 20 Nov 2012, 08:44

Desert Rat wrote:I don't think that a 330 can make it to Japan...

The A332 has the legs to fly BRU-NRT/HND... The A333 can't make it (in theorie it can make it but it wouldn't have fuel to spare or can't take a full load).

Aviation24.be