15 top intercontinental destinations out of BRU

[OO-ITR]

9W stopped their JFK route in September and AA in November so after SN 's launch of the JFK route.

And that is why SN still has a healthy load factor on this route. But can SN hope that others will withdraw when they enter their second US route?

Talking about BOS for example: there is no direct flight from BRU, but there are direct flights to several other European airports close to BRU (AMS, CDG, FRA, LHR, ...). The number of passengers remaining constant, to be successful a new SN route should be able to reckon on the withdrawal of one or more of these flights.

Also see my answer above

[Inquirer]

Once again I have to agree with Mr_Boeing, SN26567.
If you go by your logic, aren't you only going to consider destinations where nobody else is going then?
I doubt you will find many successful routes; likely there's a very good reason why nobody is serving them.

If indeed there is credible data showing that the Belgian market (combined with their African feed of course) can support a nonstop flight to say BOS, then they are far more likely to succeed in winning over those passengers now flying with others than they ware last year with JFK, because this time round they will have the added benefit of being able to offer them a nonstop flight over a current connecting flight, and that is something which is a significant plus IMHO.

I can be wrong, but it is exactly this what the plan OO-ITR talks about in his opening post is all about: to make the home market fly the home carrier (or its partners) again on convenient nonstop flights, rather than connect at Paris, London or Amsterdam with BA, KL or AF.

Besides, demand for intercontinental travel is growing year on year, so that makes it possible for more competitors to offer flights to the same destinations, but I agree with you that a new entrant to the market often means others will loose some passengers which they will react to by either pulling out of a route like we saw on JFK, or by a more common downsizing (less frequency or capacity) in order to adapt to their new smaller market share. That's how competition generally goes, not just in aviation, but in any sector, but I am sure you know, so please don't take this post badly.

[DannyVDB]

At JFK there was a major difference: SN stepped in at a time where both 9W and AA were withdrawing their flights to/from BRU. That gave SN a huge advantage that might not be reproducible at other US destinations.

I do not entirely agree;
1) SN started when the two were still there, yet it was successful from its start; 2) the market was estimated even bigger than the overall capacity of the existing flights that were operating when SN, 9W, AA were still operating. There is a reason why there are rumors for having an additional flight to the New York area (JFK/Newark): there is a gap left, still many people from BE are connecting through AMS, LHR, FRA, CDG, ... In addition they could also 'steal' pax from these other airports ...

Also on BOS, you should not underestimate the factor called MIT and many other research/educational institutes in the area; it is one of the biggest employers + these people travel. At the other side of the route, i.e. Brussels and surroundings, you have huge organisations like the universities (e.g. KU Leuven has 18.000 employees of which, except the 5000 nurses of the university hospital are professional travellers! Many people visit the university as well - I even do not count spin-offs like Option, IMEC (1900 workforce worldwide!), many SME's like Luciad, ...). The medical sector, ... Even companies like AB Inbev they by far do not generate as much traffic (all levels): they are only a few hundred people ...

Just my two cents,
Danny

[Conti764]

What SN should also do, is a bit out of the box thinking...

I agree with Flanker on Denver, in adition to that one direct west coast connection they maybe have one day.

Besides that, I'd also go for a more daring plan. Why not attack AF and KL on a nice niche market they both share, the carribbean? KL flies to Oranjestad (Aruba), Sint-Maarten, Paramaribo and Curaçao. AF flies to Martinique, Point-A-Pitre (Guadaloupe) and Réunion. On all of these destionations there is virtually no European competition whatsoever for these companies, accept some leisure airlines, and no European Star Alliance presence at all. Given plane availability and government approval, this thing might work. BRU is idealy located in the middle of the two hubs of this Franco-Dutch company and with the right price they might steal some market share, enough to fill a once to twice a week flight to each destination or even thrice to for example Sint-Maarten. Since there is few competition from within Europe, the rates won't be miserable given the fact you have quite a big expat communities in both countries.

Just my arm chair CEO vision of course

[Flanker2]

If you go by your logic, aren't you only going to consider destinations where nobody else is going then?
I doubt you will find many successful routes; likely there's a very good reason why nobody is serving them.

I disagree. SN26567 is looking at it from the right angle.
Just look at SN and JFK. 5 minutes on orbitz.com lays out their yield strategy quite neatly. From European cities that offer non-stop flights, they position themselves just slightly cheaper than LX, but much more expensive than the direct flights. Unlikely that they would catch any of those customers anyway.

However where there are no direct flights, they position themselves very cheap, usually the cheapest. This is as I called it a few years ago, "the good thing about JFK is that there is always a taker for a cheap ticket".
Basically, SN may be doing good on load factors on the JFK flights and they might be filling more feeder flights but they're not going to make much money if any at all at those low yields.

The winter is injecting some reality back into SN. JFK does well between April and October, but after that it's dead as hell.

But that's the big difference between BOS, SFO compared to JFK. For JFK, you will always find a taker for a cheap ticket, for BOS and SFO you will only find a taker for a cheap ticket during the holiday periods.

For the final time, and it's been said enough times, the O&D market for BOS or SFO is not comparable to the huge market of JFK.
SN is relying heavily on feeding to make its JFK flights justifiable, as O&D for JFK is already too small. So imagine what that would be for BOS or SFO, where SN will have to rely even more on low yield and high cost feeding. Low yield because they will be competing against a whole bunch of airlines for the same connecting pax. High cost because feeding costs money too.

MIT is nice and hot, but how many Belgian students are there at MIT and how much more are they willing to pay for a direct flight to BRU? Medical and research, I don't see Boston Medical in Diegem buying the tickets by the dozens.

With an A333, where you could have 40%/60% spread of O&D/connecting at 90% LF for JFK, it could be 15%/85% at 60% for BOS.

And don't start talking about triangles with ORD, that's just plain crazy.

That's why my idea, mirrored by SN56375, of focusing on the big picture and going for the less competitive markets is much better. For DEN, the picture is different than for BOS or JFK.
They could have low O&D, plus some high-yield (because of low competition) European pax connecting to DEN AND most importantly, a convenient 1-stop connection to the West Coast from Belgium AND Africa.
The picture would then be like 15%/60%/25% of O&D/Europe connecting/U.S. connecting and reach a 90% load factor AT HIGH YIELDS.

I thank Conti764 who is able to leave bias aside and see it for what it is.

[JOVAN]

If SN wants to fill up their long haul destinations, they need to revise their European time table first.

For instance, flights from Nice, Barcelona, Budapest , Venice, Turin.... (all big business cities) all arrive too late for the New York flight. And for AFI flights;
LX, OS, KL all have consistent schedules od feeder lines to fill their long hauls (and short hauls adequately)

SN will stick at 5-6 mio PAX if they do not develop a ssytem like their counterparts.

The wave system that Swissair had developped in 2001 was actually great, but ahead of its time. And not adequate for the AIrport design at that time. Now there is a real good one-stop airport concept, but no airline schedule to fill it up.

I doubt a real business vision is present at SN or BRU.

[Conti764]

The wave system that Swissair had developped in 2001 was actually great, but ahead of its time. And not adequate for the AIrport design at that time. Now there is a real good one-stop airport concept, but no airline schedule to fill it up.

I doubt a real business vision is present at SN or BRU.

BRU should really go forward on the A-pier extension, offering their Star Alliance clients - SN ahead - a realy nice infrastructure to perfectly connect European destinations with international destinations.

[superfly]

Personally, I don't believe there is much money to be made for SN flying transat, and they have a very strong partner in UA doing that for them. A second NYC flight might work well, if there is demand for DEN, UA will fly it, same for SFO and probably even BOS.
With the likes of TK, ET, KQ and all UAE carriers steadily growing their African network, I believe SN do better safeguarding their position in the African market. Limiting triangles to the minimum, fly direct where they viably can and make BRU a 1-stop hub for flights from Africa to Europe, USA and all other destinations BRU can attract STAR partners from.

[RoMax]

Personally, I don't believe there is much money to be made for SN flying transat, and they have a very strong partner in UA doing that for them. A second NYC flight might work well, if there is demand for DEN, UA will fly it, same for SFO and probably even BOS.

UA will never consider BOS-BRU...never, not because there isn't a market, but because they have nothing overthere.
Besides that, UA was repeatedly asked the past years to increase capacity to BRU. They did that with ORD, but that was not enough. So then it's up to SN to step into the market and why...

With the likes of TK, ET, KQ and all UAE carriers steadily growing their African network, I believe SN do better safeguarding their position in the African market. Limiting triangles to the minimum, fly direct where they viably can and make BRU a 1-stop hub for flights from Africa to Europe, USA and all other destinations BRU can attract STAR partners from.

Their African market relies more and more on US-bound traffic. They need the feed to develop their network, not only Europe has to be redeveloped (certain feeding routes are just not working at this moment, as stated by another member) but als capacity to/from the US has to be increased where they can. And UA is not the holy grail as SN's feeder...

[LJ]

Besides that, I'd also go for a more daring plan. Why not attack AF and KL on a nice niche market they both share, the carribbean? KL flies to Oranjestad (Aruba), Sint-Maarten, Paramaribo and Curaçao. AF flies to Martinique, Point-A-Pitre (Guadaloupe) and Réunion.

There have been many attempts to do BRu-PBM or BRU-CUR but all failed. First the PBM market is already served by two airlines out of AMS. Moreover, yields on AMS-CUR and AMS-PBM are only healthy for a limited period (Summer). The rest of the year there isn't much money to be made. The same applies to the other Carribean destinations served by AF/KL. Most of them already have competition from either AMS or Paris.

That's why my idea, mirrored by SN56375, of focusing on the big picture and going for the less competitive markets is much better. For DEN, the picture is different than for BOS or JFK.

At least make it IAH instead of DEN (I know DEN is a bigger UA hub, but IAH may get you some UA frequent flyers going to Africa). The question is if LH wants these pax to fly SN.

[RoMax]

At least make it IAH instead of DEN (I know DEN is a bigger UA hub, but IAH may get you some UA frequent flyers going to Africa). The question is if LH wants these pax to fly SN.

Depends on which destinations are served by SN that are served by LH as well. I believe there aren't many (Accra used to be one, but LH took that). But LH of course tries to keep their high yield traffic. Didn't they take Malabo from Swiss some years ago, a lot of 'oil-traffic' and one of LH's very profitable routes I heard. But this isn't possible for all AFI destintions, at least, not yet.

[Air Key West]

Personally, I'm not convinced that BOS and SFO should not be on b.air's network in the short-term, but I'm prepared to give b.air's management the benefit of the doubt. Let's (for once) assume they have the figures and they know what they are doing or will be doing when deciding (together with LH management ?) which new long-haul destinations to open.

This being said, I am convinced that Gustin's (and LH's ?) objective to add one long-haul aircraft per year is not enough. Of course, b.air cannot afford several additional long-haul aircraft quickly, but adding two wide-body aircraft to the fleet and network per year should be the goal to help the airline become profitable again. A bit more ambitious than the current plan, while nevertheless probably remaining reasonable. New aircraft and perhaps new destinations imply investment costs. When you know there will definitely be a return on that investment, don't wait too long. The question remains : where does b.air get the money from ? LH ? The banks that are shareholders of SN Airholding ? (the latter probably will not).

Apart from the (here it is again) evening flight to NYC which business travelers would love to have and which would offer good connections to SN's afternoon departures to Africa (who wants to wait 7 or 8 hours at BRU to connect from New York to Dakar or Monrovia, for instance ?), forget about other North American destinations in the short-term. Star Alliance partners are flying most of the routes already and if, for instance, IAD could use more capacity, why doesn't UA use a larger aircraft (perhaps they don't have one availalbe ; that could be a reason of course).

With the booming economy in Brasil and its new middle-class with plenty of money
with the upcoming (football) World Cup in 2014 in Brazil and the Olympics in Rio in 2016
I would say fly to Rio 3xweekly at the beginning of 2014 and 6xweekly (or daily, if possible) from June 2014 (when the World Cup will start). It's often said that a new destination takes some time to become profitable. Well, the World Cup would be a boost for the newly opened route.
And let's not forget that * will loose capacity to/from Brazil when TAM leaves the alliance.

At the risk of being called an armchair CEO, my contribution to this thread is :
1. evening flight to NYC from summer (timetable) 2013
2. Rio in 2014
3. an additional aircraft for Africa early in 2015

To come back more strictly to the title of this thread :
isn't ANA going to announce flights between Tokyo and Brussels soon ?
I'm not sure another non European * Allicance partner would be interested in flying to BRU in the short-term.
Dubai with Emirates ? (perhaps ; I'm not sure the "local" market could handle the presence of EY, QR AND EK).

[Flanker2]

A second NYC flight might work well, if there is demand for DEN, UA will fly it, same for SFO and probably even BOS.

It's not that simple. UA don't have a long-haul hub in DEN nor BOS. They do have one in SFO but it's mostly West-bound. They can't put just one long-haul aircraft at a domestic hub, it poses a lot of problems with regards to crewing, maintenance and scheduling.

And yes, NH should be flying to BRU from somewhere in 2013 according to my source, but it depends a lot on how fast they can get to over 20 some aircraft, they already have 16 now. The replacement of the oldest B763's is a priority and of importance is also the downward turn the crisis is taking in Europe. Starting a new route is a challenge as it is, no need to take more jetstream in the face

[tolipanebas]

I agree with Flanker on Denver

Because it offers a one stop connection to pretty much every city on the west coast?

So does pretty much any other STAR hub east of DEN, like EWR, IAD or ORD, so why go as far and as thin as DEN just for that? DEN would be a good hub to cover the west coast IF there would be only water to the east of DEN, yet that is not exactly the case, is it?

Seriously, it's far better to focus on the east coast hubs, or -if you really want to penetrate deeper into the USA- to focus on ORD, with the added benefit of serving major business centers AND having more people living west of your destination so you can feed your flight without need of a backtrack.

Here's a nice little demonstration to show you how pointless the idea of DEN truely is:
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=BRU- ... MAP-STYLE=

This link shows you that connecting through DEN to reach SAN, the most southerly city on the west coast, makes for a trip exactly as long through DEN then through ORD; similarly the link shows you that in order to go to SEA, the most northerly city on the west coast, it is 8NM longer when connecting through DEN iso ORD. Pick anything meaningful in between on the west coast and you'll obviously find the same result too...

In short: there is NO added benefit to DEN over ORD at all, which is why pretty much nobody is going there, except airlines that think they can somehow make it work with predominantly O/D at DEN alone, yet I don't think SN in such a position: it would need a huge network at BRU for that first.

As to our next route: expect it it be east coast and pretty dull.
It needn't be cool and exciting, it needs to make money and thus guarantee a mix of high yielding O/D (which is different than being popular with the traveling audience, BTW) and a come with a good feed.

[Flanker2]

So does pretty much any other STAR hub east of DEN, like EWR, IAD or ORD, so why go as far and as thin as DEN just for that? DEN would be a good hub to cover the west coast IF there would be only water to the east of DEN, yet that is not exactly the case, is it?

You haven't flown much to the U.S. West Coast have you?

First of all, there is the schedule issue.
Any delay of codesharing Star TATL flights (due to strong Westerly winds) or cancellations on the connecting end and you risk spending the night at the connecting hub, if you're connecting at ORD, IAD or EWR.

Why? Simply because you will be rebooked on the next flight, like everybody else (including other non-SN codeshare TATL pax) and thn on to the next one and it will be the last flight and it will be full or cancelled.
This is not an issue at DEN because you have the most frequencies connecting to the West Coast and the distance is short, so that cancellations are less likely.
The closer you get to your destination, the more frequencies you have to connect and the more reliable your itinerary.

Then, there is the comfort issue. You said yourself that you don't want to spend 6 or 7 hours on a narrowbody flight to Africa. Most flights from IAD, EWR, ORD to the West Coast are 6+ hours narrowbody flight. From DEN, the West Coast is 2-3 hours away.

Then there is the revenue issue.
The longer the feeding trip, the less control you have over yields as your codeshare partner is likely to take a bigger and bigger chunk of the pie. And you have no choice but to work with it. Plus if your partner is also operating the same route, they will likely force the fares so high that pax will chose their flight over yours.

Then there is the availability issue.
UA isn't interested to fill its East-Coast to WEst-Coast flights with cheap feeding from SN. They want to milk the huge O&D and they're already codesharing with other Star Airlines.

Then there is the regional destination issue.
If your destination is a regional airport on the West Coast or Central U.S., your best bet will be DEN. ORD does cover Northern Central well, but all the rest is not covered.
Also, the issue with ORD and regional airports, is if your departure point is that regional airport and there is a storm over ORD, your feeding regional flight will be the first to be bumped and you will miss your connection on the SN flight.

All my personal experience.

[Air Key West]

On this issue, I fully agree with you on every argument you have developed in your previous post, Flanker2.
But I stick to my previous post : no new destinations in the US in the short-term except for the evening flight to New York. But as I also said, for once I'll leave the benefit of the doubt to b.air's management. If they decide to fly to BOS, I hope they have evidence that the route will be profitable (with enough - high revenue ? - O&D pax, I presume). And it brings me back to one other point in my previous post : one additional long-haul aircraft per year is not enough. Come on, Gustin, be a bit more ambitious and assertive towards Franz. You need and want more than just one aircraft per year to remain in the game.

[BrightCedars]

I remember seeing a link with the list of top destinations that have traffic to/from BRU but no direct link.

I think nowadays the top of the list is HKG! CX already flies to AMS, CDG, FRA, and LHR and is in a different alliance to I don't see them opening the route.

This would be a perfect fit for SN but they're going to need something economical to fly it. The A332 can do it, and the yield is probably better than any US West Coast or South African port to offset its economics compared to an even more suited bird.

Other than that Japan is also high on the list but there I suspect the goal is to bring NH on board.

SN need to increase the number of cities they serve in the US that are O/D to Africa, double connections (not to mention the intermediary stop on some African routes) are cumbersome and will not work well nowadays.
I don't see a rationale behind connection the US West Coast with Africa via BRU either. If they run the West Coast, this shouldn't be the main business case.


As far as dreaming of Latin America I'm afraid that it's covered from all around and that airlines like TP have established a position equivalent to SN's in Africa over that market. I don't see a direct nonstop link being viable in the near future, except maybe for GRU as a hub serving the entire continent.

[BrightCedars]

Dubai with Emirates ? (perhaps ; I'm not sure the "local" market could handle the presence of EY, QR AND EK).

If EK comes to BRU they will not care about the market being able to support all 3 players, they will come with the intention of pushing the others out, which won't be that hard with their cost model and seeing the size of their operation beyond DXB.

[Atlantis]

If we can add an other destination then it will be Vancouver.

[Air Key West]

As far as dreaming of Latin America I'm afraid that it's covered from all around and that airlines like TP have established a position equivalent to SN's in Africa over that market.

I'm not dreaming of Latin America and , forgive me for saying so, but your comment shows you probably don't know what's happening there, especially in Brazil, which is the place I referred to, not Latin America. It may be covered by most other airlines, but it is a booming and developing market. As i already said * will loose capacity to Brazil when TAM goes to oneworld and nobody knows what's going to happen to TP (or do we know already ?). Yes, you are right : Brazil is a niche for TP like Africa is a niche for SN. But don't you realize that because of growing demand to Africa and (still) high yields, other airlines are starting to fly to Africa, too, and don't care about SN's niche or the dominant positions of AF/KL and BA to their specific regions of "influence" in Africa. When there is a growing demand, there is no reason not to seize the opportunity.

Running the risk of being called a dreamer once more, Panama (now we're back to Latin America) is booming, too. Few direct flights from Europe to PTY (IB, KL, anybody else ?). And PTY is a high yield destination. With Copa in *, there should be good connections to other Central American and Andean cities. The future is not in Europe, not much in North America (most destinations are low yield), but several places around the globe are booming and some people have one obsession and priority only, fighting RYR, forgetting that the long-haul network which keeps the airline afloat, does so because there is a European feeder network. Without the loss-making European network, the long-haul network would also be loss-making because of the absence of feeder flights and the airline would already have disappeared.
So, the future is where the future is happening already now and it's not in Europe.