AF versus SN in AFI

[Flanker2]

Well... mr Flanker, that just doesn't work... does it?

You state 19 A32F are sleeping in BRU every night for 7-9 hours... Wrong. Most of these aircraft sleep on outstations, only 6 or at most 7 stay overnight in BRU, and 9 hours is very optimistic. Of these at most 7 aircraft, more than half have maintenance planned on them at night. Ranging from defect rectification, to weekly checks and even A-checks. You can NOT skip that, even if your all mighty knowledge tells you otherwise. The remaining aircraft may be available for ops at night. However, taking turnaround times into consideration (catering, cleaning, fuelling, crew change, maintenance), it leaves you with about 5 hours availability for flights to Africa before they are needed again in BRU for the early morning departures on the European network. If you can name me 1 destination in Africa that a A32F can do a round trip on in 5 hours, I say we give it a go...

I think that Flightmate explained it better, regarding the way you use the aircraft, ie Africa as main, Europe as auxiliary.
With regards to aircraft sleeping at outstations, don't you think that it's a very small problem to be discussing? After all, SN also has RJ100's and whtever they will replace them with, and Q400's.

A daily check is normally a 1 hour job and as flightmate points it out, you could do this during the day, after the aircraft comes back from Africa. If you have a weekly or A-check or find something during the daily, well you use other aircraft, you have plenty to choose from.

Example of aircraft utilisation:
BRU 16:30 ABJ 23:30
ABJ 00:30 BRU 07:30
Deboarding+ daily check of 1 hour+boarding
BRU 09:00 GVA 10:00
GVA 10:30 BRU 11:00
BRU 11:30 GVA 12:30
GVA 13:00 BRU 14:00
BRU 14:30 CDG 15:15
CDG 15:45 BRU 16:30
BRU 17:15 OUA 23:30 .....

But if aircraft parked at outstations and maintenance time already pose a major unsolvable problem for you and people from SN management, maybe SN is in the wrong business.

It's typical of Western Europe businesses to show very little flexibility and impose whatever they have to offer on to the customers. Just look at the attitude of waiters and sales people compared to other area's of the world.

If you want to make money, you've got to be flexible and do things that your competitors can't do.

[Tomskii]

But isn't SN's product better atm than AF's? (Both in Y and bizz)?

[RTM]

So basically Flanker... If I sift out all the BS, put 1 and 1 together, compensate for the descisions in your ideas, it comes down to the fact that you want more aircraft to do the same work. Also, fly at less favourable times resulting in lower yields.... And maintanance? Well, very inconvenient, they get an hour a day...

It sounds like a real moneymaker to me.

[LJ]

Didn't know about FIH. Have you got an idea which destinations they operate on this aircraft?

The 737-900ER.

Though the idea of using narrowbodies to AFI not foolish in itself (it's used by both TK and IB) I do wonder if SN has the traffic rights to do this. TK is very good in tapping into unknown teritory (and seems to get the traffic rights it wants). Hence why narrowbodies are good for TK. AF stopped its A319 Dedicated service because it couldn't expand it into the smaller markets (they couldn't start Bata and Port Gentil due to traffic rights issues) and to have a dedicated fleet for Malabo and another destination (which I don't recall) is not economical. They did however used their brother/sister KLM in order to open some new African destinations (Lusaka and Harare). SN, however, isn't known for its out of the box thinking and seems to be very pleased with the current status.

And maybe such a hub would have been better located somewhere else?

That would be ADD, but there is already a big Star member at ADD.

4) You need to install the same business class in those aircraft. Can you still use those in Europe? TK can switch between different regional/Africa destinations, but SN cannot.

The same 737-900s which fly to Africa, also fly to Europe.

[Flanker2]

So basically Flanker... If I sift out all the BS, put 1 and 1 together, compensate for the descisions in your ideas, it comes down to the fact that you want more aircraft to do the same work. Also, fly at less favourable times resulting in lower yields.... And maintanance? Well, very inconvenient, they get an hour a day...

Not exactly. I would've wanted to see the same amount of aircraft do more work.
You don't fly at less favorable times; because you remove time wasted on triangle sectors and your African rotation is shorter because it's a narrowbody, which takes less time to load/unload, clean, etc...
Your departure is later, but you make up for it by flying point to point and by the much shortened rotation.

The opportunity presented itself when SN had to replace the B737 Classics. The opportunity is still there if they have suitable aircraft for extended range retrofit (aux. fuel tanks).

Maintenance. Go to Hangar 41 and ask a technician how many daily checks he has to do within 1 shift at night. I think that they'd be happy if they get an hour, which nowadays is very sadly the norm for dailies.
You have 19 aircraft, you only need 8-10 to do this, which leaves plenty of flexibility for A-checks and weeklies.
In such a schedule where aircraft are used to max during the night, it's actually better to fly one less rotation around noon and do light mx work outside the rush hours, when EU-flights have a small demand.

[KriVa]

You know, after reading all this, I have to say... I'm puzzled why SN hasn't yet hired you as a manager, in a position where you can push forward you ideas?

[Flanker2]

I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but as you mention it, I've been in contact with middle-higher management guys of SN. Unless it's their idea, it never works its way up and several of them have me wondering how they got there. And even if it does work its way up, you hit a wall with Gustin (another guy who makes me wonder how he got there) and shareholders.
The problem is the lack of knowledge, experience and savoir-faire at that level, which limits the options to the most simple and least flexible solutions, so that anything nobody else is doing, doesn't sound realistic. There's also a lot of fear, that proposing something could sound ridiculous, which could jeopardise one's position, because positions are kept like sacred treasures, regardless of how the business is going.
I don't say that they're not good in the general fields they represent, I'm just saying that aviation requires a special mindset and the ability to manage large-scale projects the same way you manage smaller projects in PME's who then grow into larger companies through vision and success.

The only proposals that make it to the meetings are common-sense stuff that other airlines have been doing since decades but SN hasn't implemented yet. This is my experience and it's based on facts.

I've also seen lower management guys at SN who are pure gems, but their superiors are keeping them in their boxes out of jalousy or fear of being surpassed and losing their position.

It's a problem at the corporate culture level. It won't get fixed until this changes. I've seen some positive movements to these regards, but a lot of postholders are still standing in the way of SN's development.
So SN's biggest enemy is not Ryanair, it's their own culture within their own company.
Other than that, SN is a goldmine of potential and it disgusts me to see it wasted to satisfy the ego of a select few.

In all this, the only ray of sunlight I see is Korongo and Allard. Korongo is really something special because it's a good idea that is out of the box, that made its way to realisation. The problem is that it's stuck on the development part and again, the expectation of top management to achieve a great result without investing anything, waiting for another guy to do the same and take-over what they've started to build.
That, I imagine, must be really frustrating for Allard and his team.

[FlightMate]

you know, there are better, smarter managers out there. It's just that sn cannot afford them.
Who knows what a O'leary would have come up with, if he had been with SN?

And then, besides managers, there are plenty of smart people working in other fields.
Being a smart manager is not only coming up with bright ideas, it is also listening to other people's bright ideas.
Same goes with politicians... But that's another debate.

I am not saying flying narrow bodies is THE solution, but I just hope SN management didn't discard the idea without extensive evaluation.

[RTM]

Not exactly. I would've wanted to see the same amount of aircraft do more work.
You don't fly at less favorable times; because you remove time wasted on triangle sectors and your African rotation is shorter because it's a narrowbody, which takes less time to load/unload, clean, etc...
Your departure is later, but you make up for it by flying point to point and by the much shortened rotation.

You need multiple A32F aircraft to do the work of 1 A330. Then there is the time that these a/c are not available for european ops, that needs to be compensated somehow. The only way is additional a/c. On the early morning rotation, ALL a/c are working, so no room to do crazy shuffling around as you suggest. Same for the eraly evening. The possibility just isn't there. Unless,... you get extra a/c... So you need more a/c to do the same work, and more crews to do the same work. And more maintenance to do the same work. And for Africa, less cargo to pay the bills...

The opportunity presented itself when SN had to replace the B737 Classics. The opportunity is still there if they have suitable aircraft for extended range retrofit (aux. fuel tanks).

You don't really have an idea of how an aircraft is put together, do you?

Maintenance. Go to Hangar 41 and ask a technician how many daily checks he has to do within 1 shift at night. I think that they'd be happy if they get an hour, which nowadays is very sadly the norm for dailies.

In fact, and that is 100% fact, teams of two, do 1 to 3 daily's a night at B.air. The 1 to 3 depending on additional maintenance scheduled. So draw your own conclusion of how idiotic the second part of this statement is.

You have 19 aircraft, you only need 8-10 to do this, which leaves plenty of flexibility for A-checks and weeklies.
In such a schedule where aircraft are used to max during the night, it's actually better to fly one less rotation around noon and do light mx work outside the rush hours, when EU-flights have a small demand.

Again, as I said earlier, you don't have 8-10 A32F available in Bru at night. Max 3-4 as you NEED TO DO MX. And you need a/c for the morning rotations. Wheather you think it is nescessary or not.You suggested that it is not nescessary to have a/c overnighting on outstations, but you need to feed the long haul, so you WANT these a/c overnighting in outstations. So, solution, extra a/c. Start to get the picture yet? In your grand scheme, you need more a/c to do the same work.

So please, stop pretend to be the master of all knowledge, and make your truth fit the reality for once, instead of making reality fit your truth.

[Pocahontas]

What about cargo and bagage when flying narrow body? What about max perfo weights?

[BrightCedars]

Besides the argument between narrow and wide body on African routes, where I would favour the use a higher frequency narrow body aircraft, capacity and cargo remaining the core issue (where are those nifty A310's and B757's), combined with dedicated cargo ops where profitable, the fact remains that there is no suited aircraft to do this out of BRU, other then the good old B767 but which still has its cargo and economics limitations.

Point is SN does seem to be sitting back on expanding its African network and sharks with longer teeth are taking a much larger bite at whatever growth potential there is. I do see the point of connecting BRU with key Star Alliance hubs West and East but the core African operations should always be the main objective alongside the profitability of the European network.

The problem with LH is that they seem to have taken a wait and see attitude towards SN rather than a full blown integration forward. I still regret SN not being in bed with BA and oneworld.

[FlightMate]

You need aircraft for the morning rotation, because all african flights currently leave at the same time. If they go at different time, you don't need so many. (Ok, you need the same amount, but you can do it with smaller planes. No need to use A320 for feeding). As for needing more planes to do the same job... as I am sure flanker loves to prove his point, maybe he could provide number of planes to do the same job, and cost associated? On the same point, I have no idea how much it costs to do small hops with a330 for triangular flights.
As for crew, yes you need more pilots, but probably not more cabin crew?

Anyway, I thought the idea was interesting, specially for future expansion, seeing hw hard it is to get and fill a330s compared to a320s

[OO-ITR]

However, as Flanker has been pointing out, SN's expansion in AFI seems way too slow.
And there is something I can't understand here: AFI has been said to be their bread and butter;

True that is why they are working hard on the transatlantic flights. Not sure if you have been on an AFI Flight recently. There are a LOT of Americans on it...

[OO-ITR]

you know, there are better, smarter managers out there. It's just that sn cannot afford them.
Who knows what a O'leary would have come up with, if he had been with SN?.

Please God I wouldn't want to know!!!

[convair]

@ OO-ITR

I haven't but I believe you. If you read the rest of my post, I'm in fact wondering why SN can't lease additional a/c more rapidly as my understanding is that additional AFI flights would be profitable.

[Flanker2]

The problem with LH is that they seem to have taken a wait and see attitude towards SN rather than a full blown integration forward. I still regret SN not being in bed with BA and oneworld.

I must admit that at first, I wasn't too excited about a BA-SN tie-up and I favored the LH tie-up, because of how LH was working with LX. I saw the same possibility with SN with a true focus in Africa.
When nothing came from LH within the first year to develop SN, I started doubting LH's motives.

Seeing how BA developed Comair/Kulula and integrated with IB into IAG, and how LH is being excessively passive, I must say that it couldn't have been worse to work with BA than the current situation, could it?

Regarding the aircraft, TK seems to manage fine with B737-900ER's.
I think that the A321 with auxiliary tanks would have done a great job for SN, even carrying several tons of cargo each flight within reasonable range ie, African west coast.
This, until the NEO becomes available, then you can replace 20% of the fuel load by cargo, that simple.
The B757-200 could have been an option too.

The worst case scenario is the current one, where there is no expansion/growth. Anything else is better.

[RoMax]

True that is why they are working hard on the transatlantic flights. Not sure if you have been on an AFI Flight recently. There are a LOT of Americans on it...

And they still seem to be a succes, tough loadfactor is not the only (and certainly not the best) indication for succes, they mention a 81,9% loadfactor for the JFK flights in March.
For Africa there was an increase of 8,9% in the amount of passengers (of course SN introduced an extra A330 on the African network in June 2012, so that still has an influence), but overall loadfactors on the African network increased according to the press release.

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=50238

[convair]

(of course SN introduced an extra A330 on the African network in June 2012, so that still has an influence),

SN had several of its A330s in Malta non-stop from early January till end of March, either for cabin refurbishment or C-checks I think.

[RoMax]

SN had several of its A330s in Malta non-stop from early January till end of March, either for cabin refurbishment or C-checks I think.

I didn't know that was the case in March as well, in that case, even better results.

[Charlie Roy]

All this talk of using smaller A320's on both African and European routes, well Aer Lingus do the opposite in Ireland.

Most days one of their A330's flies Dublin - Malaga - Dublin, Dublin - New York - Dublin. That's a highly utilised A330