Brussels Airlines' third US destination

[nordikcam]

SABENA served JFK EWR BOS IAD ATL ORD and CINCINATTI + YUL

[convair]

Yes, but ATL, the second US destination after JFK, was open to a "belgian" airline in the late seventies only; the other ones came long after.

[sn26567]

Yes, but ATL, the second US destination after JFK, was open to a "belgian" airline in the late seventies only; the other ones came long after.

That was at the time of bilateral agreements. Belgium could not offer a second destination to US airlines (in fact Pan Am) and therefore Sabena could get a second destination in the US. Sabena finally managed to get ATL (still under a bilateral agreement) and was the first European airline to fly there.

[CRJ 900]

Hi,
Have flown to and from DFW with Sabena (code share with AA) shortly before they disappeared.
CRJ 900

[YYZ727]

SABENA served JFK EWR BOS IAD ATL ORD and CINCINATTI + YUL

They also served DFW, DTW &YYZ in North-America, though not all at the same time (DFW came much later....)

[crlhub]

And MEX but it is not really NA...it was served via YMX.

[nordikcam]

And Guatemala City too, times ago !

[tolipanebas]

Another US airport not mentioned yet: ANC (Anchorage), on the way to Tokyo....

If you want to have an overview of SN's intercontinental routes of almost 40 years ago, check this:
http://airlineroute.net/2008/12/22/sn-s74intl/
There are some exotic destinations in there, as well as some incredible routings to get there!

[RoMax]

Not really on topic, but in Addis Abeba Didier Reynders talked with his collegue of Foreign Affairs of Cameroon (Pierre Moukoko Mbonjo). Belgium wants to reopen their Yaounde embassy to re-enforce the economic ties of Belgium and Cameroon. But they also discussed Brussels Airlines, more concrete about them flying daily into Yaounde, also to enforce the economic ties between the two countries. Moukoko Mbonjo said to Reynders he supports this saying he often uses Brussels Airlines and enjoys their very good service.

http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130525_00597865

[tolipanebas]

Good to see our government actively trying to secure ever more traffic rights for SN all over AFI.
Cameroon is doing really really well ever since LX transferred its flights to BRU, allowing SN to increase their offering up to a daily combined DLA/NSI in this year's summer time table, but as the transatlantic feed expands, who knows what's possible in future.
Better have the bilaterals ready then.

[DannyVDB]

I thought they were already flying daily to Douala/Yaounde since April (?)

If I am not wrong, Douala is the economic center of Cameroon, while Yaounde is the political center ( bit like Istanbul and Ankara in Turkey). Is it correct that it is mandatory for an airline to serve Yaounde when serving Douala? Does anyone know the share of Yaounde/Douala for the SN flights?

Regards,
Danny

[RoMax]

SN's Douala/Yaounde service goes from 4 weekly in the calmest periods to daily in the summer season (but that's only June-September I believe), probably it's currently around 5-6 weekly and up to daily next month. But Douala is served daily, while Yaounde is served just 5-6 weekly (in the high season).

[quixoticguide]

EWR if 9W leaves BRU.

[Conti764]

I don't think that SN will ever listen to me (they haven't until now) but DEN or IAH would seem viable and can be done with a daily schedule, without requiring more than 1 aircraft.

I agree with you regarding DEN.



Through UA's hub operation, it could open up the entire (mid)west to SN via one stop without having to fly to those airports themselves. Most of them will never see direct flights from/to BRU but in the meantime it allows A++ to investigate some possible future direct operations.

I don't want to be an armchair CEO, nor want to be daydreaming, but DEN does seem to be quite a good option for SN to consider.

IAH on the other hand, I'd leave to UA. Unless SN suddenly incredibly speeds up their fleet expansion, but that wouldn't be a good move either giving present economics.

With the recent developments at 9W, EWR is probably the next new destination, but after that I'd do something unexpected like DEN.

[b720]

I still think an evening JFK makes most sense. they should not split their operations into 2 airports (not yet at least). Ideally an eve. JFK followed by an Eve, EWR along with morning United flight. that makes a total of 4 dailies to the NYC area.. this after JET leaves BRU completely. SN will never fly to DEN, that's like launching an expedition to MARS. Belgian market is covered well by NYC and connections through JFK, EWR, and IAD. Cheaper and makes more sense to connect through FRA, or ZRH for further flights to the west coast.

[tolipanebas]

We're going around in circles on this.

See this topic: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=49424&start=20#p273389

In short: Any UA hub would probably make some sort of sense, but I'd go from top to bottom then, not the other way round; there's really nothing served through DEN that can't also be reached via bigger STAR hubs like ORD, IAD etc, so it's not such a smart move to pick the hub with the lowest O&D traffic of all.
The route would have to focus almost entirely on connecting pax, but don't forget transatlantic flights are not just SN, LH or UA, but are all coordinated through A++, so unless there's extra capacity needed from DEN to Europe, there's no solid case for a DEN - BRU and beyond, as it would effectively just compete with the existing A++ flight to FRA over the very same bunch of connecting pax.
None of the partners is rightfully ever going to sign off on such an insane business plan because it's a self destructive one when taking the bigger picture in mind. Remember SN is no stand alone airline, so whatever they do must make sense to their A++ partners too and a DEN-BRU just makes no sense to any of them.

[airDD]

So the consensus here is that the next US destination will be EWR

[Flanker2]

Thank you Conti764, you make very good points about DEN.

Tolipanebas, you are right that it's a long shot.
But operating to Africa is also comparable to an expedition to Mars and that's where the money is.

The O&D is small but there is a lot of high-yield transfer traffic on both ends.
There is nothing you can't cover through JFK or IAD, but then you wouldn't need to add a third destination.

Consider this as well: out of ORD, UA has to feed its own intercontinental and domestic, flights but also dozens of other STAR partners' flights, from both Asia and Europe. That means that there is less supply of seats and more demand, hence lower pressure on the fares on the ORD-West coast sectors. This pushes fares up.
In DEN, UA will be more accommodating as they only serve domestic routes and their yields are under pressure due to SWA and Frontier.

The opportunity is opening up as LH downgraded their DEN route from daily to twice weekly B744. This is normal as they are reducing many TATL routes, including JFK as part of the restructuring. I think that SN can succeed where LH is retreating, because BRU doesn't have direct West-Coast flights while FRA is already saturated with direct and indirect West-Coast flights.

From a Belgian customer's point of view, customs a DEN will be much smoother than in ORD, and you are also much closer to your final destination on the West Coast, which gives more frequencies, more flight options and more reliable travel.

From a European customer's point of view, if you need to get to DEN, you can take a U.S. carrier and transit at any ports of entry. But here SN can excel with better service, resulting in higher yields.

From the point of view of an American pax on the West Coast who needs to get to BRU, there is much more charm to transferring in DEN than through any of the very congested hubs. Many want to pay more for a better service on board and prefer to benefit from the widebody comfort as long as possible.

From all customers' point of view, you can have a better sleep on the longer BRU-DEN sector and transferring onto shorter feeding flights, than flying TATL for 9 hours, then another 5 hours for the transcon to the West Coast.

[convair]

From the point of view of an American pax on the West Coast who needs to get to BRU, there is much more charm to transferring in DEN than through any of the very congested hubs. Many want to pay more for a better service on board and prefer to benefit from the widebody comfort as long as possible.

From all customers' point of view, you can have a better sleep on the longer BRU-DEN sector and transferring onto shorter feeding flights, than flying TATL for 9 hours, then another 5 hours for the transcon to the West Coast.

Good points!

I still believe an evening flight to EWR is less of a gamble though.

[Stij]

Not convinced about DEN (I was thinking more about an evening JFK or an SFO).

But I would fly it at least once: Colorado Champagne Powder!!! Here I come!!! Non-stop!!!

Cheers,

Stij