Which aircraft for Brussels Airlines' African operations?

[Flanker2]

I think that it's somebody's wet dream.
If SN has finally come to its senses and would use A321's to Africa, combining with mid-haul and short-haul trunk routes, it would be a great step forward for the company. But I doubt that it is true, there is Europe & Africa next to RJ100 as well.

[Passenger]

I think that it's somebody's wet dream.
If SN has finally come to its senses and would use A321's to Africa, combining with mid-haul and short-haul trunk routes, it would be a great step forward for the company. But I doubt that it is true, there is Europe & Africa next to RJ100 as well.

Some nitwit has posted on Wiki that Brussels Airlines has ordered 10 A321's, without any source or link. Thus totally unreliable.

Regarding your statement that you, as a non-aviation individual, knows which aircraft Brussels Airlines needs, allow me to refer to an answer that what given yesterday by somebody else, in reply to your blooper about staff rates:

Hey Flanker... If you don't know what you are talking about, that is ok, no need to be ashamed. No need to fabricate a truth, and pretend to know it all.

[OO-ITR]

I know one thing for sure: if SN was managed so well, then why has it been so loss-making in the past 5 years?

Lets hope they will hire you as CEO so all their troubles will be over ))

[Flanker2]

If SN use the A321 in a high utilisation in combination between Europe and red eye Africa, I dare to say that even new airframes make sense. ILFC has A321 NEO's planned for delivery in 2016.
The NEO will do Cameroon without payload hit and 200 pax, while it can do FIH in a premium-heavy 150 Pax configuration with auxiliary fuel...65% of the A333's capability at 40% the cost of an A333, hence no need for cargo revenue.
To DKR, the A321 NEO can carry 200 pax and 5 tons of cargo...which is 75% of the capability of an A333 at 40% of the cost... no need to rely on cargo anymore.

This just shows how the A321 NEO is much better adapted for SN's missions than the A333.

The A321 NEO will burn 2.5 tons per hour versus the A332/A333 at 6+tons and even 7+ tons the way SN are using them in-between African cities. Those extra hops they make cost them a lot of fuel.

[Airbus330lover]

If SN use the A321 in a high utilisation in combination between Europe and red eye Africa, I dare to say that even new airframes make sense. ILFC has A321 NEO's planned for delivery in 2016.
The NEO will do Cameroon without payload hit and 200 pax, while it can do FIH in a premium-heavy 150 Pax configuration with auxiliary fuel...65% of the A333's capability at 40% the cost of an A333, hence no need for cargo revenue.
To DKR, the A321 NEO can carry 200 pax and 5 tons of cargo...which is 80% of the capability of an A333 at 40% of the cost.

This just shows how the A321 NEO is much better adapted for SN's missions than the A333.

and here we go again

[Flanker2]

A330lover surely I don't need to remind you that TK are doing this every day already and hitting SN very bad?
Or do you want to deny that as well?

[RTM]

Indeed... here we go again...

No need for cargo revenues...

Just send your good, high revenu customers, the cargo brokers, of to the competition, and bet on one horse... Winner for sure... :clap:

[Flanker2]

I don't believe what is posted on this Wiki page either, but I'm explaining why part of it would make sense to me.
We can stick our head into the sand as much as we want, for any being with common sense and basic understanding of aviation, it's obvious that SN's operation in Africa is like running a cab service using a tour bus.

The A330 is not built for missions consisting of sectors of 4500km, then another 300km, another 300km , and again 4500km back to BRU. Back in the days, they used to have A300's to do such missions, but now the narrowbody ranges have grown so big, mature and efficient that they fulfill this role much better.

The A330 ops is not efficient and it opens the market to competition as you are not offering sufficient frequencies and capacity to each destination. Plus, travellers lose a lot of time due to the stops.

Cargo here cargo there. Of course you need to carry extra payload if you want to run a cab service using a full-size tour bus. If however, you run a cab service with a cab, you can do more missions, faster and more efficiently, without driving around with boxes of fish in the trunk. Duh

Similarily, that's exactly what they did back in the days when they were running A300's between European cities... hold full of cargo...
From the wiki page of the A300:

It was becoming clear that the whole concept of a short haul widebody was flawed. Airlines operating the A300 on short haul routes were forced to reduce frequencies to try and fill the aircraft. As a result they lost passengers to airlines operating more frequent narrow body flights. The supposed widebody comfort which it was assumed passengers would demand was illusory. Eventually, Airbus had to build its own narrowbody aircraft (the A320) to compete with the Boeing 737 and McDonnell Douglas DC-9/MD-80.

In a few years, anything mid-haul will be in the hands of narrowbodies, with the exception of high-volume markets.

[Passenger]

Let’s recap: one lonely luchtzak member is convinced that he knows it better than all Brussels Airlines staff together, plus all Airbus sales staff, plus all aircraft lease company executives. Such lonesome warrior must be gigantically naive to assume that his plans haven’t been thoroughly investigated long time ago by people who have access to facts and figures that one absolutely needs (like load factors, yield & revenue) - facts and figures he has not.

So why this constant bashing on Brussels Airlines? I don't know. Really, I don't know. Something traumatic must have happened to this guy that we don't know. Maybe his job application was refused? Maybe he was refused once for showing up too late for a holiday flight?

So would be better indeed that such stuff is posted where it belongs:
viewforum.php?f=12

Back on topic : the Wikipedia A321 story has a remark "disagreed / source needed". Therefore: is there a reliable source that Brussels Airlines has indeed ordered A321's?

[b720]

I think think that the A321 to AFR is not a Crazy idea. Provided the aircraft Is fitted with
The same c class sets as te A330 and Y class with individual entertainement.
The same aircraft can be deployed to TLV and DME.. Clearly west Africa Is perfect for such
Operations.. A. Closer than east and central B. less competition from non European airlines.
BA is running ugh operations to the near east from LHR operating A321 fitted with lie flat
Seats in C class. Flight duration ranges between 5 to 5:30 hours.. From LHR.

[Flanker2]

Let’s recap: one lonely luchtzak member is convinced that he knows it better than all Brussels Airlines staff together, plus all Airbus sales staff, plus all aircraft lease company executives.

What gives you the right to speak for Airbus sales staff and aircraft lease companies?
Airbus will be the first to sell an A321 to SN for Africa. In fact, why don't you take a look here: http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/ ... rformance/

I don't see what lease companies have to do in all that, but I forgive your lack of knowledge.
Lease companies don't care so much how an airline uses the aircraft as long as they can pay their lease fees and give the aircraft back in good conditions.

I don't know it better than all SN staff together. If you know SN and how big companies work in general, it's pretty simple, many managers/postholders don't welcome new idea's. Whenever someone proposes something fundamental there, it's shot down pretty fast unless it's some silly little idea about saving pennies on APU fuel burn that every other company in the world has been using since 20 years.

Especially if an idea comes from an internet forum, it becomes taboo and no one dares to speak up... Those management meetings are pretty tense apparently.

So tell me, if I'm so wrong, what is it that SN is doing so right in your opinion?

Also, what about TK's B739ER operation in Africa? They seem to be very happy with it, since they added more aircraft to their order book and even secured NEO and MAX orders to continue that operation for the long-term.

How can you not question whether SN is on the right path after 5 years of straight losses and TK strangling them using this exact method of operations?

[RTM]

It's just jaw dropping how simplistic your reasoning is Flanker... There is a lot more to it then just seats and numbers you know...?
You would need two A321's to carry the same pax load as the A333, espeically if you skip triangulations. So that is 2x leasing, 2x crew, 2x crew occommodations, 2x mx costs, 2x leasing, 2x Insurance, 2x fuel, and on and on... On top of that, your high yield business capacity will still be lower, and your high revenu cargo capacity will be lower. Yet, you are convinced it will be the saving of SN...

And have you ever flown a narrow body on long haul...? (No need to ask, because you will reply you did, regardless wheather you did it or not) Well, I did, it is far from comfortable, and I would prefer not to do it again. So if comfort and service is one of the key things in your airline to differenciate yourself, this is not the way to go.

And... just for the arguement... if flying 4 CFM56 engines to Africa is more economical than 2 CF6' or PW4000's... Why not opt for a A343...?

Anyway, to end on topic... I would love to see some A321's for Tel Aviv and Moscow... There I think they can make a difference.

[Flanker2]

And... just for the arguement... if flying 4 CFM56 engines to Africa is more economical than 2 CF6' or PW4000's... Why not opt for a A343...?

4 PW1000G's versus 2 CF6, the 4 PW1000G's burn much less hands down.
5 tons versus 7 tons an hour cruise.

And have you ever flown a narrow body on long haul...? (No need to ask, because you will reply you did, regardless wheather you did it or not) Well, I did, it is far from comfortable, and I would prefer not to do it again. So if comfort and service is one of the key things in your airline to differenciate yourself, this is not the way to go.

4000-5000km is not longhaul. Medium haul at best. It's U.S. transcon range.
What is so uncomfortable? That you have to jump over an additional person to go to the can? That's hardly a matter of comfort, many widebodies offer 3-3-3 configurations, some even 3-4-3.

I think that you're the one being overly simplistic.

You would need two A321's to carry the same pax load as the A333,

No you wouldn't, an A321 configured with proper business class can seat 180-200 pax in the same proportions as SN's A330's. 2 x 180 or 2 x 200 is much much more capacity than SN's A330's at 280 pax.

espeically if you skip triangulations.

Triangulations bring additional cost you know? Higher trip fuel, especially on the short African sectors where the aircraft fly low and at high thrust settings.
Crew costs, handling costs, landing fees, security fees, fuel, airframe cycles, pax getting stuck at two airports when an airplane goes tech, etc...

So that is 2x leasing

, Not if you can make an A321 do almost 2 trips/day to Africa iso 1 by A330, with a lot of wasted time on the ground.

2x crew, 2x crew occommodations

, fuel burn is a much bigger factor, plus some destinations to West Africa can be operated without lay-overs for the crews if they use a "second officer"/augmented crew, avoiding hotel accommodation and per diems... as JAF and KL do.

2x mx costs,

In my opinion, an old A330 will bring higher MX costs than 2 newer A321's.
A widebody requires much much more resources for maintenance than a narrowbody.

2x leasing

, An A321 would not cost the same to lease as an A330

2x Insurance,

Again, size and age of the aircraft matters.

2x fuel

, 2 A321 Neo's burn less than an A332. 5 tons an hour cruise versus 7 tons an hour.
I'm convinced that SN's tringle operations actually brings the A330's fuel burn to horrible levels, they just burn so much in take-off/climb during those triangles.

and on and on... On top of that, your high yield business capacity will still be lower,

Depends on your configuration, but it doesn't have to be.

and your high revenu cargo capacity will be lower

.
Cargo will become optional.

Yet, you are convinced it will be the saving of SN...

Obviously, it would have been.

I think that you are oversimplifying it.

[Passenger]

Let’s recap: one lonely luchtzak member is convinced that he knows it better than all Brussels Airlines staff together, plus all Airbus sales staff, plus all aircraft lease company executives.

What gives you the right to speak for Airbus sales staff and aircraft lease companies? Airbus will be the first to sell an A321 to SN for Africa.

Exactly! Airbus has discussed this possible switch with Brussels Airlines. The fact that you exclude these negociations seems to confirm that you must have had a traumatic experience with Brussels Airlines in the past.

Anyway, I was trying to make a basic calculation, but I'm missing some figures. Would be great if you could tell us:

1. The monthly lease Brussels Airlines is paying for its A330. Not the wiki or Airliners.net amount, but the real figure of the monthly invoice.

2. The montly lease that has been proposed to Brussels Airlines for a A321. Not the wiki or Airliner.net estimates, but the real figure in the lease company's written offer.

3. The average monthy revenue for cargo that Brussels Airlines now has on the A330's.

4. The fuel consumption of a triangle A330, once at the average load and once at full load. So not the wiki or Airliners.net estimates, but the real figures people like tolipanebas register after the flight.

Looking forward to those figures (in Euro, Dollar or Roebel, doesn't matter).

We then can start looking how to convince the cargo clients in Africa with fruits and veggies. I think it's quite difficult to get cargo pallets into a A321 non freighter. But then, we just can add an extra cargo door and move the seats a bit upward, isn't it?

[sn26567]

I would tend to agree that an A321 to some African destinations would not be a bad idea. AA has fitted some new A321s (with sharklets) for US transcontinental routes, with lie-flat seats in business class, and they seem to be very happy with it. When I say some African destinations, I mean those where cargo is not so important: the fruit and vegetable pallets come from East Africa, not West Africa. And the example of TK using similar B739ERs shows that such an operation is sustainable.

[tolipanebas]

I see that the holy greal of Belgian aviation is being discussed once again?

It's encouraging to read flanker has finally understood the A319 is really not the suitable platform he once thought it to be for flights to West-African destinations as it indeed offers way too few seats to possibly break even on such long flights: max 90 passengers is simply not enough to pay the bills on such a long flight, simple as that.

The A320 is doing better at 120 pax, but it's still not good enough, whereas the A321 starts to offer you enough seats: i.e. 170, but falls short on range to do the missions from BRU to the coastal areas of West Africa, which is what you'd want to reach.

Before somebody asks: please note how the above available seating numbers are not my own figures; they are derived from an analysis based on REAL flight planning and REAL pax and luggage weights, and yes they differ greatly from the ideal case used by manufacturers to boost their payload/range presentations. African passengers don't travel lightly and alternate fuel isn't going to be just 800kg on these kind of routes.

Okay, so TK uses narrowbodies to Central Africa, we know by now, but have a look at this map to see how the difference in location of their hub is the difference between 'just doable' and 'just not doable':
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=2700nm@BRU ... aded&DU=mi
From BRU, the A321-200 can reach mainly Sahel destinations only, not the densely populated coastal areas where the economic centres of West Africa are located and it definitely can't make it to Cameroun, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya, whereas from IST is all can.

Since 'Passenger' has already given it away, there's no longer a secret it telling you that Airbus' sales teams have visited BRU to present us their A321NEO and indeed: that plane is the ONLY version of the A32F family which comes with the required REAL WORLD 3,000NM still air range at a commercially required payload to make it a viable option to start looking better at, but detailed costs/revenues analysis has shown that this plane currently still is second to the A330 given the lower total operating costs of a single A333 vs 2 brandnew A321NEOs, especially when taking into account the additional revenues generated from the additional payload capacities of the first: cargo, extra pax luggage sold, intra-African passengers (40,000 annually, BTW) etc, unless Airbus gives extremely steep discounts to offset all of those which they aren't prepared to do as the A321NEO is built off the same line as any other A320 and they can easily fill production run without it.

All the rest is just water under the bridge really: good to keep you company during lonely nights.
Reality is BRU is 500NM too much to the North for any narrowbody flying today, whereas the A330 is just too good a platform vs the A321NEO flying tomorrow, especially on "hot and heavy" routes to Africa: BRU-CKY can't be compared to LAX-JFK and not only because the first is still some 500NM longer, btw, but all of that has been explained ample times already, so I won't bother.

[convair]

Thank you tolipanebas for these explanations that will hopefully bring everyone back to reality. Going off-topic now (but maybe this topic could be renamed "SN fleet"), I remember you once mentioned the replacement for SN's 330s will be...younger 330s. Do you confirm that? And when will it be?

[RTM]

There you go... I think Passenger and Tolipenebas say it all. Nothing to ad really.

Just the question of the comfort level on narrow body on long haul in my experience... In my opinion it was to claustrophobic. No room to wander around to stretch your legs, not enough toilet capacity, stuff like that. Also, the plane I flew was a charter, so it was actually not configured to do long haul. So seat spacing inadequate, no IFE, lightweight seats... Off coarse, on a dedicated airframe that can be corrected, but bear in mind that the extra space and weight will also reak havoc on the ideal performance figures Flanker is referring to, and actually optimistically rounding off to his favour.

[convair]

I'm suddenly overwhelmed by doubt, tolipanebas! Are you sure Airbus sent you their best salesman for the exercise you mentioned? See what i mean?

[Flanker2]

Tolipanebas, be reminded that even if SN did an exercise on that, it would only be a simulation.

I have met with some of the managers who do the math for a major Belgian company and I've seen some of their presentations, which made me hold my laughs. It was basic math and yet it was flawed. When I asked him a question, he started creating a new truth around the numbers to cover up his embarassment.

Let's get real and compare the data.

Let's give it a BRU-DKR for instance. Well within unrestricted payload range for a 182 seat A321 NEO with 20C/162Y. 5 rows of 2-2 in C and 27 rows of 3-3 in Y.

With the 25 ton payload capacity of the A321neo, at 100kg per pax incl. luggage, that gives you 7 tons/15cum of spare capacity for cargo, while carrying 40 more pax than a "half A333".
That means that if you use 2 A321 to replace a A333 on DKR, you will carry 15% more pax and about the same quantity of cargo, while saving 20% on DOC.

Additionally, those A321's will be available for another 10 duty hours out of BRU to medium range destinations, whereas the A333 will have used up its daily quota.

If we translate this into 2 A321's replacing a A333 a triangle, the DOC savings will be 30-35%, while earning 15% more revenue if replacing existing frequencies and providing free availability for 3 returns to GVA or a return to TLV.

No matter how much negativity you throw in, it's impossible to reverse such a cost/revenue equation into the favor of the A333. If they manage that, they have discovered the mathematical model of the black hole.