Transavia to fly from BRU with 2 Boeing 737s in Summer 2020

[Conti764]

But Paris is one of there home base!!!!

Exactly! If the rumours are true, they are setting up yet another base in Brussels.

A spillover base for AMS...

[lumumba]

Maybe Wamos and Transavia are going to work together?!

[JOVAN]

[I share the same opinion as Inquirer. That market is already overcrowded. Destinations have not been announced yet, but one can only think they'll start with the most popular ones

Indeed 737MAX, let's see what routes they announce.

I really do hope they go for the less obvious routes like Zurich, Beyruth, or Moscow, because otherwise BRU is really turning itself into a leisure destination airport by taking in all these kind of low end airlines, after which it will complain it can not attract global players from other continents, in part due to a lack of a diversified feed from its home base…

Sadly, Transavia's comments in Dutch news outlets seem to suggest they will simply link BRU with some of their existing holiday destinations served from AMS first, so no real independent base at all. Makes sense from a business perspective of course to use planes which can't be operated from AMS elsewhere throughout part of the day, but it's a bad news for BRU and even worse for those leisure focussed airlines specialised in these kind of flights based at BRU. I wonder why BRU airport thinks there's any need for yet another operator to say Malaga or Alicante? Next to Ryanair, Vueling, Jetair and Brussels Airlines? Really???
As 737MAX rightfully says, they're not going to grow the market, just pissing off airlines which have been building their operations at Brussels for a long time...

I remember the fight between Vueling and Ryanair of some years ago, both of which arrived with great growth plans, made life very difficult for each other and untimately ended up with each serving just a handful of (often overlapping) routes which are very close to their comfort zone, pulling out of most/all the more 'challenging' ones: Transavia risks making the route map of BRU even less diverse over time: 5 airlines operating to e.g. AGP and because of that not a single one strong enough to support operations to those places which need a big feeding network first.

It's high time BRU does what many towns and cities in Flanders do in their high street: limit the number of Kebab stores and nightshops, because in my humble view, low cost airlines are exactly that. Nothing wrong with enjoying a pita from time to time and you definitely have to have one or two in your local high street too, but you don't let your entire shopping mile be turned into one giant pita restaurant either! You need banks, an optician, a jewelry, a bakery etc too to make life of those actually living in the city enjoyable.

Very right.
Quality airlines needed SQ, more DL, UA , Avianca etc.
Long Haul PLEASE.

Keep in mind that TG and CX are in trouble now.
Hope they continue BRU, but I m afraid it will be the first destination to be deleted when they re-organize.

And let us hope SN survives.

[Boeing767copilot]

Maybe Wamos and Transavia are going to work together?!

And what about Corendon and Sunweb? Two compagnies with a strong brand in the Netherlands and fast growing on the Belgian market.

[ZavCity]

Corendon had lots of flights this summer here in BRU..And "sunweb" is a travel agency working with HV.Were here also in the past but not in 2019
gtz
paul

[BRUpilot]

In my opinion, BRU will, as Conti764 said, serve as a 'spill over'-base for AMS. At the end of 2020, AMS will again have the opportunity to grant airlines new slots, and one can assume that HV will move the BRU-flights to their home in AMS. I believe they also announced it this way, no? Or perhaps not in so many words...

What I think (read: hope) will happen is HV starting up some non-common, unserved and needed routes here from BRU and to discover their is a market for these routes. For which I do believe there is. When they start the AGP, ALC, and perhaps also the typical HER from BRU, then hope for an established base of HV in BRU will be far to seek.

[BrightCedars]

Free market economy is like the theory of evolution: survival of the fittest.
Not all contenders will remain but in the end the best operator should prevail.

[Conti764]

I wonder why BRU airport thinks there's any need for yet another operator to say Malaga or Alicante? Next to Ryanair, Vueling, Jetair and Brussels Airlines? Really???
As 737MAX rightfully says, they're not going to grow the market, just pissing off airlines which have been building their operations at Brussels for a long time...

Does BRU really have a say in this? If an airline requests slots, can they be denied based on the destination?

BRU has a say in this, of course. Those requests comes in by the slot coordination center. Then a whole investigation starts as a lot of criteria has to be followed. This is a whole procedure.

Certain routes has indeed a high frequency, especially Spain. There is a demand for. For Europe the Spanish destinations are very high ranked bcs Belgians has a second domicile there or bcs of holidays of course.

For the moment, we don't know anything regarding the plans of SN and the flights which they organized for Thomas Cook. Still those people has to be transported.

Don't forget that in a short period, two players felt away (or almost): Thomas Cook who went bankrupt and SN who is in reboot. SN will shrink: shrinking is sinking. Other players will jump into this gap.

Transavia will do this now. They will check for sure how is the market. So they start carefully with known destinations. It might be that they can grow further with totally other destinations. More will be known when SN will drop some destinations. If Wizz air and Transavia can take over some slots or if they will request for those slots, they can.

Regarding Intercontinental flights. Yes, I fully agree, there are certain destinations who are missing, very badly missing. With a shrinking SN it will not help to convince them and this is a shame. You can safe money on many ways but not in making yourself smaller bcs you lose market which others will pick up.
The next season will be more interesting to see who will add more

BRU might help SN with more favourable fees, etc...

For Tui just as well to be complete.

[Inquirer]

Regarding Intercontinental flights. Yes, I fully agree, there are certain destinations who are missing, very badly missing. With a shrinking SN it will not help to convince them and this is a shame. You can safe money on many ways but not in making yourself smaller bcs you lose market which others will pick up.
The next season will be more interesting to see who will add more

Without active help from BRU? Keep on dreaming, I'd say.

BRU might help SN with more favourable fees, etc...

Indeed, I have already made the suggestion twice and explicitly put the question forward once, but Atlantis dodged it professionally so far each time.

However, it seems that my reading of what's going in is also shared within the Lufthansa Group and will be put on the table in VIE soon, supported with data and a clear path forward. (and probably the same question will soon be put to BRU too, knowing how all of this is likely coordinated at group level).


From tha article about Austrian's restructuring plan:

The rising LCC competition attacks our feeding system and therefore indirectly also our long haul and hub-network. When analyzing Europe’s Top 40 airports, we see that the average LCC share in hub airports is about 20%, while it skyrockets beyond 50% in non-hubs. This shows how hard it is to maintain a hub-system in a low cost intense environment – and without a hub, Vienna would lose significantly in direct connectivity, especially in the long haul segment. Just have a look at Budapest (BUD) or Berlin (TXL) as two large airports without a hub carrier. They both have plenty of low cost flights all over Europe, but if you want to fly to long-haul destinations such as Tokyo or Washington, you have to connect through a different hub. And we can also easily see that Vienna hovers around the crossroads between hub- and low-cost-airports. Therefore, we need to improve the framework conditions in Vienna and reduce location related costs together with all our stakeholders, including all suppliers.

Replace VIE with BRU in this comment from the CEO of Austrian and you have a perfect description of the situation in BRU too: each invitation for another LCC undercuts the abitlity of the hub to support itself and makes the airport more likely to become deconnected intercontinentally over time.

Seems Austrian is basically saying: what's it going to be, VIE? Do you want a bunch of LCC serving Europe or do you want to be connected intercontinentally, because it's not sustainably possible to keep adding regional LCC routes (and pocket the extra revenu from them), while expecting us to keep serving all of our feeder flights in support of those intercontinental flights which you so cherish yet take all too much for granted.

[nordikcam]

BRU is not fortunate to have a major operator ... and SN has never found the luster of the Sabena of yesteryear. And LH does not know what to do with SN. In addition, BRU is globally cut off from Western, Central and South America, as well as from Asia, not to mention Oceania. To fly south or west, I will never go through FRA or MUC. So, I think that BRU has a purely regional and European vocation. I left the Miles and More Program for Flying Blue, fly with AF from CDG and it will take a lot to get me back.

[Poiu]

Seems Austrian is basically saying: what's it going to be, VIE? Do you want a bunch of LCC serving Europe or do you want to be connected intercontinentally, because it's not sustainably possible to keep adding regional LCC routes (and pocket the extra revenu from them), while expecting us to keep serving all of our feeder flights in support of those intercontinental flights which you so cherish yet take all too much for granted.

Whilst Austrian is feeding into Vienna, BA, AF, KLM, IB are feeding out of Vienna, so feeder flights are only putting pressure on revenue and are saturating airspace. The best example being people taking the bus in Brussels to go to Paris and fly back to Brussels to take a triangular flight to their destination, do you really want BRU to incentivise these kind of operations?
Do you want the BRU-VIE passenger to pay for the person next to him who flies BRU-VIE-NRT because it’s cheaper than flying from BRU, because that’s what this is about, no competition from LCCs so the feeders charge the local passengers a ridiculous price to make feeding sustainable. The best example you know personally is BRU-ZRH.
No LCC competition will make intra European travel more expensive and will increase the profit of feeder airlines, there is no benefit for travellers nor for airports. If Austrianhalts their NRT service, locals who need to fly from Vienna to Tokyo will fly via Fra, LHR, Cdg,.. but they will still fly in and out of Vie.

[Atlantis]

Does BRU really have a say in this? If an airline requests slots, can they be denied based on the destination?

BRU has a say in this, of course. Those requests comes in by the slot coordination center. Then a whole investigation starts as a lot of criteria has to be followed. This is a whole procedure.

Certain routes has indeed a high frequency, especially Spain. There is a demand for. For Europe the Spanish destinations are very high ranked bcs Belgians has a second domicile there or bcs of holidays of course.

For the moment, we don't know anything regarding the plans of SN and the flights which they organized for Thomas Cook. Still those people has to be transported.

Don't forget that in a short period, two players felt away (or almost): Thomas Cook who went bankrupt and SN who is in reboot. SN will shrink: shrinking is sinking. Other players will jump into this gap.

Transavia will do this now. They will check for sure how is the market. So they start carefully with known destinations. It might be that they can grow further with totally other destinations. More will be known when SN will drop some destinations. If Wizz air and Transavia can take over some slots or if they will request for those slots, they can.

Regarding Intercontinental flights. Yes, I fully agree, there are certain destinations who are missing, very badly missing. With a shrinking SN it will not help to convince them and this is a shame. You can safe money on many ways but not in making yourself smaller bcs you lose market which others will pick up.
The next season will be more interesting to see who will add more

BRU might help SN with more favourable fees, etc...

For Tui just as well to be complete.

If you do it for one, then you have to do it for all.
We are living in Europe, which is good, but when it comes to help one of your key players it's not. Europe will see this as illegal and I know already 3 other airlines who also will go to court.

So the best what BRU can do is to lower the fees for everybody. As SN is the biggest player, they will also have the biggest advantage

[convair]

From that article about Austrian's restructuring plan:

The rising LCC competition attacks our feeding system and therefore indirectly also our long haul and hub-network. When analyzing Europe’s Top 40 airports, we see that the average LCC share in hub airports is about 20%, while it skyrockets beyond 50% in non-hubs. This shows how hard it is to maintain a hub-system in a low cost intense environment – and without a hub, Vienna would lose significantly in direct connectivity, especially in the long haul segment. Just have a look at Budapest (BUD) or Berlin (TXL) as two large airports without a hub carrier. They both have plenty of low cost flights all over Europe, but if you want to fly to long-haul destinations such as Tokyo or Washington, you have to connect through a different hub. And we can also easily see that Vienna hovers around the crossroads between hub- and low-cost-airports. Therefore, we need to improve the framework conditions in Vienna and reduce location related costs together with all our stakeholders, including all suppliers.

That seems obvious enough. Why can't professionals of BRU and LH group management understand that?

[Poiu]

From that article about Austrian's restructuring plan:

The rising LCC competition attacks our feeding system and therefore indirectly also our long haul and hub-network. When analyzing Europe’s Top 40 airports, we see that the average LCC share in hub airports is about 20%, while it skyrockets beyond 50% in non-hubs. This shows how hard it is to maintain a hub-system in a low cost intense environment – and without a hub, Vienna would lose significantly in direct connectivity, especially in the long haul segment. Just have a look at Budapest (BUD) or Berlin (TXL) as two large airports without a hub carrier. They both have plenty of low cost flights all over Europe, but if you want to fly to long-haul destinations such as Tokyo or Washington, you have to connect through a different hub. And we can also easily see that Vienna hovers around the crossroads between hub- and low-cost-airports. Therefore, we need to improve the framework conditions in Vienna and reduce location related costs together with all our stakeholders, including all suppliers.

That seems obvious enough. Why can't professionals of BRU and LH group management understand that?

Is it that obvious?
What is obvious though, is that the hub and spoke model is not working if not supported by a solid home market, subsidies and incentives are temporary fixes but no long term solution. Without this home market the cost of the feeding has to be offset by ridiculously high fares for local passengers on the feeding flights. Once you take this artificial revenue away the model becomes unsustainable.
Free money, low fuel prices and incentives are only delaying the inevitable consolidation. The ones who are struggling today, will be the first victims tomorrow when the operating conditions become unfavourable.

[convair]

From that article about Austrian's restructuring plan:

The rising LCC competition attacks our feeding system and therefore indirectly also our long haul and hub-network. When analyzing Europe’s Top 40 airports, we see that the average LCC share in hub airports is about 20%, while it skyrockets beyond 50% in non-hubs. This shows how hard it is to maintain a hub-system in a low cost intense environment – and without a hub, Vienna would lose significantly in direct connectivity, especially in the long haul segment. Just have a look at Budapest (BUD) or Berlin (TXL) as two large airports without a hub carrier. They both have plenty of low cost flights all over Europe, but if you want to fly to long-haul destinations such as Tokyo or Washington, you have to connect through a different hub. And we can also easily see that Vienna hovers around the crossroads between hub- and low-cost-airports. Therefore, we need to improve the framework conditions in Vienna and reduce location related costs together with all our stakeholders, including all suppliers.

That seems obvious enough. Why can't professionals of BRU and LH group management understand that?

Is it that obvious?
What is obvious though, is that the hub and spoke model is not working if not supported by a solid home market, subsidies and incentives are temporary fixes but no long term solution. There’s overcapacity in the market, free money, low fuel prices and incentives are only delaying the inevitable consolidation.

Right, but also the fact that the hub and spoke model gives you a better chance to keep a higher market share at home.

[Poiu]

Right, but also the fact that the hub and spoke model gives you a better chance to keep a higher market share at home.

With the right price the home market share, if there is one at the first place, won’t be a problem.
Today direct flights are more expensive than flying a detour to connect, this is distorting the market and should not be supported by incentives.

[convair]

Right, but also the fact that the hub and spoke model gives you a better chance to keep a higher market share at home.

With the right price the home market share, if there is one at the first place, won’t be a problem.
Today direct flights are more expensive than flying a detour to connect, this is distorting the market and it should not be supported by incentives.

Yes, many pax will choose price over comfort. With or without incentives, airlines offer them lower prices to fill their long-haul flights. Reducing airport tax for connecting pax could be an acceptable measure, imho.
I don't really care if the pax next to me is paying less ( it's been the case for decades and for multiple reasons, good or bad) as he/she's often compromising on comfort. I'm free to do likewise.

[Poiu]

Yes, many pax will choose price over comfort. With or without incentives, airlines offer them lower prices to fill their long-haul flights. Reducing airport tax for connecting pax could be an acceptable measure, imho.
I don't really care if the pax next to me is paying less ( it's been the case for decades and for multiple reasons, good or bad) as he/she's often compromising on comfort. I'm free to do likewise.

Strange logic:
-you support incentives which make your comfortable nonstop flight more expensive
-you are happy to subsidise the seat next to you, which will reduce your comfort due to connecting delays, airspace and airport congestion...
But as you say, you are free to do so!

[convair]

Yes, many pax will choose price over comfort. With or without incentives, airlines offer them lower prices to fill their long-haul flights. Reducing airport tax for connecting pax could be an acceptable measure, imho.
I don't really care if the pax next to me is paying less ( it's been the case for decades and for multiple reasons, good or bad) as he/she's often compromising on comfort. I'm free to do likewise.

Strange logic:
-you support incentives which make your comfortable nonstop flight more expensive
-you are happy to subsidise the seat next to you, which will reduce your comfort due to connecting delays, airspace and airport congestion...
But as you say, you are free to do so!

As I said, it's been like that for decades. I can moan about it, but, without that "subsidized" pax on board, the airline would have to raise its prices for that flight, so I would pay even more; I would have the satisfaction to know that all pax would be paying the same (or would they really?), or that would be an incentive for me to compromize on comfort and choose lower price connecting flights.
I also know that each time I fly business, I (or whoever pays for my ticket) subsidize the Y pax on that same flight! That's life! Life is often unfair, isn't it?

[Conti764]

BRU has a say in this, of course. Those requests comes in by the slot coordination center. Then a whole investigation starts as a lot of criteria has to be followed. This is a whole procedure.

Certain routes has indeed a high frequency, especially Spain. There is a demand for. For Europe the Spanish destinations are very high ranked bcs Belgians has a second domicile there or bcs of holidays of course.

For the moment, we don't know anything regarding the plans of SN and the flights which they organized for Thomas Cook. Still those people has to be transported.

Don't forget that in a short period, two players felt away (or almost): Thomas Cook who went bankrupt and SN who is in reboot. SN will shrink: shrinking is sinking. Other players will jump into this gap.

Transavia will do this now. They will check for sure how is the market. So they start carefully with known destinations. It might be that they can grow further with totally other destinations. More will be known when SN will drop some destinations. If Wizz air and Transavia can take over some slots or if they will request for those slots, they can.

Regarding Intercontinental flights. Yes, I fully agree, there are certain destinations who are missing, very badly missing. With a shrinking SN it will not help to convince them and this is a shame. You can safe money on many ways but not in making yourself smaller bcs you lose market which others will pick up.
The next season will be more interesting to see who will add more

BRU might help SN with more favourable fees, etc...

For Tui just as well to be complete.

If you do it for one, then you have to do it for all.
We are living in Europe, which is good, but when it comes to help one of your key players it's not. Europe will see this as illegal and I know already 3 other airlines who also will go to court.

So the best what BRU can do is to lower the fees for everybody. As SN is the biggest player, they will also have the biggest advantage

Why would the EU decide against a commercial agreement between two private companies?