Brussels Airlines' fleet renewal

[rwandan-flyer]

The only potential routes I could see the A321LR/XLR from Bru would be flight with low demand in cargo, basically long haul leisure routes like Cancun, Punta Cana, Miami, Mombasa or Zanzibar for the actual network the A321LR/XLR is just a pure non sense.

Why not Luanda ?
And again why would a A321XLR be profitable on a Newcastle New York and not on Brussels Abidjan for example ?
TAP use also a A321 to Abidjan,we could look at the A330 rotations and increase the free days with the A321; that would make the destination more flexible, especially for business class passengers, and you'd increase your yield.
Or make Abidjan daily you have 33 LD3 containers in a A330 x4 flights a week ÷2 =66 LD containers.
If you fly daily with the A321XLR it's 8x7=56 not so a big difference.

I could ask to you why Air France ended flights to Banjul, Freetown, Monrovia in 2020s while they have a bigger fleet and network than Brussels Airlines which still serving these destinations (and they had even added flights).

British Airways in over 15 years (2000s-2010s) has closed the biggest part of African network including flights to its former colonies (Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Botswana, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan). Can you imagine that tomorrow, Brussels Airlines decides to end flights to Kinshasa, Bujumbura and Kigali.

Does it mean that both AF and BA are poorly managed ? Both airlines could fill their B787s (AF, BA), A350-900 (AF), A330-200 (AF) on the most routes that i cited above.

Each airline has its own strategy. British Airways lacks of slots at Heathrow since many many years and Africans routes were not profitable despite a good point to point demand.

Harare London for 2024 it's over 100 000 pax for the point to point demand, the same level that Kinshasa Brussels. They prefer to use slots on profitable routes to North America and Asia.

Lisbon has probably fewer transit pax to and from Africa than Brussels Airport. They have also a less point to point demand. Less 20 pax fly everyday btw Accra and Lisbon (vs 63 for BRU Accra for the point to point) . To & from Accra (they don't serve Abidjan), TAP relies manly to UK and Netherlands demand with Ghana. TAP can't fill A330neo to all its routes to Africa.

Like Turkish Airlines which relies manly on Europe demand for Africa, that's why they serve many routes both with A330 and B737-Max8. They serve few destinations in Africa with extra flights (meaning over 1 flight a day). Outside North Africa, only Accra, Entebbe, Ouagadougou and Dakar have extra flights if i m right.

[oldblueeyes]

The legitimate question is : to which extend we do discuss here best guestimated driven by available facts vs. personal preferences ( "i'd wish my next door company would fly me to my next door airport"), legitimate career/employment prospectives ( eg larger but fewer aircraft are good for cabin crew employment vs pilots and vice versa), personal preferences or anomosity etc?

Airlines are in the business to make money - this is the only goal, and based on data, assumption, ressources they try to allocate them in order to maximize that.

What we know today about the A321XLR is:
- there are something like 500 orders
- largest fleets were ordered by companies having a fairly large geographical home market print - Indigo and the US carrieres which have strong coast to coast demand
- as for European LR/XLR operators, the market signals as of today are mixed, meaning that not everone found the right spot for its own operations : SAS is struggling to find a meaningful use, Wizz is rumored to move back to regular 321NEOs, likely also due to failure to expand in Abu Dhabi, TAP seems to do well, IAG is optimistic for DUB and MAD

Now let's look at the configurations:
- Iberia has 14C +168 eco
- TAP has 16C+ 155 eco
- SAS has 22C+ 12 PE+123 eco
- ITA has 12C+12 PE + 141 eco
- AA has 20C+12 PE + 123 eco
- Indigo is planning 12 C+ 183 eco

The reference seat map at SN is 30C+ 21 PE + 244 eco, which is more or less similar to what the LH group operates on secondary routes.

So the chicken -egg case for an A321XLR would be a seat map that ensure enough money to be earned and configuration that accomodates both East coast, as well as lighter eco routes.

Edit: Wizz is cancelling the majority of 321XLR and stays only with the delivered fleet https://wizzair2024eutfm.q4web.com/news ... fault.aspx

[lumumba]

The legitimate question is : to which extend we do discuss here best guestimated driven by available facts vs. personal preferences ( "i'd wish my next door company would fly me to my next door airport"), legitimate career/employment prospectives ( eg larger but fewer aircraft are good for cabin crew employment vs pilots and vice versa), personal preferences or anomosity etc?

Airlines are in the business to make money - this is the only goal, and based on data, assumption, ressources they try to allocate them in order to maximize that.

What we know today about the A321XLR is:
- there are something like 500 orders
- largest fleets were ordered by companies having a fairly large geographical home market print - Indigo and the US carrieres which have strong coast to coast demand
- as for European LR/XLR operators, the market signals as of today are mixed, meaning that not everone found the right spot for its own operations : SAS is struggling to find a meaningful use, Wizz is rumored to move back to regular 321NEOs, likely also due to failure to expand in Abu Dhabi, TAP seems to do well, IAG is optimistic for DUB and MAD

Now let's look at the configurations:
- Iberia has 14C +168 eco
- TAP has 16C+ 155 eco
- SAS has 22C+ 12 PE+123 eco
- ITA has 12C+12 PE + 141 eco
- AA has 20C+12 PE + 123 eco
- Indigo is planning 12 C+ 183 eco

The reference seat map at SN is 30C+ 21 PE + 244 eco, which is more or less similar to what the LH group operates on secondary routes.

So the chicken -egg case for an A321XLR would be a seat map that ensure enough money to be earned and configuration that accomodates both East coast, as well as lighter eco routes.

Edit: Wizz is cancelling the majority of 321XLR and stays only with the delivered fleet https://wizzair2024eutfm.q4web.com/news ... fault.aspx

Wizzair canceled there Abu Dhabi project this canceled orders free some slots for the early delivery.

[sn26567]

Edit: Wizz is cancelling the majority of 321XLR and stays only with the delivered fleet https://wizzair2024eutfm.q4web.com/news ... fault.aspx

And one Wizz A321XLR serves as Wizz Force One for Hungary's PM...
https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/wizz ... ashington/

[Boeing767copilot]

Wasn't it this month that SN made a decision on the B787 or A350 for the future LH expansion?

[oldblueeyes]

No, there was the capital markets day of the LH group, where they presented the long haul fleet plan simplification until 2030.

And there were 2 questionmarks :
-Discover to get A359, meanwhile decided that they would get the 4 leased A359 with Thomspon business seats and
-Brussels : to have in 2030 a mixed fleet 333 and 789 or 359, not decided yet

And the statement there was that the 789 and 359 are the backbone models supposed to switch as well tactically between the hubs upon needs.

For all those curious to listen to all statements, they are available to the public https://investor-relations.lufthansagro ... -2025.html

As of today, Luftahnsa has following aircraft not clearly allocated on order : 13xA359 likely for LH? , 25XA351 options and 13XB789 options. Not for Brussels, but worth a notice are additional 24 options for the 779.

To me, the likely scenario would be following:
- Lufthansa will take the new A359 for itself and avoid some Allegris retrofits in the older aircraft; as the 351 are also planned for the MUC base, all 17 older Lufthansa A359 would be due for re-allocation with new cabin
- Lufthansa will use the additional 779 delay to get more 789 from its options at favorable prices - as engins from RR are getting enhanced specs with next deliveries, range may become similar to A359 and thus these 789 would be much more attractive for the smaller brands in the group

My personal bet is that if Brussels can afford, it would get new B789 and Discover would get the used A359.

-

[lumumba]

No, there was the capital markets day of the LH group, where they presented the long haul fleet plan simplification until 2030.

And there were 2 questionmarks :
-Discover to get A359, meanwhile decided that they would get the 4 leased A359 with Thomspon business seats and
-Brussels : to have in 2030 a mixed fleet 333 and 789 or 359, not decided yet

And the statement there was that the 789 and 359 are the backbone models supposed to switch as well tactically between the hubs upon needs.

For all those curious to listen to all statements, they are available to the public https://investor-relations.lufthansagro ... -2025.html

As of today, Luftahnsa has following aircraft not clearly allocated on order : 13xA359 likely for LH? , 25XA351 options and 13XB789 options. Not for Brussels, but worth a notice are additional 24 options for the 779.

To me, the likely scenario would be following:
- Lufthansa will take the new A359 for itself and avoid some Allegris retrofits in the older aircraft; as the 351 are also planned for the MUC base, all 17 older Lufthansa A359 would be due for re-allocation with new cabin
- Lufthansa will use the additional 779 delay to get more 789 from its options at favorable prices - as engins from RR are getting enhanced specs with next deliveries, range may become similar to A359 and thus these 789 would be much more attractive for the smaller brands in the group

My personal bet is that if Brussels can afford, it would get new B789 and Discover would get the used A359.

-

If you want to stop flying in a triangular pattern, wouldn't it be more advantageous to choose the smaller 787-8 model?

[longwings]

If we speak about the US carriers, their main markets are the coast to coast routes, formerly 757 driven.
But...Delta will try secondary routes to Europe, formerly not working even seasonal or low frequency.
IAG has 12 aircraft ordered, so let's not overestimate.

For American and United, that is respectfully not totally accurate.
When they ordered the aircraft and repeatedly since, United has stated the primary purpose of the A321XLRs will be new thin routes to Europe and North Africa.

AA is planning a mixed transcontinental/international use. Early A321XLRs will replace the 18 or 19 A321Ts (aircraft with first, business, and economy dedicated to transcontinental flights). All 50 A321XLRs will have the same business (with direct aisle access), premium economy, and economy cabin so they can be use interchangeably on transcontinental flights and thin international routes. The first international route is JFK-EDI starting in 2026. When removed from transcontinental service, the A321Ts will be refurbished to a standard domestic cabin and will just be A321s.

Correct that United uses 757s on transcontinental flights but it has been years since they had a dedicated subfleet. Current service uses 757s, domestic and international 777s, and 787s depending on market and time of day. Fly EWR-SFO on any given day and you could find yourself on a 777 that came in from FRA and is headed to HKG next. The mixed fleet approach will not change through retirements. 757s will be replaced by A321Neos and A321XLRs in between international flights, and domestic 777s by more 787s.

[oldblueeyes]

If you want to stop flying in a triangular pattern, wouldn't it be more advantageous to choose the smaller 787-8 model?

Serious question : who cares about triangular pattern etc. in markets of zero importance?
Did you ever spent any minute to read group reports, investor presentation etc and understand what LH is doing?

You have a lot of proposals which are phantasy, never related to reality.

But let's go point to point:

- LH defined the entry level size for its widebodies at 333 - this is nothing new, goes back to 2014 ; the only unsuccesfull exception was decentral long haul
- obviously the 789 is the follow up model on this size (and the 339 as go along poison pill at ITA, but there growth is 359 focused)
- not later than few weeks ago at the investor conference it was clearly stated that the 789 and 359 are the future workhorses and base interchangeble sizes
- last but not least, fleet orders are group decisions and not anymore brand choices dispersed in subfleets - the long term future is 789-359-351-779

And now to the 788:
- it had its momentum with 500 orders at the beginning of the replacement wave of early 767 and 757 -since then, it is dead in terms of sales
- economics are poor compared to the larger peers and furthermore, the commonality is significantly lower
- as a niche model, valuation and remarketing is bad

Good business model are consistent - make it or break it. Triangles are niche compromises for a while, if they can't get critical mass, ther eis no shame to abandon certain routes.

[pijaleu]

Just a question:

On their A333 SN is facing issues in capacity for Cargo.
I think at the moment a B789 can take much more weight compared to an A333 (right?)

Is there a big difference between A359 and B789 on this topic? A quick review on the almighty internet makes me believe not really.
Any specialist to clear that out for me?
SN can definitely use aircraft that can take more cargo, but no idea if those who will take the decision will take that into account

[oldblueeyes]

The answer is as usual... it depends.

Both the A359 adn the B789 can take 36 LD3 containers or 11 pallets. So both have a limitation by weight of approx 70T. This is 4 LD3 containers more than theA333.

The Airbus has more than double underfloor capacity, means that within the same weight, you can transport more volume. But at the same time you may accomodate the needs of up to 30 more pax.

What the optimal decision is, may vary on several parameters:
- more frequencies ( 789 wins) vs more capacity per trip (359)
- ownership cost (new 789 may win, used A359 may win)
- cost per trip (789 wins) vs cost per seat (359 wins)
- pax cargo only (789 sufficient) vs freight cargo on top (A359 wins)
- one pilot pool ( 359 wins) vs fleet balance among the brands ( 789 wins)
- product availability at decision time (likely somewhere around 2027)

[lumumba]

The answer is as usual... it depends.

Both the A359 adn the B789 can take 36 LD3 containers or 11 pallets. So both have a limitation by weight of approx 70T. This is 4 LD3 containers more than theA333.

The Airbus has more than double underfloor capacity, means that within the same weight, you can transport more volume. But at the same time you may accomodate the needs of up to 30 more pax.

What the optimal decision is, may vary on several parameters:
- more frequencies ( 789 wins) vs more capacity per trip (359)
- ownership cost (new 789 may win, used A359 may win)
- cost per trip (789 wins) vs cost per seat (359 wins)
- pax cargo only (789 sufficient) vs freight cargo on top (A359 wins)
- one pilot pool ( 359 wins) vs fleet balance among the brands ( 789 wins)
- product availability at decision time (likely somewhere around 2027)

And what about the the A330 900?

[oldblueeyes]

My personal view is that the capital markets day represents a clear forward looking statement, of course as long as no unpredictible things happen which may lead to alternative decisions.

And the chart was very clear - the decision to be made is between the B789 and the A359.

[lumumba]

Does Brussels Airlines really need this technology for flights beween 5 to 8 hours? The A330-900 certainly has less capacity than the other two aircraft, but it's surely also much cheaper to buy and to use on those medium flights?!

In addition, it's a much more comfortable plane and I'm talking about economy class passengers here.

[crew1990]

D-AUAR (OO-SBF) performed her first test flight today.

[oldblueeyes]

Does Brussels Airlines really need this technology for flights beween 5 to 8 hours? The A330-900 certainly has less capacity than the other two aircraft, but it's surely also much cheaper to buy and to use on those medium flights?!

In addition, it's a much more comfortable plane and I'm talking about economy class passengers here.

I am not an insider, but an educated guess would be following:
- at it's size, Brussels needs both operational discipline ( 1 widebody family) as well as max flexibility (one fits all model)
- furthermore, within the LH group, the 789 and 359 have been nominated as most interchangeable models between the different bases
- what Brussels flies today reflect what the current fleet (A333) ca do, not necessarily what an ideal 1 widebody model fleet could do

[fcw]

Does Brussels Airlines really need this technology for flights beween 5 to 8 hours? The A330-900 certainly has less capacity than the other two aircraft, but it's surely also much cheaper to buy and to use on those medium flights?!

In addition, it's a much more comfortable plane and I'm talking about economy class passengers here.

But a 339 will make a lot more noise above your house…

[lumumba]

Does Brussels Airlines really need this technology for flights beween 5 to 8 hours? The A330-900 certainly has less capacity than the other two aircraft, but it's surely also much cheaper to buy and to use on those medium flights?!

In addition, it's a much more comfortable plane and I'm talking about economy class passengers here.

But a 339 will make a lot more noise above your house…

I know it's not much but more,but if I understand correctly, they've improved the aircraft's performance; perhaps it's also quieter now.

Anyway, that's a different debate. Daytime flights aren't really a problem. It's the night flights that should be canceled. Flanders and Brussels are far too densely populated for that.
Are we going to start this debate again?

[oldblueeyes]

Well, you were bringing the model into discussion, against all statements made with respect to the group fleet forecast.

As of today, the LH group is planning a la long with 4 widebody subtypes:

- B789 /A359 /A351 / B779

And this fits into everything the company has as of today and where next fleet exchanges are not approved:

- 339 at ITA are leased and LH does not have now the formal power to opt for changes, but there was a clear message that growth is A359 centric
- 333 at Swiss shall be likely exchanged mid of next decade with 359, B773 likely with A351 which was from the beginning the preferred option
- 333 at SN as announced B789/A359
- 748/A380 at LH with 779

Maybe in 10 years the developments would offer a reconsideration, but as of today this seems to be the roadmap.

[lumumba]

Well, you were bringing the model into discussion, against all statements made with respect to the group fleet forecast.

As of today, the LH group is planning a la long with 4 widebody subtypes:

- B789 /A359 /A351 / B779

And this fits into everything the company has as of today and where next fleet exchanges are not approved:

- 339 at ITA are leased and LH does not have now the formal power to opt for changes, but there was a clear message that growth is A359 centric
- 333 at Swiss shall be likely exchanged mid of next decade with 359, B773 likely with A351 which was from the beginning the preferred option
- 333 at SN as announced B789/A359
- 748/A380 at LH with 779

Maybe in 10 years the developments would offer a reconsideration, but as of today this seems to be the roadmap.

I understand that.
Thx