African operations possible with narrow body equipment

[Flanker]

Carefull now: whereas a dedicated low density cabin configuration more suitable for long haul operations can indeed increase range and thus changes of finding enough suitable sub-Saharan destinations for such a dedicated fleet while at the same time work away your comfort handicap, such a 'simple cabin reconfiguration' like you call it, isn't so simple anymore actually.
Assuming you want to offer a product on a par with the rest of the soon to be refurbished A330 fleet and in line with what competitors offer their pax too, you're effectively talking here not just about increasing seat pitch, but about installing lie-flat business class seats, economy seats with PTV and additional galley space and ovens to care for your long haul pax on board the A32S in the same way as on the A330. Note that all of the above modifications are touching the electrical architecture of your plane, so you may count on several weeks for a single reconfiguration AT LEAST. If you want to make this plan of yours have any positive effect and thus have more than just 1 or 2 planes in this project, by the time you're finished reconfiguring your fleet, you can start bringing them back to their former configuration once again, so it's going to be quite an expensive reconfiguration for only a very short period of time, and as such it will likely not be worth it.

Actually it's quite a simple switch, I can clarify. Removing the seats, re-installing the seats and reconfiguring the overhead PSU's can be done in two days, even in one if necessary. The electrial installation for the IFE is limited to fixed integrated electrical connectors at each set of seats, a wireless router and a satcom antenna (if internet is to be provided), so it's a one-time modification, after that it's plug-in, plug-out.
The galleys as they are now contain sufficent amounts of space to store trolleys to contain catering for a return trip in a low density configuration. There are 4 trolley spaces at the front, another 5 or was it 6, in the back. Each trolley can contain around 40 trays. This way you can also offer the business pax their full 3 course meal even on an A320.
From memory, there are at least 2 ovens on the A32S, up to 4. These can cook 10 to 15 meals at the same time each. Even if there are only 2 ovens, by the time an F/A's done distributing a batch of 20 to 30 meals and drinks, the other F/A's can cook another 20 to 30 steamy meals.
It's already working on the TLV and DME sectors, in the higher density configuration.
So I don't expect this to be a problem. Let me find think about a solution for the gap created in Africa in the summer when the A32S are shifted back to Europe, but if other things hit your mind, do post.

[tolipanebas]

Actually it's quite a simple switch, I can clarify. Removing the seats, re-installing the seats and reconfiguring the overhead PSU's can be done in two days, even in one if necessary. The electrial installation for the IFE is limited to fixed integrated electrical connectors at each set of seats, a wireless router and a satcom antenna (if internet is to be provided), so it's a one-time modification, after that it's plug-in, plug-out.

I'd love to see it being done once for real, just to see just how quick you can get it done...
Don't forget you'll have to have the fiddling to the onboard electrics certified by Airbus too prior to release to service and they are known to be very slow with these kind of rubber stamp jobs as it is really not
their core business. SN already had the experience just how 'swift and easy' a cabin rebuilt was on SFW, remember? What was said to take only a few days, took about a month in the end, most of which was filled with sorting out the paperwork!
I agree however that once you get the routine, it will become easier, but don't forget you'd also have to build the inventory: 2 entire cabin outfits, each used only half of the year... especially a dedicated A319 cabin can easily cost several million per narrowbody plane, so having that sit in storage half the time isn't such good use of it really.
Seriously, it just feels to me as if you're underestimating the work and time needed to do a cabin retrofit as wel as the costs involved with it...

The galleys as they are now contain sufficient amounts of space to store trolleys to contain catering for a return trip in a low density configuration. There are 4 trolley spaces at the front, another 5 or was it 6, in the back. Each trolley can contain around 40 trays. This way you can also offer the business pax their full 3 course meal even on an A320.

Again, the devil is in the practical details: a longhaul tray is bigger than a shorthaul tray, not to mention there are several meal services on a single longhaul flight, not just in business, but also in economy: at least if you are willing to keep the levels of service on a par to what it is today.
Of course, it all depends on which routes you're planning to serve with such an A32S, but if you want to match the service levels of the A330 on them, you're going to have a hard time fitting all that in the standard galleys of a narrowbody, believe me! Remember SN has done DKR on A319 in the past and we've experienced first hand just how easy it really is to store a full longhaul service in a standard narrow body galley...

From memory, there are at least 2 ovens on the A32S, up to 4. These can cook 10 to 15 meals at the same time each. Even if there are only 2 ovens, by the time an F/A's done distributing a batch of 20 to 30 meals and drinks, the other F/A's can cook another 20 to 30 steamy meals. That's what they already do on the TLV and DME sectors, in the higher density configuration.

And it is a mess on those flights if they are fully booked, hence we're using only our best equipped planes there and even then our cabin crew can hardly cope sometimes, especially on the night return flights as everybody wants to get served within the first hour after take-off: logical, isn't it? Nobody wants to have his dinner served at 1 o'clock at night, does he?

[tolipanebas]

Let me find think a solution for the gap created in Africa in the summer when the A32S are shifted back to Europe, but if other things hit your mind, do post.

That would be nice indeed...

meanwile, about your request for other remarks:
much of the practical problems of operating A32S to AFI have been said before.
After all, it doesn't really matter greatly whether the plane is rotated between AFI and EU ops on a daily basis (like you once proposed) or on a seasonal basis (like you propose now): in the end it's still the same plane, on the same routes, with the same pax, facing the same needs, although I agree that extending the period during which the plane stays on a certain sector makes it more worthwhile to adapt it to the needs of that sector... it's just that I feel that a 6 month period is still going to be too short to make it worthwhile to work away the inherent handicaps an A32S configured for EU ops will have in AFI.

[DeltaWiskey]

especially a dedicated A319 cabin can easily cost several million per narrowbody plane, so having that sit in storage half the time isn't such good use of it really.
Seriously, it just feels to me as if you're underestimating the work and time needed to do a cabin retrofit as wel as the costs involved with it...

Several millions (like in 3-4-5) for the cabin fittings on a "dedicated" A319? Wow, that is way too much, it's more like €1Mio, €1,5Mio max. I agree with you it is not a good investment when it is stored 6 months a year, the money can be used better elsewhere.

About AFI ops, I have the opinion (but I haven't read this thread fully), African operations can be possible with narrowbody equipment, but only up to 2500-2700nm and with a small subfleet of 2-3 A319/A320, but only to start new destinations or add frequencies with the idea of upgrading it to a widebody after a year, or two.

[Flanker]

tolipanebas wrote:
especially a dedicated A319 cabin can easily cost several million per narrowbody plane, so having that sit in storage half the time isn't such good use of it really.
Seriously, it just feels to me as if you're underestimating the work and time needed to do a cabin retrofit as wel as the costs involved with it...

Several millions (like in 3-4-5) for the cabin fittings on a "dedicated" A319? Wow, that is way too much, it's more like €1Mio, €1,5Mio max. I agree with you it is not a good investment when it is stored 6 months a year, the money can be used better elsewhere.

The pricetag would indeed probably be in the 1 million euro area per aircraft for the initial investment.
I agree that storing it for 6 months a year is a waste of money. But it's a much larger waste of money to park the entire aircraft for 6 months during the winter or worse, to operate it empty.
On top of compensating for this unavoidable negative, this would generate very positive and steady revenue.

it's just that I feel that a 6 month period is still going to be too short to make it worthwhile to work away the inherent handicaps an A32S configured for EU ops will have in AFI.

If making money was comfortable, everyone would be rich. I don't say that it would be easy to integrate such an operation within SN, but if it can make a +10 million difference at the end of the year instead of -10 million, you have a +20 million effect on earnings or a gross margin of 2% on total revenues.

If you want details, it's pretty simple.
Let's say that 6 out of 12 A32S are shifted for this operation during the winter. At any given time only 5 could be operational. How much is an average return fare to Africa? Let's say 1200€ for a A319 cabin configured with 16C/90Y, 106 PAX total. Load factor, let's take a conservative 80%.
Per day, this translates into revenues of no less than 101.000€ per aircraft or half a million euro's on the 5 aircraft.
Over a 6 month period, we're talking about 90 million euro's of EXTRA revenues at almost no additional cost than running them meaninglessly empty or low revenue on European sectors during the winter.

That's not all. These same aircraft can be used to run the trips to TLV/DME in a "3 birds with one stone" process.
Since it would be direct flights to Africa (no triangles) and shorter turn-around times (compared to A333), the aircraft can offer frequencies with a better schedule than the A333 offer. Especially in Africa, arriving late in the evening isn't always convenient for people who need to take a domestic flight, take the railway or hit the road, so let's say that the additional frequencies are added with a midnight departure from BRU with early arrival in Africa and return to BRU by noon.
Sure, the flights miss the connections with the U.S., but they become more attractive for onward travel inside Africa, so they can operate independently from the US feeding, while maintaining good feeding on the European side.
For example, if BKO is 3 weekly now via BJL, you keep those frequencies and add 2 weekly direct red-eye frequencies to steal pax from AF-KL by offering a convenient schedule that AF can't offer from CDG.
To summarise, the 3 birds you take with one stone are:
-Possibility to offer a better schedule for onward travel after arrival in Africa
-To steal pax from AMS/CDG to fill the plane thanks to better schedules, independently from US feeding
-Ability to plan mid-haul flights to TLV/DME

90 million of extra revenue per year with only slightly more cost is certainly worth a small inconvenience. Like I always tell my friends, if you think you can make a 100 euro profit, the actual profit you're going to make is 1/4th of that. There are always the "unexpected" costs and investments that need to be accounted for such as in this case, the downtime of the seats during the summer, outstation maintenance, etc...
Hence my revised +20 million earning numbers.


With regards to the capacity gap that opens up in the summer as the A32S go back to Europe, I see 3 ways to mitigate it.
-The first one is the natural decrease of the market during the summer, reducing the travel demand.
-The second is that the A333's aren't flying full full yet, so there you have a buffer
-If the gap is still significant enough, it's the business case for an additional long-haul aircraft

As to cargo revenue, you already know what I think.
As long as the A32S come to reinforce the existing network, cargo revenue isn't a factor. Cargo revenue is necessary for low efficiency widebody ops in triangles, not necessary for a high efficiency narrow body ops with direct flights.

[Flanker]

Again, the devil is in the practical details: a longhaul tray is bigger than a shorthaul tray, not to mention there are several meal services on a single longhaul flight, not just in business, but also in economy: at least if you are willing to keep the levels of service on a par to what it is today.
Of course, it all depends on which routes you're planning to serve with such an A32S, but if you want to match the service levels of the A330 on them, you're going to have a hard time fitting all that in the standard galleys of a narrowbody, believe me! Remember SN has done DKR on A319 in the past and we've experienced first hand just how easy it really is to store a full longhaul service in a standard narrow body galley...

The tray size doesn't matter really, because the trolleys can contain 40 standard sized trays. I'm talking standard trays that can contain a hot meal, a salad, a desert, a loaf of bread and a cup of coffee. Not "half-trays".

There's a big difference between
-a A319 with 142 seats packed like hell trying to compensate for a cancelled A333 flight, trying to give each passenger a choice of meal and the business pax his a la carte meal and
-a A319 configured with 106 seats trying to capture a larger piece of the market. It's unlikely that both outbound and return flights are packed at 100%, more like 80-90%.

[tolipanebas]

The pricetag would be in the 1 million euro area per aircraft for the initial investment.

€1M is roughly what a NEK cabin costs (seats, downtime and installation costs) and that is without all of the PTVs, lie flat C class seats, galley modifications and certificaction you'd be looking at to turn standard A32Fs into dedicated ones, so you can definitely think of a figure north of a million for such a cabin.
For reference, refurbishing the current fleet of 5 A333s (which already have the galleys and part of the electronics in place) is going to cost €26M...

I agree that storing it for 6 months a year is a waste of money.

Waste of money AND a cost in itself too, as you'd need to have quite some strorage space for all those seats...

These same aircraft can be used to run the trips to TLV/DME

What TLV needs is not less seats from using a dedicated plane there, but more, hence it was the very first destination to see constant A320 ops as soon as we got an A320. TLV is a destination which should ideally be operated on A330 even, but sadly, SN doesn't have a plane for it.
Realistically speeking, you can't effectively use dedicated narrowbody planes on Europe, hence you came up with the idea to bring them back to a standard cabin configuration when coming back to Europe in your second iteration of this 'narrowbodies on longhaul' concept, remember?

Iet's say that 6 out of 12 A32S are shifted for this operation during the winter.

The routes suffering most from lower trafic numbers in winter are the ones operated by RJs, not those operated by larger planes. If you're going to shift 6 A32Fs to AFI, you're effectively going to have to cut on many core routes in the EU network which remain profitable throughout the winter too. We really don't want to give away marketshare to competitors like Easyjet so easily, do we? They will not just pull out again after winterseason, once we come back with our A32F from AFI...

With regards to the capacity gap that opens up in the summer as the A32S go back to Europe, I see 3 ways to mitigate it.
-The first one is the natural decrease of the market during the summer, reducing the travel demand.
-The second is that the A333's aren't flying full full yet, so there you have a buffer
-If the gap is still significant enough, it's the business case for an additional long-haul aircraft

Are you going to have seasonal longhaul destinations or just added frequencies to existing destinations? From the above, it can only mean adding frequencies, which I think is the least interesting of the 2 really.
A decidated A32F may be suitable for opening some thin routes in AFI, but it isn't such a great plane to add capacity on existing routes really. If the case for more capacity is there, then why would you do it on a high unit cost plane like a dedicated A32F? Better do it on a low unit cost frame like the A330, as the last thing you'd want to do it to have to increase the fares on the route -also on the A330 tickets- to offset the higher operating costs of some of the flights there!
Or are you going to have 2 different fare bases on the same route: one for the dedicated service and one for the A330 service? That's guaranteed not to work: all it will do is drive pax onto the A330s: remember its a more comfortable plane AND you'd offer it at a lower fare so your dedicated service is going to fly empty then, whereas your A330 would be packed to the last seat, thus preventing you to sell your tag-on and cargo space even, both of which make good money.
Seriously, when you operate the A32F alongside the A330 on the same route, you're goig to have big problems, not just on the route itself, but also on the tag-on... better stay well clear of that: the last thing you want to do is make life easy on competitors, by essencially competing with yourself!

Let's say that the additional frequencies are added with a midnight departure from BRU with early arrival in Africa and return to BRU by noon. Sure, the flights miss the connections with the U.S., but they become more attractive for onward travel inside Africa, so they can operate independently from the US feeding, while maintaining good feeding on the European side.

Just 1 example of how good feeding for such an evening outbound wave would be: no link to Paris...
Besides, why would you want to mess with the wave system? Remember you'd already be changing quite a lot when you'd introduce a couple of narrowbodies on the AFI sector, so better not be too radical and just integrate them as optimally as possible into the existing network structure.
No need for any added eccentricity: keep it as simple as possible, it's the only slim chance of success.

There's a big difference between
-a A319 with 142 seats packed like hell trying to compensate for a cancelled A333 flight, trying to give each passenger a choice of meal and the business pax his a la carte meal and
-a A319 configured with 106 seats trying to capture a larger piece of the market. It's unlikely that both outbound and return flights are packed at 100%, more like 80-90%.

So are you going to give those dedicated pax a sort of 'light' service then, or what?
That's not going to add to the attractiveness of these flights compared to the A330 flights then; one more reason not to operate the A32F alongside the A330 on the same routes...

[LJ]

€1M is roughly what a NEK cabin costs (seats, downtime and installation costs) and that is without all of the PTVs, lie flat C class seats, galley modifications and certificaction you'd be looking at to turn standard A32Fs into dedicated ones, so you can definitely think of a figure north of a million for such a cabin.

You don't need lie-flaf C-class or PTVs. Both IB and AF don't have these on their dedicated A319 services (I don't know about Privatair, but I don't think they have PTVs and lie flats either). The only thing why this is not a good idea for SN is that SN will probably not be able to capture the yield to make these services profitable. AF uses their dedicted service to the high yield (but thin) oil routes). IB uses them also on Tel Aviv and Moscow.

[tolipanebas]

You don't need lie-flaf C-class or PTVs.

You do if the aim is to use the A32F for additional frequencies on existing routes like Flanker is proposing; 2 completely different products on one and the same route is not going to work, especially not if the product with the highest unit cost (the dedicated service) is the one with the inferior product...

If you deploy them to thin NEW routes, then yes, I agree indeed you don't absolutely need all of that, but then these routes need to be really really thin indeed: if a competitor is operating there with a more comfortable widebody (and thus can offer tickets at cheaper fares if needed due to lower unit costs), the project will most likely fail...

[Flanker]

I'm going to break down my response into 2 posts because there are 2 unrelated but equally strong questions being raised and too long posts contribute to nausea.

Response 1

€1M is roughly what a NEK cabin costs (seats, downtime and installation costs) and that is without all of the PTVs, lie flat C class seats, galley modifications and certificaction you'd be looking at to turn standard A32Fs into dedicated ones, so you can definitely think of a figure north of a million for such a cabin.
For reference, refurbishing the current fleet of 5 A333s (which already have the galleys and part of the electronics in place) is going to cost €26M...

Those NEK seats look cheap but they're really expensive. Normal seats would cost around 3000$ (2300€).
Those composite lightweight seats have a high manufacturing cost as opposed to traditional aluminium seats.

I don't want to comment the 26M euro number except to say that IFE systems themselves probably cost less than 10 million. If the RAVE system is really 1/3rd the price of Panasonic and Thales as they claim, it should be much less even. Don't forget that when a carrier starts-up a broadband satellite connectivity service on an aircraft, together with a new suite of IFE services, there is a considerable set-up cost on the provider side that can go into millions.
It should also be quite of a nightmare to install the wiring for close to 300 seats.

For a A319 with 106 seats, if you don't want to invest too much into it, you can go for an iPad/tablet or Sony PSP based solution and limit the core of your investment to new business class seats and connectivity. Price tag estimate: 2-300K euro per aircraft.
Before you start saying that it's a joke, Thomas Cook UK, Icelandair and others are already offering PSP's.
Bluebox and IFE Services already offer this low purchase and operating cost solution. It's an Ipad or PSP modified for in-flight use.
Charge the Ipads on the ground and distribute them before the flight, take them back before landing. No break-down/maintenance problems (just replace them iso expensive repairs), no added fuel costs as electrical demand from aircraft systems remains unaffected.
No installation costs except for the routers and the antenna if you want to offer free/paying internet.
But you don't have to, you can also just offer limited offline internet to view news sites, and/or even better, just offer a selection of games and movies.

http://youtu.be/vw1Na6H9yks

[tolipanebas]

if you don't want to invest too much into it [IFE], you can go for an iPad/tablet or Sony PSP based solution and limit the core of your investment to new business class seats and connectivity. Price tag estimate: 2-300K euro per aircraft.
Before you start saying that it's a joke, Thomas Cook UK, Icelandair and others are already offering PSP's.

Oh, I know several low cost and charter airlines use it and for a good reason: it's a simple and relatively cheap IFE option, yet it is also a low quality system with poor reliability.

Regardless whether it would be suitable for SN, it would still mean you'd offer greatly inferior IFE on the A32S compared to what the A330 are getting, so that would effectively help your 'dedicated' narrowbody service to be seen as an inferior service compared to the widebody ops: definitely not a good idea if you want to operate them alongside the A330 to the same routes as a frequency enhancing measure, especially not as you'd be looking at asking a premium for those flights to avoid having to factor in the higher unit costs of narrowbody ops in the ticket prices of your widebody flights too!

Besides, lets not just focus on IFE alone shall we?
The A330s are all going to get LX-style full lie-flat C class seats soon, so it would be a bad idea to think a business class pax is going to accept paying thousands of euro to enjoy the comfort of a state of the art C-class seat on his longhaul flight to AFI and wouldn't mind getting seated in a NEK seat with an Ipad on the return flight for instance... You really have to offer product consistency if you want to be taken seriously.

[Air Key West]

With all due respect, guys, imho you are both heading into the wrong directions. Let me explain my concept for b.air narrow-body operations to AFI.

One A319/320 in an Air France Dedicate, PrivatAir or Iberia Business Club configuration

http://www.iberia.com/OneToOne/v3/progr ... YMOUS=true

would fly 3 x week
BRU OUA LFW OUA BRU
BRU NIM COO NIM BRU

Possibly a second aircraft could fly 3 x week
BRU NKC CKY and
BRU BJL FNA

and even a third one 3 x week
BRU BKO ROB and
BRU Ndjamena (NDJ) Bangui (BGF)

This would allow for the opening of four new destinations in Africa.

These narrow-body operations would be temporary, by that I don't mean operating them six months a year, but operating them for two, three or four years in order :

to immediately free A330s which could fly more frequently on longer African flights and to fly to new destinations (USA, for ex.)
to open new destinations and to "occupy the ground" and test the load factors while increasing frequencies on most of these short long-haul flights
to give time to b.air to find the A330s which, in the end, will replace these A319/320s which would be reconfigured in the (unfortunately very uncomfortable) NEK cabin to operate European routes again after having done their "pioneering" work in Africa.

Of course, with a lower level of comfort than on the A330s and a minimal IFE (portable DVD players in C class and overhead IFE in Y), b.air would have to offer lower fares than on destinations operated by A330s, but I presume that a narrow-body aircraft is cheaper to operate (I don't know about the technical aspects, but you would need less than half the flight attendants on an A319 than on an A330 ; so, savings can be made and fares could be lower while probably keeping a substantial profit margin).

[cnc]

new routes cost way too much money for SN at this moment.

[Flanker]

Response 2

Regardless whether it would be suitable for SN, it would still mean you'd offer greatly inferior IFE on the A32S compared to what the A330 are getting, so that would effectively help your 'dedicated' narrowbody service to be seen as an inferior service compared to the widebody ops: definitely not a good idea if you want to operate them alongside the A330 to the same routes as a frequency enhancing measure, especially not as you'd be looking at asking a premium for those flights to avoid having to factor in the higher unit costs of narrowbody ops in the ticket prices of your widebody flights too!

I ran the numbers and it's actually cheaper to run 2 direct A319 flights than to run one A333 in triangle.
I don't know the exact numbers as you'd have to run statistics to know exactly but the savings are in the
10-20K euro area.
The main area of savings are on
-fuel, both trip fuel (2.5 tons vs 6+ tons/hour) and additional fuel for the extra take-offs of tag-on flights,
-airport landing fees, ground operations fees, maintenance cycle costs,
-lost revenue on empty tag-on seats,
-crew accommodation at outstations, crew incentives.

Of course, the A319 in 106 pax configuration has less capacity and a loss of cargo revenue.
All things put together, the A319 can run at the same earnings margins as the A333 without cargo revenue.


Now let's take a precise example of what I mean to say with these "additional flights" to Africa during the winter.
As you mention, it's more lucrative to run seasonal destinations than just add frequencies.
Why not do both?

Let's have a look at how to add frequency efficiently into a market, without losing the existing customer base for Ouagadougou.
Currently:
SN 2 weekly tag-on BRU-OUA-COO-OUA-BRU
AF daily service, 4 weekly direct CDG-OUA-CDG, 3 weekly CDG-OUA-NIM-CDG, using A343.
Both carriers offer inconvenient evening arrivals in OUA.

If SN adds frequencies to OUA like I said, it would be as follows.
Keep 2 weekly service with A333 via COO, add 3 weekly direct BRU-OUA-BRU A319 flights with morning arrivals in OUA (night departure from BRU) with small premium (f.e. +100€ on return fare).
The benefit here is that the A319 flights can be offered at a premium to avoid competition from within, thanks to the benefit of the morning arrival. Additional pax will be capitalized on AF's customer basis as AF also doesn't offer the morning arrival.

So what is this morning arrival about?
While the evening arrival is acceptable for passengers whose final destination is Ouagadougou; unfortunately, passengers for other cities like for instance Bobo-Dioulasso (by the way a 600.000 people city without international airport, 350km away from OUA) have to take the train, the bus or a domestic flight (when there is one, because Air Burkina is the only one doing OUA-BOY 2 weekly and it's 200 euro one-way) and an evening arrival isn't convenient for this purpose as it will force them to book a hotel and to lose one day on the trip.

With this plan, you have the cherry on the cake that you mitigate seasonality issues.
I think that during the winter, the Avro's (or even better, Q400's) are sufficient to operate most routes and losing a bit of market share isn't bad as long as you lose the unprofitable share of the market and that you recapture the largest share of the market when the summer kicks in. Competing with LCC's in the winter is like having 2 large supermarkets in an eskimo village with 20 inhabitants.

new routes cost way too much money for SN at this moment.

This is also an important consideration.

Other than this, I don't see many other options.

[tolipanebas]

I ran the numbers and it's actually cheaper to run 2 direct A319 flights than to run one A333 in triangle.

That's not such a big surprise, is it?
After all, we're talking about an A319 vs; an A333 here, the latter has 288 seats in SN's configuration, or about 2,7 times more than on your theoretical dedicated A319. I'd be shocked if direct operating costs of just 2 such A319s would already be more expensive than a single A333.

What you need to look at costs per seat however: the A333 in SN's configuration will beat those dedicated A319s 2 hands down on this front, believe me, not to mention the A330 does allow you to generate additional revenues from cargo too, something the A319 can't offer.
It's really all about CASM you know? After all, the aim is to fly your pax as cheaply as possible and when you decide to do so on an A319 you're taking a serious hit on the cost side, something which is only acceptable if you can't fill a bigger plane as a lower seatcost is only helping if you have the extra seats taken by passengers of course.

Rather than add for instance 3 A319 frequencies to a destination which now sees 2 weekly A333 service, why not add just 2 additional frequencies on a A333 flying triangulars? You add more or less the same capacity to the destination on a weekly basis, yet It's going to be much cheaper (CASM-wise), it's going to offer you additional cargo revenues, it's going to offer a consistent product to all pax on the route and if you reverse the triangle depending the day of the week, you can offer non-stops on both legs too...

Seriously, it's really not such a great idea to increase capacity on existing routes by adding A319 flights: better focus on new thin destinations if you're absolutely want to push the idea of A319 operations to AFI, although the big problem with your concept there is that due to the seasonality of the A319 availability for longhaul operations, you'd have to find seasonal thin high yield routes then, which I personally can't think of right now...

Let's have a look at how to add frequency efficiently into a market, without losing the existing customer base for Ouagadougou.
Currently SN has 2 weekly tag-on BRU-OUA-COO-OUA-BRU
Keep those 2 weekly service with A333 via COO, add 3 weekly direct BRU-OUA-BRU A319 flights with morning arrivals during the winter with small premium (f.e. 100€ return fare).

And just why would people pay a €100 premium for that A319 flight?
The twice weekly A333 service to OUA is non-stop too you know?
Oh, I see: because it's a morning arrival? Big deal...
Ever considered that your return flight to BRU is also going to be a morning departure then and that what is an alleged advantage for your inbound pax to OUA, automatically also becomes a disadvantage for the outbound pax then: i.e. that they need to come to the airport already the day before if they don't live nearby and thus lose a day on their journey? Or are you going to give them a €100 discount for that?

[tolipanebas]

I presume that a narrow-body aircraft is cheaper to operate (I don't know about the technical aspects, but you would need less than half the flight attendants on an A319 than on an A330 ; so, savings can be made and fares could be lower while probably keeping a substantial profit margin).

Actually, that's not the case and its the main weakness of the entire narrowbody for longhaul concept: the operating cost per seat per longhaul trip is known to be much higher on a narrowbody than it is on a widebody, meaning that the only possibility to operate narrowbodies on longhaul routes is to deploy them on routes which do not see direct competitors operate there on widebodies, otherwise you're having a cost as well as a comfort handicap, and that's never a good combination.
To put it simply in the case of SN: if AF is going there on A330/A340 or 777, don't even think about sending an A319 there!

[Flanker]

Ever considered that your return flight to BRU is also going to be a morning departure then and that what is an alleged advantage for your inbound pax to OUA, automatically also becomes a disadvantage for the outbound pax then: i.e. that they need to come to the airport already the day before if they don't live nearby and thus lose a day on their journey?

That depends.
Let's say that the flight departs at 00:30-01:00 to enable the last feeding flights from Europe to arrive.
There's no hurry to arrive early, so at long-range cruise, the flight will take 6.5 hours.
The aircraft arrives at around 06:00-06:30 LT. (The train doing OUA-ABJ that stops at almost every station on the way departs at 10 am, 3 weekly and gives access to a huge catchment area without regular flights).
Take a rotation of 1 hour and you can depart by 07:30 and be back at BRU by 15:00.

Many pax, especially premium pax and pax generating in OUA, will prefer a morning departure option, especially if they have to settle in a hotel somewhere in Europe. When you arrive at 5am in BRU, or connect to a flight in Europe to arrive anywhere in the morning, you have to wait many many hours before checking-into your hotel room.

This is why I think that both the A333 schedule and A319 schedule can work together.
Each passenger can choose what is most convenient for himself and pay a small premium for the A319 schedule.

The key here is that SN would offer a timetable that AF can't match. Many people chose their flights in function of timetables instead of dates.

What you need to look at costs per seat however: the A333 in SN's configuration will beat those dedicated A319s 2 hands down on this front, believe me, not to mention the A330 does allow you to generate additional revenues from cargo too, something the A319 can't offer. It's really all about CASM you know?

What I'm saying is that I ran the numbers and 2 direct return A319 trip have a cost benefit of 10-20K euro one way, 20K-40K euro return over a triangle A333 trip.
This means that the A319 ends up having a 10% CASM advantage despite a 106 seats low density configuration vs 284 seats.
Only this reminds us that the cabin cross section comparison between a widebody and narrowbody perfectly illustrates where this surprisingly lower CASM comes from: 1 aisle for 6 seats vs 2 aisles for 8 seats.

What is even more significant is that on a trip basis, the savings are no longer 10% but up to 30%, as the A333's 60 additional seats are not being filled consistently as proved by average load factor numbers.

Perhaps now you see why the A333 needs cargo to be profitable and the A319 not.
This means that 2 direct A319's with 212 seats can run as a profitable operation as a A333.

would fly 3 x week
BRU OUA LFW OUA BRU
BRU NIM COO NIM BRU

Possibly a second aircraft could fly 3 x week
BRU NKC CKY and
BRU BJL FNA

and even a third one 3 x week
BRU BKO ROB and
BRU Ndjamena (NDJ) Bangui (BGF)

This is a problem in the sense that narrowbody operations can only be as profitable as A333 operations as long as the flights are direct. From the moment that you start running triangles, the business case is degraded considerably and with the numbers I'm looking at, it would be tough to make money.

But as long as your narrowbody flights are direct, you can be as profitable as the A333 without the pressure of cargo and with less seats to fill!

[Flanker]

I presume that a narrow-body aircraft is cheaper to operate (I don't know about the technical aspects, but you would need less than half the flight attendants on an A319 than on an A330 ; so, savings can be made and fares could be lower while probably keeping a substantial profit margin).

Actually, that's not the case and its the main weakness of the entire narrowbody for longhaul concept: the operating cost per seat per longhaul trip is known to be much higher on a narrowbody than it is on a widebody, meaning that the only possibility to operate narrowbodies on longhaul routes is to deploy them on routes which do not see direct competitors operate there on widebodies, otherwise you're having a cost as well as a comfort handicap, and that's never a good combination.
To put it simply in the case of SN: if AF is going there on A330/A340 or 777, don't even think about sending an A319 there!

Air Key West is correct in this specific case.
See above post.

Tolipanebas, the problem is that the widebody and narrowbody comparison you are refering to isn't made in the right context. The numbers published by Lufthansa for instance compare a typical 1 hour A319 flight with a typical 8 hour A333 flight.

CASM on the same mission of 6-7 hours to Africa is 10% lower on direct A319 operations vs A333 triangle operations.

On a direct comparison, the A333 beats the A319 on CASM by 10% or more.

I'm telling you, it's not Airbus who's making inefficient widebodies, it's SN's way of operating triangles to Africa that's costing money. That money needs to be compensated by cargo.

Also, most airlines who operate tag-ons fly real triangles, see AF. In SN's case, they operate on a 3 touch basis, which is very expensive and make narrowbodies worthwile.

[tolipanebas]

CASM on the same mission of 6-7 hours is 10% lower on A319 vs A333.

Not with a dedicated cabin, which is what you'd need for such flights.

[Flanker]

CASM on the same mission of 6-7 hours is 10% lower on A319 vs A333.

Not with a dedicated cabin, which is what you'd need for such flights.

Sorry I wasn't specific at first, I edited the post.

CASM on the same mission of 6-7 hours to Africa is 10% lower on direct A319 operations vs A333 triangle operations.

This is for a 106 seat configuration vs 284 seats config