Brussels Airlines joining Star Alliance in December 2009

[tolipanebas]

The fact SN is looking at the USA is not new, but that's just long term planning: for the coming years, it's clear the focus of any long haul expansion is going to be on AFRICA.

The 5th A330 wich is going to be deployed as from next summer is going to be used on African destinations and most probably the 6th plane (not before fall 2011) as well, but after that, there is room for a handful of strategic destinations beyond Africa as well indeed if and when long haul ops are expanded once more.

North America wold be the most logical choice in that case, provided they select a destination not served by STAR from BRU yet: Prior to AC's announcement about them starting a daily Montreal, I'd always put YUL first, but now that's sadly out of the question (IMHO, this is a real missed opportunity for SN), so the focus will logically shift to the USA in which case JFK would seem like a good pick indeed (especially as I could see DL pulling away from that route in the future) as well as BOS.

However, I wouldn't expect SN to cross the atlantic on its own metal before 2013 at the earliest.

[Conti764]

JFK It would be wonderfull but how are they gonne make that profitable? You've got daily AA B752, daily Jet A332 and from next summer daily Delta B763. That's already a lot for an airport like BRU. I suppose that one of the carriers Jet, AA or Delta will give up the route after a time if SN will start the route.

None of them will give up JFK because of SN, since none of them have any ties with SN by the time the company will fly to JFK. It will be very hard for SN to compete on this route with excisting carriers since they have no sustainable market on their own, unless LH, LX, OS, ... will route some excess passengers via BRU.

I don't understand this move of SN and I wonder why so many airlines seem to have a fetish with JFK... AA now flies a 182 seats 757 JFK-BRU and back, partially relying on SN's feeding, but mainly their own feed from the NYC region. If SN will fly a 284-seats 333 across the pond, solely relying on their own market, it is a way to big step to operate profitably. If they would configure any possibly A332 to partner LX's configuration, it would still mean 230 seats a day to oversaturated JFK. Way to big for SN.

CO won't feed SN via JFK, since they have given up JFK a long time ago, nor will UA, which has a North-Atlantic joint-venture with CO and thus relies on CO to get their NYC-based clients to BRU and other Euro destinations.
Or maybe fellow Lufthansa-subsidiary Jetblue will feed into SN's flights? On the other hand, if SN will one day fly their old 333's accros the pond, it is better for Jetblue (unlike other LCC they have a very nice product) to transfer their pax via LH or LX with their more modern equipment.

Unless SN has something special up their sleeves, I cannot understand why the hell they want to fly to JFK, unless CO decided not to expand at BRU and keep their once a day schedule. The same goes for ORD, why fly to ORD when one of your partner airlines (UA) already operates a direct ORD-flight, unless UA decided not to expand at BRU,...

The only route I can see work out well for SN, is BOS. If they really want to add a second N-A flight, let them look for some better options. Maybe ATL to tackle DL's operation out of BRU. Since neither CO, UA, US or Jetblue have a base at ATL, it would mean these airlines would probably be more eager to feed SN via ATL then via JFK or ORD.

[Conti764]

JFK: AA, Jet and SN (Delta gonne)
BOS: SN
ORD: AA, UA

If SN will fly to ORD and JFK, than I think this will be the future:
JFK: AA, Jet and SN (delta gonne)
ORD: UA and SN (AA gonne or maybe B752)

If it will be ORD and BOS:
JFK: DL, AA, Jet
ORD: UA and SN (maybe AA B752)
BOS: SN

AA will never give up BRU because they lost SN. They are way to happy with their BRU operations and it is their only airport for the Benelex market.

If anyone will drop out, it will be Delta. But then again, if I was the one pulling the strings at SN, I'd be bolt and tackle DL (and thus Skyteam) at BRU from their own home market and start flights to ATL. All the other US partners will probably feed their local pax through SN and if it comes to annoying Skyteam (thus Air France) I guess LH will be all to eager to feed into SN the other way around.

[tolipanebas]

How can you be so sure about the introduction of JFK?
Maybe we have a clue in the fact that it seems impossible to book a flight to New York on the brussels airlines website after March 2010...

Because of the wording of our CEO in the article linked.
It sounds like in his mind, he's going for JFK and either ORD or BOS.

I am somewhat surprised by the resolve about JFK, given that SN's STAR alliance partner CO is covering NY very well through its hub in EWR and I'd have guessed it would make far more sense for SN to offer a second daily flight to EWR, than it is to open JFK, unless of course 'JFK' just stands for 'New York' in this interview, in which case EWR could also be ment here...

As to ORD, UA is going to operate that route soon, so I would rule that out on the spot.

BOS seems like a very good idea, especially as it is not served from BRU, is known to have been a profitable destination of Sabena (for what that is still worth 9 years after its bankruptcy), but most importantly: it is a hub of JetBlue, which is a LH affiliate too.
Personally, I'd put BOS even higher on the priority list than a flight to New York (JFK or EWR), especially if SN can offer connections through Jetblue: better to keep the connecting pax inhouse, than to hand them over to STAR partners, I would say.

BTW-
the fact you can't book flights to JFK past March is because the codeshare with AA expires and JFK will then simply disappear from the routemap as a non-stop destination... It will be a test for SN, to see how much they suffer from loosing the link to JFK. Personally i think EWR is able to absorb all the pax to/from the new york area and if I am proven right, then I am pretty sure the plan to operate to JFK one day will be dropped in favour of EWR.

[RoMax]

@Conti764: AA (ord) and DL (jfk) must eventuelly give up their flights because they can not sustain these routes. BRU can be a strong market for AA, if they will get more and more concurrention it will not be that strong anymore.
Same with JFK, if SN will come they will get support of a lot other US Star Carriers, AA will get the support of Jet but Delta is whole on their own in that case, so they would eventuelly understand that they can not sustain that route.
About the operating airplane. Does anyone said they will fly A333's to the US? NO!
Does anyone said they should operate daily to JFK, no (delta isn't flying daily this winter either)? NO!
Does anyone said they will start the routes this year or next year? NO!
So before reacting like, "where did they/you get that stupid idea", think a litle bit.
The US market isn't ready yet for more flights (exept of BOS) for the moment, but it can be over 2-3 years.
I really see SN flying to the US in end 2011 or later, but I am pritty sure they are flying to the US before the end of 2013 when they get the support of LH.

[brusselsairlinesfan]

Anyway, I just can't wait to fly them to the US!

[Air Key West]

Most of you will know that I have always been critical of b.air's management and the interview with Gustin does not convince me. Saying that b.air is considering to fly to two US destinations is, of course, no firm commitment. Considering they can, it will only materialize in a distant future.
Like tolipanebas wrote it, the 5th A330 will fly to Africa, and a 6th A330 is likely to be used to Africa only, too.
That leave ops to the US out of the question in the near future.
I will disagree on one point with tolipanebas, i.e. that I don't see any real potential in BOS as it is not a Star hub and point-to-point traffic between BRU and the US will not be profitable. There will have to be connection possibilities at both ends (BRU and the US airport served). Forget JFK. Not a Star hub. And if you have to be in Manhattan, which is where most travellers to New York are heading for, EWR is just as convenient, if not more convenient, than JFK.
For b.air purposes, the CO flight to New York will adequately replace the AA flight (has the CO/SN code share started ?). UA (Star Alliance) is going to fly between ORD and BRU, so there is no point for b.air to consider flying to ORD (two daily flights, AA + UA, are enough).
To me, if SN starts to fly to the US, the No. 1 priority should be to add a second daily fly to New York EWR in code share with CO. Ideally, it should be an evening flight out of BRU around 19h45 (for European connections purposes). Many business travellers out of BRU are waiting for such an evening flight. Brussels is probably the only major European city not to have a direct evening connection with New York.

[NCB]

I read many times about BOS but never saw a good reason.
BOS is full of students, emptied of longhaul travelling businessmen.

Go to JFK if you really need a U.S. route, at least there is decent point-to-point there + there could be some transit pax to Africa + Jetblue can do a way better job feeding SN there than at BOS because they have more frequencies and over 50 destinations, including more Southern places.

CO is too expensive and EWR is not an airport of choice, so there is some potential there.

I think that it will be more interesting to fly to Shanghai or Tokyo (HND).
Japan is one of the biggest investors in Africa, therefore there is a market potential for front cabin.
Japan also imports alot of fish from Africa, Africa alot of urgent spare parts for its countless Toyota's and machineries from Japan, so there is a revenue potential with cargo if they can get to organise.
Toyota has a huge presence in Africa and they could use SN's network:

http://www.toyota-africa.com/

[tolipanebas]

I will disagree on one point with tolipanebas, i.e. that I don't see any real potential in BOS as it is not a Star hub and point-to-point traffic between BRU and the US will not be profitable. There will have to be connection possibilities at both ends (BRU and the US airport served).

BOS is a hub of jetblue, which is LH's little baby in the US.
As such, if SN extensively codeshares with them (just as LH is already doing) a daily BRU-BOS route would have good feeds at both ends.

Remember that having STAR partners is great, but having Lufthansa family members helping you is even better and is likely even preferred!

To me, if SN starts to fly to the US, the No. 1 priority should be to add a second daily fly to New York EWR in code share with CO. Ideally, it should be an evening flight out of BRU around 19h45 (for European connections purposes). Many business travellers out of BRU are waiting for such an evening flight. Brussels is probably the only major European city not to have a direct evening connection with New York.

Indeed, which is why I'd expect the New York flight to be an evening flight...

EWR is just as good as JFK for people heading to New York and is a CO hub, so one could logically assume the 'JFK' in the interview to be more of a generic designator for New York, than as the actual airport under target.

On the other hand,

If we assume for a moment SN's future evening flight to New York would indeed go to JFK, it could connect to jetblue's flights there.

Let's look at the full pallet from an SN point of view in that case:

SN could offer its pax:
2 daily flights to the New York Area: 1 morning flight to EWR, 1 evening flight to JFK
2 connecting flights to Jetblue's east coast network: at noon via BOS, late evening via JFK
daily US wide connections through CO at EWR

If you'd send the plane to EWR however, you'd loose connectivity to the largest jetblue hub (JFK), only to add a second connection to a CO hub which is already served. I am not sure its the better of the 2 plans...
JFK might not be such a weird idea after all, if the jetblue card is indeed played well!

[Conti764]

@Conti764: AA (ord) and DL (jfk) must eventuelly give up their flights because they can not sustain these routes. BRU can be a strong market for AA, if they will get more and more concurrention it will not be that strong anymore.

BRU has always been a strong market for American Airlines and SN has only marginal influence to that matter. Yes, they helped AA get good numbers for the JFK run, but I don't think AA will have much of a hassle to get a loadfactor beyond profitability.

Don't forget BRU is the only airport in the Benelux AA operates too and besides BRU they only operate to a select number of airports, amongst some of the biggest airports in Europe.

And if they keep on cooperating with Jet Airways and Jet Airways keeps their BRU hub, AA is not going to leave soon, not for JFK, nor for ORD.

Same with JFK, if SN will come they will get support of a lot other US Star Carriers, AA will get the support of Jet but Delta is whole on their own in that case, so they would eventuelly understand that they can not sustain that route.

They won't get support of any US Star carrier, accept for maybe US Airways, but that's not the most powerful partner to have. No way CO will eat into their own EWR hub and start sending some of their clients across the Hudson to JFK. UA will have/has a T-A joint venture with CO so probably will choose to fly the most of their NYC-clients via Continental.

This leaves JetBlue as SN's US partner, but I don't know the international feed JetBlue can give to SN.

About the operating airplane. Does anyone said they will fly A333's to the US? NO!

Even an A332 is too big for SN to operate to JFK. And they can't go any smaller to that, can they? Besides, since SN can only afford second hand 333's and mostly some of the very first MSN's, I don't think they can just lease or buy a second hand A332, and definately not one that is young enough to offer their transatlantic clients the service they expect.

Does anyone said they should operate daily to JFK, no (delta isn't flying daily this winter either)? NO!

Flying to the US is slightly different from flying to Africa. In order to offer their clients the best solutions and ongoing connections to Africa, they'll need to fly daily. Let's not forget DL uses JFK only as a secondary hub, after ATL. It still is a big hub, but ATL is their primary hub where most of the transferpax fly to. They can afford not to operate a daily flight JFK-BRU since they can reroute their pax via ATL, AMS (themselves or KL) or CDG (AF) on days they don't operate to BRU themselves. This is a luxury SN doens't have, unless they would reroute them via EWR (CO) or FRA, MUC (LH),...

Does anyone said they will start the routes this year or next year? NO!

Neither did I.

So before reacting like, "where did they/you get that stupid idea", think a litle bit.

I can only hope the management of SN thinks before they step into adventures which will turn out to loose money in stead of earn money.

The US market isn't ready yet for more flights (exept of BOS) for the moment, but it can be over 2-3 years.
I really see SN flying to the US in end 2011 or later, but I am pritty sure they are flying to the US before the end of 2013 when they get the support of LH.

BOS is a go, that's for sure, but besides BOS they should be really careful where they operate to. I'd go after ATL and tackle DL and Skyteam this way. With the help of the Star Alliance partners, SN can hurt DL and thus Skyteam.

And about LH 'helping' SN, don't expect too much of the Germans yet. They gain nothing from a bigger SN... On the contrary, the smaller the company, the better for them.

[Conti764]

For b.air purposes, the CO flight to New York will adequately replace the AA flight (has the CO/SN code share started ?). UA (Star Alliance) is going to fly between ORD and BRU, so there is no point for b.air to consider flying to ORD (two daily flights, AA + UA, are enough).
To me, if SN starts to fly to the US, the No. 1 priority should be to add a second daily fly to New York EWR in code share with CO. Ideally, it should be an evening flight out of BRU around 19h45 (for European connections purposes). Many business travellers out of BRU are waiting for such an evening flight. Brussels is probably the only major European city not to have a direct evening connection with New York.

I find it quite strange CO is so quiet about BRU or a possible code share with SN. Maybe they are not interested in flying more to BRU then the daily EWR rotation?

SN seems to have chosen UA as their transatlantic partner.

[Conti764]

I read many times about BOS but never saw a good reason.
BOS is full of students, emptied of longhaul travelling businessmen.

Tolipanebas gave you a good one.

Go to JFK if you really need a U.S. route, at least there is decent point-to-point there + there could be some transit pax to Africa + Jetblue can do a way better job feeding SN there than at BOS because they have more frequencies and over 50 destinations, including more Southern places.

The point-to-point traffic to JFK is not worth the effort for SN. Jetblue probably is the only reason to fly to JFK, but I don't know the size of Jetblue's international potential.

CO is too expensive and EWR is not an airport of choice, so there is some potential there.

CO too expensive? Come on... And if they are a bit more expensive then the others it is because they have the superior American product from BRU. I'd choose CO over SN any time!

[Conti764]

SN could offer its pax:
2 daily flights to the New York Area: 1 morning flight to EWR, 1 evening flight to JFK
2 connecting flights to Jetblue's east coast network: at noon via BOS, late evening via JFK
daily US wide connections through CO at EWR

Are you sure SN and CO are ever going to code share? CO does a pretty good job filling their planes without SN, so they don't need them at all, at least on transatlantic routes, Africa from BRU is another story. On some days, the 767 is packed. And it seems like SN has chosen UA as their transatlantic partner.

Maybe I reacted too fast and too negative about SN's JFK plans, but it can only work of they have enough feed from and to Jetblue.

[tolipanebas]

CO too expensive? Come on... And if they are a bit more expensive then the others it is because they have the superior American product from BRU. I'd choose CO over SN any time!

Now now, don't be too in love with CO.

They are good, but they are still just American, meaning for instance they have very 'casually working' cabin crew, fairly poor language skills and low onboard service levels: for instance the snack you receive prior landing in EWR is just a pack of chips and some candy, which was litterally thrown to me... contrary to AA its was done with a smile, but still, that's something I've only experienced on US airlines...

Are you sure SN and CO are ever going to code share?

Not at all, but in the case they DON'T codeshare, JFK makes even more sense for SN.

In my personal view, SN will select any future US destination not only from a STAR perspective, but also from a LH group perspective. In that context, the aim will be to keep any pax flying "family metal" for as long as possible and "STAR metal" only if not possible/convenient otherwise, hence my feeling jetblue will be an all important factor in selecting any future destination: both JFK and BOS are important jetblue hubs on the eastcoast, with JFK the most important one of the two, so it could explain the determination in mentioning precisely these 2 places as being top of the shortlist.

[Conti764]

Now now, don't be too in love with CO.

They are good, but they are still just American, meaning for instance they have very 'casually working' cabin crew, fairly poor language skills and low onboard service levels: for instance the snack you receive prior landing in EWR is just a pack of chips and some candy, which was litterally thrown to me... contrary to AA its was done with a smile, but still, that's something I've only experienced on US airlines...

Well, I'm not the only one who considers CO as the top of the US legacy pack. I'm not saying they are perfect or that they can match the top end airlines like SQ, EK or the likes. I've flown them twice to EWR and can't give any complaint about them. I've had a friendly and nice service twice, the 764 was clean and comfortable and the flights where on time.

Not at all, but in the case they DON'T codeshare, JFK makes even more sense for SN.

In my personal view, SN will select any future US destination not only from a STAR perspective, but also from a LH group perspective. In that context, the aim will be to keep any pax flying "family metal" for as long as possible and "STAR metal" only if not possible/convenient otherwise, hence my feeling jetblue will be an all important factor in selecting any future destination: both JFK and BOS are important jetblue hubs on the eastcoast, with JFK the most important one of the two, so it could explain the determination in mentioning precisely these 2 places as being top of the shortlist.

Yes, I know. I was to quick with judging JFK as impossible to SN. I just don't like all those airlines and people who seem to have a JFK fetish and consider it the better airport then EWR, which is not true at all.

I don't see a cooperation between CO and SN on the transatlantic market anytime soon. SN seems to have choses UA to be their transatlantic partner.

[Atlantis]

BOS seems like a very good idea, especially as it is not served from BRU,

BOS is served to/from BRU via BRU since this winter with B767 metal of AA. AA is flying now three times daily to BRU (JFK, ORD and BOS)
BOS is seasonal, at least at this moment.

[tolipanebas]

Well, I'm not the only one who considers CO as the top of the US legacy pack.

Oh, I definitely rate them higher than most US airlines too (AA is a disaster), just pointing out that doesn't mean much really. To say you'd prefer them over SN... have you even flown SN on longhaul?
I'd definitely rate SN's service quite a bit higher than CO's on longhaul, PTV or no PTV.

I was to quick with judging JFK as impossible to SN. I just don't like all those airlines and people who seem to have a JFK fetish and consider it the better airport then EWR, which is not true at all.

As you know, I fully agree with you on that: for New York City, EWR is just as convenient (if not more) than JFK.

On the other hand, given jetblue's presence at JFK, SN might have a good reason to prefer it over EWR, even though CO has a big hub there; especially if SN and CO aren't going to codeshare, which looks like a possibility indeed as SN is going to offer connections to most US destinations through IAD and ORD on UA.

BOS is served to/from BRU via LHR since this winter with B767 metal of AA. AA is flying now three times daily to BRU (JFK, ORD and BOS)
BOS is seasonal, at least at this moment.

Don't make me laugh!
If you count that as a real destination from BRU, then SFO or LAX are also being served from BRU for instance....

[Atlantis]

BOS is served to/from BRU via LHR since this winter with B767 metal of AA. AA is flying now three times daily to BRU (JFK, ORD and BOS)
BOS is seasonal, at least at this moment.

Don't make me laugh!
If you count that as a real destination from BRU, then SFO or LAX are also being served from BRU for instance....

AA is serving BOS to BRU with a technical stop via LHR. AA is sending their third daily route to BRU because BRU is very importent to them (slots or no slots story at LHR).

Is AA third plane here daily at BRU, yes or no:Yes
We have more destinations at BRU who are not served directly but you have to fly first to an other airport to catch there an other plane to fly to your final destination: yes or no: yes

Don't come everytime with stupid comments. You don't know everything you know.

[tolipanebas]

BOS is served to/from BRU via LHR since this winter with B767 metal of AA. AA is flying now three times daily to BRU (JFK, ORD and BOS)
BOS is seasonal, at least at this moment.

Don't make me laugh!
If you count that as a real destination from BRU, then SFO or LAX are also being served from BRU for instance....

AA is serving BOS to BRU with a technical stop via LHR. AA is sending their third daily route to BRU because BRU is very importent to them (slots or no slots story at LHR).

Is AA third plane here daily at BRU, yes or no:Yes
We have more destinations at BRU who are not served directly but you have to fly first to an other airport to catch there an other plane to fly to your final destination: yes or no: yes

Don't come everytime with stupid comments. You don't know everything you know.

Apart from being an uncalled remark, to which I will not respond as I don't feel the need to lower myself to your standards, sir, I'd once more like to point out that in in that case, UA for instance has been serving ORD from BRU for years too then already, with 'merely' a technical stop in IAD.

Let's be serious for a second, shall we?

I may not know much indeed, but I do know enough to see the difference between a commercial tactic to sell a connection flight as attractively as possible. That the hubbing happens at LHR iso at JFK, that both legs may have the same flight number or that the first leg is flown on AA as well (iso for instance BA) does not make the route any less a connection however...
To follow your example: Can you fly from BRU to BOS WITHOUT GETTING OFF and BACK ON a plane somewhere in between: YES or NO?

[Conti764]

Oh, I definitely rate them higher than most US airlines too (AA is a disaster), just pointing out that doesn't mean much really. To say you'd prefer them over SN... have you even flown SN on longhaul?
I'd definitely rate SN's service quite a bit higher than CO's on longhaul, PTV or no PTV.

Of course there are better solutions then CO, but I prefer a Western company when flying transatlantic. Although Jet Airways has a superior product, for some reason I'd rather fly a Western company and that would be CO.
I must admit I have never flown SN (probably this summer to Gambia will be my first experience) so I can't honostly make the judgement. But for me, as an aviation non-professional PTV means a lot since I don't want to spent a few hours on a plane without it, call me a snob if you'd like

In what ways SN's service is quite a bit higher then CO's?

As you know, I fully agree with you on that: for New York City, EWR is just as convenient (if not more) than JFK.

People who know this, seem to be a minority, unfortunately...

On the other hand, given jetblue's presence at JFK, SN might have a good reason to prefer it over EWR, even though CO has a big hub there; especially if SN and CO aren't going to codeshare, which looks like a possibility indeed as SN is going to offer connections to most US destinations through IAD and ORD on UA.

Then again, why would SN use two (three in the event they would go ahead with a CO codesharing) US airlines to fly beyond the Eastcoast hubs? I can imagine both UA and Jetblue (and if CO would join) have a large amount of the same destinations. Of course, SN would benefit grately of two, three or more options to disperse their clients through the US.
But then again, NYC seems important to SN, but they have no partner airline flying to NYC from BRU, accept for CO. And SN probably won't make the transatlantic jump for the coming 4 to 5 years, that leaves quite a gap to be filled so it wouldn't be a bad idea to codeshare with CO as well, at least untill SN launches their own TATL flights and by then, who knows what might have changed...

Is it confirmed SN is going to codeshare on both UA flights or just one?