LH aggressively promotes Africa

[NCB]

The answer is simple. BRU can't provide the connections FRA can. How does an oil worker go from Houston via Brussels to Point-a-Noire??? Oil routes will always be offered from FRA (or ZRH) first as they can offer the oil workers the necessary connections to the world. BRU is ideal for AFI flights which don't need too many connections from outside Europe, not when you need feed from the oil cities around the world.

This is exactly my point. Why would LH need SN in BRU when they can do everything from FRA?

My next point is that BRU is alot better positioned to attack the French market to Africa, a significant one. So why would LH fly from FRA when they can focus everything in BRU?

Conclusion: It can be one way or the other but you can not make everyone happy by using 3 hubs for Africa and pretend to serve everyone with them. AF-KL has been doing this with AMS-CDG and it is clearly not working or otherwise AF-KL would not have lost 1,5 billion.
It is better to focus on some markets, forget the 20 oil workers who come from Houston every year and use Diabolo/Thalys to serve the thousands of French oil workers living in Northern and Southern France from BRU, together with pax for BZV.

Or put simply, using three European hubs for Africa is going to be a huge mess. LX, SN and LH are already competing on some routes while smiling to eachother. Pathetic it is. At this rate they will hurt themselves more than they will hurt AF.

[Air Key West]

LH and LX are two airlines under one roof (LH Group). They are not going to do something which is going to hurt the other partner. Same with SN if it is ever going to be taken over completely by LH. Three hubs to Africa might seem a bit too many, but perhaps there will be a consolidation of African flights at BRU in the longer term. Not sure, but don't exclude it either in ten years from now perhaps.
I hope the management team at b.air is realizing that waiting three years to lease another A330 which brings in a lot of money is not a good idea. There is still room for expansion in Africa.

[134flyer]

*note: In absolute terms a 24C/84Y is not a BBJ, just the same way the Dedicate A319 are not ACJ but A319LR, please be precise in what you write otherwise confusion occurs.

I'm sorry that I confused you, so I will be more precise; it's actually a BBJ 2. Privatair really operates them and there is no other name for them (if I would e.g. buy a BBJ (2) and put let's say 150 regular Y seats in it, it will still be a BBJ. But you are right that there's a difference between an ACJ and an A319LR):

http://www.privatair.com/cda/privatair/ ... -30_4000_0__

forget the 20 oil workers who come from Houston every year and use Diabolo/Thalys to serve the thousands of French oil workers living in Northern and Southern France from BRU, together with pax for BZV.

20 oil workers who come from Houston every year???!!! Have you e.g. ever heard about the 'Houston Express'??

Also, read this old, but nevertheless still interesting article again, which I linked already some time ago:

http://archives.californiaaviation.org/ ... 35513.html

From the above link:

Norwegian oil-service
firm Smedvig asa's operations in Pointe Noire

In Pointe Noire, bookings are so tight that Air France's Ms. Bouvarel
coordinated with oil companies from France, Italy and the U.S. to handle
their rotations on different days

I guess this answers your question from where LH thinks to get the Point-Noire pax from...

Conclusion: It can be one way or the other but you can not make everyone happy by using 3 hubs for Africa and pretend to serve everyone with them. AF-KL has been doing this with AMS-CDG and it is clearly not working or otherwise AF-KL would not have lost 1,5 billion.

Should I seriously comment on this, that a multi-hub strategy won't work, and that e.g. AF-KL's 1,5 billion loss is caused by their multi-hub strategy? Come on...

[NCB]

I'm sorry that I confused you, so I will be more precise; it's actually a BBJ 2. Privatair really operates them and there is no other name for them (if I would e.g. buy a BBJ (2) and put let's say 150 regular Y seats in it, it will still be a BBJ. But you are right that there's a difference between an ACJ and an A319LR):

And when they convert it into a freighter it will still be a BBJ?
BBJ is only a commercial name, in reality its type certificate designation is B737-700 IGW.
Sorry but a BBJ not only implies that the airframe has been built to "BBJ standards", it also implies that the interior configuration is a business jet configuration and not a typical airline configuration.

Performance-wise also, a BBJ has intercontinental range but I doubt that a BBJ 1 or 2 have the range to fly FRA-PNR non-stop all-year around with 106 passengers as their fuel capacity in the auxiliary tanks will be limited by structural MZFW limits and by N1 limited MTOW on hot days, especially out of the not utterly long runway at PNR and considering that BBJ's have a higher empty weight due to the auxiliary tanks and structural modifications depending on model. On BBJ 1 and 2, to do FRA-PNR they will need at least 5 auxiliary tanks, which reduces the allowable payload with full fuel to less than 9 tons or less than 90 passengers in best case scenario.
There will not be much room left for passenger luggage due to the space occupied by the auxiliary tanks in the hold.

Though difficult on the BBJ's, I think that the A319LR can pull it off without much margin because it is lighter and has higher MTOW. The AF Dedicate was A319LR configured 82 pax and CDG-PNR was the longest flight.

And no, I do not pretend that you are an ignorant because I was taught to respect other people.

[134flyer]

And when they convert it into a freighter it will still be a BBJ?

Yes, but then it's a BBJ C :

BBJ C is a variant of the BBJ featuring the "quick change" capabilities of the 737-700C. This allows the aircraft to be quickly reconfigured for cargo duty.

Its key feature is its large cargo door onto the left-hand side of the forward fuselage, enabling the loading of 86.9m3(3,086ft3) of cargo onto the aircraft's main deck.

Also:

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=648

BBJ is only a commercial name, in reality its type certificate designation is B737-700 IGW.
Sorry but a BBJ not only implies that the airframe has been built to "BBJ standards", it also implies that the interior configuration is a business jet configuration and not a typical airline configuration.

Indeed BBJ is 'only' a commercial name, but it does not necessarily imply that the interior configuration will/must be a business jet configuration: if someone buys a BBJ, the BBJ is delivered 'green' to the customer, who then configures the interior as he pleases, be it VVIP for 5 pax or e.g. like Privatair in a 24C/84Y configuration. Boeing says it sold BBJ's to Privatair, Privatair says they operate BBJ's for LH (and for KL & LX), so just because Privatair put in some Y seats, we no longer may call it a BBJ? See also BBJ C; in cargo configuration it's still a BBJ (C).

Performance-wise also, a BBJ has intercontinental range but I doubt that a BBJ 1 or 2 have the range to fly FRA-PNR non-stop all-year around with 106 passengers as their fuel capacity in the auxiliary tanks will be limited by structural MZFW limits and by N1 limited MTOW on hot days, especially out of the not utterly long runway at PNR and considering that BBJ's have a higher empty weight due to the auxiliary tanks and structural modifications depending on model. On BBJ 1 and 2, to do FRA-PNR they will need at least 5 auxiliary tanks, which reduces the allowable payload with full fuel to less than 9 tons or less than 90 passengers in best case scenario.
There will not be much room left for passenger luggage due to the space occupied by the auxiliary tanks in the hold.

You of course maybe right about this. After reports that LH might start FRA-PNR, we were just speculating here what aircraft type they might use, and the possibility of a Privatair BBJ2 popped up here. But if it is not possible range/payload-wise, then it's obviously not possible... LH might opt to use an A330/A340 as a tag-on or a triangle flight combined with another AFI destination. Or they might use a Privatair A319LR, but if I'm not mistaken, LH don't use the Privatair A319LR's anymore. Anyway, this is all pure speculation.

[134flyer]

Some opinion about AF versus LH in AFI in the Financial Times today. You might have to register first (for free):

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e4281718-74f5 ... abdc0.html

[Conti764]

This is exactly my point. Why would LH need SN in BRU when they can do everything from FRA?

My next point is that BRU is alot better positioned to attack the French market to Africa, a significant one. So why would LH fly from FRA when they can focus everything in BRU?

Simple. As someone has stated FRA (and to a lesser extend ZRH) are the better hubs for intercontinental high fare passengers due to more long haul connections then BRU.

BRU though, is ideal to serve the local francophone Belgian (Brussels) and French market at one side and transatlantic connecting passengers on the other (given the fact BRU is the most Western hub of the LH-group and the already big presence of transatlantic traffic in BRU).

That's what SN (and later on LH) are going for, a best possible spread of traffic throughout Europe, primarily based on customer base (for BRU that means Africa).

Besides, everybody says LH will buy SN for their African ops, but although that probably is the main reason, LH bought SN to strengthen its position in Europe as well. After all, European aviation is all about consolidation. We'll soon have three groups of airlines, based around the three alliances and then the low cost and leisure companies.

[RoMax]

@NCB: AF/KLM their multi-hub strategy is VERY GOOD working in Africa. AF is operating a very big network to French Africa and KLM has a big network in English speaking Africa. And IT WORKS, AF made in the middle of the crisis millions profit on their AFI network. Africa is together with the Caribbean area the only long haul network that made profit for AF/KLM during the crisis. Probably because their multi hub system isn't working...
Same for the LH group. SN/BRU will be the hub for French speaking Africa (when SN is a 100% LH daughter) while FRA (and partly ZRH) will be important for English speaking countries and destinations with a lot of connections that aren't possible out of BRU. But it seems the only two possebly things you are thinking about are: all AFI to BRU or all AFI to FRA/ZRH. And it seems you think LH took over SN just to transfer their AFI destinations to FRA. If that's LH's idea, they will fail because they can not sustain the routes out of FRA that SN does out of BRU. And as I know that (and most other forum members) LH will know this also.

[NCB]

And it seems you think LH took over SN just to transfer their AFI destinations to FRA. If that's LH's idea, they will fail because they can not sustain the routes out of FRA that SN does out of BRU. And as I know that (and most other forum members) LH will know this also.

So explain why LH can not sustain the routes out of FRA that SN does out of BRU? What is special about SN at BRU that LH can not handle the same flights from FRA? Not one thing if not that FRA does have better feeding and can feed to Africa alot better than BRU. The people living in and around BRU will have to transit through CDG or FRA to go to Africa, no big deal for LH.x

SN/BRU will be the hub for French speaking Africa (when SN is a 100% LH daughter) while FRA (and partly ZRH) will be important for English speaking countries and destinations with a lot of connections that aren't possible out of BRU.

Let's see some facts here. SN have an overlap with LH and LX on the following destinations.
LX is serving Douala, Yaounde and Nairobi out of ZRH. LH is serving Luanda and Accra our of FRA.
Over 25% of SN routes to Africa are overlapping with their so-called partner airlines. Now LH pulls Ethiopian into Star Alliance which competes directly with SN on over 80% of SN's African network. Great for Star Alliance and LH but some people at the Ringbaan will not be happy about this move.

I think that LH is very focused at taking down AF on Africa and that it is caring little if that is through SN or other means at its disposal. SN is being used as one of many tools to combat AF, so despite what LH are claiming publicly, don't dream too much about LH making another LX out of SN yet.
LH can buy the rest of SN or leave it to dry out and take over the routes for peanuts, make it Brussels Regional Airlines. It is hard to judge at this time but it is way too early to speak of a 3 axis FRA-ZRH-BRU LH hub system. It will not work and LH knows that very well.

Let's see some big orders for SN first (and I'm not talking 2 or 3 old A333's, say 20 new A332's or even better ILFC B788's) then I will support LH with all my heart and the thought of a 3-axis hub BRU-FRA-ZRH for Africa.

[LJ]

Let's see some big orders for SN first (and I'm not talking 2 or 3 old A333's, say 20 new A332's or even better ILFC B788's) then I will support LH with all my heart and the thought of a 3-axis hub BRU-FRA-ZRH for Africa.

I don't think anyone seriously believe that SN will be another LX. SN doesn't have the home market for this, nor is it, as you correctly put it, LHs intention. However what is the problem? LH uses SN for a specific goal. For that goal they use BRU. For another goal FRA and again goal another ZRH. Thus a BRU-FRA-ZRH axis strategy might work. Why consolidating all tarffic at one airport if you have three hubs to your disposal? AF/KL clearly uses this strategy and it works. LH will do the same, which means that some AFI destinations will be served via BRU and others via FRA or ZRH. It's not that SN has (or will get) a monopoly in the LH Group. Of so, AF/KL would have an easy task attacking LH, which LH just tries to prevent.

So explain why LH can not sustain the routes out of FRA that SN does out of BRU? What is special about SN at BRU that LH can not handle the same flights from FRA? Not one thing if not that FRA does have better feeding and can feed to Africa alot better than BRU. The people living in and around BRU will have to transit through CDG or FRA to go to Africa, no big deal for LH.x

First, because the routes out of BRU cater for not only local business pax, but also VFR and thus have enough local demand themselves. Second, I reckon because Germans don't speak French well. Third, because SN has the expertise. Fourth, maybe SN can operate the route more cost efficient. Fifth, because it would give AF/KL an even bigger home market (and LH doesn't want this to happen). Sixth, the UK is closer to BRU then FRA. Finally because LH doesn't have enough slots at FRA to do all the AFI flying ex FRA (I hope I haven't missed some argument).

[RoMax]

So explain why LH can not sustain the routes out of FRA that SN does out of BRU? What is special about SN at BRU that LH can not handle the same flights from FRA? Not one thing if not that FRA does have better feeding and can feed to Africa alot better than BRU. The people living in and around BRU will have to transit through CDG or FRA to go to Africa, no big deal for LH.x

Do you still don't understand that the African market is a very difficult one. Why do you think that most EU (and more and more American)airlines operate mainly to English speaking destinations in Africa? AF and SN (so Belgian and French airlines) are the only airlines that can sustain a big network to Africa where they speak French. Most of SN and AF's destinations are operated by AF only, SN only or both SN and AF but there are only a few french speaking destinations where there are other EU airlines operating to. This is no coincedence. If LH could beat AF by operating all these francophone destinations out of FRA theirself, there would be really not one single reason to take over SN. When LH would attack AF the fight will be heavy and SN would die in this fight. So if that was the case SN was useless. But no, LH is taking over SN, why o why...

Let's see some facts here. SN have an overlap with LH and LX on the following destinations.
LX is serving Douala, Yaounde and Nairobi out of ZRH. LH is serving Luanda and Accra our of FRA.
Over 25% of SN routes to Africa are overlapping with their so-called partner airlines. Now LH pulls Ethiopian into Star Alliance which competes directly with SN on over 80% of SN's African network. Great for Star Alliance and LH but some people at the Ringbaan will not be happy about this move.

I think that LH is very focused at taking down AF on Africa and that it is caring little if that is through SN or other means at its disposal. SN is being used as one of many tools to combat AF, so despite what LH are claiming publicly, don't dream too much about LH making another LX out of SN yet.
LH can buy the rest of SN or leave it to dry out and take over the routes for peanuts, make it Brussels Regional Airlines. It is hard to judge at this time but it is way too early to speak of a 3 axis FRA-ZRH-BRU LH hub system. It will not work and LH knows that very well.

Let's see some big orders for SN first (and I'm not talking 2 or 3 old A333's, say 20 new A332's or even better ILFC B788's) then I will support LH with all my heart and the thought of a 3-axis hub BRU-FRA-ZRH for Africa.

How many times do I have to repait that the reason for the overlapping network is the the fact that SN is only a 45% daughter. From the moment LH will take over the remaining 55% destinations will be transferred or shared in a better way like now. This was what happened with LX and this will happen with SN. For the moment there is no reason for LH to give up it's own routes if they perform well because SN is not a full daughter. And off course LH is focused on taking down AF, and they will do it out of FRA for destinations where it is possible (english speaking area's and destinations wich need conections that aren't possible out of BRU) but they will need SN and BRU if they want to take down AF. BRU and FRA will be the most important two hubs, each on their own territory (BRU: mainly French speaking AFI, FRA: mainly English speaking AFI). ZRH will be less important, but LX is performing very well on some AFI destinations and it they don't hurt another airline in the group with these flights they will not stop these flights.

And I hope you didn't mean that what you said about a order of 20 NEW A330's... I don't even react on that, because I will become rude than.

Edit: I just saw "LJ" was before me, and I want to say that I totally agree with him.

[NCB]

First, because the routes out of BRU cater for not only local business pax, but also VFR and thus have enough local demand themselves. Second, I reckon because Germans don't speak French well. Third, because SN has the expertise. Fourth, maybe SN can operate the route more cost efficient. Fifth, because it would give AF/KL an even bigger home market (and LH doesn't want this to happen). Sixth, the UK is closer to BRU then FRA. Finally because LH doesn't have enough slots at FRA to do all the AFI flying ex FRA (I hope I haven't missed some argument).

No decisive arguments. I can give easy counter-arguments:
All traffic can be fed to FRA. If there are no flights from BRU, they don't have a choice anyway.
LH has 45% of the SN expertise and can pull the best people for Africa from SN to FRA, including French-speaking ones by promising them a career and money with LH.
SN is wasting sectors in Africa because it can not fill the widebodies point to point, and feeding is too expensive at low load factors. Cheaper than operating hub to spoke from FRA is almost impossible.
Bigger home market? I don't see why. LH can feed from BRU.
The UK being 30 minutes flying closer to BRU than from FRA is hardly an argument.
New FRA slots will come with the new expansion at FRA.

I can see why LH did pull some capacity to ZRH, it is because ZRH can fill flights with excess traffic that slot-restricted FRA can not handle, in combination with ZRH O&D. The low BRU O&D traffic and the fact that ZRH and MUC already compensate for FRA makes this difficult to do the same at BRU and VIE. If there would be a third axis to FRA-ZRH hubs, it would be LHR.

Interesting discussion to study all possible scenario's. It will be interesting to see which one will be followed.

Again, it is not sure yet that LH will buy the rest of SN, otherwise there would not be any overlap. Look, whether LH owns SN 100% or 45% only means pennies to the dollar for LH. Avoiding the overlap would generate and save a few more crucial millions to SN that would enable it to add another A333, but the small loss in revenue would mean nothing for LH and LX.
If that is the reason, and according to you it is, then it only proves that LH is not committed yet.
Who knows maybe 3 years from now all posts on Luchtzak would be about what LH is waiting for to buy SN.

[RoMax]

No decisive arguments. I can give easy counter-arguments:
All traffic can be fed to FRA. If there are no flights from BRU, they don't have a choice anyway.
LH has 45% of the SN expertise and can pull the best people for Africa from BRU to FRA, including French-speaking ones.
SN is wasting sectors in Africa because it can not fill the widebodies point to point, and feeding is too expensive at low load factors. Cheaper than operating hub to spoke from FRA is almost impossible.
Bigger home market? I don't see why. LH can feed from BRU.
The UK being 30 minutes flying closer to BRU than from FRA is hardly an argument.
New FRA slots will come with the new expansion at FRA.

I'm sorry but some of your anwsers or to start crying.
If all these things you say would work, why aren't they doing it????? A lot of African markets just can't served from FRA, LHR, ZRH, VIE... In theory all what you say can work, but like many other of you toughts, it doesn't work in real life. Aviation isn't just theory. If LH is so stupid to pull back SN's operations and move them to FRA they've lost the fight with AF from the moment they do that. And LH know this.
Believe me, it's tried before by many other airlines but it is just too dificult to build a big network to French speaking Africa if your home base isn't in France or Belgium.

[sn-remember]

Some interesting comments, on the whole a nice thread (interesting links)
AF lost money on JFK and YUL, their 2 biggest l/h destis (by far!) out of memory 6 daily rotations to JFK and 4 to YUL !!!

But to come back on topic ...
Out of memory again (approximative): (we will talk about "mittel" Africa (MA), leaving North and South A aside)
AF : 12 daily rotations
KL : 6
SN : 4.5
LH : 4
LX : 2
That leaves a total of 18 for AF group and 10 for LH group
Pls correct me if I am wrong
AF is in a dominating position , LH is the challenger.
Expect AF to byte and fight for every inch of their territory.
Within the LH group, LH is the challenger, SN the "challenged" . To confirm my point just see the trends : LH not long ago (2 yrs back ?) was just having 1 daily rotation (LOS ACC) on this market. They have the resources to develop fast. Now 2 yrs ago SN was with ... 3.5 DR ?

My point is the following (SN centered):
1. Don't consider LH as a "god mother" .. there is nothing like granted in a business, nowhere not even inside a group (I know you will tell me it should be). LX has clearly defended and continue defending everyday their piece of cake in Zurich or in Koln.
2. Do SN see the necessity to invest in another airframe NOW, looking already ahead for an additional 2nd and 3d ones. Do they see the vulnearbility of their position and the need to gain momentum within the future LH group ? It's already rumored about their future in East Africa !
3. Overlaps are unavoidable (as was stated )on certain markets.
Same as LX serves SSG and LOS as well as LH, I think SN could serve LBV and LOS too, provide they have the frames for that (and for increasing frequencies on their current destinations).

LH's move to PNR is logic (complementing LOS: PHC, SSG, LBV and now PNR) they want to build a wide enough offer in AFI concerning the lucrative "oil" destinations and be a recognised actor. But will they stop there ??? It's the interest of LH to have a convincing SN in Africa but they will not wait, they are already deploying big guns of their own.
Hope they are not too blind in Brussels ...
About the connections, FRA offers IAH but not ZRH to my knowledge. BRU connects to a wide enough variety of destinations in Europe and the US to qualify as a specialised hub (as much as ZRH IMHO); Connectivity to China is also very promising !

Ok just my thoughts

[LJ]

But to come back on topic ...
Out of memory again (approximative): (we will talk about "mittel" Africa (MA), leaving North and South A aside)
AF : 12 daily rotations
KL : 6
SN : 4.5
LH : 4
LX : 2
That leaves a total of 18 for AF group and 10 for LH group
Pls correct me if I am wrong

And AF/KL have KQ through which they can serve destinations which are hard to make viable ex Europe.. Therefore for LHs strategy (sorry the Star strategy) it's so important that ET comes into Star. Unfortunately for oneworld, Africa is already divided by Sky and Star.

[NCB]

If all these things you say would work, why aren't they doing it

The next 18 months will tell us alot, be patient.
I think that alot will depend on what LH will decide to do coming spring about SN and how Korongo starts-up. Korongo needs alot of momentum to kick in in the right way and that seems to be the primary focus right now. Let's hope that top management know more than we do, that they handle this one right and don't make another mess for other people to clean up.

[RoMax]

If all these things you say would work, why aren't they doing it

The next 18 months will tell us alot, be patient.
I think that alot will depend on what LH will decide to do coming spring about SN and how Korongo starts-up. Korongo needs alot of momentum to kick in in the right way and that seems to be the primary focus right now. Let's hope that top management know more than we do, that they handle this one right and don't make another mess for other people to clean up.

Indeed the comming 18 (24) months will tell us alot. And we have to wait to see who's correct. And indeed alot (the most) will depends on what LH will decide. But Korongo is a bit another story. With this they can prove to LH that they have the power in Africa to start a whole new airline, because this isn't something any airline can do (Africa is still a dificult market with mostly difficult politics). But keep in mind that the plan for Korongo is mostly local traffic (mostly business people, VN,...) and only on the second place connections trough FIH or Lubumbashi out of EU or US. So I don't know if Korongo will have a big influence on the daily BRU-FIH flights.

[Air Key West]

I'm nost sure if Korongo traffic will be mostly domestic. My guess is the first flight will offer a connection with SN's FIH (Kinshasa) flight. Business people in Lubumbashi (FBM) will, of course, also want to have domestic flights available (probably mainly to Goma, an important cobalt and coltan center) offered by a reliable airline, but FBM is an important international minerals center (mainly copper, I think) and a daily connection with SN's FIH flight will certainly boost SN's operations to FIH (perhaps they could all become nonstop).
As to Pointe-Noire, it is, of course, an important oil center, but saying SN could not operate successfully to PNR is probably only partially true. SN also flies to Luanda, another important African oil center without offering connections in BRU with Houston or Aberdeen.
Just as SN and LH's operations to LUA complement each other, why could there not, one day, be SN flights to PNR, since there seems to be such a shortage of seats to PNR ?
Ideally, of course, in the meantime CO would have started an IAH-BRU flight and SN/BD a flight to Aberdeen (the new fleet will definitely require the presence of 50seater-aircraft, not only for a possible ABZ flight).
We as aviation fans are perhaps a bit too impatient, but b.air's management is certainly too slow to act, not proactive at all, whereas there are very few risks involved in developing the African network. Other airlines are already doing it aggressively. Wake up, b.house !

[RoMax]

I'm nost sure if Korongo traffic will be mostly domestic. My guess is the first flight will offer a connection with SN's FIH (Kinshasa) flight. Business people in Lubumbashi (FBM) will, of course, also want to have domestic flights available (probably mainly to Goma, an important cobalt and coltan center) offered by a reliable airline, but FBM is an important international minerals center (mainly copper, I think) and a daily connection with SN's FIH flight will certainly boost SN's operations to FIH (perhaps they could all become nonstop).
As to Pointe-Noire, it is, of course, an important oil center, but saying SN could not operate successfully to PNR is probably only partially true. SN also flies to Luanda, another important African oil center without offering connections in BRU with Houston or Aberdeen.
Just as SN and LH's operations to LUA complement each other, why could there not, one day, be SN flights to PNR, since there seems to be such a shortage of seats to PNR ?
Ideally, of course, in the meantime CO would have started an IAH-BRU flight and SN/BD a flight to Aberdeen (the new fleet will definitely require the presence of 50seater-aircraft, not only for a possible ABZ flight).
We as aviation fans are perhaps a bit too impatient, but b.air's management is certainly too slow to act, not proactive at all, whereas there are very few risks involved in developing the African network. Other airlines are already doing it aggressively. Wake up, b.house !

Off course SN could operate to Pointe-Noire in the future, but LH can do it faster, so why should LH wait on a 45% daughter if they can do it theirself and faster. There is a chance that LH will transfer some destinations from FRA (or ZRH) to BRU if they think it could work better out of BRU than out of FRA. SN is now busy with their 4 new destinations and with the start-up of Korongo. And to come back to Korongo. If SN wants to offer good connections with their BRU-FIH flight they should consider to operate the BRU-FIH leg non-stop, now almost all flights from and to FIH are one stop flights. Consider that you come out of the US (ORD for example): ORD-BRU, BRU-FIH ("one-stop" flight), FIH-FBM. So I think it would be better to operate FIH non-stop(maybe with a tag-on like they do with Dakar: Banjul, Freetwon, Conakry, these tag-on's are always one stop but Dakar itself always non-stop).

But SN needs to buy/lease extra A330's, and fast. I would say something like (3-)4 in 2011. 1 for new destinations in AFI, 1-2 for US (New York, Boston) and another one (AFI) for a lot of extra frequenties and maybe another (1-2) destinations in AFI. I would go for the A332, these are better for the US market and they can use it to AFI for non-stop routes (or low-demand triangel routes). And in this case they can switch pretty easy an aircraft between the US and AFI if that's needed. It looks a heavy expansian for SN in just one year, but if you want to fight with AF you have to be aggresive.

[NCB]

What is apparent from the following is how AF is within reach but still 5 times bigger than SN. If only SN could order a bunch of A319ER's to operate an afternoon wave to African cities located between the Tropic of the Cancer and the Equator, using alot more and better shorthaul feeding available in the afternoon than it has in the morning. That could work together with a late afternoon flight to NYC and ORD and make some real damage to AF.
A late evening arrival and departure from African cities also give more time to passengers for reaching the airport when not living in the immediate vicinity of the airport and the flights would come back in the morning together with the A333's who can be sent more southbound, then the A319ER's can be used to do 2 European sectors before they go back to Africa.
The absolute merit would be frequency to Africa and the ability to boost longhaul capacity while not significantly expanding the fleet and giving immediate relief to the shorthaul fleet, exponentially boosting its load factors.
Low risk, the bonus of freight revenue would be lost but overly compensated by flights that do not need to fly extra expensive sectors like in the triangle model, also by better fuel efficiency of the A319, the maintenance savings and potentially no need for crew lay-overs if extra crew is used. I think that the crew would be very happy to have 2 very long sectors and 2 days off at home after that.

AF has the advantage to operate much more frequencies than SN to its West African destinations, as since NIM was diconnected from OUA, ALL flights are now nonstop to/from CDG (unlike SN).

AF is also planning to re-open a new destination in West Africa : FNA (Freetown - Sierra Leone) in direct competition with SN.

AF schedule to AFRICA Summer 2010 :



CAI : 1 x Daily + 3 x Weekly (1 x B772ER + 3 x Weekly A332)
RUH : 1 x Daily (A319ER Dedicate)
JED : 5 x Weekly (A319ER Dedicate)
DKR : 1 x Daily (B77W)
ABJ : 1 x Daily (B77W)
CKY : 4 x Weekly (A332)
BKO : 1 x Daily (A343)
OUA : 1 x Daily (A332)
NIM : 3 x Weekly (A332)
LFW : 4 x Weekly (A343/A332)
COO : 5 x Weekly (A343)
LOS : 1 x Daily B77W
PHC : 1 x Daily (via LOS - B77W)
NDJ : 1 x Daily (A319ER Dedicate)
NKC : 1 x Daily (A319ER Dedicate)
SSG : 1 x Daily (A319ER Dedicate)
BSG : 2 x Weekly (via SSG - A319ER Dedicate - Starting June 2010)
DLA : 1 x Daily (A332/A343)
NSI : 2 x Weekly (A332) + 1 Weekly (via DLA A343)
LBV : 4 x Weekly B77W
BGF : 2 x Weekly (A332)
BZV : 4 x Weekly (A332)
FIH : 4 x Weekly (A332)
PNR : 4 x Weekly A332
LAD : 2 x Weekly B772ER
JIB : 1 x Weekly A343
TNR : 3 x Weekly A343
JNB : 1 x Daily (A388)

I think that it can be said and that it is obvious that Korongo and SN's main touching point will not be at FIH. FBM is significantly more to the South but if SN bring in the BAe146's, they will gain access to a dozen large cities with strips just too short for comfort for the B733's that can produce significant feeding like Mbuji Mayi (population 2 million, 2000 meter runway), Kananga (population over 1 million, diamond mines, 2200 meter runway) and several others.