BrusselsAirlines - the TURBOPROPS will come!

[Flanker]

it would just cost more to implement a plan like that, it would make it even worse as it already is. Someone might start to worry for their job, in such a case

I don't get it. You're aware that we're not in a good situation and yet you criticize me when I say that 2 Q400's aren't going to make the difference.

You obviously know where I stand and yet you ask where I stand.

It would definitely cost more to implement a drastic Q400/B757 plan that has a direct and immediate huge impact on both top lines and bottom lines than to wetlease 2 Q400's.
But there seems to be enough money for useless Recaro seats, for huge investments in an airline in Congo before everything is 100% certain, more capacity in the already loss-making Europe segment and so on...

Make up your mind, if you have one. For the rest spare us of your jalousie.

[RoMax]

There isn't much to be wrong about. Are you under the illusion that they're going to do miracles with 2 wetleased Q400's? Is that going to make them go from minus 60 million to plus 100 million?

And you are under the illusion that around 35 Q400's are going to do miracles?? I assume nobody in the airline industry ever came up with this idea about a whole fleet of Q400's and investigate if it would work, isn't it? If your ideas would work, at least ONE airline would be doing it...

Seriously, look away from your computer screen and see the reality that surrounds you.

Look away from your computer screen yourself! You only look at "nice" theoretical ideas, but you really have NO clue if this would work in the real world. You show nice numbers in your posts, but this is ALL theoretical and maybe you didn't know this yet, but not everything what works in theory is working in the real world.

People who agree with me, you can make yourself heard. No need to fear these hopeless dreamers who think that everything top management does is right, despite accumulating losses after losses after losses.

Maybe nobody is fearing "those hopeless dreamers", but maybe, just maybe, nobody is suporting your ideas...
And I don't think the management does everything right, but despite to what you think I don't think they are doing everything wrong either. Otherwise they wouldn't be growing in all segments (increasing pax numbers, increasing loadfactor, increasing cargo, increasing yields, increasing market share, increasing transfer traffic,...). And their bad financial results are NOT the result of a failing strategy.

[LJ]

AMS would be nice let's say 1-2 years ago, but now. It will not be long anymore before the trains can go from AMS to BRU, same with CDG-BRU (if the NMBS, BRU, SN and 9W are succesfully in their talks with Thalys).

That probably won't be easy. The Dutch part of any high speed train (thus including Thalys) must be exploited by the High Speed Alliance (HSA), in which KLM has a 10% stake. Any high speed link between Belgium and The Netherlands must have HSA approval and given the investment of KLM they won't be interested in a link between BRU and The Netherlands (whether NMBS/Thalys wants it or not). The only bright spot for SN may be that there is a chance that HSA may loose it's exclusivity rights due to some financial issues between the Dutch government and HSA and that HSA has to pay an enormous amount of money each year to the Dutch government. However, still any stop at BRU would be unwelcome for HSA as this increases time and reduces KLMs advantage over SN.

However, in the end BRU will be easier to reach via the train as passengers can connect at Antwerp instead of Brussels North or South (thus less back track).

[sn26567]

The Dutch part of any high speed train (thus including Thalys) must be exploited by the High Speed Alliance (HSA), in which KLM has a 10% stake. Any high speed link between Belgium and The Netherlands must have HSA approval and given the investment of KLM they won't be interested in a link between BRU and The Netherlands (whether NMBS/Thalys wants it or not).

This sounds very anti-competitive and could probably be challenged with success at the European Union level.

[matey11]

I think that the SN management is doing a good job.
You need indeed 4 or 5 TP on the thin routes. but if you use these on the big routes your done playing you will go back to the old DAT then. Wich is not affordable for brussels airlines for what it is today and not 10 years ago.
Never forget AFRICA is the most important for SN.
The bigger volume strategy IS working if you wanna see it or not FLANKER.
2 months ago there where aprox 5000 extra pax on the geneva route. With heavy competition of Easyjet on this route SN was able to take them all 5000. This due to the increased capacity A319.
You need a good balance of small bigger and big aircrafts in your fleet so you can play around with them. No point to let a A319 flying with only 30 PAX on board. But neither let a Q400 flying full when you let 100 other passenger at the gate. The other 100 will simply go to another company wich is LOOOSSSSIIINNNGGG money.
And that is what SN can not afford.

So please FLANKER i respect your opinion on this matter although I do not agree but try to open your eyes.
An example for you flanker.
You 're an restaurant owner wich have a good bussiness going well . Suddenly a pizza hut opens next to your door.
You as a restaurant owner have a second floor wich is not used. Why not opening the second floor so that you can maybe lower your price a bit so more people will come and eat at your place wich in the end results in a profit. Although maybe the first 2-3 years where hard because the investments you had to make on that second floor.

What you suggest is that the restaurant owner has to close a part of his restaurant on the first floor because a pizza hut is taking away customers. wich in the end results in bankruptcy. Because you still have to pay your employees you still have to pay for heating but you have half the customers.

[Flanker]

Ok Matey, I'll bite.

You need a good balance of small bigger and big aircrafts in your fleet so you can play around with them. No point to let a A319 flying with only 30 PAX on board. But neither let a Q400 flying full when you let 100 other passenger at the gate. The other 100 will simply go to another company wich is LOOOSSSSIIINNNGGG money.
And that is what SN can not afford.

You are right, we need the right balance.

In fact, I always said that the ideal fleet for the current SN is a mix of 15 A32S and up to 35 Q400's.
You need the A32S to be competitive on intercity routes where you have a large market and LCC competition.
The Q400's are needed to replace ALL the Avro's on the thinner routes and to operate intercity routes alongside the A32S. The reason why I see the need for 9 more Q400's is because it's an aircraft that opens up to a whole new regional market for SN and its ability to operate frequencies generates more demand by itself.

But this only works if you commit to a (albeit temporary) complete fleet renewal using turboprops as baseline.
According to Tolipanebas, this is off the tables and if they indeed wetlease the Q400's, it's a clear sign that they won't commit to a significant fleet of turboprops.

So basically, this means that we're heading towards a fleet of 25-30 A32S, 15-20 RJ85/100's and 3 WL Q400's.
That's a death sentence.


I think that we all heard the restaurant story (though you changed it a bit so I'll explain with your example).

I'll tell you where that story goes wrong: If you open the second floor of your restaurant and serve the same pizza at a lower price, more people will come to eat but you'll have to sell more pizza's to make the same money. And don't forget, to sell more pizza's in your larger restaurant, you'll have to pay more for electricity, gas, water, rent (lease is more expensive) and hire more waitresses and cooks and cleaning ladies and do more advertising.

So not only you'll have to sell more pizza's to have the same sales, but because you have more costs, you have to sell even many more!

It's what I call doing more work for the same profit (loss). You may run Pizza Hut out of business but run yourself into the ground at the same time.

This concept is wrong from the beginning.
Why open a second floor and pay extra for electricity, gas, rent, personnel, when your first floor is only 60% full on average? Lower the price a little bit on the first floor and make sure you get it 90% full.
You achieve the same results as opening the second floor, without the extra costs and make more profits.

Seriously, trip reports like this one (BRU-ATH 25% load) make me want to cry:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=43286

25% load on a 3 hour B734 flight, of which half were an occasional group.
No wonder SN is losing money.

Seriously, someone has to ask the difficult questions. And I don't claim that I would make a better CEO.
Frankly, they're doing a good job on a daily operations basis, but this is the part that's delegated to each department so they can't really claim credit for it.

Can't say the same of the big-decisions-making. We have to yet see a big decision from them that has actually brought positive value to the company.
Since the SN-VEX merger and these new co-CEO's, SN hasn't made a decent profit.
You can blame the economy, but most airlines have made relatively big profits in 2010, while SN had an operating loss of 12 millions. The results are there to prove it.

[Passenger]

In fact, I always said that the ideal fleet for the current SN is a mix of 15 A32S and up to 35 Q400's.

Well, there is good news then : the Q400's are on sale this month: buy 40, get 50.

May I humbly suggest BRU-LGG and BRU-ANR-OST (triangle flight) for those 15 extra Q400's? You then have solved Brussels Airlines' financial problems and Belgium's biggest traffic jam. Flanker for president!

(bottom line : why would I reply seriously, when you are constantly joking?)

[Flanker]

And you are under the illusion that around 35 Q400's are going to do miracles?? I assume nobody in the airline industry ever came up with this idea about a whole fleet of Q400's and investigate if it would work, isn't it? If your ideas would work, at least ONE airline would be doing it...

There is no other airline like Ryanair, there is no other airline like Singapore Airlines, there is no other airline like Emirates, there is no other airline like Flybe, there is no other airline like Southwest.
Guess what all these profitable airlines have in common? They have their original business models and their CEO's are very smart people who grew within the company and know it inside out, and have a clear vision and creativity, who aren't afraid to come forward and make big decisions.

AA, AF, LH, AZ, BA, UA, CO, DL, US and all operate in very similar models. None of them are consistently profitable. The thing they have in common is that they're run by boring professional MBA's with degrees and backgrounds in finances and utilities who don't know the airline business.

Well actually CO is a bit of an exception as it's been historically profitable and Smisek knows his airline very well.

Doing what others do, you don't make any money in this world.

[FlightMate]

Jumping in the conversation. Although I followed it for quite a long time.

I tend to agree with Flanker's perspective.
The avro's should have been replaced a long time ago. By Q400 or other smaller, more recent jets.

Qantas link are operating a lot of these Q400, and they seem to love it.
It makes perfect sense on short routes, which account for a lot of SN flights. (+ new flights to AMS/LCY)

Of course you need to remain flexible on certain routes, so you need some A32F. And you need to be able to switch aircraft type on short notice.

The only problems I see, is if the passengers have a choice between a Turboprob and another aicraft (for similar time/price), they will choose the jet. Pax to africa don't have that choice obviously, and they are the main focus anyway.
And as well, where to find the money for the fleet change? (I don't know how much it can cost to replace a fleet of dry lease for another one in dry lease - just some operational cost I suppose, like training, etc...)
Previous shareholders didn't want to invest any money in the airline, so that's why we were stuck with the avros for so long.
Now it's different, we should have a long (or at least medium) term vision.

PS: are the Q400 certified for LCY?

[Bralo20]

There is no other airline like Ryanair, there is no other airline like Singapore Airlines, there is no other airline like Emirates, there is no other airline like Flybe, there is no other airline like Southwest.
Guess what all these profitable airlines have in common? They have their original business models and their CEO's are very smart people who grew within the company and know it inside out, and have a clear vision and creativity, who aren't afraid to come forward and make big decisions.

Yes, there are airlines like Ryanair, Singapore, Emirates, Flybe, Southwest...

In Europe we have Easyjet, they are also an LCC just like Ryanair, the only difference is that Easyjet doesn't have a CEO who makes himself ridiculous by speaking about stupid ideas in the press...

No airline like Singapore Airlines? What about Thai? What about Etihad? What about Qatar? All premium airlines offering a similar product...

Emirates, well that's indeed a bit more complicated... In the premium market they offer a decent product which can be compared with premium carriers like Singapore, Thai, Etihad, etc... However, in economy, well, let's say they invented "cattle class" with their high density layouts (at the moment the A388 is the only exception on this)... So yes, Emirates is maybe a bit special... However, when looking just across the border you'll see a carrier who also manages to combine a decent premium product and a lousy economy product on several airplanes... Yup, that's right, Air France can be placed in the same categorie...

Flybe? What's so special about Flybe? Or maybe... Flybe is an LCC in disguise, they may offer economy plus class, but in real they have only one class and it's in a high density layout... Their Q400's, their ERJ's all have one thing in common... They lack space... Every single plane in their fleet offers a terrible seatingexperience... I flew once with them (bought a economy plus ticket (without doing my normal research, my mistake) and that one flight (I even didn't take the return ticket, I came back with SN) was enough to make me never fly them again...

Southwest? Southwest can be compared to Ryanair... Or wait? Nope, Southwest at least offers some legroom, something that Ryanair nor Easyjet does... Let's take Jetblue then...

So see, you'll have other comparable airlines...

AA, AF, LH, AZ, BA, UA, CO, DL, US and all operate in very similar models. None of them are consistently profitable. The thing they have in common is that they're run by boring professional MBA's with degrees and backgrounds in finances and utilities who don't know the airline business.

Well actually CO is a bit of an exception as it's been historically profitable and Smisek knows his airline very well.

Doing what others do, you don't make any money in this world.

Hmm... I think you need to do some research mate... Not all airlines in your list are posting "only" losses...

UA for example, under the leadership of Glenn Tilton, managed to turn arround the airline from a loss posting to a profit making airline... An airline that posted even bigger profits that the (former) rival they bought, Continental Airlines... And yet they operate an airline (or airlines) that follow a rather classic business model... Oh, and by the way, Continental isn't different... They went in bankruptcy twice just like United Airlines for example... And yet both managed to turn arround their airlines. AF/KL for example also did post a net profit last fiscal year... Oh wait? Didn't British Airways post a profit too? Wait a minute, didn't post Delta a profit too last fiscal year? A small one but yet a profit... Wait, don't I remember a profit from US Airways too last year? Even SN posted a profit last year...

So in fact, besides some airlines they are all doing quite OK don't they?

But we're getting away from your love of your live, the Q400... Well, I don't agree with your opinion to have a fleet of 35 Q400's, a few maybe (maybe 5 or so) seems right but more? No thanks! You like the Q400 a lot but not everyone does... I know quite a few people that are now checking and double checking before booking flights just because they want to avoid flying a turboprop... Or even searching for possibilities for not having to fly with an ERJ or a CRJ... I tend to agree that some smaller planes are necessary in SN's fleet but I don't see the Q400 as the solution, an E-Jet however can be the solution to replace the aging avro's... From a passengers point of view the E-Jet is a lovely plane which people seems happy to fly with (as long as not configurated in a high density layout like Flybe's ones). Or maybe the C-series if ever build...

Oh well, maybe we need a new special airline for Flanker? Q400 Airlines but I'll guess it will follow the same path as BeOnFlop Airlines...

I personally like SN's fleet being "upgraded" to the A32S however there's one thing I don't like and that's the new economy seat... It's terrible as hell... The man who invented that seat shot be forced to sit on such seat for days... I used to take LH from time to time when flying through the EU but since they introduced the NEK seat I happily take BA and connect through LHR (even if this means backtracking)...

[regi]

I used to take LH from time to time when flying through the EU but since they introduced the NEK seat I happily take BA and connect through LHR (even if this means backtracking)...

Well, that is heavy ! Zillions of travellers do everything to avoid LHR ( + CDG and to a lesser degree FRA ) because "too big".
But you want to pay the price on the stress side to sit in a more confortable chair for some hours.

No opinion, just a thought. ( customer is king )

BTW, I was one of the first who made negative remarks about the introduction of that new chair because in my eyes, it was just a marketing stunt to hide that seating would be worse, not lowering the price, as an excuse to fold more passengers in an airplane.

Coming back on the TP: am I right that there is today no more manufacturing of 4 engine civilian TP ? ( excellent product for long haul services to Africa and USA to replace the A330 of SN )

[cnc]

Coming back on the TP: am I right that there is today no more manufacturing of 4 engine civilian TP ? ( excellent product for long haul services to Africa and USA to replace the A330 of SN )

is this supposed to be funny?

[Stij]

Coming back on the TP: am I right that there is today no more manufacturing of 4 engine civilian TP ? ( excellent product for long haul services to Africa and USA to replace the A330 of SN ):

A civilian version of the A400M!

It would be excellent as well for Africa's delapidated runways!
And oh, did we mention the cargo capabilities? Second to none!
Also there would be fleet commonality with the Belgian Air Force, just as with the A330 now.

But can it connect to a BRU gate...

Cheers,

Stij

[tolipanebas]

am I right that there is today no more manufacturing of 4 engine civilian TP?

Well, Airbus is also seeking civilian certification for their A400, but I highly doubt we'll ever see it operating in a pax version at any airline.

As a sidenote: It might be worth just re-reading the very first page of this topic to judge the first opening posts on their accuracy with the hindsight we now have come to gather: some posters (caugh, caugh) obviously nailed the facts down right from the start, whereas a certain member on the other hand was again immediately going into full overdrive and applauding management for what he assumed would be outright purchases (or leases) of heaps of turboprops aimed at a full fleet roll-over of the entire mediumhaul fleet with many many new routes added to the shorthaul network!
As the topic matured and it got perfectly clear things wouldn't be heading in the way this member expected them to (what a surprise!), things turned nasty once again and the ranting started!

[BrusselsAirlines]

I disagree on the negativism of pax towards TP's. Most friends or relatives that talk to me when they have flown to X or Y don't have a single clue what they were flying if I ask them, certainly on the shorthaul.

What I do notice is that people are kind of proud and it seems to be fancy to be able to mention that you have flown out of Brussels Airport with Brussels Airlines, that's one thing we can thank Ryanair for.

I think we should exploit the fact that we are seen as premium product over others.

I agree on the pizza resto concept but to see this as an overall strategy is too simple. It is important to show Ryanair/Easy jet that we are there, competing them and stopping them in the near future - the new airport strategy is helping us there!

But there is more than expansion alone, we can also offer a more niche product - the special pizza's!!

Think HANNOVER!!! one of the most profitable EU routes in profitability (outside the wetlease cost:(
We should offer more niche destinations point to point and much more flexibility in the network.

Think OUTSIDE THE BOX of summer and winter timetables. Let's offer flights to town X during week Y when there is a specific trade fair - kind of regular charter flights.
Also more seats on the friday, sunday, monday flights on fi Bristol, Newcastle etc. are required! We are missing a lot of seats and high yield revenue on many of those flights!!

When 2 dogs are fighting for GVA, let's also be the 3rd smart one going elsewhere! People are willing to pay more on flights where they have few other options - you see this on fi the intra Sweden flights.

There should be a strategyPLUS on the intra EU sector - maybe we need a new regional like Quantas link or the old days DAT??

[tolipanebas]

Coming back on the TP: am I right that there is today no more manufacturing of 4 engine civilian TP ? ( excellent product for long haul services to Africa and USA to replace the A330 of SN ):

A civilian version of the A400M!

It would be excellent as well for Africa's delapidated runways!
And oh, did we mention the cargo capabilities? Second to none!
Also there would be fleet commonality with the Belgian Air Force, just as with the A330 now.

But can it connect to a BRU gate...

Cheers,

Stij

ROTFL!

Seriously, you shouldn't be giving away the cons of the A400Pax so soon...

It took the "Q400 expert" more than a year to discover the Q400 -or any other turboprop- is completely incompatible with jetbridge boarding procedures at BRU or in fact any of SN's European destinations, while he had been long praising the premium travel experience he'd offer with his Q400 centered airline, aimed predominantly at business class pax who'd he have seated in real club class seats and let board straight from the lounge... into the bus... out into the pouring rain of BRU... onto the cramped moulinex plane for the 3 hour flight to Stockholm! Suddenly, gate boarding wasn't important anymore and just a stupid idea even which was just going to slow things down!

[BrusselsAirlines]

Korongo Belgium operated by Brussels Airlines

[regi]

Coming back on the TP: am I right that there is today no more manufacturing of 4 engine civilian TP ? ( excellent product for long haul services to Africa and USA to replace the A330 of SN )

is this supposed to be funny?

Okay, I shouldn't have done that.
But question remains: 4 engine TP for civilian use ?
Why are they not being made anymore? Fuelburn is low. Maintenance is lower. Is it possible that the aviation industry sees no viability in TP's with high MTOW, cargo capacity, around 150 pax, STOL ?
So not for long haul. But for short-medium range where jets have a disadvantage.

[euroflyer]

I used to take LH from time to time when flying through the EU but since they introduced the NEK seat I happily take BA and connect through LHR (even if this means backtracking)...

Well, even if I have to admit that with T5 at LHR is not that bad as it used to be I cannot agree on that negative view on the LH NEK. The seats are quite OK and legroom actually is absolutely OK. In my experience BA certainly has no advantage here with their product. The only problem with the seats is that if the person in the row behind you does put a glass bottle or anything else very hard in the net on the back of the seat you sometimes actually do feel this in your back As I said, not perfect, but not worse than any other of the big European network carriers.

Flybe? What's so special about Flybe?

I agree with your view Bralo20. I had the "pleasure" once to fly with Flybe and it was certainly the first AND the last time.

I disagree on the negativism of pax towards TP's. Most friends or relatives that talk to me when they have flown to X or Y don't have a single clue what they were flying if I ask them, certainly on the shorthaul.

Well, but those pax might not be the ones who bring the money to the airline. The few pax in business or b.flex or whatever you call the fully flexible eco tickets are the ones you need to have to run a full network carrier, they bring the big money and most of them do know the aircraft types and yes I do my checks before I agree with my office on a schedule for a certain business trip. I want to know which airline, which aircraft types etcetera. And even if there is a more direct or cheaper connection with a LCC or an airline I do not like or with an aircraft being used on that route I will opt for the connection I like most (as long as it somehow stays within the limits of the usual pricing and the timing is OK). So if those pax do not want TPs, forget it. I personally think they would be accepted on short routes up to 45/60 min flight time. Everything else is critical.

Think HANNOVER!!! one of the most profitable EU routes in profitability (outside the wetlease cost:(
We should offer more niche destinations point to point and much more flexibility in the network.

I would not take HAJ as a role model. As far as I am aware one main reason for the profitability of this route is the "Solvay traffic" between HQ and Solvay Germany (based in HAJ). Without that business orientated traffic the situation would probably be much worse. So this is a special situation that you cannot easily create at other places as well.

Just a few thoughts - and for the rest I agree with tolipanebas:

some posters (caugh, caugh) obviously nailed the facts down right from the start

[Bralo20]

Well, that is heavy ! Zillions of travellers do everything to avoid LHR ( + CDG and to a lesser degree FRA ) because "too big".
But you want to pay the price on the stress side to sit in a more confortable chair for some hours.

The first time I visited LHR was back in 2006 when flying to SFO. Back then I said that it would be the first and the last time I've visted LHR if I could avoid it... It took nearly 2 hours to get from one terminal to another, go through security walk to the gate, etc... I really hated the experience... However when T5 opened I took a flight through LHR again and it was quite nice, also the lounges are nice and I barely had to complain. Arriving at T5 and leaving at T5 is quite OK, it's when you have to change terminals that's it's becoming a hell...

And yes, my comfort is primar... I have issues with my back and so I prefer to fly business class through LHR when I need to fly in the EU...

No opinion, just a thought. ( customer is king )

I get your point, but I don't want to suffer while flying, being 2m03 tall it's hard enough as it is... I had no need for a terrible seat.