Next A330 for SN: 200 or 300? What should/will it be?

[A330]

Somehow I have the feeling more A332's would do better for opening new routes, or increasing frequencies to their current destinations, without increasing the total capacity too much at a time. Of course, if costs are not really lower and you just end up with less seats, than it's not that great. Another argument proposed here is the extra range of the A332. But on what flights do SN really use/need this extra range? I guess the A333 can do all of their routes? Like it did prior to the arrival of both ex-LX aircraft.

One (or two) extra A330's could make SN offer e.g. a daily direct flight Brussels-Kinshasa, without the triangle to Luanda.
Luanda could be served more often, maybe as an extension of the Doula flight.

I would say that as well, but isn't LAD limited by the bilateral allowing SN to fly only twice weekly (just like other airlines except for TP)? They could operate LAD directly (dedicated) without the connection to FIH, but I guess this is for operational reasons? But a combination with Brazzaville couold be possible, no?
I think their expansion should go faster (1,5-2 aircraft per year), focusing on US/Canada and Africa. A second flight to JFK seems fine to me, allowing for better connection times (later arrival back in BRU). Don't know the potential for other US destinations, like BOS, SFO or DEN.
In Africa I think a gradual increase in frequencies combined with a new destination (2-3 weekly) at some point. Certainly not 4 at once. JNB is a given, but SN don't have the aircraft, and competition is already strong (e.g. LH, LX, BA, AF, KL, VS).
I would love to see them expand to Asia. Destinations like BKK, NRT or HND, HKG should definitely be on their map, together with PVG, PEK or ICN. But I don't see them venturing out there, certainly not in the next 3-4 years. Stick to their niche at first, grow stronger there in combination with America for connections.

[RoMax]

Somehow I have the feeling more A332's would do better for opening new routes, or increasing frequencies to their current destinations, without increasing the total capacity too much at a time. Of course, if costs are not really lower and you just end up with less seats, than it's not that great.

Well yea that was my idea as well. But with that new A332 configuration, there is only a big difference in the business cabin. The A332's have (or will have) 22C 250Y while the A333's have 30C 254Y, that's only marginally more in economy. So I believe it just depends on which destination they want to start, is it a premium destination, just go with an A333, these 4 extra economy seats aren't going to make a difference (contrary, the lower seat/mile cost of the A333 is probably enough to solve that, in the case you can't sell these extra seats).

About the future expansion. Asia is nice, but much more under influence of the Middle-Eastern carriers' competition. America-Africa is still not that much under pressure of these airlines, so they should try to secure as much of this market as possible, at least in my opinion.

[Flanker2]

You are not going to pay much more for a newer aircraft if the operational savings on the rather short long haul flights like Africa or US East coast are not higher than what you save on the lower leasing costs (and newer A333's are damn expensive!).

This is indeed the reason why SN can't afford more expensive aircraft.
Low perceived utilisation.

SN has a high absolute utilisation, but it's really not a high perceived utilisation.
After all, utilisation is about how much you use the aircraft in a meaningful (=thus revenue-generating) way.

When you fly triangles or squares like in SN's case, a lot of the utilisation is used up taxiing, taking-off climbing, descending, approaching, taxiing again. Also, many of the intra-African segments are flown half-empty (so to speak). The aircraft also sit on the ground for almost 5 hours in the morning, which is ridiculosly long for a widebody ops.

This is why a low lease cost is a absolute requirement for SN.

Airlines like EK use their aircraft at very high utilisation. This is also why EK doesn't have A333's and also why they use the 77L on short hops between ultra-long flights. The A333 is a medium haul airplane, which is kind of a problem if you want to run it at high utilisation in a scheme where you work with major flows, called "waves".

There are negatives to using older airplanes.
-Less capable
-higher/less predictable maintenance costs
-higher fuel burn
-often higher risk premiums (insurance)

When it boils down to it, newer aircraft with higher lease costs will cost less to operate in the long run. They will also have more predictable maintenance costs.

HOWEVER! Leasing has never been less interesting.
With interest rates as low as they are, investors are keen on investing in aircraft shareholdings. EK have set-up schemes wherein individual A380's are owned by funds and financial institutions all over the world at almost the same cost as borrowing money from banks.
I think that the best option for airlines like SN is to set-up investment vehicle(s) for each or all aircraft together, which is/are parallel to the company (in the sense that if SN goes bankrupt, the only risk to the creditors would be that of finding a new operator), which issues 2-8 year (80% guarranteed renewable) corporate bonds at an interest rate of 4-8%. The vehicles run break-even, the bond-owners get interesting interest rates and the aircraft are funded at the lowest possible rates, regardless of SN's credit situation, and at much cheaper rates than leasing the aircraft.
However, the aircraft must be part of a grouped purchase program, in order to achieve similar discounts as lessors get on their massive orders.

[Kapitein]

A A330-200 it will be, even an ex-Sabena aircraft: OO-SFU.
According to www.airfleets.net the aircraft is stored in ZRH

[Flanker2]

Another A332? Perhaps that's the only affordable frame they could find.
I smell Boston.

[Inquirer]

If it is an ex-Sabena's plane, then why not?
The plane might be smaller, but isn't the seating pretty much identical?
Wasn't it said the only difference are 8 less C seats in the new lay out?
BOS would be great, but I hope they go for an evening NY: both routes would make quite a few of my colleagues very happy as they hate to backtrack through FRA or ZRH going west...the second even more than the first. Any official news on their new US route, Btw? We all assume its going to be BOS or NY, but has this been confirmed already?

[OO-ITR]

A A330-200 it will be, even an ex-Sabena aircraft: OO-SFU.
According to http://www.airfleets.net the aircraft is stored in ZRH

this A/C has been stored for quiet some time now. From what I hear the next A/C to enter the SN fleet should be a A333

[RoMax]

Last thing I heard was still IAD (but not daily) in addition to UA (don't know what they'll do as a result, I assume the decision was taken together, as it's not really the intention to compete head-on in a JV).

[RoMax]

Wasn't it said the only difference are 8 less C seats in the new lay out?

That's the biggest difference, in economy there is a difference of 4 seats I believe (so that's marginal when you know there are 250 or 254 seats).
So it seems SN doesn't need a smaller aircraft than the A333 based on Economy demand, but it does need a smaller business class on certain routes.

[brusselsairlinesfan]

Wasn't it said the only difference are 8 less C seats in the new lay out?

That's the biggest difference, in economy there is a difference of 4 seats I believe (so that's marginal when you know there are 250 or 254 seats).
So it seems SN doesn't need a smaller aircraft than the A333 based on Economy demand, but it does need a smaller business class on certain routes.

But are the operating costs of the -200 significantly lower than the -300 then?

[OO-ITR]

TAM is disposing of their rather new fleet of A332. Maybe an opportunity for SN to expand and replace the older A330s.