Brussels Airlines' fleet renewal

[crew1990]

Ok Lumumba, you are « right »

[lumumba]

Sorry but personal bad luck in choosing own real estate is not a criteria for an airline to judge the best fit model to fly.

There were some rumours that LH would order soon some additional planes, likely widebodies, and depending on which manufacturer and model would get new orders we may see a tendency forward.

Although, my bet would be that as deliveries should start around 2033 as rumoured, LH would supplement the 779 orders to replace the 748 and 380.

We're not talking about real estate investment, we're talking about a city with hundreds of thousands of people in a densely populated area. I think that's a valid point. Always use the same example: when we talk about Leuven, planes can't fly over the city, but they can in Brussels!

Now again the 787 obviously less noisy than other planes than the older A330.

[Lux_avi]

Have a look at flight radar all the flights curve ALL are wider !

It's very simple: when a long-haul flight takes off to the left, only the 787 flies over our part of the city. And I've never seen it turn more sharply,again never!

You can see it live with THAI at 13h30 and compare it to the Singapore of 11h45.

Once again, it is not specific to the 787.
The 787 can perfectly follow the same curve (to use your terms) than a 350 or 330, whatever.

It all depends on how use your aircraft performance.

Just FYI, I have flown the 787 (in the cockpit, not in the loud cabin).

[lumumba]

Have a look at flight radar all the flights curve ALL are wider !

It's very simple: when a long-haul flight takes off to the left, only the 787 flies over our part of the city. And I've never seen it turn more sharply,again never!

You can see it live with THAI at 13h30 and compare it to the Singapore of 11h45.

Once again, it is not specific to the 787.
The 787 can perfectly follow the same curve (to use your terms) than a 350 or 330, whatever.

It all depends on how use your aircraft performance.

Just FYI, I have flown the 787 (in the cockpit, not in the loud cabin).

In 10 years of operation, this has never happened; it's still strange!!!

I don't believe that.
But anyway, it's impossible to argue with you; you're always right, even when I present 10 years of evidence.

[sn26567]

It's very simple: when a long-haul flight takes off to the left, only the 787 flies over our part of the city. And I've never seen it turn more sharply,again never!

You can see it live with THAI at 13h30 and compare it to the Singapore of 11h45.

Maybe you could show us some examples with FR24 screen printouts?

[lumumba]

It's very simple: when a long-haul flight takes off to the left, only the 787 flies over our part of the city. And I've never seen it turn more sharply,again never!

You can see it live with THAI at 13h30 and compare it to the Singapore of 11h45.

Maybe you could show us some examples with FR24 screen printouts?

I tried but I don't know how to pot pictures here.

[Ge203]

Well. It’s quite simple. A turn radius is a function of bank angle and the speed^2. It’s got nothing to do with it being a 787 or an A350. They both would use around the same angle of bank for a departing turn (FDs typically initially limit 25 degrees of bank).

Airlines will have different thrust reductions and acceleration altitudes for the same airport, to meet noise abatement requirements. Those altitudes can also be affected by performance and obstacle clearances requirements, although probably not the case in BRU. If you accelerate earlier, then the turn radius of the following turns will be higher for the same bank angle. It’s probably where the difference is, and not due to one being a 787 and the other an A350.

[convair]

Well. It’s quite simple. A turn radius is a function of bank angle and the speed^2. It’s got nothing to do with it being a 787 or an A350. They both would use around the same angle of bank for a departing turn (FDs typically initially limit 25 degrees of bank).

Airlines will have different thrust reductions and acceleration altitudes for the same airport, to meet noise abatement requirements. Those altitudes can also be affected by performance and obstacle clearances requirements, although probably not the case in BRU. If you accelerate earlier, then the turn radius of the following turns will be higher for the same bank angle. It’s probably where the difference is, and not due to one being a 787 and the other an A350.

Failing any other explanation, I'll bank on yours...

[lumumba]

Well. It’s quite simple. A turn radius is a function of bank angle and the speed^2. It’s got nothing to do with it being a 787 or an A350. They both would use around the same angle of bank for a departing turn (FDs typically initially limit 25 degrees of bank).

Airlines will have different thrust reductions and acceleration altitudes for the same airport, to meet noise abatement requirements. Those altitudes can also be affected by performance and obstacle clearances requirements, although probably not the case in BRU. If you accelerate earlier, then the turn radius of the following turns will be higher for the same bank angle. It’s probably where the difference is, and not due to one being a 787 and the other an A350.

Just look at the last ten years, ALL the 787 takeoffs departing from Brussels make a bigger turn than the others. Why?

But for me, there's no problem if Brussels Airlines buys the 787 and can make the same tight turns as the others, then no problem.

[TimTam]

On a slightly different note : would it not be better for SN to stick to an all AIrbus fleet ?

[OO-PDM]

Maybe, but you also need to look at it from a group perspective. The future long haul fleet of the LHG will primarily consist of the A359 and the B789. Both are in also in the running at SN. My money would be on the B789, but let's look at some facts.

The A359 is obviously a larger (and more expensive) aircraft. The extra cargo capacity vis-a-vis the 787 are a plus. Furthermore, we know SN will have the same cabin as 4Y. They will get A359 so that could be a reason for SN to also get them. A larger aircraft, with a larger range, could open new routes in Africa (like JNB) and beyond. The fact that SN would retain an all airbus fleet could be a nice bonus.

But here is why I expect the B789:
For a large group, like the Lufthansa Group, focusing on 2 types is not only about having an efficient and streamlined fleet. If that were the case, maybe one type could suffice, no, it is also about risk management. When a technical issue grounds one type, the other should be unaffected (look at the issues with the P&W engines). At the moment only LH and OS fly the Dreamliner (with both RR and GE engines BTW), whilst LH, 4Y, LX and WK already operate the A359. This also results in the fact that the white fleet contains only 4 more A359 with no options, whilst LHG still holds options for 13 Dreamliners. Sure, they can (and probably will) order more. But this puts things into perspective. And finally the 789 is slightly cheaper and smaller, which would also play a role in the decision. Is all this definitive proof that SN will get Dreamliners? Off course not.

source for the orders: https://investor-relations.lufthansagro ... fleet.html