Brussels Airlines' fleet renewal

[Tetris]

If you use search machines, you can get the operational numbers of Edelweiss and Discover and the sources.

Indeed, it is not comparable if you count that they don't have the risk of the feeding networks. But this leads to the discussion of fleet allocation and the remark on why eg Discover is getting new 350.

If you see things from a helicopter view, you allocate ressources there where the return looks most favorable. Compare this with the recent statements of AFKLM, where they stipulate that growth comes from premium leisure, and you get a sense that upgrading Edelweiss and Discover to 350 is a logical move, backed by market trends and company performance.

If we are all very honest, currently SN is classically stuck in the middle. No real competitive short haul position against the LCCs in Belgium, no attractive niche (which may become even more challenging eg if TAP would join the group), little chance to move into side markets - eg long haul leisure destinations from Belgium seem to be a tough market and in the current context TATL is reduced by everyone.

Maybe increasing speed to an all 320 size short haul fleet and delivering there grwoth and profits may be a solution for better bottom line figures, even if it's not so glamurous.

Very helpful tip on the source, ofcourse I never could have thought about googling myself.

I absolutely do not disagree with you on the 350 for Edelweiss and Discover. They can use them much more useful than SN, as they need the range and performance for current and future routes (Asia, Sout America). SN is fine with the 330 till it is end of life and is the perfect operator in the group to use them as long as possible. The fact that even this 'low cost' expansion is proving to be too expensive and being withdrawn with every (small) setback, proves that there is no ambition in the long term whatsoever.

'Stuck in the middle' exactly as you say.

[Tetris]

As a passenger point of view, this airline (SN) is nothing more than a plaything in LH's hands... There is no real long-haul network. Fortunately, other airlines serve Brussels, and CDG and AMS are within easy reach.

BRU is in the middle of LHR, AMS, FRA, CDG. The far more logical question is, why do you need long haul operations for other reasons than prestige?

Why do you need the Port of Antwerp? You can just ship everything to Rotterdam and then a small truck here
Why do you need the Memorial van Damme? You can just watch an Athletics competition in France on tv
Why do you need do we need Volvo Gent? You can just import cars from China

[Miqvell]

As a passenger point of view, this airline (SN) is nothing more than a plaything in LH's hands... There is no real long-haul network. Fortunately, other airlines serve Brussels, and CDG and AMS are within easy reach.

BRU is in the middle of LHR, AMS, FRA, CDG. The far more logical question is, why do you need long haul operations for other reasons than prestige?

Why do you need the Port of Antwerp? You can just ship everything to Rotterdam and then a small truck here
Why do you need the Memorial van Damme? You can just watch an Athletics competition in France on tv
Why do you need do we need Volvo Gent? You can just import cars from China

+1

[Atlantis]

On a small side note. OS also turned into a 93M loss in the first H1.

What they are going to do is to reduce the Winter capacity. Cutting loss making routes and cancel the overnight fleet and crews abroad.

But, they still will continue in modernizing the fleet.

[oldblueeyes]

OS is downsizing as well, if one considers all the fleet movements.

It is already decided that the Embraers go out (4 to be sold, 13 to Dolomiti) and the replacement will be 6 A320.
And nobody talks there about 789 Nr13 and 14, which have been rumored as upside scenario for a while.

But in another note - since creation, SN still didn't managed to be on a total pay back, the cumulated losses overweight the few years with some mere profits reported. Thus beside any national pride and "nice to have" wishes, the major question remains - what is the business model the company can develop to become sustainable profitable, given not dreams, but reality? The 4 hubs around would always be bigger , serve more destinations, stay core for their owners and benefit from better feeder networks and the P2P companies will always focus on trying to compete on cost for the large pax volumes towards and from Belgium.

It's nice to make comparisons with other sectors where the respective players have built over time critical mass, reputation or a premium niche position, but none of these factors apply and would apply in the future to Brussels Airlines.

[Atlantis]

Maybe the problems are bigger than we see? Is it so difficult to add >18 years old planes to the fleet. This is a transfer, not bought new.
Cash seems to be very fragile.

But where it goes wrong? In general, the costs over the last years decreased.

Is it operational? We always can hear, when a new long haul carrier arrives, that this will strengthen the HUB function of BRU. But is it true?

Let's take some figures. SIA and Thai arrived in 2024. Not for the full year of course, but at that time, the total number of transfer pax was 139k.

In 2025, Cathay arrived, some Chinese arrived.

In 2026, Air China arrived, LATAM arrived and exact 2 years later we have 172k transfer pax. That's only 33K increase in 2 years, 15K per year.
Where do we see strengthen the HUB function if we have even more long haul carriers/destinations ever.

This is not only point to point traffic. Something is missing and this is a strong, reliable home carrier.

To not invest further in expansion, there will be no HUB at all.

[Matt]

For now, a330 nr 12 and 13 wont join the fleet. They were planned for December of this year, but has been postponed indefinitely.

Official communication is that "the numbers are too bad".

However, I heard a rumour that mother Lufty needs the last 2 A330's in the forseeable future because the 787's are being delivered too slow.

Edit: most of the a340-300's now have a phase out of 2028 (!) while it was 2027 before. Make from that what you want.

[oldblueeyes]

Let's see the deliveries Lufthansa has in the coming months:

- 2 brand new 789 and 4 NTU's and the pace is pretty steady, 2 to be produced this year and some other to be delivered next year
- 4 A351 to be delivered to MUC this year, in total 8 until next year and the earliest 4 are already in building in Toulouse

So not such a big issue in the coming months with 14 to come till end of the year.

The 343 were always the workhorse and easy to maintain therefore 3 will be phased out by end of the year and 9 are remaining. Already decided 2 or 3 months ago.

If one is looking carefully, exactly the opposite happens now at the mainline : the number of subfleets is phased out in an accelerated pace: the 346 are going out in Oct, the 767 at Austrian by end of the year, the CRJs were phased out with the accelereated closure of Cityline, Discover is shifting towards an all 333 fleet by end of the year when the remaining two 332 are going out.

So likely all 333 would leave Lufthansa by end of the year.

And if you look at group level, there is net growth to steer passanger flows - Swiss is getting 3 A359 by end of the year and still likes to keep their 343 for a while, ITA is having or 3 more 339 in the pipeline.

Let's face another reality : how solid is Brussels Airlines if it can't afford to onboard new used 333s?

Likely it's not the cost of ownership that is a barrier, but the ressources needed to ramp up their operation over 1-2 years until each route starts to earn money. In a nutshell, Brussels does not earn the money to sustain its own development.

[lumumba]

I was expecting much better figures. Fuel costs at Brussels Airlines are significantly lower as a percentage compared to other airlines,there yield to Africa is high.

I really felt they were better equipped than other companies in that aspect. It's very disappointing, especially considering all the accumulated debt. How long will Lufthansa be able to stay in business?

For nearly 100 years, in Belgium, we have never had a profitable airline!

[Atlantis]

I was expecting much better figures. Fuel costs at Brussels Airlines are significantly lower as a percentage compared to other airlines,there yield to Africa is high.

I really felt they were better equipped than other companies in that aspect. It's very disappointing, especially considering all the accumulated debt. How long will Lufthansa be able to stay in business?

For nearly 100 years, in Belgium, we have never had a profitable airline!

Not only SN, also TUI is struggling. From 5 airports to only 2. Transavia and Vueling are waiting already to take over.

Aviation in Belgium has it not easy. But look at the bigger picture, look how is the overall status of Belgium? The same. Companies are leaving, people loses their job, economy is hardly growing and the debts are enormous.

If Belgium didn't had the HQ of NATO and all the European institutions, it would have been an island.

Western Europe is losing towards Eastern Europe bcs of too much rules, people are constantly complaining about noise, etc.

Pity, very pity, but it's survival modus. I hope for them that there will be no strikes anymore, to not lose even more money

[Atlantis]

Another figure. Eurowings: 252M loss

[CVK]

Hello everyone,

You have to look at the bigger picture when you want to understand the strategy of Lufthansa Group.

Eurowings has not been the big money maker but it is the perfect fit to keep competiton in the local German market at check. Eurowings in its present form is a way better alternative than unleashing Ryanair, Easyjet and Wizzair in HAM, BER or DUS.

VIE keeps competition away from the east far enough from key hubs MUC, ZRH and FRA. Now FCO and MXP will start to help out from the south.

BRU is very important to keep the competition out of the Ruhrpot and thus to protect mainly FRA. This role is hugely underestimated in Belgium. The cathement area of Brussels goes to the boarders of the Ruhrpot. FRA does not want AF/KLM or IAG with a LH product in BRU. This is also the main reason why Brussels Airlines will never grow to a 50+ long haul fleet: FRA.

I suspect that Frankfurt will never give up BRU. Just because of the importance of FRA. Giving up Brussels means giving the western flank of FRA to the competition.

[lumumba]

I was expecting much better figures. Fuel costs at Brussels Airlines are significantly lower as a percentage compared to other airlines,there yield to Africa is high.

I really felt they were better equipped than other companies in that aspect. It's very disappointing, especially considering all the accumulated debt. How long will Lufthansa be able to stay in business?

For nearly 100 years, in Belgium, we have never had a profitable airline!

Not only SN, also TUI is struggling. From 5 airports to only 2. Transavia and Vueling are waiting already to take over.

Aviation in Belgium has it not easy. But look at the bigger picture, look how is the overall status of Belgium? The same. Companies are leaving, people loses their job, economy is hardly growing and the debts are enormous.

If Belgium didn't had the HQ of NATO and all the European institutions, it would have been an island.

Western Europe is losing towards Eastern Europe bcs of too much rules, people are constantly complaining about noise, etc.

Pity, very pity, but it's survival modus. I hope for them that there will be no strikes anymore, to not lose even more money

That's not true, we have a good economy, especially in Flanders where there is no unemployment, we have solid companies, we have very good universities that produce excellent graduates who are hired by our large and medium-sized companies.

Even Brussels Airport is a good company that makes good profits!

We absolutely must not follow the same path as the United States, where some people are getting richer and richer while the vast majority are getting poorer, even though capital does increase every year. And so do inequalities.

[Flanker2]

The big problem at SN is yield management.
Do a fare search and on routes where there are competing options, SN is never the cheapest option and not even close.

Seats on a flight are perishables, if SN can't consistently fill their aircraft to 95%+ load factors while Ryanair can do it out of CRL with bigger B737's, that's where your waste is.

SN need to abandon the old way of pricing tickets.
They need to apply dynamic pricing where they become a market participant rather than a fixed price institution.
You don't need to be cheaper than Ryanair but if you're close enough on price and you can offer a different schedule, that could sell tickets.

A big crisis is underway so I doubt that there is financial room for fleet renewals.
It's time to tighten the belts and prepare the restructuring and government bail-out dossiers once again.

[DannyVDB]

Many interesting things have been said here (and many big and expensive words ), but it is still not entirely clear to me yet ...

Maybe I am too optimistic when I read the statements of SN

In the second half of 2026, Brussels Airlines is looking forward to introducing high-speed Wi-Fi on the first aircraft of its fleet, reopen its fully renovated lounge at Brussels Airport and further expand its network.

... Expansion of the network (?) Maybe they refer to having Kilimanjaro also in the winter time table, some new European leisure destinations (?) Do they mean something else?

a careful approach for the coming years

... so it is not just for 2027. But I think that is very wise. I don't like the attitude "hold me or I do something" anyway

The long-haul fleet will for now stay as is

... for now, so it can be revised again ...

The introduction of new cabins on the long-haul fleet, a multi-million-euro investment, remains on track. Brussels Airlines plans to unveil the new cabins for Business Class, Premium Economy Class and Economy Class in the course of 2027.

. Unveil, means announce how the cabins will look like, so the refurbishment will only start later, no?

Also not clear whether there will be a decision on replacement with either B789 or A350. Will this decision still be taken (soon)?

Cancelling the expansion (in Africa) might also be related to the increasing competition (e.g. Air Congo, Kinshasa), the Ebola crisis (certainly), ... but also to changed plans at the side of UA and CA. Expansion towards Africa and from the US needs to go hand-in-hand and maybe from the US side that's also on hold because of the geo-political situation and the high oil prices, the instability. So overall, less travelling as well ... I think it is normal that airlines and airlines groups adapt. They MUST be careful, not handling towards the 'wishes' of airlines/airplane enthousiasts.

Interesting to see what is happening ...

Cheers,
Danny

[oldblueeyes]

Hello everyone,

You have to look at the bigger picture when you want to understand the strategy of Lufthansa Group.

Eurowings has not been the big money maker but it is the perfect fit to keep competiton in the local German market at check. Eurowings in its present form is a way better alternative than unleashing Ryanair, Easyjet and Wizzair in HAM, BER or DUS.

VIE keeps competition away from the east far enough from key hubs MUC, ZRH and FRA. Now FCO and MXP will start to help out from the south.

BRU is very important to keep the competition out of the Ruhrpot and thus to protect mainly FRA. This role is hugely underestimated in Belgium. The cathement area of Brussels goes to the boarders of the Ruhrpot. FRA does not want AF/KLM or IAG with a LH product in BRU. This is also the main reason why Brussels Airlines will never grow to a 50+ long haul fleet: FRA.

I suspect that Frankfurt will never give up BRU. Just because of the importance of FRA. Giving up Brussels means giving the western flank of FRA to the competition.

Your judgements may be stuck into the early 2010s.

First of all, ITA is not present in MXP at all, but in LIN. Biggest player in MXP is Easyjet with 28 aircraft based there, Ryanair has 20ish in Bergamo, so hard to say that ITA plays in north Italy a shield against competition.

FCO is in growth modus for LHG, they will continue to increase the long haul fleet there, as demand, yield, cost, profitability are encouraging.

Eurowings was long time a shield against the LCC and a placeholder for various experiments. But now its a clean sheet P2P company with reasonable profits. Not more and not less on what keeps AFKLM operating Transavia or IAG securing the market in BCN with Vueling.

SN and OS were post bankrupcy aquisitions. OS was riskier, with 1 bn debt burden, but SN was a low risk bet. 65 Mio Eur for initially 45% and then 28 Mio for the rest of 55% as the management imposed by the shareholder majority didn't performed.

Fair is to say, that both OS and SN were not delivering over time increased profitability, were alwaays in need of LH to allow themselves fleet roll overs and only since the pandemic the local approach of keeping traditional business moved towards a more streamlined approach, which is still not fully transitioned yet.

What changed in the last 2 years is the approach to network. Was it previously more decentral with each brand having a lot of freedeom for local wishes, now it follows more group principles. Not every small local thing is worth allocating ressources to it.

[Conti764]

If you use search machines, you can get the operational numbers of Edelweiss and Discover and the sources.

Indeed, it is not comparable if you count that they don't have the risk of the feeding networks. But this leads to the discussion of fleet allocation and the remark on why eg Discover is getting new 350.

If you see things from a helicopter view, you allocate ressources there where the return looks most favorable. Compare this with the recent statements of AFKLM, where they stipulate that growth comes from premium leisure, and you get a sense that upgrading Edelweiss and Discover to 350 is a logical move, backed by market trends and company performance.

If we are all very honest, currently SN is classically stuck in the middle. No real competitive short haul position against the LCCs in Belgium, no attractive niche (which may become even more challenging eg if TAP would join the group), little chance to move into side markets - eg long haul leisure destinations from Belgium seem to be a tough market and in the current context TATL is reduced by everyone.

Maybe increasing speed to an all 320 size short haul fleet and delivering there grwoth and profits may be a solution for better bottom line figures, even if it's not so glamurous.

We're looking at two second hand - old - A333's from LH that are being withheld at a time SN could really use them. If not for growth, at least for stable operations during a challenging time fleet planningwise (maintenance, interior updates,...) There are no indications of postponing the interior upgrade, so passengers are looking at a period of cancellations again, driving them off to the competition.

Like you said, with ITA and possibly TAP joining the group, there is no need for SN anymore. LH is slowly suffocating the airline to a point where they can finally pull the plug.

[Conti764]

As a passenger point of view, this airline (SN) is nothing more than a plaything in LH's hands... There is no real long-haul network. Fortunately, other airlines serve Brussels, and CDG and AMS are within easy reach.

BRU is in the middle of LHR, AMS, FRA, CDG. The far more logical question is, why do you need long haul operations for other reasons than prestige?

From a passenger's viewpoint or from a country's viewpoint?

With LHR, AMS, FRA, CDG so close, what's they point of even having an international airport? Economic value, employment, connectivity,... We all saw what happend to Brussels Airport when Sabena collapsed. It will happen again when Brussels Airlines collapses, and with current management that's only a matter of time. BRU will lose connections (apart from SN) and a lot of employment and economic value.

You can look at it the way you do, or you can look at it from another perspective. BRU is located right in the middle of some of Europe's biggest airports. AMS is saturated and slot restrained, as is LHR. CDG is busy as well. AF and KL have a near monopoly on certain routes, at least use SN and BRU - right in the middle of both airports - to tap into some of that potential. Give options to travelers and airlines to fly to a lesser used airport, conveniently located in between some of those megaports.

But there is so little imagination at SN (LH), so little out of the box thinking and always going for the same destinations on old, unreliable equipment prone to AOG's and thus a disrupted operation.

[oldblueeyes]

There are always two views.

The country view is correct.

The business view is likely different. The question is - what would be the cost to increase market share and operate profitable under the circumstances that there are 4 major hubs around where counteraction comes at marginal cost?

Lufthansa is a private company and their objective is to maximize the return for their shareholders, not to maximize the structural benefits of their bases. Of course they can cooperate with local stakeholders, but the game they would play would be always the same - if they allocate next year 100 Mio ( randomly here for 2 A320 delivered) - which base/brand can offer me the best return?

None of the arguments from a country prospective would work, if the local entity eg SN does not compete let's say against VIE by proving that it has found the right routes, delivering higher profits for the group than other bases competing for the same investment.

Ther eis alaso a very legitimate question if in a high share LCC market such as Belgium with around 50% LCC share the general public is not expecting by default a pricing structure a networker ( this is how Brussels repositioned itself) can not deliver?

[Conti764]

Then maybe the government (federal, Flemish,...) should consider stepping in to preserve economic output.