JOVAN2 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2022, 12:01LAX and or SFR are logical destinations with stable markets, strong currencies and great potential of US and European citizens travelling both ways.
(assuming SFR is a typo - closed anyway - but could be SFO or SFB?)
SFB is not an ideal option. Bus service goes to Universal only, no other park. SFB works for tour packages with their own transfer and for passengers who like to plan everything themselves - more choices for them at MCO though.
MIA is better than MCO/SFB. Larger catchment area, way more US outbound tourism, not a one-trick pony for inbound (city, beach, national parks, cruise...), significantly more business travel than MCO.
LAX and SFO make sense too.
longwings wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 23:35
LAX and SFO make sense too.
As explained before, LAX and SFO rotations take more than 24 hours making them not viable for airlines with a small fleet.
JNB/CPT has the same problem, doing well in terms of passenger numbers, but not sure it’s generating any profit.
If you look at SN they are making a modest profit on long haul, only, because of the high utilisation rate of their aircraft. The downside of the high utilisation rate is a lot of disruption though.
JOVAN2 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2022, 12:01LAX and or SFR are logical destinations with stable markets, strong currencies and great potential of US and European citizens travelling both ways.
(assuming SFR is a typo - closed anyway - but could be SFO or SFB?)
SFB is not an ideal option. Bus service goes to Universal only, no other park. SFB works for tour packages with their own transfer and for passengers who like to plan everything themselves - more choices for them at MCO though.
MIA is better than MCO/SFB. Larger catchment area, way more US outbound tourism, not a one-trick pony for inbound (city, beach, national parks, cruise...), significantly more business travel than MCO.
LAX and SFO make sense too.
SFO San Francisco that must be . Tx for your remark.
longwings wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 23:35
MIA is better than MCO/SFB. Larger catchment area, way more US outbound tourism, not a one-trick pony for inbound (city, beach, national parks, cruise...), significantly more business travel than MCO.
LAX and SFO make sense too.
MIA & Orlando didn't work for TUI.
What makes you think it would work for AB?
Lux_avi wrote: ↑02 Jan 2023, 12:58
MIA & Orlando didn't work for TUI.
What makes you think it would work for AB?
1. Markets change, what has failed once is not doomed to fail forever;
2. Pent-up demand for travel in the US has not abated yet (despite recession fears);
3. From what I am told in SA, Air Belgium much better at inbound marketing (from overseas to BRU) than TUI ever was
fcw wrote: ↑02 Jan 2023, 10:18
As explained before, LAX and SFO rotations take more than 24 hours making them not viable for airlines with a small fleet.
Why not? Do they have a lot of profitable charter ops? Based on their schedule (and earlier post - but admittedly didn't look hard), two aircraft at BRU for 4 days / week each. Enough for up to 4x weekly rotations to LAX/SFO and time to spare for line maintenance still.
longwings wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 23:35
MIA is better than MCO/SFB. Larger catchment area, way more US outbound tourism, not a one-trick pony for inbound (city, beach, national parks, cruise...), significantly more business travel than MCO.
LAX and SFO make sense too.
MIA & Orlando didn't work for TUI.
What makes you think it would work for AB?
For once and all, forget about Miami and Orlando ex-BRU. Even AA never tried it while it's a hub for them.
The same for LAX and SFO, tried many times in the past but without success. Those are not the markets for Belgium. There is simply no market for daily flights bcs this is what you need for such destinations.
longwings wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 23:35
MIA is better than MCO/SFB. Larger catchment area, way more US outbound tourism, not a one-trick pony for inbound (city, beach, national parks, cruise...), significantly more business travel than MCO.
LAX and SFO make sense too.
MIA & Orlando didn't work for TUI.
What makes you think it would work for AB?
For once and all, forget about Miami and Orlando ex-BRU. Even AA never tried it while it's a hub for them.
The same for LAX and SFO, tried many times in the past but without success. Those are not the markets for Belgium. There is simply no market for daily flights bcs this is what you need for such destinations.
Better to concentrate on nice markets
Atlantis you're right Belgium is not a big market. Not for daily flight for SFO or LAX, but maybe 3 or 4×/week and seasonal... Who tried last 20years ? Apart CityBird, unfortunately no other airlines.
Only United Airlines can provide nonstop flights to San Francisco in partnership with Brussels Airlines!!
MIA & Orlando didn't work for TUI.
What makes you think it would work for AB?
For once and all, forget about Miami and Orlando ex-BRU. Even AA never tried it while it's a hub for them.
The same for LAX and SFO, tried many times in the past but without success. Those are not the markets for Belgium. There is simply no market for daily flights bcs this is what you need for such destinations.
Better to concentrate on nice markets
Atlantis you're right Belgium is not a big market. Not for daily flight for SFO or LAX, but maybe 3 or 4×/week and seasonal... Who tried last 20years ? Apart CityBird, unfortunately no other airlines.
Only United Airlines can provide nonstop flights to San Francisco in partnership with Brussels Airlines!!
Not only City Bird, a lot of people forget about VG Airlines who was flying to LAX
For once and all, forget about Miami and Orlando ex-BRU. Even AA never tried it while it's a hub for them.
The same for LAX and SFO, tried many times in the past but without success. Those are not the markets for Belgium. There is simply no market for daily flights bcs this is what you need for such destinations.
Better to concentrate on nice markets
Atlantis you're right Belgium is not a big market. Not for daily flight for SFO or LAX, but maybe 3 or 4×/week and seasonal... Who tried last 20years ? Apart CityBird, unfortunately no other airlines.
Only United Airlines can provide nonstop flights to San Francisco in partnership with Brussels Airlines!!
Not only City Bird, a lot of people forget about VG Airlines who was flying to LAX
Atlantis you're right Belgium is not a big market. Not for daily flight for SFO or LAX, but maybe 3 or 4×/week and seasonal... Who tried last 20years ? Apart CityBird, unfortunately no other airlines.
Only United Airlines can provide nonstop flights to San Francisco in partnership with Brussels Airlines!!
Not only City Bird, a lot of people forget about VG Airlines who was flying to LAX
Yes but more than 20 years ago as well...
Exact 20 years ago as they ceased ops in Nov 2002. After nobody tried which says enough. As I said, better to find niche markets, not where everybody is flying and the yields are low. Bcs on this way they can search again for 10 million in 2 months
Going even further in time, Braniff offered weekly flights from SFO to BRU at an introductory price of $49. I am old enough to remember and I met with people who did it.
Not only City Bird, a lot of people forget about VG Airlines who was flying to LAX
Yes but more than 20 years ago as well...
Exact 20 years ago as they ceased ops in Nov 2002. After nobody tried which says enough. As I said, better to find niche markets, not where everybody is flying and the yields are low. Bcs on this way they can search again for 10 million in 2 months
When it was announced, no one believed in South Africa and some people here said it wouldn't run for long. Four months later, AB is making decent figures in Africa. And here's the thing: South Africa was similar to the West Coast, with no flights for decades and lots of competition.
Also, if they don't add LAX/SFO, they won't have much left except for a few South American/Asian airports, but you can also say "nobody tried which says enough". Also, remember that they continue to work on codeshares with local partners to serve as many destinations as possible, so we're not talking about just two destinations but way more cities, with some not served from Europe
Exact 20 years ago as they ceased ops in Nov 2002. After nobody tried which says enough. As I said, better to find niche markets, not where everybody is flying and the yields are low. Bcs on this way they can search again for 10 million in 2 months
When it was announced, no one believed in South Africa and some people here said it wouldn't run for long. Four months later, AB is making decent figures in Africa. And here's the thing: South Africa was similar to the West Coast, with no flights for decades and lots of competition.
Also, if they don't add LAX/SFO, they won't have much left except for a few South American/Asian airports, but you can also say "nobody tried which says enough". Also, remember that they continue to work on codeshares with local partners to serve as many destinations as possible, so we're not talking about just two destinations but way more cities, with some not served from Europe
Can you provide evidence that the South Africa flights are making profit?
I am not talking yields/load factors . I mean profit. (since those A330's cannot take off from JNB with a full payload... )
longwings wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 23:35
MIA is better than MCO/SFB. Larger catchment area, way more US outbound tourism, not a one-trick pony for inbound (city, beach, national parks, cruise...), significantly more business travel than MCO.
LAX and SFO make sense too.
MIA & Orlando didn't work for TUI.
What makes you think it would work for AB?
Even KLM tried and stopped several times this routes.
On the other hand Austrian and Swiss seem to be doing well there.
I think TUI had only one flight per week. So no business people would fly them. TUI also tried and stopped 2 times .
With only one Dreamliner left now fot TUI the route is definitely stopped.
I don't think it's a good idea for an airline to invest in new long haul destinations when they couldn't pay their short term debts.
For a new long haul destination, you need to spend a lot of money month after month after month. New aircraft, new staff, new crew, adverts, campaigns, press trips, ...
Exact 20 years ago as they ceased ops in Nov 2002. After nobody tried which says enough. As I said, better to find niche markets, not where everybody is flying and the yields are low. Bcs on this way they can search again for 10 million in 2 months
When it was announced, no one believed in South Africa and some people here said it wouldn't run for long. Four months later, AB is making decent figures in Africa. And here's the thing: South Africa was similar to the West Coast, with no flights for decades and lots of competition.
Also, if they don't add LAX/SFO, they won't have much left except for a few South American/Asian airports, but you can also say "nobody tried which says enough". Also, remember that they continue to work on codeshares with local partners to serve as many destinations as possible, so we're not talking about just two destinations but way more cities, with some not served from Europe
Why would no one believed in the South Africa route? First time that I hear this. I would say the contrary. Africa is always doing good from Belgium, Africa is in our genes. I'm only waiting when they will start up the announced Windhoek destination.
Exact 20 years ago as they ceased ops in Nov 2002. After nobody tried which says enough. As I said, better to find niche markets, not where everybody is flying and the yields are low. Bcs on this way they can search again for 10 million in 2 months
When it was announced, no one believed in South Africa and some people here said it wouldn't run for long. Four months later, AB is making decent figures in Africa. And here's the thing: South Africa was similar to the West Coast, with no flights for decades and lots of competition.
Also, if they don't add LAX/SFO, they won't have much left except for a few South American/Asian airports, but you can also say "nobody tried which says enough". Also, remember that they continue to work on codeshares with local partners to serve as many destinations as possible, so we're not talking about just two destinations but way more cities, with some not served from Europe
Why would no one believed in the South Africa route? First time that I hear this. I would say the contrary. Africa is always doing good from Belgium, Africa is in our genes. I'm only waiting when they will start up the announced Windhoek destination.
Well, then you must not be reading a lot of forums and comments on social networks...
For Windhoek, the chances are really low for it to appear any time soon as Terzakis keeps saying that the US will be the next addition to the network
longwings wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 23:35
MIA is better than MCO/SFB. Larger catchment area, way more US outbound tourism, not a one-trick pony for inbound (city, beach, national parks, cruise...), significantly more business travel than MCO.
LAX and SFO make sense too.
MIA & Orlando didn't work for TUI.
What makes you think it would work for AB?
For once and all, forget about Miami and Orlando ex-BRU. Even AA never tried it while it's a hub for them.
The same for LAX and SFO, tried many times in the past but without success. Those are not the markets for Belgium. There is simply no market for daily flights bcs this is what you need for such destinations.
Better to concentrate on nice markets
LAX and SFO were flown by VG and Delsey, also a short while by CityBird.
While CityBird was a serious project but did not survive the 9/11 period (like Sabena and others), the VG/Delsey was a real joke by arrogant Antwerp-based millionaires who failed in every aspect of running an airline.
Air Belgium also failed in the beginning (China, Hong Kong) and more recently with Curacao, Bonaire.
But a link between the riochest state in US, and one of the richest areas in Europe (Benelux, North France, West Germany) certainly can make it. Hopefully they will do their homework well and prepare all licences, traffic rights and their marketing + booking system s.
JOVAN2 wrote: ↑05 Jan 2023, 09:32
LAX and SFO were flown by VG and Delsey, also a short while by CityBird.
While CityBird was a serious project but did not survive the 9/11 period (like Sabena and others), the VG/Delsey was a real joke by arrogant Antwerp-based millionaires who failed in every aspect of running an airline.
Air Belgium also failed in the beginning (China, Hong Kong) and more recently with Curacao, Bonaire.
But a link between the riochest state in US, and one of the richest areas in Europe (Benelux, North France, West Germany) certainly can make it. Hopefully they will do their homework well and prepare all licences, traffic rights and their marketing + booking system s.
LAX and SFO remain my favourites.
A couple of, off topic, corrections:
-CityBird flew to OAK, not SFO
-the bankruptcy of CityBird has nothing to do with 9/11, they went into judicial reorganisation on 4th July 2001. (Thomas Cook shelved their plans to buy CityBird, out of bankruptcy, after 9/11 and, instead, started their own airline in 2002)
Air Belgium also failed in the beginning (China, Hong Kong) and more recently with Curacao, Bonaire.
But a link between the riochest state in US, and one of the richest areas in Europe (Benelux, North France, West Germany) certainly can make it. Hopefully they will do their homework well and prepare all licences, traffic rights and their marketing + booking system s.
LAX and SFO remain my favourites.
... .
And how could Air Belgium attract those "rich" people while Air France, KLM, Lufthansa, United & so on offer daily flights from hubs that are extremely well served from BRU?
These airlines offer flexibility, already affordable fares, miles & other advantages. There is no way Air Belgium could attract those clients unless they offer cheap fares, which would not generate any profit.
There is a difference between filling the planes and making profit. Seems like many dreamers will never understand that.