SN's regional network

[RoMax]

But in my opinion SN made a very big mistake to cancel an important and booming market in Europe: Poland. To cancel waw and krk is unbelievable. Economy is growing in this region the last 5 years with 15%!!!!!!! and a lot of our expats are working there.

With this one I can't agree more. This is still a mistery to me why they did this (maybe their biggest mistake in 2012?!). And that codeshare with LOT is that still cancelled?

[Inquirer]

Brussels airlines is a Lufthansa subsidiary and so all of its plans must fit the bigger picture of its parent as well as its sister airlines: I don't think its shareholders are very interested in seeing Brussels airlines do what they are already doing through other airlines???

My take is that within the group, Lufthansa takes care of most of the european connections because they already have the network in place thanks to its huge long haul network, with each if its subsidiaries being dedicated at special market niches: Swiss for more luxury (call them the Lexus of the group), Austrian for (near)east to (near)west traffic, Brussels for Africa. All can have routes beyond that too if local demand justifies it, otherwise, forget it.

Dreaming of Brussels going beyond their strategic target market purely for connecting purposes, is great fun but IMHO as pointless as wishing for Austrian to expand to Africa for instance: let's say it's just not the best vehicle for the mission within the group, which is why it's not given to them as strategic priority.

What we see here in this topic is a whole lot of people wishing for their local factory to be awarded the entire production output of the multinational owning that plant, which is obviously not very realistic as that multinational has factories all over Europe and wants to be present at those different markets, making use of the local strengths of each site for specific products, thus optimising the overall performance.

[Koltchak]

It wouldn't, unless you find a way to let a train go directly from Brussels-South to Brussels National Airport and vice versa without using the North-South connection and without having to turn back. Especially Fyra and IC trains are already very slow, so you don't want them to make an extra stop without compensating.

Sorry for being a bit off-topic

It can easily be done... Brussels South - Petite Ile - Line 28 - Schaerbeek - Brussels Airport and back to Schaerbeek through the Diabolo (Line 36C/1), no driving post change underway.

The same goes for the trains coming from Liège and running to Oostende, they can be traced through the Airport without any need for a directional change to get back to Brussels. I've been diverted once through the Airport while the regular line (line 36) was out of use due to a track damage, and the time loss was minimal.

So the technical capacity is there, why not using it? (No judgement here, just wondering).

[Air Key West]

Brussels airlines is a Lufthansa subsidiary and so all of its plans must fit the bigger picture of its parent as well as its sister airlines: I don't think its shareholders are very interested in seeing Brussels airlines do what they are already doing through other airlines???

My take is that within the group, Lufthansa takes care of most of the european connections because they already have the network in place

You're right, but is LH really expecting pax out of BRU to fly for instance to WAW with LH via FRA if there are directly flights with LOT (flew with LOT, they are more than just OK). Same for other European destinations.

[sn26567]

Is LH really expecting pax out of BRU to fly for instance to WAW with LH via FRA if there are directly flights with LOT (flew with LOT, they are more than just OK). Same for other European destinations.

Exactly my thinking. And in addition, at the same time SN severed the codesharing with LO, depriving itself from the revenue generated by ticketing on a LO codeshared flight! I really wonder how they can justify that policy.

[Flanker2]

RTM seems too close. But I don't know about LIL. How is that connection currently? I do agree that SN should open up more small destinations for feeding, they could certainly do so in UK and France. Problem is, you need small aircraft (say Q400), and primarily in the morning for long-haul connections. What to do with the planes in the afternoon? Extra frequencies to bigger cities in the "low hours"?

Exactly. Plus some longer thin routes that would only make sense with a turboprop.

Flanker2 wrote:
As for the IC trains, if they're not bothered by each stop at each 3 main Brussels stations, an additional short stop at BRU won't make a difference.


At least 15 minutes extra, which is a lot for people who don't want to go there. And again, the train has to turn back for that.

I don't see it being that longer, maybe around 5 kilometers either way plus a short pit-stop. 10 minutes at best, and if they want to, they could decrease it to 7 minutes by keeping high speed limits and smashing the brakes a bit later and harder.

For Amsterdam-Brussels South and Antwerp-Charleroi, you just go Mechelen-BRU-Brussels North-Brussels South - continue to Charleroi.
For Oostende- Liege you go Brussels South - Brussels North - enter BRU from the north - continue straight to Leuven/Liège.

Wasn't that the whole point of Diabolo?

You're right, but is LH really expecting pax out of BRU to fly for instance to WAW with LH via FRA if there are directly flights with LOT (flew with LOT, they are more than just OK). Same for other European destinations

.

Not only, SN is much better positioned than FRA or MUC to serve North-South regional markets in the UK, Netherlands, LUX and France .
FRA and MUC are too much to the East to decently serve the rest of Western Europe, which is where the traffic is. This is also why they don't have a decent regional penetration in France nor the UK.

They now started RTM-MUC, to feed their long-haul network. But SN could still get into RTM for pax who need to connect to the South.

[Inquirer]

Brussels airlines is a Lufthansa subsidiary and so all of its plans must fit the bigger picture of its parent as well as its sister airlines: I don't think its shareholders are very interested in seeing Brussels airlines do what they are already doing through other airlines???

My take is that within the group, Lufthansa takes care of most of the european connections because they already have the network in place

You're right, but is LH really expecting pax out of BRU to fly for instance to WAW with LH via FRA if there are directly flights with LOT (flew with LOT, they are more than just OK). Same for other European destinations.

Well, believe it or not, but that is exactly what we are doing at work now!

We used to fly b.air to WAW and Lufthansa to the others through FRA on the same corporate contract, now we just go through FRA for everything; doing differently would be silly if you have hundreds of flights per month to book to Poland as we would have to review the contracts.

I think many aviation enthousiasts here have no clear view on what the really interesting bunch of passengers are to an airline like lufthansa or Brussels; its not their fault, because until I got the job I do now and literally spend half a workweek on board panes, I completely misread it too. IMHO, it's really not the (many) occasional and individual passengers flying in light that are going to keep a route like WAW open with a multiple daily frequency and the really interesting bunch of frequent flyers haven't all switched to LOT for sure either after the cancelation of the no stops there, because that doesn't fit their bigger picture either, which brings me back to the first remark: many fail to see the bigger picture and think too much 'just' Brussels and 'just'' individual passengers, whereas reality is we're talking a local branch of a multinational airline, aiming at serving the mobility needs of people working for other multinationals too, first of all. If you dont have a habbit of thinking from that perspective, things may look strange.

[JOVAN]

As a frequent flier, and GoldCard of Star Alliance, I do everything possible to avoid FRA.
After Paris CDG and London Heathrow , the most passenger-unfriendly airport in Europe.

For long haul, my choice is always via VIE or ZRH.

To fly to Warsaw from Belgium, I would definetely opt for CRL or DUS.

One would expect that in an "Alliance" the airlines work together, so give all flights to LOT if SN cannot compete .
I am sure that the interest and convenience of the PAX is no longer a priority at *A.

[Inquirer]

I think you are misguided if you think * is about giving passengers to each other!
Why would Brussels airlines hand passengers to LOT, rather than try to give them to Lufthansa for instance?
In my case, we got a visit from a sales team from Brussels/Lufthansa at the office, explaining WAW would be ended but replaced by connections through FRA and they also came up with a country package so to say for other routes we frequently visit in PL; that deal was much more compelling than flying LOT to WAW and connecting through there, so there you go. The bigger picture favours the bigger airline, which is not such a surprise. I am pretty sure they've done this at other strategic customers of theirs too and those are the ones that matter most.

[convair]

@ Inquirer

Your comparison with a multinational having factories in different countries is exactly to the point; so is your explanation of the wider picture.
Of course, we all want BRU to be connected with as many european cities as possible but realism must prevail for SN.

BTW, I saw on flightradar24 SN has restarted the Krakow flights (there is one today); I don't know if this is permanent or just temporary as I didn't see any announcement in this respect.

In Germany, some cities are never mentioned here, like Leipzig and Dresden; there is no LH to BRU from there and these 2 cities have a good number of people in their neighbourhood (about same size as Hannover I guess). However I have no idea about their business pax potential.

[JOVAN]

Well, a lot of non-strategic customers may look for more convenient and less time-consuming solutions.

Alliance should be about collaborating to give best possible service and solutions to customers, and try to keep competition out.

Will we have to fly to MAD, BCN, BIO, VCE, FCO via FRA. Maybe your strategic organization would accept; not the majority of individual customers.

Anyway, we know that LH will push for their interests first. We also know that there is a deep economical crisis, which obliges airlines to revise their timetables.

The Topic is about SN's EU network. And that is not really a good and convenient one.
If they cannot finetune their time-table in such a way that for instance a Passenger from Bilbao can easily and conveniently connect to (eg) Copenhagen, Gothenburg ... than they never survive in a competive world like the airline business. And their load factor will always remain at very low level.

Connecting 2nd tier cities with each other, and with capital cities, should be a good niche business of SN.
There is a fantastic airport for that at BRU.

If they wait for their long-haul network to save them, it will be too late.....

[sn26567]

So, if I understand well what corporate customers are saying above, SN has to relinquish its European destinations in favour of LH. And LH is doing all what it can to create an extensive European network of its own through which all the customers of their subsidiaries must travel.

This is a guaranteed recipe for failure. Remember Sabena under Swissair rule? In this way, SN will soon be void of any European connection (except for destinations with a very important O&D traffic, but even WAW, which has an O&D traffic justifying at least a daily flight, does not fall in this category!).

LH rules, and SN obeys. Full stop! Is that what we want?

[convair]

Yes, I'm afraid it is and will be the rule more and more. It is sad but we didn't see any belgian "entrepreneur" courageous or fool enough to invest in SN and make it an airline for which the decisions would be taken in Brussels!
It will be the job of SN management to come with good arguments and figures to persuade the LH boss for everything they want to do, on a case by case basis.
But LH management is not that stupid: if a proposition by SN makes sense (and cents) for the LH group as a whole, they will probably accept it.

[sn26567]

BTW, I saw on flightradar24 SN has restarted the Krakow flights (there is one today); I don't know if this is permanent or just temporary as I didn't see any announcement in this respect.

I have the same question. The flight number was a regular one (SN2547/8), not a charter number (SN1***), and the outbound flight was even codeshared with US5917.

A return to common sense?

[Inquirer]

@ Inquirer
Your comparison with a multinational having factories in different countries is exactly to the point; so is your explanation of the wider picture.
Of course, we all want BRU to be connected with as many european cities as possible but realism must prevail for SN.

Thank you.
I think that what I have come to explain is just common sense to anybody working for a multinational?
A multinational airline operating with several hubs is not much different from say a global car manufacturer or in fact any other multinational manufacturer of consumer products, IMHO.
Basicaly, once the multinational has determined there is a new market they want to enter because they see a certain opportunity, the next question is always going to be where to best base production?
And then a whole lot of internal issues and cost calculations will start to play, which will often also have an impact on other branches and activities of that multinational and most of the times the outcome of all that will mean the local plant next door is not going to be lucky even though it could technically accomodate that full production without problem, not because the multinational is stupid, but because the bigger picture isn't in favour of the local plant this time.

So, if I understand well what corporate customers are saying above, SN has to relinquish its European destinations in favour of LH. And LH is doing all what it can to create an extensive European network of its own through which all the customers of their subsidiaries must travel.

A multinational will always strive towards consolidation and simplification by making best use of its size. Let's take WAW/KRK as example to understand the game, since it is near to your hart, it seems.
How many people on that flight were actually starting or ending their journey in BRU? And how much did they pay on average? Enough the cover the full cost of the flight on their own, you think? Clearly not, or the flight wouldn't be axed, I am pretty sure.
For a stand alone airline it could have made sense to continue flying to WAW or KRK because thanks to the big number of connecting passengers those routes may (or may still not be) profitable, but in case of a multinational like Lufthansa, one should remember those connections can just as easily be routed through existing flights to say FRA or ZRH with the added benefit of consolidating the same connecting revenues over less flows and with less costs all while taking capacity off the market, thus likely also increasing prices.
So, seen from a higher persective than just BRU alone, the only loss from axing the BRU-WAW/KRK route are the point-to-point passengers which do not want to pass through FRA or ZRH and as I've experienced first hand the most lucrative ones have been taken care of through corporate contracts.
What I have explained above is a basic example of a huge benefit from consolidation only multinationals can come up with, which is why multinationals are slowly taking over the world, like it or not.

Does that mean all European flights from BRU need to move to FRA then?
If a route is profitable below the line, there's no need to move it and open the field to competitors, but if it isnt -like most likely WAW- then its far more easily cut than it was before because within the bigger picture, the loss is miminal and most likely offset by gains elsewhere.
Mind you: the pendulum also moves in the other way, with Lufthansa or other airlines from the group cutting flights/destinations in their schedules and letting the passengers on them route through BRU, but of course something like that is seen as 'normal', than when it happens the other way round.
I am sure people around here can come up with examples of routes which have been transferred from say Lufthansa or Swiss to Brussels or destinations where Swiss or Lufthansa have pulled out from to the benefit of Brussels which still operates there?

It is sad but we didn't see any belgian "entrepreneur" courageous or fool enough to invest in SN and make it an airline for which the decisions would be taken in Brussels!
It will be the job of SN management to come with good arguments and figures to persuade the LH boss for everything they want to do, on a case by case basis.
But LH management is not that stupid: if a proposition by SN makes sense (and cents) for the LH group as a whole, they will probably accept it.

Exactly; I don't have any figures either, but the way in which B.air managed to position itself commercially on the NYC market for instance is a good exemple of this: I don't think a little known airline like Brussels Airlines would have been able to achieve such a splash on its own at JFK, let alone chase away American.

From what I understand, the strategic targets for Brussels are set in Africa and yes, that means that Brussels won't likely get to fly to South America or to Asia nor will it be called upon to build a regional European network (as that is already largely in place at Lufthansa through FRA), which we all find a pitty I am sure, but then I am sure we all think it is perfectly normal that say Austrian Airlines or Swiss aren't venturing into emerging markets like Africa. Never wondered why they don't do so? The easy answer is they are just idiots too, but maybe, just maybe the more common sense answer is because the multinational has decided this niche isn't for them to cover and has given that to BRU.

I hope this quick and most certainly incomplete explanation helps to see what I mean when I say you better look at brussels airlines from a bigger picture, rather than consider just BRU alone.

[fcw]

Yes, I'm afraid it is and will be the rule more and more. It is sad but we didn't see any belgian "entrepreneur" courageous or fool enough to invest in SN and make it an airline for which the decisions would be taken in Brussels!.

BruAir was such a company until LH had to save it from bankruptcy twice.

@ Inquirer
Your comparison with a multinational having factories in different countries is exactly to the point; so is your explanation of the wider picture..

Spot on indeed Inquirer and you could make it even more clear by stating that unfortunately BruAir is the Opel Antwerp or Ford Genk of the LH group. Once LH found a solution for the BRU-AFI traffic they will probably dump BruAir

[convair]

Or the Audi Forest...It will all depends on its performance and on how well its management negotiates its place and role within the group.

SN would have needed enormous investments to make it truly independant, attractive and economically viable. If you had the nerve and resources to build a Swiss or KLM equivalent in BRU over just a few years, you might have a chance...Failing that we can abandon ourselves to nostalgia...

[RoMax]

SN will indeed have to fight for their place in the future. I'm quite sure about that. That's why it's SN's task to enforce their AFI network, that's the ONLY thing they can make a difference with. Europe, North-America or anything else can be done by LH or LX (I believe OS is not in a much stronger position than SN is).
We are still miles away from it, but maybe when there will be a time that Europe arranges all traffic rights with all African countries, instead of the current bilateral agreements, then it will be easier for LH to take over SN's flights to AFI. But only if they believe that's the better choice.
When you invest hundreds of millions in an airline/plant because of their importance in a fast growing market and you make sure they position themself against competitors like AF and they are doing this succesfully...than it isn't the most logical decision to just close a plant down and replace that production.

[convair]

Moreover, LH/SN leaving BRU would open the door to newcomers...

[sn26567]

It's SN's task to reinforce their AFI network, that's the ONLY thing they can make a difference with. Europe, North-America or anything else can be done by LH or LX (I believe OS is not in a much stronger position than SN is).

But how can SN reinforce its African network out of Brussels and make it viable in the long term if the feeding European network is dismantled or centred around FRA and MUC? If LH wants SN to be its spearhead to Africa, it must allow it to have a feeder network to Brussels. Nobody in Europe will want to fly to Africa if he has to stop in both FRA and BRU.