Brussels Airlines in 2020

[Boeing767copilot]

Yesterday FR24 showed a flight from SN from DUB to GVA. Are these charter flights for a Swiss or an Irish Tour operator?

Brussels Airlines is operating LX410/LX411 between BRU-GVA-BRU on behalf of Swiss.

It was a DUB-GVA flight.

[lucas]

Yesterday FR24 showed a flight from SN from DUB to GVA. Are these charter flights for a Swiss or an Irish Tour operator?

Brussels Airlines is operating LX410/LX411 between BRU-GVA-BRU on behalf of Swiss.

It was a DUB-GVA flight.

A little research on FR24 shows that it was OO-SSS operating LX410/LX411 GVA-DUB-GVA on behalf of Swiss.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/oo-sss

[Atlantis]

Didn't this route start as an evening flight, only to be moved to the morning after one season?

Clearly the suggestions to make it an evening flight by some above have thus been tested already and actually shown to be worse than flying at identical times as United!

I can understand the airport would prefer these flights to be spread out more evenly over the day of course, but sometimes customers have a clear preference for a certain time slot and airlines adapt to that.

BTW - The A++ joint venture between United and the Lufthansa Group is known to be quite comprehensive to the point they share all costs and revenues of all transatlantic flights, so then it really doesn't matter which of the 2 flights (i.e united or B.air) you take then and clearly United is fine with the timings too or they wouldn't be agreeing to the constant increase of additional capacity, would they?

It was a late afternoon flight.

I remind you about the evening flight to JFK in the time of Sabena. This was the most successful flight they had. It was all the time 100% booked.

A lot of those pax were pax who lost their connection somewhere in Europe. As SN was the only airline who offered a flight to JFK, after 7 pm, all those pax were transferred to BRU.

But remind you also that pax of JFK and IAD are different. We have now also an evening long haul wave to Africa, ME and Asia. An extra flight to the US can have extra transfer pax. The potential is there as we have the figures but SN will not do it bcs no plane and reboot

[nordikcam]

But remind you also that pax of JFK and IAD are different. We have now also an evening long haul wave to Africa, ME and Asia. An extra flight to the US can have extra transfer pax. The potential is there as we have the figures but SN will not do it bcs no plane and reboot

Finally, no big plan but simple small adjustments like the end of Turin or a code share with SU ... nothing revolutionary ..... will that be enough?

[Inquirer]

Didn't this route start as an evening flight, only to be moved to the morning after one season?

Clearly the suggestions to make it an evening flight by some above have thus been tested already and actually shown to be worse than flying at identical times as United!

I can understand the airport would prefer these flights to be spread out more evenly over the day of course, but sometimes customers have a clear preference for a certain time slot and airlines adapt to that.

BTW - The A++ joint venture between United and the Lufthansa Group is known to be quite comprehensive to the point they share all costs and revenues of all transatlantic flights, so then it really doesn't matter which of the 2 flights (i.e united or B.air) you take then and clearly United is fine with the timings too or they wouldn't be agreeing to the constant increase of additional capacity, would they?

It was a late afternoon flight.

I remind you about the evening flight to JFK in the time of Sabena. This was the most successful flight they had. It was all the time 100% booked.

A lot of those pax were pax who lost their connection somewhere in Europe. As SN was the only airline who offered a flight to JFK, after 7 pm, all those pax were transferred to BRU.

But remind you also that pax of JFK and IAD are different. We have now also an evening long haul wave to Africa, ME and Asia. An extra flight to the US can have extra transfer pax. The potential is there as we have the figures but SN will not do it bcs no plane and reboot

I have no access to any data to contest anything you say, just pointing out the obvious thing here: this second flight to Washington DC was an evening flight (late afternoon if you absolutely want it) and clearly wasn't very successful. It got rescheduled -with full agreement of United because of the A++ JV- to the same times as their flight and it has grown ever since, so clearly it's in a more suitable slot now then it used to be when it was an early evening flight: as such negatively commenting on that decision is quite rich.

Maybe times have changed and those EU to US evening 'clean up' flights are no longer so successful because of the multitude of rerouting options today vs almost 20 (!) years ago, or DC just isn't such a good destination for that compared to JFK as you say?

No idea really, but clearly the 'win' from an evening US flight for A++ isn't remotely as big as it is for BRU, or they would meanwhile have reactivated their aborted plan to offer an evening Newark flight from 2016.
IMHO, A++ meanwhile absorb the extra volume from such an evening flight successfully yet differently via morning flights with bigger planes? Nothing to do with B.air's reluctance, but simple economics of efficiency within the A++ Joint Venture.

I've said so before: If BRU wants things to move differently, it needs to help shape reality for those who actually fly the passenger flows... this means focus less on the bottom line itself and more on the quality of its revenue sources, because I agree opening up Belgium to the US by evening flights would be a good thing for our economy, but for that a change of shareholders of BRU is required, away form foreign pension and investment funds and towards Belgian shareholders with a strategic view on the importance of BRU as gateway to our country.

[Atlantis]

Didn't this route start as an evening flight, only to be moved to the morning after one season?

Clearly the suggestions to make it an evening flight by some above have thus been tested already and actually shown to be worse than flying at identical times as United!

I can understand the airport would prefer these flights to be spread out more evenly over the day of course, but sometimes customers have a clear preference for a certain time slot and airlines adapt to that.

BTW - The A++ joint venture between United and the Lufthansa Group is known to be quite comprehensive to the point they share all costs and revenues of all transatlantic flights, so then it really doesn't matter which of the 2 flights (i.e united or B.air) you take then and clearly United is fine with the timings too or they wouldn't be agreeing to the constant increase of additional capacity, would they?

It was a late afternoon flight.

I remind you about the evening flight to JFK in the time of Sabena. This was the most successful flight they had. It was all the time 100% booked.

A lot of those pax were pax who lost their connection somewhere in Europe. As SN was the only airline who offered a flight to JFK, after 7 pm, all those pax were transferred to BRU.

But remind you also that pax of JFK and IAD are different. We have now also an evening long haul wave to Africa, ME and Asia. An extra flight to the US can have extra transfer pax. The potential is there as we have the figures but SN will not do it bcs no plane and reboot

I have no access to any data to contest anything you say, just pointing out the obvious thing here: this second flight to Washington DC was an evening flight (late afternoon if you absolutely want it) and clearly wasn't very successful. It got rescheduled -with full agreement of United because of the A++ JV- to the same times as their flight and it has grown ever since, so clearly it's in a more suitable slot now then it used to be when it was an early evening flight: as such negatively commenting on that decision is quite rich.

Maybe times have changed and those EU to US evening 'clean up' flights are no longer so successful because of the multitude of rerouting options today vs almost 20 (!) years ago, or DC just isn't such a good destination for that compared to JFK as you say?

No idea really, but clearly the 'win' from an evening US flight for A++ isn't remotely as big as it is for BRU, or they would meanwhile have reactivated their aborted plan to offer an evening Newark flight from 2016.
IMHO, A++ meanwhile absorb the extra volume from such an evening flight successfully yet differently via morning flights with bigger planes? Nothing to do with B.air's reluctance, but simple economics of efficiency within the A++ Joint Venture.

I've said so before: If BRU wants things to move differently, it needs to help shape reality for those who actually fly the passenger flows... this means focus less on the bottom line itself and more on the quality of its revenue sources, because I agree opening up Belgium to the US by evening flights would be a good thing for our economy, but for that a change of shareholders of BRU is required, away form foreign pension and investment funds and towards Belgian shareholders with a strategic view on the importance of BRU as gateway to our country.

This last part you have to explain me bcs this makes no sense at all. What has the remove of shareholders to do to in extra flights to the US or in the benefit if BRU as a gateway??? You really want to go back to the ancient time that L. Van den Brande was CEO with the state as main shareholder??? My god, I can't believe.
My I also remind you that we have Belgian stare holders at BRU

A change of shareholders in again a national one, BTW national one are never investing like the foreign one, will not change anything if you will have more flights or not. Since the foreign one, we have much more Asian carriers, extra Canada flights, more African flights (Rwandair), etc

[JOVAN]

It was a late afternoon flight.

I remind you about the evening flight to JFK in the time of Sabena. This was the most successful flight they had. It was all the time 100% booked.

A lot of those pax were pax who lost their connection somewhere in Europe. As SN was the only airline who offered a flight to JFK, after 7 pm, all those pax were transferred to BRU.

But remind you also that pax of JFK and IAD are different. We have now also an evening long haul wave to Africa, ME and Asia. An extra flight to the US can have extra transfer pax. The potential is there as we have the figures but SN will not do it bcs no plane and reboot

I have no access to any data to contest anything you say, just pointing out the obvious thing here: this second flight to Washington DC was an evening flight (late afternoon if you absolutely want it) and clearly wasn't very successful. It got rescheduled -with full agreement of United because of the A++ JV- to the same times as their flight and it has grown ever since, so clearly it's in a more suitable slot now then it used to be when it was an early evening flight: as such negatively commenting on that decision is quite rich.

Maybe times have changed and those EU to US evening 'clean up' flights are no longer so successful because of the multitude of rerouting options today vs almost 20 (!) years ago, or DC just isn't such a good destination for that compared to JFK as you say?

No idea really, but clearly the 'win' from an evening US flight for A++ isn't remotely as big as it is for BRU, or they would meanwhile have reactivated their aborted plan to offer an evening Newark flight from 2016.
IMHO, A++ meanwhile absorb the extra volume from such an evening flight successfully yet differently via morning flights with bigger planes? Nothing to do with B.air's reluctance, but simple economics of efficiency within the A++ Joint Venture.

I've said so before: If BRU wants things to move differently, it needs to help shape reality for those who actually fly the passenger flows... this means focus less on the bottom line itself and more on the quality of its revenue sources, because I agree opening up Belgium to the US by evening flights would be a good thing for our economy, but for that a change of shareholders of BRU is required, away form foreign pension and investment funds and towards Belgian shareholders with a strategic view on the importance of BRU as gateway to our country.

This last part you have to explain me bcs this makes no sense at all. What has the remove of shareholders to do to in extra flights to the US or in the benefit if BRU as a gateway??? You really want to go back to the ancient time that L. Van den Brande was CEO with the state as main shareholder??? My god, I can't believe.
My I also remind you that we have Belgian stare holders at BRU

A change of shareholders in again a national one, BTW national one are never investing like the foreign one, will not change anything if you will have more flights or not. Since the foreign one, we have much more Asian carriers, extra Canada flights, more African flights (Rwandair), etc

Dear Atlantis, as a passenger and aviation enthusiast, I must also express my disappointment with your BRU-Shareholders.
Of course we all know that our own politicians have no clue about aviation, and they only see BRU as a very good paying fin-de-carriere job. VdBrande, Vd Bossche, Scheemakers are examples.
But the slow speed at which things now happen and change, a very obsolete airport in the center of Europe, and the overall low consideration for PAX (extreme long queues and waiting times), make me feel very pessimistic.

A new worldwide economic & political crisis is coming, so there is a good chance that all the new Asian airlines (NH, TG, SQ, CX,..) will cut BRU first in their network, when times really will get bad.

Not enough money goes to the modernization of the airport.
BRU is a big money-machine for the Shareholders only.

[Atlantis]

I have no access to any data to contest anything you say, just pointing out the obvious thing here: this second flight to Washington DC was an evening flight (late afternoon if you absolutely want it) and clearly wasn't very successful. It got rescheduled -with full agreement of United because of the A++ JV- to the same times as their flight and it has grown ever since, so clearly it's in a more suitable slot now then it used to be when it was an early evening flight: as such negatively commenting on that decision is quite rich.

Maybe times have changed and those EU to US evening 'clean up' flights are no longer so successful because of the multitude of rerouting options today vs almost 20 (!) years ago, or DC just isn't such a good destination for that compared to JFK as you say?

No idea really, but clearly the 'win' from an evening US flight for A++ isn't remotely as big as it is for BRU, or they would meanwhile have reactivated their aborted plan to offer an evening Newark flight from 2016.
IMHO, A++ meanwhile absorb the extra volume from such an evening flight successfully yet differently via morning flights with bigger planes? Nothing to do with B.air's reluctance, but simple economics of efficiency within the A++ Joint Venture.

I've said so before: If BRU wants things to move differently, it needs to help shape reality for those who actually fly the passenger flows... this means focus less on the bottom line itself and more on the quality of its revenue sources, because I agree opening up Belgium to the US by evening flights would be a good thing for our economy, but for that a change of shareholders of BRU is required, away form foreign pension and investment funds and towards Belgian shareholders with a strategic view on the importance of BRU as gateway to our country.

This last part you have to explain me bcs this makes no sense at all. What has the remove of shareholders to do to in extra flights to the US or in the benefit if BRU as a gateway??? You really want to go back to the ancient time that L. Van den Brande was CEO with the state as main shareholder??? My god, I can't believe.
My I also remind you that we have Belgian stare holders at BRU

A change of shareholders in again a national one, BTW national one are never investing like the foreign one, will not change anything if you will have more flights or not. Since the foreign one, we have much more Asian carriers, extra Canada flights, more African flights (Rwandair), etc

Dear Atlantis, as a passenger and aviation enthusiast, I must also express my disappointment with your BRU-Shareholders.
Of course we all know that our own politicians have no clue about aviation, and they only see BRU as a very good paying fin-de-carriere job. VdBrande, Vd Bossche, Scheemakers are examples.
But the slow speed at which things now happen and change, a very obsolete airport in the center of Europe, and the overall low consideration for PAX (extreme long queues and waiting times), make me feel very pessimistic.

A new worldwide economic & political crisis is coming, so there is a good chance that all the new Asian airlines (NH, TG, SQ, CX,..) will cut BRU first in their network, when times really will get bad.

Not enough money goes to the modernization of the airport.
BRU is a big money-machine for the Shareholders only.

Give me some facts that NH or TG would leave BRU, they are doing very well and even upgrading the service to BRU.
Let us be honest too that the economists are very bad in predicting a financial crisis. We have already more then enough examples of that which never happened what they predicted

Lots of people still don't get it that to have the new A Pier West, prolong the runway, new terminal needs masterplanning. Do you know how long it takes in Belgium?

[Conti764]

This last part you have to explain me bcs this makes no sense at all. What has the remove of shareholders to do to in extra flights to the US or in the benefit if BRU as a gateway??? You really want to go back to the ancient time that L. Van den Brande was CEO with the state as main shareholder??? My god, I can't believe.
My I also remind you that we have Belgian stare holders at BRU

A change of shareholders in again a national one, BTW national one are never investing like the foreign one, will not change anything if you will have more flights or not. Since the foreign one, we have much more Asian carriers, extra Canada flights, more African flights (Rwandair), etc

Dear Atlantis, as a passenger and aviation enthusiast, I must also express my disappointment with your BRU-Shareholders.
Of course we all know that our own politicians have no clue about aviation, and they only see BRU as a very good paying fin-de-carriere job. VdBrande, Vd Bossche, Scheemakers are examples.
But the slow speed at which things now happen and change, a very obsolete airport in the center of Europe, and the overall low consideration for PAX (extreme long queues and waiting times), make me feel very pessimistic.

A new worldwide economic & political crisis is coming, so there is a good chance that all the new Asian airlines (NH, TG, SQ, CX,..) will cut BRU first in their network, when times really will get bad.

Not enough money goes to the modernization of the airport.
BRU is a big money-machine for the Shareholders only.

Give me some facts that NH or TG would leave BRU, they are doing very well and even upgrading the service to BRU.
Let us be honest too that the economists are very bad in predicting a financial crisis. We have already more then enough examples of that which never happened what they predicted

Lots of people still don't get it that to have the new A Pier West, prolong the runway, new terminal needs masterplanning. Do you know how long it takes in Belgium?

I too wonder where this obsession with 'TG is going to/might axe BRU' is coming from... It's BRU's nineth busiest international destination, having a healthy 140k passengers a year...

[Inquirer]

I've said so before: If BRU wants things to move differently, it needs to help shape reality for those who actually fly the passenger flows... this means focus less on the bottom line itself and more on the quality of its revenue sources, because I agree opening up Belgium to the US by evening flights would be a good thing for our economy, but for that a change of shareholders of BRU might be required, away form foreign pension and investment funds and towards Belgian shareholders with a strategic view on the importance of BRU as gateway to our country.

This last part you have to explain me bcs this makes no sense at all. What has the remove of shareholders to do to in extra flights to the US or in the benefit if BRU as a gateway???

Let me assure you I don't want to go back to the 1990s with an airport run by the ministery of transport, but let me explain the issue BRU has... maybe it will open your eyes a bit more then…

BRU is currently just an asset in the portfolio of foreign equity companies, who's strategic aims are to simply maximize profits on their assents. Period.
That's perfectly normal, but also meaning that all of BRU's actions are bottom line driven.
Anything that adds to the bottom line clearly is taken in as we've seen over the past few years, even if it locks the airport into a certain situation and prevents future growth by established customers.
There's just no consideration whatsoever for any macro-economic consequences to the country's economy.
I've told you several times already, but you either simply deny it, avoid to discuss it, or claim it is impossible to prevent, but the unstoppable desire of BRU to attract low cost airlines (be it vueling, wizzair or transavia) which simply compete with the home based network carrier here under discussion makes it increasingly difficult for that network carrier to support an intercontinental network you so much like and would ideally see grow. Something I've brought to your attention Austrian's CEO has also publically signalled to Vienna airport, where the shareholders structure is more receptive to this message than at BRU, reason why B.air hasn't even bothered sending out an identical message IMHO.

Compare that to some of the other airports around us:
- owned by holding groups composed of town, region and/or country as well as other insitutional investors, all of which also take into account the bigger picture of the wider economy when taking decisions;
- co-owners of smaller satellite airports, thus allowing them to be strategically smarter by steering competing passenger flows away from their main airport and spreading their customer base over their portfolio of airports, thus preventing too much interferance with their main customers while still reaping fruits from new market segments like low costs at the same time.

In this view, the fact the PMV recently bought into BRU (albeit for just 1,8%) is a good first move!
https://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/luchtvaa ... 88598.html
It's something that need to be increased on, IMHO.
Another much needed move would be the merger of CRL and BRU under one holding structure so this ridiculous intra-Belgian competition is finally stopped, because the sole beneficiaries of it are foreign shareholders and dito airlines really.

[JOVAN]

Let me assure you I don't want to go back to the 1990s with an airport run by the ministery of transport, but let me explain the issue BRU has... maybe it will open your eyes a bit more then…

BRU is currently just an asset in the portfolio of foreign equity companies, who's strategic aims are to simply maximize profits on their assents. Period.
That's perfectly normal, but also meaning that all of BRU's actions are bottom line driven.
Anything that adds to the bottom line clearly is taken in as we've seen over the past few years, even if it locks the airport into a certain situation and prevents future growth by established customers.
There's just no consideration whatsoever for any macro-economic consequences to the country's economy.

Indeed this is the situation.
I work in a company where exactly the same happens, everything for the Shareholders and the top managers-bonus.
Short term decisions,poor knowledge of the market, low repect for the customers... Quick bucks.
NOT Future-oriented. Will see what happens.

[HQ_BRU_Lover]

I work in a company where exactly the same happens, everything for the Shareholders and the top managers-bonus.
Short term decisions,poor knowledge of the market, low repect for the customers... Quick bucks.
NOT Future-oriented. Will see what happens.

Off-topic but this looks soooooo familiar

[CTBke]

It appears OO-SNG left the fleet , also part of the cost saving project and decreased flights?
https://sites.google.com/site/lhgroupfleet/brussels

[TLspotting]

It appears OO-SNG left the fleet , also part of the cost saving project and decreased flights?
https://sites.google.com/site/lhgroupfleet/brussels

To be registered as OK-HEU at CSA Czech, new "owner" of the aircraft.

[CTBke]

It appears OO-SNG left the fleet , also part of the cost saving project and decreased flights?
https://sites.google.com/site/lhgroupfleet/brussels

To be registered as OK-HEU at CSA Czech, new "owner" of the aircraft.

thanks

[brusselsairlinesfan]

Now official : the LOOP loyalty program is over...

[SLM]

What's next? OO-SNG left, the LOOP loyalty program is over, the name of Brussels Airlines?

[lumumba]

Are there still A330-300 with seats from other airlines in Business?

[sn26567]

Is SN going to get the A321LR ?

Not so long ago, I asked the question to Christina Foerster. She answered, "I would like to buy it, but I don't have the money." Case closed!

[jan_olieslagers]

... "but I found myself unable to convince my bosses/shareholders" ? That would indeed close HER case!