Aviation24.be

SNB had a significant bird strike about two weeks ago, hence the long AOG.

sn26567 wrote: ↑08 Feb 2020, 15:02

tangolima wrote: ↑08 Feb 2020, 11:27 2000-xxxx ETR A343 9HSOL EBMB

I guess it got back its engines

I have a feeling you’re either thinking of 9H-JAI or 9H-FOX.
9H-SOL has been quite active the last few days.

There's a difference between a flight number and a callsign. Attribution of flight numbers is quite easy, it's an internal process only, provided you don't need matching callsigns (eg. KF5965 could be "Air Belgium 13K" for ATC purposes.). If you want them to match, it is quite a convoluted...

That could be the case, but not in this instance, where passengers have to go into quarantine as soon as they step off the plane.
Only EBMB is suitable for that kind of procedure. Hence, no A380.

Whatever aircraft type it will be, it won’t be an A380. Like I said before, EBMB is not capable of accommodating an A380, and for this particular flight, EBMB is the only option.

EBMB is not suitable for the A380, don’t expect it to come to Brussels, since the pax in question will have to be offloaded at EBMB.

I have my doubts about 9H-MIP making it to BRU. According to FR24, it's still in CDG now. Ferrying it to Wuhan, loading all passengers etc., flying back to BRU, I don't see all of that happening in 24 hours.
Other sources talk about an A320, quite a significant "downgrade".

Even then, BRU had 100.000 more flight movements 20 years ago. Hard to imagine they have to refuse slots now unless it's for very specific timings. Suffice to say traffic is being handled and predicted quite differently today when compared to the way things were done 20 years ago. Bot in planning a...

I’d say it’s quite obvious Lumumba didn’t intend that interpretation of his question.

Slots at BRU could be refused for Summer 2020, since 25R will be closed during July & August, resulting in a significant loss of capacity for the airport.
As a preventative measure, some slots might be refused. I couldn’t tell you whether that’s actually the case here or not.

With the same caveat as mentioned before: a NOTAM can be pulled (cancelled) in a matter of minutes, so this extensions doesn’t really mean anything in terms of an expectation.

The only possible case of wake turbulence would be the Iberia aircraft going around on runway heading and not climbing above the wake of the 747. There’s a rather small chance of this happening, since a twin-engine aircraft is always going to have a lot more power in reserve than a quad. That being ...

I guess anything is possible, if you put the right amount of money on the table. Sometimes, it just makes sense to have a third party do some modifications. EIN may have some special wishes in terms of integration or whatnot which could make the modification hideously expensive if done by Airbus, bu...

It’s been a long time since I’ve had my last experience with the Moroccan side of their operation, but the last time I did, crew composition was mixed. Usually one BE pilot and one local pilot, or a full BE flight deck. Cabin crew was mixed as well, usually one BE CCM and two or three, dependant on ...

Correct. AUA3EM diverted as well.

Isn’t there a difference in configuration between JDL and LOE?

As far as I know, an RNAV approach is still not published for both the 07 runways, I could be wrong though.

RWY 07L is not equipped with an ILS, it’s a VOR/DME approach.

None of those stands had double boarding bridges in the past, I feel like you’re thinking of 233. That stand is A380 capable, with double bridges. Whether or not double bridges will be installed, I have no clue, but I do think others on this forum might.

Correct. 237,238 and 240 will all get new boarding bridges in the coming months.
Whether other works are planned at those stands as well, I have no idea.