Why doesn't SNBA fly from regional Belgian airports

A forum to discuss all aviation items (not for latest aviation news and military aviation news)

Moderator: Latest news team

Post Reply
User avatar
Captain
Posts: 515
Joined: 09 Oct 2003, 00:00

Why doesn't SNBA fly from regional Belgian airports

Post by Captain »

I know Belgium is relatively small so most people can drive to BRU within 30-90min's. But why don't SNBA have a few flights from Bierset or Antwerp i.e business routes (London City, Geneva, Frankfurt) or a weekly flight to popular holiday destinations (Malaga, Tenerife, ...)

I know VLM or Thomas Cook offer flights from these airports but why doesn't the national flag carrier try to increase their market share with their Avro's?

Captain

waldova
Posts: 731
Joined: 21 Aug 2004, 00:00

Post by waldova »

First of all SN Brussels airlines doesn't have the capacity to do flights from these airports.

Also I think it will not be usefull in accordence with passengers who want to make connections flights. Therefore I think it is just easier for SN brussels Airlines to stay only in Brussels.
If they would fly from these airports I think it would only be for charter flights.

HorsePower
Posts: 1589
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 00:00
Location: France

Post by HorsePower »

VLM main base is London city airport, so it's easier for them to open a new route to a regional belgian airport. SNBA works with a hub, so they can't connect people from regional airports. Recently, KLM tried to break the VLM monopole on LCY-RTM. They are going to discontinue the route because it's not profitable (VLM are damn cheaper).

Hope this help.

Seb.

User avatar
Atlantis
Posts: 4934
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 00:00

Post by Atlantis »

It's also financial not healthy. Crews are longer in function, you have to drive the crews to those airports and back.
SNBA offers also a lot of connections, so not a good plan.

koninckske
Posts: 167
Joined: 25 Mar 2004, 00:00

Post by koninckske »

There could be a market for flights from Antwerp, because there are lots of business people over here. The real problem is the short runway - only 1510m - this makes it hard for operations in all weather.

Unfortunately the Flemish government did not invest in SN after the bankruptcy of Sabena and that is the reason we lost even the training flights of the AVRO.

But in general, I really do not think that SN is interested in expanding outside Brussels.

User avatar
Atlantis
Posts: 4934
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 00:00

Post by Atlantis »

Let's stay with the facts.

They have first solved the problems at BRU. They have to that before October 15, 2005. Will there be an airport or not? What after 2008, will there still be a Belgium airline or not? If you don't know what I mean about this sentence you have to read the comments of the Solvay Business School, they have investigate the economical situation around the airport especially after 2008. That's the problem at this moment. When everything is ok, then you can speculate. But I think with the current Board of SNBA and the shareholders I don't have the feeling that they will move a lot.

User avatar
Captain
Posts: 515
Joined: 09 Oct 2003, 00:00

Post by Captain »

Thanks everyone for your comments. I guess SNBA better concentrate on BRU, it does make more financial sense as even though they are profitable they are still a new airline born from the ashes of Sabena.

I wish them all the best for the future and hope they continue to expand and take a few more long-haul planes on-board.

Captain

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 40828
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Post by sn26567 »

I remember once departing from Heathrow in the 70es and seeing four Sabena planes next to each other, with respective destinations BRU, ANR, LGG and CRL. Impressive! But I guess it was also an awful waste of money...
André
ex Sabena #26567

User avatar
an-148
Posts: 510
Joined: 08 Jan 2005, 00:00
Location: LGG/XHN

Post by an-148 »

Taking in account the merger between SN and VEX, it could be interesting for them to continue to concentrate and expand SN in BRU (and not cancel destinations like now, because VEX is cheaper on the same destination: i.e.Nice) and having VEX leaving BRU and concentrate on OST, LGG, ANR, CRL (and even Wevelgem: ILS mandatory!) swiching to 70/110 pax aircraft.

User avatar
an-148
Posts: 510
Joined: 08 Jan 2005, 00:00
Location: LGG/XHN

Post by an-148 »

I agree with you: it's a low cost carrier and just THEREFORE I developped this idea !!!!!!!!!!
Let the mainhub to SN and use LC airports for LCC: that has absolutely nothing to do with Regional carriers!
I know about the localizer therefore I mentionned:ILS mandatory!!
Additionnally, I know also that ANR is not very good to accept present VEX planes: I evoqued the possibility of ANR in case of switch of fleet!
Posts like my first one remain short: it is intebded to evoque one point of view and provoque reflexion about the idea not to go deep into realisation: would need a complete business plan which is not the purpose of the forum.

b-west

Post by b-west »

Anybody ever been to Wevelgem? The airport is right in the middle of a densely populated area... people are already complaining about cessna's flying overhead, heck, they even complain about gliders! Imagine what they'd do if an Avro or a 737 would land there on a daily basis!

OO-VEX
Posts: 519
Joined: 09 Mar 2003, 00:00
Location: Zaventem, Belgium

Post by OO-VEX »

an-148 wrote:Taking in account the merger between SN and VEX, it could be interesting for them to continue to concentrate and expand SN in BRU (and not cancel destinations like now, because VEX is cheaper on the same destination: i.e.Nice) and having VEX leaving BRU and concentrate on OST, LGG, ANR, CRL (and even Wevelgem: ILS mandatory!) swiching to 70/110 pax aircraft.
This idea won't work.
SN and VEX are now part of the same mother company, not only to decrease the competition between both carriers but especially to reduce the costs.
You are probably right when you say that airport taxes will be cheaper in regional airports compared to BRU, but that is only 1 thing. Relocating VEX to the other 5 airports would mean that VEX will be operational at 5 instead of 1 airport in Belgium, resulting in increased costs to have your own staff at each airport. All kind of services like maintenance,... are now available at 1 airport, this is the cheapest possibility.
I believe that all these increased costs will exceed the cost reduction coming from cheaper airport taxes.

Even Ryanair as an LCC wasn't able to keep operations at OST and CRL.

And like I said before, the aim of the merger is to reduce costs. 1 big company instead of 2 smaller means that you can try to reach economies of scale. E.g. negotiating a handling contract for a bigger airline, means you are in a stronger position to negotiate and ask for lower prices, another example is a reduction you can receive by ordering in larger quantities.

OO-VEX

FlightSimCrew
Posts: 203
Joined: 08 Aug 2003, 00:00
Location: Belgium

Post by FlightSimCrew »

70/110 seating aircraft for VEX our out of the question, lcc are only profitable at high loads because they maximalize the cost advantage of a 737 over a regional jet as from 100-130 seats sold... the seat cost of the regional jets is too high for a real LCC airline.
Orders from other lcc such as jetblue are though justified because they operate much smaller sector length thus reducing the flight costs and allowing small jet operations. If all major destinations would be within 1h30 flight a small jet would be justified.

User avatar
an-148
Posts: 510
Joined: 08 Jan 2005, 00:00
Location: LGG/XHN

Post by an-148 »

How is Flybe managing this kind of fleet than?

User avatar
an-148
Posts: 510
Joined: 08 Jan 2005, 00:00
Location: LGG/XHN

Post by an-148 »

Additionnally, I would like to underline that there are more LCC companies going bankrupcy in the B737 and A320 series segment than in the lower segment (Ryanair is the demonstration of an exception, not the reference to be necessarily considered when evocating LCC!) Companies like Flybe, Aer Arann, Intersky, VLM, and others show that LCC is possible with smaller units. Main lesson from this is: don't switch too early to jets, keep props until 1000 nm or 80 pax, than its possible!
A Dash8-400 welcomes 78 pax in silence, with a few minutes blocktime difference at CONSIDERABLE lower costs than equivalent jets.
Like I said earlyer, it would need a whole businessplan to explain the ooportunity of the move to the outer airports.
Also, when I evoque the five POSSIBLE airports for it, I didn't say that all of them have to be used simultaneously from the first date on: look at the way Flybe or Germanwings implement carefully step by step new hubs .

User avatar
an-148
Posts: 510
Joined: 08 Jan 2005, 00:00
Location: LGG/XHN

Post by an-148 »

Simply have a look to the list below:
http://www.attitudetravel.com/lowcostairlines/europe/

Post Reply