Brussels Airlines fleet renewal: announcement next summer.

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

LX-LGX
Posts: 2004
Joined: 20 Jan 2004, 00:00
Location: ANR

Post by LX-LGX »

peacemaker wrote:Embraer would be a good choice i think, on their website they say the 170 has brake even with 51% of the seats, but this also depends on how long the flight is.
It is yield management from the carrier, and only they, who decides on the break even point, as they set the ticket price. The manufacturer doens't even know if a ticket costs 50 euro or 250 euro.

LX-LGX
Posts: 2004
Joined: 20 Jan 2004, 00:00
Location: ANR

Post by LX-LGX »

Cartman wrote:99% of the passengers don't give crap about the type of aircraft. Ticketprice, frequent flyer miles, schedules and passenger service are important. All the rest is for aviation enthousiasts since the average passenger doesn't know the difference between a 738, a 319 or a E175. If you book on the website, you don't even see the type of aicraft you're flying with; and the question 'what type of bird is it?' is seldom heard in travel agencies. As long as comfort and safety records are OK, people are happy...
The average passenger boarding Brussels Airlines scheduled flight is different from the one boarding a Jetairfly or MNG Airlines charter. Passengers from b.flex and b.light do know Brussels Airlines' fleet, and they trust it. Will they still trust the fleet, if Brussels Airlines adds Russian planes to it? Most here say yes, but I disagree.

Desert Rat
Posts: 1147
Joined: 08 May 2007, 09:38

Post by Desert Rat »

blackhawk wrote:
Also: Leibherr Aerospace, based in Toulouse, and the Voscod Design Centre in Russia are responsible for the RRJ's flight control system. Leibherr is also developing the air control and conditioning system.

and also: B/E Aerospace in Florida has designed the cabin layouts including the sidewall and ceiling configurations, baggage bins, passenger service panels, reading lights, crew and passenger oxygen systems, seats, services and cabin management systems.
CFMI will be part of the project as well, with the fly test to be done in Moscow and the FAL in some remote place on the pacific coast of Russia, far away from everything....

User avatar
fokker_f27
Posts: 1812
Joined: 19 Nov 2005, 00:00
Location: Weerde, Zemst - Belgium

Post by fokker_f27 »

I think the main aircraft they'd want to replace are the 737 classics and the aging chickens. I also think the Embraer E-jets will be likely to replace the Avros. Although Sukhoi jets may be nice, I don't think we'll see them in the SN fleet. The 737s, I don't know, maybe replaced with 73Gs or A320 series aircraft.
The most sexy girl in the sky: The Sud-Est Caravelle 12.

teddybAIR
Posts: 1613
Joined: 02 Mar 2004, 00:00
Location: Steenokkerzeel
Contact:

Post by teddybAIR »

I wonder why airlines have extensive decision making units with a mix of financial analists, engineers, cabin crew representatives, etc. for this type of choices...this website seems to be crowded with "experts" who seem to know which aircraft an airline should choose.

Be real people! The choice of aircraft is an excercice that is specific for every different airline depending on numerous factors (loadfactor, strategy, delivery slots, break-even points,...)

If you state that aircraft 'A' would be a better choice than aircraft 'B', then please motivate your answer with relevant arguments related to this specific example of SN Brussels airlines, and not generic expressions such as "A is more economical than B"...is it really? Doesn't this depend on the average route length, loadfactors, crew composistion, weather conditions, airport landing fees,...?

On a side note: I'm very happy to hear that Brussels Airlines is considering a fleet renewal and am very curious, but it will probably be another year, before we have more news, instead of speculations.

Best regards

User avatar
Avro
Posts: 8865
Joined: 28 Apr 2003, 00:00
Location: Belgium

Post by Avro »

teddybAIR wrote: Be real people! The choice of aircraft is an excercice that is specific for every different airline depending on numerous factors (loadfactor, strategy, delivery slots, break-even points,...)

If you state that aircraft 'A' would be a better choice than aircraft 'B', then please motivate your answer with relevant arguments related to this specific example of SN Brussels airlines, and not generic expressions such as "A is more economical than B"...is it really? Doesn't this depend on the average route length, loadfactors, crew composistion, weather conditions, airport landing fees,...?
Very well said !!! It's of no use to make speculations!! SN will choose the planes which best fits their needs that's all. Whether it be Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier of even Sukhoi... We will see ;) only 12 months to wait :p

Chris

User avatar
MiStEr-T
Posts: 170
Joined: 31 Dec 2002, 00:00
Location: Waterloo, Belgium

Post by MiStEr-T »

I think it can be a good decision to move the entire 737classic fleet to the Mauritius based African sub.

User avatar
JAF-195
Posts: 59
Joined: 30 Jan 2007, 13:37
Location: Waterloo

Post by JAF-195 »

I know a lot of people who don't know very much about aviation, but when they see a russian plane they simple don't feel comfortable. Therefore, I don't think BruAir should choose russian airplanes.

I think they will replace the old 737 with airbus A320 or A321, because it's a european constructor, remember that Sabena only bought airbus at the end, and I think BruAir will choose to "continue" that way, even though I really like the B737-800W
Fly Belgian!

User avatar
Tommypilot
Posts: 375
Joined: 22 Mar 2003, 00:00
Location: Near Brussels
Contact:

Post by Tommypilot »

JAF-195 wrote:I know a lot of people who don't know very much about aviation, but when they see a russian plane they simple don't feel comfortable. Therefore, I don't think BruAir should choose russian airplanes.
More and more business people are travelling to Russia at our office and untill now I have almost never heard the question "is it safe to fly with Russian aircraft"? When I tell they are going to fly with Aeroflot most of them say "ok no problem". When I tell they are going to fly with Brussels Airlines...then I have to explain the fact why they don't have the choice of bflex and blight anymore... :lol:

It all depends on maintenance, pilot trainings, ... imho...
Tommy
The word "impossible" is not in my dictionary! - Napoleon Bonaparte

airazurxtror
Posts: 3789
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 00:00

Post by airazurxtror »

JAF-195 wrote:
I think they will replace the old 737 with airbus A320 or A321, because it's a european constructor
As says teddybAIR, no need to have extensive decision making units, with financial analysts, engineers and so on , if an European airline automatically must buy European aircraft...

FLY4HOURS.BE
Posts: 458
Joined: 01 May 2007, 22:13
Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Post by FLY4HOURS.BE »

Embraer would be a good choice i think, on their website they say the 170 has brake even with 51% of the seats, but this also depends on how long the flight is
And from how much you rip your customers :wink:

Antonov-148 is an option as well and it pretty much looks like an Avro with 2 engines. The only issue there will be are the Ukraine-made engines which are not as efficient as GE's used on E-170's. Otherwise pax capacity and range is pretty much the same.
Antonov themselves claim that this model has 25% lower direct operating costs compared to an E-170!!

I've seen one today in Paris, it's an ugly bird :?


Another interesting option might be the ATR-72. I like the bird, it's beautiful, comfortable, quiet, environment-friendly, very fuel-efficient, very reliable.
The issues?
-Limited range: 920Nm (1700Km) (which is enough for most of the SN's European destinations, they can keep the A319's for the far destinations.)
-Limited speed: 270 Kts (510Km/h), which means they will not be able to operate as many flights per day as the AVRO, but the efficiency will cover it: It is way easier to fill an ATR-72 of a capacity of 70 pax than an Avro with a capacity of 90 pax. And an ATR is a twin-engine turbo-prop, which is way cheaper to maintain and way cheaper to fly.
[/list]
Fly4hours, making the path to airline pilot affordable to all

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

Post by an-148 »

present an-148-100 can handle up to 80 pax; projected extended versions can go up 100pax (148-200) or even 120 (148-300)
on the website of AN, they propose "west-engines" if desired, but for the rest, it's a very modern aircraft: fly-by-wire, glass cockpit, etc..
IMHO, that plane should really be taken in consideration by western operators: the ratio costs-quality must be very favourable!!!!

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

Post by an-148 »

on the other hand, turboprops are much more respectuous of nature than ANY jet, so a combination of efficient t'props (ATR72 or Dash400) with an intelligent jet like an-148 would make economic sense!

(not always copy others, sometimes individuality pays out)

User avatar
Gliderpilot
Posts: 159
Joined: 14 Jun 2007, 11:56
Contact:

Post by Gliderpilot »

FLY4HOURS.BE wrote:Another interesting option might be the ATR-72. I like the bird, it's beautiful, comfortable, quiet, environment-friendly, very fuel-efficient, very reliable.
The issues?
-Limited range: 920Nm (1700Km) (which is enough for most of the SN's European destinations, they can keep the A319's for the far destinations.)
-Limited speed: 270 Kts (510Km/h), which means they will not be able to operate as many flights per day as the AVRO, but the efficiency will cover it: It is way easier to fill an ATR-72 of a capacity of 70 pax than an Avro with a capacity of 90 pax. And an ATR is a twin-engine turbo-prop, which is way cheaper to maintain and way cheaper to fly.
[/list]
So if they would go turboprop, they seriously have to consider the Q400. It has some nice advantages over the ATR72: range: 2500km, cruise: 360 knots, that's 90 knots faster than the ATR72.
According to their website, it does a 300nm trip at the same time a RJ85 would do. (and I think it has a far lower operational cost than RJ85's...)
Image
So a perfect replacement for the RJ85 that SN has, isn't it?

(I'm actually not really a proponent for tubroprops in SN's fleet, but Q400 could do a great job for the smaller routes.)

Darjeeling
Posts: 256
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 10:13

Post by Darjeeling »

It's certainly not by buying Russian Jets, whatsoever the Boeing input might be, that SN will improve its image when serious competitors come in BRU with brand new 73G, E-Jets and of course A320 series.
They need the Embraers 170-195 to replace the ageing Avros and 146. The Avros are like Rovers and Jaguars they are not ageing so well as the Boeings. I hope they'll make a clever choice and not a cheap and "it has to cost nothing" choice.

FLY4HOURS.BE
Posts: 458
Joined: 01 May 2007, 22:13
Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Post by FLY4HOURS.BE »

Yeah the Bombardier Q400 is a beauty too, looks pretty similar to the ATR-72, has nearly the same aft design, only a slightly different wing and nose and more powerful powerplants.
Each engine of the ATR-72 develops 1800kW while that becomes 3800kW for the Q400.
That means the Q400 will consume alot more fuel to fly the same distance.
Then, it is about calculations.
Is it cheaper to operate a very economic but slow aircraft or is it better to operate a less economic but still very efficient (much more efficient than the Bae's) flying a couple of legs more a day?
Note that the Q400 has also a higher list price, which means that for the same budget one can buy more ATR's to compensate its "slow" aspect.
Fly4hours, making the path to airline pilot affordable to all

FLY4HOURS.BE
Posts: 458
Joined: 01 May 2007, 22:13
Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Post by FLY4HOURS.BE »

I would take turbo-props. At the very least people from Zaventem-area will welcome these aircraft with open arms, as you don't even hear them when they're on approach 8)
And airlines have to participate in the EU "green project" too.

I thought about it again and I think that it would be interesting to have a Q400-ATR-72 combination..
ATR's for the very short-haul(Germany, Swiss, UK) , Q400's for the short-haul (Sicily, Greece, Eastern Europe, North Africa).

If SN can afford it, Embraer's would be nice, but if they consider growing in the long-haul, not the ideal solution in a long-term vision. The long-haul to Africa is where the real money is made... They'd better save some money to buy some A330's and maybe A350's or 787's in the future.
Fly4hours, making the path to airline pilot affordable to all

Nuages
Posts: 2
Joined: 23 Jun 2007, 22:23
Location: brussels

C'mon !

Post by Nuages »

I'm quite disapointed to read so many negative and superficial comments about the Sukhoi. The only (and I have to admit important) point you can make about this plane is that a russian a/c can suffer from a bad perception in the public. But I'm surprised that true aviation enthusiasts can rely on that kind of superficial and undeserved reputation. The new Sukhoi is a brilliant plane, using a lot of western technology. It is definitely the one I would like to see daily on Zaventem's tarmac. And I feel a little bit ashamed to read so many cliches about Russia. It's time to wake up: Russia and India are the two fastest growing markets worlwide, they have a lot of very capable people. And in the case of the Sukhoi, I doubt that companies like Snecma, Alenia, Boeing or Liebherr would take the risk to be part of the project if they had any doubt about the fact that it will be a brilliant (and very elegant) plane.

Air Key West
Posts: 1113
Joined: 23 Jun 2007, 20:51
Location: BRU

Post by Air Key West »

I agree that most people don't care what type of aircraft they are flying and they cannot make the difference between aircraft types. This is for aviation freaks like us. I would probably not mind flying a modern Russian build aircraft (Sukhoi). My main concern here is comfort. If you check the web sites of Sukhoi and Embraer, you will see the seat width of the Sukhoi Regional Jet is only 16.23 inches compared to the 18.25 inches (5 cm more) on the Embraer 170-195. On the Embraer 145 series the seat width is 17.3 inches and that is already very cramped. Sukhoi will not be able to attract Western passengers with uncomfortable planes.
Embraer would definitely be a better choice, but one can bet Sukhoi is going to make b.air an offer they cannot refuse (especially since b.air has no money for a new fleet). Too bad. I will avoid Sukhoi aiircraft because of uncomfortable seating, not because of technical fears.
In favor of quality air travel.

User avatar
Gliderpilot
Posts: 159
Joined: 14 Jun 2007, 11:56
Contact:

Post by Gliderpilot »

FLY4HOURS.BE wrote: Each engine of the ATR-72 develops 1800kW while that becomes 3800kW for the Q400.
That means the Q400 will consume alot more fuel to fly the same distance.
Then, it is about calculations.
What you're talking about is the max power they can provide, which is only used at take off. At cruise settings the fuel consumption will be approximately the same for an equal trip.

And a Q400-ATR72 combination is economical nonsense...

Post Reply