New LCT at Brussels Airport opens 25 October 2009

[JOVAN]

The people who created the idea of an LCT at BRU , and defend it despite all the communication errors and despite all economical logics have to be punished, like the Fortis- and other white-collar criminals should be.

While you are at it, let's fire the AMS management, the NCE management, ...
It's not like BRU is the first big airport to build a LCT.

- BRU comes far too late with its LCC
- It is clear that full-service airlines and PAX will pay for this bad project.
- CRL is there with a real cheap prices, and lots, lots of destinations;
- no other Low costs than FR and EZY will survive, so that means this terminal will be build for basically 1 (ONE) customer;
- there is no room for 2 LC airports in Belgium; AMS is real big, NCE is like BCN: all kinds of public

This project will fail, within one year.
And I hope this will be enough reason to remove the present (bad) management team.

BRU IS A JEWEL , RUN BY AMATEURS

[Conti764]

- BRU comes far too late with its LCC

Do they? The fact that a big player in the LC market shows intrest in the project proves they are not too late.

- It is clear that full-service airlines and PAX will pay for this bad project.

It's bad in your opinion. If you follow your own arguments, full service pax and companies payed for LC ops at AMS and CDG as well.

- CRL is there with a real cheap prices, and lots, lots of destinations;

Maybe BRU is still more expensive then CRL, but EZY is more expensive then FR as well. They serve another submarket of the LC segment.

- no other Low costs than FR and EZY will survive, so that means this terminal will be build for basically 1 (ONE) customer;

Funny you don't mention that in your scenario the new terminal at CRL is build for one customer as well.

- there is no room for 2 LC airports in Belgium; AMS is real big, NCE is like BCN: all kinds of public

CRL can't offer EZY what they want. EZY is known for flying to major airports in stead of secondary airports, miles aways from the cities they serve. In that way EZY does not have an intrest for CRL.

This project will fail, within one year.

This must be a relief for BRU management.

[Atlantis]

- BRU comes far too late with its LCC

That's your statement, not of the airline business. Scandinavia and other European airports also started with building LCT. BRU is thus not the only one and is not too late because LC-travelling will be THE way of travelling within Europe and maybe outside the next coming years.

In 2008, the % of transported pax on CRL and BRU was the same!! Both more then 500.000 then the year before. The amount of LC-pax in 2008 was 1.200.000 for BRU.
The better pax figures for April was thanks to the low cost carriers and long haul. That says enough.

It's very clear that you don't know the management of BRU and the past management because the LC-project is not a new project but a project that excist almost 10 year just like the Star Alliance Terminal-project.

PS: this LC-project will NOT be paid by the full carriers or the pax, they only can use it. It's their choice if they will use this infrastructure or not.

[LX-LGX]

Fair competition is OK, airlines accept that.
But Brussels Airport is able to build this LC Terminal and LCC will be able to fly to BRU, only because the necessary and/or obligatory airport facilities are paid for by non-LCC and their passengers. So far, Brussels Airport has not announced a decrease in airport charges to those non-LCC's. Which angers them.

This argument is equal to the ones given by the non-LCC airlines when AMS decided to have a low-cost terminal. However it is a false argument. The landing fees are equal for all airlines. However the use of the terminal is not. If you have less service at the terminal you pay less. LCCs receive less service, thus should pay less. I don´t see how the other airlines can complain. The only point other airlines can make is that they´re not allowed to move to the LCC terminal. However do they want that? If so why not transform BRU into a LCC airport?

No, it is not a false argument. At least, not if you consider that a terminal is part of a whole airport.

Low cost carriers use more then just the one LC Terminal. Apart from that one building, there are lots of other airport facilities that have been constructed or are being used or were made possible because of payments by non-LC carriers only.

So instead of talking a LC Terminal, one should talk about a LC Airport. Who has paid for the weather bureau at Brussels Airport? Who has paid for the non-governmental rescue service? Which other Low Cost Airport has three runways? Who has paid for the drop off / pick up zones?

All these facilities will now be used by airlines, and they won't have to pay for it. Actuall, they get it cheaper. So the least Brussels Airport could do, is lower the handling fees for those airlines already using the airport.

(that's what one of the guys from the commercial department from one BATA-member told me).

[Vinnie-Winnie]

As far as I understand nothing stops any BATA members from using the low cost pier. So should brussels Airlines want it can always decide to use the low cost terminal for destinations where it think that competitors using the low cost terminal will put it at a major disadvantage.

Take Berlin: Easyjet and Brussels Airlines can happily compete using the same Low cost facility! Time for Brussels Airlines to decide what it wants to be and how it wants to compete.

@LX-LGX you know very well that charges for those services will remain the same for both users. Where the saving lies is in reduction of complexity/manpower/refurbishment cost associated with the other terminals!

That reminds me of the battle between Stansted and Heathrow: No airline wants the charges it pays for a particular airport to cross-subsidise the other airport development. That is a vastly grander problem!

[Conti764]

No, it is not a false argument. At least, not if you consider that a terminal is part of a whole airport.

Low cost carriers use more then just the one LC Terminal. Apart from that one building, there are lots of other airport facilities that have been constructed or are being used or were made possible because of payments by non-LC carriers only.

So instead of talking a LC Terminal, one should talk about a LC Airport. Who has paid for the weather bureau at Brussels Airport? Who has paid for the non-governmental rescue service? Which other Low Cost Airport has three runways? Who has paid for the drop off / pick up zones?

All these facilities will now be used by airlines, and they won't have to pay for it. Actuall, they get it cheaper. So the least Brussels Airport could do, is lower the handling fees for those airlines already using the airport.

(that's what one of the guys from the commercial department from one BATA-member told me).

I understand your point of view, but you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not like these FC airlines payed for the facilities at BRU, they pay BRU to have the right to land at the airport and use their infrastructure and all services. With the profit of this operation, BRU can decide whatever it does to strengthen their position. In this case it's building a low cost terminal and be prepared for an airline market that's stil not over its top.

The rescue services are (and should be!) equal to all and the LC airlines will have to pay for it as well. The cost saving is situated in other services or facilities and if an airline currently using BRU feels it's necessary to operate from the LC terminal it can do so, but that will have some repercutions in terms of service.

Like I said, what BATA and the other parties are trying is to bargain a better deal from BAC. I see no reason whatsoever why they should have a problem with the LCT.

[Atlantis]

The check-in desks and the small belts next to the check-in desks are placed.

[Shanti]

I hope some business men have the idea to open a new BELGIAN low cost company!
(together with some belgian pilots/cabin crew) Good luck for them!

[summersso]

I hope some business men have the idea to open a new BELGIAN low cost company!
(together with some belgian pilots/cabin crew) Good luck to them!

Realistically now's not the time to start an LCC; there"ll be consolidation in the market, partnerships or mergers between existing LCCs (SkyEurope/Myair, Clickair/Vueling etc). A small Belgian LCC won't survive against Ryanair, easyJet (especially following expansion at BRU), and if they get their strategy right and can offer Lufthansa/Austrian "redticket"-like €99 fares, SN too.

I think (in smaller countries especially) we need to stop thinking of airlines as national symbols and accept that there'll be a group of 4/5 major European airline groups/consortiums, so Belgian pilots and cabin crew should be proud of working for a successful international airline group rather than a small weak operation...

[Air Key West]

I fully agree with you summersso.
And I started already many years ago not to think in terms of "nationality" when choosing a flight. I only choose a brand (airline) and a product (flight) because I like it (= I thing it's the best product on the market with a very good safety record) and because it best suits my needs (flight schedule, price, quality).
There is no need for a new Belgian airline, be it low cost or full service. b.air can be proud to be part of a prestigious and trustworthy group like Lufthansa. That's not bad at all for a small country and a small airline.

[JOVAN]

Any chance to see Airberlin at LCT BRU ??
Now that LH/SN will have to give up so;e frequencies??

[Atlantis]

Any chance to see Airberlin at LCT BRU ??
Now that LH/SN will have to give up so;e frequencies??

Air Berlin filled slots during the past seasons but never came. Maybe they will come with this new development.

[stefanel]

Hello,

can anyone explain to me why they decided not to use the sattelite for gates and waiting areas? I cannot figure!!! Everything was there and designed to be a boarding area. Why move the offices there and have to create a new boarding area in the corridor leading to the sattelite (if I understood well).
Also, I don't see the point of removing the bridges. I know LCC want to use 2 staircases for a quicker boarding but the bridges don't prevent that if they are not connected to the plane!
Last thing, the check-in desks already existed in the old terminal, I checked in there for a Jetairfly flight 3 years ago. Why build new ones? And new belts? What about the ones downstairs in the old arrival hall, there were like 7 of them!

[Conti764]

Hello,

can anyone explain to me why they decided not to use the sattelite for gates and waiting areas? I cannot figure!!! Everything was there and designed to be a boarding area. Why move the offices there and have to create a new boarding area in the corridor leading to the sattelite (if I understood well).
Also, I don't see the point of removing the bridges. I know LCC want to use 2 staircases for a quicker boarding but the bridges don't prevent that if they are not connected to the plane!
Last thing, the check-in desks already existed in the old terminal, I checked in there for a Jetairfly flight 3 years ago. Why build new ones? And new belts? What about the ones downstairs in the old arrival hall, there were like 7 of them!

You are right about the satelite, I never understood why they turned this into offices and not use it for LC flights. Only reason I can think of is BAC board wanting to have 'an office with a view'.

The 'corridor' (actually the C-pier) already had boarding areas.

The bridges would have been pretty useless in any scenario, so why keep them?

Why a new check-in? I assume they wanted a whole seperated are for the LC operations and the excisting infrastructure probably was too big to start up LC ops? It is currently in use for SN African flights, check in of Air Transat and Hewa Bora. Continental used it for years, but moved to row 10.

The belts in the old arrival hall were torn down. They are now reconstructing them.

[Jipe]

It's simple if you know why. There are few reason about it.
1) The OT (OT = Old Terminal, NT= New Terminal. E.G. : NT = New Terminal 5th floor) need to be completely restored. It was never done since the Universal Exposition. The most part of offices used by BAC in the 3 last years were OT4, 5, 6 and NT5. So to add in the equation : the OT is part of historic patrimony.

Then to restore the OT, they had to find new location for their offices and the Sat (Satellite) was not used but had to be a minimum preserved.

2) what are difference in services between standart airlines company and LCC : prices and services.
The old transit room (sky hall) was not used except as party hall but as the other part of OT, to preserve.

If you need to preserve old building without use, it cost more than if you use it.

It was not possible to re-use the satelite with the boarding bridge 'cause there is a part used for the Parking 27. I think 50 or 75 % could maybe be used (you can remove the parking but, where should you park the cars?).

Then, the idea of BAC was to restore the satelite as a "smart office" and put all the employees in the same location. It decrease the costs. Then, OT4, 5, 6, and NT5 can be free. OT4, 5 and 6 will be restored. NT5 will be rent to other companies (it cover partially the restoring of the satelite).

About the LCC : Boarding bridges are not a mandatory. in Few LC terminal, you need to walk or take the busses. I need to say so that the boarding bridges of the satellite were too oxyded to be uses.Then it was so a good opportunity to use unsused places in the airport.

[Established02]

> Sat (Satellite) was not used but had to be a minimum preserved.

Why does the satellite have to be preserved (to a minimum)?

Unlike the old terminal, there is nothing "historical" about the design of the satellite or is there?

> you can remove the parking but, where should you park the cars?

Oh, they can easily park all the way at the end of Parking 57, have a little walk to the busstop and then enjoy the ride to the terminal building!

> NT5 will be rent to other companies (it cover partially the restoring of the satelite).

To airport/airline related companies or not exclusively?

[stefanel]

First, I think it was the perfect opportunity to renovate the old terminal that is a very beautiful and vintage piece of architecture.

About the offices, why not use the two "fingers" along the central building carrying the old tower? They are huge! One finger has up to 8 floors!
I've worked there and I can tell you the space is enormous, you have like 2x60m of offices to the left and to the right, so why not renovate that step by step and keep the offices there. Besides, you have more light (and space!) than in the 70m wide satellite !

Then, I don't see the point in separating the check-in desks, who cares if it's used by other airlines? At least, you keep the costs to zero!

Conti, the long corridor never had doors, it was just an access to the satelitte, very narrow in fact, there wasn't even a shop.
They teared down the old jetty, so where do you see doors now?
The satelitte would have been perfect also because all aircraft would have been accessible by feet (15m walk) had they parked like before around the satelitte.
I just feel all those changes don't make sense and are costing more than having sticked to the previous layout.

[Conti764]

Conti, the long corridor never had doors, it was just an access to the satelitte, very narrow in fact, there wasn't even a shop.
They teared down the old jetty, so where do you see doors now?
The satelitte would have been perfect also because all aircraft would have been accessible by feet (15m walk) had they parked like before around the satelitte.
I just feel all those changes don't make sense and are costing more than having sticked to the previous layout.

There were and are doors at ground level in the C-pier. There were doors at ground level at the satelite.

[stefanel]

Hi Conti,
Thanks I didn't know about the ground floor gates of that corridor, I knew and used the ones of the sattelite, however.

[Boeing767copilot]

No new routes from Brussels Airport!

easyJet adds 15 new routes for W09/10
easyJet last week announced 15 new routes across Europe for the 2009/10 Winter season.

The routes are:
Rome - Athens eff 15OCT09
Rome - Geneva eff 26OCT09
Liverpool - Fuerteventura eff 02NOV09
London Gatwick - Porto eff 02NOV09
Madrid - Amsterdam eff 02NOV09
Rome - Amsterdam eff 02NOV09
Rome - Lamezia Terme eff 02NOV09
Rome - Lisbon eff 02NOV09
Liverpool - Lanzarote eff 03NOV09
London Luton - Sharm el Sheikh eff 03NOV09
London Luton - Paphos eff 04NOV09
London Stansted - Paphos eff 04NOV09
London Stansted - Fuerteventura eff 04NOV09
Edinburgh - Lyon eff 17DEC09
London Gatwick - Hamburg eff 02FEB10