BRU summer 2010: latest news, routes, airlines

[Schep]

I can confirm that UA will launch a new destination EX BRU...
Maybe CHI or BOS

[SabenaForever]

I can confirm that UA will launch a new destination EX BRU...
Maybe CHI or BOS

CHI will be ORD i think...

would be nice, what is your source?

[BrightCedars]

I would like to enphasize that a lot of the recent posts are more speculation than actual news, maybe another thread would be a better place to have these nonetheless interesting conversations.

This said, I believe that we can expect the following over the Atlantic in the next 3 years:

- SN will put its own metal on some route(s)
- New York area will see 2 daily to 3 daily flights by a combination of CO, UA and SN
- IAD and ORD may become 2 flights on their own
- Secondary further away hubs will not see nonstop service e.g. CLE, DEN, IAH, LAS
- Nonstop service with the West Coast (LAX or SFO) may happen if and only if operated by SN a few times a week in cooperation with as many alliance partners as possible, and only if there is an existing underlying sizeable traffic currently taken care of via connections on existing US routes or via nearby Star Alliance hubs (FRA, MUC, ZRH).

I'm skeptical about BOS because there is no Star Alliance home carrier or hub at that location.

[134flyer]

Interesting discussion!

This said, I believe that we can expect the following over the Atlantic in the next 3 years:

- SN will put its own metal on some route(s)
- New York area will see 2 daily to 3 daily flights by a combination of CO, UA and SN
- IAD and ORD may become 2 flights on their own
- Secondary further away hubs will not see nonstop service e.g. CLE, DEN, IAH, LAS
- Nonstop service with the West Coast (LAX or SFO) may happen if and only if operated by SN a few times a week in cooperation with as many alliance partners as possible, and only if there is an existing underlying sizeable traffic currently taken care of via connections on existing US routes or via nearby Star Alliance hubs (FRA, MUC, ZRH).

I'm skeptical about BOS because there is no Star Alliance home carrier or hub at that location.

Some thoughts:

- Short term (like already mentioned): separate UA flight to ORD.
- NY: possible second daily by CO to EWR, no NY flights by UA, as they have withdrawn from the NY market regarding longhaul. Longterm perhaps a SN flight to JFK, also to potentially feed the jetBlue network. Afterall, LH has started to codeshare on B6 flights out of JFK.
- Although I agree we will not see nonstop flights to BRU from CLE, DEN, LAS and other secondary hubs, I tend to disagree on IAH. This is a big CO hub, not a secondary one. From here, CO serves e.g. many Latin-American destinations and IAH is an O&D city in itself as well, so mid-/long term I can see a nonstop IAH-BRU flight by CO.
- If there is indeed an existing underlying sizeable traffic to SFO/LAX, in order to justify a nonstop West Coast flight from BRU, I would rather think this will be operated by UA and not by SN.
- BOS, if there will be a nonstop BRU-BOS flight, I would say that the flight will be operated by SN, as BOS is an interesting O&D city. BOS is indeed no Star Alliance hub, but it is a US Airways Focus City, so the SN flight could also feed that (limited) network. Also, like JFK, it could potentially feed the B6 network as well. Like JFK, LH codeshares on B6 flights out of BOS as well.

[Conti764]

This said, I believe that we can expect the following over the Atlantic in the next 3 years:

- SN will put its own metal on some route(s)
- New York area will see 2 daily to 3 daily flights by a combination of CO, UA and SN
- IAD and ORD may become 2 flights on their own
- Secondary further away hubs will not see nonstop service e.g. CLE, DEN, IAH, LAS
- Nonstop service with the West Coast (LAX or SFO) may happen if and only if operated by SN a few times a week in cooperation with as many alliance partners as possible, and only if there is an existing underlying sizeable traffic currently taken care of via connections on existing US routes or via nearby Star Alliance hubs (FRA, MUC, ZRH).

I'm skeptical about BOS because there is no Star Alliance home carrier or hub at that location.

I tend to dissagree with you on some thoughts...

I also expect SN to open up some routes, but it would be a mistake to operate to destinations their Star Alliance partners operate to as well. So they should leave NYC to CO, unless at some point CO would be unable to provide enough equipment to cater the needs, but I doubt there is enough traffic to warrant three flights a day. A morning 772/W (CO has the possibility to switch some 772 orders to 77W orders) and an evening 752/762 operation would do wonders. I remember ‘Het leven zoals het is: luchthaven’ a few years ago where a sales representative of SN got the advice from a Jewish travel agency to start up an evening flight to NY since it would be a money maker, so there is an option.
IAH might be an option in a few years if BRU will play a significant role as a Star Alliance hub.

I do believe there is some market from either LAX or SFO, a 763ER is enough capacity- and rangewise… But it means UA should encourage some of its Midwest to West coast pax to transfer through LAX or SFO i.s.o. trough IAD or ORD, which means it influences operation on the IAD-BRU and ORD-BRU market. Or they could continue the IAD and ORD flights to both LAX and SFO but I don’t know the economic figures for such domestic flight, maybe with an equipment change to A320 in ORD and IAD?

So there is only some room left for SN and it is to either non-alliance airports (BOS, MIA (seasonal?), LAS (seasonal?), ATL (to counter DL and Skyteam?),…) or secondary alliance airports (DEN, CLE (?),…) These flights should be operated by alliance partners on both ends of the Atlantic and in such way it could work….

So SN should focus on three kinds of destinations in the US:
• Non alliance airports
• Secondary alliance hubs
• Alliance hubs where CO, UA or US cannot provide enough capacity to cater the market

[Conti764]

Some thoughts:
- Short term (like already mentioned): separate UA flight to ORD.

Agreed, since Washington and Brussels are respectively number one and two considering political cities and thus could warrant an operation on their own.

- NY: possible second daily by CO to EWR, no NY flights by UA, as they have withdrawn from the NY market regarding longhaul. Longterm perhaps a SN flight to JFK, also to potentially feed the jetBlue network. Afterall, LH has started to codeshare on B6 flights out of JFK.

It depends on what US plans LH has… They also started a joint venture with UA, AC and CO… So LH might feed into B6 JFK flights since they fly to JFK anyway but it could be CO will be the preferred partner in the US since they are an alliance partner.

- Although I agree we will not see nonstop flights to BRU from CLE, DEN, LAS and other secondary hubs, I tend to disagree on IAH. This is a big CO hub, not a secondary one. From here, CO serves e.g. many Latin-American destinations and IAH is an O&D city in itself as well, so mid-/long term I can see a nonstop IAH-BRU flight by CO.

The problem is these cities are too far away to operate the right aircraft for them… So out of the question for the US carriers. SN could pick up some routes, maybe with a triangular strategy like they do in Africa? Some examples (note these are really just intended as examples and I do not claim they should be operated nor do I claim to know the economics of such flights):

1) BRU – DTW – ATL – BRU on A332: 21h30 total flight time with 1h30 of turnaround time at all stations.
2) BRU – CVG – MIA – BRU on A332: 23h00 total flight time with 1h30 of turnaround time at all stations.
3) BRU – CLE – DEN – BRU on A332: 24h30 total flight time with 1h30 of turnaround time at all stations.
4) BRU – LAS – SFO – BRU on A332: 25h00 total flight time with 1h30 of turnaround time at all stations.
5) BRU – BOS on A332: 16h30 total flight time with 1h30 of turnaround time at both stations.

Let all planes follow 1-4-2-3-5 operation starting on different days of the week would make every airplane go into maintenance (Mx) on a regular base, and each on a different day. The last flight (5) could be combined with a medium haul high density flight (TLV, DME,…) This way they’d have a crazy utilization rate on a batch of 6 A330-200’s…

Again, I do not claim to be an expert regarding this matter nor do I state they should operate this way (so calling me an armchair CEO is besides the question) but it is merely an example of how you could operate to no less than nine US destinations we can describe as secondary in terms of Star Alliance since they are either secondary hubs to Star Alliance carriers or no hubs at all but hubs to rivaling alliances so this way they could eat away some traffic from both Skyteam and Oneworld. Of course such operation would influence the current US flights from the US three, so a downscaling on some of these routes could be inevitable.
Regarding IAH, CO also serves many of those Latin destinations from EWR, so in that point IAH loses some importance regarding BRU. But then again, I do guess we will see a IAH-BRU rotation by CO, but not in the near future…

- If there is indeed an existing underlying sizeable traffic to SFO/LAX, in order to justify a nonstop West Coast flight from BRU, I would rather think this will be operated by UA and not by SN.

Agreed. Maybe use either SFO or LAX as a continuation of the ORD-flight?

- BOS, if there will be a nonstop BRU-BOS flight, I would say that the flight will be operated by SN, as BOS is an interesting O&D city. BOS is indeed no Star Alliance hub, but it is a US Airways Focus City, so the SN flight could also feed that (limited) network. Also, like JFK, it could potentially feed the B6 network as well. Like JFK, LH codeshares on B6 flights out of BOS as well.

SN should fly to non alliance hubs… This way they could encourage the US partner airlines CO, UA and US to code share on this flight to take away some traffic from competing airlines and alliances between BOS and Europe… And indeed, I do guess BOS has some interesting O&D-potential.
Any (polite) input on my opinion would be very much appreciated, esp. regarding my little ‘US experiment’

[Vinnie-Winnie]

Agreed, since Washington and Brussels are respectively number one and two considering political cities and thus could warrant an operation on their own. .

U'r confusing IAD and ORD: IAD is washington and is already served daily by UA using 772 equipment, whereas ORD is Chicago and is only served by AA currently.

The problem is these cities are too far away to operate the right aircraft for them… So out of the question for the US carriers. SN could pick up some routes, maybe with a triangular strategy like they do in Africa? Some examples (note these are really just intended as examples and I do not claim they should be operated nor do I claim to know the economics of such flights).

What works in Africa does not work very well anywhere else. First of all there is not enough OD market between these cities and Brussels, so SN would have to rely on connecting traffic. That is an issue as someone flying via BRU would have 2 stopovers which makes his willingness to pay for such a flight rather low. So you end up killing the yields for these passengers. Also don't forget that LH wants to make BRU a secondary hub which purpose will be to cater for people transferring through Europe and going to Africa. It's a rather low cost strategy if you ask me: Far away from the grand plans u guys are dreaming up. I'm 100% CO is happy with things as they stand. Routing people through EWR is way more efficient than routing people through 2 hubs!

SN should fly to non alliance hubs… This way they could encourage the US partner airlines CO, UA and US to code share on this flight to take away some traffic from competing airlines and alliances between BOS and Europe… And indeed, I do guess BOS has some interesting O&D-potential.
Any (polite) input on my opinion would be very much appreciated, esp. regarding my little ‘US experiment’

u got a very valid point on sn flying to non alliance hub! Nevertheless I fail to see how BOS is ever going to be the goldmine u guys think! It's been 6 years of amazing aviation growth and strictly no-one has ever flown the route continuously. That at a time where every little airport in the UK has been served by 757 from numerous points in the US! Makes you wonder right?

[134flyer]

Conti764, although an interesting thought, I agree with Vinnie-Winnie that your 'US Strategy' (triangular strategy to secondary hubs) is not realistic for the reasons mentioned; you might as well fly BRU-IAD-'XYZ' on UA or BRU-EWR-'XYZ' on CO.

IF (and it is a big IF I would say) SN will fly to the US again, this will not be in the near or even longer term. But let's say they eventually will, then I agree that they should fly to non Star Alliance hubs. I still think one of those potential destinations is BOS. Flights to Star hubs should be operated by their home carriers.

To put potential destinations in perspective and 'downplay' some grand plans:

- ORD by UA: short term and very well possible
- second EWR flight by CO (B752): short to mid term and also possible
- IAH flight by CO: mid to long term and after BRU is established as a Star Hub/Focus city (and SN has e.g. expanded their Africa network); still possible, even along the CO flight(s) to EWR (there are several Latin American destinations, especially in Mexico, which are only served from IAH. Also IAH O&D), but less possible than the above ones
- SFO or LAX by UA: long to very long term and probably not very possible

[Conti764]

U'r confusing IAD and ORD: IAD is washington and is already served daily by UA using 772 equipment, whereas ORD is Chicago and is only served by AA currently.

Nope, UA operates ORD-IAD-BRU-IAD-ORD. So operating both destinations seperately is the logic next step for UA in BRU...

u got a very valid point on sn flying to non alliance hub! Nevertheless I fail to see how BOS is ever going to be the goldmine u guys think! It's been 6 years of amazing aviation growth and strictly no-one has ever flown the route continuously. That at a time where every little airport in the UK has been served by 757 from numerous points in the US! Makes you wonder right?

I don't agree... The issue for BOS why they don't receive as much traffic as other East Coast hubs is there is simply no big player who uses BOS and if there is one, it's a secondary hub. To judge traffic from BRU you should look at the Euro companies who fly into BOS. SN could operate a BRU-BOS rotation and have support from CO, UA, US who wout rout local customers via BOS to BRU i.s.o. via one of their hubs to BRU.

I even see a future for SN in ATL to tackle DL at BRU and to take away some Skyteam market from NL, BE and FR who currently fly through BRU on DL to ATL. I suppose the US *A carriers would not be against such route to try to tackle the biggest competitor.

All other US destinations are either to far away to have nonstop service to or lack a big enough market. Maybe MIA and LAS could work on a 3 weekly base and more frequencies during vacation times, but I guess this market is so thin Star Alliance would opt for their pax to transfer trough FRA or one of the US Star Alliance hubs to go to such destination.

[fets]

U'r confusing IAD and ORD: IAD is washington and is already served daily by UA using 772 equipment, whereas ORD is Chicago and is only served by AA currently.

Nope, UA operates ORD-IAD-BRU-IAD-ORD. So operating both destinations seperately is the logic next step for UA in BRU...

While the flight number might be the same (UA950/951), it involves a change of plane in IAD, and just about the only reason UA is doing this is for marketing reasons! A quick check for tomorrow shows IAD-BRU-IAD is a 777, and ORD-IAD-ORD is a 767.

[sdbelgium]

While the flight number might be the same (UA950/951), it involves a change of plane in IAD, and just about the only reason UA is doing this is for marketing reasons! A quick check for tomorrow shows IAD-BRU-IAD is a 777, and ORD-IAD-ORD is a 767.

Amadeus is showing me a 777 on UA950 ORD-IAD, as wel as on UA976 ORD-IAD later tomorrow. UA722 however, is a 763.

Code: Select all

UA         922     ORD   06:00     IAD   08:44     320     
UA         382     ORD   08:49     IAD   11:34     320     
UA         360     ORD   11:09     IAD   13:53     320     
UA         950     ORD   13:10     IAD   16:05     777     
UA         722     ORD   16:15     IAD   19:17     763     
UA         976     ORD   18:07     IAD   20:55     777 

[fets]

While the flight number might be the same (UA950/951), it involves a change of plane in IAD, and just about the only reason UA is doing this is for marketing reasons! A quick check for tomorrow shows IAD-BRU-IAD is a 777, and ORD-IAD-ORD is a 767.

Amadeus is showing me a 777 on UA950 ORD-IAD, as wel as on UA976 ORD-IAD later tomorrow. UA722 however, is a 763.

Code: Select all

UA         922     ORD   06:00     IAD   08:44     320     
UA         382     ORD   08:49     IAD   11:34     320     
UA         360     ORD   11:09     IAD   13:53     320     
UA         950     ORD   13:10     IAD   16:05     777     
UA         722     ORD   16:15     IAD   19:17     763     
UA         976     ORD   18:07     IAD   20:55     777 

ok, I only checked the UA951 flights.. the point is that the plane that is coming from ORD to IAD is most likely NOT the one that's going to fly to BRU - even though they may both be 777's. eg, todays UA950 arrived at C27 at IAD, and who's leaving at C27 two hours later: UA902 to MUC. Sounds like about the right time to turn a 777.

The "one flight number" for two different segment is simply a scam - especially since you would only get FF miles for BRU-ORD and not BRU-IAD-ORD

[LX-LGX]

Is it me or has TAAG been removed from the black list, at least partially (777) not so long ago?

Only their 777's are unbanned - but only to fly from/to Lisbon (main market for TAAG).

Quote from the EU in the blacklist comment from 14/07/2009: "Progress made by the civil aviation authority of Angola and the air carrier TAAG Angola Airlines to resolve progressively any safety deficiencies are recognised. In that context, the cooperation and assistance agreement signed between the civil aviation authorities of Angola and of Portugal allowed the airline to operate again into Portugal only with certain aircraft and under very strict conditions."

TAAG is banned for, quote, "All fleet with the exception of: D2-TED, D2-TEE, D2-TEF"

Source:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air-ban/list_en.htm

[Kabila]

It is confirmed ! United will launch daily non-stop Chicago – Brussels service effective 28 March 2010, complementing existing Daily Washington – Brussels route. They will use a B767 on the route.

Schedule:

UA972 ORD1800 – 0920+1BRU
UA973 BRU1100 – 1315ORD

United will also launch service from the USA to Africa (Accra & Lagos), following in DL's footsteps...

[Bralo20]

Brussels

Additionally, United will inaugurate non-stop service between Chicago and Brussels on March 28, offering convenient connections on Brussels Airlines - which joins the Star Alliance on Dec. 9 - to points in Europe and Africa. The Chicago-Brussels services also are timed to offer convenient connections at Chicago O'Hare to and from dozens of cities in the United States, Canada and Mexico. As the largest airline in Chicago, United offers more than 570 daily departures to more than 130 cities worldwide. Chicago-Brussels flights will be operated by Boeing 767 aircraft on the following schedule:

Schedule Depart Arrive Start Date
-------- ------ ------ ----------
United 972 Chicago to Brussels 6 p.m. 9:20 a.m. March 28, 2010
United 973 Brussels to Chicago 11 a.m. 1:15 p.m. March 29, 2010
------------------------------ ------- --------- --------------




United will continue to offer non-stop service between Washington and Brussels.

Customers seated in United First and United Business cabins aboard all transoceanic B767 flights enjoy United's International Premier Travel Experience, which includes lie-flat seats, iPod connectivity, more than 150 hours of movies and television shows on-demand, and a selection of appetizers and entrees designed by world-renowned chef Charlie Trotter. United's B777 aircraft will be outfitted with new United First and United Business cabins in 2010 and 2011

[kiwiandrew]

Typical , I move away from Brussels and it becomes a *A hub !

New A* transatlantic services including BRU-YUL , BRU-ORD , BRU-EWR ( new to *A anyway) and BRU-PHL goes from seasonal to year round . The BRU-YUL and switch of BRU-EWR from Skyteam to *A really hurt as these are both services I would have wanted to use .... , and here I am in my new home with a grand total of 8 *A departures per week , yes , 8 ! ... all to JNB ( daily plus a second flight on Saturdays ) .


It is almost enough to make me want to move back to BRU ( that and the fact that I miss the beer )


Seriously though , it is exciting to see all these new options , and with SN joining *A in a little under 5 weeks time I am sure that we will see even more interesting additional routes in the future .

[tolipanebas]

SN's STAR alliance entrance definitely is attracting a long of new long haul connections to BRU!

AC (Montreal), UA (Chicago), US (Philadelphia)....

Starting to see my point when I made the remark a few months ago BRU should better bend over backwards for SN and focus on their needs, rather than snub at them and focus on some ridiculous low cost project?

SN has managed to attract more long haul routes to BRU in a couple of months, than BRU airport has on its own in the past few years!

[airtrotter]

wow, that's going be a lot of capacity to N-America:

UA 777 to IAD
UA 767 to ORD
CO 777 to EWR
AA 767 to ORD
AA 757 to JFK
DL 767 to JFK
DL 767 to ATL
US 757 to PHL
9W 777 to EWR
9W 332 to JFK
9W 332 to YYZ
AC 767 to YUL

I'm not 100% sure of the aircraft types?
and are all these services going to be daily?

greetings

[sdbelgium]

CO 777 to EWR

767-400

and are all these services going to be daily?

AFAIK Yes.

[RoMax]

Good news, BRU is rediscovered thanks to SN and especially Lufthansa. I think it would be difficult for AA to maintain a daily 763 from ORD to BRU without codeshare of SN and with UA offering also a non-stop flight. The same with JFK, Delta is going to upgrade agian to a daily 763 like some years ago and AA will miss the codeshares of SN there to.
There is one thing on the transatlantic market where I am still hoping for, Houston by CO. And of course expanding of Jet but that is no- *A.
Now only some new Asia routes, like Singapore, Tokyo, Bangkok... Ok, I am sorry I am dreaming again.