BRU summer 2010: latest news, routes, airlines

[airtrotter]

when does the codeshare between SN and CO start?
I read on airlineroute.net the codeshare started on August 9, 2010, but looking at the EWR flight it still only bears the CO code? And EWR doesn't show up as a destination on SN's booking engine.

[sn26567]

when does the codeshare between SN and CO start?
I read on airlineroute.net the codeshare started on August 9, 2010, but looking at the EWR flight it still only bears the CO code? And EWR doesn't show up as a destination on SN's booking engine.

CO61 BRU-EWR = SN9451 = UA3218
CO60 EWR-BRU = SN9452 = UA3255

See also more complete information about the routes that are codeshared between CO and SN: http://airlineroute.net/2010/08/05/cosn-codeshare/

[RoMax]

CO61 BRU-EWR = SN9451 = UA3218
CO60 EWR-BRU = SN9452 = UA3255

See also more complete information about the routes that are codeshared between CO and SN: http://airlineroute.net/2010/08/05/cosn-codeshare/

You can't book BRU-EWR-BRU on SN's website, but you can book for exemple BRU-EWR-IAH on CO. Is it possible that SN only sells CO tickets when they have a connection to another US destination?

[airtrotter]

See also more complete information about the routes that are codeshared between CO and SN: http://airlineroute.net/2010/08/05/cosn-codeshare/

thx, that's where I got the info from too. So it's probably just a matter of BRU and SN needing to update their websites

[RoMax]

thx, that's where I got the info from too. So it's probably just a matter of BRU and SN needing to update their websites

The strange thing is, all codeshares between CO and SN are mentionned and bookable on SN's and CO's websites, exept from BRU-EWR-BRU. Don't know if it's possible to book this flight trough their call centers/ticketing desks, but you can't book it online on SN's website. However you can book all connection flights operated by CO on SN's website, like Houston, Cleveland...
Why isn't it possible to book BRU-EWR on SN's website, while you can book BRU-EWR-Houston/Cleveland/...? Is SN unable to book this flight (when there is no connection to another destination), because CO has so many pax on these flights?

[Conti764]

Is SN unable to book this flight (when there is no connection to another destination), because CO has so many pax on these flights?

Doesn't matter since every connecting passenger who wants to fly to any destination in the US on CO from BRU, has to pass through EWR. So if the flights would be too full for SN to codeshare on BRU-EWR, it would also be too full to codeshare beyond EWR.

[SN_fan]

Is SN unable to book this flight (when there is no connection to another destination), because CO has so many pax on these flights?

Doesn't matter since every connecting passenger who wants to fly to any destination in the US on CO from BRU, has to pass through EWR. So if the flights would be too full for SN to codeshare on BRU-EWR, it would also be too full to codeshare beyond EWR.

Maybe CO is only willing to "sacrifice" a seat on BRU-EWR if they can also "sell" a seat on a connecting flight e.g. because they have enough demand for the BRU-EWR.

[SN_fan]

But it's bookable through connections.be so probably SN needs to update it's website.

[RoMax]

But it's bookable through connections.be so probably SN needs to update it's website.

Indeed, it seems to be a SN website problem.

@Conti764: If CO's flight is very succesfull (wich it is) they can block SN from selling BRU-EWR-BRU when these pax doesn't connect to another destination. They could prevent a big amount of new pax on this EWR-BRU flights, wich are already pretty full.

[SN1203]

if CO's flight is very succesfull (wich it is) they can block SN from selling BRU-EWR-BRU when these pax doesn't connect to another destination.

Well, actually CO can't block SN from selling BRU-EWR-BRU tickets. When a marketing carrier has point-to-point fares filed with a free-flow agreement, the marketing carrier (SN) cannot be blocked from selling tickets on the operating carrier (CO). Why else would you sign a codeshare agreement?

By the way, revenues on point-to-point services are usually higher yielding than 6th freedom routings so it isn't logic at all why point-to-point would be blocked and 6th freedom allowed.

[SN_fan]

By the way, revenues on point-to-point services are usually higher yielding than 6th freedom routings so it isn't logic at all why point-to-point would be blocked and 6th freedom allowed.

I could think of a reason. Maybe they value more to have information in their database about the destinations people fly from BRU to the States so that they can do better marketing for certain destination.

[SN1203]

I could think of a reason. Maybe they value more to have information in their database about the destinations people fly from BRU to the States so that they can do better marketing for certain destination.

Well, there is sufficient market intelligence available to retrieve that kind of information from