Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

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

Moderator: Latest news team

Post Reply
User avatar
Tompompier
Posts: 162
Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 10:46
Location: Erembodegem

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by Tompompier » 18 Mar 2011, 13:58

luchtzak wrote:Why will they build a window bridge when there is a tunnel available ?
One of the reasons is to reduce vertical movements for pax ( elevators, escalators etc...)

Tompompier

sean1982
Posts: 3168
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by sean1982 » 18 Mar 2011, 14:17

In a time were big airports are embracing LCC operations (MAD,BCN,PMI,TFS,MAN,AMS,LGW,DUB,EDI,GLA,etc...) I find this probably the most stupid move in EBBR's history :?

User avatar
tolipanebas
Posts: 2455
Joined: 12 May 2004, 00:00

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by tolipanebas » 18 Mar 2011, 16:12

sean1982 wrote:In a time were big airports are embracing LCC operations (MAD,BCN,PMI,TFS,MAN,AMS,LGW,DUB,EDI,GLA,etc...) I find this probably the most stupid move in EBBR's history :?
No it isn't! It actually makes sense!

BRU is a premium market (NATO, EU, tons of multinationals and supranational governmental institutes) AND they now have a home carrierwhich has the ambition to turn the airport into a key STAR alliance hub: that's premium market growth and it should take priority over low yielding LCC growth: the airport would be nuts to waste its time, money and space on dedicated infrastructure for LCCs when it can make far more money from the same time, space and investement by concentrating on the premium customers first, something which is urgent indeed.

LCC are welcome at BRU, just not at discounted prices... It's a business decision that makes a lot of sense and it all comes down to getting your priorities right!

sean1982
Posts: 3168
Joined: 18 Mar 2003, 00:00
Contact:

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by sean1982 » 19 Mar 2011, 10:54

There is an ambition to make BRU a KEY star alliance HUB?

Don't you think it's a bit overly optimistic, considering the fact the BRU.Air on a european level is a pretty small airline. Especially when you have 2 skyteam hubs, one star alliance hub and one oneworld hub all within a 1 hour flying distance :?

Do you think Lufthansa will allow for Bru.Air to take customers away from FRA? Maybe just on the african routes where they still count on the "sabena" name.

LJ
Posts: 851
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:00
Location: Heiloo NL

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by LJ » 19 Mar 2011, 13:24

tolipanebas wrote:BRU is a premium market (NATO, EU, tons of multinationals and supranational governmental institutes) AND they now have a home carrierwhich has the ambition to turn the airport into a key STAR alliance hub:
How many planes do you think SN will have in 10 years time? Give them 3 additional A330s and 10 additional A320s and you're probably at the max SN will have. Add 2 flights from CO, 1 ANA flight, 1 additional Air Canada flight and you have your Star capacity increase.
tolipanebas wrote: that's premium market growth and it should take priority over low yielding LCC growth: the airport would be nuts to waste its time, money and space on dedicated infrastructure for LCCs when it can make far more money from the same time, space and investement by concentrating on the premium customers first, something which is urgent indeed.


There is a difference in what an airport makes and what an airline makes. An A320 of U2 generates at least the same amount of revenue for an airport than an A320 of SN. However, many airports like those LCCs because they don't provide free meals and free drinks onboard and thus some pax will be persuaded to have a meal or drink in the terminal. The result being that the airport can derive more revenue from concessions (thus the LCC generates indirect more revenue). Moreover, transfer pax usually pay less airport fees. Given the fact that LCCs don't have much transfer pax, the revenue generate here is also greater (at present, easyJet is using this argument in getting the "discriminating fees"which KL pays for its transfer pax on par with that of the local pax).
tolipanebas wrote: LCC are welcome at BRU, just not at discounted prices... It's a business decision that makes a lot of sense and it all comes down to getting your priorities right!


100% correct, however this is something many airport abide by (AMS for example). The only argument against building a low cost terminal at BRU is that BRU is too close to Charleroi to get the Ryanair type of traffic (BRU will never be able to compete with Charleroi for this business) and has too little spare capacity to build a terminal for the easyJet type of LCCs.

User avatar
RoMax
Posts: 4412
Joined: 20 Jun 2009, 16:32

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by RoMax » 19 Mar 2011, 14:33

LJ wrote:How many planes do you think SN will have in 10 years time? Give them 3 additional A330s and 10 additional A320s and you're probably at the max SN will have. Add 2 flights from CO, 1 ANA flight, 1 additional Air Canada flight and you have your Star capacity increase.
If you know SN's originall goal was to get 1 A330 late this year, 1 early 2012 and 1 late 2012 you already have your additionall 3 A330's. Keep in mind that the rumours say SN may already have 9 A330's late 2012 (two A330's this year and not just one). So I think 3 additional A330's in 10 years is way way to pessimistic.
LJ wrote:
There is a difference in what an airport makes and what an airline makes. An A320 of U2 generates at least the same amount of revenue for an airport than an A320 of SN. However, many airports like those LCCs because they don't provide free meals and free drinks onboard and thus some pax will be persuaded to have a meal or drink in the terminal. The result being that the airport can derive more revenue from concessions (thus the LCC generates indirect more revenue). Moreover, transfer pax usually pay less airport fees. Given the fact that LCCs don't have much transfer pax, the revenue generate here is also greater (at present, easyJet is using this argument in getting the "discriminating fees"which KL pays for its transfer pax on par with that of the local pax).
If you know that some/many/most LCC terminals have only very very limited services in the terminal (food, drinks, shops,...) to keep the costs low, I doubt a A320 of U2 generates the same revenue as a SN A320. Cheap terminal with limited services (to keep the costs low) and discounts on the charges U2 (or any LCC) has to pay. I don't see where the U2 aircraft generates more revenue. The only way they can get more revenue by LCC is by getting a much larger amount of LCC flights compared to other flights.
Last edited by RoMax on 19 Mar 2011, 14:34, edited 1 time in total.

Acid-drop
Posts: 2610
Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 00:00
Location: Liège, BE
Contact:

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by Acid-drop » 19 Mar 2011, 14:33

tolipanebas wrote:
sean1982 wrote:In a time were big airports are embracing LCC operations (MAD,BCN,PMI,TFS,MAN,AMS,LGW,DUB,EDI,GLA,etc...) I find this probably the most stupid move in EBBR's history :?
No it isn't! It actually makes sense!

BRU is a premium market (NATO, EU, tons of multinationals and supranational governmental institutes) AND they now have a home carrierwhich has the ambition to turn the airport into a key STAR alliance hub: that's premium market growth and it should take priority over low yielding LCC growth: the airport would be nuts to waste its time, money and space on dedicated infrastructure for LCCs when it can make far more money from the same time, space and investement by concentrating on the premium customers first, something which is urgent indeed.

LCC are welcome at BRU, just not at discounted prices... It's a business decision that makes a lot of sense and it all comes down to getting your priorities right!
I completely agree with that. BRU is a premium airport, and the star alliance could be a new born.
It would indeed be completely nuts to "waste its time, money and space on dedicated infrastructure for LCCs", especially when you are 30 min away from one of the top 5 ryanair base which seems to never stop growing. The game is pretty much over.
Doesn't mean BRU can't develop, but not the "real" low cost as we understand it.
Bruair b light is more the kind of low cost BRU airport should focus on.

User avatar
RoMax
Posts: 4412
Joined: 20 Jun 2009, 16:32

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by RoMax » 19 Mar 2011, 14:48

LJ wrote: 100% correct, however this is something many airport abide by (AMS for example). The only argument against building a low cost terminal at BRU is that BRU is too close to Charleroi to get the Ryanair type of traffic (BRU will never be able to compete with Charleroi for this business) and has too little spare capacity to build a terminal for the easyJet type of LCCs.
No CRL is not the only reason why they don't build a LCC terminal. The new CEO of the Brussels Airport Company just knows damn good where he has to lay his focus. On the high premium market of SN, the LH group and Star Alliance wich is responsible for 52% off all traffic in BRU. That's were they have to get their money from. SN is finally using BRU as a hub like Sabena did in the past. So BRU anticipates on that by expanding the A-pier. By that SN can operate all their flights from the A-pier (including UK, Israel, Russia,... African arriving pax: so non-schengen) wich makes the A-pier a perfect place to use as a hub. That's much more important investment from wich they will get much more money in the end than when they give priority to an LCC terminal.
And with CRL pretty close their is no need to have another LCC airport/terminal in Belgium. So BRU can focus on the things they have to focus. LCC can come to BRU if they want to pay the full price and EasyJet must have accepted this. According to 'De tijd' they joined AOC wich is 'defending the rights' of the airlines operating to BRU. Some years ago it were these airlines wich wanted to go to court if BRU would go trough with the LCC terminal. That they join AOC and expand (Liverpool, they must have know the LCC terminal wouldn't come at the time they wanted to start Liverpool) just says they will stay in BRU. Probably we'll not get a easyJet hub, but that doesn't have to be here. That would hurt SN (wich is responsible for much more revenue and jobs in Belgium).

LJ
Posts: 851
Joined: 14 Mar 2004, 00:00
Location: Heiloo NL

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by LJ » 19 Mar 2011, 16:13

MR_Boeing wrote:the LH group and Star Alliance wich is responsible for 52% off all traffic in BRU. That's were they have to get their money from.
This is exactly the line of reasoning which easyJet is currently attacking at AMS. Their claim is that an airport can make more money when from O&D traffic then from connecting traffic as O&D pax pay higher airport fees.
MR_Boeing wrote: If you know that some/many/most LCC terminals have only very very limited services in the terminal (food, drinks, shops,...) to keep the costs low, I doubt a A320 of U2 generates the same revenue as a SN A320. Cheap terminal with limited services (to keep the costs low) and discounts on the charges U2 (or any LCC) has to pay.
First, it's not that LCC always receive discounts (other than those also received by the "premium" airlines). Discounts exist for heavy users, which usually means the home carrier. Second, though I don't know the particular reasoning for other airports, AMS did use this as an argument to increase revenue. Though the LCC terminal at AMS lack facilities, the whole idea at AMS is to maintain the pax in the central terminal as long as possible (where they can spend their money). Furthermore, the current strategy by relying on a single airline (or airline group) is a risky one (and also doesn't increase your bargaining power towards the airline) and a reason why so many airports want to have some LCC presence.

BTW just to be clear, I don't say that BRU has to build a LCC terminal. I only react to the proposition that LCCs would generate less revenue (per flight) than a so-called "premium airline" (whatever this may mean).

User avatar
RoMax
Posts: 4412
Joined: 20 Jun 2009, 16:32

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by RoMax » 19 Mar 2011, 17:23

LJ wrote:First, it's not that LCC always receive discounts (other than those also received by the "premium" airlines). Discounts exist for heavy users, which usually means the home carrier.
At the time the 'LCC terminal idea' was launched, BRU said the LCC's would have to pay significant less to operate to BRU than the traditional carriers (one of the main reasons why AOC/BATA were so angry about the LCC terminal). Wich means BRU would get less revenue per flight unless these LCC pax spent much more money in the terminal. Wich is unlikely because BRU was not planning to place shops and things like that in the LCC terminal and the other majority of the shops, restaurants, bars,... are located in an area wich wouldn't be accesable for the LCC pax.
LJ wrote:Second, though I don't know the particular reasoning for other airports, AMS did use this as an argument to increase revenue. Though the LCC terminal at AMS lack facilities, the whole idea at AMS is to maintain the pax in the central terminal as long as possible (where they can spend their money). Furthermore, the current strategy by relying on a single airline (or airline group) is a risky one (and also doesn't increase your bargaining power towards the airline) and a reason why so many airports want to have some LCC presence.
I'm sorry but I think it's hard to compare AMS and BRU on the LCC market. AMS already has a strong position in Europe, they already have a strong home carrier. BRU has not, their main priority has to be thier home carrier. Later they can focus on other things, but first the home carrier. But yes it's risky to bet on one group.

User avatar
tolipanebas
Posts: 2455
Joined: 12 May 2004, 00:00

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by tolipanebas » 19 Mar 2011, 20:25

Maybe BRU is betting on one horse right now, but betting on a Belgian network airline which is part of a very strong alliance, is still much safer than betting on a loss making foreign no service (aka low cost) airline like Easyjet, IMHO.

User avatar
Conti764
Posts: 1597
Joined: 21 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by Conti764 » 19 Mar 2011, 23:15

sean1982 wrote:There is an ambition to make BRU a KEY star alliance HUB?

Don't you think it's a bit overly optimistic, considering the fact the BRU.Air on a european level is a pretty small airline. Especially when you have 2 skyteam hubs, one star alliance hub and one oneworld hub all within a 1 hour flying distance :?

Do you think Lufthansa will allow for Bru.Air to take customers away from FRA? Maybe just on the african routes where they still count on the "sabena" name.
Depends on what you want. You should see SN as a broader entity then just that LH-daughter. Both BRU and SN could be of great value for Star Alliance transatlantic partners for flights from and to Africa, but also within Europe. BRU still is an easy accessible airport, low served and with potention for growth. Within the Star Alliance network BRU is the most westernly located (currently mini) hub of Star Alliance so besides being the key Africa connector within Star Alliance, it also shows great value for various N-American carriers (UA, US and AC) to operate to.

And with SN as one of its daughters, LH only benefits from a strong and competitive airline. They can still be the queen at German airports, but let the little princesses take care of submarkets in (European) aviation.

Can you imagine in a few years, when all the mentioned projects are finished, you can come off a transatlantic flight, transfers quick and easy to an(other) international (African) flight or passing customs and border control to take a European flight and you don't even have to leave the building you are in, nor do you have to walk miles to catch your plane. The same way around. Taxi times are relatively low at BRU, and so is airport congestion. When 9W leaves the airport and A-pier West is completed, even in the currently busy morning hours there is plenty of capacity, so chances you have to board a plane via stairs are low.

So BRU's value to Star Alliance (transatlantic flights) in my opinion:

-> Easy accessible and non-congested airport.
-> Quick and easy transfers between international flights or to/from shengen flights.
-> Integrated luggage system in the A-pier (valuable time spared for the airlines).
-> Big transfer point into Africa.
-> A waver of different European destination via either SN of one of its partners.

Although there probably are some far east destination feasible, the focus should stay on (A) Africa and (B) Transatlantic.

User avatar
Conti764
Posts: 1597
Joined: 21 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by Conti764 » 19 Mar 2011, 23:27

LJ wrote: This is exactly the line of reasoning which easyJet is currently attacking at AMS. Their claim is that an airport can make more money when from O&D traffic then from connecting traffic as O&D pax pay higher airport fees.
Since I don't believe in Ryanair ever transfering some flights to BRU, I'll focus on U2... How many flights do you think U2 might be offering at BRU within 10 years if BRU would give them a full low cost terminal and discounted rates? You really think they will ever reach at BRU what FR reached at CRL?

And now Star Alliance... Flights attract flights. If you're market at BRU grows on one end (let's say the African end) it will trigger more airlines within that alliance to fly to and from BRU. It's not like ANA, SQ, TG and the likes will all of a sudden fly to BRU within a few years, but building Star Alliance presence at the airport and give them appropriate infrastructure gives those airlines an incentive to at least consider and investigate BRU as a station.

About revenue... I for one don't believe there is so much difference between let's say a local U2-passenger and a local SN-passenger regarding revenue in the airport. The difference is U2 will never offer transfer facilities at BRU, contrary to SN and to a broader extend Star Alliance.
You'll have the local pax from both airlines who either board a plane quickly or buy something from a shop/bar, and besides them you have the transfer pax which U2 doesn't and SN/*A do offer at the airport. You either have those who don't go to lounges, stay and consume in the terminal, and you have those who do enter the lounges. They don't pay to the airline, but the airlines must pay tBAC for the facilities they use.

So all in all the airport does gain more from full service carriers than from LCC...

User avatar
ATC
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Jun 2003, 00:00
Location: Ostend (Belgium), New York (US)

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by ATC » 30 Mar 2011, 21:31

A lot of interesting information concerning this topic but also a lot of "if" and "when"....

I personally do not believe that BRU airport is building a new terminal (Pier A West) on the assumption that certain things will "maybe" happen in the future...

The current infrastructure can handle about 26-28 million passengers a year.
So why do they invest 460 million in new and renewed infrastructure.

Their press release said they want to expand the customer service and shorten the transfer times.
OK, I buy that!
Their press release also told us they want to be ready for the future.

But what future is this... ?
From a business point of view you only invest 460 million in a project when you damn shore there will be a (big) return and not only when you “want to be ready for the future”.

In Flemish we have a saying " niet het achterste van je tong laten zien "...
meaning... don't tell the whole story...

Some thoughts...

BRU airport knows more...

1) they have I agreement whit Star Alliance and Brussels Airlines to bring all operations in one big Pier (Pier A = East and the new West) IF Bru.Air and partners will do a big expansion in BRU.
Maybe there is already a very detailed plan what this Star Alliance future will bring for BRU ?

2) What about Jet Airways... a lot of rumours that they will leave BRU ? If this will happen BRU airport will lose about 1 million passengers a year. How does this fit in the 460 million investment? So will Jet Airways really leave BRU or "is there a lot of smoke but no fire" ... and does Jet Airways already have an agreement they will not leave but further expand in BRU… and are closer with a Star Alliance deal then we all might think. This would also explain the expanding Pier A West project.
All Star Alliance members under one roof.

3) new players... investing 460 million means you are talking whit a lot of new (long haul) players and have a agreement that they will come in the future or build a mini hub in BRU (Hainan?)... You're not building an infrastructure and then hope they will come... but it’s the other way around… you sign a contract with these new players and then build the infrastructure to accommodate them and give them a good service so they can further expand their BRU services.

--

Conclusion.
Like I said before... I have no facts and a lot of assumptions !
But looking at this from a business point of view their must be happing a lot more "achter de schermen" than we think... otherwise these 460 million would be a very risky investment.
And since the bank crises there are no risky investments... only 100% guarantied investments...

I'm very interested to read your thoughts/ ideas about this subject ...

ATC.

diminbru
Posts: 193
Joined: 22 Dec 2009, 16:28

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by diminbru » 30 Mar 2011, 21:47

yesterday, this press release was issued on the website of BRU

http://www.brusselsairport.be/en/blog_b ... 1-3/14312/

User avatar
RoMax
Posts: 4412
Joined: 20 Jun 2009, 16:32

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by RoMax » 30 Mar 2011, 22:01

@ATC, some remarks.
Yes the current capacity of the airport is around 28 million pax/year, BUT in the morning BRU is running almost at his maximum capacity. Especially the non-schengen flights are a real problem (remember T gates for SN in the A pier...) and A pier West will be exactly the solution for that.
SN is currently using BRU as a real hub again (see the enormous increase in transfer pax in the past months) but when you arrive at the B pier and you have to get to the A pier (or in the other way) and you have a short connection... not really a pleasant transfer. A pier West will be build so that SN/Star can use the A pier as a real hub and to offer fast and smooth connections. Combine the A pier West with the underground bagage claim system wich was build for Sabena but never finished and you have a nice SN/Star hub A pier. This will also relieve the B pier, so BRU can attract again more non-schengen traffic in the morning (especially when Jet leaves).

And I think you forget some things. This 460 million is for A pier West, finishing underground bagage system A pier, building connector (main terminal- A pier), renovating the old airport building to make it a business center, developing BRUcargo more. So I wouldn't call this investment a wild investment.

cnc
Posts: 1325
Joined: 19 May 2009, 16:14

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by cnc » 30 Mar 2011, 22:46

MR_Boeing wrote: Yes the current capacity of the airport is around 28 million pax/year, BUT in the morning BRU is running almost at his maximum capacity. Especially the non-schengen flights are a real problem (remember T gates for SN in the A pier...) and A pier West will be exactly the solution for that.
now lets hope they also have a solution to kill those ghost hours between the longhaul waves.
If you ask me they should seriously discount airlines that want to fly at these hours.
SN should also be more present in the airport with ad's and other things that get the pax attention

User avatar
Conti764
Posts: 1597
Joined: 21 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by Conti764 » 30 Mar 2011, 22:57

MR_Boeing wrote: And I think you forget some things. This 460 million is for A pier West, finishing underground bagage system A pier, building connector (main terminal- A pier), renovating the old airport building to make it a business center, developing BRUcargo more. So I wouldn't call this investment a wild investment.
I have my doubts they will get there with 460 million euro... For the aviation related constructions it probably will be sufficient. But I can hardly imagine you will also renovate the old airport building when that building has been stripped to bare concrete, especially when you see what they have in mind for this airport office building!

User avatar
Established02
Posts: 1591
Joined: 16 Oct 2002, 00:00

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by Established02 » 07 Apr 2011, 23:19

What will be the purpose of the little building (next to the green crane)?
Attachments
_MG_2362.jpg
_MG_2360.jpg
_MG_2371.jpg

User avatar
Atlantis
Posts: 4250
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 00:00

Re: BRU infrastructure: future

Post by Atlantis » 03 May 2011, 21:36

Brussels Airport published some more specific info about the construction works between 2011 and 2016.

In 2012 they are going to add 2 wide body gates at pier B.
The new bus lounges will be moved closer to the terminal. This is a very good idea. Now you have to walk to the middle or further of pier B to enter the bus lounges.

In 2014, the new connector will link the terminal with pier A

Later in 2015 the extension of pier A will be available for norrow bodies and wide bodies.


Source: Brussels Airport Airline News.

Post Reply