BrusselsAirlines - the TURBOPROPS will come!

[RoMax]

[
If true, I think that 90% of the people on this forum would agree that putting an A319 on 4 daily MXP during the winter seems to be too much of a waste, when SN is already operating LIN.
CPH, PRH and HAM 4 daily with A319 also seems overkill. GVA could hold 4 daily frequencies on A319 as could TXL but they will never fill all of the sectors, so the extra revenue they could get on some heavily-loaded flights, they're going to lose on the almost empty flights.

My god... who is talking about 4 daily MXP by A319. We are talking about 4 daily RJ(100) and 1 daily A319. CPH and PRH are not 4 daily A319 either. CPH is 3 daily RJ and 2 daily A319, PRG is 1 daily A319 and 3 daily RJ. HAM is 4 daily A319 in winter. GVA is currently 6-7 daily A319 with often 1 daily A320 and sometimes 1 daily RJ100. And TXL is also 4-7 daily A319 (now 4-5 daily I think, but as from September more flights get A319).
Did you ever wonder why they choose these destinations? Berlin: EasyJet competition, GVA: easyjet competition, PRH: CSA competition with A32S/737, CPH: 5 daily flights by SAS, no codeshare, so competition, MXP: easyJet competition. Only HAM and GOT for exemple have no competition...probably need for more capacity (in the time before LH/SN there were much more flights a day on the HAM-BRU route. 7 If I'm correct).

And nothing about this will change in winter, as I said, in September even more of these destinations/flights get A319's. So absolutly NO sign of a failing strategy. A loadfactor wich is rising enormously on the European network is unseen at SN, while they are using bigger aircraft on all their routes and placed more seats in their A319's (from 132 to 141 and 138 for the two new A319's, extra seats to follow after removal of 1 toilet in those two). Still loadfactor is rising and contradicting to what you say, still no direct signs on the financial side that they are loosing money because of this strategy. Losses can easilly being explained by other reasons.

BTW, do you also ignore the fact that OS is back on the good way after facing bankruptcy, thanks to the SAME strategy as SN. And don't react with: yes but OS has Q400's. YES, but ONLY for their THIN routes just as LH regional and maybe SN in the future.

[tolipanebas]

Limiting myself to soundbites here, as I won’t be spending half a day here:

DKR and ABJ costed a few millions at best.

DKR alone costed 20M euro due to the wetlease, continued operation of the de-triangled flights half full and thus at a loss and loosing pax flying SN from DKR to other AFI destinations…
Closing ABJ costed even more…

continued cargo revenues (good luck on the Q400 with that)
From 18m³ of the RJ85 down to 14m³ is acceptable

It really isn't, knowing the RJ85 has volume problems on many morning flights already today as from a loadfactor of about 85%, given the fact African pax carry A LOT of hold luggage...
Since you’re plan is to use the Q400 to capacity you’d have the same issue with it, also at about 80%. Your business case of the Q400 however relies on planes filled to cracking (frequency fragmentation, remember), so that basically means SN would have to bar cargo on their flights completely then.

lowered unit costs (from the bigger pax volumes),
The pax volume can be matched by higher frequency services

Which in turn requires more planes, thus higehr crew numbers, higher back office staff numbers, and higher overhead costs; not really cutting unit costs in my eyes…

less maintenance costs (less inventory and staff)
Less inventory for the A319 but higher inventory costs per unit. Airbus parts are in high demand and expensive for a small fleet like SN's. A lot of the component maintenance (engines, wheels, brakes etc...) can't be done in-house. Staff costs are questionable, since the Q400 doesn't require daily checks that the A319 does

A maintenance program which does include daily checks has the benefit of reducing the cost/time for C checks later. Skipping dailies is not a good option in the long run and is only done by very small companies which lack infrastructure and an in house maintenance department: SN certanly would not do that!
Also, SN can benefit from the buying force of the LH group in building up Airbus inventory (in fact they already do), something they can’t to the same extend for the Q400.

higher yield (due to more comfort)
If they keep putting those Recaro seats in the A319's, I doubt there will be more comfort. For business pax, a completely free seat next to you is better than 1 free seat per 2 pax.

If you want to give business class pax a free seat on the Q400, then knowing you’re aiming this market segment, how much ‘lost’ seats do you think you’ll have on an average flight?
And why is it that I don’t see this reflexted in any of your simulations then?
A lost seat on the Q400 is worth 2 on the A319, so for each seat you keep open, any remaining cost advantage the Q400 has letf, gets erased dramatically quickly.

The A319 will definitely beat the Q400 on CASM, mainly due to shorter flight times.

It most certainly does and not only due flight time, but also its bigger capacity.
And if you’re honnest with yourself and apply your real business class product strategy to your generic ‘complex calculations’ like you call them, you’ll see just how quickly the turboprop plane gets trashed by the bigger jet. Even on a typical Q400 route like BRU-MAN, you’ll run into problems really soon and a turboprop is only good for off-peak flights which you can not fill, no matter what.
A point-to-point airline will much quicker be faced with stagnating demand than a network carrier, hence the need for relatively small planes to be much weaker from network carriers than from point-to-point carriers... Simply ignoring the fact SN is a STAR alliance member and gets very good feed from it (and increasing) isn’t contributing to a correct estimation of the bottom line here...

However, the lower costs of operating the right capacity with improved frequencies will both reduce costs and increase revenues.

As I’ve told you before, it won’t: you are assuming demand througout the day to be steady: reality is it isn’t: at 8 o’ clock, you’ll have for instance 100 pax willing to go to XYZ, at 11 o’ clock however only 10 pax are interested in joining a flight there. If you operate a turboprop with just 70 seats for instance but offer more frequencies throughout the day to compensate, you’ll lose 30 pax on your 8 o’clock flight -in fact, you’ll lose more even due to yield management restrictions- and operate a flight at 11 o’clock with maybe 20 pax (those original 10, plus 10 you may have convinced to wait iso take the competition).
The bottom line is that you’ll have to operate 2 TP flights: one at (almost) 100%, one at only 25%, meaning an average loadfactor of bot even 65%, really not such a great idea!
Operating a second flight for the overall same number of pax than you could load in a singe A319 isn’t really reducing costs, and not making higher yields either…

I’ve said it before and I stick to it: the turboprop makes PERFECT sense for relatively SHORT routes, on condition demand is LOW, meaning off-peak for both point-to-point (first wave) as well as network pax (second wave). Looking at our network, that means about 20% at best.


RMK: I will pull out of this discussion, I've done my best to explain why the turboprop has only a very limited use for network carriers, and certainly isn't a good platform to operate longer flights with on routes which see a fairly good demand and/or have competition on them, yet 2 days into this topic and we're back at the same as before, including all the yelling and even the offences... Maybe the moderator can step in before this turns too nasty?

[Flanker]

Ok I see how I misunderstood that.
Now you try to read it and you'll see:

As from this winter: 4/d A319. GVA, TXL, PRG, HAM, MXP, CPH,... are still getting their A319's this winter AND after the winter.

Now it makes sense again.

Did you ever wonder why they choose these destinations? Berlin: EasyJet competition, GVA: easyjet competition, PRH: CSA competition with A32S/737, CPH: 5 daily flights by SAS, no codeshare, so competition, MXP: easyJet competition. Only HAM and GOT for exemple have no competition...probably need for more capacity (in the time before LH/SN there were much more flights a day on the HAM-BRU route. 7 If I'm correct).

Easyjet, at GVA, MXP and TXL. I wouldn't exactly call it competition.
SN has kept frequencies so high that U2 hasn't had the possibility to put more than 1 frequency per day.
Keyword: frequency.

PRG and CPH with CSA and SK.
SN has more or less 3 daily Avro RJ's on these routes where CSA and SK have more or less 2 daily A319's.
If SN goes 3 daily A319 on these routes to replace the Avro's, they can lower prices but there will be an overcapacity on these routes.
If SN goes 5 daily Q400's on these routes instead, they will strangle CSA and SK and force them to reduce their equipment to smaller aircraft. After a few years, as they get more market share, they can merge the 2 most successful Q400 frequencies into a A319 frequency and so on.
Keyword: frequency

[Flanker]

y fragmentation, remember), so that basically means SN would have to bar cargo on their flights completely then.

It's better to chase one rabbit and catch one, than chase two rabbits and catch none.
Most Q400 flights would have passengers travelling light and the higher frequencies allow to disperse the cargo.
Either way, the Q400 has the same cargo volume as the larger E-190 and a good cargo door, so it's not bad at all.
The Avro RJ's have really exceptional cargo capabilities, much more than they need.
On a per pax basis, the Avro RJ's and the Q400 have more cargo volume than the A319.

Which in turn requires more planes, thus higehr crew numbers, higher back office staff numbers, and higher overhead costs; not really cutting unit costs in my eyes…

It requires more planes and more crews.
The difference is reflected in the operating costs of the MAN example.
Overhead costs can rise slightly but it won't erode the added profitability by any significant margins.
In the MAN example, the increased profitability was 60.000 euro per week.

A maintenance program which does include daily checks has the benefit of reducing the cost/time for C checks later. Skipping dailies is not a good option in the long run and is only done by very small companies which lack infrastructure and an in house maintenance department: SN certanly would not do that!
Also, SN can benefit from the buying force of the LH group in building up Airbus inventory (in fact they already do), something they can’t to the same extend for the Q400.

It doesn't because daily checks are more of an operational restriction than a cost-saver. Pilots still have to do the walk-arounds anyway. If the BCAA allows it, I don't see a reason for SN to not omit the daily checks. If the type certificate allows it in its MPD, there's no reason not to use it. The aircraft would still need a line check/weekly where the aircraft can be reviewed.
As to building Airbus inventory through LH, they don't. They could in the future, (unless they have agreements with current component suppliers) but it's not the case now.

If you want to give business class pax a free seat on the Q400, then knowing you’re aiming this market segment, how much ‘lost’ seats do you think you’ll have on an average flight?
And why is it that I don’t see this reflexted in any of your simulations then?
A lost seat on the Q400 is worth 2 on the A319, so for each seat you keep open, any remaining cost advantage the Q400 has letf, gets erased dramatically quickly.

It doesn't matter much until SN changes its business class strategy to what I propose.
FYI, the turboprop suppliers offer business class seating with 3-abreast seating.

As I’ve told you before, it won’t: you are assuming demand througout the day to be steady: reality is it isn’t: at 8 o’ clock, you’ll have for instance 100 pax willing to go to XYZ, at 11 o’ clock however only 10 pax are interested in joining a flight there. If you operate a turboprop with just 70 seats for instance but offer more frequencies throughout the day to compensate, you’ll lose 30 pax on your 8 o’clock flight -in fact, you’ll lose more even due to yield management restrictions- and operate a flight at 11 o’clock with maybe 20 pax (those original 10, plus 10 you may have convinced to wait iso take the competition).

The smaller turboprop can better pick the peak traffic because you can put one or more airplanes on the peak moments. One of the considerations of most travelers is to choose an airline that offers many flights to fall back on as back-up.
In your example, you can operate a flight at 7:30 and one at 8:40. That way you can capture 125 passengers who want to leave at 7:00, 8:00 or 9:00, instead of 100 pax at 8:00. You'll win 25 more pax.

I will pull out of this discussion, I've done my best to explain why the turboprop has only a very limited use for network carriers, and certainly isn't a good platform to operate longer flights with on routes which see a fairly good demand and/or have competition on them, yet 2 days into this topic and we're back at the same as before, including all the yelling and even the offences... Maybe the moderator can step in before this turns too nasty?

You are running out on arguments, aren't you?
It's not a good platform to operate longer flights between high demand markets. There the A319 is better.
But it's the perfect platform to operate longer flights between low demand markets, where no jet can ever be profitable.

I think that routes like LIS, FCO, BCN, MAD, ARN, MRS, GVA need something like the A319/A320.
The Q400 would be too small to compete there indeed, because there is already a high frequency high volume battle between several airlines. But anywhere else, the TP's can play a major role for SN.

[cathay belgium]

@NCB !

NCB,I agree you have fans on this forum, one of them is me,but for other reasons
Believe it or not but , but the only one with arrogance for the moment is U !
But hey, I don't care because I predict you'll be gone AGAIN wheeping in two weeks...
Saying all the others write or do purpose is bullshit euh..,don't have to remind U of your luchtzak
history no??? HAHAH (flying catering around AFI )
Folowing your replies and suggestions I still don't think you haven't more route knowledge than me !
I agree you have technical more info concerning routing operations but economic you still lack some,
I know I do too but reading your posts mmm..

*. MAN-BOD are indeed a TP route for SN,but you can't compare MAN with GVA nor TXL !

The thing is you just use in your replies whats suits your logic and all the others are wrong..
Technically you make your point but your technical view can't be supported with a STRATEGY for the future,
altough you're convinced you do..
If you did, you shouldn't be so sure of your right.

Final :

You said you would never come back / read luchtzak again.. you broke your own promise..haha
I guess you have a multiple personality disorder isn't it NCB/Flanker /..

CX-B

NOTE : I will also stop my bullshit in this topic as I really finally realise that my point of view won't be folowed by SN, as NCB overruled everyone with his views and SN will order tommorowmorning 40 TP,30 for the AVRO routes and 10 more for their catering services ... Hope the pax follows SN view and take less laggage with them and will fly almost evry hour they want to TXL with TP's.
I still wondering how many airliners will follow SN example, KLM?,BA? ... the world according to Bombardier AMEN !

For the AVGeeks-daytrippers amongst us, the next daytrip will be with the Dash8Q400NG !
If anyone can propose a destination ?

[werknemer]

hello all of you!
i will give you my idea about the subject.

lot of frequency is great when you have all day long the same number of demanding pax on the route like LH,AF, KLM, BA
but we sn, only have a few big demanding waves
from bru it is most time after the landing of our LH and other LH codeshares between 8 and 10 o'clock
then you have a big gap till 14 when you have the mix between incoming MH connections from the morning and outgoing connections
and then the same again around 18
to BRU, morning flights full because coming to bru for connections on LH and MH (8 and 9 o'clock)
and again around 13 for mh connections and in afternoon, not so full because we don't have any LH and no more connections to offer

so we have tu use A319 to be able to transfer all our pax on high demanded hours!
because if we reduce capacity to more frequency that means that lots of pax will miss there connection
that is why we have more capacity on those flights and reduce frequency on some routes where you have holiday pax

big companies they have all day long waves of connecting pax,but we, we don't have
so if we want more frequency, then we have to do it with all routes so we can give a good connection to our pax and then yes! we will need 60 planes!
but if we don't have to money to have a 6 th A330 i don't see how we can purchase all those planes!

plus, that means lot of crews! so lot of money and big investments!
and also we are to small to be able to train crews and do all the paperwork for the new planes!in such a short time!
it takes months to have a new plane in the company!
that is also one of the reasons why we didn't take a 6 th A330!
priority was on the A319 this year ( i am talking about training and paperwork)

and also the smaller the plane the more you are restricted with the price, you will have to sell the tkt much higher then on a A319 where you can sell the first 70 seats for only 100 euro so at least you have some money and the last you sell at 400 minimum and yes you will sell most of the seats because those poeple have no choice! they need to fly!
that's why we have every 3 weeks promotions , to fill the plane
because the paying pax buy his tkt most time 3 to 4 weeks before departure

but i guess most of you know all those things if you do work for sn

[azingrew]

I've stayed away from this "Flanker" monologue but there's one aspect that the " Bombardier Pom Pom girl" forgets in regards to TP: As a former travel agent I can guarantie you that people HATE them. Over a hour in a TP is a nightmare for the ears if you have the bad luck to be seated behind the propeller. Why to you think AF will do NTE-BRU or DUS with Embraer ? It's the " Jet" factor. An ATR or a Q400 is way more confortable than the 135 or 145, yet they could have put an ATR 42 and choose not to. People do not like propeller and airlines know that! . So I see a maximum of 6 TP and a new 85/100 seats to replace the RJ's.

[RoMax]

Easyjet, at GVA, MXP and TXL. I wouldn't exactly call it competition.
SN has kept frequencies so high that U2 hasn't had the possibility to put more than 1 frequency per day.
Keyword: frequency.

PRG and CPH with CSA and SK.
SN has more or less 3 daily Avro RJ's on these routes where CSA and SK have more or less 2 daily A319's.
If SN goes 3 daily A319 on these routes to replace the Avro's, they can lower prices but there will be an overcapacity on these routes.
If SN goes 5 daily Q400's on these routes instead, they will strangle CSA and SK and force them to reduce their equipment to smaller aircraft. After a few years, as they get more market share, they can merge the 2 most successful Q400 frequencies into a A319 frequency and so on.
Keyword: frequency

Euhm, 1 daily...easyJet...?? No, not really it must be more something like 2-4 daily flights for GVA, MXP and Berlin (depending on the period of the year).
And for PRG, this is just a route wich can use higher demand as SN focuses a lot more on transfer (and not only to AFI but also within Europe). They added a 4th daily flight this summer and one of the 4 daily flights is A319. Regarding to CSA, they fly 3 daily with B735 and A319/A320.
For CPH, both SN and SK have 5 daily. SK has A319, MD-series and 1 daily CRJ900. SN currently has 5 daily RJ (majority RJ100 I think) and as from September it will be 3 daily RJ and 2 daily A319.
But anyway, that aside. The keyword is not just frequency. It's the right combination of demand, frequency, right aircraft and competition...

But really, as many others I'm tired of responding at your posts. You deny the key points other members are telling you and when we deny a detail in you post you say we are not reading your whole posts because we don't respond at it. Maybe you didn't realise that most members are not spending every minute of their life on luchtzak.be .
So as some others also said now, this is officially my last post in this topic until we get official news from SN.

[Flanker]

Euhm, 1 daily...easyJet...?? No, not really it must be more something like 2-4 daily flights for GVA, MXP and Berlin (depending on the period of the year).
And for PRG, this is just a route wich can use higher demand as SN focuses a lot more on transfer (and not only to AFI but also within Europe). They added a 4th daily flight this summer and one of the 4 daily flights is A319. Regarding to CSA, they fly 3 daily with B735 and A319/A320.
For CPH, both SN and SK have 5 daily. SK has A319, MD-series and 1 daily CRJ900. SN currently has 5 daily RJ (majority RJ100 I think) and as from September it will be 3 daily RJ and 2 daily A319.
But anyway, that aside. The keyword is not just frequency. It's the right combination of demand, frequency, right aircraft and competition...

I don't know what it must be but the Easyjet I know only has a daily flight to GVA, MXP, SXF.
It seems that SN indeed has 4 PRG frequencies on some days and 5 to CPH.

[RoMax]

I don't know what it must be but the Easyjet I know only has a daily flight to GVA, MXP, SXF.
It seems that SN indeed has 4 PRG frequencies on some days and 5 to CPH.

Ok, one LAST time (for easyJet):
- GVA: 2-3 daily flights on most days
- MXP: 2 daily on most days
- SXF: 2 daily on most days
This may vary a bit by period (and especially Saterday is a 'low traffic day' for easy at BRU).

About PRG, not "on some days", but on all weekdays. Maybe in this season it may be a bit less because of lower business demand in summer months, but normally it is 4/day on each weekday.

[Flanker]

so we have tu use A319 to be able to transfer all our pax on high demanded hours!
because if we reduce capacity to more frequency that means that lots of pax will miss there connection
that is why we have more capacity on those flights and reduce frequency on some routes where you have holiday pax

What about this perspective.

Airlines like AF, BA, LH, LX have several long-haul waves and thousands of long-haul connecting passengers over each wave. They can afford to have many frequencies with larger airplanes because feeding naturally fills part of their large aircraft.

SN has 2 microscopic long-haul waves close to one another in the late morning and early afternoon.
For the rest of the day, there's only feeding between EU flights.

SN already serves its major feeding flights like CDG with A319/B7337 where they need to.
However, if you look at the CDG schedule, you see that PAX coming off the 6:30 African arrivals have to wait 3 hours in BRU before they can connect to Paris.
With a turboprop, they could do the same job but with more frequencies so that passengers can transit more smoothly and efficiently in case of delays. If there's a delay now to the first incoming African flights, the B737-400 can't wait because it needs to pick up passengers for the African outbound flights. What if you can't put them all, including the pax from the later Africa arrivals, on the second B737-400 flight?

Example of schedule with Q400:

BRU 0630 CDG 0730
BRU 0700 CDG 0800
BRU 0730 CDG 0830
BRU 0800 CDG 0900

CDG 0800 BRU 0900
CDG 0830 BRU 0930
CDG 1000 BRU 1100
CDG 1030 BRU 1130

Moreover, it makes sense to operate some frequencies to CDG or ORY in the afternoon so that some intra-EU pax generating from smaller EU regional airports that have no direct flight to Paris can go to Paris with SN via BRU.

I've stayed away from this "Flanker" monologue but there's one aspect that the " Bombardier Pom Pom girl" forgets in regards to TP: As a former travel agent I can guarantie you that people HATE them. Over a hour in a TP is a nightmare for the ears if you have the bad luck to be seated behind the propeller. Why to you think AF will do NTE-BRU or DUS with Embraer ? It's the " Jet" factor. An ATR or a Q400 is way more confortable than the 135 or 145, yet they could have put an ATR 42 and choose not to. People do not like propeller and airlines know that! . So I see a maximum of 6 TP and a new 85/100 seats to replace the RJ's.

The Bombardier pom pom girl salutes you. I really don't care if it's Bombardier or Cessna or Google. We're in survival mode, for you it may be a funny joke or beyond your grasp but this is a decision that has an impact on thousands of people's lives.
The Q400 with post-2006 ANVS is very quiet. In cruise the Q400 is quieter than the ERJ's and it's a lower huuum or more of a zoooom than the iiiin you hear on the ERJ's.
The big difference is that the ERJ can't make any money on BOD-NTE-BRU while the Q400 can.

Ok, one LAST time (for easyJet):
- GVA: 2-3 daily flights on most days
- MXP: 2 daily on most days
- SXF: 2 daily on most days
This may vary a bit by period (and especially Saterday is a 'low traffic day' for easy at BRU).

I checked and indeed from August 29th they have the schedule you're talking about.

[sn26567]

Being retired, I had the time to follow this discussion extensively, and I am somewhat disappointed by the tone it often has.

Most of you are developping valid points. Some of you even take the time to present extensive calculations and explanations to sustain their point of view. This is quite encouraging. But the, why not listen to the arguments of people who have a different opinion and who take the time to develop arguments to sustain that opinion?

This is a forum where everybody is allowed to present his/her opinion. We expect members to do it in a civilised way, with respect for others and for their opinion.

I hope that this interesting thread will continue with everybody having consideration and respect for the others' opinions.

[SN1203]

Example of schedule with Q400:

BRU 0630 CDG 0730
BRU 0700 CDG 0800
BRU 0730 CDG 0830
BRU 0800 CDG 0900

CDG 0800 BRU 0900
CDG 0830 BRU 0930
CDG 1000 BRU 1100
CDG 1030 BRU 1130

The thought alone of operating the Q400 on SN's Africa (de)feeder flights is hilarious!

Next to that - what are you going to do with those 4 aircraft you need in the morning for CDG during the rest of the day?

How it really works: what you need for one line of flying is a destination that supports a Q400 in the morning & evening, ideally with an afternoon rotation on top (like Brussels Airlines uses the Q400 on the Hanover route for instance). In case a morning & evening rotation to destination XXX is sufficient, you add an off peak afternoon rotation on top of a destination that requires bigger capacity in the morning & evening (i.e. you increase productivity of your Q400 fleet and you reduce the cost of an off peak low demand flight).

Fictitious example:
Q400 1 - HAJ BRU HAJ BRU HAJ BRU HAJ
Q400 2 - BRU AAA BRU BBB BRU AAA BRU (whereby 'AAA' is your destination that requires a morning & evening rotation and BBB is an off peak rotation of a route that requires the ARJ/Airbus in the morning & evening).

So how exactly would this work?
Q400 1 - BRU CDG BRU ?????????????????????????
Q400 2 - BRU CDG BRU ?????????????????????????
Q400 3 - BRU CDG BRU ?????????????????????????
Q400 4 - BRU CDG BRU ?????????????????????????

[dre]

Everybody seems to be convinced that the TP for SN will be A Q400.
I would opt for the ATR72-500 or 600. Spare parts are largely available through Sabena techniques.
I assume they will start with wet lease anyway....

[RoMax]

Everybody seems to be convinced that the TP for SN will be A Q400.
I would opt for the ATR72-500 or 600. Spare parts are largely available through Sabena techniques.
I assume they will start with wet lease anyway....

I'm not convinced it will be Q400. But (as I said) I would prefer the Q400NG and because of that I would use Q400 in order of "turboprops" in my posts, but no, I'm not convinced it will be the Q400.

On the other hand, most maintenance is done by SN itself since earlier this year (exept for heavy maintenance of the Boeing and Airbus fleet). SN took over a Sabena techniques hangar and several of their staff (somewhere between 70 and 75 earlier this year, if I remember well). So I wonder, is Sabena Techniques still doing something for SN (ok they can still sign some kind of contract to maintain the ATR fleet or to share parts)? And the LH group has quite some Q400's, and I think LH would be more significant in the TP decision than Sabena Techniques.

[Air Key West]

If b.air is looking to wet lease a number of tps, I presume the type of aircraft is not really import. Correct me if I'm wrong since I'm far from being an expert, but if b.air goes for acmi contracts, the maintenance will be done by the lessor (so no maintenance by SN). Most tps could be considered depending on how many seats b.air wants. I searched the internet (for what it's worth, of course) and found that several aircraft types seem to be available for acmi contracts (ATRs, Q400s, Fokker 50, Saab). If acmi contracts are signed and if, let's say, b.air wants to wet lease three aircraft, they could be three different aircraft types and not necessarily Q400s.

My interpretation is that b.air wants to try out tps on a wet lease basis and if the formula (tps) is considered to be a success, in a second stage b.air will (dry) lease/order their own tps.

[Flanker]

Additional wet leases/ACMI's don't really make financial sense.

Everybody seems to be convinced that the TP for SN will be A Q400.
I would opt for the ATR72-500 or 600. Spare parts are largely available through Sabena techniques.
I assume they will start with wet lease anyway....

If SN opts for only 10 TP's, the chance is bigger it would be ATR's.
If SN opts for Q400's, it would be to operate a larger fleet and to do more than just some miserable routes here and there.

Sabena Technics doesn't have any sensible ATR parts inventories in BRU.
Everything is in France for the ATR's and to have it in France for an airline operating in BRU, is like not having it at all.

MRO business depends on what fleet choices they make.
I think that if it's Q400's and a larger fleet, they'll build their own inventory and do base maintenance in-house just like the Avro's.
If it's ATR and a smaller fleet, base maintenance would be more likely to be outsourced and parts inventories would be limited to LRU's and major components.

On the other hand, most maintenance is done by SN itself since earlier this year (exept for heavy maintenance of the Boeing and Airbus fleet). SN took over a Sabena techniques hangar and several of their staff (somewhere between 70 and 75 earlier this year, if I remember well). So I wonder, is Sabena Techniques still doing something for SN (ok they can still sign some kind of contract to maintain the ATR fleet or to share parts)? And the LH group has quite some Q400's, and I think LH would be more significant in the TP decision than Sabena Techniques.

Aircraft maintenance wise, Sabena Technics doesn't have much left in BRU after Hangar 40 burned down to ashes and Hangar 41 was passed on to SN. It would cost SN more to have a contract with Sabena than to do it in-house, because Sabena also doesn't have in-house capabilities for the ATR in BRU.
Component maintenance wise, Sabena still has good capabilities in BRU but none relate to the ATR or Q400.

[Flanker]

The thought alone of operating the Q400 on SN's Africa (de)feeder flights is hilarious!

Why not?
I think that it's more hilarious to operate B737's and A319's on short hops like BRU-CDG on a schedule that is not efficient for passengers.

As SN adds more and more African flights, they need to connect BRU more efficiently to CDG if they want to convince more pax to fly with SN instead of AF.

Next to that - what are you going to do with those 4 aircraft you need in the morning for CDG during the rest of the day?

I'll give an example. Suppose SN opens many new regional routes in the vicinity of BRU that have no direct rail or air connections to Paris. SN can then use 1 of these 4 aircraft during the late morning and afternoon to operate additional frequencies to CDG to establish that connection and attract even more passengers to those regional routes.
People no matter where they live, always find a reason to go to Paris, either for business or leisure.

The same goes for destinations like LCY.
The turboprops open up to so many new possibilities to smaller regional cities like Hannover that you can never have enough of them and you can always find a way to use them.

At the same time, SN needs these smaller regional routes to feed their non-African longhaul flights like New York. People, no matter where they live, always find a reason to go to New York.
Most larger cities have direct flights to New York but people living in smaller cities always have to try to get to a hub.

That's why I think that as long as there's no efficient railway connection between large regional cities and BRU (AIRPORT), no matter the distance, these larger cities like Lille and Rotterdam deserve their own direct, efficient connection to BRU.
Especially for the Dutch and the French who are famous for not wasting their money and who hate to pay expensive airport parking fees.

Of course, if the Thalys comes into BRU and offers reasonable travel times, schedules and prices, this will be an immediate boost for SN. In such case, SN won't need the TP's on those routes (and not even the B737's for feeding).
However on lines like Brussels-Amsterdam where travel times are 2 hours, I'd already consider a TP to offer smoother connections.
Also of interest within SN's regional strategy would be to have a Thalys connection to Disneyland station in the morning and evening.

[euroflyer]

uhh Coming back from a holiday I just read this thread, well I kind of flew over 8 pages of funny discussions of (adult?) people throwing once again arguments at each other (haven't I read all those arguments before?). But maybe somebody can give any facts? Is there by now any announcement what SN will actually do? How many (if at all?) additional TPs are they going to wetlease and for which routes? Or is all this so far just blabla without any background?

Sorry, maybe it was hidden somewhere in this 8 pages, but I did not read all words ...

[Flanker]

This is an interesting article for those interested in the subject.
Bombardier is becoming desperate for Q400 orders and I'm sure they would bend over backwards to get SN on board. They've already lost several sales campaigns to ATR who has won record orders this year while the Q400 has sold only few.
Bombardier has production slots available for the end of the year and has only a 9 months backlog, that forces them to cut production temporarily.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... n-cut.html

For those who think that crew training would be a major pacing issue for the addition of the turboprops to the fleet, new aircraft orders usually include several dozen training packages for flight and ground crew. This dampens the need for in-house training.

On another note, GECAS has ordered 15+15 ATR72-600.
4 deliveries in 2012, 11 in 2013. The options are for deliveries in 2014 and later.

GECAS chief executive Norman Liu said the lessor is "actively marketing" the aircraft and has already found one customer, the identity of which is not being revealed at this stage.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... tions.html

Also of interest is that Flybe is selling 9 of their Q400's this year, of which 3 have been placed with SA.

The turboprops can come in very fast.