BrusselsAirlines - the TURBOPROPS will come!

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

Moderator: Latest news team

Post Reply
Inquirer
Posts: 2095
Joined: 14 Feb 2012, 14:30

Re: BrusselsAirlines - the TURBOPROPS will come!

Post by Inquirer »

Flanker wrote: Tolipanebas gives you an analysis of all revenues combined and all traffic combined from the balance sheet, but didn't SN have extra capacity last year? An extra A330 was added and started flying in Q3 2010.
This added quite some revenue and also quite some capacity.
So are you saying that the total capacity increase of 10% happened for a large part on long haul then?
Then what's all your talk about them dumping huge amounts of extra capacity on shorthaul routes about?
Sorry, but you sound confused once again...
Flanker wrote: There is still a 15% gap in fuel burn between an A319 and an RJ85.
Have a look at this topic in which you and I both participated:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=47310
yet now suddenly you'll disagree with that and say that the A319 is consuming 15% more than an RJ?
Has time come to argue with yourself again, like you have done in the past, or are you just talking on an irrelevant hourly basis just to make a smartlooking but completely pointless remark in order to confuse everybody? Note how he did say tripfuel, which is indeed what matters...

Besides, even if, what's the material impact of this going to be on the end result, you think?
As far as I know, and correct me if I am off, not more than 4 RJs were exchanged with a similar number of A319s last year. That's roughly 10% of their European fleet, right? So 10% of 15% = 1,5%, provided all those planes flew from the first of January, which was obviously not the case, so let's cut it down to just a potential 1% extra increase in total fuel cost due to the chance: completely irrelevant indeed.
Flanker wrote:A balance sheet is used only to analyse the general health of a company and to mark very general trends.
Which I -just like FlyBe- feel he did.

With limited numbers and in a very brief way, he has managed to paint a perfectly clear, understandable and fairly accurate view of where the main issue is situated and it's fairly obvious from his brief analysis that the main issue is indeed the agressive increase in oil prices and the unplanned consequences this has had on the budget: nowhere do I see even a shred of evidence of your often repeated claim that they are flying too big planes and that this is what has caused the massive losses; in fact, he has given credibility to the idea that not only do they seem to have managed to fill the extra capacity quite nicely indeed, but also have they been able to more than offset the added cost of that extra capacity. Whatever far more detailed segmented figures may show, it's fairly unrealistic to expect them to be so much off from the general trend which tolipanabes has shown us, that this trend can be completely inversed, so it seems to me like you have just been eating sour grapes over this, something which nicely matches the way in which you are reacting to all this... :roll:

Flanker
Posts: 395
Joined: 16 Jul 2011, 21:05

Re: BrusselsAirlines - the TURBOPROPS will come!

Post by Flanker »

Inquirer wrote:Flanker wrote:
There is still a 15% gap in fuel burn between an A319 and an RJ85.

Have a look at this topic in which you and I both participated:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=47310
yet now suddenly you'll disagree with that and say that the A319 is consuming 15% more than an RJ?
You're absurd again.
I said black on white that
The RJ100 burns almost the same as the A319 indeed.
The RJ85 burns less than the RJ100 obviously.

I don't see where I'm contradicting myself, I rather think that you're looking for something that isn't there :roll:
Inquirer wrote:So are you saying that the total capacity increase of 10% happened for a large part on long haul then?
Then what's all your talk about them dumping huge amounts of extra capacity on shorthaul routes about?
Sorry, but you sound confused once again...
You seem to be putting words in my mouth again. You're quite confused yourself.
I'm saying that his analysis is irrelevant because its end result doesn't reflect what I heard from the horse's mouth, if you see who I mean. I proved where he went wrong and that is to use the numbers of all segments together while there have been significant variables that affected other segments than the one we're discussing.


The best proof is that at the end of the run, I was right and the volume strategy was quietly put in the fridge. The 737's have been replaced by A319/A320's one on one, compared to the fleet post VEX merger. At the beginning of the summer last year it was said that they were kicking out RJ85's and introducing a319/A320, using the image of the 2-story restaurant.
By September, they realised that this wasn't sustainable and announced that they were going to reduce capacity in the winter.
Which is exactly what I said they should and would do, as the volume strategy doesn't work outside the summer, (and during the summer it wouldn't mke much of a difference when the Avro's were not flying full) where it pulls down all the yields, including the premium ones.

I estimate that the higher lease premiums had a higher impact than you think.
The increased landing rights and handling costs also had their share of impact.

According to Tolipnebas'es flawed analysis the fuel marked a +70M increase, while the extra costs of the volume strategy had an increased cost of +60M.

So isn't he pulling the wrong conclusions from his analysis that he pulled from his hair?

It's absurd anyway to talk about CASM, for an airline running on 55-60%LF on shorthaul.
Those remaining 40-45% of empty seats also cost to carry around, obviously, but at SN they are so impressed by CASM, this new word they learned recently, that they started preaching it and founding their business model around it.
It's like talking about using the most efficient dump truck in the 20 ton category to carry a single box of 20kg... it's absurd and highly irrelevant.

You can talk about CASM when you have 90% LF on a B737-400 fleet, and you're considering to replace them by a similar aircraft to reduce CASM. Otherwise it's just ridiculous and gives me nausea.

Inquirer
Posts: 2095
Joined: 14 Feb 2012, 14:30

Re: BrusselsAirlines - the TURBOPROPS will come!

Post by Inquirer »

Flanker wrote:You're absurd again.
I said black on white that
The RJ100 burns almost the same as the A319 indeed.
The RJ85 burns less than the RJ100 obviously.
So the RJ100 burns 15% more than the RJ85, or about 300kg per hour then, right??
Doesn't sound remotely right to me, but maybe some RJ pilot around here can share his professional take on this? :roll:
Flanker wrote:I don't see where I'm contradicting myself, I rather think that you're looking for something that isn't there
As pointed out before, even if it's indeed 15%, it's still fairly irrelevant because of the limited number of planes affected by it as well as the limited time it has been in effect in 2011.
In short: your fairly dubious point comes down to about 1% of total fuelcost for the year, or roughly 3M at best: not completely insignificant, but by far not invalidating any of the conclusions from above either, IMHO.
Flanker wrote:I'm saying that his analysis is irrelevant because its end result doesn't reflect what I heard from the horse's mouth, if you see who I mean.
I am 100% stupid remember -you've told me several times before- so please tell me who told you what?
Oh, top secret once again, right? Sure...
Is it the same type of hoursemouth source who's also working at ANA's HQ and allegedly shared some strategic secret with you, while everybody around here already knew of it too because well... it was already widely reported in the popular press more than 6 months before?
We all had a good laugh with your self-gloss posts in that topic! :lol:
Sadly, you've decided to delete all of those ridiculous posts of yours soon after once you realised just how immature it made you look, trying to be highly important. Pretty pathetic show that was, I must say...
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=47141
Flanker wrote:I proved where he went wrong and that is to use the numbers of all segments together while there have been significant variables that affected other segments than the one we're discussing.
So far, you have just made one little remark on his take fuel cost rise from the swap itself is fairly insignificant and can be neglected. You've put forward a figure of a 15% increase yourself as alternative, without backing it up and which seems way off to me, yet even if true, it still does not materialy change the picture painted by him because remember we're talking just 4 planes here, as I've pointed out to you.... How do you explain the other 70M increase then?
Flanker wrote:At the beginning of the summer last year it was said that they were kicking out RJ85's and introducing a319/A320, using the image of the 2-story restaurant. By September, they realised that this wasn't sustainable and announced that they were going to reduce capacity in the winter.
Which is exactly what I said they should and would do,
Sir, you are really the only one around here who's believing they have actually replaced RJ85s with A319s.
As others have repeatedly told you already, it's just not what has happened.
I've told you before: you just don't understand what they mean with volume strategy, it seems.
I have no clue what that restaurant comparison is you are refering to, but it is dead obvious to me that they are using a tactic of consolidating more passengers on fewer flights and whereas that may be a volume approach on a flight basis indeed, it sure isn't on a total production basis: it's a difference you seem not to be grasping however, blinded by the name of the chield, which may be wrongly chosen.
Anyway, good to see you think they are now doing exactly what you are saying: in that case next year's result will be brilliant and reflecting your consultancy, right? Good, then we will all be happy and you can post more constructive replies than to constantly disagree with everybody including even yourself!
Flanker wrote:I estimate that the higher lease premiums had a higher impact than you think.
The increased landing rights and handling costs also had their share of impact.
No need to estimate anyting really, any longer, the final figures are out there for everybody to read and they unambiguously show a total increase of all those costs of just 60M for the whole airline and that is including also the costs linked to building a significantly bigger long haul fleet too, like you've noted yourself.
Flanker wrote:According to Tolipnebas'es flawed analysis the fuel marked a +70M increase, while the extra costs of the volume strategy had an increased cost of +60M, so isn't he pulling the wrong conclusions from his analysis that he pulled from his hair?
Sir, you do realise that your comments are actually adding credibility to his view, as the cost which he attributed to the new strategy alone in fact also includes costs linked to for instance more A330s?

You just seem to be running out of credible arguments to deny the undeniable, which is that their fuel bill simply exploded due to the massive rise in oil cost and that this is mainly what caused last year's loss, not the introduction of more A319 like you seem to be obsessed by.
To conclude: I really don't know on what planet you live on, but it sure must be a very small place for you not to have noticed that indeed the cost of energy has simply soared during last year. Be adviced however that everybody else did notice it and thus isn't buying your view that the increase is mainly due to them using bigger and fuel thirsty planes.

Homo Aeroportus
Posts: 1489
Joined: 24 Feb 2007, 18:28
Location: 2300NM due South of North Pole

Re: BrusselsAirlines - the TURBOPROPS will come!

Post by Homo Aeroportus »

Time to Squawk 7500 ?

:roll:

Sikiri
Posts: 71
Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 00:00

Re: BrusselsAirlines - the TURBOPROPS will come!

Post by Sikiri »

I've been a long time reader here at luchtzak. And I'm getting really tired of these fights. I don't care if it's SN vs FR or A319 vs RJ100. A decent discussions about the A319 vs RJ100 could be interesting, if it focused on performance, operating cost, training cost, maintenance cost, fuel cost,.... instead of personal favorites and feelings. But not in this topic since neither the airbus nor the avro are turboprop aircraft.


So, to bring us back to the topic, here are some interesting articles about turboprops:
http://theflyingengineer.com/aircraft/p ... -vs-atr72/
http://theflyingengineer.com/2012/01/30 ... -the-q400/

The first article states that basically, if you want performance, you go for the Q400, since this was designed from the start as a regional jet replacement. If you want the lowest cost, you go for the ATR72. To quote the first article: 'The Q400 and the ATR72 are two aircraft in their own leagues, beyond a true comparison. The Q400 offers immense operational flexibility and unparalleled performance, while requiring only one aircraft type for most missions. The ATR 72 wins over the Q400 in the operating economics, from the start to the finish. The ATR 72 is less expensive to purchase, to operate, and goes out with a good resale value to cost sensitive operators due to a high demand for the type.'

I also have an question about Brussels airlines and the Q400. Are the operating costs of the Q400's that interesting to SN, since they are operated on a wet lease basis. Did SN look to lease the Q400, or did they just look for the best wet lease opportunity in the 50-70 seat market.
If SN wanted to buy some Q400's on a later stage, it would be a good idea to get operating experience on the Q400. Otherwise, why would they care if these flights are operated by a Q400, ATR-42/72, EMB-145 or CRJ?

Post Reply