Brussels Airlines future and financial perspective

[sean1982]

Also ... The A342 is too small
The A343's hot and high performance is almost none existent (unless you trade with weight ... Fuel/pax/cargo)
The A345 is for ULH
The A346 guzzels fuel in comparison with similar two engined aircraft.

The aircraft is dead ... (And that's why Airbus killed the program)

[teach]

I have to say that I supports both Sean's point of view, and his way of bringing it across. There was nothing silly or "jerk-like" about his comment.

When you make the claim the A340 is one of the worst planes in history from an economical POV, it's a silly remark, not supported by any fact. It really is that simple. You supporting his assertion while in your reaction actually supporting mine makes your reaction all the more strange and inexplicable.

[KriVa]

You are familiar with hyperbole, are you not?
In any case, Sean's reaction was quite civil, yours... Slightly less so. Please play the ball, not the man.
If you'd like to discuss this further, my inbox can still receive quite a few PMs.
For now, back on topic!

[Stij]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the A340 has become obsolete the moment the FAA increased the ETOPS possibilities enormously rendering 4 engine operations (except for a few niches) obsolete.

Cheers,

Stij

[Treeper]

A350-800 MTOW 248 tonnes.
A350-900 MTOW 268 tonnes
A350-1000 MTOW 308 tonnes

A330NEO MTOW 242 tonnes

what are the MTOW of SN A332's & A333's?

Would it be a good idea that SN sends a daily A330F to AFI with the cargo overload of their AFI flights?

[Flanker2]

Treeper, I think that it takes a lot more than a few of the lowest yielding pallets to make a A330F viable.

At best, a B737F (or A320F if made available) could do the job even if they have more capacity to offer.
You need high yielding and stable cargo demand to make a dedicated freighter work, while belly cargo is more of a convenient extra source of revenue with pax revenue being the main stream of income.

A couple of QC aircraft would be convenient for SN to operate as spares in case an A330 goes tech and for when there is seasonal cargo demand, but for now I think that it makes more sense to take higher MTOW A330's and gradually increase frequencies. If the pax side is doing well, they need to capitalise on that too.

[Treeper]

Treeper, I think that it takes a lot more than a few of the lowest yielding pallets to make a A330F viable.

At best, a B737F (or A320F if made available) could do the job ...

would they have enough range?

[crew1990]

For Dakar, Banjul, Conacry it shouldn't be a problem, but I think the aircraft which could fit the best for SN cargo operation would be the 757 or the 767 as there are smaller than a A330 so fit better the cargo capacity need, but in the mean time can serve all the SN destination.

But now let's be honest, I'm sure dedicated cargo aircraft can be a good idea but there are still plenty of new passenger market where SN can still invest and grow, and as long SN won't be at the maximum of what they can do in the PAX operation they won't invest in in the cargo unless in goes and in hand with the pax operation. Meaning that if SN has the choice to integrate a new wide body in the fleet it will aways be a passenger aircraft with some rooms for the cargo instead of a full cargo aircraft.

[avroflyer_1]

I do personally believe that if this trend continues SN should look at bigger aircraft instead of a full cargo ops... Introducing the 77W like LX or the A350 which have a bigger capacity of pax , cargo and more range to open new markets too.

[Jetter]

I do personally believe that if this trend continues SN should look at bigger aircraft instead of a full cargo ops... Introducing the 77W like LX or the A350 which have a bigger capacity of pax , cargo and more range to open new markets too.

Welcome Avroflyer. Sadly it seems SN can't afford 77W's or A350's, but only A330CEO's and Avro's. You should like the latter though

[avroflyer_1]

I do personally believe that if this trend continues SN should look at bigger aircraft instead of a full cargo ops... Introducing the 77W like LX or the A350 which have a bigger capacity of pax , cargo and more range to open new markets too.

Welcome Avroflyer. Sadly it seems SN can't afford 77W's or A350's, but only A330CEO's and Avro's. You should like the latter though

Thx Jetter even though I'm not entirely new (I locked myself out of my original account... oops ).

Indeed at this time 77W's or 350's are only a distant dream but in the future it could be an option with a trend of rising pax numbers and rising demand for cargo or of course as suggested before to go double daily with 330's could be more viable on short term.

[Bel33]

Meanwhile..., SFW is back in Brussels after C-check in Lisbon...
I think all A330 had their C-check and are now ready for the summer season

[OO-ITR]

Meanwhile..., SFW is back in Brussels after C-check in Lisbon...
I think all A330 had their C-check and are now ready for the summer season

No, SFY is the next one to have its C-check

[sn26567]

In the framework of the financial perspective of Brussels Airlines, this crazy story:

SN Brussels Sued For Over US$1M Damages

After failing to account for several items belonging to Cllr. Moiffie Kanneh, SN Brussels Airlines, one of the leading commercial airlines operating in the country, has been taken to the Civil Law Court and sued to pay US$1,012,010 in damages.

In his Action of Damages for Wrong filed in court, lawyers representing Kanneh are demanding that SN Brussels Airline be held liable to pay US$12,010 as special damages and US$1,000,000 as general damages for the “inconveniencies, serious embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish the defendant’s action has caused him to the extent that he cannot interact freely with his friends and other relatives.”

Kanneh’s lawyers also asked the court to award their client punitive damages in any amount it would deem necessary for the airline’s wrongful handling of his luggage.

Some of the missing items in the luggage, according to the plaintiff, include a Samsung HTC and Black Beret phone, several items of clothing, drugs and medical material, as well as, watches, and camera.

The suit alleges that on July 18, 2015, Kanneh, who is an employee of the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), decided to take his annual vacation last year in the United States, where he would spend time with his family, relatives and friends.

Based on that, he went to the management of SN Brussels and purchased a round trip ticket that would afford him the opportunity to travel to the US and back to Liberia.

After staying a few weeks in the US, Kanneh chose to return home to resume work at UNMIL.

Unfortunately, on August 4, after Kanneh disembarked from Flight 124 at the Roberts International Airport, he alleged that he was told that one of his luggages could not be located.

He was also informed by the airline that his luggage may have been placed on another flight and was therefore told by the company to give them a few days to check with other connecting flights to see if his luggage would be identified.

According to the court record, Kanneh agreed because some of the items in the missing luggage were belongings of other people who went to his house to take delivery of their properties sent by their relatives residing in the US.

The document further alleged that after several calls and conversations, on August 13, Cllr. Kanneh was informed by one Benedict, who was then designated representative of the airline, to fill out a Baggage Inventory Form and to make a full listing of the items that were contained in the luggage.

In compliance with Benedict’s request, Kanneh alleged, he listed the items in the missing bag.
Besides, the records alleged the management of SN Brussels advised Kanneh to do a formal complaint to the Customer Relations Section of the airline, which he did.

While waiting for a response, Konneh claimed that he sent several letters as reminders to the company, but unfortunately he did not receive any positive result. Instead, the airline promised that they were still looking into the matter.

“Some of the items contained in the missing luggage belong to other people who have written our client expressing their disgust and questioning his hard earned reputation, which he built over the years,” the lawyers stated in their suit, adding “he received several letters from owners of some of the missing items also expressing dissatisfaction over the manner in which our client was handling the issue of their items that were entrusted into the care of Kanneh.”

“No matter how much explanation he gives, people are still doubting him saying that he has converted those items into his personal use and is only trying to give frivolous excuse or cover-up stories to lie on the airline,” the lawyers said in their lawsuit.

Therefore, the lawyers said the action of the SN Brussels management has caused serious injury to his reputation and embarrassment to his character as a lawyer and statesman to the extent he is unable to move freely, because everywhere he goes, especially among his friends and relatives, people would ask him about their missing items.

Source: Liberian Observer

Has Mr Kanneh ever heard about the IATA regulations ruling lost baggage? He will be lucky if he gets $1000... (that is, if he kept the baggage ticket!)

[avroflyer_1]

Meanwhile..., SFW is back in Brussels after C-check in Lisbon...
I think all A330 had their C-check and are now ready for the summer season

No, SFY is the next one to have its C-check

It is SFU that has left for LIS to have it's C-check

[Freken]

-snip-

I bet the SN legal departement is having a good laugh at this. Not even worth mentioning

[Flanker2]

Has Mr Kanneh ever heard about the IATA regulations ruling lost baggage? He will be lucky if he gets $1000... (that is, if he kept the baggage ticket!)

Thanks for sharing the article. I want to rectify you on your comment and also develop on this. IATA has no regulating power.
Airlines are free to adapt IATA regulations as an acceptable standard, but they are not law unless voted at the national level of the country of the operating airline and/or country of departure/arrival (perhaps even country of overflight).
I don't know of any country that has voted any IATA regulations into law, simply because it's too much hassle to have to vote on every single amendment that IATA makes.

ICAO however has power of law in many countries (provided that the country is a signatory to the Warsaw Connvention and it's also voted into their national laws). Loss of luggage is covered under the Montreal convention.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/tr ... ility.html

In order to improve the liability regime in the event of death of or injury to passengers of EU airlines, member states of the EU introduced legislation in 1997 that ensured that the same limits were in place in all EU member states. EU Regulation 2027/1997 (pdf), however, did not provide for damage, delay or loss of luggage. Liability limits for damage, delay or loss of luggage or cargo still relied on the 1929 Warsaw Convention.

EU Regulation 889/2002 (pdf) amended the 1997 Regulation and brought the EU states into line with the Montreal Convention. It harmonised liability limits and legal defences in respect of European carriers, irrespective of whether the accident happens on an internal, intra-Community or international flight.

Under the Regulation, an EU airline must be insured up to a level that is adequate to ensure that all persons entitled to compensation receive the full amount to which they are entitled. They must provide each passenger with a written indication of the applicable liability limit for the flight in respect of:

Death or injury
Luggage which is destroyed, lost or damaged
Damage occasioned by delay
Death or injury to passengers
There is no financial limit on the liability of an EU airline for damages sustained by you in the event of death, wounding or any other bodily injury. For damages up to 113,100 SDRs, the airline cannot contest claims for compensation. Above that amount, the airline can defend itself against a claim by proving that it was not negligent or otherwise at fault.

If you are injured or killed, the airline must make an advance payment to cover immediate economic needs within 15 days. In the event of death, this advanced payment must be at least 16,000 SDRs. An advance payment does not constitute recognition of liability and may be offset against any subsequent sums that are paid.

Any court action to claim damages must be taken within 2 years from the date the aircraft arrived or should have arrived.

Lost or damaged luggage
The airline is liable if your luggage is lost, destroyed or damaged. In the case of checked luggage, the airline is liable even if it is not at fault, unless the luggage is defective. In the case of unchecked luggage, it is only liable if it is at fault.

The airline is liable for damages up to 1,131 SDRs. You can benefit from a higher liability limit by making a special declaration before checking in your luggage, and by paying a supplementary fee.

You must make a written complaint to the airline within 7 days if your luggage has been damaged or destroyed.

Your luggage is considered lost if it has not arrived within 21 days from the date it was supposed to have arrived. You should make a written complaint about your lost luggage as soon as possible after the 21 days.

However, things get more complicated if the airline doesn't respect the law, or if along the way there are complications, such as exchange of insults or if gross negligence or intentional act can be proven (ie theft of the luggage by a company employee or contractor.)
Example of theft: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/13/us/ai ... age-theft/

Montreal Convention Ch. III Article 22

5. The foregoing provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result; provided that, in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent, it is also proved that such servant or agent was acting within the scope of its employment.

A bit off topic but related: The Eurowings story is open to limitless damages considering the Montreal Convention Ch. III Article 21.

Article 21 - Compensation in case of death or injury of passengers
93
1. For damages arising under paragraph 1 of Article 17 not exceeding 100,000 Special Drawing Rights for each passenger, the carrier shall not be able to exclude or limit its liability.
94
2. The carrier shall not be liable for damages arising under paragraph 1 of Article 17 to the extent that they exceed for each passenger 100,000 Special Drawing Rights if the carrier proves that:
95
(a) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its servants or agents; or

[sean1982]

-snip-

I bet the SN legal departement is having a good laugh at this. Not even worth mentioning

I remember a whole different vibe when Phara de aguirre lost her bag

[tolipanebas]

Meanwhile..., SFW is back in Brussels after C-check in Lisbon...
I think all A330 had their C-check and are now ready for the summer season

No, SFY is the next one to have its C-check

It is SFU that has left for LIS to have it's C-check

SFY is the first A330 to undergo an interesting cabin modification however....
Official communication will follow later once the product is commercialized.

[Didymus]

Addition of Y+ cabin?