brussels airlines to New York!

[Bralo20]

No arrival/departure times for JFK? A332 or A333?

Thx

[Air Key West]

I understand that slots may not be easy to get, but I"m not sure that pax connecting to/from Africa will like the very long transit times at BRU : four to five hours to wait from AFI to JFK after having spent the night on the plane, and three to six hours roughly from JFK to AFI also after having spent the night on the plane, and BRU is not HKG (although I think BRU is not bad at all). Notice that the JFK flight times also allow for connections to/from European flights.

[RoMax]

With the current CO flights (summer 2011 timetable) departing 09:45 in BRU (to EWR) and arriving in BRU at 07:45 (from EWR) I think the pax are used to these long transfers. Of course they could make it better, but I suppose they will have to do it with the slots they can get, and I can imagine this may not be the most perfect shedule.

[tolipanebas]

I"m not sure that pax connecting to/from Africa will like the very long transit times at BRU

This is actually a fairly normal BRU-NYC schedule, as demonstrated by the fact it is set right in between the wave of US bound flights from BRU....

[Air Key West]

You are right, of course, about that. The purpose of the b.air flight to/from NYC is primarily to offer an SN flight (and consequently the same product) between NYC and AFI, regardless, in the first stage, of the transit times. With only one SN flight to NYC, it is probably impossible to offer better connections. Let us not forget however that AF-KL have several daily flights to several gateways in the US and, thus, still keep an advantage over SN by offering shorter connections most of the time.

If b.air's flight to NYC is a success (for me that means making at least a small profit and proves useful to funnel more NY/US pax to Africa flights), b.air should perhaps consider more flights to NYC with schedules which, I think, I have already indicated earlier on this forum, for instance, in addition to the currently proposed flight, in order to improve transit times between the US and AFI via BRU :

BRU NYC 08.30 10.45
NYC BRU 15.30 05.00
and
BRU NYC 19.30 21.45
NYC BRU 23.30 13.00

Of course, this would depend on the success of the new single flight to NYC, on slot and airdraft availability.

I could add some more thoughts/arguments/suggestions, but I'll first wait to read (positive and negative) reactions to my post in order not to be too long.

[RoMax]

If the JFK flights prove succesfull it could be a good idea indeed to start offering more flights (let's say 11 to 14 flights a week).

I wouldn't be suprised if AA stops JFK-BRU in the near/middle term future, they seem to be the weakest on the BRU-NYC market (DL operates 767, 9W A332 to JFK and EWR and UA operates 777). In that case SN could try to take a part of the market with a second daily flight (not necesserally daily, but 4-7/week). An evening flight could be really succesfull, now they prefered a morning flight for the AFI connections, but an evening flight could follow as this seems to be missed by many pax in Europe.
But this may be too early for SN, I think they'll prefer 1-2 other destinations in North America before they would increase JFK. But keep in mind that also 9W may leave (if they join Skyteam) and even if they don't leave for Skyteam they will eventually start flying non-stop to the US as they said themself.

I see both AA and 9W eventually leaving the BRU-NYC market (maybe not very soon, but eventually), in that case SN/UA could really dominate the market with up to 3 daily flights (keep in mind they are both in Atlantic++).

Another reason why a second flight by SN would become handy. As your shedule shows, an arrival around 13:00 could be achieved with a second flight. This would be ideal for the late departure AFI flights. With the changed shedule in S12 for Africa it seems there are much more flights departing between 14 and 14:30 compared to the current shedule.
With such a shedule SN can offer connections to pax from all over Europe that missed their "early" flights to NYC, they can take the evening flight of SN. And the flight offers better connections to the AFI flights that depart later. With such a shedule they can have up to two daily flights that both offer connections to/from Africa AND Europe.

But I don't think this is for 2012, doubt it will be for 2013, maybe 2014 (I could see 9W leaving the BRU-JFK market in 2014 as they start to get their 787's by then)?

[brusselsairlinesfan]

For my part, i would be sooo happy to fly to NYC on the very first brussels airlines flight. Alltogether a nice city trip with my family I would say!
Some people here seems to have all information regarding SN... so please let us know about schedules confirmation + start for the sales!
Cheers,
V

[Air Key West]

If my memory serves me right, b.air has announced two additional A330s for 2012. They have also announced that one of these planes would fly to NYC and one would be used to increase frequencies to Africa.
I also seem to remember that they announced two additional A330s for 2013 (am I right ?). If this is the case, I really hope one of the aircraft will perform an evening flight to NYC with a flight schedule as close as possible to the one I suggested in my earlier post, since, outbound, it would allow not only for adequate O&D travel, but also for quiet a number of connections from Europe, and inbound, it would offer good connections to Africa flights leaving after 1400 hours (+ a number of European cities). I really think this is the flight that is missing already today.
As to the second aircraft which would join the fleet in 2013, since Africa is b.air's niche market, I presume it will be used to offer even more frequencies to existing destinations or even one or two new ones.
Of course, we all, I think, dream of SN flying to other places, outside Africa, but what can you really achieve with one aircraft ? Nevertheless, if they decide to add two long haul aircraft per year, it's not bad. Quiet a move after a lack of real action for too long.

[werknemer]

Sorry to dispapoint you,

but for the incoming flight to Brussels is would be great!
but for the outgoing flight a disaster!

as you know that all AF flights lands in Bru at 7 at last, that would mean that they would transit in BRU for 12 hours?

mmmm
and connecting pax from MH? We all know that those pax don't bring money they just fill the plane!

So happy if one day we do fly to NY! And who knows other destinations!
but, of course we keep on dreaming
my dream? ....

[VEX802]

I heard today that SN has a codeshare agreement with United Airlines for their flight to JFK. Primarily they want to target Jet Airways on this route. This person also told me that SN is targetting SFO as their second US-destination.

[RoMax]

I heard today that SN has a codeshare agreement with United Airlines for their flight to JFK. Primarily they want to target Jet Airways on this route. This person also told me that SN is targetting SFO as their second US-destination.

UA codeshare not suprising as this is their main US partner and a Joint Venture partner. SFO not really suprising either as SN claimed some time ago that they were looking at NYC and SFO. BTW, first I was a bit scepticall about SFO. But UA (as alliance, codeshare and JV partner) can really be the driving force behind that route and that could prove succesfull. (keep in mind UA now means old-UA and CO combined)
But targetting 9W... I tought they wanted to get AA out of the market? If they really target 9W it's probably because they are quite big on the BRU-NYC market with two daily A332's. As SN will be in the Atlantic JV of Star Alliance, UA and SN can operate as one big competitor for the other airlines in this market. So, this may be deadly for AA and difficult for 9W and/or DL... This 'fight' is going to be interesting for sure...

[brusselsairlinesfan]

Let's go step by step and see what happen...
But NYC and SFO would be great ... really! Any others direct flights from BRU to the US West coast right now?

[LJ]

Primarily they want to target Jet Airways on this route.

Why target Jet? Do they want Jet to dismantle their BRU hub or drive them away to Skyteam? If they want to drive someone from BRU-NYC it will be AA. DL is well established and I doubt Skyteam will give up on BRU-NYC as they likely will have enough corporate contracts which will support this route anyway. Jet has its BRU mini hub at BRU, This leaves AA as the weakest airline on this route.

[VEX802]

Primarily they want to target Jet Airways on this route.

Why target Jet? Do they want Jet to dismantle their BRU hub or drive them away to Skyteam? If they want to drive someone from BRU-NYC it will be AA. DL is well established and I doubt Skyteam will give up on BRU-NYC as they likely will have enough corporate contracts which will support this route anyway. Jet has its BRU mini hub at BRU, This leaves AA as the weakest airline on this route.

It was just a short talk. He was very clear about the fact that 9w was (one of) their main competitor(s). He gave me a quick explanation about their motivation. According to him it had something to do with the fact that 9w was reducing its presence/cooperation with Brussels airport and Sn. Nevertheless they were capable to fill 2 daily flights to the NY-area via BRU and the fact that they have an increasing proportion of boarding passengers ex-Bru towards the US that they want to target(?). That's all I could remember.

[Flanker]

Why target Jet? Do they want Jet to dismantle their BRU hub or drive them away to Skyteam? If they want to drive someone from BRU-NYC it will be AA. DL is well established and I doubt Skyteam will give up on BRU-NYC as they likely will have enough corporate contracts which will support this route anyway. Jet has its BRU mini hub at BRU, This leaves AA as the weakest airline on this route.

Just because AA uses B757's, it doesn't make them the weakest on the route. They decide to have a smaller market share in BRU because they don't think that BRU-JFK warrants a B767, after the end of their codeshare with SN.
With the smaller capacity, they are much better protected from the excessive overcapacity problem that is in the process of being created with the addition of SN to the competition.
It's more likely that UA will have to downgrade EWR to 767.

If SN hopes to throw out some competition, in reality it will be very hard for SN to enter the market and IMO it will make them bleed a lot of money at the start-up stage. We also see that they're scrambling to make it work before the summer season but not sooner, so that they can brag about route performance at the end of 2012 and justify it to the shareholders and the rest.
I don't see this playing out that way because on destinations where there is already a large offer, it takes 3 to 12 months after starting operations before larger amounts of people start booking a new airline.
By the time SN settles in JFK, it will be winter and it will become very tough for them in absence of long-standing corporate contracts, to the point that I see them reducing capacity and frequencies and transferring them to Africa.

With time, SN can achieve the goal of becoming a strong player on this route, but I think that it won't be for 2012 and SN would need a strong partner in JFK like B6.
IMO expectations are too high and SN has more to lose than to win in its current context. Bare in mind that by my estimates at current fuel prices, it will cost no less than 1 million euro per week to operate the route, without counting overhead.
I wish them good luck and hope that JFK doesn't play out to be a coup de grâce.

[FlightMate]

Slightly off-topic, but

Why aren't they thinking about going to Asia?
Competition to the US is already very strong.

Lot of belgians are going to Thailand/Vietnam. Mostly tourists I agree, but we have quite a big asian community in Belgium as well.

Wouldn't a flight BRU-BKK-NRT be sensible?
I use to remember that Brussels - Tokyo was doing pretty well in the Sabena era.

[kiwiandrew]

Wouldn't a flight BRU-BKK-NRT be sensible?
I use to remember that Brussels - Tokyo was doing pretty well in the Sabena era.

What would be sensible about

a/ going up against their *A partner (TG) and their newly launched BKK-BRU service?
b/ going to Tokyo on such an out of the way routing?

Also, can you clarify what you mean about Brussels - Tokyo 'doing pretty well in the Sabena era'? Do you mean it made money, or just that it carried a lot of pax?

[FlightMate]

It carried a lot of passengers, for sure.
Not sure about the yield though.

You're right about TG. But then, on the US route, they will be competing with their biggest partner in BRU.
On an asian route, they could codeshare with many *alliance airline (Singapore, Thai), and thus offer some flexibility to the businessman.

I mean, if you want to go anywhere in Asia from Belgium, recently we only had the choice between etihad and... etihad.
In the last years we added JetAirways, Qatar or Thai. But the market is still huge over there.
What about mainland china?

[cnc]

What about mainland china?

HU?

[Air Key West]

Hi werknemer ! I don't agree with you when you write that pax from AFI would have to wait twelve hours at least to transfer onto b.air's evening flight to NYC. Pax arriving in the morning from AFI could still, as is the case now, connect to UA/CO morning flights to the US (if there was no SN morning flight to NYC).