Ryanair will not move to BRU

[cnc]

the moment they can't cover the operational loss with subsidies anymore they will change to a more premium airline aimed more at high yield business pax and be sure they will pick BRU over CRL then

[airazurxtror]

A fight Ryanair vs easyJet at Brussels ?
There'd be blood all over the place !

[crlhub]

Some flemish commentators on this forum seem to have a very 'bad memory'.Do not forget when talking about govt. subsidies that we are still waiting for the first eurocent from the Flemish gov,invested in SN...10 years and still counting.Both Bxl and Wal govt have invested in SN since the very start after the end of Sabena and are still shareholders if I'm not wrong?Do not forget also that a lot of jobs at CRL are taken by people from both Brussels and Flemish regions(check by yourself).Including quiet a lot of former sabeniens..
I Do not work for CRL neither in the aviation business anymore,but this must be said to remain fair.

The big and main problem for all Belgian regions and airports is ..the Irish corporate and personnal/social security tax level,wich is very low and unfair for both BRU and CRL(and other airports on the continent as well).Even worst when you take in consideration the facts that the so called 'troika'(UE/IMF..)have been bailing out Ireland for a massive amount of billions of Euros,and in exchange what did we get from the Irish?Nothing,not even a thank..maybe in ten years time there will be a new EU law to take care of this?I want to see it to believe it.Of course FR will be almost finished if this really happen one day..same for Aer Lingus.Imagine that FR receive the 'green light' to take Aer Lingus over next february..they already told the press,that they will move to BRU(but probably with the intention to operate long hauls flights iso leisure only).If this happen,I can imagine FR/Aer Lingus operating from BRU mainly business cities routes(moved from CRL)and keeping leisure routes at CRL.Their goal will be if they fly from BRU to destroy SN one and for all.

Talking about jobs stats at CRL,FR exagerates a lot these numbers,at least for the direct jobs created.
I would say there is one ops job created for 3 or 4 indirects(horeca,shops,taxis,hotels etc)..

But when FR says there is 1 job created by 1000 pax at CRL,sorry but I do not buy that at all.It is rather 1/5000 or 1/6.000(direct and indirect).

The same applies for other FR bases or airports with FR routes.

This is pure FR propaganda.

Do not forget also that Lille airport is expanding quiet fast,eventhough still far behind CRL in terms of traffic.
But CDG being not very far by TGV from Lille(45 minutes),this will probably limit the growth popential for Lille as well.

Reaction from CRL manager Cloquet today(sorry only in FR).

http://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail ... id=7891321

More reactions:
http://www.lalibre.be/actu/politique-be ... emble.html

[tolipanebas]

Not going to get too involved in this discussion because it is pretty pointless, but the idea that somehow BRU is going to simply roll out the red carpet for EI (or in fact any other airline) for the purpose of setting up a competing hub may proof to be a painfully wrong assumption.

The new agreement between BRU and SN is about more than just a volume discount: the 2 have looked eachother deep in the eyes and have finally understood they have to stick together or risk going down together.

[sn26567]

In this topic and in others, I keep reading about the subsidies that Charleroi Airport and/or Ryanair receive from the Walloon government. Does anyone know the nature of the subsidies, and their amount (total and by passenger). And, of course, the reliable source for this information.

If these figures are made available, then we shall be able to discuss what is fair and unfair competition.

[Charlie Roy]

Even worst when you take in consideration the facts that the so called 'troika'(UE/IMF..)have been bailing out Ireland for a massive amount of billions of Euros,and in exchange what did we get from the Irish?Nothing,not even a thank..

We will get all our money back. The word bailout has been used so incorrectly regarding Ireland. Unlike haircut Greece, every cent will be returned. In return we will also get economic stability, and unimaginably progressive economic reforms.

Meanwhile Ryanair has brought prosperity, low cost travel and the most random direct flight possibilities to Belgium and Europe.

[OO-JFP]

crlhub: suffering from the same disease?
André,
I could not believe my eyes this morning when I read your post.
This is what I posted 5 months ago:

My dear crlhub,
that was a political decision. The flemish government decided to invest 25M€ in Brussels airport, not in an airline. End of discussion.
I have seen many opinions and figures going around in this topic (and in others), 1 question remains unanswered each time. Perhaps you can help since you seem to know much about it.
How much subsidy is given to Ryanair each year in Belgium?
Can you give a breakdown in:
- how much to open a new route
- how much per passenger
- how much for ATC
- how much for ground handling
- others (fuel etc.)

I don't believe it when Michael O'Liar says: no subsidies, nor do a believe André Antoine's figures (apologies for that).
Thanks in advance,
OO-JFP
PS: I have mentioned Ryanair for being the biggest user, I do know that other users can benefit too.

I have noticed that RYR is about to start-up Stansted for the 3rd time, is it bingo again?
It's a bit strange that RYR seems to close certain destinations after 2 years and at the same time opens another destination 50kms away from the first one. Coincidence?

To Acid-drop: I know I'll have you on my back again, perhaps you can explain why Liege will not have to pay ATC fees for its freighter flights in the future while others - including CRL - will have to.
And if I have the honour of getting an answer, perhaps you can also disclose why all of a sudden Kalitta started using Liege again on its fuel stops to Bahrein?
Stealing is baaaaaad......!

Looking forward to the answers.
Kind regards,
OO-JFP

[Inquirer]

Not going to get too involved in this discussion because it is pretty pointless, but the idea that somehow BRU is going to simply roll out the red carpet for EI (or in fact any other airline) for the purpose of setting up a competing hub may proof to be a painfully wrong assumption.

The new agreement between BRU and SN is about more than just a volume discount: the 2 have looked eachother deep in the eyes and have finally understood they have to stick together or risk going down together.

Does that mean they gave B.air some sort of right of priority/exclusivity on hubbing in BRU in return for long term guarantees on certain traffic volumes, or how do we need to understand this hint?

[sean1982]

and if yes, how would they be able to give long term garantuees given their precarious financial situation?

[Acid-drop]

I know I'll have you on my back again, perhaps you can explain why Liege will not have to pay ATC fees for its freighter flights in the future while others - including CRL - will have to.

To my understanding, it's all regional airports or none. The fact that walloon airports were developped more and thus take more advantage of this situation should not influence the whole idea.
But I agree, in order to be fair, everybody should pay ATC.
But be carefull, OST and ANR will suffer from this too ! maybe even more since their volume (and thus their revenue) is low.

And if I have the honour of getting an answer, perhaps you can also disclose why all of a sudden Kalitta started using Liege again on its fuel stops to Bahrein?

I'd love to know what's happening with Kalitta too.
From what i can see, the volume IS lower than before. They do *some* fuel stops, hard to understand their logic. But LGG will probably have a -20% result for this year.
(should you be happy about it ?)

[tolipanebas]

It's all about priorities really: is BRU willing to accept a dampened volume growth in return for maximized revenue growth, or does it remain focussed on stimulating volume to the detriment of revenue growth?

Well, the answer is clear: BRU wants to make as much money as possible and that's how it should be for a privately held company.

SN and the LH group have made it clear that if BRU wants to grow into the very lucrative STAR ALLIANCE hub of its dreams, it can't expect to see the LH Group invests hundreds of millions in setting up that hub if meanwhile BRU is helping all sort of low value competitors set up bases here which distroy the investment and put into question that commitment. In short: BRU can't have it both, it needs to choose.

Well, BRU has chosen and it chose for the STAR ALLIANCE commitment.
This long term commitment to BRU is backed by LH, and I didn't know they were in a precarious financial situation? BRU certainly doesn't think so, because they happily seem to embrace it and rightfully so; of the 15 intercontinental routes which could be served daily from BRU -based on the number of pax from the catchment area around BRU now flying via alternative nearby hubs like LHR, CDG, AMS, FRA, MUC or ZRH- only 7 routes are currently served from BRU. SN and its partners have the ambition to link ALL of those 15 destinations with BRU and thus bring those lucrative intercontinental passenger flowns to BRU, on condition BRU helps create the right environment for this plan to materialize: a win-win so to say.

Some daily Asia flights and more transatlantic and African flights are of much more value to BRU than a bunch of cheap charlies flying some LCC to European destination as there aren't exactly scores of high spenders to be expected on those flights, whereas BRU would like to see as many passengers as possible buy from all the shops it is planning in the connector building too, of course, just to give you one example of where LCCs are letting BRU down on, even IF they pay the full fees.

[OO-ITR]

of the 15 intercontinental routes which could be served daily from BRU -based on the number of pax from the catchment area around BRU now flying via alternative nearby hubs like LHR, CDG, AMS, FRA, MUC or ZRH- only 7 routes are currently served from BRU. SN and its partners have the ambition to link ALL of those 15 destinations with BRU and thus bring those lucrative intercontinental passenger flowns to BRU, on condition BRU helps create the right environment for this plan to materialize: a win-win so to say.

anyone an idea what are these 15 destinations?

[Inquirer]

I realise it is a politically sensitive topic, but since it is 100% related to this discussion, it may be at it's place here nevertheless.

Oposition party N-VA openly welcomes the measures taken by the government to support BRU and the Belgian airlines through fiscal incentives and it supports the demand of OpenVLD for a complete review of the way in which regional airports pay for the services rendered to them by Belgocontrol.
N-VA accuses Wallonia's airports of having eaten free lunches for way too long, saying their growth came entirely at the expenses of Zaventem and it wants to see an end put to this.

http://www.n-va.be/nieuws/persberichten ... rd-herzien

[Acid-drop]

ah ! These people know how to talk for sure. but we don't know yet if they know how to do.

[sn26567]

N-VA accuses Wallonia's airports of having eaten free lunches for way too long, saying their growth came entirely at the expenses of Zaventem and it wants to see an end put to this.

And not a word about Ostend and Antwerp who benefiting from the same free lunch?

Politicians only look in their own soup!

[cnc]

N-VA accuses Wallonia's airports of having eaten free lunches for way too long, saying their growth came entirely at the expenses of Zaventem and it wants to see an end put to this.

And not a word about Ostend and Antwerp who benefiting from the same free lunch?

Politicians only look in their own soup!

those 2 combined have like 6 flights a day? even if they pay ATC belgocontrol would still lose massive amounts of money on those airports to keep it operational 24/7

[sean1982]

and that's the flemish government their own choice, they have decided not to market their airports more, so not a reason for NV-A to kick off.

[flightlover]

N-VA accuses Wallonia's airports of having eaten free lunches for way too long, saying their growth came entirely at the expenses of Zaventem and it wants to see an end put to this.

And not a word about Ostend and Antwerp who benefiting from the same free lunch?

Politicians only look in their own soup!

So on what kind of passenger numbers you would say an airport has to pay the full ATC fare?

1M? CRL is way past that
5M? also way past that

or if you wish on number of flights?

20/ day?
50/day?

The current number stands at about 122/day.

It is high time that CRL is paying the fare for a service they use intensively.
And not just by an extra subsidy of the govt 'cause that would still mean a distortion of the market.
Not to say it's an expense the walloon govt cant support as they are already loss making resulting in the huge transfers made to them every year.

[sean1982]

hahaha, flightlover, this might have been true years ago, but the current situantion is slightly more nuanced then the NV-A program that you seem to take for granted

It would be normal btw that each airport, pays for what they use, what's the fuss??

[Nevihta]

Already tried to explain that, but let's go once again...
The agreement of ATC provision by Belgocontrol to regional airports was that of the traffic level at that time, and that was before Ryanair and TNT, and Liège was still controlled by mil at daytime.
According to the agreement, any extra cost since then has to be paid by the regions...
So if traffic increases, airports have to pay for the difference.
If traffic decreases, you keep the same service "for free".

By the way, look at Belgocontrol's statistics and you'll see there's not so much difference between all the airports. Considering only the number of commercial flights (or passengers) a day is proving a very weak knowlege on the subject.

It's also way too simple to explain Belgocontrol's losses only with this agreement, but It's convenient because people don't speak about structural problems and heavy management problems...