AF versus SN in AFI

[crlhub]

An article(in french only)about the market in AFI shared between AF,SN and local airlines:

http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-fin ... rence.html

[Unilitha2]

It seems clear that if SN wants to remain a strong player on the long run it will need much more investments than just one or two additional aircraft and especially if those are used for US destinations.

SN on its own can surely not follow the growth in capacity projected by AF but LH can help here .... Isn't it now that LH has to decide to put SN forward or to simply leave it "survive" gently on the side ?

[Flanker2]

I don't think that we can compare AF-KL with SN in Africa.
In fact we can no longer compare SN and TK, which is inching close to 40 destinations in Africa.

TK has had the openness of mind to consider using narrowbodies to Africa.
They operate IST-FIH 4 times weekly with the B737-900ER in a 151 seat config.
IST-FIH is the same GC distance as BRU-DLA by the way.

I must say, too bad for SN, they were too short-sighted and kept adding shorthaul A319's that sleep on the tarmac at night instead of going for something that could do both Europe short & medium haul during the day and Africa during the night, even if it meant adding business class seats to the rest of the shorthaul fleet, which, for all I know, would have put SN at the top of the premium shorthaul airlines in Europe and would have actually attracted much needed premium traffic, instead of chasing it away the way they did.

That way they could have added frequency and new more southern destinations, using the A330 capacity made available.

All SN needs now is for Senegal Airlines and Afriqiyah to start flying to BRU, in order to start cutting African routes. The way SN works in Africa, it only takes 20-40 lost passengers at constant yields per flight to go from profit to loss on any route. SN is at a tipping point, and it's not the U.S. routes that are going to save it.
Those profits may never come.

Looking back at this, sending A319/A320's to Africa wouldn't have been such a bad idea, would it Mr. Gustin?Now it's a bit too late I think.

[Vinnie-Winnie]

I must say, too bad for SN, they were too short-sighted and kept adding shorthaul A319's that sleep on the tarmac at night instead of going for something that could do both Europe short & medium haul during the day and Africa during the night

Tiring and ridiculous as usual! U have no idea or understanding of TK's strategy, nor do you have any idea about SN works!

So give me a break please...

[Flanker2]

U have no idea or understanding of TK's strategy, nor do you have any idea about SN works!

I smell major bitterness.

TK's strategy is very simple, nothing to understand there. You must be imagining that there is a huge top secret mission with UFO's and stuff going on.

You leave at 8 in the morning from BRU, transfer in IST, arrive at 9 in the evening at FIH, for 750 euro return, flying a great IFE equipped full-service airline. They shuffle their aircraft between Africa and mid-haul to maximise utilisation, the aircraft fly mid-hauls during the day and to Africa during the night.

That's exactly how I described my narrowbody ops to Africa out of BRU.
TK really copy-pasted the modus operandis I described.

But TK must leave their pax to starve, as according to Tolipanebas, the biggest problem is to carry return catering. Obviously, as I said numerous times, where there is a will, there's a way. But is there a will at SN?
It seems to me that many microscopic problems appear insurmontable for SN and some of its staff, while other airlines deal with these problems and get the job done.

If we look at how fast TK doubled their destinations in Africa, I don't think that bilaterals will stop LH from flying to Africa from FRA, if they so decide to do. That too seems to me like a bogus argument on the part of some SN staff who are using hot air to justify the niche they try to represent.

Reality is, 6 A330's daily to Africa is nothing.
That's the same seat capacity as JL on the HND-FUK route, it's not even one of their major routes.
Or comparably, TK flies half of that capacity daily just between BRU and IST. That gives a pretty good idea of the extent of SN's operations in Africa. It's pretty much nothing.

If you look at TK's CEO's 2011 comments, they replicate exactly my proposal of 2009/2010

Small capacity with regular frequency key for Turkish Airlines strategy to Africa (...)
He said that while Africa is a very good market for carriers – including Turkish – the seat demand is small and carriers have responded by offering limited frequencies on large aircraft able to span the distances involved. While non-stop long-haul passenger comfort is maintained, sporadic flights have meant that travellers have had to tailor trips to the airline's schedules rather than to their actual needs.

The problem that SN will find heading into the near-term future is how they are going to grow in Africa without adding A333's and more triangles. To max out on profits and market share, SN needs to operate point to point with frequencies like AF and KL, but there are only 2 or 3 destinations that can support high frequency point to point with A333 but so many if not all of them, can support high frequency narrowbody service (except those beyond 5500km range from BRU).

Maybe it's time to stop playing ostrich, take the head out of the sand and smell the reality.
Another airline is adopting this very strategy and kicking SN ass. Let's see in 3 years what will be left of SN's African specialty.

[Vinnie-Winnie]

TK's strategy is very simple, nothing to understand there. You must be imagining that there is a huge top secret mission with UFO's and stuff going on.

You leave at 8 in the morning from BRU, transfer in IST, arrive at 9 in the evening at FIH, for 750 euro return, flying a great IFE equipped full-service airline. They shuffle their aircraft between Africa and mid-haul to maximise utilisation, the aircraft fly mid-hauls during the day and to Africa during the night.

TK is barely chasing the EU- Africa market.... What it is after is the Asia/middle-east traffic - Africa! Why because it is high yielding as there is not that much competition and high demand.

Thinking that TK is chasing the Europe- Africa traffic is wrong and once again shows ur little understanding of aviation in general. Yes they will sell 750 euro seats from Belgium to Kinshasa but that is to fill empty seats/maintain a presence. Furthermore u seem to ignore time sensitive/convenience sensitive people and goods. And lastly there is the star alliance factor which plays against SN and Turkish competing head on.

So bitter no a little more knowledgeable than you certainly!

[Flanker2]

Whatever your knowledge is, it's very faulty.

First of all, Star alliance doesn't guarrantee that airlines within it aren't going to compete. In fact TK vs SN is the perfect example of this.

Second, TK has adjusted its schedule to Africa for a convenient transfer on to African flights from Europe and the U.S. Asia and Middle East are also major focus markets for TK, but Europe is not an accessory, it's one of, if not the main market for Africa transfers. TK is purging from its global network to fill Africa.

Time doesn't make a big difference between SN and TK and here you are proving a major lack of reflection.
SN flies triangles, which increases flight times. SN's connecting flights aren't connecting that swiftly either. Moreover, if the pax generates in anywhere but BRU, they have to transfer via BRU, which also costs time. IST is closer to the African East coast, SN to the West coast.
But, if you want to talk convenience, TK is going for a high frequency service. So who cares if for instance the TK total flight time is 3 hours longer, if you can actually fly on the day you want to fly, cheaper and with better comfort?

[cnc]

flanker is correct on one point atleast, being alliance partners doesn't mean they will be less competitive towards you.

[crew1990]

I must say, too bad for SN, they were too short-sighted and kept adding shorthaul A319's that sleep on the tarmac at night instead of going for something that could do both Europe short & medium haul during the day and Africa during the night

Tiring and ridiculous as usual! U have no idea or understanding of TK's strategy, nor do you have any idea about SN works!

So give me a break please...

If you you don't want to read it, there is no obligation, first of all. And the aim of a forum is giving opinion, there is no point to be agressive like this even if you don't agree on what other are saying!

[Passenger]

If you you don't want to read it, there is no obligation, first of all. And the aim of a forum is giving opinion, there is no point to be agressive like this even if you don't agree on what other are saying!

If freedom of speech exists for those who want to bash Brussels Airlines, then freedom of speech also exists for those who say that the arguments brought up here are stupid.

Furthermore, it's not agressive if one says that Flanker's arguments are stupid: it's just a statement.

[A330]

It almost sounds like the entire TK plan was your idea in the first place. Surely they must be reading Luchtzak!

No seriously, I thought it was more logic for TK to start with 737-9ER's, as IST is closer to a lot of African destinations than BRU is. I would guess they can reach places like Niamey, N'Djamena, Douala, Nairobi. Didn't know about FIH. Have you got an idea which destinations they operate on this aircraft?
I don't know the detailed capabilities of payload and range of these aircraft, nor of the A319 & A320. Out of BRU I guess SN may be able to reach e.g. DKR and destinations in that region (BJL, CKY, FNA). What about ROB or OUA? I agree these are in the same range from BRU as the others are fom IST. But didn't SN serve DKR on A319 temporarily 1-2 years ago? And they made a stop on the way! Looking on TK's website, they do mention technical stops on the way! Regardless, I do have some issues with your idea.
1) Using A319's to Africa overnight would mean SN lose connections to US in both directions! And that is pretty important to them, no?
2) No cargo!?
3) You say you can increase frequency. Why? Decoupling triangles and switching from A330 to A319 means you have the same capacity and frequency (assuming A330 = 2x A319, and 50/50 divide): 2x weekly A330 @ 50% = 1x weekly A330 @ 100% (no triangle) = 2x weekly A319 dedicated. Therefore, increasing frequency would also mean increasing capacity.
4) You need to install the same business class in those aircraft. Can you still use those in Europe? TK can switch between different regional/Africa destinations, but SN cannot.
5) You need to ensure same levels of service and cabin.
6) Perhaps expanding this way is less risky, more flexible, and aircraft are easier to acquire. But is that true?
7) Most importantly, you need a plan and vision, and move forward. Something SN somehow missed, I agree. You have to make choices, but you can also choose not to choose.

[tolipanebas]

I do have some issues with your idea.
1) Using A319's to Africa overnight would mean SN lose connections to US in both directions! And that is pretty important to them, no?
2) No cargo!?
3) You say you can increase frequency. Why? Decoupling triangles and switching from A330 to A319 means you have the same capacity and frequency (assuming A330 = 2x A319, and 50/50 divide): 2x weekly A330 @ 50% = 1x weekly A330 @ 100% (no triangle) = 2x weekly A319 dedicated. Therefore, increasing frequency would also mean increasing capacity.
4) You need to install the same business class in those aircraft. Can you still use those in Europe? TK can switch between different regional/Africa destinations, but SN cannot.
5) You need to ensure same levels of service and cabin.

You basically made a good summary of some of the issues already pointed out at nauseam, each and every time flanker starts another round of his mental masturbation on this topic, A330.

People who are really interested, simply have to use the search engine.

All I want to add is that it's a real pitty for him he's fallen completely in love with his own daydreams, because it makes him blind to the simple truth that this concept may be theoretically possible alright, yet is far from ideal for an airline the size, location and type of SN: SN needs to operate planes that fit their needs, not make the airline's needs fit some planes, period.

[Flanker2]

1) Using A319's to Africa overnight would mean SN lose connections to US in both directions! And that is pretty important to them, no?

True, but it would have formed the perfect opportunity for SN to start an evening wave to the U.S. with the A333's. Considering that IAD has quite a late schedule, it would have fitted perfectly.
So if we consider things as they are today, in which SN is building its own U.S. network, partially with evening flights (IAD), this would have been perfect.

2) No cargo!?

It depends, but also lower cost due to higher aircraft utilisation instead of keeping the aircraft on the tarmac at night. The monthly lease charges are pretty much the same regardless of the amount of hours of utilisation, so imagine the huge saving of running an aircraft that would otherwise be sleeping on the ground.
I say it depends, because with a good A321 with additional tanks, in a low density configuration, to the shorter destinations in Africa like DKR, you could still carry several tons of cargo.
Also lower fuel costs, thanks to the higher fuel efficiency per seat-km of narrowbodies, and the advantage of not wasting any resources to fly the triangle sectors, which are very costly and bring no extra revenue.

3) You say you can increase frequency. Why? Decoupling triangles and switching from A330 to A319 means you have the same capacity and frequency (assuming A330 = 2x A319, and 50/50 divide): 2x weekly A330 @ 50% = 1x weekly A330 @ 100% (no triangle) = 2x weekly A319 dedicated. Therefore, increasing frequency would also mean increasing capacity.

I follow your reasoning and it's correct. If you replace an A333 flying triangles by 2 A32S's flying non-stop, you obtain the same frequency. So to increase frequencies, you need to increase capacity.
And that is exactly the key: you can increase the frequency and capacity by reducing waste. The waste is the 19 A32S aircraft sleeping for 7-9 hours on the tarmac at BRU during the night, while wasting 4-5 A333's in a suboptimal way (triangles plus huge down time in BRU) for a mission that they could do much easier.

If you also consider that SN has very limited A333 resources and "unlimited" A32S resources, by simply using 10 A32S aircraft to operate flights to Africa during the evening/night, no matter if it's to add frequencies to the current operation or completely replace A333 triangles, you obtain a 100% increase in both capacity and frequencies in Africa. This would have made the market impossible to penetrate by new entrants and boosted their Africa revenue and coverage.

4) You need to install the same business class in those aircraft. Can you still use those in Europe? TK can switch between different regional/Africa destinations, but SN cannot.

You can, especially in SN's case of low load factors and high fares. At best, you lose 20 seats. But you can offer a magnificent premium product in Europe, that no airline is offering. IFE, wifi, a decent premium/business class and lounge offering for those with deep pockets who want to travel comfortably without resorting to expensive private jet flights.

5) You need to ensure same levels of service and cabin.

The cabin is not a problem, since you use the same aircraft and hard product. The service is easy to give, it's champagne, good snacks and for premium travelers, F/A's who remember the name of the pax. It can be done, unless you want to be a "full service low cost airline".

6) Perhaps expanding this way is less risky, more flexible, and aircraft are easier to acquire. But is that true?

I see no reason why not. You take waste and turn it into productivity.

7) Most importantly, you need a plan and vision, and move forward. Something SN somehow missed, I agree. You have to make choices, but you can also choose not to choose.

I'm not a great fan of how TK manages its financial performance. They have a "expansion at any cost" mentality when it comes to their global network. It wouldn't surprise me if they buy several A380's someday.
However, TK has nailed it on Africa. They went all-in to Africa from day 1, ordering 10 B739ER's with a follow-up order for 6 more. That takes vision, guts and will.
I don't feel this in post-merger SN;

[Vinnie-Winnie]

Whatever your knowledge is, it's very faulty.

Says the very knowledgeable guy

First of all, Star alliance doesn't guarrantee that airlines within it aren't going to compete. In fact TK vs SN is the perfect example of this.

There is some level of coordination. not saying JV style, just some

Time doesn't make a big difference between SN and TK and here you are proving a major lack of reflection.

Suuuure! Time & money is pretty much that matters in transport. Convenience is way down the line but it matters more for high yielding traffic. Your argument doesnt make any sense whatsoever. It is ridiculous even

You can, especially in SN's case of low load factors and high fares. At best, you lose 20 seats. But you can offer a magnificent premium product in Europe, that no airline is offering. IFE, wifi, a decent premium/business class and lounge offering for those with deep pockets who want to travel comfortably without resorting to expensive private jet flights

Suuuure! brussels has never been a high yielding market so ur argument doesnt make sense whatsoever! There is no market within Europe for the type of product ur dreaming about. Not from London, not from zurich not from anywhere in europe! If ur reasoning was bad as mine, u'd probably know that the only short-haul luxury market is Asia, and that is waning as well...

About the private jet market: it's absolutely out of reach given the lack of convenience

So basically ur plain and simply wrong! When r u gonna get a job in airline sector exactly? I'd love to know how...

[FlightMate]

Whatever your knowledge is, it's very faulty.

You can, especially in SN's case of low load factors and high fares. At best, you lose 20 seats. But you can offer a magnificent premium product in Europe, that no airline is offering. IFE, wifi, a decent premium/business class and lounge offering for those with deep pockets who want to travel comfortably without resorting to expensive private jet flights

Suuuure! brussels has never been a high yielding market so ur argument doesnt make sense whatsoever! There is no market within Europe for the type of product ur dreaming about. Not from London, not from zurich not from anywhere in europe! If ur reasoning was bad as mine, u'd probably know that the only short-haul luxury market is Asia, and that is waning as well...

About the private jet market: it's absolutely out of reach given the lack of convenience

So basically ur plain and simply wrong! When r u gonna get a job in airline sector exactly? I'd love to know how...

I think what flanker suggested, is that sn's planes being rarely full, they can afford to take off 10 seats on their a320. Remember, the main goal would be to use them on flight to Africa. If they are not perfectly suited for Europe, it's not that important, as they still would be flying instead of remaining idle on the ground.
A bit like cx or sq utilize their wide bodies on short haul, between their long haul duties. Less than optimal maybe, but at least they are flying.

It shouldn't be my job to say so, but I find your personal attacks towards flanker more annoying than his arguments. It would be nice if could just keep it to the counter-arguments.

[b-west]

I think we forget the most important part here. Flying A320's to AFI will allow SN to land in NLO iso FIH. A mere four blocks and 15 minutes away from the city centre. Thus offering a big advantage over all those other silly airlines who fly to FIH, having to invest in security and armed guards and what not...

[SFM]

Flying A320's to AFI will allow SN to land in NLO iso FIH.

According to wikipedia, NLO is limited to aircraft under 15,000 kg since the crash of an An-32 in '96.

[sn26567]

Please find hereunder a post by new member RTM that I erased by mistake:

Well... mr Flanker, that just doesn't work... does it?

You state 19 A32F are sleeping in BRU every night for 7-9 hours... Wrong. Most of these aircraft sleep on outstations, only 6 or at most 7 stay overnight in BRU, and 9 hours is very optimistic. Of these at most 7 aircraft, more than half have maintenance planned on them at night. Ranging from defect rectification, to weekly checks and even A-checks. You can NOT skip that, even if your all mighty knowledge tells you otherwise. The remaining aircraft may be available for ops at night. However, taking turnaround times into consideration (catering, cleaning, fuelling, crew change, maintenance), it leaves you with about 5 hours availability for flights to Africa before they are needed again in BRU for the early morning departures on the European network. If you can name me 1 destination in Africa that a A32F can do a round trip on in 5 hours, I say we give it a go...

I am sorry for the inconvenience.

[FlightMate]

Hi RTM,

I think what Flanker had in mind, is not to use the aircraft to Africa when they are not needed to destinations in Europe, but rather use them in Europe when they are not needed to Africa.
But in order to do that, you MUST readjust the timetable, as no pax would travel on intra-european flights at nights.
What's possible, is flying for example to DKR and back at night, (15h utilization), giving another 9h for maintenance and one intra-europe destination.
Ideally to a place where capacity is not needed, but yield is good.

Of course, with one aircraft, flexibility is second to none, but if you have a fleet of 10 A320, flying to Africa at different time of the day (increasing frequency), you have much more options for what to do with the planes when they are not flying to Africa.

Offering high frequency (thus flexibility for the passengers) to Africa is something SN should really focus on. Otherwise, they are going to lose passengers to other airlines, like TK of AF.
And adding more A330 is costly.

On the other hand, I believe the strategy to fly triangular flights is not a bad option, should SN want to add frequencies.
And the best idea, but with the worst outcome in my mind, was the setup of Korongo, which should have provided SN a nice hub in Africa, but has cost a lot (too much) money.
And maybe such a hub would have been better located somewhere else?

Definitely, it is not easy to manage an airline. And ideas which seem good, might just turn out to be a disaster, and cost the airline its last funds.

[convair]

However, as Flanker has been pointing out, SN's expansion in AFI seems way too slow.
And there is something I can't understand here: AFI has been said to be their bread and butter; in that case, these flights certainly cover, among other things, the lease costs of the aircraft.
If the market is there as often said here and as shown by AF's and other airlines' expansion in AFI, additional flights revenues should more than offset additional aircraft leases and operating costs.
So what is SN waiting for? After all, they don't need to BUY new aircraft. So what is the risk of bringing in more (than one every year) leased A330s?