No new short-haul planes for SNBA

Boeing767copilot · Post by **Boeing767copilot** » 02 Sep 2004, 20:08

Vloot

SNBA will not replace his Avro-jets. From the flemish daily "Gazet van Antwerpen"

De kans dat de vliegtuigen voor de korte afstanden vervangen worden door nieuwe, wordt met de dag kleiner. SNBA zette begin dit jaar een werkgroep op het project vlootvernieuwing. Uit verscheidene studies blijkt dat de 14 Avro's RJ85 (82 plaatsen), 12 Avro's RJ100 (97 stoelen) en 6 Bae 146's nog enkele jaren meekunnen. Een vervanging door Embraer-toestellen of vliegtuigen van andere producenten is niet langer aan de orde. Wel zouden de huidige machines grondig opgeknapt worden.
Intussen is SNBA ook op zoek naar een Aziatische partner voor het aanvliegen van bestemmingen in Japan en China.

liebensd · Post by **liebensd** » 02 Sep 2004, 20:17

Boeing767copilot,

Can you maybe make a short summary in English of the Dutch Text.

Indeed There are pacages ordered for the Avros: http://www.regional-services.com/main_u ... 04_04.html

Greetz,

Dave

C_J · Post by **C_J** » 02 Sep 2004, 20:41

The Avro's are still very good planes: I don't think SNBA should spend a lot of money on things wich aren't necessary. I hope a new Asian long haul carrier wil come to Brussels!!!

B737229 · Post by **B737229** » 02 Sep 2004, 20:45

C_J wrote: I hope a new Asian long haul carrier wil come to Brussels!!!

Me too.. lets guess.. Haianan and All Nippon

ATC · Post by **ATC** » 02 Sep 2004, 21:58

OK, this is good news...

I also think that a complete modernisation of the current fleet will do for the moment... maybe a expansion of the A319 fleet from 3 to 5 aircraft will give SNBA a better growfigure (use the A319 for high LF destinations and the charter devision).

Everybody knows SNBA is looking for an asian partner...
my view... with points (.../10)

* SINGAPORE AIRLINES (9/10)
> rumours are that Singapore would come back to BRU (2005 ?) (+)
> a strong and healthy airline (+)
> Star Alliance partner (-)

* CATHAY PACIFIC (6/10)
> oneworld (SNBA one step closer to oneworld) (+)
> I don't think Cathay is intrested in BRU (a strong LHR BA-hub) (-)

* EMIRATES (7/10)
> not a bad idea, an airline that wants to grow (the famous A380 order). (+)
> Dubai will connect many asian cities in the near future (+)
> I even think Emirates is intrested in BRU... (+)

* ANA (8/10)
> rumours are that ANA is coming to BRU (2004) ? (+)
> the BRU-Tokyo destination was a high LF route, but in the past not profitable for Sabena. (-)

* VIRIN ATLANTIC (3/10)
> Branson allready said I'll come to BRU one day with long haule destinations (Offcourse Branson says a lot of things...)... (+/-)
> the big Virgin/SNBA wedding ??? (+ / -)
> Virgin Atlantic ordered many new airplanes... they say is for their futher route expansion (so why not starting from BRU, with two or three asian destinations ?).

your reactions,
greetings,
ATC

Boeing767copilot · Post by **Boeing767copilot** » 02 Sep 2004, 22:23

I know that SNBA is on 'speaking terms' with BIAC about a new Asian long haul carrier and partner for SNBA. In that case I think that SQ will return to Brussels.

Post by **sn26567** » 03 Sep 2004, 10:53

We have two topics here. Could we please split that? The title says short haul fleet, so let's keep it that way.

I hope that the new packages for the Avro do not mean that they will adopt the dreadful 6-abreast seating!

For the Asian destinations of SN BA, please post comments in this topic: https://www.aviation24.be/postlite6134-.html

levent · Post by **levent** » 03 Sep 2004, 12:54

sn26567 wrote:I hope that the new packages for the Avro do not mean that they will adopt the dreadful 6-abreast seating!

Yeah, I know what you mean, I flew once with a BA / CityFlyer Express AVRO RJ-100 from Gatwick to Amsterdam and back, full plane and six-abreast seating.... bwah!

vflies · Post by **vflies** » 03 Sep 2004, 17:36

Can SN really afford to invest in a new fleet?
Their management probably made a sound decision by postponing it for some time...
They can of course still keep their interior and service up to date, that doesn't cost as much as new planes...

VFlies

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 06 Sep 2004, 10:11

Personally I think it's better to wait and replace the fleet in a few years. The decision SN has made is a wise one. Now let's see how they will refurbish them

sn26567 wrote:I hope that the new packages for the Avro do not mean that they will adopt the dreadful 6-abreast seating!

Why should they put 6 seat in each row if they can't even fill the planes with 5 seats in each row

Chris

Fiero · Post by **Fiero** » 06 Sep 2004, 10:18

The investments they are putting in are upgrades of the systems like : RVSM ,EGPWS, better transponders, etc... and to chance the seats would be a big cost. And the latest rumours were that the fleet is staying for 5 years. So no need to say goodbye to the little fat ones yet

Post by **sn26567** » 06 Sep 2004, 12:39

Avro wrote:Why should they put 6 seat in each row if they can't even fill the planes with 5 seats in each row

Rumours! It would enable to keep the Avros longer in activity, without the need to buy larger planes.

themole · Post by **themole** » 06 Sep 2004, 18:26

SN Brussels Airlines made the right decision by keeping the 14 Bae RJ85s and 12 Bae RJ100s in the fleet. On the other hand, keeping the 5 Bae 146-200s (exluding OO-DJJ) in the fleet would be a mistake.

The average age of the Bae RJ100s is 6 years (roughly estimated).
The average age of the Bae RJ85s is 8 years (roughly estimated).
But the average age of the Bae 146-200s is already 14 years (roughly estimated).

SN Brussels Airlines (the market-leader when it comes down to postponing important decisions) must make a few important choices now, not later.

If SN Brussels Airlines is happy with how things are going at the moment and don’t plan to expand anytime soon, they can even phase out those Bae 146-200s without replacing them in the near future. Hence, this is on condition that SN Brussels Airlines makes a few very important changes in their operations.

If SN Brussels Airlines is ambitious and wants to grow slowly but surely, then they should replace those Bae 146-200s gradually, by other (new or used) aircraft. In order to create some fleet commonality, additional A319s seem to be the best choice.

Additional A319s could also widen the SN Brussels Airlines horizon, as they can be used for all kinds of traffic: intra-European traffic, African traffic, Gulf traffic, and even sub-Indian traffic, or just for high-density traffic of any kind (for instance non-scheduled operations).

One of the basic fleet management rules is that an aircraft (preferably) should be replaced after 15 years of service, in order to have a good value for money mix. After 15 years, an aircraft loses a lot of its value. You can compare it with a car, whose value decreases drastically after only 4 years.

Therefore the carrier must decide to replace those elderly aircraft by other new (or younger) aircraft. If the carrier decides to keep the elderly aircraft in the fleet, it can be considered as a bad investment. Of course, sometimes a carrier must keep elderly aircraft in the fleet due to lack of financial means to finance new aircraft.

SN Brussels Airlines should get rid of those Bae 146-200s as soon as possible (even the SN crews hate them!). Whether those aircraft are owned, dry leased, wet leased, damp leased or even ACMI (Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance and Insurance) leased, is not a big issue.

If owned, those aircraft could be sold or leased to other carriers. If leased, SN Brussels Airlines should have made sure that the leases of these aircraft come to an end soon, and simply not renew the leases.

The Bae RJ 85s can stay in the fleet for another 5 up to 7 years.
The Bae RJ 100s can stay in the fleet for another 5 up to 9 years.
But for the Bae 146-200s, its time to go …

Just my 2 cents.

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 06 Sep 2004, 19:36

First of all thanks for this very interesting input Themole.

The average age of the Bae RJ100s is 6 years (roughly estimated).
The average age of the Bae RJ85s is 8 years (roughly estimated).
But the average age of the Bae 146-200s is already 14 years (roughly estimated).

If my records are correct:

Age of RJ85's: oldest (OO-DJK) is nearly 9 years old and youngest (OO-DJZ) is 7 years old.

Age of RJ100's: oldest (OO-DWA) is 7 years old and youngest (OO-DWL) is nearly 5 years old.

Age of BAe 146's: DJE, DJF, DJG, DJH, were delivered in 1990 (so more or less 14 years old) ; DJJ is nearly 13 years old and MJE is "only" 6 years old.

If leased, SN Brussels Airlines should have made sure that the leases of these aircraft come to an end soon, and simply not renew the leases.

As far as I know the BAe146's were owned by SN but they sold and leased back a few of them last years. Since the lease will for sure last more than 1 or 2 years, I suppose we will continue to see them in the fleet for a while.

I know the cockpit is older in the 146 but does the pax feel any difference in comfort ?? The seats are the same aren't they ?

Chris

Sabena_690 · Post by **Sabena_690** » 06 Sep 2004, 21:06

I know the cockpit is older in the 146 but does the pax feel any difference in comfort ?? The seats are the same aren't they ?

I believe that not all ARJ pilots are allowed to fly the 146, which is a disadvantage of course. Not much difference from a passenger point of view, but a difference for the crews working on it.

As I once heard, the 146 is known within SN as the one-four-sh*t.

As far as I know the BAe146's were owned by SN but they sold and leased back a few of them last years.

How many of those BAe146 aircraft were sold and leased back? Was this a measure to improve their financial results? A sale-and-lease-back certainly gives you a financial disadvantage after some time, ask the NMBS about this.

Additional A319s could also widen the SN Brussels Airlines horizon, as they can be used for all kinds of traffic: intra-European traffic, African traffic, Gulf traffic, and even sub-Indian traffic, or just for high-density traffic of any kind (for instance non-scheduled operations).

Are you suggesting that the A319LR, like recently introduced by AF to niche-markets, might be interesting for SN too?

Would SN be able to operate an A319 profitably to EWR? Or isn't AA going to allow this?

CO seems to have a lot of pax in C-class on the flights from BRU to EWR. Although I don't know how many of those pax are point-to-point, there must for sure be a market, since CO seems to reroute pax regularly through AMS and CDG due to overbookings on their B764 (which is already an upgrade from the B762 they originally used, after the B752 and DC10).

Whether those aircraft are owned, dry leased, wet leased, damp leased or even ACMI (Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance and Insurance) leased, is not a big issue.

Although slightly off topic, is it true that, for an airline, the best financial situation for your fleet is that 50% of your aircraft are owned and 50% of them are leased?

keeping the 5 Bae 146-200s (exluding OO-DJJ) in the fleet would be a mistake.

I heard that OO-DJJ will be returned to SN within about 2 months.

Frederic

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 06 Sep 2004, 22:55

I believe that not all ARJ pilots are allowed to fly the 146, which is a disadvantage of course. Not much difference from a passenger point of view, but a difference for the crews working on it.

I think you're right about the pilots ratings Fred but I'm not sure. Anyway, can't SN upgrade the cockpits of the 146's to obtain a cockpit that has a lot of communality with the ARJ's ? This would enable an easy type change for pilots.
But on the other hand why can't they keep flyting the 146's like they are doing now ? It doesn't seem to restrict them a lot does it ?

As I once heard, the 146 is known within SN as the one-four-sh*t

Nice name

Wasn't SN planning to give a name to all their planes. Now we would have "Fox merde" and one-four sh*t

How many of those BAe146 aircraft were sold and leased back? Was this a measure to improve their financial results? A sale-and-lease-back certainly gives you a financial disadvantage after some time, ask the NMBS about this.

I don't know how many but I'm quite sure that not all of them were sold and leased back. And of course this helps to make profits. Why do you think SN made a small profit last year despite an operational loss !!! The money had to come from somewhere. (At least this year they seem to have an operational profit)

Are you suggesting that the A319LR, like recently introduced by AF to niche-markets, might be interesting for SN too?

This is in my opinion an interesting solution indeed. In the last few months it has proven to be a very popular option for big and well established airlines such as LH and AF to start such operations. If I remember well LH is even expanding its service with the PrivatAir planes.
SN could operate such an A319LR to destinations such as EWR but also some in Asia where there could be some business demands but not enough quantity to fly with a bigger plane i.e. the A330. But such an option costs a lot I think

Greetings
Chris
8)

Sabena_690 · Post by **Sabena_690** » 07 Sep 2004, 10:26

In the last few months it has proven to be a very popular option for big and well established airlines such as LH and AF to start such operations.

Don't forget the plans of KLM to start a RTM-EWR Business Class only-flight.

Frederic

themole · Post by **themole** » 10 Sep 2004, 14:59

Avro wrote:MJE is "only" 6 years old.

OO-MJE is more than 13 years old.

Avro wrote:As far as I know the BAe146's were owned by SN but they sold and leased back a few of them last years. Since the lease will for sure last more than 1 or 2 years, I suppose we will continue to see them in the fleet for a while.

SN Brussels Airlines could always sub-lease (also called under-lease) those aircraft. Where there is a will, there is a way. But does SN Brussels Airlines have the will?

Sabena_690 wrote:Are you suggesting that the A319LR, like recently introduced by AF to niche-markets, might be interesting for SN too?

Indeed.

Sabena_690 wrote:Would SN be able to operate an A319 profitably to EWR? Or isn't AA going to allow this?

CO seems to have a lot of pax in C-class on the flights from BRU to EWR. Although I don't know how many of those pax are point-to-point, there must for sure be a market, since CO seems to reroute pax regularly through AMS and CDG due to overbookings on their B764 (which is already an upgrade from the B762 they originally used, after the B752 and DC10).

The transatlantic market is not what I had in mind, just too much competition and still very risky. I already mentioned the potential of eligible markets in my previous post.

AFApresident · Post by **AFApresident** » 10 Sep 2004, 15:08

I have to agree with TheMole, the A319 and A319LR would probably be good addition/replacements. It is an excellent way to offer more non stop flights to North Africa, Middle East and Asia without needing 300 passengers a day to fill a flight.

Btw what is the range of the A319LR? 4000miles?

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 10 Sep 2004, 15:12

themole wrote:
Avro wrote:MJE is "only" 6 years old.
OO-MJE is more than 13 years old.

Wasn't MJE a new plane when it was delivered to Sabena in 1998 ?

EDIT: Sorry I'm wrong checked again and I had some wrong data on my computer

Chris