Expansion United Airlines

[Atlantis]

https://www.aviation24.be/airports/amst ... ue-naples/

As we could read in the article of the expansion of United in Europe, BRU is even not in their plans to grow further.

More then two years ago they had the intention to start up the second daily flight to NY. Till today, no news about it.
On the contrary, they are growing further on a not Star Alliance hub like AMS. They have much more competition on that airport.

Ex-BRU is nevertheless a strong demand for an evening flight to NY, Houston and San Fransisco. The situation is even better for them or an other airline as there are much more feeder flights within Europe, Africa, Middle East and Far East. The situation at BRU is today even better than at the time when SABENA was still flying.

Again the big question is appearing, what is the part of Lufthansa in this? It is for a very long time very clear that LH don't want that Star Alliance companies are offering flights to Belgium as it is in their backyard.

To give an other example. The flights of Finnair to the Far East are very successful..... and is full of Belgian travellers. Why it is that Brussels Airlines has to give up their flight to Helsinki but instead a stopover first via one of the German airports? Bcs LH decided this.
Nowadays we can see that Finnair is even going to use widebody on the route BRU-HEL

[cathay belgium]

Hi,

Wide body of AY has nothing to do with pax.
Cargo need it, the wide body are quite empty.
Flew thé A359 and 343 few years ago to Helsinki..
Pharmaceutical it is...

No need to argue about this SN is gone LH dictates... And soon BRU will he more BUD then AMS, except wizz Will be EW.....

Don't think BRU can ever complete with AMS ...

Bad decisions from the past... *A never was thé best choice for BRU nor LH....
They didn't learn from the SR debacle so we are here..
EW base and fly via FRA-MUC except some AFI...

Then it Will be time for KLM to bring the B737 four daily instead of the E190 and serve the flemish , a Hop to CDG ....

Who knows.. better service then EW by far...

Euh... United ? Delta serves AMS greatly, ...

Lots of options to America soon, Primera !

Just like Bud LCC all thé way !

CXB

[evyncke]

And no more word about the USA pre-immigration in BRU airport in the same shot

[AIRMARSHAL]

If I am not mistaken DELTA serves 10 nonstop US destinations on own metal ex AMS, UNITED 5 and AMERICAN has PHL and DFW ... and all this on top of 10 or 11 KLM own metal destinations to the USA.

[jan_olieslagers]

I would not be surprised, if in a not too distant future, KL replaces its E190's with B737 between AMS/BRU/AMS.

That would leave the E190's available for finally restarting their ANR feeder service!

[sn26567]

(Sorry for the long post).

No problem being long: I personally am tempted to subscribe to your analysis. But if Carsten Spohr is intelligent (no doubt he is), he will see the potential loss of customers (guests!) and he might change his opinion. And he has in Brussels another person in charge who will help him get the right thoughts.

[Passenger]

...
With LH/CS's clear intention of clipping SN's wings, we should not expect any substantial expansions or new arrivals.
...
I'm also tempted to think that LH does not want BRU and SN to grow.
...

Can you imagine that Renault would limit production at Dacia because Renault wants that people buy less Dacias, hoping that people will then buy Renaults? Can you imagine that Delhaize would limit its supply to AD Delhaize and to Proxy Delhaize because Delhaize hopes that people will then go to the Delhaize supermarkets?

Impossible? Agree. Just like Lufthansa would do this with an airline they own for 100%.

[sn26567]

Impossible? Agree. Just like Lufthansa would do this with an airline they own for 100%.

The goal of Lufthansa (like any private corporation) is to maximise profits. Generally, profits are larger at full-fare Lufthansa than at almost-low-cost Brussels Airlines. Hence it would not be surprising that LH tries to funnel a maximum of passengers through its "network airlines". Only if new Brussels Airlines routes show some prospects for profitability will they be allowed.

[Darjeeling]

As from April 1st 2019, a Dreamliner should be deployed on one of UA's BRU routes .

I can only see IAD as a candidate, since EWR and ORD aren't yet 787 bases for UA.

[Conti764]

Impossible? Agree. Just like Lufthansa would do this with an airline they own for 100%.

The goal of Lufthansa (like any private corporation) is to maximise profits. Generally, profits are larger at full-fare Lufthansa than at almost-low-cost Brussels Airlines. Hence it would not be surprising that LH tries to funnel a maximum of passengers through its "network airlines". Only if new Brussels Airlines routes show some prospects for profitability will they be allowed.

Then it would be wise if LH would allow SN to grow. BRU may not be the biggest destination in terms of pax, but it still is a pretty high yield destination. Back in the days it was one of CO's best performing routes.

But we all know LH never had any plans for SN accept killing off any competition in its own backyard before it even was there. Imagine if SN would have ended up in Oneworld, the alliance it leaned heavily towards and possibly drawn 9W in it with them, making BRU a pretty big hub at a small distance from FRA. So tje Germans decided to fence off their backyard.

If they would transfer a portion of SN into EW, and retain both long haul and select short and medium haul routes in a premium (SN) brand I'd say go for it. But LH's policy doesn't show any desire to go in that direction. Maybe SN will be allowed to continue Africa ops, but apart from that LH will want to funnel all other traffic through their own hubs. And since every decision within A++ is taken by mutual consent, don't expect a lot of extra (new) routes across the Atlantic. And for Asian traffic BRU is not interesting enough without a strong local partner.

Time for BRU management to think outside the box because LH is not a reliable partner.

[Poiu]

Over and over again the fanboys blame LH, but the profitability of SN is the real problem!
SN has been kept alive, in true Alitalia style, for years and without LH there would be no SN as we speak.
Herr Spohr is a bonus hunting manager, he would support and applaud everything which is profitable, he doesn’t care if its LH or SN, nor if its BRU or FRA!

[Conti764]

Over and over again the fanboys blame LH, but the profitability of SN is the real problem!
SN has been kept alive, in true Alitalia style, for years and without LH there would be no SN as we speak.
Herr Spohr is a bonus hunting manager, he would support and applaud everything which is profitable, he doesn’t care if its LH or SN, nor if its BRU or FRA!

Fanboys... Hm, what does that make you? LH-fanboy?

LH doesn't do a thing to make SN profitable. Never did. The only reason for buying SN was fencing off its backyard. LH never had any real plan for SN, nor will they ever have.

[jan_olieslagers]

the profitability of SN is the real problem

That is the eternal howl from the East - to me it only shows the Easterlings are either unwilling or unable to create and sustain high-yield operations here.

[Conti764]

Since we are all so keen on ecology lately, maybe the Belgian government could show some inventivity (and balls?) and implement a ban on any flight landing at or taking of from Belgian airports to and from destinations within a 600 mile distance accept for airlines having a proven hub operation for at least 10 years prior to the proposed bill at any of the Belgian airports they operate from?

In such way anything accept SN would become useless to LH since none of their other subsidiaries fit the conditions on which they can operate to and from BRU. FRA, MUC, ZRH and VIE are within this limit and in the run you also undermine KL's ops at BRU...

That way LH would be forced to either retain SN and build up a bigger (long haul) hub operation at BRU or give up the entire airport to the competition. A repeat of the run on BRU after Sabena's demise would be unlikely since a lot of neighbouring countries' airlines would not be allowed to fly to BRU from their hubs. Maybe Spohr would be stubborn and rather have SN fly to LH hubs to funnel passengers on their own material, but I think LH's board would quickly force him to shift SN's role from a p2p airline more to the likes of LH, LX and OS... After all, Germans are known for craving efficiency.

They could still have Carstens pet airline do some of the old TCB flights to tourists destinations.

Accept from protecting SN and thus BRU, it would also cause no damage to CRL since FR fits the hub operation for more then 10 years prior to the bill and AB only flies long haul.

[Poiu]

Since we are all so keen on ecology lately, maybe the Belgian government could show some inventivity (and balls?) and implement a ban on any flight landing at or taking of from Belgian airports to and from destinations within a 600 mile distance accept for airlines having a proven hub operation for at least 10 years prior to the proposed bill at any of the Belgian airports they operate from?

In such way anything accept SN would become useless to LH....

Do you think, for one second, the EU would accept a protectionist measure like this?
Banning ALL flights for distances under 500 km (not miles) is a good idea, but one of the first victims would be SN....

[Conti764]

Since we are all so keen on ecology lately, maybe the Belgian government could show some inventivity (and balls?) and implement a ban on any flight landing at or taking of from Belgian airports to and from destinations within a 600 mile distance accept for airlines having a proven hub operation for at least 10 years prior to the proposed bill at any of the Belgian airports they operate from?

In such way anything accept SN would become useless to LH....

Do you think, for one second, the EU would accept a protectionist measure like this?
Banning ALL flights for distances under 500 km (not miles) is a good idea, but one of the first victims would be SN....

What's protectionist about it? Everybody is free to meet up the demands. FR is not a Belgian company and would comply with the conditions...

Or keep the exception for airlines who have a sizeable long haul network from any Belgian airport, having to feed this long haul network through a Belgian hub. Thus having a strategic importance for the Belgian economy.

I know the EU isn't easy on these sort of things but there are ways to be creative and meet up with their demands. How did Italy manage to keep AZ afloat for such a long time without the EU stepping in?

A last option would be to indeed implement a total ban of flights less then 300nm... In such SN would be hit to some extend as well, but it would cause limited damage. All LH hubs accept VIE would be out of option from BRU.

[Stij]

A last option would be to indeed implement a total ban of flights less then 300nm... In such SN would be hit to some extend as well, but it would cause limited damage. All LH hubs accept VIE would be out of option from BRU.

at 300nm, MUC is also still "flyable"and the dammage to SN, BRU and Belgian travellers would be immense...

Cheers,

Stij

[Conti764]

A last option would be to indeed implement a total ban of flights less then 300nm... In such SN would be hit to some extend as well, but it would cause limited damage. All LH hubs accept VIE would be out of option from BRU.

at 300nm, MUC is also still "flyable"and the dammage to SN, BRU and Belgian travellers would be immense...
map.gif


Cheers,

Stij

350nm then

How many destinations do SN/BRU have within this range?

[Passenger]

Hi guys (m/f),

What's gonna be your next demand, when that flight embargo fails: that Carsten Spohr is officially declared persona non grata in Belgium?

[Conti764]

Hi guys (m/f),

What's gonna be your next demand, when that flight embargo fails: that Carsten Spohr is officially declared persona non grata in Belgium?

Just discussing/think out loud, if Herr Passenger allows?