Future of Brussels Airlines

[LX-LGX]

Two different statements,"I'm flying a 100% safe airline" and "perception of safety".

No, it’s the same. I’m one of those who’s not joining you in your anti Brussels Airlines games, so it’s not a surprise you're mixing them up.
1. For me, Brussels Airlines indeed is a 100% safe airline.
2. Safety statistics don't count. Passengers usually base their opinions about an airline on the general perception of safety. Example: Air France is regarded as safe by Belgian tourists, even after the Toronto-incident with a 340 in August 2005.

Is that where you get your information from? All very reliable sources, sorry if I had some doubts. You must be very well informed.

I know that those who take it up for Brussels Airlines are not regarded as serious by the anti’s, so your not so friendly answer doesn't surprise me. But indeed: talking to passengers is my first source. And contrary to what you believe, it is very interesting. You should try it also, but be aware: it’s going to be different information then from the sources you now have (= if you have).

[1V1]

Two different statements,"I'm flying a 100% safe airline" and "perception of safety".

No, it’s the same. I’m one of those who’s not joining you in your anti Brussels Airlines games, so it’s not a surprise you're mixing them up.
1. For me, Brussels Airlines indeed is a 100% safe airline.
2. Safety statistics don't count. Passengers usually base their opinions about an airline on the general perception of safety. Example: Air France is regarded as safe by Belgian tourists, even after the Toronto-incident with a 340 in August 2005.

Is that where you get your information from? All very reliable sources, sorry if I had some doubts. You must be very well informed.

I know that those who take it up for Brussels Airlines are not regarded as serious by the anti’s, so your not so friendly answer doesn't surprise me. But indeed: talking to passengers is my first source. And contrary to what you believe, it is very interesting. You should try it also, but be aware: it’s going to be different information then from the sources you now have (= if you have).

Dear LX
1. I'm not at all anti Bru A. But for some people, like yourself, a person shall have no doubts about what you write down here or he's attacked as being anti Bru A. If you've no arguments just say they're anti-Bru A that should be enough.
2. It's a good thing the airline business doesn't consider "safety perception" the same as "safety". You can but they can't or dissaster would follow. For me a 100% safe airline does not exist, but of course I have not the same information sources as you do.
3. "Safety statistics don't count" you say. This is the prove of my N°2. If you feel safe because your perception of safety of an airline says so that's ok. But that's no proof of that airline being a safe airline. I'd rather go for the statistics.
4. It's not because you're pro or contra you're not being taken serious it's because of what you write down.
5. I will not argue with you about the future of Bru A, b-flex or b-light because I don't know the product and I'm not against or pro, I'm very neutral. I do believe you that talking to passengers must be very interesting (I do it also from time to time) but that does not make you a safety specialist or a specialist whatever. I've a strong feeling you're defending your business which is very honourable but not very objective.
I hope I didn't offend you with this reply.
Best regards

[FLY4HOURS.BE]

EU network has to be profitable by increasing load factors (introducing b.light)

I agree on this one B.light is an interesting product: Book fast, Book cheap. I still doubt, although I hope so, that EU is profitable, but I'm pretty sure the losses will be smaller thanks to the new merger indeed.

About long-haul, 4 or 5, 6 A330's are not sufficient.
Make it a 10 at least and the airline will be set for the next decades.

There are also some destinations that still have great possibilities: Beyrut, Casablanca, Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv.

[spotter1102]

There are also some destinations that still have great possibilities: Beyrut, Casablanca, Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv.

Is b.air still flying to Casablanca and Tel Aviv on it's own metal ?

[airbuske]

There are also some destinations that still have great possibilities: Beyrut, Casablanca, Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv.

Is b.air still flying to Casablanca and Tel Aviv on it's own metal ?

Yep they do.

Casablanca: 5 weekly flights
Tel Aviv: 6 weekly flights

[positivo]

Hi all,

Being aware that I might be scorned as naive, I would like to point out the following: It seems to be a very tipical Belgian thing to think the glass is always half empty. I, for one, like b.air and Brussels airport. Although I do not work in the airline industry, I am 'a passenger' with a great interest in aircraft and airlines. The airline industry seems very appealing, but I am in no need for a job. Please remember that state run companies like NMBS (Belgian railroads) or the late RTT (phone company) used to be more interested in engineering or switches than in their customers who fitted the bill. Therefore, please pay attention to what I have to say.

B.air and Brussels are excellent compared to the big players (great infrastructure and reliable service). Schiphol and Heathrow are overcrowded and managed to loose my luggage on 2 occassions already (annoying in New York (British Airways - LHR) but a real pain in the.... neck in my parents' house in the eastern part of Cuba (Arkefly-AMS). This did never happen in Brussels (on B.air and the 'infamous' Jetairfly Boeing) Delays and cancellations do unfortunately happen, but do know that the 'pride of Flanders' cancelled a flight to Manchester from Antwerp a few days ago (out of a total of 4 flights that day). Compared to luchtvaartnieuws, which reports objectively and even in positive terms on Belgium would you believe, this forum seems somehow 'bitter'.
Let me just remind you of the words by Karl Popper: optimism is a moral duty. Thanks (particularly to the people working at the airport and with b.air)

[JOVAN]

Let me just remind you of the words by Karl Popper: optimism is a moral duty.

The theories of Popper have been misused by the politicians and the parties who sold, then killed Sabena.

Reasons to be bitter.

[C-46commando]

About long-haul, 4 or 5, 6 A330's are not sufficient.
Make it a 10 at least and the airline will be set for the next decades.

There are also some destinations that still have great possibilities: Beyrut, Casablanca, Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv.

Its nice to see someone with ambition. 10 planes might be a bit too much for the moment, and the resources wouldn't allow it I think. But definitely 6 planes would be a very good asset. B.air could then give daily services to the US eg KJFK, KBOS. People usually tend to prefer if the airline flies own metal, that means they get the same product on their flights, eg africa to BRU then to the US means the same config of SN's A330s.

[avi8tor]

Unfortunately flights to US will not happen! Approximately 1 year ago b.air was approached by codeshare partner AA to start a 2nd daily flight to JFK in the evening (like the old Sabena schedule) but b.air declined... they are still digging for gold in Africa and that's how it will stay. I find it a pity that they don't "risk" re-opening some US-lines but maybe it's best to stick to very profitable routes (like Africa) rather than embarking on a new (more competitive) adventure and see cash-reserves vanish by doing so...

Further more: own Casablanca flights will cease as from mid november, they are starting a codeshare with Royal Air Maroc, operated on AT-metal!

Fly'em!
Avi8tor

[C-46commando]

Its true that opening a new line to the US puts you in a very competitive market. But I think a flight to KBOS and/or KJFK would be profitable, Just one or two lines will do. Btw has anyone any idea what effects the Opensky agreement will have on BRU?