Brussels Airlines' fleet renewal

[Crosswind]

Hello old friend... Nice to see you flying in the blue sky again!

[RoMax]

Hello old friend... Nice to see you flying in the blue sky again!

It's indeed nice to see him still flying around, but I'm glad it's not for SN anymore.

[Crosswind]

Me too. SN's fleet is defintely too old and urgently need a replacement... Hope the Rj (and the 737) will be phased out before 2015...

Loofty, are you here?

[RoMax]

the RJ's will begin fasing out BEFORE the end of this year (the first RJ85's will go).
as for the 737's, i can't tell when

but let's focus on the new 319 in this thread shall we? OO-SSD is due for the end of this month

Will the first RJ85's leave SN this year already. Lukely I've got pictures of all their Avro's. And what will replace them, as I can't believe SN would reduce capacity?

About OO-SSD, end this month. It's already 23 July. Is their still no precise date known?

BTW: if the moderators think the discussion about the RJ's/B737's belongs in another topic, than it's maybe a good idea to open a new topic about the RJ/737 replacement.

[sn26567]

BTW: if the moderators think the discussion about the RJ's/B737's belongs in another topic, than it's maybe a good idea to open a new topic about the RJ/737 replacement.

As you wish...

[TUB023]

there is still alot of work on SSD
the fleet certainly won't get smaller, au contraire

that's all i can tell, i don't know anything more, i don't know what types, exact dates, ... all i know is the fleet will expand

[RoMax]

there is still alot of work on SSD
the fleet certainly won't get smaller, au contraire

that's all i can tell, i don't know anything more, i don't know what types, exact dates, ... all i know is the fleet will expand

Do you know how many RJ85's will leave SN this year? I assume not that much.

[TUB023]

i taught the number was around 5... not sure though

[Didymus]

Probably the ones delivered in 1995?

[RoMax]

Probably the ones delivered in 1995?

Would be logical to phase out the oldest first. Probably depending on the leasing contracts.

I wonder wich aircraft will back up the lost capacity, as I can't believe SN will reduce capacity this winter. So there must be some replacement. Bigger (A319...), smaller (CRJ 200...), I don't know. And I suppose most of you don't know it (yet).

[cnc]

imo the ATR 72-600 would be perfect for SN in combination with the A32X

[RoMax]

imo the ATR 72-600 would be perfect for SN in combination with the A32X

Would be a good choice for the short routes. But the -600 is not available before the end of this year. It would be a possible choice for later RJ replacement but if the first RJ's would leave SN this year they need something faster.
Has LH still some ATR's or CR2's available, as they phased/are phasing them out? I know Air Dolomiti got some previous LH ATR's. Altough I don't know if that's a good idea. It are not the newest aircraft anymore and they would be replaced again after some years.

[tolipanebas]

IF they feel a need for a few turboprops on the short feeding routes, then I should think that the ATR600 series is indeed a better choice compared to the Q400, because they are wider, quieter and also brighter inside and more importantly even they also have a larger cargo hold, something highly important for SN's connecting pax which are notorious for hauling a lot of luggage...

[RoMax]

The biggest advantage of a turboprop for SN would be that it has a lower capacity as the RJ85 (wich is still too big for some routes) while operating very fuel efficient. An aircraft like E135/E145 or CRJ-200 has low capacity but is not fuel efficient.
The newest turboprops are comfortable enough for short flights. They are slower than jets, but for very short flights the negative effect of that will be rather small and the fuel efficiency is more important I think.

If SN feels the need for an aircraft smaller than the RJ85. The ATR 600 series would be a good choice. Modern aircraft, pretty nice cabin for short flights, very fuel efficient, low capacity... But the question is, do SN want an aircraft smaller than the RJ85? If yes, do they want turboprops?

[cnc]

But the question is, do SN want an aircraft smaller than the RJ85? If yes, do they want turboprops?

hell i've seen the avro's more half empty to empty then full and turboprops aren't that much slower on a 1 to 2h flight.
the ATR is perfect for low density routes yet with decent provided frequency
unlike LH SN can never make money with only 100+ seaters and not removing routes and/or lower frequency

[RoMax]

hell i've seen the avro's more half empty to empty then full and turboprops aren't that much slower on a 1 to 2h flight.
the ATR is perfect for low density routes yet with decent provided frequency
unlike LH SN can never make money with only 100+ seaters and not removing routes and/or lower frequency

Yes I know, you don't have to tell me that (I also said the effect of a slower turboprop would be rather small on short flights and that the ATR would be a good choice for SN), but it's still SN's choice (luckely LH is pushing them into the right direction).
If SN thinks they can do it with for exemple an E170 (70 seats) they will do that. But I hope not. I think a ATR 72-600 (maybe even 42-600) would be a good choice for SN. They can optimise some bad performing routes with these ATR's and they could start some new low demand routes.

[tolipanebas]

About the need for something smaller than the RJ85:

in my view, yes there is a need for a plane smaller than the 82-seating RJ85, so SN will indeed have to include a plane covering that segment in their fleet renewal bid.
However, contrary to what many here think, I don't believe it is going to be a very big need in future as there seems to be consensus within the LH group the best way to increase profitability is to operate with sufficiently large planes on price elastic routes so you can attract more pax and command better yields on the market, rather than adapt to it, so I have a feeling the average fleet size of SN will go up, rather than down.
With a too small plane, you just don't stand a chance really, as you can't compete on price without sacrificing too much of your seats and thus also your yield, meaning you end up with an ever shrinking market share, only to cut back to even smaller planes, which are even worse to compete with.
Only routes which have no elasticity must see small planes used.


About a turboprop:

it must be understood that a turboprop is only suitable for shorthaul routes, which could be defined as falling within 1 hour to 1,5 hours of flying from BRU: I hope nobody is seriously in favour of sending turboprops to places like BIO, WAW, or BUD for instance, because that would mean 2,5 hour flights!
As such it would mean not all of the routes that could do with a 70 seater can actually be served with a turboprop and there is still a need for a 70 seating jet too.


Now, the big question which must be answered then is whether it still makes sense to build a turboprop fleet, or whether it is better to simply abuse the smallest jets on the few routes the turboprop could theoretically have been used on? KLM for instance has come to the conclusion they better opt for the second solution and so have LX, so personally I am not as convinced as before SN could do with turboprops, unless they find more thin and nearby destinations to deploy them on. Otherwise, they better don't bother and simply (mis)use a few of the E170s, which would already be a big improvement over today's RJ85s, assuming the future fleed would be made up of E170 and E195s that is.
Or just get a couple of turboprops on a wetlease deal, like they do now for the HAJ flights?

Now, if they decide to take the C-series to replace the RJs with, then obviously there is no 70 seating jet readily available within that family and then some (and probably more) turboprops are much more likely, although it seems likely to be the Q400 then, given they come from the same manufacturer...


so in short:
I think it will either be Q400/Cseries/A32S or E170/E195/A32S; anything else like ATR/E170/E195/A32S or ATR/Cseries/A32S would mean too many subfleets from too many different manufacturers to be efficient still for an airline the size of SN.

But then what do I know?

[RoMax]

so in short:
I think it will either be Q400/Cseries/A32S or E170/E195/A32S; anything else like ATR/E170/E195/A32S or ATR/Cseries/A32S would mean too many subfleets from too many different manufacturers to be efficient still for an airline the size of SN.

I agree with you for the biggest part. But about the Cseries. I know they are more efficient than the current E-jets, but we would have to wait until 2014 to get the first. That's still a long time if you know the leasing contracts (for the Avro's) are all due to end in 2014 or earlier. SN could extend these contracts, altough I understand that they don't have the intention to do that. But that could be solved.
But another thing. The smallest is the CS100 with 100 seats in a comfortable configuration (in high density he could go to 125 according to Bombardier and 110 is standard) is even bigger than the RJ100's. Isn't that a bit to much for SN. The CS300 is even bigger and would be no choice for SN I think, because they have the A319 with almost the same capacity. But ok, the CS100 could be a choice. The Q400 is also currently in LH's fleet, so that would be an advantage if they choose the Q400/CS100/A32S combination.

But currently I give the highest chance to the E-jets of Embraer. I know they are less fuel efficient than the newer Cseries but they are much faster available. And I remember BA Cityflyer wich recently replaced their RJ's by E-jets and they said something like 35% more fuel efficient than their RJ's(for their operations, don't know if the effect would be the same for SN).
If they go for the E-jets the E170 would be a nice choice. In a comfortable configuration 70 seats, that's 12 less than the current RJ85's. It could still be a bit overkill for some routes, but that problem would be rather small. The ATR 72 has the same capacity (68-74), so if they choose E170 (wich would be needed for the longer low demand routes) they don't need the ATR anymore.
But than you say the E195. Wouldn't the E190 be a better choice? The E195 has a capacity of 108-106 in standard configuration, the E190 98-94. The E190 is almost the same as SN's RJ100's. Maybe they can have them bigger, but I would go for the E190 if you see SN's current load factor's. But it's just my idea.

[tolipanebas]

About the Cseries. I know they are more efficient than the current E-jets, but we would have to wait until 2014 to get the first. That's still a long time if you know the leasing contracts (for the Avro's) are all due to end in 2014 or earlier.

Indeed, yet note that only the leases on the smaller RJ85s are going to expire soon.
It's perfectly possible to first replace the oldest RJ85s with turboprops (as from next year) and then replace the later RJ85s and RJ100s with Cseries later, although I agree on the fact they'd still need to bridge a couple of extra years then, but I don't think BAe would be a hard nut to crack really. it's not like they are lining up to take RJ100s outside BAe's HQ.

Another thing. The smallest is the CS100 with 100 seats in a comfortable configuration (and 110 in standard) is bigger than the RJ100's. Isn't that a bit to much for SN.

As I have said: the average size of the SN fleet needs to grow, if they want to stand a chance in the market and they know it...

I give the highest chance to the E-jets of Embraer. I know they are less fuel efficient than the newer Cseries but they are much faster available.

I agree. in which case I don't see any turboprops for SN, other than a few on wetlease...

If they go for the E-jets the E170 would be a nice choice. In a comfortable configuration 70 seats, that's 12 less than the current RJ85's. It could still be a bit overkill for some routes, but that problem would be rather small. The ATR 72 has the same capacity (68-74), but if they choose E170 (wich would be needed for the longer low demand routes) they don't need the ATR anymore.

Bingo!

But then you say the E195. Wouldn't the E190 be a better choice? The E195 has a capacity of 108-106 in standard configuration, the E190 98-94. The E190 is almost the same as SN's RJ100's. Maybe they can have them bigger, but I would go for the E190 if you see SN's current load factor's. But it's just my idea.

As explained, the average size of the planes in their fleet needs to grow, so they need the biggest version to make up for those 12 seats lost on the swap from RJ85 to E170. Also, it would more nicely position it right in the middle between the E170 and the A319s (which will see their seatnumber increased too BTW) and it's not like they need the extra range the E190 offers them over the E195....Take 1/3rd E170s and 2/3rd E195s and you have it all sorted out.

[TUB023]

from what i've heard today, and this is just a 'rumour' i DO NOT know this for certain, it would be airbusses