What is happening with Brussels Airlines?

[Pocahontas]

Even in these times some people are not understanding. No wonder this world goes bzrk!

Sad, very sad...

[Flanker2]

An airline running at 1 billion Euro of yearly revenue should have a backup plan.
If not for the sake of the pax, for its own sake!

All those check-in people they have on payroll can also answer phones, no?
Moving ops to LGG happened very slowly and not with a significant enough result.

Come on, we have seen enough of these things in the recent past. Volcano crisis, Belgocontrol shutdown, shootings at the airport, strikes. After the attacks, the first diversions landed in OST, for whatever reason. OST has plenty of tarmac space for parking, so why couldn't they just start running busses between different strategic points and OST, while moving staff around to support the operations? They started with OST, so why didn't they continue with OST?
So what if people in yield management have to load bags for a few days?
Staff are off duty? Call them in to help, and knowing the SN people, most will be happy to. They can get recups later on.

This kind of contingency plans should be in place.

Recently, FCO airport lost one of its terminals in a fire.
Yet the airport was operating at near full capacity within 3 days as a crazy amount of AZ staff volunteered to work on days off and long hours.
This is in Italy, where organisation is a mess.

Also recently, NBO lost its main terminal in a fire.
Flights were operating the next day already.
This is Nairobi, Africa.

So why does it take 6 days in BRU when only the entrance lobby is destroyed? Simply because there is no contingency planning, no operational risk assessments done in advance.
Why doesn't SN have a contingency plan in case there is a fire in BRU and the airport is destroyed?
Why is FR fully operational out of CRL the next day while SN is operating an octopus hub?

[b-west]

"Only the entrance lobby". Boy, flanker. You really don't have a clue do you? I mean, I get it, you're a professional troll, and, granted, you're good at it. But now you're taking it a bit too far. Have some respect for the dead and refrain from trolling about this subject.

[sean1982]

Recently, FCO airport lost one of its terminals in a fire.
Yet the airport was operating at near full capacity within 3 days as a crazy amount of AZ staff volunteered to work on days off and long hours.
This is in Italy, where organisation is a mess.

Also recently, NBO lost its main terminal in a fire.
Flights were operating the next day already.
This is Nairobi, Africa.

Im not even going to comment on the rest, but talking about comparing apples with pears.

Nobody died in those fires, they werent crime scenes. They were released by officials in a few hours. As it stands nobody except for law inforcement have even been allowed into the building. How the hell should it be open then already?

For the rest, I agree with b.west. Show some respect please!

[OO-ITR]

An airline running at 1 billion Euro of yearly revenue should have a backup plan.
If not for the sake of the pax, for its own sake!

All those check-in people they have on payroll can also answer phones, no?
Moving ops to LGG happened very slowly and not with a significant enough result.

Come on, we have seen enough of these things in the recent past. Volcano crisis, Belgocontrol shutdown, shootings at the airport, strikes. After the attacks, the first diversions landed in OST, for whatever reason. OST has plenty of tarmac space for parking, so why couldn't they just start running busses between different strategic points and OST, while moving staff around to support the operations? They started with OST, so why didn't they continue with OST?
So what if people in yield management have to load bags for a few days?
Staff are off duty? Call them in to help, and knowing the SN people, most will be happy to. They can get recups later on.

This kind of contingency plans should be in place.

Recently, FCO airport lost one of its terminals in a fire.
Yet the airport was operating at near full capacity within 3 days as a crazy amount of AZ staff volunteered to work on days off and long hours.
This is in Italy, where organisation is a mess.

Also recently, NBO lost its main terminal in a fire.
Flights were operating the next day already.
This is Nairobi, Africa.

So why does it take 6 days in BRU when only the entrance lobby is destroyed? Simply because there is no contingency planning, no operational risk assessments done in advance.
Why doesn't SN have a contingency plan in case there is a fire in BRU and the airport is destroyed?
Why is FR fully operational out of CRL the next day while SN is operating an octopus hub?

why don't you google it?

[b720]

I do agree with Flanker, to a certain extent. The closure of BRU for weeks (does not look like it will open anytime soon) is not giving the right signal. IM(h)O they should have set up a tent somewhere (even if on the Tarmac) the day after the attacks, and operated 2, 3 , or 4 flights.. and add more each day..just to show that we are in Business, and that Fxxxxx terrorists can not shut us down! There must be a building at the airport premises that can be converted to an emergency departure hall? a hangar, where PAX could be bused to their flights? at least to operate a few flights, maybe add a few more every day? That could be done in addition to limited services from other regional airports...but BRU MUST NOT be shut for so long! Shutting down like this gives a very negative signal to the rest of the world and helps crippling our economy on top of what the terrorist attacks achieved.

[Jetter]

Have some respect for the dead and refrain from trolling about this subject.

Show some respect please!

This is a different situation than Nairobi and Rome indeed. But demanding 'respect' when someone critiques operational issues is pointless, it doesn't have anything to do with 'respect' at all.

[Flanker2]

Thanks Jetter. In fact, respect is for the other topics, I'm indeed critiquing the lack of contingency plan at both SN who is 100% reliant on BRU and BRU. The dead and injured are no excuse for the operational mess we see today.

Only 10% of the entire BRU airport infrastructure has been compromised, yet 100% of operations can not be resumed?
How difficult is it to close off the departure area and build a temporary deparure area in the parking lot across the street, with a sealed "tunnel" to take pax directly to the connector of terminal A? Sure, the luggage will have to be handled by hand, but so what?
Even if only 50% of ops can resume, it's better than the current situation.

[sean1982]

Seriously guys ... If you REALLY think that it is all "just do this" and "just do that", then you really dont have a clue about airline and airport ops and the rules and regulations surrounding it. Its not because you spend time a few times a year in an airport or plane that you also know how it works.

Lets not forget btw .. It still a crimescene, as long as it stays that way nothing will happen

[b720]

Crime scene for how long? Another week? or 2? or 3? Rules and regulations could be maintained, albeit less passengers.. saying we can not, and should not, is not the way to go. The main hub of a country like Belgium can not remain shut for long. They can offer (limited) operation from another location on the premises. No one is saying that we repaint the terminal and move in tomorrow. There must be another possibility. And no one is being disrespectful to the lives lost, and destroyed forever.

[b-west]

Actually repaint the terminal and go on is exactly what (...) thought the airport should do, it's what he said here already. And now it's just "the entrance area" , a mere "10% of the airport" that has been hit. Gosh, why did we close down the airport in the first place over something so trivial, you can almost hear (...) say, as he tries to stir the pot and make SN or Brussels Airport look like a bunch of incompetent idiots. After all, Ryanair managed to move its operation overnight to Charleroi, there's no reason why SN couldn't do that. FR had what, 5 planes at BRU? And an airport from which it has been running a much larger operation just nearby. But for (...) such a move could've easily been done with SN as well, overnight a hub and spoke and AFI and America network can be moved to Liège or another Belgian airport, who can easily handle such an influx. But why even move, our friendly neighbourhood is pretty sure that any other airport would have built within hours a totally new checkin terminal... And so he keeps spewing nonsense and garbage. And yeah, I think him taking advantage of such a horrible tragedy to make himself look interesting and (...) some more is extremely distasteful and shows an utter and complete lack of respect.

And btw, the airport is working on a temporary solution and with a bit of luck it'll be ready on Monday. But then you'll probably complain that there's no proper air-conditioning installed. Or that the carpet is a unattractive color.

Edited by moderator

[Conti764]

Other airlines already came to action but no news from our so called flag carrier.
Easyjet moved to Lille.
Ryanair to Charleroi
Air Malta to dusseldorf (and provides transfer with departure at the maltese embassy in Brussels)
Croatia airlines, Adria airways, thomas cook, Air europa and tailwind moved to Liege.

What a comparison... Airlines like JAF, FR and Easyjet have bases not too far from BRU and all the others are airlines with only a limited operation at BRU.

For SN their entire home base is taken out since days. Nothing of their operations are left... So all in all I personally think SN did a good job organising an alternative in a relative short term, given the fact a lot of work comes with shifting flights...

[Conti764]

I do agree with Flanker, to a certain extent. The closure of BRU for weeks (does not look like it will open anytime soon) is not giving the right signal. IM(h)O they should have set up a tent somewhere (even if on the Tarmac) the day after the attacks, and operated 2, 3 , or 4 flights.. and add more each day..just to show that we are in Business, and that Fxxxxx terrorists can not shut us down! There must be a building at the airport premises that can be converted to an emergency departure hall? a hangar, where PAX could be bused to their flights? at least to operate a few flights, maybe add a few more every day? That could be done in addition to limited services from other regional airports...but BRU MUST NOT be shut for so long! Shutting down like this gives a very negative signal to the rest of the world and helps crippling our economy on top of what the terrorist attacks achieved.

Who says BRU will be closed for weeks? The terminal, yes. Maybe. But ops? With an intact connector, A-pier and B-pier I can think of plenty of options to set up an operation, and I am sure BRU is working on it (even confirmed somewhere in the topic about the attack). I can't even remember a terrorist attack of this scale at any airport... So give them some time figure out how to deal with the situation... There are hundreds of a/c movements a day, so even the temporary solution will not suffice.

[Conti764]

How difficult is it to close off the departure area and build a temporary deparure area in the parking lot across the street, with a sealed "tunnel" to take pax directly to the connector of terminal A? Sure, the luggage will have to be handled by hand, but so what?
Even if only 50% of ops can resume, it's better than the current situation.

The arrivals are also impacted, to a far lesser extend, but still...

Your idea about the parking lot might work, but don't forget untill today nobody was even allowed to get their car back from the parking. So how to organise it if the parking is filled with cars?

I have some idea's how it might work, but they are irrelevant.

[Freken]

Interesting read on LinkedIn about the situation at SN for some of you here.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-brus ... via-nigam-

[YYZ727]

Recently, FCO airport lost one of its terminals in a fire.
Yet the airport was operating at near full capacity within 3 days as a crazy amount of AZ staff volunteered to work on days off and long hours.
This is in Italy, where organisation is a mess.

Also recently, NBO lost its main terminal in a fire.
Flights were operating the next day already.
This is Nairobi, Africa.

So why does it take 6 days in BRU when only the entrance lobby is destroyed? Simply because there is no contingency planning, no operational risk assessments done in advance.
Why doesn't SN have a contingency plan in case there is a fire in BRU and the airport is destroyed?
Why is FR fully operational out of CRL the next day while SN is operating an octopus hub?

I would like to add some clarifications about the FCO fire & the ensuing stiuation.
The fire at FCO's terminal 3 occured on the 7th of may 2015. Most of the operations were indeed transferred to other terminals fairly quickly, but terminal 3 remained closed untill may 18. Part of the terminal had to be closed again on may 26, due to the detection of hazardous substances in the air. It remained closed till july 19th....
Confusion at FCO lasted till well in the autumn of 2015, with shuttle buses linking the Shengen & non-Schengen boarding areas. The discontent about this situation was such that AZ even threatened to leave FCO altogether.....
Considering all circumstances, i think SN is doing a hell of a job....

[b-west]

Apparently you can't call a troll a troll or a moderator will start editing your posts. Guess that means the sad little man can keep on dancing on the graves of the victims to satisfy his trolling needs. But moderators, please don't edit my posts, that's silly. Just delete them if you can't stand them.

[convair]

Seriously guys ... If you REALLY think that it is all "just do this" and "just do that", then you really dont have a clue about airline and airport ops and the rules and regulations surrounding it. Its not because you spend time a few times a year in an airport or plane that you also know how it works.

Lets not forget btw .. It still a crimescene, as long as it stays that way nothing will happen

I fully agree with you! And you're one of the few who know what they're talking about in this case.

It's too easy to depraise SN and their efforts to set up a temporary solution. They have done an impressive job imho. If anything, I believe they were a little too ambitious: the regional airport are not equipped to handle so many extra flghts, especially at a time when security has been reinforced.
Their 7 l/h flights took off today, but were the connecting pax (the majority) brought to the planes? SN has 3 flights every morning from CDG to BRU to feed them; I didn't see any flight from CDG to LGG (for the FIH flight) this morning. This flight took off at about 1:30 pm; I can imagine the scene in LGG departure hall with all these pax and their numerous coffers to be checked-in and their multitude of hand-bags. I hope there were enough SN staff to help with the exercice; imho, they are uniquely endowed with the patience required to do the job!
Now, fyi Flanker, SN doesn't own BRU, nor is BRU management in a position to decide when they will have enough access to the devastated area in order to start evaluating the extent of the damage, let alone device a temporary solution enabling them to restart SOME operation.

SN has all its operations based in BRU. It might be a mistake, but that's another story. All the other airlines you refer to have limited operations in BRU (even Ryanair); some do not have connecting pax. It's easy for them to temporarily relocate in a neighbouring airport.

I think this is an excellent opportunity to think twice before offering ready-made solutions at a time when most of us, if not all, have no idea of the exact damage incurred by the building.

[PttU]

@ Flanker: you're trying to compare to other airports and airlines. What would British Airways do if Heathrow was closed down? They also wouldn't have a nearby hub to move to... What would Lufthansa do if Frankfurt was closed down? They also wouldn't have a nearby hub to move to...
I guess the biggest difference is that Brussels had only one entrance, whereas Heathrow has multiple terminals which would make it less likely to be completely shut down. You're comparing with the fire in Fiumicino, but there it was also one terminal, allowing them to move operations inside the same airport, the same known environment and full capacity of aprons etc.

If your car has a broken engine, it's only 10% damage, but you won't go anywhere soon either and you won't replace it with the engine of your wife's car quickly either.

[Flanker2]

Well b-west, I think that criticism is good and healthy. You can stop your troll here and troll there.
If you are part of the team who should have prepared plan B, then sorry, but you should look at what is wrong with yourself rather calling other people names.
I mean, come on, BRU has profits of 300 millions a year, was it really that hard to have a contingency plan? BRU has empty buildings and property all around the airport which could have been set-up as alternate departure/arrival area. Perhaps 3 days worth of profits (eg 1% of yearly profits) would have been enough to pay for such a contingency plan.
It doesn't take a genius to realise that the departure hall was the airport's biggest vulnerability.

I didn't expect the airport to reopen within the same day.
But after 4 days of no news ahead of one of the busiest periods of the year, and without any news or contingency plan announced for the next 3 days, pax will continue to cancel their trips and book alternatives. So even if they reopen on Monday, the flights are going to have bad load factors because most will have canceled.

I'm myself flying on Sunday to TYO, but fortunately, via CDG. I would have been very very unhappy if TK (cheapest option) or NH (most expensive but most convenient option) had cancelled my flight. So I can understand the frustration of pax.

When flying out of BRU, we pay a ridiculously high fee for a safe and reliable travel service. If you travel as a couple, the price of the BRU service charge for two can buy you a night's stay in a 3 star hotel.
However, if the lobby of a hotel blows up, the hotel will still have a contingency plan to make you spend the night somewhere.
So IMO, there is no excuse for the airport to stay completely closed for a full week while all but check-in facilities are fully serviceable.

If your car has a broken engine, it's only 10% damage, but you won't go anywhere soon either and you won't replace it with the engine of your wife's car quickly either.

If my car's engine is broken, I will be on my way within an hour. It's called Touring Assistance, a contingency plan.

See above about empty BRU property around the airport.

SN should have asked BRU if they had a plan B for such scenario and if not, have secured one themselves.
So there also, no excuse.