African operations possible with narrow body equipment

[cnc]

clearly Arik will have to use very strict luggage rules then.
Correct me if i'm wrong but as an african operater operation costs will be a lot lower then for example the same route for SN due to the fact that employer payment is much higher in europe thus they can offer lower prices
Also i'm not pro A319/320 operations but i do see it as a temporary solution untill they get more A330's

[LX-LGX]

Can a A319-100 fly from Brussels to any destination in Central Africa, East Africa or West Africa? Yes, because Airbus says it has a range of 6.800 km:
http://www.airbus.com/index.php?id=1525

For the non-aviation professionals: this range is only valid for ideal flights conditions. Compare it to the fuel consumption thar car manufacturers announce. I prefer a realistic approach which also considers:
- restrictions for MTOW because of high temperature and altitude above sea level;
- heavier fuel consumption because of strong headwinds;
- heavier fuel consumption because of additional weight for meals;
- heavier fuel consumption when ALL pax carry luggage;
- fuel back up for ETOPS;
- fuel back up for detour;
- fuel back up for holding.

So let's see what the non-virtual airline managers say about the range of their A319-100:

TAP : "5.700 km"
http://www.flytap.com/Belgium/en/FlyWithUs/Fleet/

Niki: "5.300 km"
http://www.flyniki.com/en/niki-world/ue ... lotte.html

Iberia: "3.000-5.000 km"
http://grupo.iberia.es/portal/site/grup ... ode=Iberia

Northwest Airlines: “2.500 miles” (4.000 kms)
http://www.nwa.com/travel/trave/seatm/a319/

Swiss : “up to 3.000 km”
http://www.swiss.com/web/en/about_swiss ... _a319.aspx

[NCB]

For all who think that the way forward is to operate nonstop flights with A319's to AFI instead of widebodies doing triangals which include those short, inefficient intra-Africa sectors, how about this:

AIRFRANCE from 07DEC09 is adjusting service to Nigeria. Nonstop service to Port Harcourt, currently with Airbus A319LR DEDICATE, is replaced by 1-stop service via Lagos. With the adjustment, current 777-200ER service to Lagos will now be operated by 777-300ER. Schedule as follows:

AF854 CDG1055 – 1705LOS1805 – 1910PHC 77W D 07DEC09 – 27DEC09
AF854 CDG1035 – 1645LOS1745 – 1850PHC 77W D 28DEC09 -
AF855 PHC2110 – 2215LOS2340 – 0545+1CDDG 77W D

The problem all along is that you try comparing SN with AF. That is not religious because AF can, as you show very well here, say: ok, we're going to pull out the all-J A319 and operate a mixed cabin through LOS using B77W instead of B772ER.
I don't see the comparison because an all-J A319 being replaced by a mixed cabin is not exactly what we're talking about here. Also, SN isn't at the stage where it can make any choices within its network and fleet, they're stuck with what they have and with what they need but can't afford.

Full article (in Dutch):

http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail. ... s+airlines

The competition is AF/KL, not some African start-up! SN expects twice more pax on their AFI flights, so bring on the A319's!!

Interesting article.
Your interpretation is subjective but I agree that AF is strong competition. In the future, the competition will be AF + the African companies. I don't know what the real aim of this press conference was, but it seems as if LH either is truly interested in investing in SN or to take all matters in own hands instead of allowing SN to pursue a self-inspired expansion. It could be truly good news.

SN is serving 14 African destinations using 4 aircraft... find the problem.
I'd rather see them operating 40 destinations using 20 aircraft 4/5 x A330 + 15 x A319.
= 3 times more destinations served with better direct service frequency (instead of inefficent, inconvenient, time-consuming 1-stop or triangulars), and daily capacity to/from Africa going from 2100 seats to 5300 seats, while simply returning the stored Bae's (including ADC's) back to service and replacing the B737's by 75.5 MTOW A319's in low density configuration (proposed 96Y + 12J/F). After 3-5 years, use the money made on this model to progressively add A330/A340/A350/B787 capacity and trim the A319's back to feeding-only operations.
It's an idea, it could work IMO.

By the way the article states that LH and LX have similar amounts of destinations in Africa, so one or two local Technical bases could be truly interesting to operate. LH is planning LHT in Abuja, another one down South would be ideal.

As far as I understand your job is to advise airlines on which aircraft to keep which ones to sell am I correct?

So in one sense you have nothing to do with the Economics of Passengers Travel, but only the opportunity cost of buying/selling an aircraft to replace existing ones.

Not only, it also consists in projecting future needs (which is the hard part) and participating in setting up tenders that would match those needs in cooperation with other departments. It's also about presenting detailed cost projections and analysis to senior management who ultimately have to read, accept and sign.
I have done other stuff in the past.
Airline management isn't exactly what you think. For instance go to SN, line up all management employees working there, show them the pictures of a B737 and A320 and you'll be astonished that half of them will not be able to tell you which one is the B737. It is like this at many if not most airlines. Anyone can work for an airline, but in the end it is how one performs and wants to perform that is most important to the results.
I am under the impression outsiders have a totally wrong image of the actual work that goes on, it is far away from charismatic, high-end or elite.
The reality is about fighting hard every day to win a bit of common sense territory against people who have alot of ego but little to no interest and/or knowledge, all that in order to make very little to no money.
The best airlines are those that have shareholding members actually working at the company, because then their own money is involved and they are truly motivated to perform and make other people perform.

Don't you think that SN hasn't a guy like you (meaning come up with ideas).
That guy would ( if smart and an aviation lover) read this topic and come up with ideas.

Good call putting the "if smart and aviation lover". Not all of them are that.

Anyway, the aim of this thread is to share idea's and food for thought with a varied aviation public on the internet, and certainly not to decide what SN is going to do about its future. That's not our problem, that's the problem of those people who are in charge of solving those problems. So please continue posting in this thread with that mindset, and propose your own idea's instead of fighting other people's idea's or trying to do SN's job to figure whether it is a good idea and whether it can be done or not.

134, so what about stopping exposing your childish attitude and getting cool?
I just exposed an idea on a forum, stop behaving as if I had slept with your wife.

LX, I'll try to post a payload-range diagram or operating weight-range chart later on for the highest MTOW version.

[LX-LGX]

NCB,

Why don't you accept the ranges that reliable airlines mention for a 319?

[Vinnie-Winnie]

Not only, it also consists in projecting future needs (which is the hard part) and participating in setting up tenders that would match those needs in cooperation with other departments. It's also about presenting detailed cost projections and analysis to senior management who ultimately have to read, accept and sign.
I have done other stuff in the past.
Airline management isn't exactly what you think. For instance go to SN, line up all management employees working there, show them the pictures of a B737 and A320 and you'll be astonished that half of them will not be able to tell you which one is the B737. It is like this at many if not most airlines. Anyone can work for an airline, but in the end it is how one performs and wants to perform that is most important to the results.
I am under the impression outsiders have a totally wrong image of the actual work that goes on, it is far away from charismatic, high-end or elite.
The reality is about fighting hard every day to win a bit of common sense territory against people who have alot of ego but little to no interest and/or knowledge, all that in order to make very little to no money.
The best airlines are those that have shareholding members actually working at the company, because then their own money is involved and they are truly motivated to perform and make other people perform.

I work in the rail industry. Do you think my boss knows minimum turnaround tme for a train, the locomotive that will be running our new services, or all the stations on the line? Well no. Managers look at the big pictures, and rely on their employees to sort out the details. Managers are not super human super knowledgable people that know everything. Managers are people that can take decisions good or bad. A good manager relies on its people to to come up with ideas and solutions.

Anyway veering off topic here but surely you must know that as well?

[C-46commando]

Where is Flight Dispatch when you need them?

[134flyer]

I don't see the comparison because an all-J A319 being replaced by a mixed cabin is not exactly what we're talking about here.

You don't see the comparison, hmm... You are declaring all the time that A319's should be deployed, as flying widebodies in triangals to AFI is inefficient etc... You are so stubbornly holding on to that plan as if it's the only viable option. So if (in this case) AF pulls a non-stop flight and replaces it with a triangal/tag-on flight with a widebody (very stupid and inefficient according to you), you don't see the comparison...

By the way, the AF Dedicate A319's are NOT all-J, cabin lay-out is 28J + 51Y. Get your facts straight first!!

Also, SN isn't at the stage where it can make any choices within its network and fleet, they're stuck with what they have and with what they need but can't afford.

Yes, that's why they gradually expand with the resources they have right now, e.g. looking for a 5th A330. But no, you say:

I'd rather see them operating 40 destinations using 20 aircraft 4/5 x A330 + 15 x A319.

Full article (in Dutch):

http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail. ... s+airlines

The competition is AF/KL, not some African start-up! SN expects twice more pax on their AFI flights, so bring on the A319's!!

Interesting article. Your interpretation is subjective

My interpretation is subjective? Let's see:

TourMaG.com:

Le Lufthansa Oil & Energy Club entre ainsi en concurrence directe avec le Petroleum Club d’Air France…

Or:

Lufthansa s’attaque au pré carré africain d’Air France:
http://www.bonjourlafrique.com/index.ph ... &Itemid=44

Or:

De Standaard:

Samen met partners Lufthansa en Swiss had Brussels Airlines gisteren journalisten uit de Afrikaanse gemeenschap uitgenodigd voor een persconferentie in Parijs. Doel: in de verf zetten dat het Afrikaanse netwerk van de drie de concurrentie aankan met dat van concurrent Air France.

I don't know what the real aim of this press conference was

Well, if you don't know what the aim of the press conference in Paris was by now, read again, it is quoted right above...

I just exposed an idea on a forum

So after proposing a plan and then ignoring and/or rejecting other people's idea's, arguments and facts as if your idea/plan is the only sensible (almost 'holy') plan around, you now tone down and are telling us: 'I just exposed an idea...' You got to me kidding me...

You are very good in turning things around to suit yourself; of all people, how dare you say this:

Anyway, the aim of this thread is to share idea's and food for thought with a varied aviation public on the internet [...] So please continue posting in this thread with that mindset, and propose your own idea's instead

You are a very good copy cat! To quote myself:

This started to change when a certain plan was proposed. Nothing wrong with that in itself. However, the stubbornness to stick to this plan and the refusal to accept polite input from others resulted in a though discussion [...] as we are all here to exchange ideas etc. as well as to learn from each other.

[NCB]

NCB,

Why don't you accept the ranges that reliable airlines mention for a 319?

Marketing departments are not reliable in publishing aircraft range figures, as you may have realised.
Figures are different depending on engines chosen, chosen thrust ratings, chose aircraft structural configuration and seating configuration density.

Here it is then:
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_g ... C_A319.pdf

P.42 through 44 airports operational data (not commercial data)
A319 payload-range data
75.5 ton MTOW CFM-56B engines

10 000 kg payload - 3250nm/6019km equivalent to average flight with 85% load factor
11 000 kg payload - 3150nm/5834km
12 000 kg payload - 3100nm/5741km equivalent to 108 PAX + 30kg average luggage per PAX at 100% LF
13 000 kg payload - 3050nm/5649km
14 000 kg payload - 3000nm/5556km

Includes:
10% contingency
+ approach to destination
+ missed approach
+ 370km diversion
+ 30 minutes hold at 1500ft
+ approach and landing at diversion airport

If you can't make it with that, you truly are having a bad day at the office.

Operationally viable routes:



BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) TOM (16°43'50"N 03°00'27"W) 192° (S) 3849 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) NKC (18°05'52"N 15°56'53"W) 213° (SW) 4064 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) NIM (13°28'54"N 02°11'01"E) 183° (S) 4155 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) SKO (12°54'59"N 05°12'26"E) 178° (S) 4213 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) OUA (12°21'11"N 01°30'45"W) 189° (S) 4310 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) KAN (12°02'51"N 08°31'29"E) 173° (S) 4324 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) BKO (12°32'01"N 07°57'00"W) 199° (S) 4402 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) NDJ (12°08'01"N 15°02'02"E) 163° (S) 4405 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) DKR (14°44'23"N 17°29'25"W) 214° (SW) 4470 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) SID (16°44'29"N 22°56'58"W) 222° (SW) 4507 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) BJL (13°20'17"N 16°39'08"W) 212° (SW) 4583 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) KRT (15°35'22"N 32°33'11"E) 137° (SE) 4651 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) ABV (09°00'24"N 07°15'47"E) 175° (S) 4652 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) OXB (11°53'41"N 15°39'13"W) 210° (SW) 4697 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) RAI (14°56'31"N 23°29'03"W) 222° (SW) 4711 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) CKY (09°34'37"N 13°36'43"W) 206° (SW) 4873 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) LOS (06°34'39"N 03°19'16"E) 181° (S) 4915 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) COO (06°21'26"N 02°23'04"E) 182° (S) 4942 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) FNA (08°36'59"N 13°11'44"W) 205° (SW) 4963 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) LFW (06°09'56"N 01°15'16"E) 184° (S) 4968 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) ACC (05°36'19"N 00°10'00"W) 186° (S) 5040 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) PHC (05°00'56"N 06°56'59"E) 176° (S) 5092 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) ABJ (05°15'41"N 03°55'35"W) 191° (S) 5120 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) ROB (06°14'02"N 10°21'44"W) 200° (S) 5140 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) DLA (04°00'22"N 09°43'10"E) 172° (S) 5221 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) SSG (03°45'19"N 08°42'31"E) 174° (S) 5241 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) NSI (03°43'21"N 11°33'12"E) 170° (S) 5271 km
BRU (50°54'05"N 04°29'04"E) BGF (04°23'55"N 18°31'08"E) 160° (S) 5319 km

Distances are great circle range. Add 300-500km for operational margin.
Flights beyond 5100km are best operated at load factors between 85%-95% for operational margin-> even then, sufficiently high fares will generate sufficient yields.

[NCB]

My bad about AF Dedicate all-J. Got it messed-up with Privatair I guess.
Anyway, the reason why AF went from non-stop B772ER LOS / non-stop A319LR-DD PHC to 1-stop B77W LOS-PHC can be various.
PHC may have become too thin with LH's arrival in PHC, which would not justify sending a separate A319 flight in high-J configuration.
Or maybe PHC could be doing very well and the A319D is too small but sending a separate widebody too big.
Or maybe they need the A319LR-DD or B772ER on another route?

Therefore, interpretation requires more information than just: "they stopped the non-stop A319 service to PHC because it's less efficient than one-stop with the even bigger B77W".

[tolipanebas]

Includes:
10% contingency
+ approach to destination
+ missed approach
+ 370km diversion
+ 30 minutes hold at 1500ft
+ approach and landing at diversion airport

If you can't make it with that, you truly are having a bad day at the office.

Not at all.

In fact you'd be having a stellar day at the office if you're a dispatcher for a flight to AFI with a nighttime landing!

Have you ever seen an OPERATIONAL flightplan of a REAL flight to one of SN's central African destinations?
YES or NO?
Most likely not, because maybe then you'd understand why it doesn't make much sense to go by these kind of 'general' assumptions manufacturers use to demonstrate the theoretical abilities of their plane, based on a combination of both the minimum legal requirements for dispatch as well as using the lightest possible cabin outfittings, which nobody apart from a few LCCs have...

Real data are what they are, which is why you won't see anybody from North of the Alps head south to Sub-Saharan destinations or vv without serious restrictions on a regular basis. It's not because they haven't discovered the assumed full abilities of the A319 yet, it's because they have understood (and sometimes even experienced first hand) the operational limitations to the theoretical possibilities in real world!

[NCB]

Alright Tulip, let's share these restrictions.
I have never seen a SN operational flight plan to Africa, but a SN A319/A333 pilot told me that I'm not nuts.

10% contingency is already very fair to me for winds, route, etc...
Even ETOPS CFS fuel requirements for a fully ETOPS-180 flight don't require that much, except if you plan for stronger headwinds, which is not often the case on the North-South routes.
Also, I'm adding another 300-500km over the great circle distance, which more than covers for the route/optimum altitude difference, and we're not exactly crossing the Atlantic here.

The graph used is the same one as used on official airline documentation, only amended for configuration differences, which are so small that they can be ignored within the scope of this study (but can not be ignored in original operational documentation.)

[tolipanebas]

Alright Tulip, let's share these restrictions.
I have never seen a SN operational flight plan to Africa, but a SN A319/A333 pilot told me that I'm not nuts.

10% contingency is already very fair to me for winds, route, etc...
Even ETOPS CFS fuel requirements for a fully ETOPS-180 flight don't require that much, except if you plan for stronger headwinds, which is not often the case on the North-South routes.
Also, I'm adding another 300-500km over the great circle distance, which more than covers for the route/optimum altitude difference, and we're not exactly crossing the Atlantic here.

The graph used is the same one as used on official airline documentation, only amended for configuration differences, which are so small that they can be ignored within the scope of this study (but can not be ignored in original operational documentation.)

I've already discussed this numerous times with you in detail in a previous topic, so I am not going to start all over again...

In short, you're way off on:

alternate distances.
As I've explained you about 260 replies ago, you can't just pick the nearest airport as an alternate (370km), with only a performance point of view in mind; your alternate has to be a sound choice from both a safety as well as a commerical aspect too. You'll have to think about putting up 100+ pax at hotels there as well as being able to leave the aircraft unguarded on the apron and be sure to find it back undamaged the next day.
You may not care much about it, but the Belgian Civil Aviation Authorities definitely will not allow you to go the airports which are unfenced (as most of Africa's airports are), meaning your only accepted alternate could easily be 1,000 km away (no kidding!)

EOW of the plane.
Realistically, you can add about 2 tons to the OEW of a narrowbody Airbus used for medium haul flying by a full service airline over what the manufacturer mentions. Given you've still not found a solution for your caterign problems, you can deduct another ton from its useful payload....

The 2 combined will cut range from a 'just about able to reach the destination' to a 'just not able to reach the destination' case in well over half the situations, thus making your plan commercially unsound already as it is.

On top of that, you're dispatching under a simple 'destination with one alternate' kind of flightplan, which is NOT what is used for the destinations you have in mind, given their isolated character. Use the legally required planning mode and see how the alternate plus final reserve fuel of the flight eats deep into what's left of your alreade reduced payload...

You may have spoken to one of my colleagues allright and as you've demonstrated sufficiently on this site the range of the A319 flirts which that needed to do the route IN THEORY, but it just isn't there yet and it is definitely missing the operational comfort margin to actually do it. There's no profit in flying 30 pax non-stop to ABJ on an A319.... More is a daydream really. Take it from somebody who's actually in the know professionally at least as much as the colleague of mine you may have spoken to about this.

[NCB]

able to leave the aircraft unguarded on the apron and be sure to find it back undamaged the next day

.

Is that a requirement?
Because in such cases there would be a serious problem for many destinations SN is already operating to.
For the rest, 80% of mentionned potential destinations are being operated by some European airline, so no reason for worries.

I agree with you that the 2 island destinations and Sudan are going to be a tad hot, but I think that all the other ones are doable as can be seen from the map. There's plenty of airports that can be used as landing and take-off alternates in the West-Coast area starting off in Mauritania all the way down to Cameroon, along the coast.

A320/A321 even in low density only make things worse, but if you can retrofit some sharklets which, according to JL are going to come to market later than 2012 due to some difficulties over the new builds, you can add an additional 3.5% margin over the wingtip fences or 150km more diversion fuel.

[tolipanebas]

able to leave the aircraft unguarded on the apron and be sure to find it back undamaged the next day

.

Is that a requirement?

Well what do you think yourself?

Do you think the OWNER of a 100M+ dollar plane will not mind you diverting to some unprotected place for a NON-EMERGENCY (like for instance bad WX at the planned destination?) and then deciding to just leave the plane unguarded on the apron, hoping it will not have been plundered the next day when the crew which went over duty comes back from their hotel (if they have found one)?

Besides, an 'I don't really care about the consequences of my decisions, as long as I am legally ok' approach is not really a good attitude to have as an airline. Remember you still need the plane to make money with the next day.

Because in such cases there would be a serious problem for many destinations SN is already operating to.

No there isn't, for the reason I've been telling you all the time!

SN doesn't just use the nearest suitable airport as planned alternate, they use other DESTINATIONS as planning alternates. Just one exemple: 1st alternate for LAD is FIH, 750kms up North and if FIH is bad, we even go back up to Cameroon: 1500km!

On the A330, we have the comfort to be able to do this kind of conservative planning; on an A319 you won't.

Mind you, it's precisely this kind of conservative planning which makes operating in places like AFI safe and successful, despite the incredibly low safety standards of the continent, yet you want to throw all of that overboard, just to be able to operate A319s non-stop?! Good luck! Nice plan in theory, poor plan in practise: after 1 month, you'll have lost at least 2 planes in accidents, if not in the air, then on the ground!

SN hasn't had an accident in AFI in over 50 years, let's keep it that way, shall we?

[sn26567]

A word of warning to everyone in this discussion:

This thread seems to evolve to a battle between NCB and the rest of the world. That's fine with me as long as everyone accepts the rules of the game, uses fair arguments and decent language and refrains from personal attacks.

It is not always the case. Hence, please be polite, fair and correct. I will delete all posts that do not comply with Luchtzak forum rules and policies that you can find elsewhere in this website.

[134flyer]

Anyway, the reason why AF went from non-stop B772ER LOS / non-stop A319LR-DD PHC to 1-stop B77W LOS-PHC can be various.

Therefore, interpretation requires more information than just: "they stopped the non-stop A319 service to PHC because it's less efficient than one-stop with the even bigger B77W".

See, now you mention yourself that there can be various reasons for AF to switch from a non-stop A319LR to a 1-stop B77W. SN have various reasons of their own why they have their present operation with A330's flying in triangals, and continue to do so (and even expanding it). Several of these reasons have even been mentioned here (and not only once), but still you won't buy it. However, now you do accept it when AF changes a A319LR to a 1-stop B77W? Afterall, one of your major arguments of your plan still is that it's highly inefficient to fly widebodies on triangals, which include those inefficient short intra-african routes. Your plan for SN evolves around operating 15-20 A319's to up to 40 non-stop AFI destinations (with a few A330's added to the operation), so how will SN then have the flexibility to adapt the operation like e.g. AF is doing now? In one of my earlier posts I even mentioned myself that in the future, after SN has expanded their AFI operation (with more A330's), there might perhaps be the possibility to add one or two A319's to operate to a few dedicated destinations. So in effect a 'light' AF operation, although I am not suggesting that they should automatically copy AF in everything.

It is now clear that the LH Group wants to expand to Africa. They will do this by combining the strenghts of LH, LX & SN. There will be some re-shuffles, but IMO LH won't take the routes away from SN in a major way. SN have their own market, transfer traffic, reputation, brand, knowledge etc in Africa, so why would LH destroy that by taking routes away and operate these routes themselves? They didn't buy SN to kill a competitor, they bought SN to use it to fight another bigger competitor (together with LX & LH themselves). Besides, after SN will be 100% LH, all the money will go to LH in the end anyway.
Also, don't underestimate the Star Alliance feed, including of course CO nowadays, after they have defected from SkyTeam (meaning Air France). It's not out of the blue that SN expects to have twice as many pax to AFI!

[NCB]

It is now clear that the LH Group wants to expand to Africa. They will do this by combining the strenghts of LH, LX & SN. There will be some re-shuffles, but IMO LH won't take the routes away from SN in a major way. SN have their own market, transfer traffic, reputation, brand, knowledge etc in Africa, so why would LH destroy that by taking routes away and operate these routes themselves? They didn't buy SN to kill a competitor, they bought SN to use it to fight another bigger competitor (together with LX & LH themselves). Besides, after SN will be 100% LH, all the money will go to LH in the end anyway.
Also, don't underestimate the Star Alliance feed, including of course CO nowadays, after they have defected from SkyTeam (meaning Air France). It's not out of the blue that SN expects to have twice as many pax to AFI!

That is a rational post on your part.
Let's hope indeed that LH will buy SN in 2011 and further invest into it...
Star Alliance will be good for traffic in Europe, to raise the load factors, etc... but it seems UA is interested in expanding to Africa on their own so I don't know if SN can rely on that long-term. CO out of EWR could bring some traffic but truly speaking CO will not make the big difference.The next few years are going to be interesting, especially as we see Africa becoming a booming market in pars with India and China. SN would be better off attracting some Chinese Star airlines to BRU, since there is alot of demand for China-Africa traffic.

I guess that the first clues will be coming in next year with the RJ replacement announcement... we'll see if LH is really interested to stand behind SN.

At Tulip:
Diverting an A333 is a totally different story than an A319... just think about the facilities required.
Truly speaking, you can still do it even if all the arguments you mentionned were determining: You plan a fuel-stop base in Algiers or wherever is most convenient, put a catering base there at the same time. It won't be as efficient as non-stop but still better than nothing.

Regi, I'm hearing Meridiana-Eurofly, soon to be merged into Meridiana Fly have ambitions in Africa as well.
Air Uganda, an SN codeshare partner, and Air Burkina were founded by this company, with Aga Khan fund behind it. Is that what you are talking about?

[Desert Rat]

even if EK get's more involved, it will be more like LH-Belgium against EK-Senegal, not small SN against big Emirates...

I don't think the aim of Emirates is to compete against the european carrier on the route from Africa to Europe, it will be more to link West africa with their network towards Asia-Pacific (India,China,Australia,etc...)

[regi]

to NCB: no, my first reply to you about using a B757 was pure hypothetical and not referring to any rumour at all.
Btw: is the Aga Khan not in such a bad physical health that opening new airline routes are not his major concern now? See news at the BBC last week.

[NCB]

I was refering to the project up North you mentionned.

Aga Khan in bad health? I guess that the money is still managed through his network and that he only takes the big decisions...