One of the reasons is to reduce vertical movements for pax ( elevators, escalators etc...)luchtzak wrote:Why will they build a window bridge when there is a tunnel available ?
Tompompier
Moderator: Latest news team
One of the reasons is to reduce vertical movements for pax ( elevators, escalators etc...)luchtzak wrote:Why will they build a window bridge when there is a tunnel available ?
No it isn't! It actually makes sense!sean1982 wrote:In a time were big airports are embracing LCC operations (MAD,BCN,PMI,TFS,MAN,AMS,LGW,DUB,EDI,GLA,etc...) I find this probably the most stupid move in EBBR's history
How many planes do you think SN will have in 10 years time? Give them 3 additional A330s and 10 additional A320s and you're probably at the max SN will have. Add 2 flights from CO, 1 ANA flight, 1 additional Air Canada flight and you have your Star capacity increase.tolipanebas wrote:BRU is a premium market (NATO, EU, tons of multinationals and supranational governmental institutes) AND they now have a home carrierwhich has the ambition to turn the airport into a key STAR alliance hub:
tolipanebas wrote: that's premium market growth and it should take priority over low yielding LCC growth: the airport would be nuts to waste its time, money and space on dedicated infrastructure for LCCs when it can make far more money from the same time, space and investement by concentrating on the premium customers first, something which is urgent indeed.
tolipanebas wrote: LCC are welcome at BRU, just not at discounted prices... It's a business decision that makes a lot of sense and it all comes down to getting your priorities right!
If you know SN's originall goal was to get 1 A330 late this year, 1 early 2012 and 1 late 2012 you already have your additionall 3 A330's. Keep in mind that the rumours say SN may already have 9 A330's late 2012 (two A330's this year and not just one). So I think 3 additional A330's in 10 years is way way to pessimistic.LJ wrote:How many planes do you think SN will have in 10 years time? Give them 3 additional A330s and 10 additional A320s and you're probably at the max SN will have. Add 2 flights from CO, 1 ANA flight, 1 additional Air Canada flight and you have your Star capacity increase.
If you know that some/many/most LCC terminals have only very very limited services in the terminal (food, drinks, shops,...) to keep the costs low, I doubt a A320 of U2 generates the same revenue as a SN A320. Cheap terminal with limited services (to keep the costs low) and discounts on the charges U2 (or any LCC) has to pay. I don't see where the U2 aircraft generates more revenue. The only way they can get more revenue by LCC is by getting a much larger amount of LCC flights compared to other flights.LJ wrote:
There is a difference in what an airport makes and what an airline makes. An A320 of U2 generates at least the same amount of revenue for an airport than an A320 of SN. However, many airports like those LCCs because they don't provide free meals and free drinks onboard and thus some pax will be persuaded to have a meal or drink in the terminal. The result being that the airport can derive more revenue from concessions (thus the LCC generates indirect more revenue). Moreover, transfer pax usually pay less airport fees. Given the fact that LCCs don't have much transfer pax, the revenue generate here is also greater (at present, easyJet is using this argument in getting the "discriminating fees"which KL pays for its transfer pax on par with that of the local pax).
I completely agree with that. BRU is a premium airport, and the star alliance could be a new born.tolipanebas wrote:No it isn't! It actually makes sense!sean1982 wrote:In a time were big airports are embracing LCC operations (MAD,BCN,PMI,TFS,MAN,AMS,LGW,DUB,EDI,GLA,etc...) I find this probably the most stupid move in EBBR's history
BRU is a premium market (NATO, EU, tons of multinationals and supranational governmental institutes) AND they now have a home carrierwhich has the ambition to turn the airport into a key STAR alliance hub: that's premium market growth and it should take priority over low yielding LCC growth: the airport would be nuts to waste its time, money and space on dedicated infrastructure for LCCs when it can make far more money from the same time, space and investement by concentrating on the premium customers first, something which is urgent indeed.
LCC are welcome at BRU, just not at discounted prices... It's a business decision that makes a lot of sense and it all comes down to getting your priorities right!
No CRL is not the only reason why they don't build a LCC terminal. The new CEO of the Brussels Airport Company just knows damn good where he has to lay his focus. On the high premium market of SN, the LH group and Star Alliance wich is responsible for 52% off all traffic in BRU. That's were they have to get their money from. SN is finally using BRU as a hub like Sabena did in the past. So BRU anticipates on that by expanding the A-pier. By that SN can operate all their flights from the A-pier (including UK, Israel, Russia,... African arriving pax: so non-schengen) wich makes the A-pier a perfect place to use as a hub. That's much more important investment from wich they will get much more money in the end than when they give priority to an LCC terminal.LJ wrote: 100% correct, however this is something many airport abide by (AMS for example). The only argument against building a low cost terminal at BRU is that BRU is too close to Charleroi to get the Ryanair type of traffic (BRU will never be able to compete with Charleroi for this business) and has too little spare capacity to build a terminal for the easyJet type of LCCs.
This is exactly the line of reasoning which easyJet is currently attacking at AMS. Their claim is that an airport can make more money when from O&D traffic then from connecting traffic as O&D pax pay higher airport fees.MR_Boeing wrote:the LH group and Star Alliance wich is responsible for 52% off all traffic in BRU. That's were they have to get their money from.
First, it's not that LCC always receive discounts (other than those also received by the "premium" airlines). Discounts exist for heavy users, which usually means the home carrier. Second, though I don't know the particular reasoning for other airports, AMS did use this as an argument to increase revenue. Though the LCC terminal at AMS lack facilities, the whole idea at AMS is to maintain the pax in the central terminal as long as possible (where they can spend their money). Furthermore, the current strategy by relying on a single airline (or airline group) is a risky one (and also doesn't increase your bargaining power towards the airline) and a reason why so many airports want to have some LCC presence.MR_Boeing wrote: If you know that some/many/most LCC terminals have only very very limited services in the terminal (food, drinks, shops,...) to keep the costs low, I doubt a A320 of U2 generates the same revenue as a SN A320. Cheap terminal with limited services (to keep the costs low) and discounts on the charges U2 (or any LCC) has to pay.
At the time the 'LCC terminal idea' was launched, BRU said the LCC's would have to pay significant less to operate to BRU than the traditional carriers (one of the main reasons why AOC/BATA were so angry about the LCC terminal). Wich means BRU would get less revenue per flight unless these LCC pax spent much more money in the terminal. Wich is unlikely because BRU was not planning to place shops and things like that in the LCC terminal and the other majority of the shops, restaurants, bars,... are located in an area wich wouldn't be accesable for the LCC pax.LJ wrote:First, it's not that LCC always receive discounts (other than those also received by the "premium" airlines). Discounts exist for heavy users, which usually means the home carrier.
I'm sorry but I think it's hard to compare AMS and BRU on the LCC market. AMS already has a strong position in Europe, they already have a strong home carrier. BRU has not, their main priority has to be thier home carrier. Later they can focus on other things, but first the home carrier. But yes it's risky to bet on one group.LJ wrote:Second, though I don't know the particular reasoning for other airports, AMS did use this as an argument to increase revenue. Though the LCC terminal at AMS lack facilities, the whole idea at AMS is to maintain the pax in the central terminal as long as possible (where they can spend their money). Furthermore, the current strategy by relying on a single airline (or airline group) is a risky one (and also doesn't increase your bargaining power towards the airline) and a reason why so many airports want to have some LCC presence.
Depends on what you want. You should see SN as a broader entity then just that LH-daughter. Both BRU and SN could be of great value for Star Alliance transatlantic partners for flights from and to Africa, but also within Europe. BRU still is an easy accessible airport, low served and with potention for growth. Within the Star Alliance network BRU is the most westernly located (currently mini) hub of Star Alliance so besides being the key Africa connector within Star Alliance, it also shows great value for various N-American carriers (UA, US and AC) to operate to.sean1982 wrote:There is an ambition to make BRU a KEY star alliance HUB?
Don't you think it's a bit overly optimistic, considering the fact the BRU.Air on a european level is a pretty small airline. Especially when you have 2 skyteam hubs, one star alliance hub and one oneworld hub all within a 1 hour flying distance
Do you think Lufthansa will allow for Bru.Air to take customers away from FRA? Maybe just on the african routes where they still count on the "sabena" name.
Since I don't believe in Ryanair ever transfering some flights to BRU, I'll focus on U2... How many flights do you think U2 might be offering at BRU within 10 years if BRU would give them a full low cost terminal and discounted rates? You really think they will ever reach at BRU what FR reached at CRL?LJ wrote: This is exactly the line of reasoning which easyJet is currently attacking at AMS. Their claim is that an airport can make more money when from O&D traffic then from connecting traffic as O&D pax pay higher airport fees.
now lets hope they also have a solution to kill those ghost hours between the longhaul waves.MR_Boeing wrote: Yes the current capacity of the airport is around 28 million pax/year, BUT in the morning BRU is running almost at his maximum capacity. Especially the non-schengen flights are a real problem (remember T gates for SN in the A pier...) and A pier West will be exactly the solution for that.
I have my doubts they will get there with 460 million euro... For the aviation related constructions it probably will be sufficient. But I can hardly imagine you will also renovate the old airport building when that building has been stripped to bare concrete, especially when you see what they have in mind for this airport office building!MR_Boeing wrote: And I think you forget some things. This 460 million is for A pier West, finishing underground bagage system A pier, building connector (main terminal- A pier), renovating the old airport building to make it a business center, developing BRUcargo more. So I wouldn't call this investment a wild investment.