Brussels Airlines adventure in Africa

Air Key West · Post by **Air Key West** » 22 Aug 2007, 19:46

There is some logic behing sn setting up an airline in the RDC and operating daily flights to FIH (traffic rights and slots permttting). But this brings me to a question I have already asked on this forum : where are they going to find the pilots for the FIH hub or airline ? Free-lance pilots ?

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 24 Aug 2007, 01:33

The European blacklist (as from 4th July 2007) states: "...banned from the EU: all air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of Democratic Republic of Congo (RDC), with the exception of Hewa Bora Airways* ...".

* Hewa Bora is allowed to fly to/from Europe with their 9Q-CJD (767-200ER), but not with their 9Q-CHC (L1011-500).

- - -

If the new partnership carrier will indeed be based in Congo, what about this EU embargo? Can a European airline allow itself to have a partnership with a local carrier that is banned within the EU? Or will the EU make an exception for this setup?

Will the planes from the new partnership carrier be registrered as 9Q-... or as OO-...?

Air Key West · Post by **Air Key West** » 24 Aug 2007, 12:00

The EU examins every airline individually. And even within an airline, as with Hewa Bora, operating aircraft individually. So, there is no reason for a new RDC airline to be automatically banned.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 24 Aug 2007, 12:36

Air Key West wrote:The EU examins every airline individually. And even within an airline, as with Hewa Bora, operating aircraft individually. So, there is no reason for a new RDC airline to be automatically banned.

Once again, the answer is in information you probably haven't checked:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air-ban/pdf/list_en.pdf

The EU has put a total ban on all carriers from 7 countries worldwide. Individual check?? Be serious please: they have banned airlines from which they even don't know the AOC's number and/or the ICAO's airline designation number. Do you really think they have been in the RDC (Democratic Republic of Congo), Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, Kyrgyz Republic , Liberia, Sierra Leone and Swaziland? There is a ban on all Indonesian carriers, and they have admitted they haven't been in Indonesia at all. The reason for the ban: the Indonesian minister of Transport didn't reply to two letters from the EU (you can check this in another topic here).

Hewa Bora is the exception. Their only two planes were regular visitors in Europe (BRU and CDG), so there were safety reports from both countries' CAA's to install a ban on their L1011, and to allow their 762.

steeven205 · Post by **steeven205** » 24 Aug 2007, 12:42

Air Key West wrote:The EU examins every airline individually. And even within an airline, as with Hewa Bora, operating aircraft individually. So, there is no reason for a new RDC airline to be automatically banned.

the first thing the EU examins is the local civil aviation, int the case of some countries like RDC for exemple, EU considers that, the local civil aviation doesn't have a clear process of certification and control of exploitation, as recommended by ICAO, and there is no control on maintenance, etc...

That is the reason why all companies of this country are banned from EU sky, except the B767 of Hewa Bora, because this aircraft could be controled after any landing in EU, as long as the aircraft is in airworthiness condition, it won't be a problem.

In conclusion, it is not a good idea for an european airline, to have a company in RDC.

Look at Bravo Airlines, this company expected to fly from FIH to BRU, CDG and MAD with their local company Bravo Air congo, then EU banned Bravo Air Congo on last March.

Bru. Airlines should lbase its african company in a country with a real air transport legislation acceptable by ICAO and EU.

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 24 Aug 2007, 13:10

Totally off topic but .... they shoud adopt the same procedure for boats (see pollution problems after break off cargos in the channel !!

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 24 Aug 2007, 16:01

steeven205 wrote:Bru. Airlines should base its african company in a country with a real air transport legislation acceptable by ICAO and EU.

Please, please, please...

Some people here have very short term memory so it seems...

What was all the fuss about SN setting up an African regional airline in Mauritius about, you think???

NOT to operate FROM Mauritius like some immediately imagined and dismissed as a bad idea, but simply to operate UNDER the rules of Mauritius, which are copy pasted from JAR...

This Mauritian airline can then fly on behalf of the Congolese joint venture of SN...

It is pretty straight forward really, think of it like the relation between DAT (operating airline) and Brussels Airlines (just a commerical entity, not recognized by the Belgian Civil Aviation Authorities) the only difference being here is that the operating airline would be based in a different country from the commerical entity. For traffic rights this is irrelevant as these are dependant solely on the commercial entity on whose behalf the flight is conducted, whereas the EU black list looks at the operating aspect of the airline, in this case the Mauritian AOC.

steeven205 · Post by **steeven205** » 24 Aug 2007, 18:06

tolipanebas wrote:
steeven205 wrote:Bru. Airlines should base its african company in a country with a real air transport legislation acceptable by ICAO and EU.
Please, please, please...

Some people here have very short term memory so it seems...

What was all the fuss about SN setting up an African regional airline in Mauritius about, you think???

NOT to operate FROM Mauritius like some immediately imagined and dismissed as a bad idea, but simply to operate UNDER the rules of Mauritius, which are copy pasted from JAR...

This Mauritian airline can then fly on behalf of the Congolese joint venture of SN...

It is pretty straight forward really, think of it like the relation between DAT (operating airline) and Brussels Airlines (just a commerical entity, not recognized by the Belgian Civil Aviation Authorities) .

It seems to me that, DAT doesn't exist anymore and was replace by Brussels Airlines in 2002, you can check yourself.

Traffic Rights can be granted only to an airline holding an AOC and a licence of exploitation, not to any commercial entity as you said.

Speaking about the case of Bru. Air. The company they will create in Mauritius will have traffic rights only from/to Mauritius. If they want to operate within the great lake area, they will need to be especially granted the traffic rights from one country of the area or have an airline there also. Their scheme looks like an imbroglio.

The easy way to understand if their plans are possible, let's imagine the european legislation 15 years ago, before the liberalization and open sky, which look like the regulation in Africa now and you will see that their plans are not possible.

Air Key West · Post by **Air Key West** » 24 Aug 2007, 18:31

It may have changed, but in the past African countries used to grant fairly easily traffic rights to other African airlines to operate outside their bases(5th freedom ?). Whatever the intricacies of traffic rights, AOCs and licences of exploitation, an airline should only consider setting up another airline when it has got his own house fully in order (which I am not sure b.air has already done) and I think it would be better to spend time, energy and money on acquiring more aircraft to operate more fights (= improve frequencies, traffic rights permitting) from BRU to major African destinations.

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 24 Aug 2007, 22:58

steeven205 wrote: It seems to me that, DAT doesn't exist anymore and was replace by Brussels Airlines in 2002, you can check yourself.

No sir, Just looking at my pay check (or in fact any legally binding company communication) I can confirm you DAT NV/SA is still in existance and is the official AOC holder of the airline which is operating under the name of Brussels Airlines since recent.

The 737s which also operate under the same name of Brussels Airlines are officially belonging to another legal entity called 'Brussels Airlines Fly NV/SA', which operates wet leases for DAT NV/SA, trading as Brussels Airlines.

As far as the airline operations are concerned, Brussels Airlines doensn't even exist yet: it is just a common commercial name on the fuselage of 2 independant airlines owned by the same owners... This is precisely what the failed merger of the 2 AOC's from a few months ago was all about, still remember that one?

The rest of the explanation I gave about the difference between the operating (Mauritian) airline and the Congolese joint venture is fully correct as well: the traffic rights definitely belong to the later, the AOC belongs to the first.

I don't know what is so though to understand about it: just as any airline can wet-lease a foreign plane to operate a flight of theirs, so can the Congolese joint venture have their flights operated by a Mauritian airline too.

As an exemple: how would for instance a Portuguese L-1011 have been able to operate for SN to Africa the past 2 weeks if traffic rights would belong with the airline operating the flight? Does Lussair all of a sudden have traffic rights to Banjul for instance?

Air Key West · Post by **Air Key West** » 24 Aug 2007, 23:10

Thanks for the very clear explanations, sabenapilot (

)

steeven205 · Post by **steeven205** » 25 Aug 2007, 09:49

Thanks for the explanations you are completely right. But only one point i don't completely agree with you.

I think that "Brussel Airlines" doesn't have a legal existence, and it's not a company (you can check on http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/tsv/tsvn.htm), it is just the commercial name of DAT, so the traffic rights belong to DAT, which holds the AOC.

Concerning the project of Bru.Air in Africa, i am sure that they checked all aspects of their operations and they know what they are doing.

As they said, the only way for them to develop their activity, is to increase their presence in Africa. The market from Brussel to each country in Africa is not enough to increase direct flight to each of these country. The idea is to have something like a "hub" somewhere and increase flights from Brussels to this "hub", and have a regional company (with Bae146) to operate regional flights.

My question, is the great lake area the best choice for such operation. passengers going to Gabon, Chad, Cameroon, RCA, Cote d'ivoire, Togo, Benin, Congo, etc.. will not agree to go first to Kigali. Or this hub will only serve great lake area.

Air Key West · Post by **Air Key West** » 27 Aug 2007, 22:39

Probalby no one of us knows how to operate a hub for a European airline in an African country. Let's hope b.air does. But if AF has not done it yet, there must be a reason.

Jacob330 · Post by **Jacob330** » 27 Aug 2007, 22:52

Air Key West wrote:Probalby no one of us knows how to operate a hub for a European airline in an African country. Let's hope b.air does. But if AF has not done it yet, there must be a reason.

Well i think AF hasn't done it yet because they have the long haul fleet to operate from CDG.
SN has some spare RJ's, so better make them profitable in stead of leaving them in some desert.

The plans are not that bad i think. SN is pretty ambitious, but not megalomaniac.

Air Key West · Post by **Air Key West** » 27 Aug 2007, 23:11

I sincerely hope you're right.

DannyVDB · Post by **DannyVDB** » 28 Aug 2007, 07:35

steeven205 wrote:
My question, is the great lake area the best choice for such operation. passengers going to Gabon, Chad, Cameroon, RCA, Cote d'ivoire, Togo, Benin, Congo, etc.. will not agree to go first to Kigali. Or this hub will only serve great lake area.

They are looking to different options and could opt for even more than one place to offer local/connecting flights. They once said they look at 7 different potential projects and hope to materialize at least one. If they would start in Kigali, this is of course not to connect to West-Africa with the BAE146.

Danny

C-46commando · Post by **C-46commando** » 29 Aug 2007, 00:24

Whatever happens, I just hope that B.Air will not use the Bae146 for Africa ops. The plane is totally unsuited for ops in africa. Remember that 1) the countries in the East Africa region (Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi, DRC) are at pretty high elevation AMSL. And the Bae146 is rather underpowered. 2) Its holds are not very big and PAX coming with luggage to travel to the EU, US will not come with a small suitcase. 3) In Africa, especially in the DRC, PAX usually have many hand luggages with them, and the cabin being so cramped i can imagine the mess you would have. So please get real with the ways of africa, and don't use Bae146 or such types of airplanes.

Air Key West · Post by **Air Key West** » 29 Aug 2007, 18:49

Your point is very relevant. However, there are also small (propeller) aircraft flying within Africa. A quick look at Rwanda Express's web site and at Amadeus seems to indicate they have one Dash 8 and one B737-500. Maybe b.air just wants to have control of the airline (with its two planes) in order to ensure proper evening connections from/to Kigali with SN's service to Entebbe in order to feed more Kigali pax on the EBB/NBO flights. Maybe not really setting up a hub in Kigali. Only a guess. But that's what this forum is for, isn't it : exchanging ideas and points of view.

C-46commando · Post by **C-46commando** » 29 Aug 2007, 21:58

Well I don't know if the idea is to create a hub or not in Kigali, in my opinion its a bad choice, kigali is too small, not enough market. Better location would be in Entebbe. As for the planes the B737 is the best for Africa Ops.

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 30 Aug 2007, 07:47

You seems to forget on thing.
The plan is based on buying Rwanda Express, Kigali is mandatory in this case