Brussels Airlines fleet renewal: announcement next summer.

Gliderpilot · Post by **Gliderpilot** » 23 Jun 2007, 23:21

Nuages wrote:I'm quite disapointed to read so many negative and superficial comments about the Sukhoi. The only (and I have to admit important) point you can make about this plane is that a russian a/c can suffer from a bad perception in the public. But I'm surprised that true aviation enthusiasts can rely on that kind of superficial and undeserved reputation. The new Sukhoi is a brilliant plane, using a lot of western technology. It is definitely the one I would like to see daily on Zaventem's tarmac. And I feel a little bit ashamed to read so many cliches about Russia.

I completely agree with you...

Air Key West wrote:IMy main concern here is comfort. If you check the web sites of Sukhoi and Embraer, you will see the seat width of the Sukhoi Regional Jet is only 16.23 inches compared to the 18.25 inches (5 cm more) on the Embraer 170-195.

According to their website, the seat width is 18,31". So that can't be an issue.

And to the sukhoi-bashers, do you think the ARJ21 is a better alternative? (just think outside the box, there's not only Embraer for the 70-100 segment...)

Air Key West · Post by **Air Key West** » 23 Jun 2007, 23:36

Dear Gliderpilot,
You and I mustn't have visited the same web site. On www.sukhoi.org/engl under Superjet 100 - Interiors - Cabins - Sukhoi indicates a seat width in economy class of 16.23 inches (and 20 inches in Business class, but since b.air is so proud not to have any business class anymore except on a few selected flights, we will not see business class seats on future b.air European aircarft). What web site did you get the 18.31 inches seat width from ? If it is indeed 18.31, it is comparable to the comfort on the Embraer 170-195. So, no problem. But where did you get the 18.31 inches from ?

Gliderpilot · Post by **Gliderpilot** » 23 Jun 2007, 23:46

Just click on the 18,31" in my previous post.

edit: I took a look on your source, and I think both mean the same. 18,31 inch is with the width of the arm-rest (or the half on both sides) and 16,23 is just the space between the arm-rests. I don't know how the 18,25" from Embraer is calculated, with or without arm-rests? Do you?

fokker_f27 · Post by **fokker_f27** » 23 Jun 2007, 23:55

Air Key West wrote:Dear Gliderpilot,
You and I mustn't have visited the same web site. On www.sukhoi.org/engl under Superjet 100 - Interiors - Cabins - Sukhoi indicates a seat width in economy class of 16.23 inches (and 20 inches in Business class, but since b.air is so proud not to have any business class anymore except on a few selected flights, we will not see business class seats on future b.air European aircarft). What web site did you get the 18.31 inches seat width from ? If it is indeed 18.31, it is comparable to the comfort on the Embraer 170-195. So, no problem. But where did you get the 18.31 inches from ?

2 inches may not seem like much, but it really does make quite a bit of difference in an aircraft.

The reason why I think the Embraer 170 would be the choice above the Superjet:

-Western (although modern Russian aircraft may be comparable with western aircraft, there is still a tendancy to avoid Russian types: how many western orders are there for the An-148 an the Superjet?)
-I didn't find the exact number of passengers the aircraft can hold, but the Superjet has a 3-2 arrangement, versus the 2-2 arrangement in the E-jet. The Superjet, therefore, I think will have a higher capacity then the E-jet (not sure of this) But even if that's not true, the Erj-175 comes very close in capacity with the Rj-85 and the Erj-195 comes very close in capacity with the Rj-100.
-The E-jet has already proven to be very comfortable and economical.

Of course, we seem to be leaving out the CRJ-700/900 series here, but I think the E-jet is more economical and comfortable then the CRJ. I'm not sure of that though, I don't have any figures, but that's what I always thought. The E-jet is more popular though, that's for sure.

Air Key West · Post by **Air Key West** » 24 Jun 2007, 00:07

Thanks for the info and link, Gliderpilot. I don't know how Embraer calculate their seat width. If Embraer and Sukhoi offer comparable seat comfort, I would have no problem flying Sukhoi. Embraer, however, keeps an advantage : their aircraft have no middle seat. As to the CRJ, all those who have flown the aircraft know it is safe but not very comfortable, especially the window seats.

LeFreak · Post by **LeFreak** » 24 Jun 2007, 00:08

i'm an avro driver and to be honest i don't give a thing what type of aircraft we will fly in the future .. the only people who can make a well educated decision are the people who are involved with the fleet renewal, and as far as i know, those people are not the so called experts on this forum .. the sukhoi jet, even though a russian aircraft, is completely build to western standards, with the cockpit being devoloped by Thales, yup, that's right, those are the same people who made the cockpit of the A380 .. and do you really think Boeing would link it's name to a project that's not thrustworthy .. let's just all wait and see, but i'm pretty sure you won't see any turboprop, and neither will you see airbus or embraer as those are too expensive for the time being ..

and to all the people bashing the avro, even though it is not the fastest plane around, nor is it the best climber around, and no it doesn't look sleek and sexy, but it is a safe aircraft that gets the job done, with a roomy cabin for its class, and we can land it in your backyard so to speak .. viva jumbolino!

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 24 Jun 2007, 08:35

What you're talking about is the max power they can provide, which is only used at take off. At cruise settings the fuel consumption will be approximately the same for an equal trip.

This is nonsense because otherwise ATR-72 operators would all buy Q400's instead. Come on the Q400 have more than twice as much available power, they can't have the same fuel consumption.
I just asked a friend of mine who works as mechanic and he told me ATR-72 burns around 800 litres per hour in cruise at a speed of 250 Kts while the Q400 burn 1300 litres per hour at 350 Kts.
So for a trip of say 900Nm at cruise, A Q400 will burn around 3300 litres and an ATR-72 2900 litres.
So the ATR-72s make sense for the very short trips, where the cruise distance is minimal.

Tell-me what is more nonsense than operating a full fleet of Avro's between big airports?

The AVRO is safe, but expensive to operate, difficult to fill.
Why?
Because it is an aircraft built for short take-off and landing operations. I don't see where you can practice that privilege in Europe, seen the big runways we have.

Desert Rat · Post by **Desert Rat** » 24 Jun 2007, 09:43

Are they going to replace only the Avro/Bae or do they plan to replace the Boeing/Airbus fleet as well???

Will it be just one type to replace the 3 different fleet(Avro/Boeing/Airbus)??? or will it be a mix of Regional Jet and Single Aisle A/C's???

Does anyone know??

Thanks...

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 24 Jun 2007, 10:20

Desert Rat wrote:Are they going to replace only the Avro/Bae or do they plan to replace the Boeing/Airbus fleet as well???

Will it be just one type to replace the 3 different fleet(Avro/Boeing/Airbus)??? or will it be a mix of Regional Jet and Single Aisle A/C's???

Does anyone know??

Thanks...

Read the first post: Brussels Airlines is going to replace the current fleet. That means all, 50 aircrafts.

But more info within a year. Things can chance in 12 months. I mean, are the fourth and fifth A330 calculated in this number or are they also have the leave the fleet?

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 24 Jun 2007, 12:03

LeFreak wrote:and as far as i know, those people are not the so called experts on this forum...

the principle of a forum is that people post topics about a subject. The strength of this forum is that many visitors are aviation professionals, and thus extremely well experienced with planes. But so far, I haven't read that someone calls himself an expert on fuel consumption or yield management or ILS or leasing contracts or seat pitch or whatever.

correctair · Post by **correctair** » 24 Jun 2007, 13:38

Guys,

Let me try to explain you how an airline fleet renewal project is organized in most airlines. I hope you realize that this is an impressive project that takes time.

1) First of all the Network Departement makes a study about the needs. they have to find an answer on many, many questions. How many seats do we need? How many aircraft do we need? Aircraft range needed? Expected passenger growth rythm for the next years? Expected loadfactor? Do we need regional aircraft are is the capapcity of these aircraft to small in 5 years time ?? Is a 150 seater to big or do we need a 180 seater in 5 years time?

They must provide an answer to these and to many other questions. As aircraft stay in the fleet for several years, they have to give a clue about the growth expectations for 3 years, 5 years and even 10 years...

When do we need the aircraft? Delivery times ...

The Management agrees on the strategic plan for the next years.

Yes, a very difficult excercise.

2) The Commercial and Inflight Department have to write down together with the Maintenance Dpt a wish list about the inflight product: galley capacity needed, inflight entertainment yes or no, galley standards (Atlas or others, ...), 2 or 3 toilets?, cabin config, ...

3) Flight ops has to make a wish list as well. Do we need accars in the cockpit? Do we need a paperless cockpit pc tool? Do we want a head-up display? They also define aircraft performances... Florence, Sevilla 35 C with full capacity, payload restrictions in summer, ... Training needed. Pilot conversion programme.

4) Ground ops enters the project... Handlugage capacity needs, do we need aircraft with finger capabilities or not?, luggage ...

5) With these elements the aircraft manufacturers are approached. They come with proposals about aircraft types.

6) The airline has to compare all proposals based on its own caclulations, compare seatcosts, maintenance costs, overflight costs, handling costs, range and payload comparison, ... These are just the aircraft operational costs... At this time leasecosts are not yet included in the excercise.

7) What engine type is ideal? Several Departments are involved in this discussion: maintenance, flight ops, ... Who are the maintenance providers? Where are flight sim's available?

8) The finance department and the lawyers are involved. Shall we buy, go for operational leases, finanical leases? What with the current fleet? Discussions with banks start.

9) A shortlist is composed and real negotations with the manufacturers about the price can start with the manufacturer of the aircraft and the engine. They will end just before the proposals go to the Board.

10) The Board approves the proposal or sends it back to the management

spotter1102 · Post by **spotter1102** » 24 Jun 2007, 13:49

For my opinion, b.air will only keep the A330s in the fleet.

Very sad to sell Boeing 737-300s with nice winglets

Desert Rat · Post by **Desert Rat** » 24 Jun 2007, 13:51

Very interresting correctair....

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 24 Jun 2007, 14:15

If b.air is anyway serious about being a real low cost airline, the bulk of the fleet renewal must consist of a plane which offers the lowest possible CASM and for European stretches it is very well known this is either the A319 or the 737-700/-800 depending on what price the manufacturer offers, the maintenance and engine deals etc.

E-jet, C-jet, Superjet... all exceptionally nice regional planes, but NONE is capable of offering low enough CASM figures for an airline like Brussels Airlines which is serving mainly European trunk routes like MXP, MAN, LGW, MAD, NCE, MUC, BCN, FCO, BUD, CPH etc.

Not saying b.air shouldn't take some of the regional jets to keep low volume destinations like FLR, TRN, CAG, LYS, SXB etc on their route map, but looking at their destinations and just how common they mostly are, there is just NO WAY they can be competitive with the likes of Easyjet who have, are and will soon be settling on stretches to MAN, BHX, LGW, SXF/THF, CPH, GVA, MUC, VIE, PRG, BUD, WAW, FCO, etc with a plane which is at least 50% more expensive to operate on a seat mile basis!

My idea for the future fleet:

10 regional jets AT BEST for the low volume destinations which will never see low cost competition because there is no way they can profitably enter on these routes with their larger planes.

40 narrow body jets from either Airbus or Boeing to have a fleet which has an equally low operating cost base as the low costs which are (soon) going to target pretty much all of SN's European destinations.

5 wide bodies at MINIMUM from the same manufacturer as the narrow bodies

If they come up with a fleet composition which is largely different from this, it means they plan to keep on operating with regional jets to places like BRS, BERLIN, GVA, etc and they will be eaten alive when Easyjet (or any other european low cost) settles in Brussels.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 24 Jun 2007, 18:14

Correctair, thank you very much for your clarification.

However, don't you think that the Board will join in much earlier - perhaps already from the beginning? There are no funds to buy, there are no funds for a complete fleet renewal, there is no real financial back up if something goes wrong (delivery delay f.e.).

fcw · Post by **fcw** » 24 Jun 2007, 22:39

LX-LGX wrote:Correctair, thank you very much for your clarification.

However, don't you think that the Board will join in much earlier - perhaps already from the beginning? There are no funds to buy, there are no funds for a complete fleet renewal, there is no real financial back up if something goes wrong (delivery delay f.e.).

I agree with you LX, money will be the driving force!
You can only buy what you can afford.

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 24 Jun 2007, 22:59

Yeah I agree with several ideas like the need of a greater long-haul fleet for Africa.
I do not really agree with the A320 family idea, these birds are too big for SN's needs. They have already difficult times filling the AVRO's... and even the smallest, the A318, is too big with its 120 pax seatings... Unless SN starts a "Ryanair-like" pricing campain including big risks and hard rivalities.

Fleet renewal is a nasty job... and we wish Brussels Airlines good luck and good decision-making!!
It would be really nice though, if they could give us a hint of what options they have in mind..

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 23 Jul 2007, 01:35

I ve heard from a very reliable source in the company that they're looking at the Embraer's!!

brusselsairlinesfan · Post by **brusselsairlinesfan** » 29 Jul 2007, 14:12

Any news ?!

Robin_Bamps · Post by **Robin_Bamps** » 29 Jul 2007, 18:42

FLY4HOURS.BE wrote:I ve heard from a very reliable source in the company that they're looking at the Embraer's!!

We (and also the press) also heard from a reliable source within the company that the name of the merger airline would be Sabena...

Let's just wait and see what happens next summer, it's still a long way to go ! Remember the discussion a while ago that SN would go for B717's ? And look what happened : they aren't built anymore in the mean time !

Regards, Robin Bamps.