The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

User avatar
Atlantis
Posts: 4226
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 00:00

The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by Atlantis » 16 May 2019, 08:54

2018 was a record for many airlines and airports. 2019 was looking promising with some new positive changes.

But in meantime it all changed. You can't predict aviation for the next 6 months and certainly not for the next year. That's why it is very interesting to start up this new topic regarding the current heavy changes. And aviation will change drastically also bcs of the trade war of Trump which caused that fuel prices are very high.

Europe, BRU, AMS, CDG


When we start from the North, AMS, then we see that AMS is in a very difficult time. They almost reached the limit of 500.000 flights. Lots of organizations are against to increase this number. We know how it is and which actions they took. But let us have a look at the new challenges which came up.
With all the climate actions, AMS and KLM agreed to replace short haul flights by train connections. We speak then about flights to BRU, CDG and German cities. This will make free slots for other urgent long haul flights.
As second, they will introduce the flight tax as from 2021. 7 euro extra on the flight tickets. For freight exactly the same but the tax will be half less then first thought. The Netherlands will follow the example of Scandinavia where a flight tax is already longer introduced.
In meantime, certain groups like Bewoners Omgeving Schiphol, de Werkgroep Toekomst Luchtvaart en het Landelijk Burgerberaad Luchtvaart (Source: Luchtvaartnieuws) wants that AMS will be only used for business. One of their aims is to have a look at the current destinations and to select only the real value for AMS. Charters can be transferred to the regional airports

When we come more South we are reaching BRU. Some interesting issues here too. What will happen with SN? Can we still speak about SN or about EW? What with long haul? Will they increase it here or not? The Germans don't speak loudly about those plans. Fact is that all new airplanes for SN will have the EW livery and the current ones will have it spread over the next coming years. If SN will disappear due to many reasons, there is no back up plan. It will be again like the months after the bankruptcy of Sabena. Other carriers can take over some gaps but not with the frequency like we have now. The only airline who comes up is Ryanair. They have a huge fleet still on order and they can take over a huge part of the short and medium haul flights (Brexit in mind they want to have their main base at mainland Europe) By doing this, Ryanair can negotiate very good conditions at BRU bcs of the fact to maintain the connections with BRU. If it is the aim of the Germans to destroy SN, to let collapse the whole EW project, they better think twice bcs Ryanair is around the corner and a major player in their backyard. So in their best benefit, the have to keep SN/EW in BRU with a good product
What with A-Pier West? Like I mentioned before, there is a huge delay and will not be in the first 5 years (of what is known now, everything can change or being faster again). Fact also here is that short haul flights will disappear and which is also the aim of the CEO of BRU. Flights to AMS, CDG (those first ones) will be replaced by train connections. For Germany no plans yet, but there are already high speed trains from Germany to Belgium, to the Brussels South train station. Maybe it can be also extended to BRU.
This means that more space will become available a the current A-Pier.
There is also the flight tax. The amount is not known yet, but has to be competitive with other airports. EC, European Commission, is taking also actions regarding a European flight tax (leaked report this week)
If it will be introduced, we can speak about a drop of pax in Belgium around 17% which is huge. But this is only a prediction.

CDG is taking the same actions. Short haul will be axed. We speak about flights to BRU and AMS but also about many domestic flights.

When we have a quick look at some other places then we come immediately in the ME. This region was doing extremely well. Lots of pax were flying to Dubai to take the next connection. But Emirates starts to feel pressure and is also not performing that good any more. The CFO resigned from his job this week and also more uniformity in the fleet.

Qatar is doing the same. The struggle bcs of sanctions against them of their neighbor countries and Qatar is going to change their fleet drastically. They had all types of Airbus in the fleet but they want now only one type for short haul, A321, and a few for long haul. Also no A380 anymore

India is in the same situation. Jet Airways cancelled all flights and the top management resigned. There is a new injection of money by Etihad but nothing confirmed yet.
Air India is also still in very deep water and they have the same situation. Many of their planes are on the ground bcs of technical issues. They don't have the money for repairing.
The only airline who is doing well for the moment is Indigo

As we can see, things are changing. For the better or worst? We will see, but I think that the aviation landscape will change drastically as they all balance on the edge of being profitable or not. With the increasing fuel process, trade wars, political issues, aviation is very sensitive to it. Maybe aviation has to be again more expensive like it was in the past. Aviation becomes the victim of their own success

User avatar
Conti764
Posts: 1580
Joined: 21 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by Conti764 » 16 May 2019, 09:50

Atlantis wrote:
16 May 2019, 08:54
Fact also here is that short haul flights will disappear and which is also the aim of the CEO of BRU. Flights to AMS, CDG (those first ones) will be replaced by train connections. For Germany no plans yet, but there are already high speed trains from Germany to Belgium, to the Brussels South train station. Maybe it can be also extended to BRU.
It is only logical and fair to (at least) cut the FRA connections as well and even MUC and ZRH. They are all at maximum 600 km range from BRU.

Inquirer
Posts: 1992
Joined: 14 Feb 2012, 14:30

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by Inquirer » 16 May 2019, 10:39

I agree really short flights are ridiculous and should be replaced by alternative means of transport, but I disagree with the often quoted range of what is a short flight in this respect.

When you see the green party for instance table ranges up to 1,000 km as the minimum range to fly over, they clearly do not understand how today's economy and businesses work.

It's impossible to do a day return to ZRH by train for instance, something I do on an almost weekly basis and this is a MUST for me. Anything further than Paris, Amsterdam, London or Frankfurt is realistically only doable by plane if you want to leave in the morning, and come back in the evening, while still spending any useful time there as well. You can't leave at 7 from BRU and show up at the office at 9 in Switzerland if you do it by train, and you definitely can't work till 5 and by back at your home at 8 the very same day!

PttU
Posts: 304
Joined: 24 Nov 2015, 15:07

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by PttU » 16 May 2019, 12:20

Inquirer wrote:
16 May 2019, 10:39
I agree really short flights are ridiculous and should be replaced by alternative means of transport, but I disagree with the often quoted range of what is a short flight in this respect.

When you see the green party for instance table ranges up to 1,000 km as the minimum range to fly over, they clearly do not understand how today's economy and businesses work.

It's impossible to do a day return to ZRH by train for instance, something I do on an almost weekly basis and this is a MUST for me. Anything further than Paris, Amsterdam, London or Frankfurt is realistically only doable by plane if you want to leave in the morning, and come back in the evening, while still spending any useful time there as well. You can't leave at 7 from BRU and show up at the office at 9 in Switzerland if you do it by train, and you definitely can't work till 5 and by back at your home at 8 the very same day!
If people don't change, nothing will change.
If people don't change their expectations and habits, then those short flights will still remain. But what about night-trains? Taking a night-train, or even a high-speed train during the night, arriving at your 600-1000km destination in the morning can be a worthy alternative to those short flights. That's nothing that will change overnight: those trains aren't available now, and the surely wouldn't be profitable. And even if the train becomes an option, there still will be flights, just with smaller planes, probably higher prices and maybe at a reduced schedule.


Something I miss in this thread is: what about the Chinese? We can already see some investments from Chinese partners in (smaller) European airlines, but what if they take over part of the role ME-carriers are playing? For quite some routes to Australia and NZ they offer a cheaper option, especially from AMS. But what are the chances of opening a base somewhere in Europe?

User avatar
Atlantis
Posts: 4226
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 00:00

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by Atlantis » 16 May 2019, 12:37

Hainan had a thought/plan to open the first European base in BRU with flights from China to the US. But it never happened. But ok, at this moment they have three Chinese flights to BRU.
Conditions to that was also to have an own hotel for the Chinese tourist and a big Chinese bank. Those two happened in meantime. They have the very luxury Tangla Hotel near Brussels and the Bank of China

But in meantime we also know how the relationship is between China and The US. But it could be indeed the other way around. To open more Far East destinations with convenient connections to other parts to Oceania

jan_olieslagers
Posts: 2980
Joined: 24 Jun 2006, 08:34
Location: Vl.Brabant
Contact:

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by jan_olieslagers » 16 May 2019, 14:42

For the umpteenth time: this is not about aviation as whole! Only about the sub-division "commercial air transport". If you really want to discuss commercial only, please update the title (or request an admin to do so)!!

The rest of aviation remains much more constant: military are coming to new stability after years of budget cuts, they must now be at the absolute bottom of the do-able. Business flying quite thriving, as far as I can see, recreational flying suffering from closure of airfields and increasing costs but nothing spectacular in most places.

Passenger
Posts: 6236
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by Passenger » 16 May 2019, 21:03

jan_olieslagers wrote:
16 May 2019, 14:42
For the umpteenth time: this is not about aviation as whole! Only about the sub-division "commercial air transport". If you really want to discuss commercial only, please update the title (or request an admin to do so)!!

The rest of aviation remains much more constant: military are coming to new stability after years of budget cuts, they must now be at the absolute bottom of the do-able. Business flying quite thriving, as far as I can see, recreational flying suffering from closure of airfields and increasing costs but nothing spectacular in most places.
You constantly correct and adjust other posters. Seriously, sir: this topic is fine here. It's your above reply that sucks. Atlantis has spent quite some time for his overview, with a correct analysis indeed: things are changing fast nowadays. And all you do, is spijkers op laag water zoeken.

jan_olieslagers
Posts: 2980
Joined: 24 Jun 2006, 08:34
Location: Vl.Brabant
Contact:

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by jan_olieslagers » 16 May 2019, 21:09

Excuse me, dear sir, I did my best to broaden the picture. If you wish to read that negatively, that's up to you.

Things may indeed be changing fast in the sub-domain of commercial air transport, I am not commenting there, how could I? But I do see little evolution in the other sub-domains of aviation, over the last five or ten years. With your kind permission, those domains might be equally discussed on this forum, which has repeatedly confirmed its intention to cover all aspects of aviation.

User avatar
Atlantis
Posts: 4226
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 00:00

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by Atlantis » 17 May 2019, 12:32

The ANVR, The Netherlands, stated that leisure flights for AMS are very important. Leisure flights are more or less 60% of the traffic at AMS.
There is a balance between business and leisure on many of the destinations to/from AMS. Without leisure it would not be possible to maintain many of those flights to AMS (source: Luchtvaartnieuws)

It is a big topic in Holland for the moment in which direction they want to go with AMS. Many are against a future grow while others would like to grow it slightly more
AMS and KLM are in between but can't do more then only advice.


In meantime in North-America is a possible new merger going on. Air Canada is in negotiation with Air Transat. Both have their own leisure department and could be merged into one company. Air Transat swallowed by Air Canada.

WestJet has in meantime also a new investor.

As Air Canada and Air Transat are both flying to AMS and BRU, we will see in the future how it will look like. Still both as a separate entity or as one company. For BRU it will not make a huge difference bcs Air Canada and Air Transat are flying from different cities

nordikcam
Posts: 940
Joined: 24 Aug 2008, 10:22
Location: Uccle

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by nordikcam » 17 May 2019, 12:46

Atlantis wrote:
17 May 2019, 12:32

As Air Canada and Air Transat are both flying to AMS and BRU, we will see in the future how it will look like. Still both as a separate entity or as one company. For BRU it will not make a huge difference bcs Air Canada and Air Transat are flying from different cities
No ! AC is flying to BRU from YUL and TS is flying to BRU from YUL too ! Only SN is flying to YYZ !

Passenger
Posts: 6236
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by Passenger » 17 May 2019, 14:58

Atlantis wrote:
17 May 2019, 12:32
The ANVR, The Netherlands, stated that leisure flights for AMS are very important. Leisure flights are more or less 60% of the traffic at AMS.
There is a balance between business and leisure on many of the destinations to/from AMS. Without leisure it would not be possible to maintain many of those flights to AMS (source: Luchtvaartnieuws)

It is a big topic in Holland for the moment in which direction they want to go with AMS. Many are against a future grow while others would like to grow it slightly more.
AMS and KLM are in between but can't do more then only advice.
The discussion for "more flights, more slots for AMS" is government versus airport and KLM versus charters/LCC's.

More passenger flights means more revenu for the airport, whilst more cargo flights result in much more regional (and even national) employment.

And regarding "more passenger flights": KLM flights generate more revenu for the airport then charters/LCC's.

User avatar
Atlantis
Posts: 4226
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 00:00

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by Atlantis » 17 May 2019, 16:21

nordikcam wrote:
17 May 2019, 12:46
Atlantis wrote:
17 May 2019, 12:32

As Air Canada and Air Transat are both flying to AMS and BRU, we will see in the future how it will look like. Still both as a separate entity or as one company. For BRU it will not make a huge difference bcs Air Canada and Air Transat are flying from different cities
No ! AC is flying to BRU from YUL and TS is flying to BRU from YUL too ! Only SN is flying to YYZ !
Hi Nordikcam,

Thank you for correcting me, was my mistake. YUL is indeed served by both, only TS is doing it on seasonal basis. If their negotiations would be successful, and it seems like that, bcs the responsible for the travel agency which TS is part of, is very pleased to be member/part of AC.

This would make for TS and the travel agency the service year round to BRU and maybe it will be with bigger metal in our direction.

nordikcam
Posts: 940
Joined: 24 Aug 2008, 10:22
Location: Uccle

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by nordikcam » 17 May 2019, 21:46

Atlantis wrote:
17 May 2019, 16:21
nordikcam wrote:
17 May 2019, 12:46
Atlantis wrote:
17 May 2019, 12:32

As Air Canada and Air Transat are both flying to AMS and BRU, we will see in the future how it will look like. Still both as a separate entity or as one company. For BRU it will not make a huge difference bcs Air Canada and Air Transat are flying from different cities
No ! AC is flying to BRU from YUL and TS is flying to BRU from YUL too ! Only SN is flying to YYZ !
Hi Nordikcam,

Thank you for correcting me, was my mistake. YUL is indeed served by both, only TS is doing it on seasonal basis. If their negotiations would be successful, and it seems like that, bcs the responsible for the travel agency which TS is part of, is very pleased to be member/part of AC.

This would make for TS and the travel agency the service year round to BRU and maybe it will be with bigger metal in our direction.
Hi Atlantis, I'm not here for correcting you :-) ! Thx for the infos you're sharing with us.

sn-remember
Posts: 838
Joined: 13 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: Jodoigne/Geldenaken
Contact:

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by sn-remember » 18 May 2019, 00:15

I don't believe CDG-AMS flights will be cancelled soon.
And it would be stupid to cancel BRU-CDG. Instead I plead since quite some time for a a second route BRU-ORY complementing BRU-CDG nicely.
Same for LON, I believe there is room for LGW or LTN as well as LHR.
Damn the greens. However I agree BRU-AMS might be an expensive luxury.

User avatar
Conti764
Posts: 1580
Joined: 21 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by Conti764 » 18 May 2019, 00:28

No or lesser short haul flying would be beneficiary for secondary airports like BRU. It would probably mean the end of megahubs a la FRA (for instance) with LH funneling traffic through it. It would implicate more direct long haul flying to such airports.

Poiu
Posts: 607
Joined: 14 Nov 2015, 09:38

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by Poiu » 18 May 2019, 06:22

sn-remember wrote:
18 May 2019, 00:15
it would be stupid to cancel BRU-CDG.
However I agree BRU-AMS might be an expensive luxury.
That is quite contradictory isn’t it? Would you be so kind to explain yourself?
It isn’t acceptable that pax fly from CDG to BRU, and a couple of hours later pass overhead CDG on board a triangular flight to their African destination whilst a non stop flight from CDG was available for 50€ more.
Flights for which a reasonable (eg less than 3 hours) train alternative is available should be heavily taxed.

PttU
Posts: 304
Joined: 24 Nov 2015, 15:07

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by PttU » 18 May 2019, 08:27

Poiu wrote:
18 May 2019, 06:22
Flights for which a reasonable (eg less than 3 hours) train alternative is available should be heavily taxed.
3 hours by train
+ arriving at least 2 hours before departure at the airport
+ arriving well on-time at the station
+ only one train per hour? Per 2 hours?
So maybe starting the train-journey about 6 hours before your plane leaves. I hope it's an afternoon flight then...
+ taking all your luggage on and off the train yourself
+ on the way back: waiting for you luggage, not knowing how long it will take to get from the landing plane to the train station, so schedule a train later
+ Being dependent on two environments: even if skeyes or a handling agent isn't acting up, there still might be a train stuck, causing a delay, or a strike, and you're still screwed

So there are plenty of things to change besides just taxing the short flight. Nevertheless I agree that there should be some kind of tax or rule preventing a flight BRU-AMS-XXX being cheaper than just AMS-XXX.

Poiu
Posts: 607
Joined: 14 Nov 2015, 09:38

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by Poiu » 18 May 2019, 10:20

PttU wrote:
18 May 2019, 08:27
Poiu wrote:
18 May 2019, 06:22
Flights for which a reasonable (eg less than 3 hours) train alternative is available should be heavily taxed.
3 hours by train
+ arriving at least 2 hours before departure at the airport
+ arriving well on-time at the station
+ only one train per hour? Per 2 hours?
So maybe starting the train-journey about 6 hours before your plane leaves. I hope it's an afternoon flight then...
+ taking all your luggage on and off the train yourself
+ on the way back: waiting for you luggage, not knowing how long it will take to get from the landing plane to the train station, so schedule a train later
+ Being dependent on two environments: even if skeyes or a handling agent isn't acting up, there still might be a train stuck, causing a delay, or a strike, and you're still screwed

So there are plenty of things to change besides just taxing the short flight.
And your short hop, of which there are two or three a day only, makes you loose how much time?
Your connection problem can easily be solved by the airline selling you a combined flight train ticket, you could plan for a short connection and they would reroute you in case you miss it.
The same with airport access, provide 24hr convenient public transport and make cars pay 10€ for a drop off.

sn-remember
Posts: 838
Joined: 13 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: Jodoigne/Geldenaken
Contact:

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by sn-remember » 18 May 2019, 11:36

Poiu wrote:
18 May 2019, 06:22
sn-remember wrote:
18 May 2019, 00:15
it would be stupid to cancel BRU-CDG.
However I agree BRU-AMS might be an expensive luxury.
That is quite contradictory isn’t it? Would you be so kind to explain yourself?
It's very simple, bru-ams which is (was) served by kl exclusively opens up the connectivity to Brussels city. However since there is an international railways station at AMS (and a very important one too) that can connect the airport to Brussels city very rapidly (less than 2 hours) and quite frequently, the train is a valid contender. Following the same policy, the AMS-DUS flight might be axed also provided a fast train link is available and frequent between AMS and Düsseldorf city. By fast I mean LESS than 2 hours. By frequent I mean hourly or less. Otherwise it's not a solution to the business traveler.
On the other hand I would be shocked to see AMS-CDG disappearing since it's a H2H same (or sister) airline connexion. Won't happen any time soon imo.
..
Now lets discuss the SN business case. They need the Paris and London connectivity. And since BRU railway' station is a joke, you have a grand total travel time spent between BRU and Paris city longer than 2 hours which is a no go for the business traveler who expects a seamless connexion using SN l/h flights to Paris city (or London or any final destination). Fast connectivity is indeed the expectation of l/h air travel through a hub, the P2P paradigm will not change that. And yes BRU acts as a hub for all L/haul flights and some m/haul flights as well since travelers do transit through. So to summarize, AMS (CDG as well) has an extensive fast train railways station integrated, and BRU has not, that makes the difference. That's why AF don't need to operate cdg-bru by air but SN needs it. Besides cdg is located between the 2 cities, bru is beyond so the train link has an overhead for SN and a gain for AF.
--
Last but not least, the train leg is not as integrated as an air link. The airline is not operating the rail link, and once the passenger is carrying his bags himself (which can be bothersome) he must take care of that at his own perils. This offer can be less attractive to some. Also the Chines/Africans can easily get lost outside of the airport with no support at all. While at their final destination they can be taken in charge more readily. To summarize, nothing beats the air2air connexion in terms of comfort provided the hub machinery is well oiled.
...
And finally since flying (specially on short hops) is heavily criticised these days, never forget that any means of transport is a source of pollution. I am not a specialist but I am pretty sure the car impacts the environment more severely than the plane.
In conclusion, my view is that the airlines should be the master of their business. Everybody knows that short hops are costly to operate but in the big picture they fulfill an important role. Also, maybe the turboprops can play a useful role on this mission, the bigger ones specially (Q400) ...
Last edited by sn-remember on 18 May 2019, 20:52, edited 1 time in total.

PttU
Posts: 304
Joined: 24 Nov 2015, 15:07

Re: The change of the worldwide aviation landscape

Post by PttU » 18 May 2019, 16:56

Poiu wrote:
18 May 2019, 10:20
PttU wrote:
18 May 2019, 08:27
Poiu wrote:
18 May 2019, 06:22
Flights for which a reasonable (eg less than 3 hours) train alternative is available should be heavily taxed.
3 hours by train
+ arriving at least 2 hours before departure at the airport
+ arriving well on-time at the station
+ only one train per hour? Per 2 hours?
So maybe starting the train-journey about 6 hours before your plane leaves. I hope it's an afternoon flight then...
+ taking all your luggage on and off the train yourself
+ on the way back: waiting for you luggage, not knowing how long it will take to get from the landing plane to the train station, so schedule a train later
+ Being dependent on two environments: even if skeyes or a handling agent isn't acting up, there still might be a train stuck, causing a delay, or a strike, and you're still screwed

So there are plenty of things to change besides just taxing the short flight.
And your short hop, of which there are two or three a day only, makes you loose how much time?
Your connection problem can easily be solved by the airline selling you a combined flight train ticket, you could plan for a short connection and they would reroute you in case you miss it.
The same with airport access, provide 24hr convenient public transport and make cars pay 10€ for a drop off.
The amount of time lost on the short hop depends offcourse, but as a traveller I would be more relaxed spending an extra 2 hours at the hub-airport waiting, compared to an extra 2 hours outside of that airport...
"You could plan for a short connection": could you? If you need to be at AMS >2h before departure if you would get there on your own, the same 2h apply when you're taking a train, even if it's a combined ticket. And rerouting, yes: that's possible, but causes extra discomfort for the passenger and almost certainly a longer travel time.

So I stand by my conclusion: plenty of things to change besides just taxing the short flight: and the 24hr public transport could be one of them.

Post Reply