Ex_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1435 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1275 times:
This has been discussed quite a few times on this forum.
I don't see BRU reopening for now. I think BRU actually opened in 1979 or 1980. I doubt it was ever profitable on the passenger side, to be honest, despite having been linked to various points, including fifth freedoms to JFK. Traffic was thin, and there wasn't much business traffic. A lot of traffic was bound for SE Asia, and that shrivelled up after the ethnic and economic crises there. Before the Asian finaicial crisis, about 40% of pax revenue was for Indonesia. The continued problems there impacted loads to made pax services unsustainable.
FYI, SQ and the former Sabena actually talked about codesharing in the mid-90s, and if the talks had gone through (Swissair blocked the deal) we would have seen 3x343s nonstop turnaround services to BRU in 1997.
By the way, SQ has had a horrible history with reopened pax routes. The only two they have reopened in the past 10+ years - AUH and KHH - were both suspended again.
Established02 From Belgium, joined Jan 2002, 536 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1222 times:
> SQ cargo will realize that moving allmost all of their europe freighters
> into hub at BRU that this is not THE airport.
Are you saying that SQ Cargo makes a mistake in channeling many european cargo flights through any particular hub? Therefore it would be economically wiser to spread out their cargo flights over a greater variety of European airports?
Or are you saying that BRU is simply the wrong airport for such a hub operation?
Therefore a better airport for such an operation would be ... (CGN, AMS, LUX...)?
What makes you believe that BRU is perhaps not the ideal location for SQcargo after all?