Hi there,

since Jan. 13, SAS A333 LN-RKM has been operating (mostly double) daily flights between BRU and BHX v.v.

Probably related to Covid19 vaccination transportation, but can anyone confirm?

Thanks!

330lover wrote:

Hi there,

since Jan. 13, SAS A333 LN-RKM has been operating (mostly double) daily flights between BRU and BHX v.v.

Probably related to Covid19 vaccination transportation, but can anyone confirm?

Thanks!

more so as Brexit related.

Not to do with vaccines, but more to do with someone moving stuff from the UK to the EU due to Brexit

I thought I read it was car parts /

ba319-131 wrote:

I thought I read it was car parts /

Or manufacturing tools

Parts for the automobile sector is what I picked up.

People from Birmingham are known to be crazy about Belgian waffles. Finally someone has tapped that neglected market.

According to the caption under this picture:

https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/1370420/ln-rkm-sas-scandinavian-airlines-airbus-a330-300/

Rare movement to be seen at Birmingham is this SAS A330 operating a series of cargo flights through the month of January moving car parts between Brussels - Birmingham - Brussels twice daily.

Not clear in which direction the parts are being moved and why a plane needs to be used to move car parts.

A plane needs to be used because of delays at the road/ferry route disrupting just-in-time production, I imagine the initial contract was more protection due to the risk of disruption, we'll find out in Feb if the road's are clear enough to stop the waste of the plane trip (or maybe it really is cheaper!)

JibberJim wrote:

A plane needs to be used because of delays at the road/ferry route disrupting just-in-time production, I imagine the initial contract was more protection due to the risk of disruption, we'll find out in Feb if the road's are clear enough to stop the waste of the plane trip (or maybe it really is cheaper!)

EU road haulers have had difficulty securing round trips into the UK this year because of Brexit, I don't know if this has anything to do with that specifically. Have there been other interesting cargo movements into the UK after 1 Jan?

The carbon footprint of these cars will be horrendous.

peterinlisbon wrote:

People from Birmingham are known to be crazy about Belgian waffles. Finally someone has tapped that neglected market.

The waffle Express

Aesma wrote:

The carbon footprint of these cars will be horrendous.

I doubt that it'll matter much in their overall carbon footprint. It's horrendous either way.

Given the city pair BRU - BHX, what's the most likely manufacturer to ask for these flights? Toyota? Jaguar? Perhaps it even serves multiple companies, considering that the customer almost certainly books these through a freight forwarder, rather than directly with the airline.

After two weeks of lengthy delays to road exports at the start of this year, my company has switched all of its EU Exports to air for a temporary four week period to let things calm down in the road network. Not that our 40 parcels per day will be enough to worry UPS out of EMA but it won't take many more customers to follow suit before capacity issues could arise.

I hate to think how much this is costing, but obviously it's less than that of letting the production line grind to a halt.

Jota Aviation is doing something similar between Ostend and Birmingham with a BAE146 for freighter forwarders who need to avoid border chaos.

[*]

Aesma wrote:

The carbon footprint of these cars will be horrendous.

A333 full of cargo is a lot of cargo. Is that inefficient?

airzona11 wrote:

[*]

Aesma wrote:

The carbon footprint of these cars will be horrendous.

A333 full of cargo is a lot of cargo. Is that inefficient?

How much does an A333 carry compared to a couple of 40t trucks and with what carbon footprint? Interesting comparison.

mxaxai wrote:

Given the city pair BRU - BHX, what's the most likely manufacturer to ask for these flights? Toyota? Jaguar?

My guess would be Jaguar Land Rover. It is nowadays one company, a subsidiary of Tata Motors in Mumbai, India.

The Jaguar branded cars have final assembly in Birmingham, BTW in old faclities which produced Spitfire fighters during WW2.

Could it be Mini, in Oxford? Mini was a well known example of a British car manufacturer who shuttled parts back and forth across the Channel between different plants. A twice daily shuttle to an airport like Brussels could be serving two flows to France and Germany.

Source (March 2017): https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... SApp_Other

If there is just one anecdote that succinctly sums up the problems that Brexit and the threat of tariffs pose to the UK car industry, it is this: the story behind the crankshaft used in the BMW Mini, which crosses the Channel three times in a 2,000-mile journey before the finished car rolls off the production line.

A cast of the raw crankshaft – the part of the car that translates the movement of the pistons into the rotational motion required to move the vehicle – is made by a supplier based in France.

From there it is shipped to BMW’s Hams Hall plant in Warwickshire, where it is drilled and milled into shape. When that job is complete, each crankshaft is then sent back across the Channel to Munich, where it inserted into the engine.

The effect of Brexit. Cargo is moved too slowly now across the tunnel due to checks and documents, etc.

raylee67 wrote:

The effect of Brexit. Cargo is moved too slowly now across the tunnel due to checks and documents, etc.

Wasn’t it actually linked to the delays caused by covid and the French border closure?

Interesting that SAS have obtained this work for their otherwise dormant A333's, as opposed for example VS. Love to know the story behind how SAS got this contract.

TC957 wrote:

Interesting that SAS have obtained this work for their otherwise dormant A333's, as opposed for example VS. Love to know the story behind how SAS got this contract.

Could it be because they were the cheapest?

It also give the airlines a chance to keep their crews up to date flying real aircraft hours rather then simulators.

An A333 pax aircraft converted into a “preighter” can carry about 42 tons of cargo fully loaded with Y class seats removed but J/W left intact.

seansasLCY wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

The effect of Brexit. Cargo is moved too slowly now across the tunnel due to checks and documents, etc.

Wasn’t it actually linked to the delays caused by covid and the French border closure?

It think that part was in late December and is sorted out now. From what I get, the current difficulties are with custom issues that are pure Brexit effects.

airsmiles wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

[*]

Aesma wrote:

The carbon footprint of these cars will be horrendous.

A333 full of cargo is a lot of cargo. Is that inefficient?

How much does an A333 carry compared to a couple of 40t trucks and with what carbon footprint? Interesting comparison.

It's got to use about 3000 liters of fuel each way, versus about 100 liters in a truck. So about 30 times as much.

Aesma wrote:

The carbon footprint of these cars will be horrendous.

These flights happen 24/7 between the US and Mexico supplying parts both ways across the border. Many using DC-9, 727 and MD-80s. When you run the numbers of 3 diesel trucks running from SAL to YIP (3-4 days)....its kind of a wash.

jamesontheroad wrote:

Could it be Mini, in Oxford? Mini was a well known example of a British car manufacturer who shuttled parts back and forth across the Channel between different plants. A twice daily shuttle to an airport like Brussels could be serving two flows to France and Germany.

Source (March 2017): https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... SApp_Other

If there is just one anecdote that succinctly sums up the problems that Brexit and the threat of tariffs pose to the UK car industry, it is this: the story behind the crankshaft used in the BMW Mini, which crosses the Channel three times in a 2,000-mile journey before the finished car rolls off the production line.

A cast of the raw crankshaft – the part of the car that translates the movement of the pistons into the rotational motion required to move the vehicle – is made by a supplier based in France.

From there it is shipped to BMW’s Hams Hall plant in Warwickshire, where it is drilled and milled into shape. When that job is complete, each crankshaft is then sent back across the Channel to Munich, where it inserted into the engine.

If that’s how cars are made these days, I’d argue that it’s a failure of modern manufacturing and environmentally indefensible. Common sense alone would highlight so many trips backwards and forwards is creating so many potential failures in the process. Maybe it’s time to reassess what makes sense.

airsmiles wrote:

If that’s how cars are made these days, I’d argue that it’s a failure of modern manufacturing and environmentally indefensible. Common sense alone would highlight so many trips backwards and forwards is creating so many potential failures in the process. Maybe it’s time to reassess what makes sense.

Virtually all products involve such logistics. A product is assembled from various parts, and each parts undergoes multiple work steps from the raw material before delivery to the assembly line. It's cheaper (and potentially even more environmentally friendly) to focus certain steps at one plant and simply ship the 'finished' part, instead of maintaining the required tools at multiple sites worldwide.

In the case of the crankshaft, the French supplier has all the tools for this specific work step that produces the semi-finished shaft. They acquire the metal en-masse from somewhere and produce crank-shafts (and other semi-finished parts) for multiple customers and applications.

BMW in Warwickshire then has the drills and mills for the final work steps that finish the shaft so that it can be inserted into the engine. They do the same work on other parts, some of which are used for assembly in Warwickshire, others are shipped to other assembly lines.

Finally, Munich is chosen for final assembly of the engine because they have experienced workers, they have the assembly line all set up, and it's a convenient location to gather all the other parts that form the engine.


If you wanted to avoid all this international shipping, you'd have to use aluminum sourced in the UK, pour it into a shaft in the UK, do milling and drilling there, and have an assembly line nearby as well. Those cars would then only be sold in the UK. For even less transport, you'd require UK-made furnaces, mills, drills, assembly robots, welding machines, etc. Now repeat this for the other 194 countries worldwide.

Modern products require complex production methods in any case. Logistics are the easiest part.

It's got to use about 3000 liters of fuel each way, versus about 100 liters in a truck. So about 30 times as much.

100 liters is not enough to carry a payload of more than 40 tons about 600 km by truck...

raggi wrote:

It's got to use about 3000 liters of fuel each way, versus about 100 liters in a truck. So about 30 times as much.

100 liters is not enough to carry a payload of more than 40 tons about 600 km by truck...

Neither is 3000 liters for an A330 to fly an hour. 3000 liters is what a 737 would use for an hours' flight.

mxaxai wrote:

airsmiles wrote:

If that’s how cars are made these days, I’d argue that it’s a failure of modern manufacturing and environmentally indefensible. Common sense alone would highlight so many trips backwards and forwards is creating so many potential failures in the process. Maybe it’s time to reassess what makes sense.

Virtually all products involve such logistics. A product is assembled from various parts, and each parts undergoes multiple work steps from the raw material before delivery to the assembly line. It's cheaper (and potentially even more environmentally friendly) to focus certain steps at one plant and simply ship the 'finished' part, instead of maintaining the required tools at multiple sites worldwide.



In the case of the crankshaft, the French supplier has all the tools for this specific work step that produces the semi-finished shaft. They acquire the metal en-masse from somewhere and produce crank-shafts (and other semi-finished parts) for multiple customers and applications.

BMW in Warwickshire then has the drills and mills for the final work steps that finish the shaft so that it can be inserted into the engine. They do the same work on other parts, some of which are used for assembly in Warwickshire, others are shipped to other assembly lines.

Finally, Munich is chosen for final assembly of the engine because they have experienced workers, they have the assembly line all set up, and it's a convenient location to gather all the other parts that form the engine.


If you wanted to avoid all this international shipping, you'd have to use aluminum sourced in the UK, pour it into a shaft in the UK, do milling and drilling there, and have an assembly line nearby as well. Those cars would then only be sold in the UK. For even less transport, you'd require UK-made furnaces, mills, drills, assembly robots, welding machines, etc. Now repeat this for the other 194 countries worldwide.

Modern products require complex production methods in any case. Logistics are the easiest part.

If everything that’s produced in the world is made like that, it’s not difficult to see why the environmental disaster that’s unfolding is happening. Perhaps it’s time to consider whether the logistics should be properly accounted for, rather than just produce the cheapest parts in cost terms. It’s off topic really, so I’ll leave it there. At least SAS are getting some benefit.

@airsmiles

You are absolutely right and it's depressing to see such a miniscule number of people that share your point of view.

smithhaddon123 wrote:

@airsmiles

You are absolutely right and it's depressing to see such a miniscule number of people that share your point of view.

Ah the ant globalist agenda !

When BL owned a third of Oxford quality issues were appalling

airsmiles wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

[*]

Aesma wrote:

The carbon footprint of these cars will be horrendous.

A333 full of cargo is a lot of cargo. Is that inefficient?

How much does an A333 carry compared to a couple of 40t trucks and with what carbon footprint? Interesting comparison.

The A333 taking off will probably burn more fuel than the trucks going all the way...

airsmiles wrote:

If everything that’s produced in the world is made like that, it’s not difficult to see why the environmental disaster that’s unfolding is happening. Perhaps it’s time to consider whether the logistics should be properly accounted for, rather than just produce the cheapest parts in cost terms. It’s off topic really, so I’ll leave it there. At least SAS are getting some benefit.

Matter of fact is that natural resources are only found in a few locations. Same applies to the required knowledge and tools to produce things. Logistics are mandatory unless you happen to have everything you need in your own backyard, and know how to do everything yourself.

Whether just-in-time production is a good idea is an entirely different matter. Perishable items like pharmaceuticals, fresh fruit or fish have to be flown sometimes but I doubt that they're the primary cargo on these particular flights...

TC957 wrote:

Interesting that SAS have obtained this work for their otherwise dormant A333's, as opposed for example VS. Love to know the story behind how SAS got this contract.

Virgin also has a daily cargo rotation to Brussels, using both A350's and 787's: https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/virgin-atlantic/virgin-atlantic-increases-cargo-only-flying-by-60-in-january-2021-and-emphasises-the-london-brussels-route/

mxaxai wrote:

airsmiles wrote:

If everything that’s produced in the world is made like that, it’s not difficult to see why the environmental disaster that’s unfolding is happening. Perhaps it’s time to consider whether the logistics should be properly accounted for, rather than just produce the cheapest parts in cost terms. It’s off topic really, so I’ll leave it there. At least SAS are getting some benefit.

Matter of fact is that natural resources are only found in a few locations. Same applies to the required knowledge and tools to produce things. Logistics are mandatory unless you happen to have everything you need in your own backyard, and know how to do everything yourself.

Whether just-in-time production is a good idea is an entirely different matter. Perishable items like pharmaceuticals, fresh fruit or fish have to be flown sometimes but I doubt that they're the primary cargo on these particular flights...

Except the huge difference is that we only have one chance to keep the environment we have in order, whereas we can adapt how we live our lives. It’s all about resetting our expectations.

Jalap wrote:

TC957 wrote:

Interesting that SAS have obtained this work for their otherwise dormant A333's, as opposed for example VS. Love to know the story behind how SAS got this contract.

Virgin also has a daily cargo rotation to Brussels, using both A350's and 787's: https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/virgin-atlantic/virgin-atlantic-increases-cargo-only-flying-by-60-in-january-2021-and-emphasises-the-london-brussels-route/

Yes, I know, which is why I thought VS could have bid for that extra BHX rotation and done something like LHR-BRU-BHX-BRU-LHR. I realize those sort of flights aren't what A350's and 787's are supposed to do, but why not given the current passenger downturn.

Deleted

airsmiles wrote:

If that’s how cars are made these days, I’d argue that it’s a failure of modern manufacturing and environmentally indefensible. Common sense alone would highlight so many trips backwards and forwards is creating so many potential failures in the process. Maybe it’s time to reassess what makes sense.

It's exactly how Airbus makes its planes, with air transport shifting partially-complete components between the various manufacturing sites, using their Beluga freighters.
Most people regard that as a highly efficient method of operation (and the logistics are highly optimised for the job).
How otherwise would Airbus wings from Broughton in the UK get to France/Germany for final assembly?

TC957 wrote:

Jalap wrote:

TC957 wrote:

Interesting that SAS have obtained this work for their otherwise dormant A333's, as opposed for example VS. Love to know the story behind how SAS got this contract.

Virgin also has a daily cargo rotation to Brussels, using both A350's and 787's: https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/virgin-atlantic/virgin-atlantic-increases-cargo-only-flying-by-60-in-january-2021-and-emphasises-the-london-brussels-route/

Yes, I know, which is why I thought VS could have bid for that extra BHX rotation and done something like LHR-BRU-BHX-BRU-LHR. I realize those sort of flights aren't what A350's and 787's are supposed to do, but why not given the current passenger downturn.

787s have an insanely high LOV when it comes to cycles. It's not like any of these short hps will do anything to put a dent into the useful life of the airframe.

But it is A.net, where some think if the aircraft is used on a route 200nm shorter than its max range then it's overbuilt and totally not the right aircraft for the job.

CometOrbit wrote:

airsmiles wrote:

If that’s how cars are made these days, I’d argue that it’s a failure of modern manufacturing and environmentally indefensible. Common sense alone would highlight so many trips backwards and forwards is creating so many potential failures in the process. Maybe it’s time to reassess what makes sense.

It's exactly how Airbus makes its planes, with air transport shifting partially-complete components between the various manufacturing sites, using their Beluga freighters.
Most people regard that as a highly efficient method of operation (and the logistics are highly optimised for the job).
How otherwise would Airbus wings from Broughton in the UK get to France/Germany for final assembly?

I do agree that the larger and more complex the item being manufactured, the more necessary this practice becomes. I’m in business myself and some of the things I see are just ridiculous. Small and fairly simple manufactured products being repeatedly sent across continents for one manufacturing process at a time to save small amounts of money, but no consideration of environmental impact.

Going back to the thread though, SAS, Virgin and TUI all seem to be making decent business supporting the auto-industry.