flyerCO

Should people have stopped going to DC after 9/11 or the shooting this week at the Capitol? BRU as noted by another is the seat of government for the EU and Belgium. It has a much lower level of violence then other locations. Instead you say because of one incident the likes of which have occurred at some point in every country, that BRU should basically be ignored.

Sorry that you don't like that the face of the neighborhood is changing. It's doing so everywhere and not all locations are of course changing the same. Everyone wants things to stay the same, however they do change.

woodford02A

Politics and personal feelings aside, if ATL-BRU seemingly wasn't doing well before the attacks as reported by fellow FTs, it definitely is not going to improve more now.

This is probably just a smart decision to allow DL to use the airplanes elsewhere while BRU recovers later in the year or continues to stagnate.

Grouchy

Had a lunch earlier this week in Gent. During that lunch of course the attacks came up. The guy his wife was working in the hotel business (Brugge), apparently more then 30% of the guests cancelled

'Paris' did cost Air France-KLM €120 mln and especially Japanese tourists are avoiding Europe.
As a consequense KLM already decreased their Tokyo flights from 11 to 8.

With everyone concerned about their safety i can imagine tourism is hurting.

DL2SXM

if NYC, in particular, Times Square, was continually hit by terrorists, do you think people would still come in droves to the Big Apple? I think not. By the way, tourism into the city post 9/11 dropped significantly, as would be expected and god forbid it is hit again (and again, and again) you better believe it will fall of a cliff...Airlines will scale back to the point you might only get 2x Emirates A380's into JFK.

GRALISTAIR

I do like this quote.

Sadly, I totally agree.

AgentCooper

Rather than safety concerns it makes me wonder if they're being forced to cut capacity.

I read an article the other day that indicated when the airport reopens the temporary facilities will only be able to check-in ~800 people per hour (20% of their normal capacity). I wouldn't be surprised if they were told they would only be allowed to operate one flight for the foreseeable future.

MSPeconomist

One flight? If that's the constraint and the BRU flights are performing well, I would then expect the one flight to be up gauged, which of course doesn't address the capacity constraints on handling passengers (versus numbers of aircraft that can be handled).

flyerCO

I don't disagree it will take a temporary hit. However that's it, temporary, not long lasting. Postings here seem to be acting like the neighborhood has become the hood, that it's unsafe to be in, and that it will not get any better. Even with the recent bombing the level of violence is still low.

The biggest hurdle I see is making sure that competent security/police work is done. Sort of like with 9/11 agencies got caught with their pants down.

EZEDoesIt

I think AgentCooper's analysis is spot on. I've traveled this route more than any other DL route and did not observe that the loads were consistently light.

MSPeconomist, would you expect DL to swap a 777/747 from another route with BRU's double (nearly daily) 767s?

And to those who say that a JFK flight or transferring to a train at CDG/AMS is sufficient: There are domestic destinations that are not served by JFK, so this will require a taxi to LGA or a double-connect, adding hours to the travel time. ATL-based pax are obviously most affected.

If the route is truly gone for the foreseeable future it's personally a very sad day... Lots of sentimental attachment to that flight and airport.

BRU is a great "little" airport: easy transfers to other flights or the city and the cheapest place in the world to buy Belgian chocolates! (10% discount compared to in town)

Until we meet again...

UAalltheway

I would imagine that the time required to clean and repair the checkin area and get back to 100% operations would be measured in weeks, not months... How would that explain the total halt on booking all BRU-ATL flights clear into December?

woodford02A

Between DL and all their JV partners, ATL folks have 10 flights in the summer to AMS/CDG/FCO which connect to BRU.

So, some folks in places like CAK or SNA won't have a JFK option and will either have to double connect via ATL and a JV hub, or fly someone else....but I'd be willing to bet traffic on this flight has been very concentrated amongst a few cities or companies with lots of travel to BRU. DL knows this and will do what they need to protect that traffic.

BRU simply does not have the tourist draw that AMS, CDG, LHR, etc do.

wrp96

I'm sure it's a combination of factors of why it's suspended long term.

On the BA board, they are reporting that BRU is reopening next week but only with 20% capacity - and they don't know how long it will be before capacity will be increased. So all airlines having to make cuts, no matter loads, projected revenue, etc. I suspect that the airlines may have been told that the 20% capacity is not just flights, but total passengers as it seems the limiting factor is not gates but rather check in space and security, so changing to a larger plane may not have been possible.

MSPeconomist

NO, of course not. However, I'm just observing the "logical conclusion" if someone believes not only that the BRU flights were/are doing well but also that the BRU authorities have told DL that they can fly one flight per day.

EZEDoesIt

Upon reopening they will only be able to process 800 pax/hr. That's not many.

Given the temporary check-in counter situation, I imagine the number of airlines will also have to decrease, as there just won't be the space to handle so many carriers.

AgentCooper

Unfortunately, that's not the case. The CEO of the airport conceded on Tuesday that it will take "months" before they're able to return to normal operations.

I'm not saying it would take until December, but even if it takes 3-4 months Delta has already lost out on peak summer season bookings. At that point, they might as well play it safe and ramp operations back up once the pieces start to fall into place rather than committing to bookings they may not be able to fulfill/operate.