Originally Posted by
GayFriendly
Perhaps LM will take up the slack but I read somewhere (I think on the NCL thread) they are not going to (or can't?) codeshare with *A which means these would be solely P2P routes and not therefore as viable? Just my thoughts.
I think this is where some politics and business will be involved. I can't believe that LH are feeling very cosy towards AIL (the parent of LM and BM) right now, having been dropped heavily in the lurch by them. They must be up for a ton of re-bookings, re-routings and of course, EU261 compo. I have a hunch LH brought this upon themselves by being far too demanding of BM, but BM should have resisted that pressure if it was making their business unstable. Who knows, it'll maybe come out in a few years. Either way, I'm sure the "curse of BRS" and "curse of BM" are now emotions at LH, and managers will be wary of "having another go", especially as it seems like a less robust case.
I have feeling that the airport will want to shape route development. I'm not sure they'd extend marketing and route support to FR or EZY to operate to BRU, FRA or MUC, knowing that it'd probably be fragile for them too, and almost certainly destroy the business case of operating hub routes to those destinations. I'd support them in that approach. I think I'd be important to reassure to LH Group, and find imaginative ways to find aircraft and support the routes.
On a small point of detail: the BM flights were LH codeshares, and outside of *A. (When BRU was operated by SN, it was inside *A). I think there is a case to say that a new operator needs to be either a wetlease provider to *A airline or a *A airline directly. There is a network benefit from being properly inside *A. (LH had to do all kinds of gymnastics with rule exceptions to allow their own Gold status passengers to get their usual benefits in respect of lounge entry, additional baggage allowance, through checking).