D-Day for SN Brussels Airlines and Virgin Express

[sn26567]

tolipanebas,

These are exactly the words we wanted to read in this forum. For the sake of Belgian commercial aviation.

It is striking that even after the merger, SN has only 40% of the total number of flights in BRU. This is much less than LH in FRA, KL in AMS, BA in LHR or AF in CDG.

Belgians should have more pride and believe that they could do at least as well as their neighbours. Otherwise, BRU will become like GVA: the battle field of foreign airlines (in the same way as Belgium was often the battlefield of Europe before its independence).

[tolipanebas]

Some word on the discontinuation of the SN Brussels Airlines/Thalys partnership on the Paris sector.

The reasons behind it were NOT that it was proving more expensive than budgeted or that it attracted less pax than the CDG flights, the main reasons are:

-) Thalys so far has not actively promoted the link to Brussels Airport in the way they are doing with Roisy. SN was hoping -just like AF- to suck away some Europe-bound passengers from the competitors hub who could easily and conveniently reach the homebase of the airline, but the promisses about joint press campaigns and pro-active marketing never materialized. (not really surprising knowing Thalys is co-owned by the French railways, which have the same share holder as AF: i.e. the French state, known to be extremely protectionist towards its national infrastructure network)

-) The refusal -again by Thalys- to create convenient waiting rooms at the Brussels Airport Railway station for passengers going on to Paris Nord after their long haul flight with SN: these passengers had no alternative but to wait for over 2 hours on metal seats on the drafty platform, their baggage heaped up next to them.

-) Baggage handling problems. No help in the transfer of bags from plane to train from.. you've guessed it: Thalys.

-) Double border checks. Despite the Schengen treaty and the principle that the border check is to be performed at the exit point of the Schengen area, French Border Control frequently made use of the provisions made in the Schengen treaty to perform their own additional checks in Paris. Not only did this result in many pax missing their train, it also pissed off those who made it on time after standing in line for over an hour, especially when they had to start all over again in Brussels.

In short: SN had the feeling the Thalys link was more and more becoming an instrument in the hands of AF to damage the long haul African operations of SN, so they decided to end it before it would be too late and the Parisian market would be lost for them.

[sn26567]

Some word on the discontinuation of the SN Brussels Airlines/Thalys partnership on the Paris sector.

Thanks for this important clarification.

However, another reason for the failure is that there is only one Thalys train from Paris Nord to Brussels Airport, whereas there are 7 daily trains from Brussels Midi to CDG. The lack of flexibility is also an important factor.

[FlightSimCrew]

In short: SN had the feeling the Thalys link was more and more becoming an instrument in the hands of of AF to damage the long haul African operations of SN, so they decided to end it, before it would be too late and the Parisian market would be lost for them.

Indeed, look what AF is doing together with TGV against EasyJet.. launching rediculous fares by train to counter the 4U success out of CDG/ORY... Must be a massive market that AF is trying to protect

[themole]

For what I am concerned you are no better than those "presumably called pulp writes" a category were you seem to have included myself in.

Well, you made a hilarious attempt to outsmart me. I refer to your private message, which I posted publicly above. An attempt that graciously failed, I might add. When you are too ignorant or too lazy to double-check the information that you publish on these forums, then you indeed automatically classify many of your posts as pulp. If you want to discuss aviation with me, then you are most welcome. But please come prepared. You are not talking to a non-experienced 20 year old ignorant boy here.

I can understand that you take the opportunity with this website to provoke a discussion on certain decisions / communications (merger, Thalys, SNBA results,...) but I cannot understand why it disturbs you that every user in this forum has its own opinion and thoughts on these decisions. In my opinion everybody should have its say whether it is completely crap or not.

Everybody is most certainly entitled to share his or her opinion about any subject. Hence, on one critical condition. And that is that you got to have a minimum of knowledge or expertise in regard to the subject, or have a very reliable source, or at least have a sensible and good point. Unfortunately, this is becoming a rarity on these forums lately. In a forum discussion, you got to know when to reply or when to keep silent, and leave the discussion to those who actually know what they are talking about.

If you cannot take this I would advice not to post anymore on the website but go and work for a press agency!

You are making history here. You must be the first member in the history of this website, who urges an insider not to post any relevant aviation info, not to share facts instead of rumours or bullshit, not to share some of his expertise, not to share some insights in regard to airline management or airline operations, etc … And you claim to be a non-pulp writer? Boy oh boy, you are so funny!

You indeed seem to rather be well informed on several issues within both companies and your posts are written in a very professional way. So congratz for that. But has it ever crossed your mind that with posting such level of detail (playing the little mole) you have been putting the both companies in some difficult positions.

You are getting funnier with the minute. I am an entrepreneur for over 25 years now, you can take my word for it that I know the difference between public information - or information that should be made public -, or classified information. Besides, it’s an understatement to say that I am not a little mole, but a very big mole … literally and figuratively.

Nobody from the company's management requires to explain his/her actions to you or any of the employees. We accept these as they have been taken in the company's (and consequently also our) best intrest even when it means that no or little communication will be sent around. We also do not require you to feel responsible for this communication and start your own little independant communication agency and start spreading the news.

"We"? Who is "we"? Not only do you repeat yourself - see above - , you also illustrate your lack of critical sense. Apparently in your book, spreading selective and misleading good news shows is perfectly acceptable. As for the forums, posting false rumours, wrong assumptions, pulp fiction or bullshit seems to be ok in your opinion. But on-topic relevant and accurate info from an insider seems to be "unwanted"? I hope you realize that by insinuating this, you are making a fool out of yourself?

I know from a lot of members on this website that they usually appreciate or look forward to my contributions, even though they don’t always agree with me or understand what I am talking about. Hence, due to a shortage of time or interest, my presence here is limited. Lucky you.

All information available will be distributed to the people concerned in due time and I urge you in the future to respect this hierarchy. It is very important and I beleive a person with a professional attitude can understand this.

As far as I know this is a free country. I do whatever I want, whenever I want, however I want, and deal with whoever I want. I only share public facts and personal expertise when time permits and when I feel like it. I do not share strictly classified information. And as long as I have the truth and nothing but the truth on my side, I will always come out on top. Whether you like it or not.

Everybody is entitled to its own opinion, I have frequently discussions with "waldova" on the Vueling performance and product as he likes the company and I have had a bad experience with them.. so what?.. I respect his point of view whether I beleive it is pulp or not.

Like the Vueling Airlines in financial difficulties hoax topic you started I presume?

So please do not post anymore any PM you receive from any user and I strongly beleive nobody can appreciate this.

I have a very effective remedy for this. Simply don't send me a pm when you have nothing sensible to say. Problem solved.

Indeed, so they are. Ever thought that this could be the due to the fact VEX is/was stock listed (and thus legally obliged to communicate much more openly all matters of interest), whereas SN is a privately owned company, with no need to communicate anything at all?
I don't want to infuriate you, but you can rest assured that in the future, press communications of VEX will reflect the style of those made by SN.

"Tolipanebas" or should I say "Sabenapilot", the stock listing of Virgin Express had very little to do with it. A stock listed company indeed needs to meet a few important requirements in terms of corporate communication. But this is mainly in regard to the financial and managerial status of the company, not in regard to simple operational modifications or discontinuations. The corporate communication of Virgin Express will not make a drastic U-turn at all. I guess you are referring to the corporate communication of SN Air Holding, who owns as well SN Brussels Airlines as Virgin Express. In this case, the corporate communication will indeed reflect the SN Brussels Airlines style. Why? Simply because SN Air Holding its corporate communication is done by … SN Brussels Airlines.

Indeed, right on the money once again. Ever thought this enterprise, set up as a one-shot-only venture in the mid of the deepest aviation crisis ever and deemed an insane project by 99,9% of the observers, MUST indeed succeed at all costs, for the sake of it's 2000 employees, for the sake of Brussels Airport and the thousands of people working there and for the sake of Belgium? Perception is extremely important indeed and SN does not want to be seen as a second Sabena, which -despite all the improvements made to the product in the later years- kept it's reputation of having a poor service right till the end. SN has more than enough on its hands fighting the competition in Europe (notably STAR alliance), not to have to fight a perceived negative image as well...

So far for the SN Brussels Airlines pre-chewed propaganda. I heard your story before, all from SN Brussels Airlines employees. You know very well that SN Brussels Airlines in its present structure will never become a truly profitable airline. About 2152 employees and 38 aircraft is simply too much for what the market or SN Brussels Airlines can handle. Several external audits clearly indicated that there is only one way to make SN Brussels Airlines a profitable and truly viable airline in the near future. At least 5 or 6 planes need to be grounded and leave the fleet as soon as possible, or need to be subleased. At least 7 destinations need to be discontinued as soon as possible, another bunch of loss making destinations need to be examined and followed up very closely. By the way, around 40% of the SN Brussels Airlines network is loss making. Some routes will never make a cent, but have a significant strategic importance. That's why they are being kept in the network. I am sure you have the list of destinations. On top of all that, at least around 300 employees should be dismissed and leave the company as soon as possible.

But for the time being, SN Brussels Airlines decided not to take any drastic measures. They hope that they can sustain themselves, consolidate, and reduce the losses to a minimum until the time is right to sell the company. Like this, the current SN Brussels Airlines management can pass the hot potato to the new owner. If this new owner realizes that drastic measures indeed need to be taken, they will take the blame for the much feared and unpopular restructuring measures, and the current SN Brussels Airlines management can walk away freely.

This brings me to my actual point. SN Brussels Airlines has always been a massive Belgian aviation-related labour project, rather than a viable and economically justified project. In other words, the main purpose was to create as many jobs as possible on a very short notice. Or do you think that it is perfectly justified that the whole DAT+ project was started-up in some sort of rushed operation, after only 3 months time?

Indeed it doesn't, but mind you: SN flew with almost empty planes (load factors lower than 30% on Europe for over a year!) simply because nobody dared to fly them, scared they'd loose the money on tickets paid in advance.

These days, there are still quite a lot of routes with poor loads. I am sure you have the list. By the way, the average load factor in the first operational year was around 47%.

One or Two 'sporty acknowledgements' of discontinued routes (like the Hanover route early 2002 for instance) and that 30% would have been reduced even further!
With a bunch of shareholders almost forced into investing and eager to pull the plug on the first occassion offered to them, SN has the extremely difficult and even unique task not only to charm potential passengers, but also its current shareholders and in this perspective, the aim to 'cover up' all that smells bad is more than understandable and certainly not anoying to me. Heck, if SN would just give away all on their site, what insight information would we be discussing on this forum?

Why are you not telling the whole truth here? In the very beginning the SN Brussels Airlines corporate communication was very open, as all publicity was considered as good publicity. The drastic changes in the SN Brussels Airlines management and corporate communication style, were introduced for two main reasons. On the one hand, due to disappointing results and increasing criticism. And on the other hand, the extremely embarrassing event that took place in late 2002. An event that got quite some bad publicity.

I am talking about the scandalous sexual misconduct at the SN Brussels Airlines headquarters, where managers of SN Brussels Airlines were shamelessly involved in some sort of orgy. What they didn't realize back then, is that they were being caught on tape by the security cameras. All those individuals were fired after their sexual healing session. I will not disclose the names of those perverts, as it is already embarrassing enough. It is undoubtedly the biggest scandal in the young history of SN Brussels Airlines.

Anyway, the latter was an even bigger disaster than the bad results, as it caused a very negative and unprofessional perception in regard to this new "Belgian" airline. After those shameful events, a lot changed at SN Brussels Airlines. Even more negative publicity needed to be avoided at any cost, no matter what. Only positive news would be released, all negative vibes would be carefully filtered out. Until today, this is still the company policy.

Finaly a constructive post ... way to go toplinebas !

Do you ever check your spelling, "FlightSimCrew"? "Tolipanebas" undoubtedly has the best intentions. I really enjoy his feedback. But to me, he sounds a bit like an SN Brussels Airlines employee - flight crew -, who is very grateful that he still has a job after the Sabena debacle. A failure of the SN Brussels Airlines project could well be the end of his career. In that perspective, I fully understand his protectionist attitude.

These are exactly the words we wanted to read in this forum. For the sake of Belgian commercial aviation.

The readers should read: for the sake of SN Brussels Airlines.

Some word on the discontinuation of the SN Brussels Airlines/Thalys partnership on the Paris sector.

The reasons behind it were NOT that it was proving more expensive than budgeted or that it attracted less pax than the CDG flights, the main reasons are:

-) Thalys so far has not actively promoted the link to Brussels Airport in the way they are doing with Roisy. SN was hoping -just like AF- to suck away some Europe-bound passengers from the competitors hub who could easily and conveniently reach the homebase of the airline, but the promisses about joint press campaigns and pro-active marketing never materialized. (not really surprising knowing Thalys is co-owned by the French railways, which have the same share holder as AF: i.e. the French state, known to be extremely protectionist towards its national infrastructure network)

-) The refusal -again by Thalys- to create convenient waiting rooms at the Brussels Airport Railway station for passengers going on to Paris Nord after their long haul flight with SN: these passengers had no alternative but to wait for over 2 hours on metal seats on the drafty platform, their baggage heaped up next to them.

-) Baggage handling problems. No help in the transfer of bags from plane to train from.. you've guessed it: Thalys.

-) Double border checks. Despite the Schengen treaty and the principle that the border check is to be performed at the exit point of the Schengen area, French Border Control frequently made use of the provisions made in the Schengen treaty to perform their own additional checks in Paris. Not only did this result in many pax missing their train, it also pissed off those who made it on time after standing in line for over an hour, especially when they had to start all over again in Brussels.

In short: SN had the feeling the Thalys link was more and more becoming an instrument in the hands of AF to damage the long haul African operations of SN, so they decided to end it before it would be too late and the Parisian market would be lost for them.

You certainly have a few valid points in your statement posted above. Hence, you seem to overlook something important. How much additional investments did SN Brussels Airlines make to improve the rail-link project? It's a one digit figure with a nice big hole in the middle. May I remind you that Thalys had absolutely nothing to gain by extending its Brussels ZYR services to Brussels Zaventem Airport. Thalys and NMBS/SNCB made an effort and did SN Brussels Airlines a favour by making this project possible in the first place. Besides, all the points you mention were known beforehand, so they shouldn't be used as excuses. Blaming Air France for the flop is laughable.

I already said it a zillion times. A rail-link between Brussels and Paris is perfect to serve point-to-point traffic. But for feeder traffic, it is hell. Especially if you target African transfer pax, who are always overloaded with luggage. Air France and Paris CDG are absolutely no competition for other carriers and airports in our surroundings in terms of the number of transfer pax, even though Air France invested quite a lot in its services via Brussels ZYR. It is also no coincidence that Air France often offers very good fares on a lot of routes out of Brussels ZYR. Air France realized that they had to launch an aggressive pricing policy, otherwise a lot of pax would undoubtedly prefer to avoid the rail-link hassle and connect by plane instead of by train. In the case of Air France and Paris CDG and due to the lack of an air-link between Brussels and Paris CDG, this would mean that pax would connect via another hub and fly with another airline.

Indeed, look what AF is doing together with TGV against EasyJet.. launching rediculous fares by train to counter the 4U success out of CDG/ORY... Must be a massive market that AF is trying to protect

The IATA decoding of easyJet is U2, which is a controlled duplicate. 4U is Germanwings. Way to go, "FlightSimCrew". Accuracy is not your speciality, is it?