sean1982 wrote:First of all: I dont have any "hopes", so dont accuse me of that.
I wasn't accusing you, I was going by how your posts come across; my appologies if I sensed them wrongly.
sean1982 wrote:SN is now essentially an LCC with a long haul arm.
The term 'LCC' covers so many different products these days, everybody but Air France or SWISS somehow seems to be (pretending to be) one: I'd say they are a near perfect clone or Aer Lingus: an easyjet with a low cost niche market of roughly 10 planes. Whether or not you call that a LCC like you do, I have no clue.
My personal reading is that the days of LCC and full service airlines are over: everybody is morphing into the kind of hybrid airline that is hitting the sweet spot. Even ryanair tries to, as you know all too well.
Wizzair seems to be the only one stubbornly refusing to move along. Wonder for how long.
As long as the competition in BRU remains relativly low this is good, but both FR and U2 are set to double their fleet (with new and more fuel efficient airplanes) in the next 5-6 years and are heavily focussed on primary airports. The other advantage is that oil prices are low, but this wont last either. Yes, they are doing well, because the conditions are optimal, but these conditions are also changing quickly
I am really amazed by your confidence it can't be but a temporary improvement,driven by the believe it is totally impossible to compete successfully against ryanair or easyjet if there's a bit more headwind from higher oil prices or increased competition.
The airline I have mentioned above for instance demonstrates on a daily basis such is entirely possible, which is probably one of the reasons why they are turning into a clone of them too.
There's no magic to it, you know? Provided you have control over your cost base and offer a product perceived to be giving value for (a bit more) money, you will have success: the notion a plane ticket is just a basic commodity like gas, water or electricity where only the price matters is one that is understandably pushed very hard by a certain CEO, but as easyjet demonstrates too, you can be highly successful even if you are not the cheapest, but offering a slightly better service at a slightly higher price.
Just as not everybody does his weekly shopping at LIDL, Colruyt or ALDI, whithout them wanting their Carrefour to look like a local spin off of Harrods.
sean1982 wrote:So while you and others are shouting victory inquirer,
Why would I be shouting victory?
I am not directly involved in any of this, and besides: it's an evolutive process.
If you and I are still in good health, we're still going to be discussing these matters in 5 or 10 years time, so there's never a conclusive ending to it. And that's how it should be in a free market, I'd say.
sean1982 wrote: my take on it is that it is a very risky strategy indeed, which might pay off but could also have the Total opposite effect.
Entrepreneurship always entails risks: otherwise, what's the point?
I think the low risk approach was to keep doing what they were doing: it's for sure the simplest thing to do, but it was also a guarantee for failure. They didnt and it turns out it pays off!
I'd say they did a very good job, one that nobody expected them to be able to do.
As a fairly senior business manager myself, I can say the team which came up with this, deserves some praise for it.
RoMax wrote:flightglobal has an article with some comments of Gustin that he made at the World Low Cost Airlines Congress in London yesterday. I'm not sure if the article is available for free, so some key points:
Thanks for those quotes: very interesting reading, I am sure.
As well as the fact he's popping up at this forum too of course.
He sounds confident on their current and future performance in the face of other (?) lowcost competitors.
If you are just like 'them' you needn't be overly worried by their increased presence indeed: they are then largely irrelevant to you.