I disagree.sean1982 wrote:SN is nothing more or less to LH than what Vueling is to IAG, with that difference that LH already HAD that with eurowings. It would be highly unprofitable for them to run the same business model under different brands. Therefore we already see in the other airlines that they owe a slow but steady morph into the eurowings brand. The fact that SN's long haul business is fairly small (compared to austrian and swiss for example) doesnt help.
My prediction is that the LH divison in time will be dismantled and the LH division will move to FRA, with BRU being left with a lot of codeshares into LH LH destinations, like what Vueling does with IAG.
This is the sad economic reality of today
If you want to compare Vueling to an airline of LH, compare it to Eurowings itself. Like someone already mentioned, if you need to compare an airline of IAG with SN, then it should be EI.
I am always kind of surprised how everyone seems to underestimate Brussels’ and BRU’s potential… What has the city of Amsterdam more to offer then Brussels, accept for being a more popular tourist destination? Nothing imho. In Brussels you have the headquarters of both the EU and the NATO. If it wasn’t for KL’s vast network, AMS would not be much bigger then BRU or at least not that much. Mainly thanks to KL, AMS exploded and now attracts airlines from a lot of countries, right because it offers a big transfer potential. Why wouldn’t BRU be able to do the same, albeit in smaller numbers?
SN had the bad luck to inherit the mess poorly run Sabena, infested by a big government mentality, left behind. And even then, SN Brussels Airlines performed good, was turning profits right until the merger with TV after which they (too) were struck with the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Last year SN proved their potential by having a reasonable profit and having double digit growth figures and even this year, despite the March 22 attacks, SN showed great flexibility and proved to bounce back quickly.
Now, about LH slowly dissolving SN’s l/h operations and shift it to FRA. Why on Earth would they do so? Not to speak about the fact that all of SN’s African flights are subject to bilateral agreements between Belgium and the different African countries they fly to. Of course, Germany could negotiate those as well but why go through the hassle of it if LH will soon have an airline in its portfolio which has the traffic rights, has a lot of experience in Africa and build a very favorable brand recognition? By dissolving SN they’d give the lucrative African market (which SN proved is highly profitable) to AF/KLM on a silver plate.
I’d say that in the current European and global aviation market, LH would rather try to attack AF/KLM then hand them over a market which is the bread and butter for both SN and AF… AF/KLM is increasing strength and setting a firm foot in the global aviation market, proven by the fact 9W is up gauging AMS to an all 77W operation and is negotiating joining the AF/KL/AI/DL joint venture.
And how better attack AF/KLM then right in their backyard with SN having a underused hub right in the middle of AMS and CDG?
OS only serves 15 long haul destinations (although I doubt if you can consider both BGW and IKA can be considered long haul, so actually only 13), compared to SN’s 21 long haul flights and while SN’s pax numbers are steadily rising, OS’s are decreasing. So I don’t know why OS would be in easier weather than SN.
Of course, I don’t know what LH will do with SN and I’m only an armchair CEO, but if I were pulling the ropes at LH, I would not just throw away SN and would do my best to develop in to yet another gem in the LH Group. The potential is there, imho…
