SNBA transported less pax in 2005

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 12 Jan 2006, 20:10

SNBA transported 3.218.456 pax in 2005. It means 40.000 pax less in 2005 due to a decrease of capacity. Main reason; some destinations had a decrease or were dropped by SNBA.

It means that SNBA has sold less then 240.000 seats in 2005. That's amazing when you has to know that the European carriers transported 7% more pax in 2005.

Of course this bad situation is known by SNBA and they are going to try to get back a decent home player situation in 2006.

SN_fan · Post by **SN_fan** » 12 Jan 2006, 20:42

It seems more and more that Mr Kuipers was the magic for SNBA

Boeing767copilot · Post by **Boeing767copilot** » 12 Jan 2006, 20:58

Hi Atlantis,

what's your source for these (bad) figures? Are they reliable?

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 12 Jan 2006, 22:10

Sorry forgot to mention.

It was travel magazine newsletter. It's a reliable source.

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 12 Jan 2006, 22:19

SN_fan wrote:It seems more and more that Mr Kuipers was the magic for SNBA

I can follow what you are saying but he left SNBA at the end of September. It means 3/4 of the year was over and most of the damage was done.

SN_fan · Post by **SN_fan** » 12 Jan 2006, 23:40

Indeed, but when he decide to leave the company there must be already some dispute quite a time before he left. Because one dispute isn't a reason to quite. Soit, the harm is done the pax numbers are lower lets hope they will rise explosivly in 2006

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 13 Jan 2006, 00:08

The aim is not to transport as much passengers as possible, the aim is to get the loadfactor up!

SN cancelled a lot of flights during the low season, whereas these flights did operate with increadibly low loadfactors in 2004 (15 to 20 percent!!!!). Now that may have ment more more pax in 2004, but also loosing a lot of money on those flights. Better to cut those flights and keep the money (even if it implies loosing some of the pax who prefer not to be rebooked but travel by other means.)

FlyA330 · Post by **FlyA330** » 15 Jan 2006, 10:51

....and they keep telling us everything is going fantastic at SNBA

They are loosing the battle in Africa and they are (I think as the only European airline) flying less passengers than the year before... What's going on over there?? Are they finally going to wake up?????

The aim is not to transport as much passengers as possible, the aim is to get the loadfactor up!

...this is what I mean (It's like the sinking of the Titanic....they were still playing nice music while going down.). They are happy to increase only the loadfactor by cancelling flights while every other airline is increasing both and are expanding...

correctair · Post by **correctair** » 15 Jan 2006, 12:37

Guys, please cool down abit or is this another round of SN bashing???

Pax figures say nothing about profitability of airlines. Yield says everything but you can't speak about yield as an airline manager ... Perhaps SN has worked further in 2005 on the profitability of its operations. Is something bad with that? I don't think so. I think they have been consolidating the network offer together with VEX. This resulted in a stable, flat pax result but certainly also in a yield improvement. And what determines your survive? The income, not the number of pax. Finnair is profitable with loads of 55 pct, some other airlines make no money with loads of 75 pct ...

In 2006 SN has made clear that it will focus on pax growth again. I think the pricing strategy currently launched is a first example of that new strategy. So please judge the airline at the end of year 2006.

Every 6-7 years you see cycles in aviation: the fat years and the weak years. Most airlines will add capacity in the fat years and are obliged to reduce again during the poor years. Perhaps it is a better strategy not to grow too much during the fat years in order to avoid the redundancies during the weak years...

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 15 Jan 2006, 12:44

The big problem is, and now I speak not only for SNBA, the Belgians are no leaders in taking action. There was this weekend an article in the newspaper about this subject. The Belgians don't start up projects because they are afraid that it doesn't work. The Belgians are happy in what they have. They are happy when they can play in their own garden and not in their neighbours garden. That's the same for our Belgian carriers. They fly only in Europe and some flights to Tel Aviv and Africa but that's it. That's their garden.

That's a fact and I'm afraid that we have to deal with.

Post by **sn26567** » 15 Jan 2006, 13:06

Atlantis wrote:The big problem is, and now I speak not only for SNBA, the Belgians are no leaders in taking action. There was this weekend an article in the newspaper about this subject. The Belgians don't start up projects because they are afraid that it doesn't work.

I don't agree. Belgians have launched many airlines: remember Gutelman, Hasson, Van Gaver, Vanneste, Skowronek and Mandl...

Vinnie-Winnie · Post by **Vinnie-Winnie** » 15 Jan 2006, 13:35

Atlantis wrote:The big problem is, and now I speak not only for SNBA, the Belgians are no leaders in taking action. There was this weekend an article in the newspaper about this subject. The Belgians don't start up projects because they are afraid that it doesn't work. The Belgians are happy in what they have. They are happy when they can play in their own garden and not in their neighbours garden. That's the same for our Belgian carriers. They fly only in Europe and some flights to Tel Aviv and Africa but that's it. That's their garden.

That's a fact and I'm afraid that we have to deal with.

I kinda of agree with you! We belgians are rather lazy and don't like challenges... (Hahaha driving 50 kilometers to get a work is already too hard for some, and crossing the linguistic borders is a no go for most walloons!)

But as André said yeah in the aviation sector we seem to be quit numerous! Saying that how many of the companies attached to these founders have actually succeeded?

burner737 · Post by **burner737** » 15 Jan 2006, 15:57

Atlantis wrote:The big problem is, and now I speak not only for SNBA, the Belgians are no leaders in taking action. There was this weekend an article in the newspaper about this subject. The Belgians don't start up projects because they are afraid that it doesn't work.

And that's where you should ask yourself who's fault it is ...

Regards Tim

DannyVDB · Post by **DannyVDB** » 15 Jan 2006, 16:35

Atlantis wrote:SNBA transported 3.218.456 pax in 2005. It means 40.000 pax less in 2005 due to a decrease of capacity. Main reason; some destinations had a decrease or were dropped by SNBA.

It means that SNBA has sold less then 240.000 seats in 2005. That's amazing when you has to know that the European carriers transported 7% more pax in 2005.

Of course this bad situation is known by SNBA and they are going to try to get back a decent home player situation in 2006.

Hi all,

Besides that we should verify the final figures when they come out (AEA) I am wondering with which figures you are comparing ...

If you use the figures of the AEA for 2004 it says that they would be at +25.000 and not -40.000 ! Total figures for 2004 were 3.192.500.

I have put together the released figures up to November 2005 and on the 11 months they transported 18.000 more pax then in the same months of 2004 (although in some months pax went down, while in others it went up)

So better to get first the figures right before starting a theoretical discussion on 'problems', 'bad situation', 'lack of initiative', etc. Also, it is correct that they did not concentrate at all on the pax figures as such ...

Danny

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 15 Jan 2006, 19:11

I have the figures of every year of SNBA next to me. The total pax of 2004 was 3.258.430 and the total pax of 2005 was 3.218.456. That's a difference of 39.974 pax.

Those figures of last year and the years before are confirmed by SNBA.

When I have a close look at the figures of AEA from Jan til Nov 2005 they gave me a total figure of 2.969.900. When we reduce it with the total number of 2005 we came at 248.556 pax in December, and that's perfectly in line with the numbers per month. So, I don't know where your figures come from.

Those figures are bad. The company makes some profit - figures are not published yet - but the pax numbers are really bad. But according to SNBA was 2005 the year to make some profit and year 2006 to fill the planes. Why not both at the same time?

DannyVDB · Post by **DannyVDB** » 15 Jan 2006, 21:22

Maybe some of the figures include charter?

If you look at the AEA figures for 2004 you are below the 3.2 million mark! But those only include scheduled flights

Regards,
Danny

correctair · Post by **correctair** » 15 Jan 2006, 21:51

Guys,

Please ... Charter figures are never included in statistics of the AEA.

And Atlantis, you are wrong with your calculations. There is no loss of 40.000 pax or whatever.

Also please take into account that 2005 had one day less compared to 2004. The Financieel Economische Tijd had it right

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 15 Jan 2006, 22:47

Very strange that SNBA admitted that they transported less pax in 2005. This is also confirmed by some TO.

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 16 Jan 2006, 16:59

correctair wrote:Guys,

Please ... Charter figures are never included in statistics of the AEA.

And Atlantis, you are wrong with your calculations. There is no loss of 40.000 pax or whatever.

Also please take into account that 2005 had one day less compared to 2004. The Financieel Economische Tijd had it right

First of all, De Financieel Economische Tijd don't exist any more for years. It's De Tijd.

Second one: you only says that my figures are not correct but you don't gave other figures or whatever. That's easy. It could be that my different sources are not correct, fine, we can discuss that. But only saying that a newspaper - nota bene - is correct is very naïf.

Third one: how do you explain that SNBA transported one day less pax in 2005 compared with 2004 and that SNBA was decreasing seats with a number of 240.000. How in the world can an airline in that way transported more pax then the year before?

DannyVDB · Post by **DannyVDB** » 16 Jan 2006, 20:32

SNBA can have offered less seats and have a slight higher number of pax and thus have a higher load factor. Don't see the problem ...

I guess we'll better wait and see the AEA figures at the end of the month ...

By the way, SNBA gives in its annual report several figures (see their website), so we have to be carefull when comparing the figures: they give overall transported pax (own metal + codeshare), they give scheduled flights on their own metal and they give transported pax on own metal - three figures ...

Danny

Aviation24.be

SNBA transported less pax in 2005

SNBA transported less pax in 2005

Re: SNBA transported less pax in 2005