SN Brussels Airlines and Virgin Express going together

ATC · Post by **ATC** » 09 Aug 2006, 20:35

"Brussels Airlines"

ok,
Is this the best they can do ?
Tell me how you can expand with a name like this outside Europe.

British Airways = "London Airlines"
Air France = "Paris Airlines"
Lufthansa = "Frankfurt Airlines" or "Munich Airlines"
Iberia = "Madrid Airlines"
KLM = "Amsterdam Airlines" or "Shiphol Airlines"

The name Brussels Airlines also gives a reflection of their ambitions.
This name suggests a small regional airline like it is now, with no or very little international connections
.
Tell me something...?
How will this name fit in Africa. When the deal in Cameroon goes on... what logic does a name like "Brussels Airlines" have for intra-African connections. It's like having a "Stockholm Airlines" operating from Capetown to Kinshasa.

All though I did love SABENA, I'm not a fan to call the new airline SABENA. It would give to much mixed feelings with a lot of people. But I was convinced they could find a name with the same image and style.
A new name that fit an airline with many ambitions.

A missed opportunity...

ATC

Boeing747-nurse · Post by **Boeing747-nurse** » 09 Aug 2006, 21:30

Is Brussels Airlines too regional?

What do you think about Singapore Airlines? Singapore isn't that big, and they are flying all over the world...

I think it's important they don't change too much, so customers can still recognize the brand.

I'm sure their marketing specialists will have examined this intensively, and they know what they're doing.

On the other hand, it's true that it's not very original...

Does anyone know something about the new colours and logo?
Thanks!

ATC · Post by **ATC** » 09 Aug 2006, 22:01

Is Brussels Airlines too regional?

yes

What do you think about Singapore Airlines? Singapore isn't that big, and they are flying all over the world...

You can't compare Brussels with Singapore.

1) Singapore is far more known than Brussels...
Everybody "knows" Brussels, but nobody knows where Brussels is situated. If you ask Americans to point out Brussels and Singapore on a world map you should be surprised. Even Europeans sometimes have difficulties to find Brussels on the map. Asians don't have a clue where Brussels is situated.

2) Singapore Airlines is one of the most ambitious Airlines flying around. You can call them what ever you want, but they have established themselves as one of the most qualified airlines of the world. Something different like our "Brussels Airlines". If Brussels Airlines should buy 30 777-300 there wouldn't be a problem. Everybody would know them, like Singapore Airlines or Emirates. They have enough publicity because they have big ambitions and off course big pockets. Something SNBA lacks.

I think it's important they don't change too much, so customers can still recognize the brand.

their customers... all 3 million.

the SNBA recognition for the moment is "operated by Airlines"

I'm sure their marketing specialists will have examined this intensively, and they know what they're doing.

Yes, I'm sure they have.

But at the end it's still the (conservative) Board of Directors who have decided.

On the other hand, it's true that it's not very original...

I agree...

ATC

sn-remember · Post by **sn-remember** » 10 Aug 2006, 11:00

ATC wrote:"Brussels Airlines"

ok,
Is this the best they can do ?
Tell me how you can expand with a name like this outside Europe.

British Airways = "London Airlines"
Air France = "Paris Airlines"
Lufthansa = "Frankfurt Airlines" or "Munich Airlines"
Iberia = "Madrid Airlines"
KLM = "Amsterdam Airlines" or "Shiphol Airlines"

The name Brussels Airlines also gives a reflection of their ambitions.
This name suggests a small regional airline like it is now, with no or very little international connections
.
Tell me something...?
How will this name fit in Africa. When the deal in Cameroon goes on... what logic does a name like "Brussels Airlines" have for intra-African connections. It's like having a "Stockholm Airlines" operating from Capetown to Kinshasa.

All though I did love SABENA, I'm not a fan to call the new airline SABENA. It would give to much mixed feelings with a lot of people. But I was convinced they could find a name with the same image and style.
A new name that fit an airline with many ambitions.

A missed opportunity...

ATC

I was gioing to write the same but you were quicker on the ball and more punchy than I could be.

I am not that keen on picking Sabena, all I said is that it was by far the better proposition I heard.
As you point out, you obviously need a name that conveys a symbol rather than a city name.

Like Virgin does which is in my view a very effective name.
Emirates like Singapore could stick to a place name because those places are linked in the people's mind with huge money and world top class ambitions. Moreover more than cities these names designate also the same top visible countries.

Air Madrid, Air Berlin, Brussels Airlines and the like convey a poorer message.
A symbol is always linked to an emotion and that emotion must be strong, positive and inspiring to the base you target.

If the main target is Africa, then Sabena is not so bad.
You can imagine Sabena-Cameroon (or Sabena-Uganda or whatever) like you have Virgin-Nigeria commencing soon besides Virgin-Atlantic, Virgin-Blue and other Virgin-babies existing or to come.

In that way you market the main and the subsidiary companies in the same basket . This is absolutely necessary if you want to give yourself some tiny chances of success.

Now if you are not happy with the Sabena name try finding a new symbol that can fit the airlines operation. But pls something else than Belgium-Express or the like

And it is sad that the decision eventually comes to a board of uninspired managers not wise enough to delegate what they don't fully understand.

But the choice for the new name seems to be already casted if I read some posts.
Too Late, too bad these are the only words that spring naturally to the mind when thinking about the belgian airlines business

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 10 Aug 2006, 12:07

Boeing747-nurse wrote:What do you think about Singapore Airlines? Singapore isn't that big, and they are flying all over the world...

don't forget Singapore is not only a city but a country too.......

Like said before : missed opportunity.

jan_olieslagers · Post by **jan_olieslagers** » 10 Aug 2006, 12:58

ATC wrote:"Brussels Airlines"

The name Brussels Airlines also gives a reflection of their ambitions.
This name suggests a small regional airline like it is now, with no or very little international connections

You kidding? Their main operations should then be Brussels-Antwerp, Brussels-Ostend, Brussels-Liège, Brussels-Charleroi, and perhaps Brussels-Kortrijk? Perhaps your definition of "international" also excludes Brussels-Luxembourg? Or acquire a couple of Twin-Otters or Islanders or AN-2's and operate from Keiheuvel and Theux?

Qwerty · Post by **Qwerty** » 21 Aug 2006, 10:20

Is there already something known about the aircraft they will be flying. Will the Virgin express-part remain flying with the 737-300/400 and SN with the Airbus or? (I'm interested because I'll be flying with it in 2007)

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 21 Aug 2006, 12:14

Qwerty wrote:Is there already something known about the aircraft they will be flying. Will the Virgin express-part remain flying with the 737-300/400 and SN with the Airbus or? (I'm interested because I'll be flying with it in 2007)

Wait ad see, but don't expect a big bang in the begin of 2007....

Qwerty · Post by **Qwerty** » 21 Aug 2006, 17:16

Airbus330lover wrote:
Qwerty wrote:Is there already something known about the aircraft they will be flying. Will the Virgin express-part remain flying with the 737-300/400 and SN with the Airbus or? (I'm interested because I'll be flying with it in 2007)
Wait ad see, but don't expect a big bang in the begin of 2007....

Yeah, but I'll be flying in June

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 21 Aug 2006, 17:23

Honestly, I don't expect much in 2007. SNBA and Virgin are at this moment selling a lot of air with their meetings and press conferences etc, etc.

EBBR · Post by **EBBR** » 21 Aug 2006, 19:36

Latest rumours:

SN will install 3-3 seats on the avro iso 2-3 now, the business class section will remain 2-3.

SN removed all the feet rests months ago to reduce weigth.

DannyVDB · Post by **DannyVDB** » 21 Aug 2006, 20:06

They already said earlier this year (when they announced to go together) that they will keep the current fleet at least till 2010 and they would add 2 to 3 longhaul planes depending on market conditions.

I think that if they can focus the rest of the year and beginning of next year to integrate activities of SNBA and VEX in a good way this would already be an achievement.

Don't like the "hold me or I do something attitude" since in most cases words are very cheap.

As a user of their services I expect that they will offer at least similar services to key destinations, that's it.

Danny

ATC · Post by **ATC** » 21 Aug 2006, 20:22

Wait ad see, but don't expect a big bang in the begin of 2007....

I hope there will ever be a big bang... ?
Their current ambitions aren't very "big bang".

Honestly, I don't expect much in 2007. SNBA and Virgin are at this moment selling a lot of air with their meetings and press conferences etc, etc.

Indeed... my thoughts exactly. Why can't they clearly communicate what they will do and what the future plans are. Is it a BIG secret to tell what future clients can expect ?

The last few months we have analysed their first press release over and over again. But we don't see any new information... maybe because there is no new information ?

Like Atlantis said a lot of air and little facts.

ATC

TWA · Post by **TWA** » 21 Aug 2006, 21:51

What is the strategy behind the name being kept secret?

This merger-process is going on for almost 2 years now.

teddybAIR · Post by **teddybAIR** » 22 Aug 2006, 11:06

ATC wrote:Why can't they clearly communicate what they will do and what the future plans are. Is it a BIG secret to tell what future clients can expect ?

Maybe because they are waiting to inform the market until the opportune moment. Don't forget that none of us surfing luchtzak.be is just a regular airline user, but an aviation fanatic (ok, enthousiast sounds better

). If we don't get new information, generally somebody in this forum makes up a rumour or 'forgets' to mention a source. My point is: we're not the average customer. The average customer is not at all that interested in all this rebranding. Therefore, there is no point in spamming the customer constantly with the message you're so obsessed with. Thus, if you communicate it: do it once, make it an easy to understand message that people can grasp (might explain the name 'Brussels Airlines' although I've not seen an official release on this).

By the way, outside of Europe, mainly in Asia and USA, Brussels is far more known than Belgium. And don't expect the average american to be able to point out Belgium or Brussels on a map. The same is true for the average European when you ask them where to find Seattle

Kind regards,
bAIR

ATC · Post by **ATC** » 22 Aug 2006, 21:02

The average customer is not at all that interested in all this rebranding. Therefore, there is no point in spamming the customer constantly with the message you're so obsessed with. Thus, if you communicate it: do it once, make it an easy to understand message that people can grasp (might explain the name 'Brussels Airlines' although I've not seen an official release on this).

I'm not convinced about this statement.
I also think the average customer and general public has other priorities than SNBA. But if you fly regularly you look for a company that suits you the best. Good connections, good service and a good image.
I'm a businessman and one of the basic rules in business is a good communication. A bad or no communication creates rumours. These false rumours are often created by competitors. What you communicate, how and when is an other thing.

For the moment it's to soon to communicate the new name. BUT, they (SN Holding) should communicate now what their new image will be. What can their current customers and future customers expect.
Don't give them a reason to walk away, but give them something to look forward to.

ATC

carlcat · Post by **carlcat** » 22 Aug 2006, 22:15

why not to search the name for SN around DAT ( Delta) as the name Delta apears already in the successor of Camair

TWA · Post by **TWA** » 23 Aug 2006, 00:22

EBBR wrote:Latest rumours:

SN will install 3-3 seats on the avro iso 2-3 now, the business class section will remain 2-3.

Wow 3+3 on Avro's, on of the reason's why I try to avoid LH's ARJ's

Not really comfy, hope they won't change the seat pitch then...
As for carry on luggage, no trolley's but very tiny max 5kg bags only I guess.

Looks like passengers and crew might have to go on a diet: I saw once a stewardess stuck in between 2 aisle seats on that LH flight (when she was looking for something in her trolley car). Very funny sight though: Her colleague continued with the trolley and she was still hanging there .

So how many extra seats are they planning to put on these aircraft?

Post by **sn26567** » 23 Aug 2006, 09:19

TWA wrote:
EBBR wrote:Latest rumours:

SN will install 3-3 seats on the avro iso 2-3 now, the business class section will remain 2-3.
Wow 3+3 on Avro's, on of the reason's why I try to avoid LH's ARJ's

Not really comfy, hope they won't change the seat pitch then...
As for carry on luggage, no trolley's but very tiny max 5kg bags only I guess.

Looks like passengers and crew might have to go on a diet: I saw once a stewardess stuck in between 2 aisle seats on that LH flight (when she was looking for something in her trolley car). Very funny sight though: Her colleague continued with the trolley and she was still hanging there .

So how many extra seats are they planning to put on these aircraft?

Glad to see someone supporting my viewpoint.

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 23 Aug 2006, 10:36

Why put extra seats in an Avro if you can't even fill them up with a smaller number of seats ?

I agree that the 2-3 layout might be slightly more comfortable but I flew an Eurowings BAe146-300 with a 3-3 seating last year and it was ok comfort wise. This being said I'm not "very wide" so I don't need the large width in the seats.

Chris