SN made a net profit over 2010, according 'De Tijd'

[tolipanebas]

The Belgian financial newspaper 'De Tijd' publishes an article today about Brussels Airlines' annual results for the year 2010. The results still need to be audited before they can be officially announced.

In a nutshell: turnover for 2010 was around €900M (+€50M compared to last year), resulting in a net profit of €6M (against a net loss of €40M last year).

This and more can be read in Dutch under this link:

http://www.tijd.be/nieuws/ondernemingen ... .art?ckc=1

[regi]

And this without subsidies ? Good, well done.

[tolipanebas]

It's remarkably indeed, especially as the airline was grounded for almost 6 days due to the volcanic ash cloud that 'covered' Europe in spring last year, as well as suffering from previously unseen massive snow fall in Western Europe, both at the beginning and again at the end of 2010, events which wiped away a lot of revenues.

Despite all this, SN managed to attract 4,4% more pax than the year before an increase which is seen as an important contributor to the higher turnover and ultimately also the profit. This year, SN has attracted almost 10% more pax YTD and the target is for an annual turnover of about €1BN... Fingers crossed.

[FlightMate]

Was there a capacity change year to year?
I mean, 4.4% more pax is nice, unless they've added 10% more capacity.

But the profit is good news indeed.
Any idea of how much it cost for SN to be part of STAR alliance?

[RoMax]

Was there a capacity change year to year?
I mean, 4.4% more pax is nice, unless they've added 10% more capacity.

Yes there was a capacity increase past year, but considering the ash cloud, belgocontrol strike and severe winter conditions I should conclude that a 4.4% increase in pax is still quite good. The AEA average was just 2.7%.

I think SN can be happy with this 6 million profit. And I think 2011 can become a very nice year for SN, let's hope things like a vulcano eruption will not happen this year.

[fcw]

I don't share your optimism. 6 mio is peanuts, it hardly covers the intrest on last years loss.
LF is awfull; cancelled flights due to strikes, volcano, snow make the loadfactor even look better than it actually is, as passengers were rebooked from cancelled flights onto flights which did operate.
The initial "loan" of 100 mio € by the governement has never been repaid. The results in the past were only positive because they sold slots and fuel options they "bought" from Sabena for 1€ the day before the bankruptcy.
Bru Air is struggling to survive, IF the problems in the Middle East spread to Saudi Arabia and the oil price increases to 200$, Bru Air will not be around this time next year!

[tolipanebas]

6 mio is peanuts, it hardly covers the intrest on last years loss.

Consolidated result for 2009 was €2M positive, so no loan was taken.

cancelled flights due to strikes, volcano, snow make the loadfactor even look better than it actually is, as passengers were rebooked from cancelled flights onto flights which did operate.

You really think that if you stop flying for a week, pax will just rebook their business trip?

Knowing many of our corporate pax on short haul travel SN at least once weekly, not flying for a week simply means you miss out on all the revenue for that week. The only ones rebooking are the cheap city trippers and on them SN had to spend a fortune for putting them up in hotels for several days in a row...

The results in the past were only positive because they sold slots and fuel options they "bought" from Sabena for 1€ the day before the bankruptcy.

If you really think SN can survive on a slot sale from almost a decade ago AND is still flying on cheap sabena-oil, think again... In 2009, SN had to write down a whopping €70M due to unfavourable fuel hedging: this is more than the value of the slots they once sold to British Airways AND the fuel hedges taken over from sabena after its bankruptcy... something's not adding up here, is it?

Bru Air is struggling to survive, IF the problems in the Middle East spread to Saudi Arabia and the oil price increases to 200$, Bru Air will not be around this time next year!

Many other companies will disappear from the skies, well before Brussels Airlines ever stops flying, that much is a given.

You are entitled to hope otherwise, of course, but even 'De Tijd' which has always been quite critical so far, doesn't seem to share your opinion.

[Flogger]

fcw wrote:
cancelled flights due to strikes, volcano, snow make the loadfactor even look better than it actually is, as passengers were rebooked from cancelled flights onto flights which did operate.

Tolipanebas wrote:
You really think that if you stop flying for a week, pax will just rebook their business trip?

Knowing many of our corporate pax on short haul travel SN at least once weekly, not flying for a week simply means you miss out on all the revenue for that week. The only ones rebooking are the cheap city trippers and on them SN had to spend a fortune for putting them up in hotels for several days in a row...

The problem is, you are both right but talking about different things.
fcw is talking load factors, you are talking traffic.

Tolipanebas mixes all things up and then no one understands the basic idea any longer. That's why every discussion with him involved becomes a mess.

Another example:

fcw wrote:

The results in the past were only positive because they sold slots and fuel options they "bought" from Sabena for 1€ the day before the bankruptcy.

Tolipanebas wrote:
If you really think SN can survive on a slot sale from almost a decade ago AND is still flying on cheap sabena-oil, think again... In 2009, SN had to write down a whopping €70M due to unfavourable fuel hedging: this is more than the value of the slots they once sold to British Airways AND the fuel hedges taken over from sabena after its bankruptcy... something's not adding up here, is it?

He was talking about past results, probably refering to the 2001-2006 period.

I think that there is some truth to all of this on both sides. SN will probably not go down so fast, however, it is in dire need of a clear cut, aggressive strategy. Oil is going high, Virgin Blue is replacing E170's by Q400's, see discussion http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... in/5074821

The same way higher oil prices killed the viability of CRJ200/ERJ135-145 operations, higher oil prices will progressively make it increasingly impossible to run bigger regional jets profitably.

Face it, in this decade, turboprops are going to become the only sustainable business model for regional operations on routes below 100 seats.
Something that's going to hurt European airlines with revenuies in euro even more is the weaker euro over the dollar.
In 2008 when oil almost hit 150$ to the barrel, a euro was worth 1.55 dollars.

6 million is not bad but not reason for joy.
Tolipanebas likes to compare SN to Swiss, specially when it comes to RJ replacement with CS100's.
However, SN is not Swiss.
Swiss's profit in 2010 is almost worth as much as SN's entire balance sheet value.

As much as I would love to see shiny expensive jets lining up at the gates in BRU, reality isn't going to make that happen. There isn't money for it and the fuel cost would not make it sustainanle.
Though the Q400's are still a good option, the ATR72's are becoming increasingly interesting.

[RoMax]

Virgin Blue is replacing E170's by Q400's, see discussion http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... in/5074821

OMG, now you even read "ATR72" as Q400?

[Flogger]

What is your point? Does that typing mistake change that much to the point being made?
I believe not. It only makes you mad because you're a big E-Jets advocate and that that article proves that you're not such a good armchair CEO after all.

Do you realize that what you write however, doesn't make any sense at all?
Let's see:

Mr. Boeing wrote: Yes there was a capacity increase past year, but considering the ash cloud, belgocontrol strike and severe winter conditions I should conclude that a 4.4% increase in pax is still quite good. The AEA average was just 2.7%.

So how does that affect profitability? How were yields? capacity increase: how did that affect bottom lines?
Your numbers don't mean anything without bottom line and top line comparison, they're just statistics for the sake of statistics. I find it hard to find typing mistakes in meaningless mumble.

We don't even know if 6 million is a consolidated result or an operational result, it's premature to be optimistic without knowing the rest of the story.

[RoMax]

So how does that affect profitability? How were yields? capacity increase: how did that affect bottom lines?
Your numbers don't mean anything without bottom line and top line comparison, they're just statistics for the
sake of statistics. I find it hard to find typing mistakes in meaningless mumble.

And did you realise that I wasn't talking at all about the profitability in that post. My comment was only ment as a reaction on the 4.4% pax increase. As far as I know I do not refer to the profitability of SN. I know as well as you do that pax increase is absolutly not an indication of profitability (as we've seen very well with Sabena in the past wich achieved stunning pax increase numbers, but even more stunning losses (in the bad way)).

The ONLY thing I said about the profit of SN was: "I think SN can be happy with this 6 million profit.". And yes that was maybe not the most suited as we don't know the details of these financial results yet. But don't give critic about something I've never said.

And to give an answer to your question. It was just a sarcastic comment because you are so extremely pro-Q400.

[DeltaWiskey]

I think SN did a very good job in making a profit last year and pax increase well above AEA average. :thumbup:
(just my opinion).

If SN can continue like that for the coming years, future looks very bright.

Maybe off topic, but I think we need a children's garden over here.

[cathay belgium]

Maybe off topic, but I think we need a children's garden over here.

Don't need to invest in such thing,the children will leave this site themselves,
it happened once,it happens twice so ..

CX-B

Good job SN !!

I think future looks bright for SN,
regarding FR can't hold their benefits from regional airports,
SN invest in A319/A320 and with the promotional fares people will see and will
use SN instead of FR.
Really low cost flight of FR are already some months ago and SN closes the gap with a better product!
Now a/some A330's or an A340, TATL flights to Canda/JFK/Boston and an expansion in AFI,
some RJ's to battle France and we'll see..
2011 looks promising..
6million isn't the big thing,but it's a start...
vulcanoes and oil-prices are for all airliners the same so we'll see,
just have to invest in the right fleet.. I guess NO A319LR !
Maybe some E' jets are cheap now.. oil prices can switch quick..
see the last 4 years

Gotta pack my backpack..

[tolipanebas]

fcw is talking load factors, you are talking traffic.

If you've transported more passengers (even though you've also increased capacity) and you've also improved your result while operating the same fleet as before, knowing costs must have risen significantly, somehow YIELD must have gone up too and by even more, which is what ultimately this is all about really: LF is just an indicative performance figure to quickly measure current performance with and thus estimate results; once those results are known however, LF isn't the best figure to discuss performance with any longer....

He was talking about past results, probably refering to the 2001-2006 period.

And just how relevant is that long gone period still when you're making predictions for the future?
Personally, I'd stick to analysing the results of the most recent year(s) when looking at the future....

[LJ]

And just how relevant is that long gone period still when you're making predictions for the future?
Personally, I'd stick to analysing the results of the most recent year(s) when looking at the future....

Basically this is not a good way of analyzing if you compare SN results only to previous SN results. The only to really know if the performance of SN is good is to offset SN results to one of its peers and thus put it into pespective. It's very easy to make a profit in this market (TP also made a profit). But is this enough, or better,
shouldn't SN made a larger profit considering this market. Almost all airlines made money in 2010.

If you've transported more passengers (even though you've also increased capacity) and you've also improved your result while operating the same fleet as before, knowing costs must have risen significantly, somehow YIELD must have gone up too

Or costs (per unit) went down.

[tolipanebas]

The only wat to really know if the performance of SN is good is to offset SN results to one of its peers and thus put it into pespective.

Comparing to last year gives a good indication of the trend the company is following;
Compararing to others gives a good indication of just how remarkable this trend is.

It's very easy to make a profit in this market (...) Almost all airlines made money in 2010.

Within the LH group of airlines, several airlines will not be presenting positive figures over the full year 2010 and beyond the LH group there will be even many more big names in the red for 2010, so clearly it's not THAT easy to stay away from a loss after all...

Or costs (per unit) went down.

Fuel prices have moved up significantly in 2010, so I'd be very surprised any airline was able to fully offset these higher oil prices through costcutting alone and thus lower their unit costs; a fuel surcharge (i.e. extra revenue) is yielding far more success when it comes to offsetting increased fuel costs and thus ultimately also higher unit costs.

But your right, the second way to improve profitability -other than increasing yield- is trying to get the unit costs down somewhat and what better way to lower unit costs than to fully play the card of higher volumes, which is why it is so important for SN to start using bigger planes: replacing several RJ85s with A319/A320s is something which was very much needed and which will have a very positive effect on the results this year.

[BrightCedars]

Something must have changed at SN because go figure, Sabena still tops my personal flight statistics and until not so long ago I didn't fly SN Brussels or Brussels short. Now I'm starting to accumulate flights with SN again.

[Stij]

Something must have changed at SN because go figure, Sabena still tops my personal flight statistics and until not so long ago I didn't fly SN Brussels or Brussels short. Now I'm starting to accumulate flights with SN again.

Funny,

for me it's the opposite: I think they've become a lot more expensive:

Try a day return to Germany...

A weekend FCO return in B-light at 280€, more then a month in advance isn't cheap... Alitalia is way cheaper for the same weekend, same time of the day... In the end I booked KLM via Amsterdam because the girlfriend steps on the plane there and it was cheaper.

I know, abit of topic, but to indicate that in my opinion, they increased their pricing a lot.

Cheers,

Stij

[b720]

and now they have increased their credit card fee to EURO 7 .. I think that this is outright theft..

for flights to CH i will start booking swiss, fly on the code shared flights anyway and not pay this

unjustified fee.. 5 euro was already too much. Besides the fee is per pax. that means if booking for

a family of 4, the same transaction one has to pay EURO 28!!!!

[tolipanebas]

Sadly, when oil gets almost 30% more expensive in just 3 months, the end user is going to have to pay somehow

http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-chart ... t-data/oil

credit card fee, fuel surcharge, or a combination of both, pick your tool to foot the bill

http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/b ... roperators