Flanker2 wrote:You seemed to have a lot to say about my analysis, which was actually very conservative.
Actually sir, I did have very few to say about what you refer to as your analysis, for the simple reason I haven't seen much of that at all: what you post is in fact merely an opinion following some remarks which put this year's financial result at around -30M vs more than -90M last year.
As already pointed out be me and others, we don't know if we can even compare the 2 figures YTD, since not only is this year's figure not consolidated yet, let alone audited and officially confirmed, but also -and much more importantly- do we not know if it is an operational result even (like the one used for last year), or rather a net result. With such a volatile reference as context, one risks comparing apples with oranges.
Of course, we are perfectly free to give it a shot anyway and try to say something meaningful about the evolution, for instance by limiting ourselves to just a trend, but that's obviously not to your liking because the trend is indeed remarkably upwards and so I get the impression you did your very best to try to flatten down this trend again by seeking excuses of all sorts as to why it is what it really is, even to your eyes, all while ignoring setbacks (e.g. day long strikes) at the same time.
Believe me, people are no idiots and they will understand too that such a trend change can not be the result of managerial measures alone if that is what you wanted to say, but rather must be the combined result of both internal changes as well as macro-economic improvements which are obviously out of the hands of this company, but on the other hand: those macro-economic improvements are very real and do reflect in the financial results of brussels airlines just as much as any other improvements, just as they should in fact in those of all other airlines operating in the same environment. In this context it is thus interesting to note that despite this fact, some other airlines are still forced to post warnings of deteriorating operational results over the very same period, in exactly the same environment, so clearly the effect of the macro-economic factors should not be overrated, like you decided to do.
Flanker2 wrote:If SN benefited fully, their benefit would have been 30 million euro's or more (...) I issued a 10 million number.
So they are indeed heavily capped off, just as I told you; what exactly was the reason for all the smacktalk then, if not for the simple fact that somebody dared to put your conclusions into questioning?
As was already pointed out in a somewhat provocative way above (not by me): attributing most of an improvement of some 60M on macro-economical factors, while at the same time putting a figure of just 10M on the benefit from the lower fuel prices, is rather contradictory, don't you think?
Flanker2 wrote:You may have impressed many people... you impressed me by how many people you impressed with your nicely written texts that have no meaning. Have you considered a vocation as religious leader?
No I haven't, but if I would, I should probably already qualify to become a buddhist monk, given one needs to be really zen to take all the uncalled for insults from you and yet manage to take the high road, but I'll do so anyway and so I wish you, as well as all others reading along of course, a happy new year: may 2014 bring you a wider perspective, a softer tone and above all much less embitterment.
