easyJet to BRU?

JetB · Post by **JetB** » 20 May 2004, 21:24

BRU only as an Easyjet destination and not a base, that is just crazy !.

Just a destination and to support UK flight crew's, no way... I prefer employing more Belgians. The aviation industry has to grow here in Belgium, we need it especially after Sabena, Citybird, Sobelair.....

BRU needs a full service airline, that is SN. And a strong LCC, that isn't VEX !

airDD · Post by **airDD** » 20 May 2004, 21:32

LCC shorthaul is the only future for BRU.

It is too late to build a long haul hub in BRU.
Too many hubs in Europe already.

Protecting SN is no solution; SN is basically a RJ airline with 3 flights to Africa a day. Its capital base is very weak and includes the Airport, Belgo-control and local government. It has no money to expand and the best it can hope for is to break even...

I doubt it if EZ wants to set up a base in BRU; EZ will probably fly to BRU from 2 or 3 UK bases.

airDD

Sabena_690 · Post by **Sabena_690** » 20 May 2004, 21:59

later I read that SNBA has to be protected and even if BIAC could not refuse easy to come to BRU.

We, as a capitalist country, cannot protect anything indeed.

It's up to SN to become stronger to fight the competition, it's not up to the government etc to protect SN.

Frederic

SilverJET · Post by **SilverJET** » 20 May 2004, 22:21

It's up to SN to become stronger to fight the competition, it's not up to the government etc to protect SN.
Frederic

The Government already did this in the glory years of our beloved SN. One of the many reasons AMS got bigger and bigger. Many foreign carriers couldn't come here due to the protection of SN.
I hope they (BIAC and/or Government) think twice now, and do what's best for the Belgian Economics and people who earn their bread with aviation !

Turn BRU into an important European Airport again

:mexwave:

Post by **sn26567** » 21 May 2004, 09:28

Scoop: Pierre Klees, chairman of BIAC, spoke for himself. BIAC is surprised by his words and almost denies that there are serious talks with easyJet. If you read French, read this .

Burner · Post by **Burner** » 21 May 2004, 13:24

Thank you for this SCOOP André,

The attentive reader will understand why in a previous post I mentionned "Unless other factors play (politics etc.) ..."

Greetz

Burner

Sabena_690 · Post by **Sabena_690** » 21 May 2004, 15:43

Hi Burner,

I'm very interested in your statement... Please explain! (if you don't want to do so in public, you may always write me a private message or drop me an email at Sabena_690[at]luchtzak.be).

Frederic

A318 · Post by **A318** » 21 May 2004, 16:18

BobClaes wrote:The aviation industry has to grow here in Belgium, we need it especially after Sabena, Citybird, Sobelair.....
BRU needs a full service airline, that is SN. And a strong LCC, that isn't VEX !

Like you said "

after Sabena, Citybird, Sobelair.....

I think this shows already that Belgium is not going to be a big player in aviation anymore.
Sabena was it and died it, very said but true, nothing will bring those times.
Don't worry since KLM will go exactly the same way, there were it and they die it.

Greetz,

Erwin

Burner · Post by **Burner** » 21 May 2004, 16:52

Hello Frederic,

This tread starts to get a bit delicate, but here is the reason for the statement:

We live in a very little country, that is yet extremely complex (f.i. 3 different languages and thus a lot of governements, each with their priorities, etc.). This complexity has led to a very bizarre culture of compromises, were clear transparent decisions are not always obvious. Usually there are always some interests to be defended left or right. Often these "other interests" interfere with the "pure and sound" economics.

That's why I am often a bit cautious when judging the economical "soundness" of decisions of our politicians, as well as decisions from public companies (as BIAC still is) or even former public companies...

If I look now at the situation in BRU, bearing all this in mind, I see a lot of potential reasons for decisions that are not purely economical. That is:

a national carrier has gone bancrupt
our politicians held more than 50% of the shares
the mismanagement of the foreign investors was severe enough to cause legal prosecution
BIAC decided to make big expansion, partly based on the growth of the national carrier
an improvised "touch-and go" by the regional daughter, that required the persuasion of some "captains of the industry" to find funding...
and, and, and,...

to make it worse: this complete mess was headline news for several weeks

So rarely have I seen an environment with so many factors potentially "disturbing" pure economics.

This is the reason why I included "Unless other factors play (politics etc.)..." in my previous mail. It is i.o.w. not because it could be an economically founded decision to allow EZY (which I cannot judge of course), that it will actually take place.

Now surprise, surprise,... André posts an article in which the author(s) claim that the director of the board of BIAC has made statements that BIAC itself denies... The author then tries to find a reason and comes up with conflicting interests between BIAC as a shareholder of SN(soon + VEX?) and as airport operator potentially selling capacity to EZY. Although I leave these conclusions entirely to the responsibility of the author, this is indeed a VERY strange thing. So I do think there is a good possibility (again) for some political games behind the scenes, whatever the reasons.

Everybody draws his own conclusions ...

Greetz

Burner

PS: I this post I talk about "economical" in the widest sense, taking into account the usual social, environmental, human, ethic, "good-father practise" ... factors.

Sabena_690 · Post by **Sabena_690** » 21 May 2004, 18:49

Thanks for your points, Burner! Very interesting...

Frederic