Here's something I would like to throw in the group for everyone, not because it's the thruth, not because it is the only way forward, just because it is one of the many interpretations of the current situation of Bru.Air. And this is my interpretation.
Firstly, I would like to comment on Bru.Air missing the entrepreneurial spirit. It has to be said that this is correct, but what are the reasons behind it? Willingness of the management? Maybe. But the fact that they are not a completely new airline, but an airline that started up on the remains of a carrier that had a high cost base for sure has to do with it. They cut back then, but be sure that they still started up on a higher cost base than a completely new carrier would/could. This has an effect on how cost-effective an airline can be. Entrepreneurial new airlines use this low cost-base in their advantage to attract a clientele, and still many new airlines fail. This already made SN at the time a success. They didn't colapse. But the effect of the higher cost-base still is felt now. Bru.air can't just do what it wants. They don't have the investors willing to invest in those risks. And they will never have, since their structural costs are too high, and resistance to reduce those costs (if they would want to) is even higher.
Secondly, I think that Bru.air did well the past years. In a time where many new airlines don't even see their first flight take of before they go bancrupt, SN and now Bru.air makes even a modest profit (very modest indeed, but it still is a profit). Yes they are not groing like coal, yes they are not buying new airplanes, but is it necesary? They are profitable.
It has been said that 6 years have been lost. I disagree. It is not because Bru.air does not have a strategy to grow like coal, that it is a bad strategy. Six years have been lost, means as much as saying that a new airline that starts up now has no chance because they didn't start up 6 years ago. Opportunities are always there, and will alwyas keep arising, also in the future. It is not because Bru.air doesn't take on all opportunities now that that brandmarks their future. Africa is the next opportunity, indeed. But after that another region will become "the opportunity of the day", as Asia is exactly that today.
Being a regional airline is bad? Why? If it is profitable? Look at it like this: The EU is more and more (in aviation perspective) evolving to an American model with point to point traffic. Whereas now the EU is still heavily hub-biased. Maybe Bru.Air is skipping that step and is actually being (too) innovative for its time, here in the EU, by going for a point to point strategy. We all now their modest attemps in France for point to point traffic. Why not in a few years on international level. The EU-US open skies are perfectly on time. That's where we are going to: point to point. And that's exactly the opportunity for "small" regional carriers such as Bru.air.
Basically I do not think that Bru.air is doing so bad. Of course there is always room for improvement. But you have to take into account the complex relations that exsist in every company, especially in the airline industry. Many people can easily block you. But one thing is sure: in order to see that Bru.air isn't doing that bad in their niche (regional carriers) is that we need to step of our vision of Bru.air as a globally important player. It isn't, and the question has to be asked: does it even want to be? Being a global player isn't a measurement of being successfull.
To end, I qoute sn-remember:
Thousands of succesfull entreprises started with a bright dream and became big.Never forget that all successfull entreprises of today started with a bright dream !
Thousands entreprises started with a bright dream and became bankrupt.
Hundreds of thousands entreprises started with a modest dream, are now of a modest size, but successfull in their niche.
Greets,
Pieter
