BrusselsAirlines - the TURBOPROPS will come!

[Flanker]

In the mean time, in the real world, I am happy to say SN has presented its fleet plan for the next 2 and a half years and I can tell you that the number of addtional turboprops SN is planning to operate alongside that single wetleased Q400 currently operating on behalf of them, is set at 2 and these two Q400s will be wetleased, one starting in FEB next year, the other one in MAY...

Oh, a significant number of A319s and A320s are planned to join the fleet in 2012 and 2013 too, even more than they have added this year, I am afraid.

If true, you must be really well-placed to receive such information. That and the fact that many of your opinions align with higher management begs some questions.

I don't see where this is going. Money is drying up, the Lufthansa Group has just announced very deep losses in H1 and we're heading into a new recession. SN's continued operations through 2012 is hanging on wide rumors that are denied by LH . LH strongly affirmed that it will make its decision in the spring and that nothing is set.
From LH's perspective, not only does LH have to fork out the money to buy the remaining stake, it would also have to make immediate capital injections. It won't be easy to convince large stakeholders when Germany is struggling, number 2 Air Berlin restructuring, and SN is deeply loss-making. If LH really wanted SN that bad, they would have bought it out this year. Traffic rights are a pretext, it's only a matter of paperwork. Waiting for this year's losses to pay less is also meaningless because whatever LH pays less for SN, they will find less on SN's bank account.

In that perspective, you can also put A380's and some Space Shuttles into SN's 2.5 year fleet plan.
Serious question marks hang over priorities. What's the point of going for market share in loss-making Europe in a high fuel cost environment, full of uncertainties when there's no spare money to invest?
What about investing at the same time into 3000 projects managed in a surreal way with questionable return on investment (Korongo saga, Hangar 41 saga, hard Recaro seats saga, A330 upgrade saga) that have a return on investment time of many years, when the balance sheet at the end of 2010 tells you that the net worth of the company is less than the turn-over of 1 month?

If the positive balance on your bank account is one month of salary, would you buy a bigger newer car, a house, move in, start a small business, play at the casino and buy a big flat screen TV?
If you do, let's hope that your daddy (LH) is waiting with his wallet wide open to pay the bill and not waiting for you (SN) to get a heart attack and to harvest your organs.

3000 and more jobs. This is what we're talking about here.

Your 2.5 year plan is an "if all goes well plan".
If all goes well, A319/A320's to replace B737's aren't an issue. Neither is keeping the Avro's if fuel prices stay low. But if fuel prices stay high (which is the problem we're already seeing with food prices, pointing to potentially lasting stagflation) and traffic drops, then you're going to wish you had a "light" fleet.
Either way, if LH doesn't come on board, Q400's or not, it's too late to make a difference.

[airazurxtror]

Maybe you can try to find out why SN will post a loss this year and then try to react about being commercial

Quite clear : SN will post a large loss this year so that LH can buy it real cheap next year.

[RoMax]

If LH really wanted SN that bad, they would have bought it out this year.

No they wouldn't. If they would have bought SN this year, the price LH had to pay would have been based on the financials of 2010. SN made a profit in 2010, very small, but a profit. LH (and SN) saw that 2011 was going to be different, big investments, much higher fuel price than expected,... LH would be stupid not to wait another year and buy SN very cheap in 2012 after they made a (big) loss in 2011. LH really doesn't care about a "few" millions less on SN's balance sheet, they only care about the money they have to pay.
BTW, do you remember when they took over LX, OS and BD. All were in bad financial shape at the time LH took them over. For them it's so much easier to take over an airline, in bad financial shape, very cheap and make it profitable after that, than to take over an expensive, profitable airline and keep it profitable after the take over.
And be honnest, they made LX really very profitable, OS was close to bankruptcy but are now performing well again (altough their growth is partly blocked by the EU as a result of Austria taking over a large part of OS debts when LH took over OS). BD is the most difficult case, but SN isn't performing as bad as BD.

About SN's fleet plan, this is a plan like any other airline should do it. Replacing B737Classic with A319/A320, replacing RJ85's (expensive planes) and get SOME smaller turboprops to operate on the thin routes. SN is going to big loss for 2011, but they didn't fail commercially. They are finally achieving transfer traffic not only from EU/US to Africa but also within Europe, thanks to more promotion all over Europe. 2011 is a transformation year for SN, it's normall that costs a lot of money.

[tolipanebas]

If true, you must be really well-placed to receive such information. That and the fact that many of your opinions align with higher management begs some questions.

Like what questions?
That I am not the complete idiot you took me for, after all?
You may think of yourself as a great aviation expert, but allow me to say I haven't seen much of that superiority of you around here: quite some people here have a track record of having far better knowledge of and insight in the happenings at SN, including access to better sources, facts and figures than you have ever demonstrated here so far...

I don't see where this is going.

Nothing new under to sun, in that case...

Money is drying up.

Do you have cash flow figures to share with us, maybe?

the Lufthansa Group has just announced very deep losses in H1.

No it didn't.
http://investor-relations.lufthansa.com ... rueck.html

If LH really wanted SN that bad, they would have bought it out this year. Traffic rights are a pretext, it's only a matter of paperwork.

And in Africa, paperwork is known to go swiftly, isn't it?
Your talking nonsense once again here and you know it.
Bilateral paperwork is HIGHLY important in international aviation and takes a long time to be sorted out.

Waiting for this year's losses to pay less is also meaningless because whatever LH pays less for SN, they will find less on SN's bank account.

Are you pretending to be privy to the shareholders agreement too now?
Simply assuming LH is also going to take over the full ballance sheet just like that together with SN, might be overly naive... I've told you before: have a look at the past to understand the future: LH certainly didn't just copy-paste the ballance sheet of LX nor OS in theirs at the time of their take-over.

What's the point of going for market share in loss-making Europe in a high fuel cost environment, full of uncertainties?

We already know you just don't grasp the way the real market works, so again: nothing new from you.
Your idea of the large turboprop fleet is simply impossible as should be evidenced by the fact nobody is doing it and it's definitely not because all airlines are run by complete idiots...

What about investing at the same time into 3000 projects managed in a surreal way with questionable return on investment (Korongo saga, Hangar 41 saga, hard Recaro seats saga, A330 upgrade saga) that have a return on investment time of many years?

Well, what about it?
If anything, it tells you these "sagas" have all been agreed to by LH which should give you an idea about their commitment to SN really. Or do you really think they don't pay attention during the frequent board meetings? They hold 45% of shares, so it's not like they are kept in the dark about what's going on here or as if all thse things are done against their will, quite on the contrary even. All these things you call "sagas" are talked through with them first and must be seen in the light of the full integration of SN in LH: expect for instance to see our African ops to be even more harmonized with theirs in the coming months, including some quite interesting changes, which you'll then call another "saga" for sure!

[Flanker]

the Lufthansa Group has just announced very deep losses in H1.

No it didn't.
http://investor-relations.lufthansa.com ... rueck.html

First-half figures 2011
(...) The Group posted a net result of minus 206 million euros; during the same period last year, it had stood at minus 104 million euros.

I find it the very minimum to check my facts before I post.

If LH really wanted SN that bad, they would have bought it out this year. Traffic rights are a pretext, it's only a matter of paperwork.

And in Africa, paperwork is known to go swiftly, isn't it?
Your talking nonsense once again here and you know it.
Bilateral paperwork is HIGHLY important in international aviation and takes a long time to be sorted out.

This isn't exactly a problem. LH is so powerful in Germany that they can get things done.
Either way, I'll give you something to worry about: any bilateral closed by Germany that can be used at BRU can also be used in FRA directl by LH.

Waiting for this year's losses to pay less is also meaningless because whatever LH pays less for SN, they will find less on SN's bank account.

Are you pretending to be privy to the shareholders agreement too now?
Simply assuming LH is also going to take over the full ballance sheet just like that together with SN, might be overly naive... I've told you before: have a look at the past to understand the future: LH certainly didn't just copy-paste the ballance sheet of LX nor OS in theirs at the time of their take-over.

From the moment the LH Group is a holding, you don't copy-paste anything. Each operating entity continues operations with its separate accounts and balance sheet and they get reported on the consolidated reports.
You don't need to "be privy" to know how a take-over is done. A call option linked to company results just means that you pay an agreed price in function of the value of the company at time of purchase. If the company makes a loss of 60 millions, you pay 60 millions less or a factor of that.

To LH, a few millions isn't going to make any difference. In fact, the people spreading these rumors that losses will give LH the right to buy SN very cheaply have no idea of the workings of shareholdings.

It's no secret and it's publicly available data that SN was worth 73 millions on January 1st 2011.
Subtract a loss of 60 millions or more and you get a good idea of what LH will be paying for SN.
What you are imagining is that LH would pay 50 millions for a company that's worth only 13 millions and inject another 50 millions to it immediately?
It would be cheaper to activate 5 A333's based in FRA, transfer some SN office employees to FRA and start flying the routes themselves.

What's the point of going for market share in loss-making Europe in a high fuel cost environment, full of uncertainties?

We already know you just don't grasp the way the real market works, so again: nothing new from you.
Your idea of the large turboprop fleet is simply impossible as should be evidenced by the fact nobody is doing it and it's definitely not because all airlines are run by complete idiots...

I'd definitely not say all airlines, but most airlines are run by boring idiots who have no idea what they're doing. The reason of that is that they are career managers who hop the ladders and move from fancy office to fancier office and don't have their hands into their own airline or any airline experience at all. They manage airlines as financial institutions and forget they are the most complex service companies.
If anyone can serve as a model, Ryanair is a good example of an airline with an involved CEO. MOL has his hands into all arms of operations and knows exactly where he stands.

If you don't grasp that, then perhaps you don't grasp how airlines work and why they aren't profitable.

What about investing at the same time into 3000 projects managed in a surreal way with questionable return on investment (Korongo saga, Hangar 41 saga, hard Recaro seats saga, A330 upgrade saga) that have a return on investment time of many years?

Well, what about it?
If anything, it tells you these "sagas" have all been agreed to by LH which should give you an idea about their commitment to SN really. Or do you really think they don't pay attention during the frequent board meetings? They hold 45% of shares, so it's not like they are kept in the dark about what's going on here or as if all thse things are done against their will, quite on the contrary even. All these things you call "sagas" are talked through with them first and must be seen in the light of the full integration of SN in LH: expect for instance to see our African ops to be even more harmonized with theirs in the coming months, including some quite interesting changes, which you'll then call another "saga" for sure!

Just because those poorly managed projects have been agreed to by LH doesn't mean at all that LH will buy the rest of SN. There's no logic to what you're saying. If LH decides to not buying SN, LH has nothing to lose with SN carrying out those projects.
Also, it's questionable if LH knows what they're doing. Those Recaro seats were a clear waste of money and strategic and arrogant mistake that will come back to bite them. Nek cabin is already being called the chamber of horrors on Flyertalk, it gives you the idea. Business passengers aren't happy at all, they even lost the tray table on the middle seat.

Yes , LH has a time out in the installation of new cabin. Reason is that the
" gap " between the seat back and the seat cushion has damaged passengers clothes . This is now being redesigned and must also be fixed on already installed seats.
According to this FA LH is also considering to install a smaller wardrobe in C

Hmmm... as someone who flys every week- I can say that NEK is not acceptable. You have mentioned within this forum you will hit 75K miles this year total- so not really even close to many of the posters (including me closer to 600K) who say NEK is not acceptable. It is a very poor product- and there is not more space- and the seats are more uncomfortable- and there is no closet for the jacket and no where for your things if you are seated in row 1. Very poor business decision on the part of LH group.

NEK is just a disaster. Seat pitch (AND living space) has decreased notably. New seats are so hard that I have troubles to seat more that 1-1.5 hours. Seat pocket in the lower part of seat is to tiny that it wouldn't fit my 12" slim laptop. And no warderobe. And no table between A/C and D/F. And recline is a joke. Overall this maybe ok for Y but for C it is too much of Ryanair.
And NEK was on around 80% of LH EU flights I did during last couple of month.

Source: Frequent flyers of Flyertalk

Weren't you under the illusion that NEK was going to be this marvelous achievement of LH? Oh well, I don't want to break your illusion that LH is run by gods.

If you complain about a 2 hour sector on a Q400, what do passengers flying to TLV, DME and CAI on A320 NEK have to say? Surely they wouldn't survive.

Oh remember I said that a good C product would have been the right business decision on the A319/A320 fleet and even on the RJ's/TP's?
Except in LH, SN and Tolipanebas world, this seems to be perceived as common sense.

Now what is a separate story is LH's stupid policy to send A32S to places like Ekatarinburg, Cairo, Beirut, etc, and at terrible times. NEK or old cabin doesn't make a difference, really. I actually was on the daytime BEY-FRA in NEK (A319), and it was just like all the time: OK, but not good for this route. Rather take Air France (B777-300ER/A332) or MEA (A321 with proper C class).

[tolipanebas]

I find it the very minimum to check my facts before I post.

Could you then also present them in a correct way?

When referring to loss/profit of a company without any further specification whatsoever like you did, one does so in relation to their NET results, so either you are now trying to save your face here OR you deliberately tried to mislead people in the hope nobody would notice it.

No wonder things never turn out the way you've predicted them: you can fool yourself and try to fool others into believing you, but you can not change reality, and reality here is LH turned a (net) profit in H1 2011.

I'll give you something to worry about: any bilateral closed by Germany that can be used at BRU can also be used in FRA directl by LH.

sure, just as they could theoretically transfer the whole of OS and LX ops to MUC and simply close VIE and ZRH...

You don't need to "be privy" to know how a take-over is done. It's no secret and it's publicly available data that SN was worth 73 millions on January 1st 2011. Subtract a loss of 60 millions or more and you get a good idea of what LH will be paying for SN. What you are imagining is that LH would pay 50 millions for a company that's worth only 13 millions and inject another 50 millions to it immediately?

Newsflash: the shareholders agreement does value goodwill and does contain a bandwidth for the purchase price, so your naive linear calculation is a wrong concept: it really becomes a trend with you.

most airlines are run by boring idiots who have no idea what they're doing.

Yeah sure and LH definitely is a text book example of an airline run by such boring idiots, right?
That's why they can book such stellar net results, year after year.

If anyone can serve as a model, Ryanair is a good example of an airline with an involved CEO. MOL has his hands into all arms of operations and knows exactly where he stands.

Funny of you to say so, because if there's one beancounting manager around, it's MOL: he's said numerous times he couldn't care less about the 'complex service company' his airline is supposed to be, he just runs his LCC as a financial institution. Besides, MOL is a huge adept of the volume driven strategy to lower the unit costs! Oh, and how how many Q400s does FR operate?

The only thing MOL is unbeatably good at, is attracting public attention to his person as well as his airline and that's possibly why you think he's such a great aviation expert indeed! Are you a MOL wannabe?

Seriously, the more you talk, the more obvious it becomes you are nothing but a frustrated daydreamer who thinks to know it all so much better. Keep on posting; you're making a complete fool of yourself and giving me a field day in pointing it out quite easily to everybody around here while time tells you wrong time after time again on all of your predictions and proposals.

[Flanker]

When referring to loss/profit of a company without any further specification whatsoever like you did, one does so in relation to their NET results, so either you are now trying to save your face here OR you deliberately tried to mislead people in the hope nobody would notice it.

No wonder things never turn out the way you've predicted them: you can fool yourself, but you can not change reality, and reality here is LH turned a (net) profit in H1 2011.

Who's the fool?

The 206 million loss in H1 is a NET result.
And I quote again from your own link:

The Group posted a net result of minus 206 million euros; during the same period last year, it had stood at minus 104 million euros.

The context was LH shareholder decision of SN purchase being impaired by weak results by LH.

Seriously, what are you smoking?

Funny of you to say so, because if there's one beancounting manager around, it's MOL: he's said numerous times he couldn't care less about the 'complex service company' his airline is supposed to be, he just runs his LCC as a financial institution.
Besides, MOL is a huge adept of the volume driven strategy to lower the unit costs!
Oh, and how how many Q400s does FR operate?

Seriously, the more you talk, the more obvious it becomes you are just nothing but a frustrated daydreamer who thinks he knows it all so much better. Keep on posting; you're making a complete fool of yourself and giving me a field day in pointing it out quite easily while time tells you wrong time after time again.

Now you're totally confused. It's widely known that MOL does the Wave 1 conference calls with each base on some days of the month. He's involved in his airline and he knows his airline inside out.
Who said that he isn't a bean counter? Who said he isn't a volume strategy adept?

What are you saying now Tolipanebas? Should SN be run like FR? A lot of volume at dump prices?
Utterly ridiculous, Tolipanebas. You don't know what you're talking about.
SN and FR have totally different situations and business models and it's even ridiculous to even suggest that SN should operate like FR.

Between me who hoped (but now is starting to think it's too late) for Q400's to replace the Avro's and you dreaming of a line-up of CS100's, I think that you're the dreamer and I'm the hard realist.

Additionally, I don't see how spending 1 million euro per aircraft to retrofit hard uncomfortable and inconvenient NEK recaro seats to have 6 more seats per aircraft that only make money when you fill the aircraft to 100%, remotely compares to installing a decent business class that attracts more high yield passengers.
At 150.000 euro per seat, those 6 extra seats must go into the Guinness Book of records for most expensive and useless chairs.
Over time, I think that they will even reduce the profit potential of airlines by chasing the passengers away. Those seats will get harder and harder with time, as the foam inside compresses.
The cheap plastics look very fragile as do the armrests.

Before I forget, Tolipanebas, here's a lesson for you.
You asked to present cash flow data. Your cash flow at any given time in the past doesn't matter in SN's current balance sheet scenario:
the bulk of assets is composed of cash (liquid assets) and huge accounts receivables for an airline;
the bulk of liabilities is composed of proceeds from tickets for future flights and other accounts payable;
the difference between them being a shrinking net worth (shareholder's equity) due to shrinking cash reserves due to higher costs than turn over.
According to balance sheet data on Dec 31st, the cash reserve available is only about 100 millions, when you take the difference between liquid assets and advance proceeds paid by passengers for future flights.
The 60 million loss purges into that 100 million cash reserve by the end of the year, reducing it to approximately 40 million.
If (BIG IF!) LH shareholders disapprove the SN take-over and the onsets of a recession lead to dramatically reduced travel behavior, and reduces advance proceeds from bookings by for instance 20%; without an immediate 20% reduction in costs or significant processing of accounts receivables, you're looking at negative cash flow and resulting asset sales by March or April as a desperate move to generate cash. The result of such an asset sale will be limited because SN owns limited amounts of material assets and most non-aircraft assets are necessary for day to day operations. The largely leased fleet limits potential proceeds from sale and leaseback of aircraft.

Further market share centered strategy amid a global recession will probably widen the losses and purge into the little remaining cash reserves, with or without Lufthansa.

This conversation is way ahead of you Tolipanebas, it may appear too complicated to you.
Should you decide to skip it, just stop posting ridiculous comments over and over again.


So even supposing that LH takes over SN in a very bad climate, if no direct measures are taken such as to promptly cut unprofitable routes, remove the Avro's in favor of more suitable Q400's and add long-haul aircraft en masse (and to Africa the most suitable aircraft would probably be B757's), SN's losses will only further widen. Sure, more market share but that's not how you're going to hurt Ryanair or convince LH shareholders to keep pumping money into SN.

To relate to this topic, where do the 2 Q400's fit in this story (if true)?
It's my personal speculation but it's a very good possibility that with the current balance sheet situation, SN may be having a hard time convincing lessors and banks to give them the aircraft they want, until a formal take-over and capital injection is made by LH. So all they get is spare aircraft from LH, ie spare A32S and wetleased Q400's.

[tolipanebas]

Oh yes, I accidentally mixed up net and operational there for a second, my bad.

It doesn't change the fact H1 results from the LH Group of airlines are nowhere near as bad as you'd apparently want them to be, as that negative 206M H1 net result is due to a change in accounting standards for fuel hedges. Indeed, an underlying strong H1 net result was burdened by the requirement to include a negative impact of well over 300M from changes in the time values of hedging transactions following the application of IAS 39 standards.
if you want a quote from the LH CFO on this technicality dating from when LH announced its Q1 results:
http://atwonline.com/airline-finance-da ... -hedge-val
The operating results for H1 are positive however, contrary to H1 last year BTW, and as you can read the Group thus confirms its profit forecast for 2011 and even expects improvements of revenue and net result on previous year's figures, which is no surprise given the fact the hedges which have placed a burden on H1 net results, are going to significantly improve H2 results as they mature.

If that's the allegedly "weak results from LH" you were referring too as the ideal context for LH shareholders to reject any takeover of SN, then it is no wonder I lost my senses and even mixed up something elementary as net and operational for a second!

This conversation is way ahead of you Tolipanebas, it may appear too complicated to you.

No it isn't, rest assured. so far you've not left the field of elementary high school economics, and I tried to stay clear of distracting issues like accounting standards for fuel hedges and their technical consequences on the intermediate ballance sheets for airlines which are hedging massively as is LH, so there's nothing too complicated about it at all for most readers; the only thing hard to follow is how you combine simplified public source information from the past with very negative conjecture for the future, thus leading you to completely flawed conclusions. May I also point out it is obviously you don't know about several undisclosed shareholders agreements which back up certain strategic decisions from SN you don't approve of? I won't blame you for not knowing the full picture from behind the scenes as you are obviously a complete outsider to SN or in fact the LH Group of airlines, but it is a pitty you don't even consider there may be more than meets your little eyes, but rather assumes complete idiocracy right away.

SN and FR have totally different situations and business models and it's even ridiculous to even suggest that SN should operate like FR.

Did I do so? You're the one bringing MOL into the discussion as some sort of a guru, while calling LH's managers dull idiots, remember? i'd say they BOTH do a great job running very different airlines indeed, MOL just being a bit more present in the media, but then there are no extra points for public popularity to be gained, I should think?

if no direct measures are taken such as to promptly cut unprofitable routes, remove the Avro's in favor of more suitable Q400's and add long-haul aircraft en masse (and to Africa the most suitable aircraft would probably be B757's), SN's losses will only further widen.

So it need to be 757s now?
Heck, SN finally understood your idea and were about to order 25 A319LR with dedicated C class seats!
Lesson one of airline management: you can not just change your business plan every 6 months!
Are you still sure about your 35 Q400s, or will you change that to something else in 6 months too then?
Just so whe know when you completely change plan again...

Where do the 2 Q400's fit in this story (if true)?

Because a small fleet of turboprops would make sense on those monopoly routes which can not be stimulated and thus do not benefit from a volume strategy either. Wetleasing a few turboprops thus makes sense to basically everybody, except to you really who'd operate them massively and throughout the entire network, naively thinking you can somehow control the way pax flow on all those routes which do see competition. Pax select their airline, not the other way round; you can not effectively control the market when you're not the monopoly operator on a route, so artificially reducing capacity by operating smaller and cheaper planes is just not going to work as your competitors will simply up theirs to take more market share: it's as simple as that and failure to accept this basic theorem of aviation, is a guarantee for disaster.

Anyway, let's start the guessing where the few wetleased Q400s SN will operate as from 2012 will come from and where they will be used to, shall we? My bet it will be from within the LH group of airlines.

[Air Key West]

It would make sense for the two additional wet-leased tps to come from within the LH Group. This way, perhaps, b.air would get a better deal than if they wet-leased from other operators.

As I already said, I think one tp will operate two morning feeder flights from/to AMS perhaps on the basis of the following flight schedules :
BRU AMS 06.30 07.30
AMS BRU 08.00 09.00 (also connections to 9W flights to India / would 9W be interested ?)
BRU AMS 09.30 10.30 (also connections from 9W India flights and Hainan)
AMS BRU 11.00 12.00 (also perhaps connections to Hainan flights if Hainan is interested)

I would use the third tp on three to four daily flights to/from SXB.
SXB is a business destination and with only two flights a day, b.air cannot compete with AF (CDG) and KL (AMS). Business travellers want frequencies.

I guess that b.air's board and management have already decided.

[LJ]

The operating results for H1 are positive however, contrary to H1 last year BTW, and as you can read the Group thus confirms its profit forecast for 2011 and even expects improvements of revenue and net result on previous year's figures, which is no surprise given the fact the hedges which have placed a burden on H1 net results, are going to significantly improve H2 results as they mature.

However if you read more closely in the H1 report you'll see that LH Group the improvements were largely driven by less losses at LH and improved profits at LX. Moreover LH Group had to take a loss for its stake in SN of 27mio. In the end, the passenger division was still loss making for H1 (though Q2 was profitable again).

As I already said, I think one tp will operate two morning feeder flights from/to AMS perhaps on the basis of the following flight schedules :

Why even bother with AMS? Competition at AMS is already fierce and SN can better look at markets (for example BRU-LCY). Furthermore, the schedule you propose is very tight for AMS operations. Arriving at 07:30 and leaving at 08:00 means arriving in the KLM morning rush hour (for both arriving and departing flights). Not impossible, but

[tolipanebas]

if you read more closely in the H1 report you'll see that LH Group the improvements were largely driven by less losses at LH and improved profits at LX.

Indeed, that is fully correct and indicative of the fact the LH Group of Airlines is doing better operationally than last year over the same period, with their net H1 result for 2011 simply impared by IAS39 accounting standards: the conclusion the LH Group is going badly and is going to make losses over 2011, is thus completely wrong: they are not.

[RoMax]

Why even bother with AMS? Competition at AMS is already fierce and SN can better look at markets (for example BRU-LCY). Furthermore, the schedule you propose is very tight for AMS operations. Arriving at 07:30 and leaving at 08:00 means arriving in the KLM morning rush hour (for both arriving and departing flights). Not impossible, but

AMS would be nice let's say 1-2 years ago, but now. It will not be long anymore before the trains can go from AMS to BRU, same with CDG-BRU (if the NMBS, BRU, SN and 9W are succesfully in their talks with Thalys).

I'm not sure at all, but wouldn't it be better to operate destinations like Bordeaux, Aberdeen/Belfast/Glasgow,... And if they will operate existing routes, the thin and short routes of course, but wich routes would these be?
SXB could be a very good candidate indeed. On the days the EU is moving between SXB and BRU even B734/A320's are not big enough (often you also see other flights from other airlines flying trough SXB on these days to get the whole EU from the one place to the other). But on many other days, I think the RJ85 is even too big.

[Flanker]

LH's interim report states that they hope to match and improve last year's group operating result.
Knowing what I know now, I strongly doubt this. The global conjecture was very good last year between August and January, creating an artificial growth. All this growth was lost in the past 2 months and the second half will bring a very tough operating climate for all airlines worldwide.

S&P500 Last 12 months:



Given that the group result of LH in 2010 was a mere net earning margin of 4%, thanks to a very strong second half, this can easily shift to a second half loss and an even deeper year-end loss. I would't say it's 100% sure but it's likely and the market seems to agree with me. Lufthansa shares:




Destinations if SN only gets 2 wetleased Q400's I would serve as priority are LUX, LCY, AMS/RTM.
I don't see the point for the other routes with only 2 turboprops.

I still find it weird that they would go for only 2 turboprops and on wetlease, because this conflicts with rumors in the halls.
Again, it's either a balance sheet problem, lack of insight by the decision-makers or simply not true.

[cnc]

I still find it weird that they would go for only 2 turboprops and on wetlease, because this conflicts with rumors in the halls.

didn't i already said on page 1 it was going to be a wetlease?
there are all kinds of rumors around so its wise to check where the rumor originated

[RoMax]

Again, it's either a balance sheet problem, lack of insight by the decision-makers or simply not true.

And the idea that YOU could be wrong is not comming up in your mind?

[tolipanebas]

Destinations if SN only gets 2 wetleased Q400's I would serve as priority are LUX, LCY, AMS/RTM.

Why NEW destinations?

As I have already said numerous times, these Q400s will serve a specific goal at SN: there are a limited number of thin routes in the SN network which can not be stimulated and thus do not benefit from operations with larger planes. In fact, even the RJ85s have traditionally been too big to operate on them, but we simply didn't have anything smaller available nor could we profitably lease a few smaller planes from elsewhere in the past, until SN joined the LH Group of airlines and thus got access to very flexible wetleases at intra-group rates so to say. Existing thin shorthaul routes are the main target routes those wetleased Q400s are going to be used on, but then what do I know about SN's plans and intentions, right?

You're really a weird guy, if you allow me to say so, because one could say SN is going to apply your turboprop concept, albeit on a micro-scale, yet rather than rejoy over this joyful fact, you'd now want them to open up entirely new and very questionable routes with them, notably during the quietest months of the year (Q1 2012), while at the same time you keep whining about them loosing too much money and having no clear focus on profitability?

Again, it's either a balance sheet problem, lack of insight by the decision-makers or simply not true.

And the idea that YOU could be wrong is not comming up in your mind?

Weird indeed, as hindsight has shown that the latter has always been the case for him...

[Flanker]

As I have already said numerous times, these Q400s will serve a specific goal at SN: there are a limited number of thin routes in the SN network which can not be stimulated and thus do not benefit from operations with larger planes. In fact, even the RJ85s have traditionally been too big to operate on them, but we simply didn't have anything smaller available nor could we profitably lease a few smaller planes from elsewhere in the past, until SN joined the LH Group of airlines and thus got access to very flexible wetleases at intra-group rates so to say. Existing thin shorthaul routes are the main target routes those wetleased Q400s are going to be used on, but then what do I know about SN's plans and intentions, right?

You're really a weird guy, if you allow me to say so, because one could say SN is going to apply your turboprop concept, albeit on a micro-scale, yet rather than rejoy over this joyful fact, you'd now want them to open up entirely new and very questionable routes with them, notably during the quietest months of the year (Q1 2012), while at the same time you keep whining about them loosing too much money and having no clear focus on profitability?

Is that your top secret plan for turning around the unprofitable Europe network? Make me laugh.

Let me tell you what you're going to achieve with that plan: NOTHING, ZERO, 0.00000000....

2 Q400's over the next 2.5 years won't make a sh*te of difference but would still make some sense to explore new routes to enter key intra-Europe markets (LCY,LUX, RTM) and feed Africa (AMS).

2 Q400's over the next 2.5 years to replace 2 x RJ85's on unprofitable routes, that's just ridiculous. If they don't make money, just cut the damn routes, even if they have sporadic Africa feeding traffic.

Common sense, people...

Again, it's either a balance sheet problem, lack of insight by the decision-makers or simply not true.

And the idea that YOU could be wrong is not comming up in your mind?

There isn't much to be wrong about. Are you under the illusion that they're going to do miracles with 2 wetleased Q400's? Is that going to make them go from minus 60 million to plus 100 million?

Seriously, look away from your computer screen and see the reality that surrounds you.

People who agree with me, you can make yourself heard. No need to fear these hopeless dreamers who think that everything top management does is right, despite accumulating losses after losses after losses.

[shockcooling]

People who agree with me, you can make yourself heard. No need to fear these hopeless dreamers who think that everything top management does is right, despite accumulating losses after losses after losses.

Flanker, give us an example how YOU would make up for the losses foreseen tis year? Really? Tell us.....

[Flanker]

Flanker, give us an example how YOU would make up for the losses foreseen tis year? Really? Tell us...

Why don't you look for that information yourself? If you document everything I published on this server, you should get close to a 1000 pages. Just use the search function.

If you're so interested, why don't you give us your take?

[shockcooling]

No need, I get my info from the internal pprune

Just curious what kind of difficult decisions you would make when you would be involved? Order a bunch of TP's and 757's, and by the end of this year, I guess, everything looks like I still would be working there? Yeah right....

edit; it would just cost more to implement a plan like that, it would make it even worse as it already is. Someone might start to worry for their job, in such a case.