I want to thank everybody for taking part to this poll and expressing their opinion on it. It was meant of course as a support for a critical and constructive discussion of the current snba mgt.
I believe we all agree that the primary objective of a balanced result is achieved for the past 2 years Hiphiphip for that but the congratulations stop there for some of us.
I believe we all agree that the present context of snba is difficult , the more so since it was positioned from the start as a regional carrier with very (too?) humble objectives (1st big mistake I believe) and we all know that lost ground is difficult to reconquer ...the more so when you struggle alone (outside an alliance)
The logical question to ask is there a fatality that snba remains at a so small business volume ? Could a new management change that without losing the current assets of a small regional carrier that succeeded to survive the 3 first yrs of its existence?
Some of you decided it was a "stupid" question. I'll simply quote the well known saying "there is no silly question, just silly answers"
Answers... I must admit that I was hoping more..
Yes indeed Comet there could be lots of other possible candidates to take the helm at snba.
Yes Chrisflyer, making wonders at AerLingus doesnt mean you'll be doing the same at BA.
And yes Beco, BA although not doing badly at all has still a heavy debt to support.
So besides the name of a manager , the main issue of course relates to the content of the job that should be done :
The job that was done so beautifully at EI?
The one that was done at BA by M. Eddington ?
The one Richard Branson did for Virgin-xx ?
Or the one Stelios Haji-Ioannou did for Easyjet?
Or possibly still a very different one, opening a new business development path ?
Or should we rather accept that the belgian carrier will remain more or less what it is now , a very minor carrier within Europe and pretty unknown in the world stage?
That is the question I am asking.
Chrisflyer :
It is obvious that Sabena was the wrong size, otherwise it would have survived, wouldn't it?
First of all I was speaking of the sabena of 35 yrs ago having more or less the same pax volume of snba today. Sabena, 35 yrs ago, was by no way too big...
Let me tell you this if you don't mind a 2 minute "off-topic" parenthesis : I never was an insider at sn (sabena or brusselsAirlines) however I never "lost sight" of the national carrier. I think lots of airlines observers will agree that 35/40 yrs ago sabena enjoyed quite a good reputation in the airlines business (probably one of the golden periods of sn) ito quality in air transport. Some of you mentioned rightly the chronic deficit of the state owned co. The ill-mgt was obviously the plague at sn plus unwanted difficulties with the social partners plus public servants too many unawarenesses. Nonetheless the company achieved quite remarkable results all along its history and that is also the "belgian miracle".
And secondly since you speak about the sn collapse, the size (as such!) of the Co in 2001 was probably not, in my view, the reason of the collapse. As everybody knows the swiss private mgt was lots lots more damaging than the public service chronic neglects and was fatal to the co. At sabena' s side (letting aside sr faults) I think that the growth was ill-planified: too quick and too costly. But the growth objective was not inconsiderate in my view on the contrary it was a condition for survival.
And therefore what is the "vital weight" of a co like snba ?
This is a matter for debate that I would certainly welcome.
My opinion is that the belgian carrier has a volume expectancy for +/- 10 Mio pax/yr. That would leave room for a 300% growth !!!
A challenging job for M. XXX whoever the future ceo of snba might be, don't you think
And how about the current partnerships with AZ, BA, IB, AY, LX, AA and LO that are in place? No doubt, expansion towards the Middle/Far East through alignments would be welcome, but it would be harsh to assume that SN's management isn't working on that.