And this time, if it doesn't go through, it will be Brussels Airlines' shareholders hesitating, not Lufthansa. Some of them may get €0 in the transaction.

On Wednesday, Lufthansa's executive board is to propose to the supervisory board that the group buy the 55% of the shares in Brussels Airlines they do not own already. The supervisory board is expected to agree. The price is based on a formula that takes into account Brussels Airlines' financial results and how much it drew down on a €100 million line of credit granted by Lufthansa.

Brussels Airlines owes Lufthansa €45 million today, so the price is... €2.6 million (technically €47.6 million, including repayment of the debt)

The line of credit and the formula were agreed upon when Lufthansa bought 45% of the shares eight years ago. At the time, Brussels Airlines borrowed €65 million against the credit line and has since repaid €20 million. In the summer of 2015, the airline's managers proposed to pay off the rest of the debt, but the three Lufthansa representative on the board of directors convinced the rest of the board to oppose the move. If Brussels Airlines had paid off its debt, Lufthansa would have to spend between €130 and €150 million to acquire the shares it doesn't own.

Understandably, some shareholders are screaming conflict of interest. Legally, Lufthansa has the right to proceed with the transaction without the agreement of Brussels Airlines' shareholders but is or will be negotiating with them to keep them from trying to block the deal through the courts.

As if that wasn't enough, when Brussels Airlines and Virgin Express merged, the agreement included a clause granting the Virgin Group the full amount of the first €42 million paid by Lufthansa. In other words, of that meager €2.6 million, most shareholders will get nothing.

And then there are the other issues. Lufthansa reportedly agreed not to touch the brand but some shareholders would also like an agreement that Brussels Airlines isn't going to become a LCC under the Eurowings umbrella. Problem is, the Eurowings project is Carsten Spohr's baby, and he really, really wants it to succeed. Since Eurowings doesn't seem able to grow organically, adding Brussels Airlines is the logical move, for Eurowings and Carsten Spohr at least.

From what I read here, if I am a shareholder of Brussels Airlines, I would do everything in my power to block the acquisition. It is probably foul play on the part of LH. I don't think any shareholder in their right mind would agree to this deal.

I wonder if Brussels Airlines will expand to other US Destinations such as LAX, MIA, ORD, EWR, and others...

Thanks for your interesting summary of the complicated situation.

blueflyer wrote:

some shareholders would also like an agreement that Brussels Airlines isn't going to become a LCC under the Eurowings umbrella.

That's interesting.

I'm not at all close to the situation so I will ask, hasn't it been shown there just isn't enough critical mass for the airline to make over time it as a full-service carrier?

That would mean becoming an LCC is pretty much inevitable, no?

Therefore is the objection because some shareholders think it can make it as a full service carrier, or is it more that they dislike the idea of it becoming an LCC?

Clearly if the relationship with LH collapses it will be even less likely that it can make it as a full service carrier unless it found another partner really quickly.

yonahleung wrote:

From what I read here, if I am a shareholder of Brussels Airlines, I would do everything in my power to block the acquisition. It is probably foul play on the part of LH. I don't think any shareholder in their right mind would agree to this deal.

Indeed, that is how it seems. I wonder if those executives who tried to pay off the debt will end up with some sort of "golden parachute"...

Revelation wrote:

Clearly if the relationship with LH collapses it will be even less likely that it can make it as a full service carrier unless it found another partner really quickly.

Do you think that IAG might be such a partner?

blueflyer wrote:

Understandably, some shareholders are screaming conflict of interest. Legally, Lufthansa has the right to proceed with the transaction without the agreement of Brussels Airlines' shareholders but is or will be negotiating with them to keep them from trying to block the deal through the courts.

The same shareholders (or at least its representatives) approved the credit line and its conditions and should have known that this could happen given the fact LH Group has 3 people on the board. At least they represented the interest of LH Group perfectly (sorry to say this).

blueflyer wrote:

And then there are the other issues. Lufthansa reportedly agreed not to touch the brand but some shareholders would also like an agreement that Brussels Airlines isn't going to become a LCC under the Eurowings umbrella. Problem is, the Eurowings project is Carsten Spohr's baby, and he really, really wants it to succeed. Since Eurowings doesn't seem able to grow organically, adding Brussels Airlines is the logical move, for Eurowings and Carsten Spohr at least.

This is easy to get around. They just let EW replace SN over a few years. However, this would be the demise of SN and even worse for SN employees.

blueflyer wrote:

The line of credit and the formula were agreed upon when Lufthansa bought 45% of the shares eight years ago. At the time, Brussels Airlines borrowed €65 million against the credit line and has since repaid €20 million. In the summer of 2015, the airline's managers proposed to pay off the rest of the debt, but the three Lufthansa representative on the board of directors convinced the rest of the board to oppose the move. If Brussels Airlines had paid off its debt, Lufthansa would have to spend between €130 and €150 million to acquire the shares it doesn't own.

Understandably, some shareholders are screaming conflict of interest. Legally, Lufthansa has the right to proceed with the transaction without the agreement of Brussels Airlines' shareholders but is or will be negotiating with them to keep them from trying to block the deal through the courts.

It is a very hard claim to say that directors favour Lufthansa.

I believe that also Belgian law states that the board of directors must promote the interests of the company only and treat all shareholders equally. If they make decisions favouring one shareholder and harming others, they may be sued and held personally liable for the damages. Brussels Airlines, of course, is not a normal publicly traded company but has those fancy formulas that give Lufthansa some power, so we should be careful not to give false or premature accusations.

If such claims are true, for sure Lufthansa wants to negotiate before exercising force. Otherwise, I see no other clear future for SN than to be integrated into Lufthansa, with whatever name and structure Lufthansa sees the best. Other solutions may be realized only if Lufthansa creates a juridical mess that it has best to escape.

It sounds that LH have done a better job with their SN deal in comparison to when they were totally fleeced over the BMI deal by the British shareholders.

L'Echo reports Brussels Airlines' board of directors met ahead of the Lufthansa supervisory board meeting and the Lufthansa representatives sought assurances the shareholders would abide by the purchase agreement, but what they got was exactly the opposite. The shareholders demanded a price much more in proportion with the €65 million Lufthansa paid for the 45% of the airline it already owns, and threatened to go to court arguing conflict of interests. Directors' fiduciary duty is to the company in Belgium, so shareholders would have to prove that blocking the repayment of the debt owed Lufthansa was not in Brussels Airlines' best interest.

Shareholders and other directors also piled on additional demands, from employment guarantees (a large shareholder is a public/private economic development partnership) to the designation of BRU as the Lufthansa Group's specialized hub for Africa. And to ensure Lufthansa doesn't try and renege on any deal after taking control, the latter would be formalized in a contract with the Belgian government.

http://www.lecho.be/entreprises/aviatio ... 9-3017.art

To be honest, I don't know what is the problem of the other shareholders? They agreed to the deal in 2008(?) and now they want a better one? And how can they block it? It's even already approved by the European union...

duboka wrote:

To be honest, I don't know what is the problem of the other shareholders? They agreed to the deal in 2008(?) and now they want a better one? And how can they block it? It's even already approved by the European union...

It has to do with the payment of the loan LH granted SN back in its darkest days. SN wanted to repay the loan, but because the deal back then involved a favourable clause for LH if SN didn't pay back the loan, repayment of the loan was blocked by the three German representatives LH has in SN's board. The other board members wanted the opposite. By repaying the loan they'd have a much stronger position in negotiating a price for the take over of the remaining 55% of the shares.

It is the conflict of interest of the three German representatives that the other shareholders think might help them in court. LH wanted/wants to negotiate a term with al shareholders to evade them going to court. Some already gave in while others remain reluctant to do so, to say the least.

It's done.

The Supervisory Board of Deutsche Lufthansa AG approved the exercising of a call option to acquire the remaining 55% of shares in SN Airholding, the parent company of Brussels Airlines, at its meeting today. The approval paves the way for Lufthansa’s full acquisition of Brussels Airlines.

It remains the common objective of Lufthansa and Brussels Airlines to conduct the full acquisition of SN Airholding by Deutsche Lufthansa AG after the final agreement on the modalities of the exercise of the call option with the SN Airholding shareholders by the end of this year, and to conclude the transaction at the beginning of 2017.

http://newsroom.lufthansagroup.com/en/n ... 3/231.html

KarelXWB wrote:

It's done.

The Supervisory Board of Deutsche Lufthansa AG approved the exercising of a call option to acquire the remaining 55% of shares in SN Airholding, the parent company of Brussels Airlines, at its meeting today. The approval paves the way for Lufthansa’s full acquisition of Brussels Airlines.

It remains the common objective of Lufthansa and Brussels Airlines to conduct the full acquisition of SN Airholding by Deutsche Lufthansa AG after the final agreement on the modalities of the exercise of the call option with the SN Airholding shareholders by the end of this year, and to conclude the transaction at the beginning of 2017.

http://newsroom.lufthansagroup.com/en/n ... 3/231.html

According to Belgian media, SN is to stay SN. So LH will not integrate SN into EW and will retain an operation like Swiss/Austrian.

I think, SN is gonna stay SN for the pax, but it will be a part of EWE. So you'll be able to book the SN flights via the SN page and over the EW page...

I am no expert on this matter but I do live in Brussels and fly SN at least once a week, so this story interest me as a passenger. I am all for SN remaining a LH partner as this has obvious advantages for the frequent traveller, however, I am surprised to read that LH might want to integrate SN into Eurowings. I read today in some newspaper that there is talk about LH using SN to grow Eurowings by adding the SN planes to the Eurowings fleet. What I don't understand is, why would LH be interested in giving up a large (high paying) customer base in Brussels? As much as they would want to re-route pax through FRA, MUC, ZHR and VIE, they will never be the preferred option for many travellers who want the direct connections to and from BRU. That would only cause other players to step in and take over many routes. Secondly, the African flights are pretty successful, why would they give this up?

I think SN would be a better fit into LH (like LX) keeping its hub and name unless the plans are to give the whole thing the Eurowings, making Eurowings a European LCC from Brussels with a number of flights to Africa. I miss the logic.

Which also brings me to another question. Why then did LH leave LX as is? Why not integrate them too?

JBH wrote:

Which also brings me to another question. Why then did LH leave LX as is? Why not integrate them too?

Switzer.land is a stronger premium market than Belgium and the ZRH hub is better located for connecting traffic. However there is speculation that LX may turn over GVA to Eurowings in some form since LX is having serious difficulty competing against EasyJet in GVA due to their higher cost structure. EasyJet is by far the largest operator at GVA with over 40% of the traffic compared to about 15% for LX.

To some extent I expect SN has similar problems at BRU considering that it's served by both Ryanair and EasyJet.

Viscount724 wrote:

JBH wrote:

Which also brings me to another question. Why then did LH leave LX as is? Why not integrate them too?

Switzer.land is a stronger premium market than Belgium and the ZRH hub is better located for connecting traffic. However there is speculation that LX may turn over GVA to Eurowings in some form since LX is having serious difficulty competing against EasyJet in GVA due to their higher cost structure. EasyJet is by far the largest operator at GVA with over 40% of the traffic compared to about 15% for LX.

To some extent I expect SN has similar problems at BRU considering that it's served by both Ryanair and EasyJet.

Contrary to LX at GVA, SN still is and remains the dominant carrier at BRU. It delivers 32% of pax at BRU. And it's even increasing it's dominance since the March 22 attacks since while BRU keeps posting negative numbers, SN is showing growth.

Everybody knows ZRH is a bigger premium market than BRU, but BRU still warrants the present of a home carrier. Although SN struggled throughout most of its presence since the merger with TV, last year they proved their potential by posting a fair profit. And know LH wants to kill the airline just to serve the wet dreams of some CEO... If SN would have a real investor behind it the company has it's place in the aviation market. Its profit/revenue ratio is better then OS and on par with the LH Group. Heck, it's even better than KL's... So if SN is allowed to grow, it has a sustainable operation.

I hope at least one of the Belgian shareholders (BRU itself) will go to court over this deal unless LH gives solid guarantees to maintain SN. Knowing Belgian courts it takes many years to have a verdict in this case and who knows what might happen by then. SN might continue to grow or, best case scenario, LH gets tired of its toy and decides to sell their 45% shares to somebody else. And if this fails, I hope the unions will be a pain in LH's ass...

German aviation page was citing LH Group board member responsible for EW Karl Ulrich Gernandt saying that they do not know yet what parts of SN will be integrated in EW and that he expected changes not before 2018.

I would not be surprised if they will operate the long haul network and major business heavy routes under SN brand and operate only the low yield tourist routes under EW brand.

Link in German:

http://www.airliners.de/eurowings-air-b ... stum/39686

SN has the lowest operating cost per hour for the A32F of the whole LH Group, could anyone explain me what the benefit is to have SN aircraft replaced by a more expensive Eurowings?

According to Belgian media Lufthansa has announced to keep the Brussels Airlines brand and top level management.

http://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/luchtvaart/Merk_Brussels_Airlines_blijft_bestaan.9840242-3085.art?ckc=1&ts=1481282372
Only found a source in dutch unfortunately

An english source:
http://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/7128/brussels-airlines-purchase-by-lufthansa-scheduled-for-december-15th

Apparently they are contractually bound to keep the name for anothet two years. After that its up to LH if the brand remains.

It sounds like a real Godfather scenario. "Sure....I can loan you some cash....but in the future, I might ask from you a favor".

It think the most important part is that the management can stay in Brussels for now, and thus a large part of the staff & operations! If no jobs will be lost, no one will oppose I guess. Operations can be leaned (further) by growth and without job losses.

Brussels Airlines announced today that traffic is up by 9.8% for November. Remember that November '15 was affected by the attacks in Paris and the lockdown in Brussels (growth in November '15 was a couple of percentage points lower than the other months).

Brussels Airlines' shareholders are settling for symbolic gestures in their dispute over the terms of Lufthansa's takeover. I don't think they've obtained anything of significance.

• Lufthansa will pay €2.6 million for the 55% it doesn't own, aka peanuts
• CEO Bernard Gustin will stay on, until Lufthansa decides otherwise
• Board chairman Etienne Davignon stays on, probably until friend and Lufthansa board chairman Wolfgang Mayrhuber retires, or until Lufthansa CEO Carsten Spohr convinces his chairman to let go of Davignon (Mayrhuber and Spohr disagree over the future management structure of Brussels Airlines)
• Lufthansa will keep the brand Brussels Airlines, for two years

And... that's it. No guarantee as to employment, markets served, fleet size, low cost or not, etc... All the things the shareholders said they care about. Basically, the negotiations turned out to be much ado about nothing. The formal announcement is expected soon.

I am reading this correctly, right..? €2.6m for 55% of a company? The shareholders clearly have zero leverage if all of this is the case.

Sounds like Brussels Airlines is dead in two years. Sad.

atcsundevil wrote:

I am reading this correctly, right..? €2.6m for 55% of a company? The shareholders clearly have zero leverage if all of this is the case.

I think in the other thread about this subject, it said Brussels Airlines got a loan or some such thing, for 100million euros from LH, who took payment for half with a bunch of shares, so the 2.6 million is the buyout for the other half of the loan.

Basically, as far as I understand, Brussels pawned the airline, either can't or won't pay off the ticket, and LH gets the company for peanuts.

Lufthansa has already paid for the airline. Now they will take possession.

DDR wrote:

Sounds like Brussels Airlines is dead in two years. Sad.

I don't know very much about SN. Can someone give a recap? Why will they be dead in two years? Are they losing money? Or will LH take over their international routes from BRU?

JoeCanuck wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

I am reading this correctly, right..? €2.6m for 55% of a company? The shareholders clearly have zero leverage if all of this is the case.

I think in the other thread about this subject, it said Brussels Airlines got a loan or some such thing, for 100million euros from LH, who took payment for half with a bunch of shares, so the 2.6 million is the buyout for the other half of the loan.

Basically, as far as I understand, Brussels pawned the airline, either can't or won't pay off the ticket, and LH gets the company for peanuts.

Actually the details are in the start of this thread. The devious part is:

blueflyer wrote:

In the summer of 2015, the airline's managers proposed to pay off the rest of the debt, but the three Lufthansa representative on the board of directors convinced the rest of the board to oppose the move. If Brussels Airlines had paid off its debt, Lufthansa would have to spend between €130 and €150 million to acquire the shares it doesn't own.

Once this "convincing" was done, there was no longer a legal path to prevent LH from buying the rest of the company dirt cheap, and of course the 3 LH members were board members in good legal standing so...

AF022 wrote:

DDR wrote:

Sounds like Brussels Airlines is dead in two years. Sad.

I don't know very much about SN. Can someone give a recap? Why will they be dead in two years? Are they losing money? Or will LH take over their international routes from BRU?

My understanding (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that LH threw SN a lifeline when it was drowning, and SN is paying dearly for it. Part of the deal is that LH got to put its insiders onto the SN board and many feel this is/was an obvious conflict of interest but at the end of the day it was done legally (if not particularly morally) and so there was no requirement for LH to do anything for SN or its shareholders. As above, some 'negotiations' were done but the outcome is just a bit of face saving, since again LH did not have to do anything.,

And now LH owns SN and is only contractually obliged to keep SN as an independent brand for 2 years. The notion that means it dies in two years is speculative, but LH really doesn't need another brand in its network. There are many ways to finesse the issue of Belgian air rights, and one being floated is the usual "Germanwings operated by SN" badges on the side of the planes.

Revelation wrote:

Actually the details are in the start of this thread.

That was from the original thread. My response was to the OP of a new thread that was merged into this one after I posted, so I didn't have the full story. It makes more sense now though, thanks.

In my opinion the full aquisition of SN by LH group is a positive decision for the employees of SH. LH does not buy the company to shut it down. SN operation and most probably brand name are to stay like OS and LX have not disappeared, either. I see more opportunities than threats.

Revelation wrote:

And now LH owns SN and is only contractually obliged to keep SN as an independent brand for 2 years. The notion that means it dies in two years is speculative, but LH really doesn't need another brand in its network. There are many ways to finesse the issue of Belgian air rights, and one being floated is the usual "Germanwings operated by SN" badges on the side of the planes.

The proposed brand for Brussels Airlines is to integrate into Eurowings. The Germanwings brand is to disappear, in favour of Eurowings.

Cheers!

Contrary to what the press publishes, negociations between SN and LH or not completely over yet, there are still some points that need attention where both parties do not agree (yet). It can be a done deal soon if one of the parties give in, but it can also take a bit longer. Anyway, on Tuesday there is an SN Board meeting and they hope to announce something towards the end of the week (likely on Thursday) if all goes well.

Tomorrow at 10.30 CET, a press conference will be held.

Tomorrow it will be official: http://www.luchtzak.be/airlines/brussel ... s-not-yet/

And it seems that we will bury SN after 2 years since it remains the clear intention to integrate SN into EW despite SN outperforming EW. Guess that Star Alliance will loose a carrier and all SN traveller will eventually loose Star Alliance benefits...

#RIPBrusselsAirlines

Ahead of the press conference which should start in half an hour, French spoken national TV RTBF says that Lufthansa is going to invest 600 million EUR to renew Brussels Airlines aging fleet:

http://www.rtbf.be/info/economie/detail ... m=fb_share

Yet, still unconfirmed...

Live update will follow here: http://www.luchtzak.be/airlines/lufthan ... ence-live/

And presumably also via a livestream on SN's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/brusselsairlines/

bralo20 wrote:

Ahead of the press conference which should start in half an hour, French spoken national TV RTBF says that Lufthansa is going to invest 600 million EUR to renew Brussels Airlines aging fleet:

http://www.rtbf.be/info/economie/detail ... m=fb_share

Yet, still unconfirmed...

How much can you do with 600 million EUR to renew a fleet - I guess some leased A330s and A320s ?

Press release from LH. Seems like while they will be put under the Eurowings group, the brand Brussels Airlines will remain. So I assume it will still be part of star Alliance

http://newsroom.lufthansagroup.com/en/n ... 4/317.html
[quote]After the acquisition, Brussels Airlines will continue to operate its 23 long-haul destinations as well as 79 destinations within Europe under the umbrella of the Eurowings Group. The brand ‘Brussels Airlines’ will be complemented by the claim “Member of the Eurowings Group”. The common goal of Lufthansa and Brussels Airlines is to further strengthen the market position in the Belgian Airline market.[quote]

Someone83 wrote:

Press release from LH. Seems like while they will be put under the Eurowings group, the brand Brussels Airlines will remain. So I assume it will still be part of star Alliance

If SN will become part of Eurowings, can't see how SN can be part of Star Alliance when Eurowings isn't. However, in a couple of years the new Connecting Partner Model will mature and maybe Eurowings will be a connecting partner.

The brand ‘Brussels Airlines’ will be complemented by the claim “Member of the Eurowings Group”.

The hell does that mean? SN will be staffed with EW crew in a similar setup as LH Jump and Cityline?

In the future, Brussels Airlines will assume an important role in the further development of the Eurowings Group into a pan-European platform. In order to personally accompany the integration process, Carsten Spohr will join the Brussels Airlines Board as Co-Chairman, next to Viscount Etienne Davignon. Unchanged, three further Belgian members will belong to the Board. The Brussels Airlines Management Board remains unchanged under the leadership of CEO Bernard Gustin. In addition an Advisory Council will be established and will support the integration process.

LH press release

intotheair wrote:

The hell does that mean? SN will be staffed with EW crew in a similar setup as LH Jump and Cityline?

It means that all planes will get a decal with "member of the Eurowings group" on the fuselage.

EW will not open a base in Belgium, LH was quite clear about that, they have SN now to cover the Belgian market.


Listening to some news reports this noon things have become a little more clear (seems that the journalists asked their questions after the Q&A session).

It seems that SN is here to stay as a brand (even though it's very obvious Carsten Spohr dislikes the brand very much), if the SN performs like they do now then the SN brand will remain as a standalone brand under the Eurowings Group. A brand change can be made if they deem it's necessary but in that case it will be a Belgian brand and not the Eurowings brand, they seem to realise that the markets SN serves (more specific the home market and long haul markets) want to keep a Belgian brand and are very opposed to the Eurowings brand. Further they want to develop BRU even more as their Africa hub for the LH group so it's (very) likely we'll see additions to the Africa network in the next few years.


It also seems that LH wants to make EW more into an SN style airline following the SN model.

bralo20 wrote:

intotheair wrote:

The hell does that mean? SN will be staffed with EW crew in a similar setup as LH Jump and Cityline?

It means that all planes will get a decal with "member of the Eurowings group" on the fuselage.

EW will not open a base in Belgium, LH was quite clear about that, they have SN now to cover the Belgian market.


Listening to some news reports this noon things have become a little more clear (seems that the journalists asked their questions after the Q&A session).

It seems that SN is here to stay as a brand (even though it's very obvious Carsten Spohr dislikes the brand very much), if the SN performs like they do now then the SN brand will remain as a standalone brand under the Eurowings Group. A brand change can be made if they deem it's necessary but in that case it will be a Belgian brand and not the Eurowings brand, they seem to realise that the markets SN serves (more specific the home market and long haul markets) want to keep a Belgian brand and are very opposed to the Eurowings brand. Further they want to develop BRU even more as their Africa hub for the LH group so it's (very) likely we'll see additions to the Africa network in the next few years.


It also seems that LH wants to make EW more into an SN style airline following the SN model.

Ah, interesting. Thanks for that. That makes a little more sense. To me, from my peripheral view, I always thought it would have been a stupid idea for LH to wholesale replace SN with EW. Doesn't SN already have a pretty low cost structure as it is? My understanding is that management already trimmed a lot of the fat off SN, and that SN already has a pretty good, segmented product for the cost-conscious consumer and business travelers.

columba wrote:

How much can you do with 600 million EUR to renew a fleet - I guess some leased A330s and A320s ?

20-year commitment for 7 leased aircraft.

factsonly wrote:

In order to personally accompany the integration process, Carsten Spohr will join the Brussels Airlines Board as Co-Chairman, next to Viscount Etienne Davignon. Unchanged, three further Belgian members will belong to the Board. The Brussels Airlines Management Board remains unchanged under the leadership of CEO Bernard Gustin. In addition an Advisory Council will be established and will support the integration process.

Translation: Still fuming that he wasn't able to get his preferred management structure approved and eject Davignon from the board, Spohr decided to join him as his "equal." Reportedly, board decisions will require a qualified majority for two years. No decision will be approved without a majority vote from "legacy" board members even though they will be outnumbered by Lufthansa representatives from January 2017 on.

intotheair wrote:

To me, from my peripheral view, I always thought it would have been a stupid idea for LH to wholesale replace SN with EW. Doesn't SN already have a pretty low cost structure as it is? My understanding is that management already trimmed a lot of the fat off SN, and that SN already has a pretty good, segmented product for the cost-conscious consumer and business travelers.

bralo20 wrote:

Guess that Star Alliance will lose a carrier and all SN traveller will eventually lose Star Alliance benefits...

Carsten Spohr seems dedicated to do almost anything to make the new Eurowings, his pet project, succeeds at almost any cost, but I don't think he'd dare to go as far as taking Brussels Airlines, or whatever the new entity's name is, out of Star Alliance. The alliance and the A++ joint venture bring massive benefits by funneling United, Air Canada, and to a lesser extent ANA and Thai passengers onto Brussels Airlines' flights to Africa. Taking away Star Alliance will have an immediate and very detrimental effect on Brussels Airlines' African network. Even Spohr would find it difficult to explain to his board why he gutted one of the most profitable elements of their new acquisition.

Personally I would like to see Brussels Airlines rebranded under Eurowings banner.

Sorry to my Belgian friends, but Eurowings is a much better brand vehicle as LH Groups seeks to built its pan European strategy.

LH Group is getting too messy with too many brands. Another one that should be consolidated is SunExpress if they can reach agreement with Turkish Airlines.

mercure1 wrote:

Personally I would like to see Brussels Airlines rebranded under Eurowings banner.

Sorry to my Belgian friends, but Eurowings is a much better brand vehicle as LH Groups seeks to built its pan European strategy.

LH Group is getting too messy with too many brands. Another one that should be consolidated is SunExpress if they can reach agreement with Turkish Airlines.

Different markets requiring different brands, I am not saying that it is okay like it is now, but I am quite sure that SN will not disappear even if some flights might be operated isntead of SN branded aircraft by EW aircraft in the future. LH was quite succesful with LX and OS and I think they will apply a similar strategy with SN and use EW brand wherever necessary.

I do not think that the Eurowings brand would help the stiuation one bit in Belgium. Why not change Swiss or OS to Eurowings?

LH soon needs to pay attention to not get confused with its own brands.