From
Aviation's week article:
Opinion: Irish Airline Revises Master Plan
In a dramatic about-face, Ryanair will establish a “base” at Brussels-Zaventem airport in February. This is a sharp departure from the low-cost carrier's usual strategy to only serve secondary airports
...
For years, the airline's CEO, Michael O'Leary, has decried certain aspects of European hubs and major provincial airports. He criticizes their excessive fees and time-consuming, lengthy taxiway runs that make quick ground turnarounds difficult or fiscally undesirable. Ryanair's Boeing 737-800s usually remain no longer than 25 min. at the gate in order to log higher daily use, a goal achievable by serving secondary airports, avoiding the busy ones. In addition, continental Europe's secondary airports are largely under-utilized and local authorities are usually willing to absorb some of a newcomer's airport charges in order to attract more traffic.
...
Can Ryanair implement a genuine strategic reorientation by adapting its economic model to new realities or by seizing short-term opportunities? Serving Zaventem and Fiumicino involves an all-new marketing strategy and an acceptance of major airports' higher costs. But the move could help the airline garner a bigger share in the business travel market, with the benefit of higher yields. Indeed, the Belgo-Italian laboratory could forge the Ryanair of the future.
Sincerely, I'm not sure if that's the way to go. An opportunity? Certainly yes, it's something worth trying. How many risks involved? Quite a few, I guess. Was the old strategy wrong? Not necessarily. Ryanair has been cherished in many places as very valued customer, maybe the only opportunity for numerous small airports to develop or even to keep running at all. For these big ones, Ryanair is sometimes an intruder, an unwanted nuisance. A couple of weeks I read the interview with Zaventem Airport managing director, less than content and somewhat offended by Ryanair's decision to "invade" the place. A totally different approach.
That's a big decision, probably triggered by the slight decrease in pax numbers and profitability. Was it necessary? The most important change needed to influence these numbers is the change of carrier's attitude towards passengers. Trying to address this issue right now, very awkwardly so far. An other issue is an urgent need for the diversification of the offer for small airports. After years of flying from XXX to, say, STN and Hahn, the local customers became bored with the offer, they want more comprehensive offer, more destinations, why not things like... connecting flights? If MOL wanted something revolutionary, maybe he needed something else, not necessarily bigger airports.
Fine, now the machinery became activated, let´s wait for the results.
_____
Concerning Morocco. Don't know pee's sources, what I found in the news is the article in French:
Nouvelle taxe aérienne: Ryanair supprime une trentaine ligne entre le Maroc et l’Europe.