Sounds like an expensive training scheme

racedo

The world is not ready to be exposed to four MOL wannabes. There are so many obvious reasons as to why Ryanair appear to be moving in their direction. No, I'm not going to try and explain any of them as of one doesn't see them it's fruitless even trying to preach to the deal dumb and blind.

It is of course Ryanair & not Ryan Air which is an airline entity in the USA.

thanks, duly amended.

racedo

The biggest influence on any business is its senior management. A cohort trained in Group corporate policy and culture will be invaluable to take the business forward, and as the company grows, more will be needed.

SWBKCB

Really

Have you ever looked at a company who have NOT trained their senior management and brought in outsiders when a larger than life CEO retires.

If you think training senior management is expensive, have a look at all the airlines around who couldn't be bothered and just parachuted someone in with zero knowledge of the industy.

LGS6753

Yes all true but the CEO is hired by the Board and often an external hire is preferred. Strong CEOs like MOL tend not to have strong competitors for their own jobs on their teams. Some businesses do, but many prefer a new era to begin with a new broom.
Having no aviation experience is seen as bonus, a clear eyed leader is often preferred to one who gets aroused at sales presentations by Airbus and Boeing. Aviation makes romantic fools of many, that's exactly why it's really hard to make money. MOL had no aviation experience when he joined Ryanair, it was that cold headed logic that made him such a succesful challenger. Lord King and Colin Marshall were not from the industry either, nor was Carolyn McCall at easyJet who succesfully changed the brand perception for the better.

LGS6753

In full agreement, Jim Collins did a good selection of books on this many years ago, appointing big name CEO into existing successful business was not a recipe for long term success. Amazing that some companies over generations seem to have got it right again and again.

Getting back to the original point (post #130), I take the various points about splitting the organisations down into seperate units but most of that could be done within a common corporate identity. The question why re-brand? You have one of the most reconisable brands on the continent and you look to dilute it with new ones.

Or will just one or two Buzz/Malta Air a/c be painted up for appearances sake and nothing else will change brand wise?

"You have one of the most recognisable brands on the continent."
Maybe that's just it! Too recognisable. New brands, new customers, new reputation (but underneath the same airline).

A brand is ultimately a promise. It says "if you buy something from this brand, you will get services X, Y and Z"
There will need to be clear differentiation of product if the different brands are going to have any value. You can see an example of this in the large hotel chains - some of them will have 10+ different brands, all at different budgets but each deliver a different product from the cheep'n'cheerful to the ultra-luxurious. An example is Accor which ranges from their Raffles brand (yes, the Singapore hotel is part of the chain) down to the Ibis Budget chain

If you take a bad product and give it a new brand, it works for a while and then eventually customers realise that it's still the same old product

I suspect this is the likely outcome.

To the point about "new customers", I think what you mean is taking market share from the easyJets of the world? Those who fly LCC but not ULCC? easyJet did that with a single brand repositioning under Carolyn McCall, they kept the business unified. Ryanair as a ULCC would in effect end up competing with Malta Air on some routes if the group wants a low cost and an ultra low cost AOC.

Brand used on respect to RyanAir and worth has to be a joke. The slf isnt in the slightest concerned about brand image, it's all about where they are going and the cost. You have a flight from say Berlin to London, and you have three fare prices, Ryanair are cheapest, guess who's plane fills up?

Give us a break and go peddle brand awareness elsewhere, it's certainly doesn't cut any mustard when Ryanair are mentioned.

I'm not sure that's quite true. Ryanair made quite a big thing about 'growing up' a few years back and specifically targeting business travellers. If their expansion slows and the airline reaches maturity they will need to attract people by differing means other than cheap tickets. It's also a bit contradictory to say they don't care about branding whilst they're trying to launch three new brands. If branding wasn't important then they would just keep the Ryanair logo and name on the side.

Well of course I don't mean to infer that they don't care about brand, that would be foolish. The point I wanted to air was that splitting up their airline was not brand awareness intent dependent along with debunking the idea that it was intended to train management in order to have extra replacement potentials for MOL, when he eventually goes. With regards supporting a brand awareness in order to attract business travel, it's not likely that an introduction of business class separation is going to happen. Again if the fare is lowest and the route fits the bill then the seats will fill. I don't follow Ryanair generally but in my mind I have them operating at very high
load factors. I may be mistaken in that assumption and stand to be corrected. The general talk in my collection of colleagues is whilst there is no some hostility towards them there are underlying signs of grudgingly admiration, may be a little too strong in my mind, at their operating and business models. Not that they are an attractive employer, but at least they fulfil a place in the aviation business, like them or not. Plenty of pilots are flying due to their presence.

Not disputing any of that, 96% load factor in 2019. They do what they do very well. People aren't attacking Ryanair, (and I agree with you regarding them being an unattractive employer - their new Ts & Cs for cadets are outrageous but that's another debate!) it's just people trying to work out the need for the separate branding and identities. The airline industry is littered with a lot of brands within a brand not working out particularly well.

Ouch(!)
Ryanair got where they are through controlversial headlines driving brand recognition. They're absolutely many people's first port of call and brand identity is a huge part of that. It may be marmite but you know what you get, it's a ULCC and a known quantity. It's not always booked on price as many second home owners will testify to.

That wasn't what was said, easyJet changed the brand perception from Stelio's tacky original to something that many (most?) business travellers would have no issue booking as the service and frequency was decent. Branding is hugely important and it's apparent very quickly when it doesn't work. BA's World Tales being the classic example.

rotorwills;

Is there a purpose to your personal attacks ?

davidjohnson6

A brand in Marketing speak is something that has value to what the customer is requiring.

In Finance terms a brand is something that has value, so bundled up together it could be sold.

A business need to be either number 1 or 2 in their market or they are just a product. Definition of what market is, remains the key.

The original premise for the multi-brand approach was IAG. MOL liked the way the individual airlines within the group were allowed to compete against each other for resources, which he saw as a way of possibly reducing cost.