Route exceeds expectations and is "solid" yet returns hesitantly with less than half frequency- yeah I see the logic. Must have been a real money spinner.
What drivel! If there was no prospect of operating the route at a decent profit, or if other destinations offered a better prospect, then Sterling would have looked elsewhere. A summer only frequency is better than nothing at all, and looking at the CAA route stats for EDI-CPH the route saw some very healthy growth in 2006.
It's great to see Sterling keeping their faith in the Scottish market.
"Healthy growth" in passenger numbers perhaps ( I dont see the CAA data breaking down the passengers numbers between operators) - but that obviously doesnt translate into profits- given the significant frequency cut. Perhaps theyre doing it all wrong- you should get on to them.
Overheard a conversation while I was sitting in EDI departures. Now don't shoot the messenger. bmibaby are to open a base in EDI from the start of the winter. Introduction of 2 aircraft initially with an additional 2 for 2008.
With the introduction of a nightstopper from September it seems feasible. They only thing which makes it less believable is where would the aircraft come from?
>How do people think this will affect passenger/traffic levels?
Pax figures can only get better given airlines will realise that EDI's surface convenience/accessibility will become even more attractive than it is now.
I'm all for public transport, but EDI already has a modal split of 22%+ for buses - more, for example, than BHX, which has its own dedicated railway station.
£610m can't possibly be good value for money. How many passengers will shift because of this?
Let's say that 5% of 10m = 500,000 per year. Or 5m over 10 years? Subsidy of £100+ per passenger?
And where's the money coming from? Muggins ENGLISH tax payer no doubt? Did WE get a vote on this?
Then:
"The Greens also said they were unconvinced that the rail line, which will cost three times what it is expected to cost to build a similar link to Glasgow Airport, was value for money. "
Since when have the Greens cared about value for money? If they are opposing a rail project, there must be something seriously wrong with it - even if it is going to an airport.
And how can a link from Paisley to GLA (about a mile?) cost £200m! All of this infrastructure makes sense in principle, but it has to make financial sense.
Ofcourse the escalating costs of holding the Olympic games in London, England which runs to Billions will nt be funded by the Scottish tax payers - naturally they had a vote on this???
Linear Mode
