Originally Posted by
Cyrano
I think you're absolutely right. Yes, the capital costs will be lower, but that applied to flybmi too and wasn't enough to save them. Profitable niches for small regional jets are becoming rarer and rarer, and they seem only to survive where there is a relatively "protected" market that has substantial high-yield (business) traffic and doesn't face too much LCC competition.
From what I gather, flybmi played a slightly different card as they put their money on fewer, but higher yielding passengers based on operations spread out across half of Europe. Loganair apparently is (except for some slam dunk profitable ex flybmi routes) after more passengers at a lower yield, focused on bases in Scotland and nearby airports. I am not convinced that it will work, but is a different approach of using Embraers 145 (I never really understood why they took on Embraer 135s, though).
If fares are alright I think they will do fine out of GLA. Nothing replaced the STN FR service when it went. ABZ lost LGW on EZY but has since gained Flybe LHR and Eastern LCY have they not? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd be a bit more concerned about the viability of that route even if it's cheaper fares and different clientele.
As Loganair only needs to fill a 49 seater, it must only capture a small portion of the former LGW-ABZ passengers to add to SEN's local catchment area and those who see SEN-ABZ as a quicker and cheaper alternative to the recently downgraded LCY-ABZ route that now stops at NCL. Plus there could be some folks using shortish connections from London via ABZ to Kirkwall and Sumburgh. It will be very difficult, but maybe it will work out ok