Originally Posted by
Reversethrustset
Possibly with BHD it is a case of it's not profitable as an ejet operation, if and when it swaps back to a Q400 it may well be but I know the route was losing money as an ejet route.
Using the 180,000 pax per year per airframe figure you quote, if you are running for arguments sake a 180 seat aircraft then that aircraft would only run 3 x per week at those loads to carry those passengers per year. Is that enough to attract carriers? I don't know because clearly that's 10-15 routes in total. Other airlines will look at route specific figures rather than a collective so that'll bring the figures per route crashing down which doesn't make a route viable for such a large aircraft, however, they may cherry pick the best ones and run them a couple of times per week, we can only hope.
I think it would depend on the airline as well. An airline like Ryanair or Easyjet would have a much bigger pull than Flybe so could get much bigger numbers.
The problem I see now is that Flybe will revert back to the props which for many will put them off flying with Flybe due to many peoples perception of props especially with the option of Easyjet over the bridge. That's assuming Flybe don't drop CWL altogether and I'm actually wondering if that might be the better option in the long run. It may be better for both parties if Flybe leaves altogether as I also think any trust between the two parties especially from the airport will be broken. Yes it's business but you still need some sort of trust between parties to work together effectively.