Originally Posted by
EGAC is Better
LCC’s are far more susceptible to taking incentives to operate from sub-par locations than full service carriers who offer more than one class LCC service.
LHR is not a LCC airport, BFS is. Until BFS is not a dump I find it very hard to see why any non-LCC would put their higher fare paying passengers through the carnage. Its a recipe for complaints.
BFS needs new infrastructure in the flavour of proper premium ground services eg. consistent priority security, a decent lounge (Causeway is terrible and too busy at peak times) and then the part they can’t buy easily - efficient transport links to the countries biggest population centres.
IMO in comparison to somewhere like LHR, BFS is a truly awful place to travel through.
BFS is a bit tired after being denied expenditure while it was up for sale - classic behaviour by seller. It is not, in my experience, "carnage" or a dump. Lo-cos will pay only the minimum so no airbridges or fancy lounges. The market has decided that people will stand in the rain, put up with minimal facilities and pay outrageous amounts for parking to get a cheap flight. At the times I use BFS (0800 arrival and 2100 departure) it works very well. Security is like anywhere else (and miles better than BRS was a couple of years ago when it had huge delays). The rest is just a big shed with food and drink outlets. A bit like Waterloo or Paddington stations which are nothing special either.
It could definitely do with a spuce up but with such low landing fees as demanded by locos there is limited budget for any massive development. That is the nature of 21st Century flying. If you gave people the choice of fewer flights, higher fares and a nicer terminal they would tell you where to go.
If you want a shiny status symbol, the government or somebody else needs to pay for it, but it's not a dump and not carnage. running it down doesn't help, how about some creative solutions to making improvements without simply demanding other people spend money?