I normally stay out of these kind of debates due to the utter b*ll*cks that comes from some peoples keyboards. However I want to make few points
A few years ago 10 Airbus, a type already operated by BA were introduced into BAR over 14 months with a year and a half planning. Certainly the best way to do it if you have a choice however BACX didn't have the luxury and introduced a brand new fleet of 16 RJ in six months with six months planning before-hand. At the same time it was commercially imperative to go into LCY. That too was accomplished. A fantastic achievement.
BACX have had 4 RJ tailscrapes during introduction. Only two at LCY. Pilots from each group were involved. Some were nothing more than paint abrasions and appear to have happened during take-off rather than landing. The most severe external damage involved part of the sacrificial protection strip being removed. ie it did its job. CFE had 4 tailscrapes during introduction of the type into CFE. Other airlines have similarly suffered in the past with the type.
Brymon made all its profit from 2 areas. The GLA/EDI routes from BRS and the wet-leased Embraer operation for BAR in BHX. The GLA/EDIs were hugely affected by GO competing on the routes from 2000 (just before BACX was formed) and the wet-lease work meant Brymon got paid for the work whether there were passengers on the aircraft or not. Take those crutches away and Brymon would have been bankrupt. Arguably would be now if it hadn't been absorbed by BACX.
BRAL made a huge part of any profit it had from the wet-lease operation it conducted for BAR in MAN. It had other profitable routes but it also flew a load of really crappy routes because it had committed itself to a collection of turbo-prop aircraft at quite staggeringly high lease rates. Move on a few years, with the extra competition around and those routes with those aircraft are unprofitable. Should BACX fly routes when they lose money ? - No. Nothing to do with poor revenue management just high lease costs vs. too much capacity and low fares in the market place. If BAR had taken the wet-lease flying away from BRAL and not merged it into BACX my guess is that it would have found it difficult to stay in business.
BACX is in a market where nobody is making money in the 50 - 100 seat section. The ex-employees of BRAL/Manx/Brymon should thank their lucky stars that their ex-Companies are now supported by the bank balance of BA. I'm sure it won't go on forever. BA need to see BACX make a profit. I'm sure that the closures that have been announced so far are intended to stem the losses. I hope it works. BACX is a lot better placed to survive than many of its competitors.