I might be a little late coming to this conclusion, but I believe I have worked out what Flybe's policy is when it comes to its route network.
No.1 priority is clearly using slots they have at LHR. No.2 priority is trying to sort out where they have the best possible chance of turning a profit on a route from BHD. So, having established that BHD-IOM wasn't a goer they canned that, and looked for another city they could reasonably expect a return on. That latest wheeze is BHD-NCL where they hope to turn an operating profit and also use the LHR slots that have been vacated by the cancellation of IOM-LHR. The only possible explanation of how that kind of a policy is supposed to be viable is that they are being paid a king's ransom to operate into LHR, as others have been claiming for some time now.
Following their apparent strategy one wonders why they didn't consider adding extra rotations on BHD-EMA and then running EMA-LHR-EMA, surely a better prospect that rocking up on yet another new route for them in BHD-NCL. If they didn't fancy that idea, then perhaps fitting BHX-LHR-BHX into the existing BHX-BHD operation might sound better.
Perhaps I am being a tad cynical, but its hard not to be the way things are going. Has Liz Truss landed the Route Development Director post?
