Originally Posted by
Rivet Joint
Some facts to clear up some confusion:
- A direct quote from the airport was that it cannot be profitable with the likes of Loganair serving regional routes. So it needs the scale of a low cost operator as a regional the size of Flybe is unlikely ever to happen again. So let’s all stop caring about bloody Loganair! They have been making hay whilst the sun-shined but are of no use to a profitable airport that want thousands using their shops, parking and facilities rather than a hundred or so. Please let this sink in as it’s direct from the airport and puts any debate of a low cost operator vs a regional to bed. It’s a low cost operator or nothing in today’s world.
- Frequency and the ability to do a day trip is a nice to have but I bet you can fly Easy to Glasgow, get a hotel for the night and a meal and still have paid less than a day return on Logan. Less frequency is only going to be an issue for a very small amount of people.
- It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Emerald as things stand are doing very well and are seeing growth. Having the Aer Lingus code share and brand gives them an edge. It’s the same reason why Easy could probably do AMS and KLM still stay with its world connections.
- The current rumours are that more routes will be added but from aircraft based elsewhere. Other bases have grown this way. You can still have a crew base in SOU but no aircraft based.
-Easy are now starting to rapidly add new aircraft so will now have capacity for growth.
emerald lost 21 million euros last year. They are not ‘doing very well’, and wont be doing it much longer at that rate