Guv
What Babs says about the reason for pulling out of the EDI and GLA to DUB route and the actual reason are two different things.
Note the following and think before you reply:
GO knew the costs before they started operating the routes. If the costs have changed since setting up the routes that is bad planning on their part. Fix you costs to affset the risks!
GO would have done their projections on load factor and yield before starting the route. If these have not been achieved that is bad forecasting, or see next paragraph.
FR moved in to counter GO to DUB with agressive frequecy and especially price.
GO could have implemented EMA in different without sacrificing the Dublin roues if they were living up to expectations.
Possible Conclusions
GO cocked up their forecasts/costs.
FR have diluted the yield/load factor making the roues unprofitable. Would Babs ever admit to being squeezed off the route by Ryanair.
Remember, the problems with EI should have improved the earnings potential as they have trimmed their schedule in the past months.
You cannot blame the BAA costs for pulling off the route. GO especially know the BAA cost structure as they operate from both EDI and GLA to STN, BRS and BFS already and from STN to all over the place.
I would not argue that BAA costs may be the reason for setting up at EMA, but to blame this for the DUB withdrawal is expedient and cannot be true.
Perhaps your name should be Naive Robertson
Hugo