[QUOTE=Eejit;3033909]
'They' are Loganair/BA, not HIAL. The runway was extended with the view to attracting future larger aircraft, and increased payloads on the existing users. That Loganair decided to replace a 68 seat aircraft with a 34 seat one is their business decision, not the airport's.
QUOTE]
Yes, it may well have been Loganair/BA who replaced the ATP with the 340 but LSI is hardly buzzing with a multitude of scheduled service operators for HIAL to accomodate. Ever since BEA days, LSI has only had one scheduled airline (ignoring AA's 146 for now and a short competion from Business Air) - you'd really think that HIAL and Loganair/BA would work together on providing the service and would know what each other are doing
My worry is that the £10 million investment, and HIAL's apparent U Turn now to negotiate better rates for the offshore traffic, may switch the SCS service back to LSI and force the closure of SCS. I think the £10 million investment was all about attracting back the SCS service to LSI.