Good points guys.
I would also point out that some of the "new" routes have actually been served from ABZ in the dim & distant past...eg. CPH.
Have the likes of X9 & T3 been given any help from the BAA fund to start SVG, or because it was already an existing destination for ABZ, not? Is the BAA fund only for unserved routes that are to start up (as it should be imo)? There's certainly a glut of Norway, with maybe more on the horizon.
It's not the first time BAA charges at ABZ have been raised. FR have cited them as a reason that they won't expand out of ABZ (whether there is sufficient demand for several 189-seater routes is another matter). T3 have also said that charges are expensive at ABZ, & they are there "despite" them, Class G airspace n' all!
Having followed the fortunes at Dyce for many years, there is no doubt in my mind BAA Aberdeen are no longer to the benefit of ABZ & that current growth is "in spite of" rather than "because of" them. OK there are more scheduled routes now than at any time in its history, but I don't think that's thanks to BAA.
As was pointed out, over the years as many routes at ABZ have been lost as there have been gained. I think charges impacting on yields were the death-knell for at least some of them.
Maybe KB reads this forum...maybe someone at BAA can come on here & defend their record at ABZ! Maybe I'll win the lottery...
BMI R:
Are they still focusing efforts on the Embraer, or are they contemplating an equipment change? Maybe they are finding out that out of ABZ, their routes are not suited to the jet, witness AMS & BRU axed. I recall T3 saying that, after their experiment using the type, that it was not suited to their ops & that a turboprop was more efficient. Maybe bmi R will have to look to do something similar to produce better yields out of ABZ? Does using the Embraer out of here work for the airline?