Incidentally, I note the outgoing CEO’s comments about the FRA route (your favourite?) in the minutes of the airport consultative committee meeting that took place towards the end of October last when he said the route was doing ‘very well’. If true it could mean those high prices sometimes thrown up in the LH booking engine were actually paid by some people, because the load factors didn’t appear to be earth-shattering through the summer, although they might have been more than acceptable for a new route I suppose.
It's certainly a very useful route for me, being both reliable (hello KLM, are you listening???) and connects into a good range of *A carriers at a decent hub. I still fly West with CO though.
I think the strategy with the FRA route seems be to hang-onto margins, as generating volume is probably pretty hard in the current circumstances. If that's the case, it's a sound strategy to protect the long-term viability of the route. Load factors seem to be in the 50% mark, which doesn't lend itself to the low-fare high volume model. Availability of E, T, L fares (the lowest / promotional fares) is being very restricted, which does mean that the business traveller is unlikely to pay the lowest advertised prices. That said, I'm still comfortable justifying the price differential over the hassle of London.
Some of the prices originally in the engines were complete mistakes, with only the base IATA YY-type fares loaded. That shouldn't be happening now. I find that the fares to/from BRS are generally identical for those to/from BHX (for the same fare classes - comments about class availabilities notwithstanding).
If the route can get to / be / remain profitable in the current environment, then it will be great, and hopefully allow volumes to grow and fares to drop in the future. (At least LH's dreaded, and bordering on punitive, YQ surcharges might lighten up a bit!).