At what stage do the airports/regional governments/local councils decide that the amount in subsidies is outweighed by the cost conscious pax NOT contributing to the local economy in the way that was originally expected?
I'm guessing it all depends on the airline's demographics. A charter airline usually attracts passengers willing to spend money in the airports while low cost is often perceived to attract more stringent passengers.
Having said this, Dublin is a massive destination for stag, hen and long weekends and Ryanair has played a big part in that. The Euro hasn't in recent times however.
Before I get jumped on by the regulars ,it is a genuine query that has been running through my mind watching the withdrawal of (seemingly good loads out of BHD)
Ryanair operates a low cost base (as in their costs are low, not...well you know what I mean) and that can only happen when they take advantage of economies of scale. Ryanair believed that the airport was to extend the runway and make other provisions meaning the flights could operate at maximum capacity (189 seats) and reach continental destinations.
There are only so many destinations that can be served within a far reduced range on an aircraft not able to use PAX capacity to it's limit.
So even if they sold 162 seats (I think that was the maximum capacity?) then the aircraft is still only flying a 86% of it's full potential. That would be fine over short distances to airports such as LPL and PIK but their costs are unit costs are higher because only one aircraft is paying for all the base costs as opposed to say 5-6 aircraft which I believe they would be up to by now had their plans come to fruition.
Hope this helps!
