Paxboy IIRC it was her predecessor who uttered the phrase "to do nothing is not an option" when the scheme was first announced. I still remain puzzled though as to how other airports with more challenging surroundings will create RESAs - JER and LCY come immediately to mind.
lfc84 That's an interesting link. It is the first time I have seen a firm statement that the runway was extended. Albeit with the use of starter strips. Also interesting is the comment that the new structure now meets the full recommendations of CAP168 ch3 p5 "which sets out the recommended dimensions..". My italics, but note "recommended" not "mandatory".
So Easyjet are now going to help themselves to more of the low hanging fruit. Let's hope Tonyq's point that the additional seat capacity at about the same as the now lost LCY traffic means that FlyBe's loads (and importantly yield) are not adversely hit, and that they maintain frequency. However I could see LTN loads suffering - much of that traffic is no doubt price sensitive.
Cloud1 I think the "willy nilly" cancelation comment by S1K may have been inspired by the removal of some services from the timetable beyond the usual February/early March period. For example the 0950 Tuesday and 1355 Wednesday LGW rotations have been dropped til 1 May. For those of us who travel often it is frustrating to plan a trip and then find that the flight you want to take isn't running because there's not an "r" in the month or something. And of course the reduction in frequency means fuller planes, which the booking system translates into higher fares which the public and Tinwald rightly criticise.
Punctuality remains most important. Comment has been made before concerning the removal of one airframe from the island and the impact that this will have on punctuality. And specifically by serving BHX by a BHX based aircraft will cause problems. Yesterday the BHX morning service was 3 hours late presumably due to a tech aircraft at BHX. That's on a Monday when your business travellers are starting their week, and they won't be happy having to rearrange their schedules or incurring extra costs because of failure to catch onward flights. Under the old regime there was a gap in the schedule of the Island based airframes to deal with such a problem. Oh and the early morning inbound LGW was nearly 4 hours late. There just doesn't seem to be any slack in the daily flying programme or sufficient standby aircraft to cope with the (inevitable) tech Q400.
I said in an earlier post that I don't particularly like FlyBe. That is not to say I don't like their people - without exception so far I have found those who present the public face of FlyBe to be pleasant and good ambassadors for the organisation. But I do find some of FlyBe's business practices annoying - tinkering with the schedules, constructing the charging system to extract the maximum amount of dosh from the less worldly wise, for example. I'm sorry if that upsets the guys and gals working hard to make FlyBe a success. But management can't operate what you refer to a "lifeline" only when it suits them to do so and then expect praise.