You can see why EI want to move when more than twice as many pax fly to LHR
from BHD than BFS. If they land up with a 50/50 share of the pax with BA as code
share partner even at just £1 per seat profit that would be £10k extra a month,
that would surely more than amply cover some losses on start up domestic
routes
mart901, with respect, it is a nonsense to suggest that its because twice as many pax fly BHD LHR than BFS. Firstly that because there is twice as many flights. Increase BFS to 6 a day and then we could see a direct proper comparison.
Take last July EI carried almost as many pax on BFS LHR as BD did on BHD LHR... EI's best month on the route.
And in addition, we could make the same inference on most of EZYs routes, eg GLA EDI LGW, that 'clear case why it would be better to operate BFS EDI rather than BHD EDI as twice as many use it', again that would be nonsence.
I feel that EI operating LGW or MAN with 319, the losses would be monumental. It would take far to long to establised and a £1 extra profit per seat likely wouldnt go too far. Losses on an underperforming route can be huge. Take the fuel and staff costs alone. Have memories of MXP BFS coming back with less than 10 passenger. Lets try to understand how much that would have costed and the few pax prob got the lowest fares.
EI-BUD