Originally Posted by
LTNman
Was that not the roll for Stobart Air?
Exactly what I would have thought as well.
In the same way that an easyJet base at SEN to some extent reduces the attractiveness of SEN to similar operators then the Stobart Air base does likewise to operators of 50-70 seat aircraft.
Without the Stobart Air operation SEN might be attractive to VLM for example to operate the type of routes that
tophat27dt suggests but why in that case does Stobart Air not operate such additional routes themselves? Instead they reduce their SEN capacity by 50% at a time when SEN itself is seeing a decline in pax numbers. There are only two rational explanations for that as far as I can see:
1) They don't believe that there are any additional viable routes from SEN for their size of aircraft.
2) They are not prepared to make the operational capacity available to operate any additional routes which they may identify as viable.
In 2014 Stobart Air had a substantial daily (in most cases) SEN operation with 3 x DUB, 2 x RNS, 2 x ANR, 1 x GRQ, 1 x CFR, 1 x FMO and 1 x MST. That comprised a three aircraft operation which has dwindled to the present one aircraft. So, is it a case that SEN just cannot support a substantial short-haul operation or is it that Stobart are simply the wrong people to be doing it? My judgement is that it is the latter. One illustration (to my mind anyway) of muddled thinking is that they replace the AT75 with an AT43 at the start of this winter thus providing capacity more in line with demand at lower operational cost. Then they do a
volte face in December and put the AT75 back on the route permanently if the booking web site seat plan is anything to go by.
On the subject of the ex-ATC Lasham hangar I'm sure they are working hard to find a new tenant and I wouldn't be surprised to see that bearing fruit in the not too distant future.