What a terrible shame.

On one hand, you have trip reports telling of the exemplary service on board (particularly in the business). On the other, you get the impression that there are some big holes when it comes to contingency.

This seems to be symptomatic of BD's general problem (as I see it) at the moment: it doesn't appear to know where it's headed. Is it competing with LCCs or FSCs? It can offer a leisure service, sure, but does it have the backup to do business services? Sure, domestically and DUB/CDG/AMS/BRU - but how many airlines and rail services are already offering those? Why does it choose Knock and Groningen for regional routes?

The same applies to the transatlantic services. YYZ, ORD, IAD - big *A hubs, makes sense. LAS and the Carribean? Come on, BD can do better than charter services. Well, if the connections in MAN were better. And they had the contingency. Yup, I'm sure they'd love to operate out of LHR. But if they're stuck with MAN, they need to make the most of it.

The term 'schizophrenic route policy' has been used here before.

It's a shame. I've been nothing but impressed by BD since I switched, and seeing as the bulk of my travel is LHR-AMS/CDG, the routes suit me fine (and *A covers the LHR-VIE and indirect LHR to Central Europe trips I do quite often too). I really hope they get this sorted out. I would not like to see this airline go down the pan.