Originally Posted by BusinessTraveller.com
When BA Connect (see Online news January 11 and February 3) was launched, travellers reasonably expected they might have access to the sort of budget fares which Go (a low-cost carrier founded by BA) offered in its heyday.
Again I find myself asking the question "Why?" What on earth gave anyone the idea that fares would be dramatically cut?
To my cynical mind, when a journo writes "travellers reasonably expected ..." what they really mean is "
I thought that ..."
But then you only have to read to the end of the article to see what tosh is being written:-
Originally Posted by BusinessTraveller.com
One of the flaws in BA Connect's business model is that it's using small 49-seater planes on some routes (this includes Bristol-Paris) to offer a more frequent schedule. On some others (like the once-weekly Birmingham-Nice route) flights operate infrequently.
That means it can't offer sufficient low-cost seats to meet demand, and once these are sold the price rockets. It means that passengers must book weeks or months ahead to get the best prices and this can be impractical for business travellers.
Rival carriers tend to operate larger 150 seater planes so they have more cheap seats. In addition the price tiers rise more gradually.
BA Connect will have to sort out its pricing on a lucrative route like Bristol-Paris otherwise budget rivals (Flybe and Easyjet already operate a number of routes from Bristol) will be tempted to step in and compete.
Reading that, anyone would have thought that it's BA Connect's duty to provide low-fare seats to those (including business travellers) who would prefer to pay low fares for them, rather than to extract the maximum from each passenger that they're actually prepared to pay (or, heaven forbid, to make a profit).
And if there was enough demand in Bristol to support 150-seat aircraft to Paris, why aren't EZY and the others there already? I'll bet he never thought about that.