ajamieson

The occasional service is to become a daily rotation from 19 May with prices from £71/£138 (incl) on an Embraer, late morning southbound, early afternoon northbound.

More here.

woodie

Helped in part by Scotish Executive Funding!

Well done to Bmi but is this a way thsat tax payers money should be used? In the light of low cost carriers developing new routes such as Ryanair on Stansted - Newquay shouldn't the market decide the viability or otherwise of a direct air service?

My company is currently affected by a Foreign Organisation receiving the same type of funding from the executive. This is simply allowing them to dump capacity in the market place at commercially suicidal prices.

Wingnut

Taking this way off topic, there is a sound argument for subsidising transport where it is commercially unviable (think rural buses).

Whether this route fits that criteria or not I have no idea, and it sounds like this is certainly not an argument that applies to your company's competitor. But that doesn't mean that the argument never applies!

ajamieson

Bit more complex than it seems, this one.

Woodie is right to question the need for such a route to be subsidised. If it were a lifeline link such as GLA-BRR (Glasgow to Barra) or a similar Highlands/Islands route then it would be protected by a Public Service Order which guarantees the operator a minimum income and safeguards the service. EDI-JER hardly falls into the category. The cash comes from a £6 million Interim Route Development Fund set up by the Scottish Executive to introduce direct connections from Scottish airports to business or tourism destinations. There has been huge political pressure from the business community (and Scottish Enterprise) and the tourism industry north of the border which is increasingly reliant on air connections for its growth and survival. This £6 million will be spread across a number of new routes and operators so you can guess for yourself that the actual amount being given to BD for EDI-JER is probably quite small - just enough to promote the service and to cover lead-in costs. The funding is also a one-off investment so whether BD sticks around on the route if the yields are crap and the cash runs out is another matter. The point of the IRDF funding is a political move to kick-start new routes and destinations from Scotland; no-one is pretending all the new routes will automatically prove a long-term success. The importance of new direct routes as distinct from the existing popular and profitable London services is highlighted in an article today by a brilliant journalist whose name I forget

So the subsidy in this case is more to do with a temporary political issue at this end than the need for a JER service per se. (Indeed, the EDI-CPH and EDI-BRU connections, both also BD, are better examples of the kind of routes the Executive wishes to encourage.) Of course, it is still taxpayers' money being spent in the marketplace...

Now, to really throw petrol on the barbecue, I could raise the issue of whose money this is in the first place; it comes out of the Executive's block grant so one could argue it is Scottish taxpayers' cash and that subsidising economically beneficial routes into Scotland is not a bad way of spending it.

Alastair

TheJester

I wonder what the terms of the subsidy are? Will bmi have to operate the route for a minimum period of time?

Could be interesting if pax numbers are low and the route has to be "suspended" a la Washington.

TJ