smws From Estonia, joined Jun 2012, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2445 times:
This was an option made available by the purchase of the Embraers. There's been talk of this in the Estonia media for the past month, after the cancellation of flights to LGW was announced.
As for the reasons - I'm imagining they struck a cheaper deal with LCY than LGW or LHR. The airport itself isn't a factor for travelers and with OY making heavy losses, the price must be a crucial factor. Also, maybe they managed to get better timeslots.
clydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2393 times:
Quoting smws (Reply 2): As for the reasons - I'm imagining they struck a cheaper deal with LCY than LGW or LHR. The airport itself isn't a factor for travelers and with OY making heavy losses, the price must be a crucial factor. Also, maybe they managed to get better timeslots.
LCY is much more expensive to operate into than LHR and LGW.
That would've been a decent choice. In part, OY seems to have been forced into this position. After the flights to Gatwick were cancelled, it caused an uproar in the local media, with businessmen complaining at the need for service and the minister making comments. As an Estonian, I'm glad they're resuming service, but at the same time, this does seem to bd another questionable choice, especially as OY is losing money.
SKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1451 times:
I'm surprised Estonian didn't go for LHR with far better connection options. LCY is a pure O&D airport and I doubt there is enough demand.
Although it is called E-Stonia, and Tallinn has financial and hi-tech industries, it is a very small city and I doubt that the demand is there. Oh well, this isn't the first mistake Estonian Air has made! Look at the mess their fleet is in!