Here is how they did it:
The airline, Heathrow's second-biggest carrier, said today the disappearance of low-yielding passengers meant it could concentrate on building an operation around higher fare-paying business class travellers.
Concorde001: That is why they removed business class!
The number of passengers flying bmi and its low-cost sister airline bmibaby stalled at 10.5m last year but increases in yield - the amount it charges per passenger - allowed turnover to grow almost 5% to £869m.
That, plus an 8% cut in costs before rising fuel charges, helped the group to pre-tax profits of £10m against £2.6m in 2004.
However, the future of bmi remains uncertain as its joint-venture partners and major shareholders, Lufthansa and SAS, are demanding a break-up of the current alliance.
Well I don't know about you, but I'm surprised! However my question is, as bmi report profts for the whole group (bmi baby), how much of this is attributable to bmi baby's low cost operation and bmi's longhaul ops? I may be wrong, but BMI's profits gives the airline an operating margin of 1.2% - that cannot be good. Could it be the case that bmi is only making money from its longhaul ops from LHR, MAN and its low cost airline bmibaby?
Thought credit where credit is due, so well done bmi for not reporting a loss.
Incidentally, bmi have not published anything on their website, so maybe we will find out more when they do.
[Edited 2006-04-04 12:57:58]