As I’ve already cited...Norway does it.

@Marionville Do they use different sizes of planes of different routes?

@Red_Cat. Yes..they use smaller ones on the remote routes where they carry fewer passengers.

@Marionville Are they prop driven, the small ones? Update: Just checked for myself, and they do include prop driven planes and also helicopters for viewing fjords. Very inviting

@Red_Cat a. I’m not sure of the details or specifics of the Norwegian fleet of aircraft, they have several airlines operating internal air services. Possibly the smaller ones are turbo props..

@Marionville Thanks for replying. I decided not to be lazy and check for myself: see edited post above yours.

I’m sure the IOM route will be picked up by another carrier, but other more remote parts will not seem such an attractive proposition. See my response below to Matt.

I have no doubt that the more popular and economically viable routes will be picked up, however it’s the other ones that I’m particularly concerned about.

Norway is a vast country and because of the distances involved air travel is normal....they have 50 airports all over, even in the remotest parts. Air travel is subsidised by the Norwegian government on the uneconomical routes in order for them not to be disadvantaged. Market forces and economics should not be the only consideration as to the viability of a route, a coherent social policy must also be taken into consideration and that has to be taken at national and regional levels of government, not left to the private sector.

@Marionville Yes I agree entirely. Subsidising routes gets a thumbs up from me. My only additional point was that the UK gov is at a disadvantage in attracting investment to subsidised routes given its history of promise breaking and mantra of "Fuck Business"