Sami,
I won't disguise my true goal, which is to make small regional (indeed commuter) airlines more viable , but the number of employees in a route strategy department in AWS is way too high. My present small bali airline is a good example, it has 14 planes, 21 routes, and employs 43 people in its route strategies department. Meanwhile in the real world lufthansa consulting (
http://www.lhconsulting.com/en/meta-navigation/downloads/company-information.html) employs only 90 people who devise route strategies not only for Lufthansa itself but scores of other airlines/airports. Of course they do the feasability studies for routes (and their optimilisation) before the launching of a route, and not the follow up monitoring and adjustment strategies later on, but nevertheless I am sure that the constant monitoring of existing routes does not require a 2 person per route ratio.
At my own company (a 1 billion EUR/annum pharmaceutical company employing 7000 people around the world) we only have about 8 strategic analysts who monitor future trends, and about the same number of marketing analysts who evaluate the market directly before a product launch and then monitor the post launch effectiviness of our campaigns (30 product launches a year, over 500 products already in the market in dozens of countries).
The rest I am not griping about, although it would be nice to see pilot's wages rated according to the size class, but I guess the only way to do it would be to break-up the pilots into three groups as well.
The total headcount of 800+ employees for a 14 fleet airline is just about accurate (I checked Adria airline - 13 a/c - 790 employees).
If the overhead could be made a bit more realistic for small feeder/island airlines then that would open up the below 30 pax a day/routes airports, and perhaps lessen the fight for possesion of the larger hubs. And due to the route fees (they are based on airport size?) it would't lead to pipers flying out of LHR.