Cardiff: Route Development & Rumours

[Jerry]

Isnt the VLY route pegged at a 19 seat aircraft due terms of the pso. Train service to Man is frequent seevices per day so there would be no pso on that leg from CWL.

Yes the terminal can only accomadate 19 people. Whether they would expand the terminal or use a bigger aircraft for another part of the route is anyone's guess and looking at train services there are a lot of daily trains but they aren't highspeed and can take between 3 and half to 4 hours to get to Manchester Piccadily not like the 2 hours to get to London. It is a nice train ride but not exactly a high speed route so i'm guessing that the Welsh Government would use that as an argument.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

One or two observations on more PSO routes.

1. There are EU conditions on PSO routes such as:

(a) Routes are considered vital for the economic and social development of the region served

(b) Inadequacy of alternative modes of transport

(c) Market forces alone have failed to create incentives for air carriers to provide scheduled air services on the route

2. Glasgow and Aberdeen are being operated as commercial routes already.

3. Can anyone really argue that South Wales is not well connected with London by rail, soon to be reduced in time with electrification? Manchester too has a good train service from South Wales.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

I fail to see how any of these routes would fall under PSO regs for the exact reason TLY points out.
CWL is already connected to Scotland through EDI, GLA and ABZ. If the routes can't be sustained through regular enough service there is an alternative.... Bristol.
HUY LBA NWI and INV pose no benefit to the economy and are still accessible in different ways.
NQY has been tried in the past and couldn't be sustained even with the MAN drop.
MAN is accessible by train with regular service. The Arriva service takes between 3-3.5hours depending on the service. This can be a very busy service, so maybe investment should be in the rolling stock, not air travel. Add in travel to Airport, time at Airport, arrival at Airport and travel to centre, there won't be much different in time between flying and train.
Same with LCY
I do think that flying can compete with the poor quality or expensive train service but it has to be independent.

I'm not against more routes but they have to be commercially sustainable rather than being propped up with tax payer money where there will be little benefit to Wales.
Is this not just another way of reporting that CWL wants APD devolved? CWL-VLY was never promoted as "APD being paid by the government", it was always pushed as just a "subsidised route". It would be interesting to see the cost of the VLY subsidy vs the cost of £26 per passenger on the route.

 

[Jerry]

I'm not against more routes but they have to be commercially sustainable rather than being propped up with tax payer money where there will be little benefit to Wales.

The article did say that there would be no subsidies just no APD. I do wonder why the Welsh Government picked those routes in particular.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

Wouldn't the WG have to stump up the cost of the unpaid APD? So effectively subsidising it.
The routes have been plucked out of the sky on the basis of being underserved, not taking into account there' a reason they are underserved. Nothing more than a 50 seater Saab from T3 would work, and that's even pushing it

 

[Jerry]

Wouldn't the WG have to stump up the cost of the unpaid APD? So effectively subsidising it.

I have no idea. I suppose it may depend on the terms of the PSO.
I'd also hope they had some sort of evidence of benefit to the Welsh economy rather than just plucking them out of the sky! I do wonder as well if maybe Eastern Airways has a spare Saab sitting around as well!

 

[Bcn_boy]

Manchester and Leeds twice daily on an airline which allows for codeshares and transfers at both ends. Very useful for business. Newquay would not work unless it’s a Qatar codeshare, Anglesey onwards to Dublin would be a useful link imo. Aberdeen and Glasgow are already running, but need better frequency and smaller aircraft on the Glasgow. London is a waste with an improved train service. Humber side? Does somebody in the group deciding this have a cousin there?

 

[Jerry]

Humber side? Does somebody in the group deciding this have a cousin there?

The only way i could see Humberside working is if Flybe were going to operate sun routes from there and sold the positioning legs similar to what they do with Norwich and Exeter.
As for VLY-DUB customs would have to setup in VLY for that.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I don't know. I suppose it depends if PSO routes can have codeshares on them.

Yes, they can.

Article 15(4) of the Regulation allows operation under code-share agreements and does not exclude the case of PSOs, so such agreements are in principle admissible.

As the WG says there will be no further subsidy other than a 'modest marketing budget', to me it all points to a way of helping Flybe grow its CWL operation. The WG believes the lack of APD and exclusivity on a route for four years would entice airlines to operate a thin route that was previously not viable. Would the WG want another airline or airlines to step on Flybe's toes which could be the case with restricted (exclusive) PSO routes which is the type of route the WG is looking at?

If another airline - say bmi regional or Eastern - won the PSO contract for a route or routes they would have the expense of setting up a base without, it is said, any help other than modest marketing from the WG. We know that the WG and Flybe already have a major relationship with substantial financial input from the WG, so a Flybe-operated PSO route or routes probably would not entail any further subsidy as it would doubtless come out of the agreement already in place. So it seems likely that Flybe would be the winner if several airlines put in tenders.

A few more points from the EU Interpretation of PSO routes:

A 'double drop' PSO route must qualify on its own merits for PSO status.

While PSOs could be designed to lift hurdles to the economic and social development of regions or cities, they cannot be established with the aim, directly or indirectly, to promote or support a particular air carrier or to develop a particular airport.

Where train services serve a route at sufficient frequency and with a travel time of less than three hours PSOs should not in principle be imposed on air services. However, there can be an exception if the train route does not offer adequate connectivity to medium and long haul air routes.

If routes from nearby airports are already available a PSO would require a 'particularly robust' justification. If another airport is farther away than 100 km and/or the travelling time is more than one hour by public transport, it is generally reasonable to question whether the two airports can be seen as alternatives.

 

[Jerry]

As the WG says there will be no further subsidy other than a 'modest marketing budget', to me it all points to a way of helping Flybe grow its CWL operation.

Flybe did mention a 4th based aircraft and looking at the way they operate there is 3 routes 12 weekly or more that are year round so I'd imagine that they'd want to operate a 4th if they based a 4th aircraft and having no APD on that route would help. To me the best candidates would be Glasgow and Manchester.

 

[TOM100]

Or perhaps an ingenious way of self devolving APD - then again this is the WG..... mind u they through away £9m at Circuit of Wales project.....

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Flybe did mention a 4th based aircraft and looking at the way they operate there is 3 routes 12 weekly or more that are year round so I'd imagine that they'd want to operate a 4th if they based a 4th aircraft and having no APD on that route would help. To me the best candidates would be Glasgow and Manchester.

They would have to be careful because if another airline put in a better tender for GLA (unlikely in my view for the reasons I stated in #409 but still possible) Flybe might find themselves off the GLA route if, as the WG says will the case, the PSO winner will hold exclusive rights to the route for four years (a restricted PSO as opposed to an open one where other airlines can compete on PSO terms so long as the PSO holder airline agrees which probably would not be very likely).

The thing about a Flybe MAN connection is that it would also feed into MAN's Flybe network from there and might to a degree inhibit new Flybe routes at CWL.

Or perhaps an ingenious way of self devolving APD - then again this is the WG..... mind u they through away £9m at Circuit of Wales project.....

Welcome to F4A, TOM100.

My thoughts too. It seems to be a back door method of attempting to get rid of APD, at least partially. I have no doubt that one or two airports will be looking at the process very closely.

With air PSOs there is not much European Court of Justice case law on the subject, therefore the EC published interpretive guidelines in a Commission Notice last summer. In due course some of the interpretations set out by the EC might be challenged and possibly overturned in the European Court by those on either side of the issue.

 

[Silvercity]

WalesOnline article mentions looking at bigger aircraft on the VLY route and maybe a stop off on the way as well.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/busin...-plans-14701570.amp?__twitter_impression=true

 

[Silvercity]

I sometimes use Flybe to NWI and EXT from MAN, the problem with It for me is getting to the airport in the morning the traffic is bad and the security at the airport which is often slow. I always compare by rail because of this as those elements make a short hop flight a long bit of a bind.

 

[TOM100]

TLY - I agree a few people will be looking. I can only see INV, ABZ, NCL and maybe an enhanced GLA.

Could be a good move to build traffic then put on commercial terms, could be a flop.....

At least they are exploring every which way to make the airport work.

Am curious but don't think there is any way of finding out if many people transferring onto QR hubbing over CWL ?

 

[Jerry]

They would have to be careful because if another airline put in a better tender for GLA (unlikely in my view for the reasons I stated in #409 but still possible) Flybe might find themselves off the GLA route if, as the WG says will the case, the PSO winner will hold exclusive rights to the route for four years (a restricted PSO as opposed to an open one where other airlines can compete on PSO terms so long as the PSO holder airline agrees which probably would not be very likely).

The thing about a Flybe MAN connection is that it would also feed into MAN's Flybe network from there and might to a degree inhibit new Flybe routes at CWL.

Yes that would be the gamble for them i suppose and but i doubt being connected to Flybe's MANs network would inhibit new Flybe routes from Cardiff. I think the main thing it might inhibit is attracting the likes of TCX and VS to operate routes like Orlando as CWL would have a stop option to their networks out of MAN.

 

[Jerry]

That's right. When Flybe pulled its routes from CWL CityJet stepped in to take over the routes you mention - Paris was Orly. CityJet used VLM F50s at CWL, albeit in CityJet livery so far as I can recall, as VLM had been taken into the CityJet fold when it was AF-owned. The two parts of CityJet operated under separate AOCs - one Irish and the other Belgian.

When the WG bought CWL they came to an arrangement with Flybe that brought the airline back to CWL in a bigger presence. CityJet (understandbly from their point of view) were not best pleased and said so publicly after they had quickly stepped into the gap to operate the important EDI, GLA and Paris routes abandoned by Flybe.

Just thought I'd move the conversation here.
With hindsight dumping Cityjet was a good thing for the airport. They themselves have changed to an ACMI airline with only LCY left really so it's likely that Cardiff would've been dropped and VLM of course went bust and of course Flybe are the much more better known airline and more suited airline and of course have based jets here as well.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Just thought I'd move the conversation here.
With hindsight dumping Cityjet was a good thing for the airport. They themselves have changed to an ACMI airline with only LCY left really so it's likely that Cardiff would've been dropped and VLM of course went bust and of course Flybe are the much more better known airline and more suited airline and of course have based jets here as well.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/cityjet-confident-on-cardiff-routes-6640100

The timeline is interesting. By spring 2014 CityJet had replaced most of the Flybe routes at CWL, with the latter withdrawing on the grounds that the routes were uneconomic. The WG had purchased the airport 12 months earlier.

A year later (spring 2015) came the announcement that Flybe was returning, and with a much bigger network. CityJet took the 'ump. You can hardly blame them because had they not stepped in CWL might well have been without some important routes in summer 2014, although Loganair made noises about starting EDI but withdrew without ever beginning when Flybe announced its intention to return. There is no sentiment in business.

It's an open 'secret' that Flybe would not have returned without substantial inducements from the WG. Something has struck me about this more than once. When Flybe announced their intention to pull out of CWL in early 2014 why did not the WG offer the inducements then instead of letting CityJet step in? I wonder at what point talks began between the WG and Flybe to get the airline to return.

Another point of course is that CityJet's CEO when the airline served CWL is now the CEO of Flybe.

 

[Jerry]

When Flybe announced their intention to pull out of CWL in early 2014 why did not the WG offer the inducements then instead of letting CityJet step in?

I suppose it may depend on when Flybe decided to implent project Blackbird for the E195s. I'd imagine that the airport and the Welsh government would prefer to incentivise an airline that would base jets to launch European connections rather than a prop airline that would just be local.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I suppose it may depend on when Flybe decided to implent project Blackbird for the E195s. I'd imagine that the airport and the Welsh government would prefer to incentivise an airline that would base jets to launch European connections rather than a prop airline that would just be local.

The WG could have offered inducements to Flybe to remain in 2014, even if initially to retain the routes already in place. Perhaps they judged the amount would have been too much merely to keep the current Flybe routes active.

Had they done so and Flybe accepted that would have at least kept a Flybe presence which could be built upon with further inducements. It's possible Blackbird was already being discussed and CityJet was only ever likely to be a stopgap in the WG's eyes.