Cardiff Airport - General Thread

[CAN&I]

I don't think any airline would have been specifically waiting for the tribunal to launch anything specific. Cardiff will no doubt have ongoing talks with airlines for the future and we may have already seen one operate to the airport in February.

Think you'd be surpised. There are at least one or two airlines awaiting the outcome of both the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Senedd elections with interest. New services require signifincant investment from both sides so the last thing any airline would wish to do would be to "green light" new money while uncertainty continued to cast a shadow over the airport.

While yesterday's win was comprehensive and a credit to the Welsh Government's due dilligence, Bristol Airport will undoubtedly appeal, yet they will only be able to do so on a point of legal error or a misinterpreation of the law so this may still end up in the High Court. Then there is the uncertainty involved should the Welsh Conservatives, Reform UK or the Green Party lead the next Welsh Goverment.

 

[Jerry]

While yesterday's win was comprehensive and a credit to the Welsh Government's due dilligence, Bristol Airport will undoubtedly appeal, yet they will only be able to do so on a point of legal error or a misinterpreation of the law so this may still end up in the High Court. Then there is the uncertainty involved should the Welsh Conservatives, Reform UK or the Green Party lead the next Welsh Goverment.

But that's the point it could appealed and appealed again and there's no guarantee of who will be in government post May. Atm Plaid and Reform are leading the race. So those airlines could be waiting a long time.

 

[CAN&I]

But that's the point it could appealed and appealed again and there's no guarantee of who will be in government post May. Atm Plaid and Reform are leading the race. So those airlines could be waiting a long time.

Thats the risk. BRS are known litigators and have deep enough pockets to play the long game until they get their way.

Any CAT appeal is unlikely to be heard until the end of the year. Even then BRS will need to find a legal angle to hang their case on because, under the rules, they can't appeal just becuase they don't like the answer as its meant to be a Judicial process where evidence-based complaint judgements are final.

A second dismissal could open up a route into a High Court appeal which would pit BRS against the Competition Commission itself and end up casting an even greater shadown over CWL. While they still may not win, it would effectively kick the can down the road to a point where any airline would think twice before entering into a parnership with CIAL and would be enough to disrupt progress.

To take your other point, even if Plaid or Reform form the next Goverment, uncertainty could still play a part for a long time to come unless the unlikley event happens and BRS decides to back down... for now.

If Reform get in, conduct their viability assessment as promised and subsequently pull funding (which they will), they'll save BRS further costs!

 

[Barry Man]

If the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) rules in your favour, the other party (usually a competition authority, regulator, or opposing business) has limited options to challenge the decision, as the CAT is a specialist tribunal.

The main actions they can take include:

• Appealing to a Higher Court (On Points of Law):
  The other party can appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal (in England & Wales/Northern Ireland) or the Court of Session (in Scotland). However, this is not a re-hearing of the case; they must prove there was a mistake in law or that the penalty imposed was wrong.
• 
  
• Requesting Permission for Appeal: They cannot appeal automatically. They must first ask the CAT itself, or the relevant appellate court, for permission to appeal.
• 
  
• Applying for a Reconsideration: If there is a procedural mishap, such as new evidence being discovered that could not have been found before, or if they did not get notice of the hearing, the CAT may reconsider its decision if it is in the "interests of justice".
• 
  
• Case Remittal: If the CAT rules against a regulator (like the CMA) and sets aside their decision, the CAT may remit the matter back to them with directions to make a new decision that aligns with the tribunal's ruling

• What they cannot do:
  • Appeal simply because they disagree with the facts or the outcome.
  • Ignore the decision, as the CAT has the power to issue injunctions and orders that are enforceable as if they were made by the High Court.
    * Competition Appeal Tribunal +3
  
  Time Limits:
  Strict time limits apply to these challenges, often within 14 days for a request for written reasons or reconsideration, or longer for appeals to higher courts.

 

[CAN&I]

If the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) rules in your favour, the other party (usually a competition authority, regulator, or opposing business) has limited options to challenge the decision, as the CAT is a specialist tribunal.

The main actions they can take include:

• Appealing to a Higher Court (On Points of Law):
  The other party can appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal (in England & Wales/Northern Ireland) or the Court of Session (in Scotland). However, this is not a re-hearing of the case; they must prove there was a mistake in law or that the penalty imposed was wrong.
• 
  
• Requesting Permission for Appeal: They cannot appeal automatically. They must first ask the CAT itself, or the relevant appellate court, for permission to appeal.
• 
  
• Applying for a Reconsideration: If there is a procedural mishap, such as new evidence being discovered that could not have been found before, or if they did not get notice of the hearing, the CAT may reconsider its decision if it is in the "interests of justice".
• 
  
• Case Remittal: If the CAT rules against a regulator (like the CMA) and sets aside their decision, the CAT may remit the matter back to them with directions to make a new decision that aligns with the tribunal's ruling

• What they cannot do:
  • Appeal simply because they disagree with the facts or the outcome.
  • Ignore the decision, as the CAT has the power to issue injunctions and orders that are enforceable as if they were made by the High Court.
    * Competition Appeal Tribunal +3
  
  Time Limits:
  Strict time limits apply to these challenges, often within 14 days for a request for written reasons or reconsideration, or longer for appeals to higher courts.

So in other words BRS cannot appeal just because they don't like or agree with the CAT judgement. They can only do so if they believe the judgement misinterpreted the subsidy or competition rules supporting its judgement OR that the process or the judgement itself was unlawful because it missed a point of law or placed either party at a disadvantage.

Even then the only avenue is through the Court of Appeal (and subsequently the High Court for Judicial Review) if they are given permission to do appeal.

Still convinced they will be working hard to find a point of law to hang their appeal against. However, given the tribunal stated several times that BRS's submitted evidence and associated arguments were flimsy at best and in some cases based on outdated evidence provided by a so-called "industry expert" (evidence which did their case very little favour), they will have their work cut out.

Ultimately BRS can afford to throw money at this if it means protecting 20% of their income through causing continued uncertainty within the industry, particularly amongst potential airline partners and other commercial investors.

Their response in the media stating the subsidy was unprecedented (which the CAT ruled it was not) , repeating their dodgy calculations on the individual taxpayer burden (which the CAT stated was inaccurate), blaming Brexit's influence on the rules as preventing CAT from doing the "right thing" and their faux concern for the Welsh Taxpayer (which they barely mentioned during the official proceedings and was not part of their formal argument) showed their complete lack of class and utter desperation under the circumstances.

 

[Jerry]

Ultimately BRS can afford to throw money at this if it means protecting 20% of their income through causing continued uncertainty within the industry, particularly amongst potential airline partners and other commercial investors.

Ultimately though even BRS in such circumstances has limited funds. Yes they could say their trying to protect 20% of their passenger revenue but does racking up a massive legal bill over time help with that? Guess that's a decision for BRS bosses and how much of a threat they think CWL is. In the past as CWL grew BRS grew to.

 

[CAN&I]

Ultimately though even BRS in such circumstances has limited funds. Yes they could say their trying to protect 20% of their passenger revenue but does racking up a massive legal bill over time help with that? Guess that's a decision for BRS bosses and how much of a threat they think CWL is. In the past as CWL grew BRS grew to.

Of course, yet BRS paid an obscene amount of money pushing their 2018 expansion plans through 4 years of litigation and challenge until they eventually got their way. They are about to push another expansion plan through the legal machine which will be met with at least a similar amount of resistance.

They are now backed by Macquarie who have even more financial resources than OTPP.

They may not win the argument regards the £205m subsidy as they now have to find a legal argument to pin their appeal on. If they do go ahead they may feel the cost worthwhile to at least cause continued uncertainty and disruption to CIAL's plans, particularly if it limits growth at CWL over the next few years.

Using the usual 20% approximation, BRS generated c£36m in revenue from its Welsh customers last year. Spending a little more than the £2m costs already incurreed in an attempt to protect that income and further disrupt progress at CWL will be money well spent IF they believe they have a credible case.

Let's face it, they wouldn't have entered into the CAT process in the first place if they were not concerned about CWL's potential in terms of impact against their own business and if they thought they could get the subsidy quashed.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see as they could decide either way.

 

[Jerry]

"A viable international airport is essential for Wales’s global connectivity. We will take a strategic approach to secure Cardiff Airport’s long-term sustainability and seek the devolution of Air Passenger Duty"
Good to see air travel mentioned and APD devolution as well.

For Wales

www.partyof.wales

 

[Jerry]

"Devolve Air Passenger Duty to put Wales on a fair playing field with Scotland and Northern Ireland, and put Cardiff Airport on a fair playing field with regional airports in England."
This is the Lib Dems policy on Cardiff Airport from their manifesto

https://manifesto-cymru.cavendishconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Welsh_Liberal_Democrat_Manifesto_2026-6.pdf

 

[Foxlimayankee]

"Devolve Air Passenger Duty to put Wales on a fair playing field with Scotland and Northern Ireland, and put Cardiff Airport on a fair playing field with regional airports in England."
This is the Lib Dems policy on Cardiff Airport from their manifesto

https://manifesto-cymru.cavendishconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Welsh_Liberal_Democrat_Manifesto_2026-6.pdf

The irony is that by not devolving APD CWL remains on a level playing field with England as its the same price.

 

[Jerry]

The irony is that by not devolving APD CWL remains on a level playing field with England as its the same price.

Well i suppose it depends on what you see as a level playing field. Tbh I'm surprised it's in the manifesto and the Lib Dems are supportive of Cardiff. In 2022 they called it a white elephant.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

Well i suppose it depends on what you see as a level playing field. Tbh I'm surprised it's in the manifesto and the Lib Dems are supportive of Cardiff. In 2022 they called it a white elephant.

A level playing field is an equal charge across nations and airports.
If the government chooses to reduce APD In Wales then it is subsidising the difference as the money still needs to be paid to the treasury.

 

[CAN&I]

A level playing field is an equal charge across nations and airports.
If the government chooses to reduce APD In Wales then it is subsidising the difference as the money still needs to be paid to the treasury.

Absolutely. A "level playing field" amounts to the staus quo, yet the APD question remains at odds with Scotland and Northern Ireland because Wales isn't viewed as a "contained market".

Onto APD itself, is that how the situation works?

The UK Government, the Silk Commission and the Holtham Commission all confirmed that, should APD be devolved to Wales, the money raised would be deducted from the Welsh Government’s annual block-grant from the UK Government, subject to an adjustment mechanism which would have to be agreed, as per other devolved taxes.

Therefore, is it so much the Welsh Government having to subsidise the shortfall to be paid back to the treasury? Or is it the case that the Welsh Government would need to take on the financial risk of having to fund any shortfall against its own budget should they decide to abolish, or should tax receipts not match the expected revenue if retained or reduced?

On a related note, not sure what anyone else thinks about APD (and apologies if this has already been debated to death on here before now - still relatively new here), but it's difficult to see exactly who benefits other than the airline industry? In theory airlines could pass on the savings to the customer, but in the real world?

Just posing some open questions while we're on the subject...

Might be an oversimplification but how does devolved APD sit with both the UK Government and Welsh Government's drive to net zero? Are the Liberal Democrats not keen supporters of green taxes? Also, with costs rising all around, does the devolution of APD matter as much today as it did a decade ago?

Finally, given the recent CAT outcome, how likely is any UK Government going to allow devolution of APD to Wales any time soon? BRS, BHX, EXT and BOH were not happy eight years ago when this was debated. Can't see them standing aside and letting it happen now either.

Well i suppose it depends on what you see as a level playing field. Tbh I'm surprised it's in the manifesto and the Lib Dems are supportive of Cardiff. In 2022 they called it a white elephant.

You've got to laugh. As you rightly say, in 2022 Jane Dodds described CWL as "Welsh Labour’s biggest white elephant", "incompatible with (the WG's) climate goals", a "blackhole on taxpayers’ money" which should "eventually be returned to the private sector" and that they felt vindicated having "warned against" the purchase 10 years earlier.

Yet since 2022 Ms Dodds has also demanded the Government "prioritise the securing of new routes, especially to more short-haul EU destinations, in addition to securing long-haul routes which currently don’t exist after Qatar Airways' exit from the airport."

Must be quite a job all those years sitting on the fence...

 

[Jerry]

If the government chooses to reduce APD In Wales then it is subsidising the difference as the money still needs to be paid to the treasury.

It would be taken of the Welsh government's block grant. UK treasury wouldn't lose anything. Like anything with reducing taxes the Welsh government would then hope to make it back in other ways.

yet the APD question remains at odds with Scotland and Northern Ireland because Wales isn't viewed as a "contained market".

With Northern Ireland only long haul APD on direct flights is devolved. The rate is zero, there was a proposal to devolve short haul but that's not happened. The Welsh government previously wanted the same situation as Northern Ireland but seems to have dropped the issue now Labour are in government. Scotland had APD devolved in principle but there was problems with the Highlands and Islands airports where there's no APD so nothing has happened with it. During evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee the treasury stated they see Cardiff as part of the English aviation market hence the flat refusal at the time to treat Wales as the same Northern Ireland and Scotland.
As for climate change I think there's the realisation that people will still travel but that it's better for that travel to be from and to Wales and that Wales needs it's own international airport.
With a new government likely and Plaid Cymru having a strong chance of forming that government it'll be interesting to see how much of an issue they make it.

 

[CAN&I]

"Devolve Air Passenger Duty to put Wales on a fair playing field with Scotland and Northern Ireland, and put Cardiff Airport on a fair playing field with regional airports in England."
This is the Lib Dems policy on Cardiff Airport from their manifesto

https://manifesto-cymru.cavendishconsulting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Welsh_Liberal_Democrat_Manifesto_2026-6.pdf

Sorry - only just read the Lib Dems line back a few times. Does anyone else think this is either badly researched or just badly worded?

As Foxlimayankee rightly points out, having APD in place today puts Cardiff Airport on "a fair playing field with regional airports in England", so how does removing APD make the situation any "fairer"?

Also, exactly how does the devolution of APD "put Wales on a fair playing field with Scotland and Northern Ireland" while simultaneously putting "Cardiff Airport on a fair playing field with regional airports in England"?

The statement makes no sense either way. Or are we missing something glaringly obvious here?

It would be taken of the Welsh government's block grant. UK treasury wouldn't lose anything. Like anything with reducing taxes the Welsh government would then hope to make it back in other ways.

Thought so. Thanks for clarifying.

With Northern Ireland only long haul APD on direct flights is devolved. The rate is zero, there was a proposal to devolve short haul but that's not happened. The Welsh government previously wanted the same situation as Northern Ireland but seems to have dropped the issue now Labour are in government. Scotland had APD devolved in principle but there was problems with the Highlands and Islands airports where there's no APD so nothing has happened with it. During evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee the treasury stated they see Cardiff as part of the English aviation market hence the flat refusal at the time to treat Wales as the same Northern Ireland and Scotland.
As for climate change I think there's the realisation that people will still travel but that it's better for that travel to be from and to Wales and that Wales needs it's own international airport.
With a new government likely and Plaid Cymru having a strong chance of forming that government it'll be interesting to see how much of an issue they make it.

Precisely re APD. Devolution of Long Haul for Northern Ireland makes sense to maintain a competitive position with the market south of the border. Scotland on the other hand hasn't made use of the devolved benefit for one reason or another.

The argument around fairness and consistency when it comes to the devolved nations is understandable, yet the situation isn't consistent between Scotland and Northern Ireland either.

A Plaid or Reform led Welsh Government may ask but that doesn't mean the UK Government will allow it. It seems only Reform UK have currently opted to support the removal of flight taxes to make holidays cheaper should they form a UK Government, but there's still plenty of time to flip-flop on policy just like every other party.

 

[Jerry]

Also, exactly how does the devolution of APD "put Wales on a fair playing field with Scotland and Northern Ireland" while simultaneously putting "Cardiff Airport on a fair playing field with regional airports in England"?

I do think the problem with using the term regional airports in England is that it's very broad. It includes an airport like Manchester where Cardiff isn't definitely not on a level playing field because of its size but also airports like Newquay or Teesside where Cardiff is ahead of them in passenger numbers but also a big part of Cardiff competition is actually other European airports and governments who are all bidding for flights from airlines like Ryanair.
I do see the merit in the argument in putting Wales on the same status as Scotland or Northern Ireland but I do think with England it's a lot more complicated. I do think they should have just stuck with devolving it like Northern Ireland and Scotland. Especially Northern Ireland as it fits with the focus on long haul and connectivity.

A Plaid or Reform led Welsh Government may ask but that doesn't mean the UK Government will allow it.

It's probably highly unlikely they would devolve it. UK governments lately are more devo sceptic but doesn't mean any Welsh government shouldn't look to get it devolved alongside other powers.

 

[Qing4theloo]

IMO it largely depends what factors you want to take into account when you are talking about a "level playing field".

Wales is attached to England in a way that Scotland and Northern Ireland aren't, in that BRS is more accessible to the people of South Wales than, say, Newcastle is to anyone in Scotland. When booking a flight, only a few thousand people around Berwick would look at options from both EDI and NCL.
In contrast, people are going to BRS from South Wales, even though CWL is closer for them. AFAICT this is because BRS has a greater choice of routes and is possibly cheaper. Therefore, devolving APD to Wales, (possibly reducing fares from CWL as a result) would be a much bigger step politically than devolving it to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

On the other hand, do you take into account the fact that BRS has a customer base that covers all of the West and most of the South-West of England? Whereas CWL's customer base is really only South Wales? In other words, when talking about a "level playing field", do you take into account the advantage that BRS inherently has by virtue of its geographic location?

Do you uncritically accept the assertions of our dear friends at BRS that they have got ahead and built their numbers through hard work, or do we take into account the fact that Flybe collapsed at the worst possible time and, arguably, Wizz pulled out before their routes had a chance to get established? Do we blame the collapse of Flybe on mismanagement (e.g. trying to fill planes that were too big to pay their way) or do we just admit that they were pouring money into routes that were inherently unsustainable?
In other words, when we are talking about a "level playing field", do we argue that CWL need help to compensate for bad decisions that were beyond their control in the past?

Is an airline more likely to be attracted to a particular airport if it (the airport) already has 10m+ pax p.a. than if it has 1m?

(Sorry I've had to go back and edit this, I wasn't happy that my original post was clear enough)

 

[Jerry]

Do you uncritically accept the assertions of our dear friends at BRS that they have got ahead and built their numbers through hard work,

But I suppose the counter argument is that by getting so far ahead the playing field isn't level anymore and are Cardiff and Bristol actually even on the same playing field anymore?
I do personally see having control of APD as a self governance thing. Wales governments should have all the tools available to them to attract airlines to Wales to connect Wales like the governments of other countries do.

 

[geoff]

Just as a point of interest, the CEO of Bristol Airport has announced on Business live that he is standing down but will stay in office until a new CEO is appointed later this year. It seems rather odd timing, when there are big plans for BRS, make of it what you will,

 

[Jerry]

Just as a point of interest, the CEO of Bristol Airport has announced on Business live that he is standing down but will stay in office until a new CEO is appointed later this year. It seems rather odd timing, when there are big plans for BRS, make of it what you will,

Could be any reason why he stepped down. He's been in the job for 8 years, i'd be shocked if it was anything to do with the case against the Welsh Government.