Archive Flybe at Cardiff Airport

[Jerry]

I agree with your points Jerry, but to me just some of the suggestions or speculation as you state seem a bit inconceivable. May just be me. No offence intended.

When i look at a potential route that Flybe may introduce at CWL i tend to look at where they fly from other UK airports. I don't think they have launched a new route specifically for CWL while not flying from other airports. Would be good though if they did!

 

[Jerry]

I bet in an ideal world they would love a 2 x daily CDG which would codeshare with Air France and therefore not only offer business friendly times but better connection opportunities

The Air France codeshare is a weird one because if you go onto the Air France website and try to book CDG-CWL it sends you via AMS. The same from other airports in France. I travel a couple of times a year to the west coast of the USA and i've looked at Air France and it always sends me via AMS. As a passenger I would suggest that a 4th daily AMS rotation would be more useful than CDG. If KLM did a 13.00 departure from AMS then Flybe could do the 16.45 or maybe later.

The question is if in the longer term Q400 is the way forward for CWL then would there be enough routes to fill the gap between the peak business routes. By relying on Flybe CWL would need to be a 4/5 Q400 base to get what they ideally want. I don't think honestly it will happen however I am willing to be proved wrong.

It may be that in the long run the airport may have to offer more money to secure a Q400 base i do wonder if the 10 year deal specifies seats or specific aircraft or an amount of aircraft. Only ones who would know that would be the airport management and Flybe and no doubt there are clauses.

 

[Jerry]

Seen a post on another forum (Wales Air Forum) and the poster messaged Flybe about the LCY route continuing and the reply from Flybe was that they were operating the route until 21st October and then MAY start it again in April 2017 but won't know until the timetable is released in October/November. Hopefully there'll be good news when the timetable is released.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Seen a post on another forum (Wales Air Forum) and the poster messaged Flybe about the LCY route continuing and the reply from Flybe was that they were operating the route until 21st October and then MAY start it again in April 2017 but won't know until the timetable is released in October/November. Hopefully there'll be good news when the timetable is released.

Fairly standard sort of reply really Jerry. Not committing one way or the other at present.

I don't know what if any surveys Flybe is doing. The obvious question to ask people using the route is whether they would continue to do so once the Severn Tunnel is re-opened. Even here the replies must be treated with caution. Airports sometimes do surveys asking people which new route they want and would use. If such a new route is then started the results sometimes fall short of the numbers in the survey.

If the short season results exceed their own estimates then there might be hope that Flybe would consider opening the route on a permanent basis (as much as any route from an airport can be looked on as permanent).

 

[Jerry]

Fairly standard sort of reply really Jerry. Not committing one way or the other at present.

Kind of but usually they just tell you something like 'our S17 timetable will be released soon' them putting a may start in April is unusual to me. If they do start it then I believe it will because it has to favor Flybe in some way. Whether by expanding the CWL base or flying extra routes out of LCY. Also a lot is being made about the route on social media but more the fact that it can take 40 mins to get back compared to over 2 hours.
It's one to look out for because a Q400 would also mean Flybe have a commitment to CWL beyond the E190's. In the long run it may not be about the route as so much getting a Q400 based at CWL so that Flybe's future at the airport is more certain.

 

[Aviador]

Whilst i admire the additional activity on this forum these days, i must say that some of the posts are a little far-fetched to say the least.

I'm not local to the area so forgive me if I am wide of the mark but looking at Google Maps I see the drive time between Bristol and Cardiff is around an hour. For ANY airline looking to set up in the region this is a significant factor. It may well be easy for Cardiff passengers to hop across to Bristol to use Bristol airport but it will of course be just as easy for people to make the reverse journey. Basically, if an airline can get the right deal to use Cardiff airport there is no reason why the airport shouldn't be able to attract enough passengers to use such services.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I'm not local to the area so forgive me if I am wide of the mark but looking at Google Maps I see the drive time between Bristol and Cardiff is around an hour. For ANY airline looking to set up in the region this is a significant factor. It may well be easy for Cardiff passengers to hop across to Bristol to use Bristol airport but it will of course be just as easy for people to make the reverse journey. Basically, if an airline can get the right deal to use Cardiff airport there is no reason why the airport shouldn't be able to attract enough passengers to use such services.

It's not quite that straightforward.

Traditionally CWL has found it more difficult to attract passengers from the West Country than BRS does from South Wales, at least in the same numbers or as a percentage of the respective airports' annual passenger numbers. Even when CWL was in its heyday (which will surely return and then grow at some point in the future) in 2007 and 2008 with 2 mppa and with bmibaby firing with three based aircraft, a CAA survey for 2008 showed that over 700,000 passengers with origin or final destination in Wales still used BRS.

The popular sun routes at CWL are fine, especially in summer. It's the other types of route - city, niche and business - where CWL tends to struggle. It has a smaller core catchment than BRS and one which is also less prosperous both in the leisure and business markets although the economy of the Cardiff city region itself is getting stronger. In fact, one recent survey placed it fifth or sixth in the country but this was on a per capita basis. Cambridge was higher in this league table and has no airport worthy of the name: incidentally, Bristol was also above Cardiff in that survey. Per capita measurements are a bit like percentage gains/rises/losses/falls - it depends on what the base figure is.

if an airline is looking to start a route other than summer sun from Severnside, especially if it's looking to use 150-seat plus aircraft, it would normally look at BRS. The reason being that its larger and more prosperous core catchment means that it would need less topping up from the CWL core catchment than vice versa. Add in BRS's location where it draws one million-plus passengers per year from Devon and Cornwall, as well as passengers from the western Thames Valley, Somerset, Wiltshire and parts of Dorset, as well as some parts of Gloucestershire.

Bristol is actually surrounded by airports: Heathrow, which is the default long haul airport for most of the Bristol business community; Birmingham; Cardiff; Exeter and even Southampton for some parts of the BRS catchment. My alter ego once did a post on another aviation forum arguing that Bristol as a city region could actually get by with no airport at all, given the other airports surrounding it. The post was a mixture of devil's advocate and tongue in cheek but there is an underlying truth.

Although these other airports ought in theory to take some of BRS's traffic, in practice they don't, not to any great degree anyway apart from LHR. The converse is that if CWL had a route not operated from BRS some of the BRS catchment would not necessarily regard CWL as their automatic option. They'd also be looking at the likes of LHR and BHX.

The various owners and management of CWL down the years have long been well aware of the need, whilst recognising the perennial difficulty, to attract passengers from outside South Wales - which really means the West of England and South Midlands - but they've yet to find a way of achieving this in meaningful numbers.

 

[Aviador]

I'm basing my theory on the catchment of LBA and MAN of course where people from Leeds for instance think nothing of driving for an hour to fly from Manchester airport. When I worked at LBA I saw a sizable number of passengers who made the reverse journey if the price was right. I don't doubt that BRS has the edge as it's nearer to more prosperous areas but if the price is right people will look at using alternative airports whether than be Cardiff, Birmingham or London airports.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I don't doubt that BRS has the edge as it's nearer to more prosperous areas but if the price is right people will look at using alternative airports whether than be Cardiff, Birmingham or London airports.

But because of the significant disparity in catchment sizes and worth airlines have always been reluctant to do this so far as CWL is concerned. They seem to take the view that it's a safer bet to fly from BRS where less topping up is needed and where South Wales residents have shown themselves willing to travel across the river.

For all the one million-plus people who use BRS from both Devon/Cornwall and South Wales, far more begin or end their journey in Greater Bristol, aka the former county of Avon. This percentage has remained steady for many, many years from the time that BRS was at 2 mppa and before. Currently this means that over 3.5 million BRS users begin or end their journey in Greater Bristol.

I'm not saying that West Country people don't use CWL. They certainly do and in at least one field - transatlantic cruise flights - CWL has an undoubted edge, but generally airlines take the safer option.

One example when they didn't is Helvetic. Several years ago this airline commenced a Cardiff-Zurich service with 100-seat F100s. Many were surprised that Helvetic chose CWL when BRS had no Zurich service. The Welsh government assisted with major funding (hundreds of thousands of pound) to boost the profile of Wales in Switzerland. It worked to the degree that more passengers used the service from the Swiss end than from Wales but overall the passenger numbers were pretty dire - monthly average loads in the 20s most months.

Eventually the airline put in a BRS drop-off so that the service operated ZRH-BRS-CWL-BRS-ZRH. Immediately the numbers improved from the BRS end and for many months thereafter the monthly loads were nearly always in a ratio of 2:1; BRS:CWL. The next step was to drop the CWL end completely so that the route operated ZRH-BRS-ZRH. The monthly average loads had climbed into the 60s but even that was not enough in the end to sustain the route which was axed.

The Helvetic experience was a microcosm of the BRS-CWL relationship when it comes to starting new Severnside services.

 

[Jerry]

I'm not local to the area so forgive me if I am wide of the mark but looking at Google Maps I see the drive time between Bristol and Cardiff is around an hour. For ANY airline looking to set up in the region this is a significant factor. It may well be easy for Cardiff passengers to hop across to Bristol to use Bristol airport but it will of course be just as easy for people to make the reverse journey. Basically, if an airline can get the right deal to use Cardiff airport there is no reason why the airport shouldn't be able to attract enough passengers to use such services

Unfortunately for CWL West country people don't seem to like the airport as much as the Welsh like BRS! Plus i wonder if the bridge toll and the fact that you can't get direct train or bus services from Bristol to CWL also hampers it but the big difference is Easyjet. CWL doesn't have a low cost carrier based out if there hence why BRS attracts so many Welsh. I always wonder what the figures would be like if CWL had a 2 to 3 aircraft Easyjet base. Flybe isn't as attractive to Welsh or West country passengers. It's doing a good job at getting more people through the door but will never compete with them. The one thing that might attract West country passengers is transatlantic or ME3 routes but then some might still go to LHR. CWL will always be in the shadow of BRS.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I believe strongly that the main reason is the non-sun routes. CWL can support the main sun routes with 150-plus seat aircraft. We know that from the past and from its current portfolio, and we can be sure that there is scope for considerable expansion of those.

The problem is the non-sun routes. The catchment is just not big enough for 150-seat plus aircraft on many of them. Airlines like easyJet know that and want a spread of routes at an airport - sun and non-sun.

Transatlantic and especially ME3 would undoubtedly attract West Country passengers. Zoom showed that. That said, how many they would attract is questionable. They didn't support BRS to the extent that had been expected, especially in the business-first cabin, when CO operated to EWR. Bristol area people seem programmed to use LHR for their long haul. After all, it's not that far from a large part of the catchment.

West Country people aren't anti-CWL. It's just that too often there are better options elsewhere, whether at BRS or LHR, or BHX on occasions. As Aviador pointed out, if the price is right some people follow that, but it's a question of putting CWL in the position where airlines will turn up and offer routes at prices that other airports can't match: easily said but much harder to do.

I know people from the Bristol area who use CWL for all sorts of reasons. Neighbours of ours used TOM from CWL to Malaga for several years even though the route and carrier operated from BRS. The first time they went they could not get seats from BRS, were subsequently satisfied with CWL and, being creatures of habit, used it for several years even though they could have used BRS in subsequent years which is less than ten miles from their home.

A friend of mine who lives locally to me with his wife has a big family some of whom live in Cardiff so, a couple of years ago, the entire brood used TCX from CWL to to go to a sun destination - can't remember where now - that TCX also operated from BRS.

Some people won't use BRS because of poor experiences in the past and if a route they want is available at CWL they will use that.

Obviously these examples are just playing at the edges. CWL needs to find a way to attract a high volume of punters from outside its core catchment.

 

[Jerry]

Flybe Winter 2016 Schedule 30th October to 25th March.

Edinburgh 12 weekly flights
Monday to Friday CWL-EDI 05.55-07.05 EDI-CWL 07.35-08.50
CWL-EDI 17.00-18.10 EDI-CWL 18.40-19.50
Exceptions are Monday 26th December, Monday 2nd January and Tuesday 3rd January
CWL-EDI 16.45-17.55 CWL-EDI 18.45-19.55

Saturday from 30th October to 10th December
CWL-EDI 05.55-07.05 EDI-CWL 07.35-08.50
From 17th December to 25th March
CWL-EDI 07.00-08.10 EDI-CWL 08.40-09.55

Sunday CWL-EDI 16.40-17.50 EDI-CWL 18.40-19.50

Dublin 12 weekly flights
Monday to Friday CWL-DUB 07.00-08.00 DUB-CWL 08.30-09.30
CWL-DUB 19.05-20.05 DUB-CWL 20.35-21-40

Exceptions are Monday 26th December, Monday 2nd January and Tuesday 3rd January
CWL-DUB 19.05-20.05 DUB-CWL 20.35-21.40

Saturday from 30th October to 10th December
CWL-DUB 07.00-08.00 DUB-CWL 08.30-09.35

Saturday 17th December CWL-DUB 10.45-11.45 DUB-CWL 12.15-13.20
Saturday from 24th December to 25th March
CWL-DUB 10-30-11.30 DUB-CWL 12.00-13.05

Sunday CWL-DUB 19.05-20.05 DUB-CWL 20.35-21.40

Belfast City 7 weekly flights
Monday to Friday BHD-CWL 10.10-11.25 CWL-BHD 11.50-13.05

Saturday BHD-CWL 10.30-11.45 CWL-BHD 12.10-13.25
Exceptions are between 17th December and 31st December
BHD-CWL 11.20-13.35 CWL-BHD 13.00-14.15

Sunday BHD-CWL 11.10-12.25 CWL-BHD 12.50-14.05

Jersey 2 weekly flights
Monday and Friday CWL-JER 15.55-16.45 JER-CWL 17.20-18.15

Berlin 2 weekly flights
Wednesday and Saturday CWL-TXL 10.20-13.20 TXL-CWL 13.55-15.05

Saturday from 17th December to 25th March
CWL-TXL 06.45-09.45 TXL-CWL 10.20-11.30

Munich 3 weekly flights with the exception of 2 weekly flights in January
Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Thursday does not operate in January.
CWL-MUC 13.55-16.50 MUC-CWL 17.30-18.35

Cork 2 weekly flights
Monday and Friday CWL-ORK 13.35-14.40 ORK-CWL 15.10-16.10

Chambery 1 weekly flight from 17th December to 25th March
Saturday CWL-CMF 14.00-16.55 CMF-CWL 17.40-18.30

Geneva 2 weekly flights though for one week in January there are 3 and then at the end of March it goes to 1 weekly.
Saturday from 17th December to 25th March
CWL-GVA 12.10-14.55 GVA-CWL 15.35-16.20
Tuesday from 20th December to 27th December
CWL-GVA 10.40-13.25 GVA-CWL 14.00-14.45
Thursday from 29th December to 9th March
CWL-GVA 14.10-16.55 GVA-CWL 17.30-18.15

Glasgow 6 weekly
Monday to Friday and Sunday CWL-GLA 20.35-21.45 GLA-CWL 22.15-23.25

Faro 3 weekly flights except in December when the Tuesday flight doesn't operate.
Tuesday and Thursday CWL-FAO 10.20-12.50 FAO-CWL 13.25-16.05

Sunday CWL-FAO 07.25-10.00 FAO-CWL 10.35-13.15

Milan 4 weekly flights
Monday and Friday CWL-MXP 10.20-13.20 MXP-CWL 14.00-15.05

Wednesday CWL-MXP 13.45-16.45 MXP-CWL 17.25-18.30

Sunday CWL-MXP 07.20-10.20 MXP-CWL 11.00-12.05

Paris CDG 7 weekly flights
Monday to Friday and Saturday till the 10th December
CWL-CDG 09.20-11.35 CDG-CWL 12.35-12-55

Saturday from 17th December to 25th March
CWL-CDG 17.00-19.15 CDG-CWL 20.05-20.25

Sunday CWL-CDG 12.35-14.50 CDG-CWL 15.30-15.50

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Flybe CWL Winter 2016/2017

Many thanks, Jerry.

From the commencement of the ski season in December there will be 56 weekly rotations by based aircraft plus the daily BHD.

Last winter during the same period there were 53 weekly rotations by based aircraft plus the daily BHD.

Glasgow increases from 5 x weekly to 6 x weekly
Faro increases from 2 x weekly to 3 x weekly (with the slight limited variations you mentioned)
Milan MXP increases from 3 x weekly to 4 x weekly
Geneva increases from 1 x weekly to 2 x weekly (with the slight limited variations you mentioned)
Berlin Tegel a new route at 2 x weekly
Dusseldorf 3 x weekly last winter is axed

The other routes retain the same number of weekly rotations as last winter.

 

[Jerry]

I was surprised MXP increased to 4 weekly! Unless it's a potential ski route in winter? Access to the Italian Alps?
Glasgow has to been dumped to the end of the day can't see a 23.25 return being appealing to people! Looks like it's been sacrificed so CDG can be a morning rotation for better codeshares. And EDI got moved forward so it can still connect to the now 08.00 Etihad flight.
They are getting the max out of the 2 aircraft that is for sure.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

They are getting the max out of the 2 aircraft that is for sure.

They certainly are!

 

[Jerry]

The new Berlin route starts today! 15.00 departure.

Edit at 20.30.
It didn't depart till 17.30 not sure why it was late. Weather related maybe?

 

[CraigW92]

NEW ROUTE: Rome Fiumicino (FCO ) 2 X weekly from 28th March

Had a feeling that perhaps the airport would have chased this from them, has been on the hit list for quite a while.

Other news for S17:

MUC drops to 3 X weekly from 4 ( no surprises there )

VRN - increased from 1 to 2 X weekly

TXL- up from 2 weekly in the winter to 3

ORK- appears to have been dropped down to 1 X weekly

FAO - surprisingly keeping at 4 X weekly , good to see the competition also operating on days when FR are not, more choice for customers.

GLA and BHD yet to show on timetable ( I'd like to think BHD, GLA will be flown by BHD/GLA Frames) also the Saturday DUS and JER W pattern are yet to show

Intrestingly a few of the flights makes the timetable look awfully squeezed, if a tech delay was to happen or a crewing problem similar to this year then it's going to cause all kinds of problems. EDI for example as an extremely late weekday departure, the demand for a 3rd aircraft would take the strain off, good day with regards to a route that's been chased for a while.

 

[Tinkerman]

I think there will be a third based aircraft when hopefully LCY is put on for next Summer. This could operate the GLA then, as well as possibly something else ? An additional CDG or something ?

My first thought was that the timetable seems awfully squeezed, and what use ORK will have as 1x weekly I don't know. Great that FCO is in there, TXL up, VRN up too and competition with FR on FAO. Good to see it so squeezed in terms of capacity, but not when you consider tech/crewing issues as we have seen since Day 1. Don't forget GCI is yet to come from Blue Islands too which we don't have any indication on frequency at this current time. I'm hopeful that GLA will somehow be in there too, and would make extreme sense if operated daily in amongst the LCY on a Q400.

When officially announced by CWL hopefully there will be some reference to the LCY thing, people will certainly be asking where it is ! Media included.

 

[CraigW92]

I think there will be a third based aircraft when hopefully LCY is put on for next Summer. This could operate the GLA then, as well as possibly something else ? An additional CDG or something ?

My first thought was that the timetable seems awfully squeezed, and what use ORK will have as 1x weekly I don't know. Great that FCO is in there, TXL up, VRN up too and competition with FR on FAO. Good to see it so squeezed in terms of capacity, but not when you consider tech/crewing issues as we have seen since Day 1. Don't forget GCI is yet to come from Blue Islands too which we don't have any indication on frequency at this current time. I'm hopeful that GLA will somehow be in there too, and would make extreme sense if operated daily in amongst the LCY on a Q400.

When officially announced by CWL hopefully there will be some reference to the LCY thing, people will certainly be asking where it is ! Media included.

I agree with you, looking at the timetable it appears to go 2 weekly from April until June and then to one which is a little odd, although with one weekly I can't see the point in operating, I was surprised with BE on FAO, clearly they think they can uphold the yield against FR which is great for customer choice and price, the crewing and tech issues this year have been quite hefty as you say, a slight problem is going to cause a bigger problem, not only would a 3rd frame take the strain off but also add more choice

I actually had forgotten about the GCI service, thanks Tinkerman, I imagine this would say be 2 X weekly service to start and build up, getting announced on its own should give it a bigger boost. BHD will be released surely when the BHD timetable is announced hopefully the same with regards to GLA, can't for a second think BHD would be dropped.

A 3rd aircraft could operate the kind of schedule :

07:15 LCY

10:20 GLA

13:50 new service ... ORK 2 weekly e.g

18:45 LCY

Shall be interesting to see what happens with regards to LCY, if it was to be added you would like to think it would add more opportunities for growth

 

[Tinkerman]

Exactly correct ! Or another option for BE if CWL does not get an additional aircraft then would be for BE to operate GLA from Loganair as they do to MAN etc.

Hopefully more will become clear when the press release emanates from CWL today, if there is no mention of LCY or GLA in the article i would have thought the media would click onto it, so it would make sense for them to at least mention LCY in it ! Very suspicious otherwise, as has been the case with previous BE announcements.

As you say BHD is very unlikely to be dropped, will just come out when the BHD flights are released. If the aircraft is available it could also W pattern with GLA. There are plenty of options for BE, just have to wait and see what happens.