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.