Cardiff Airport - General Thread

[CraigW92]

A realistic master plan would be beneficial. The current one - a decade old -was wildly optimistic as for that matter were a number of other airport master plans published around that time. If you believed them CWL would be handling 4.5 mppa now and Exeter nearly 2 million.

Debra Barber is using almost the same words as the previous airport chairman, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, used a couple of years ago when speaking of ME and USA scheduled aspirations.

I believe that the ME would be more useful than the USA but, if it's not one of the MEB3, there would have to be a partnership of some sort to enable onward travel to Australasia and Asia which is a huge proportion of the passenger traffic that flies from the UK to the ME.

I agree with regards to ME over the USA I think this would be far more beneficial, I remember the airport was in talks with Delta well which I think is a good 5 or so years ago now which was to be a daily JFK service at the time, I think there was a stumbling block when the airline was looking for a financial commitment from the WG to finance any potential losses in the first 3 years of operation I think it was ? However talks didn't progress presumably as the losses would have been two great, either service I imagine to New York or ME would require significant support financially.

I think the Norweigan model is an interesting one, one I imagine both CWL and BRS are monitoring both in regards to short and long haul.

 

[Jerry]

I think any of the ME3 or US legacy carriers would want a big subsidy to do routes from CWL and any airline whether it be Jet2, Ryanair or Norwegian would also want money to set up based aircraft at CWL and that may be a problem the airport and WAG will face. In the end if they want these airlines to turn up they may have to pay for the privilege. That may also apply to BRS if they want US and ME routes.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I agree with regards to ME over the USA I think this would be far more beneficial, I remember the airport was in talks with Delta well which I think is a good 5 or so years ago now which was to be a daily JFK service at the time, I think there was a stumbling block when the airline was looking for a financial commitment from the WG to finance any potential losses in the first 3 years of operation I think it was ? However talks didn't progress presumably as the losses would have been two great, either service I imagine to New York or ME would require significant support financially.

I think the Norweigan model is an interesting one, one I imagine both CWL and BRS are monitoring both in regards to short and long haul.

There was a suggestion doing the rounds several years ago that an airline believed to have been Delta had been in contact with the CWL management, with possibly the WAG involved as well regarding a NYC route - at whose instigation was never made clear and there was no official airline, airport or government statement so far as I'm aware. The story was that the airline required a considerable sum to underwrite the route. The airport was then owned by Abertis/AENA and the rumour was that the WAG would be the banker if a way could have been found to avoid contravening EU state aid rules and the WAG had been willing to cough up.

Whatever the strength of this story we know it was never progressed.

What was put in the public arena was a study by York Aviation at the behest of the WAG published in 2007, perversely shortly after the Wales route development fund (RDF) had been wound up because the EU had reduced the effectiveness of such funds. The WAG had asked York to examine the case for a scheduled CWL-NYC route. York thought that such a route would be viable but in each of the first three years of its existence would require an annual subsidy of £600,000. An extant RDF might have been able to assist had an airline been interested, although the major recession was about to make its presence felt.

York based its study on a daily Boeing 757-200 service running year-round, presumably one-class because it made no reference to premium cabins. It concluded that a fully worked up service would carry around the same number of passengers that CO's then existing BRS-EWR route carried, although it did not mention the BRS route which always seemed an odd omission having regard to the likely effect such a service would have on a CWL route. Furthermore, we know that CO decided in the end that the BRS numbers did not satisfy it.

 

[Jerry]

WAG would be the banker if a way could have been found to avoid contravening EU state aid rules and the WAG had been willing to cough up

I think it was mentioned that WAG might be able to get around EU rules by paying Delta for tourism promotion. Now whether the money could go through Visit Wales and they pay Delta i honestly don't know whether that would get around EU laws. Or another option could be to increase the route development loan from WAG to Cardiff Airport Ltd and then have that company pay Delta and Etihad (both have codeshare operations with airlines that fly out of CWL) to fly direct into CWL. But i would've thought each airline would want a hefty sum and maybe that money would be better spent trying to get airlines like Vueling or Ryanair or Jet2 or Norwegian or Flybe to base aircraft at the airport which would provide jobs for the area, a lot more routes and increase the passenger numbers a lot more than a daily 757 and a daily A330, though obviously both airlines look good on the list of airlines!
Also it will be interesting to see what the rumoured announcement is at the end of October around the date of the ACC meeting which is provisional on the 25th.

 

[marsh.ger]

It was mentioned during an ACC meeting several years ago that Delta even had an aircraft ready that could have operated the route providing that the airport could have guaranteed no losses up to a maximum sum over a 3 year period.

I know that during the time there was uproar as the sum mentioned was similar to the amount provided to the Intra Wales service annually.

I think the issue really is that Intra Wales is a PSO route and the US route could not be classed as that.

What we do no know is how much of the loan for the RDF remains available and it is a case on whether the airport concentrates on getting footfall through the door which would generate even more money which will then help repay the loan, create a RDF of their ow.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Thank you for that.

The EU route development funds were reduced in effectiveness in 2007 when, from memory, the sort of assistance that a fund could offer was reduced from 50% to 33% (it might have been 25%) of start-up costs (advertising for example) of a new route. In recent years the EU has issued further guidelines on such matters.

However, now that CWL is state owned the WAG, through its airport company, has more scope (as an airport owner) in funding new initiatives - as has been shown with its Flybe base - but that of course doesn't include chucking unlimited money at a project in a way that a private sector owner would find impossible to do.

Given that a number of airports in England that handle a larger annual number of passengers than CWL don't have NYC or ME direct routes it is noteworthy that CWL seems to be a serious contender (perhaps more so than some of the English airports I alluded to) for a NYC or ME route, or both.

 

[Jerry]

Given that a number of airports in England that handle a larger annual number of passengers than CWL don't have NYC or ME direct routes it is noteworthy that CWL seems to be a serious contender (perhaps more so than some of the English airports I alluded to) for a NYC or ME route, or both

What could help CWL in it's quest to get a New York route could be if it gets a LCY route and maybe another European route or domestic route and Flybe could get a codeshare with Delta Airlines.
My thinking is that any route would naturally need topping up from outside of CWL's catchment area. Now this can be done by aggressive advertising in the Bristol and South West area and southern Midlands and attracting pax that way but could also be achieved by codeshares from airports like LCY. It would probably need both to be sustainable. It could also benefit Flybe's other bases that have Delta flying into them. I checked the aircraft that Delta use for EDI a 757 it has 16 buisness class seats 44 premium economy and 108 economy. Now the economy seats might not be a struggle to fill up but the others will need help from outside of South Wales to fill and from what i've been hearing about the LCY route is that quite a few people are using it to connect into CWL and to other routes from LCY.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

What could help CWL in it's quest to get a New York route could be if it gets a LCY route and maybe another European route or domestic route and Flybe could get a codeshare with Delta Airlines.
My thinking is that any route would naturally need topping up from outside of CWL's catchment area. Now this can be done by aggressive advertising in the Bristol and South West area and southern Midlands and attracting pax that way but could also be achieved by codeshares from airports like LCY. It would probably need both to be sustainable. It could also benefit Flybe's other bases that have Delta flying into them. I checked the aircraft that Delta use for EDI a 757 it has 16 buisness class seats 44 premium economy and 108 economy. Now the economy seats might not be a struggle to fill up but the others will need help from outside of South Wales to fill and from what i've been hearing about the LCY route is that quite a few people are using it to connect into CWL and to other routes from LCY.

I'm sure you're right about a NYC route needing topping up from outside the CWL core catchment. It might be that the US side would be an important source - the BRS-EWR CO route initially struggled to average more than 40% from the US but gradually it built to 50% according to reports from the airline and the airport at the time.

That said there would almost certainly still be a need to boost the UK-based passenger numbers with the West Country and South Midlands being the obvious areas to look at.

I wonder though how easy this would be with a legacy carrier. They would be competing with BHX and LHR whose fares might not be any dearer, and in LHR's case with a much greater frequency and choice of airline. if an airline such as Norwegian was able to offer lower fares that might be a better prospect, particularly with cash-conscious travellers.

 

[Jerry]

I wonder though how easy this would be with a legacy carrier.

Yes for a legacy carrier it might be harder to attract pax especially if they are trying to fill the buisness class seats.
It may be that due to the South Wales area being a generally poorer area only a low cost airline like Norwegian could make it work. Also a Norwegian base could also bring other routes as well and have a bigger effect on the airport as a whole.
I also wonder if for many it is about the experience of going to a big airport that draws people to airports like LGW or LHR whereas a lot of the time it is just as cheap and as easy to connect via AMS or DUB.
Do you know if the airbridges at CWL work or not? Because i hear many people complain about going onto the tarmac and up the aircraft steps which personally i like doing!

 

[TheLocalYokel]

People often like smaller, quieter airports because the passenger experience is considered a better one. That's fine so far as it goes but if there are few services there is the obvious problem.

I don't know whether the airbridges at CWL work. They used to because I've used them. I quite like walking out to the aircraft, something you always have to do at BRS (my local airport) - that or be taken by bus - because there are no air bridges. There never have been (although they have planning consent) and it's said that low cost airlines don't like them because they supposedly slow down the boarding process.

I add the caveat that if it's pouring with rain or blowing a gale I'm not so keen on walking to the aircraft on the tarmac.

If you have, say, direct NYC connectivity from the UK it's vital (from a smaller airport especially) to have a means of interlining because not every passenger wants to go to New York. Norwegian would need a partner or partners in the USA to achieve this.

 

[superking]

I used the brs service with CO 4 times,and I can say the times I used them was always near fully loaded. the co product well for them with the hub they have in Newark.we must not forget the size of the Americas,that every airline that flies trans atlantic can not fly into every airport in the states.ppl know this that they have to pick a hub airport some where in the states.the only way a cwl service would work is to find enough pax in their catchment area.midlands would be out as they just lost a ta service,but still do another. with the size of the bhx catchment area that was a little surprise.the south west pax use lhr or a eoropean hub for their t a journey.the brs loadings were ok but they had problems filling the front end,that is where the money is to be made.then co got more slots at lhr and they were off. lhr can be reached from brs in about 90 minutes and cwl in about 120 minutes.ppl willtravel long distances to get to a airport that offers a good choice of airfields in the states.cwl would be better off doing what they good at and that is bucket and spade routes as lots not covered from cwl or extra rotations.more money out of them routes than say 3 rotations to the states per week.

 

[Jerry]

Norwegian would need a partner or partners in the USA to achieve this

I would be surprised if they got one as many US airlines fought tooth and nail to stop them from getting a licence to fly into there. As for connections with the US it might be less of a necessity because when you arrive you have to go through immingration and get your baggage checked in for the domestic flight.

cwl would be better off doing what they good at and that is bucket and spade routes as lots not covered from cwl or extra rotations.

I agree there is a lot more scope for more bucket and spade routes but to do that the airport will need a based LCC and Easyjet will never turn up, Ryanair looks doubtful. CWL may not even be on Norwegians radar (though i hope the airport has approached them). I can't see Monarch expanding and Jet2 are not really LCC. Vueling is probably CWL's option for the moment because they are already established but unless they setup more bases and can get more aircraft off IAG then they might not be able to expand their routes or base aircraft at the airport.
Long haul wise I do believe that much of it is driven politically as the economic benefits is always quoted of a NYC or DXB connection but no one actually knows whether they will work from CWL or not. It may be that NYC may only work twice or three weekly but there is a strong chance it won't. An ME3 airline may have a better chance as that offers more connections.
As a regular transatlantic flyer i do hope that one day i'll get the chance to fly to the US directly from CWL though i doubt it'll be a west coast destination!

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Some good points made by superking and Jerry IMO.

A direct flight to NYC is fine for those wanting the New York area but if you want to go further afield in North America you will obviously have to change aircraft. As an example, I can't really see any difference in flying CWL-AMS-SFO than flying CWL-JFK (or EWR)- SFO. You still have to change aircraft and wait around. The other alternative is road or train to London and then LHR-SFO direct. The same applies to BRS.

In the 1990s and early years of this century I flew several times to North America via AMS into or out of gateway airports such as Vancouver, San Francisco, Minneapolis and Detroit. When the CO BRS-EWR was operating my son often used it on business. He worked for a major US financial group and found the BRS link useful if he was in the New York area. He'd sometimes use it to fly on to another destination but more often than not it was a better use of his time if he was going to a non New York area destination to drive to LHR and fly direct from there.

If CWL gets itself a NYC route then fine but I don't regard it as a priority for the airport when there are so many unserved business destinations in Europe. If I lived near CWL I'd still be comparing the via AMS fares and timings if I was flying to another part of the USA. The same would have applied to BRS (my local airport)-EWR when it was operating although by then I had ceased travelling to North America.

 

[CraigW92]

Do you know if the airbridges at CWL work or not?

Airbridges 7 and 10 do, I believe 9 is no longer operational. There are restrictions on what aircraft type can use them. 737-800 can't use either, I know A320/21 can use 10, 757/A330/767 can use 7 for example. I'm sure there is someone with more knowledge than myself on the airbridges mind.

With regards to Vueling, they have done very well when essentialy starting from a standing point to building up the presence in to a household name in the South Wales area, however I do hope after this years quite shocking service with lengthy regular delays this hasn't been tarnished, a consalodation period of the current routes seems to have taken place especially when you look at increased offerings from other UK airports, the hope is that aswell as frequency increases on current routes, new routes will be added somner rather than later, with a change in business model in operating Canary routes to the the UK this may open an opportunity aswell as various summer sun destinations that either remain unserved or underserved. IBZ and/or FCO were the routes that I thought may be contention to be added next.

I agree with regards to the priority of a JFK/EWR service, for me the far more important issues in my view to gain a significant low cost presence and to improve the opportunities that lay with regards to Lesiure and business. There's a host of routes as I alluded to that remain to be served in Spain, Italy and even Greece, A significant presence where 2 or more aircraft are based would open these opportunities and take the airport pretty much up to the prime of 2MPA mark, that's when I think a New York route may be better prioritised.

Still challenges would lay ahead, a relatively poor CWL catchment would need to dip into the wealthier Westcounty and further beyond, what equipment would be used, a boeing 757 which isn't exactly cheap to run and also can be quite an uncomfortable expierence (DUB-PHL with AA 757 according to a friend was awful) when you look at the alternative air frames on use on the route from elsewhere, between the two I'd think a ME service with away or EK would be far more beneficial with regards to popularity and also onward connections.

 

[Jerry]

I can't really see any difference in flying CWL-AMS-SFO than flying CWL-JFK (or EWR)- SFO.

For me it's using AMS negates what can be a 3 hour journey to LHR and back. With CWL 40 mins and i'm home. Plus i don't have to go through bag drop at LHR which I'm guessing will involve big queues. New York would actually probably suit me less though i would try and use the service if CWL ever got it but it would probably have to be tailored as a holiday destination and not a hub route. In practical terms what would benefit CWL more would be a 4th KLM rotation at 13.00 AMS departure would be great! More realistic North American destinations might be a weekly Orlando during the school holidays and a weekly Toronto with Air Transat.

 

[Jerry]

I agree with regards to the priority of a JFK/EWR service, for me the far more important issues in my view to gain a significant low cost presence and to improve the opportunities that lay with regards to Lesiure and business.

Yes a 2 aircraft LCC base is what is really needed the most. Leisure routes i can think of in abundance but the only buisness routes i could think of would a permanent LCY, MAN and BRU. Not sure what else would work.

uncomfortable expierence (DUB-PHL with AA 757 according to a friend was awful) when you look at the alternative air frames on use on the route from elsewhere, between the two I'd think a ME service with away or EK would be far more beneficial with regards to popularity and also onward connections.

From what i've heard on the BHX forum the AA 757 service isn't very good Delta and United are much better and from with regards to ME3 i wonder if cargo could be a deciding factor as all 3 have extensive cargo operations.

There was a reply on the airports twitter account earlier on today that got me interested. Someone asked about new destinations and the reply was 'watch this space'. If i'm correct don't Flybe announce there S17 schedule in October? Or maybe a new Vueling destination? A new airline would be good as well.

 

[Aviador]

Yes for a legacy carrier it might be harder to attract pax especially if they are trying to fill the buisness class seats.
It may be that due to the South Wales area being a generally poorer area only a low cost airline like Norwegian could make it work. Also a Norwegian base could also bring other routes as well and have a bigger effect on the airport as a whole.
I also wonder if for many it is about the experience of going to a big airport that draws people to airports like LGW or LHR whereas a lot of the time it is just as cheap and as easy to connect via AMS or DUB.
Do you know if the airbridges at CWL work or not? Because i hear many people complain about going onto the tarmac and up the aircraft steps which personally i like doing!

Air bridges need a fair amount of upkeep and they do malfunction from time to time. The ones Leeds has require a call out from the European manufacturer.

 

[Jerry]

Air bridges need a fair amount of upkeep and they do malfunction from time to time. The ones Leeds has require a call out from the European manufacturer.

There has been a couple of times when a plane I've been on has got to the gate and the airbridge hasn't worked! Guessing they can be expensive to repair!

 

[marsh.ger]

Airbridges

As of this very moment the following airbridges can be used for the following types at CWL.

Airbridge 7 - B752, B753, A332,A333, B788, B789, B762, B763
Airbridge 9 - No no longer in use
Airbridge 10 - B762, B763, B752, B753, A318, A319, A320, A321

Basically if you travelling with Thomson from CWL unless you are on a Dreamliner then the airbridge cannot be used as the Boeing narrowbody aircraft are not high enough to use the airbridges. Unfortunately years ago the stantions were placed on concrete blocks to raise them for the larger aircraft types.

There is an additional issue with aircraft that have premium cabins. They do not want economy passengers walking through the premium cabins therefore premium will board via airbridge and economy will board down the stairs via the steps.

The airbridges are not fully driveable as can be seen in the larger airports. These can move to many different heights almost possible for all aircraft and can be moved to either the forward or middle aircraft door.

Cardiff Airport

I was having the discussion with a ex colleague on Sunday and as always it comes back around to Cardiff Airport and what's next.

I think the questions that remain unanswered is how much of the loan for route development remains at Cardiff Airport's use?

Does the airport hunt for a carrier such as Jet2, Norwegian, Vueling to base at Cardiff Airport and launch an host of new routes and add further capacity at CWL in the search to get more footfall through the door. This in turn will reduce the costs per passengers for services, provide money to re-pay the loan to the Welsh Government and provide some more money for the route development fund.

Or does Cardiff Airport hunt for an operator to fly to a focus longhaul destination such as New York / Dubai. There would be far less of footfall increase.

I don't think there is enough money around for both of my above options however there are hints that something is coming.

 

[Aviador]

I've created a dedicated area in the gallery for Cardiff airport photography.

http://www.forums4airports.com/media/categories/32/