Route Development & Rumours

[Jerry]

I here the one to watch is US based low cost operator “Breeze Airways”
They have just been certified to operate into the UK & Europe using a fleet of 2 class configured Airbus A220-300 which is also ETOPS 180-minute certified.

I wouldn't get any hopes up as it's highly likely they'll do what the others do and fly to London and Edinburgh.

 

[Aviador]

I wouldn't get any hopes up as it's highly likely they'll do what the others do and fly to London and Edinburgh.

Breeze says it is looking to serve UK and Irish leisure destinations indicating they may use slightly different airports than the regular operators. So who knows, LBA might be a target for the Yorkshire Dales, York and the East Coast. MAN could also be targeted for North Wales. EDI is likely for Scotland but could INV be an option for the A220? Looking at their route map, it's anything but ordinary and it appears they're not shy from using smaller regional airports so let's not write them off just yet, even CWL might be in with a chance here @Jerry

 

[Jerry]

Breeze says it is looking to serve UK and Irish leisure destinations indicating they may use slightly different airports than the regular operators.

I know Breeze operates a little different and serves a lot of the US regional market but fundamentally they're still going to want to target the main destinations for American travellers which is London and Edinburgh and of course London they have multiple option. I would be shocked if they went anywhere else. For airports like LeedsBradford and Cardiff i think for most long haul the focus should be expanding on European hub routes that just seems more realistic to me than chasing a random US airline.

 

[Aviador]

I know Breeze operates a little different and serves a lot of the US regional market but fundamentally they're still going to want to target the main destinations for American travellers which is London and Edinburgh and of course London they have multiple option. I would be shocked if they went anywhere else. For airports like LeedsBradford and Cardiff i think for most long haul the focus should be expanding on European hub routes that just seems more realistic to me than chasing a random US airline.

We shouldn't assume it is a target for LBA. This particular airline is not interested in serving the UK market, but the US summer tourist market. This means it is probably irrelevant which UK airport wants their flights as they will go where they think their customers will go. As you rightly say Edinburgh and London are big pullers but they are already very well served by the mainstream airlines. From a tourist viewpoint think Scottish Highlands; Brecon Beacons; the Peak District; the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District. For towns and cities they're probably looking at places such as York, Chester, Oxford etc. So it definitely isn't as clear cut as you suggest. I watch a few YouTube channels showing US tourists visiting the UK and what is apparent with all of them is they all say look further than Edinburgh and London. This is one of many examples.

 

[gulftraveller]

The UK/Europe to US market has been stagnant for some years. That is one reason why transatlantic growth for US airlines has focused on leisure in recent years. But now, with a predicted downturn in the US economy, there will likely be fewer US tourists, affecting airports such as EDI and LHR. The list of LH Group reductions for 25/26 on their transatlantic routes is very striking.

 

[Statto]

For airports like LeedsBradford and Cardiff i think for most long haul the focus should be expanding on European hub routes that just seems more realistic to me than chasing a random US airline.

But as I posted earlier, why frame it as an either or choice. There is a group of people employed full time to build connections with airlines, many of which might not lead to anything, some of which might lead to something but it might take a while.

 

[Aviador]

But as I posted earlier, why frame it as an either or choice. There is a group of people employed full time to build connections with airlines, many of which might not lead to anything, some of which might lead to something but it might take a while.

And as I said earlier, who's to say the airline won't approach LBA not the other way round.

As a business an airport will look at every available option not necessarily just focus on one area.

 

[lbaspotter]

If you on LinkedIn and follow certain feeds you’ll know why I pointed out Breeze.

 

[Len Fish]

The fact we’re even talking about these possible routes and airlines shows how far the airport has come, with the prospect of even more developments once all the terminal and other infrastructure work is completed. Hopefully exciting times ahead with cautious optimism given the volatility of the airline business.

 

[Gray Ham]

That would confuse the media. I can see the headline now:
Breasyjet launch New York from LBA

Joking aside again it depends if they want to be a disruptor or look for niches. Certainly limited seats to sell if they can make it profitable.

P s. Jet2 are you watching re A220's - a perfect B733 replacement and you wouldn't have to register those as G-ALBA or F-UKOF

I wonder if this registration (G-ALBA) is available. How perfect for a LBA based aircraft to ***Please Read Forum Terms of Service*** a snook at the eponymous organisation!

 

[White Heather]

I wonder if this registration (G-ALBA) is available. How perfect for a LBA based aircraft to ***Please Read Forum Terms of Service*** a snook at the eponymous organisation!

I think it already exists and although not based here, it's a regular visitor doing training flights. Frankly, it needs banning until it gets a less offensive registration. If it were a car, the DVLA wouldn't allow it!

 

[Jerry]

But as I posted earlier, why frame it as an either or choice. There is a group of people employed full time to build connections with airlines, many of which might not lead to anything, some of which might lead to something but it might take a while.

Because surely it's about realism. Those people only have so much resources so surely they should concentrate on airlines and routes that would be more realistic for LeedsBradford?

 

[Aviador]

Because surely it's about realism. Those people only have so much resources so surely they should concentrate on airlines and routes that would be more realistic for LeedsBradford?

You are possibly missing the point though. If Breeze want to use an airport in Yorkshire they will have approached LBA not the other way around so its not necessarily a case of LBA chasing them, so no realism required.

As you are a great advocate of CWL airport do you think it was wise for CWL to chase Tui Cruise Flights. It's not really something a small airport like CWL should be aiming for is it?Shouldn't they be more realistic and be aiming for the odd extra Ryanair flight to Alicante? Of course not, they should go after ANY business they can get which is what LBA is trying to do too.

 

[Jerry]

It's not really something a small airport like CWL should be aiming for is it?

Difference with that is that TUI is an established carrier at Cardiff it's biggest and cruise flights have been established at Cardiff for quite a while so very different situation than chasing some random airline. For Cardiff it's just expanding on something that's been established for a while.
A similar comparison would be LBA chasing Jet2 to expand it's city destinations or it's New York flights. That wouldn't be unrealistic from LBA.

 

[michael]

The UK/Europe to US market has been stagnant for some years. That is one reason why transatlantic growth for US airlines has focused on leisure in recent years. But now, with a predicted downturn in the US economy, there will likely be fewer US tourists, affecting airports such as EDI and LHR. The list of LH Group reductions for 25/26 on their transatlantic routes is very striking.

Not that it'll make much difference to overall numbers but chatting to a business owner in Grassington this week she reckons 80% of the voices heard in the village recently have been American, this is off the back of the new All Creatures Great and Small being transmitted on one of the US networks.

 

[Bigman]

Not that it'll make much difference to overall numbers but chatting to a business owner in Grassington this week she reckons 80% of the voices heard in the village recently have been American, this is off the back of the new All Creatures Great and Small being transmitted on one of the US networks.

Yes it's a bit of a tricky woo situation. Sorry...had to get that in before Finger66

 

[Aviador]

If you on LinkedIn and follow certain feeds you’ll know why I pointed out Breeze.

I can't find anything but refining an artificial intelligence search on the A220-300 ops from LBA this was the result.

With 137 passengers in a mixed-class configuration and no cargo, the practical range from LBA increases substantially to approximately 3,200 - 3,600+ nautical miles (3,700 - 4,150 miles / 5,900 - 6,650 km).

---

Detailed Impact of Removing Cargo

Cargo (also known as freight or bellyhold cargo) is a significant source of weight and revenue for airlines. On long, weight-restricted flights, it's often the first thing to be sacrificed to carry more fuel.

· Weight Savings: A typical cargo load on a flight from LBA could easily be 2,000 - 5,000 kg (4,400 - 11,000 lbs) or more. Removing this weight entirely frees up a massive amount of the aircraft's Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) for additional fuel.
· Increased Fuel Capacity: The fuel burn of the A220 is roughly 2,200 kg/hour. The weight savings from removing 5,000 kg of cargo translates to over 2 hours of additional flight time. This is a game-changer for range.

What This Means for Range from LBA

With this high-passenger, zero-cargo configuration, the aircraft is now optimized for maximum range with a full complement of paying passengers.

· Reliable East Coast North America: Destinations like New York (EWR/JFK), Boston (BOS), and Washington (IAD) become much more reliable and operationally viable. The airline could schedule these routes with a high degree of confidence they could be flown without payload restrictions on most days, even with typical headwinds.
· Pushing the Limits: The upper end of this range (~3,600 NM) brings cities like Chicago (ORD), Toronto (YYZ), and Newfoundland (YYT) into the realm of possibility, though these would still be highly sensitive to strong headwinds and might require a minor passenger payload restriction on the worst days.
· Middle East & North Africa Effortless: A route to Dubai (DXB), which was at the very edge before, now becomes comfortably within range.

Practical Example: Leeds (LBA) to New York (JFK)

· Distance: ~3,000 nautical miles
· With Cargo: This flight would likely be weight-restricted. The plane might have to offload some cargo or carry just enough fuel to make it, leaving little margin for unexpected strong headwinds. This is a commercial and operational risk.
· With NO Cargo: This flight is now well within the comfortable performance envelope. The aircraft can carry 137 passengers, their bags, and all the fuel required for the journey plus generous reserves. The operation becomes robust and reliable.

Summary Table: 137 Pax + No Cargo from LBA

Factor Detail Impact on Range from LBA
Aircraft Max Range A220-300: 3,350 NM Becomes much more achievable.
Payload 137 pax + bags, ZERO cargo Optimal high-yield, long-range configuration. Frees up significant weight for fuel.
LBA Runway Constraint 2,250 m Still a factor, but the zero-cargo weight saving dramatically reduces take-off performance penalties.
Real-World Range ~3,200 - 3,600+ NM A robust and reliable range for most mission planning.
Sample Destinations Easy & Reliable: New York, Boston, Washington, Montreal, Dubai. Possible: Chicago, Toronto (weather dependent).

Final Conclusion:

An Airbus A220-300 carrying 137 passengers with no cargo is arguably the ideal configuration for launching long, thin routes from a constrained airport like Leeds Bradford.

It transforms transatlantic operations from a challenging, weather-dependent prospect into a viable and reliable business proposition. This setup allows an airline to target high-yield passenger traffic between Yorkshire and key business and leisure destinations in North America and the Middle East, sacrificing cargo revenue for the premium fares and market creation of a direct long-haul route.

 

[Finger66]

Yes it's a bit of a tricky woo situation. Sorry...had to get that in before Finger66

And I wasn't actually going to make any jokes as was making it a Mrs pun free thread!

 

[Severn]

Here’s an excellent, in-depth look article from Analytic Flying regarding how the A321XLR’s 4,700nm range is misleading—and that payload matters.

Analytic Flying: A321XLR Range Capabilities

In summary though;
IndiGo’s order of 69 A321 XLRs has sparked headlines about flights to London and Amsterdam—but the aircraft’s 4,700 nm “range” assumes full fuel with zero payload, which is unrealistic.

Actual operational range depends heavily on the fuel–payload tradeoff. On routes like Delhi–London (4,183 nm), the XLR would need to sacrifice passenger numbers to carry enough fuel—reducing payload to around 20 t, meaning just 170–190 passengers.

More realistic are routes like Delhi–Frankfurt (3,311 nm), where the higher payload allows 190–210 seats—still high density, consistent with LCC economics.

Crucially, the XLR could also enhance current payload-limited routes, allowing larger aircraft or fuller loads, and open up new mid-range destinations in Asia or Australia.

In short: the XLR’s impressive range doesn’t mean it’ll regularly fly every route at maximum distance. Airlines like IndiGo will deploy it strategically and pragmatically to balance range, payload, and cost.

 

[Aviador]

Which is how I understood it. So long routes with mixed configuration and without a freight option but that will suit some operators especially inclusive tour who might offer premium or premium economy seating. So ideal for regional airports seeking to serve longer niche routes.