Cardiff: WestJet Transatlantic News & Discussions

[pug]

Quite a heated discussion on Dried Plum over the success of the Toronto route, with one poster calling the figures pathetic, as I don't contribute on there I can't get involved, but some people don't seem to be giving the route a chance, especially when it involves CWL.

Playing devils advocate here, whilst typical on long haul flights that load factors don’t necessarily provide the full picture, why it’s encouraging to see the premium seats being filled, there have been stories of passengers getting offered cheap upgrades and the ticket prices not being particularly high.

It’s not about not wanting the route to work, but sometimes it’s important not to just will things to work. If they’re going cheap it’s not likely to be high yielding. However clearly theirs is a push to attract two way traffic, though I’d be interested to know how much this is costing the Welsh government!

 

[CAN&I]

Playing devils advocate here, whilst typical on long haul flights that load factors don’t necessarily provide the full picture, why it’s encouraging to see the premium seats being filled, there have been stories of passengers getting offered cheap upgrades and the ticket prices not being particularly high.

It’s not about not wanting the route to work, but sometimes it’s important not to just will things to work. If they’re going cheap it’s not likely to be high yielding. However clearly theirs is a push to attract two way traffic, though I’d be interested to know how much this is costing the Welsh government!

The route itself is not costing the Welsh Government anything. That has been made clear on record. No direct payment is involved.

The commercial arrangement between Cardiff Airport and WestJet is another matter entirely, not to mention and understandably confidential one. Very few are close to the detail despite how many online voices claim to know the ins and outs of the agreement.

However, both Cardiff Airport and the Welsh Government have said on record that local promotion, marketing and handling costs are obviously factored in (as anyone would expect) but equally it has been made clear that there is no ticket price subsidy involved and nobody asides WestJet is accountable for paying for empty seats.

Besides, the person arguing the toss and wishing to see everlasting failure at Cardiff Airport is another ten-a-penny armchair expert on "pploon".

His apparant expertise knows no bounds yet he seems to be willing to completely overlook 1) how new routes work in the real world (not in the Wizz Air world of course) and 2) he's extrapolating his own half-baked opinion onto a low-cost narrow body operation while intentionally ignoring the differing set of parameters at play, not to mention what "success" or even "acceptable" looks like in the eyes of WestJet, Cardiff Airport and the Welsh Government.

So many experts on that place (and elsewhere) have so little clue as to how the industry actually works.

That muppet is prime example.

 

[pug]

The route itself is not costing the Welsh Government anything. That has been made clear on record. No direct payment is involved.

The commercial arrangement between Cardiff Airport and WestJet is another matter entirely, not to mention and understandably confidential one. Very few are close to the detail despite how many online voices claim to know the ins and outs of the agreement.

However, both Cardiff Airport and the Welsh Government have said on record that local promotion, marketing and handling costs are obviously factored in (as anyone would expect) but equally it has been made clear that there is no ticket price subsidy involved and nobody asides WestJet is accountable for paying for empty seats.

Besides, the person arguing the toss and wishing to see everlasting failure at Cardiff Airport is another ten-a-penny armchair expert on "pploon".

His apparant expertise knows no bounds yet he seems to be willing to completely overlook 1) how new routes work in the real world (not in the Wizz Air world of course) and 2) he's extrapolating his own half-baked opinion onto a low-cost narrow body operation while intentionally ignoring the differing set of parameters at play, not to mention what "success" or even "acceptable" looks like in the eyes of WestJet, Cardiff Airport and the Welsh Government.

So many experts on that place (and elsewhere) have so little clue as to how the industry actually works.

That muppet is prime example.

Ultimately the Welsh Government own the airport, whilst we do not know the commercial terms that have been agreed as they’re comconf, it’s likely that they are subject to some kind of subsidy. Encouraging though that there seems to be some kind of bilateral tourism trade agreement to encourage two way travel.

With that said, if what has been posted by people elsewhere is true (and I’m not sure who in dried fruit you’re referring to as ‘muppet’), and the ticket prices are low, it would suggest lower yield which, though it might add strategic value to westjet presently, doesn’t necessarily lend the route longevity.

I have no skin in the game, just an interested observer. I personally dont see a sustainable regional U.K.-long haul narrow body network. Would be nice to be proven wrong.

 

[Jerry]

Well government funding or not I'm looking forward to using the route on Thursday.

 

[Jarvo]

WestJet are a bit of an anomaly in terms of LH carriers when trying to gauge success through base fare prices alone, as when all is said and done, not a lot is included in the ultrabasic fare, and many will be opting to add features on. It's that FR style up-selling that'll be making the difference between 70-80% LF being acceptable or not.

 

[Qing4theloo]

it’s likely that they are subject to some kind of subsidy.

There is no evidence for that whatsoever.

 

[pug]

There is no evidence for that whatsoever.

There is, even if they’re paying 0 in HLN that constitutes a subsidy, and as is often the case subsidies are not direct cash payments but heavy incentives for things like marketing which can be shouldered by the airport OPCO amongst other things. This is exactly what Peel did, but people don’t see this side of it because it’s hidden behind commercial confidentiality and the costs are hidden behind ‘admin fees’ in the companies accounts. With that said, the Welsh Government have committed £100million to subsidise long-haul routes from CWL, a point that is well documented.

It is highly unlikely that WestJet have gone to CWL without this kind of support, but it is standard industry ops, particularly when it comes to regional airports - the cost in this instance is of course unclear, but a cost there will be.

 

[gulftraveller]

They announced a return in 2027 very soon after the launch, when an overall assessment of the route would have been impossible. It strongly suggests they are in a two year agreement with CWL, though the terms are unknown. Nothing wrong with that if the service becomes viable and there is no early return of Canada/US tourism, requiring airframes.

 

[Silvercity]

Is there a strong connection between South Wales and Canada? I ask this because I remember years ago CP Air used to operate Cardiff to Toronto for a number of years, possibly Wardair too.

 

[pug]

Is there a strong connection between South Wales and Canada? I ask this because I remember years ago CP Air used to operate Cardiff to Toronto for a number of years, possibly Wardair too.

Historically this is quite likely. Toronto was a popular destination from a number of regional airport including, at one time, Exeter which was only handling a tiny number of passengers at that time. A lot of this demand was due to two way VFR traffic owing to the large-scale emigration in the early to mid 20th century. Sadly as generations pass the tendency to travel frequently to visit family then diminishes.

 

[Jerry]

WestJet are a bit of an anomaly in terms of LH carriers when trying to gauge success through base fare prices alone, as when all is said and done, not a lot is included in the ultrabasic fare, and many will be opting to add features on. It's that FR style up-selling that'll be making the difference between 70-80% LF being acceptable or not.

Checked bag and seat selection isn't included and the ticket isn't flexible and can't be upgraded either and considering most long haul passengers will have a checked bag you can add on that as extra revenue
I've seen prices of around £400 return often quoted but from my own research that's not that different from Heathrow.

As for the whole subsidy debate. If the airport has got some sort of deal with WestJet isn't Toronto the type of
route that should be open to subsidisies? It's a route that brings in inbound tourism directly into Wales and markets Cardiff as a destination.
But there's also the other side to consider Ontario. The Ontario representative to the UK was at the launch. As a province they'll want to connect to new destinations and bring new tourists there especially with everything going on with the USA. We often talk about the Welsh government and Cardiff Airport but route development is a 2 way thing and we also don't know if there's some sort of incentive from the other side as well.
It's the last week of the route it's onsale for next year which is really good. It'll be interesting to see if when the route is finished for the year if Cardiff Airport socials come out with a breakdown of the passengers on the route especially the number of Canadians travelling to Wales.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2096370007793979744

It strongly suggests they are in a two year agreement with CWL

There's a 5 year deal between the airport and airline. Was reported in an interview with the CEO at the launch.

 

[StanMan]

Is there a strong connection between South Wales and Canada? I ask this because I remember years ago CP Air used to operate Cardiff to Toronto for a number of years, possibly Wardair too.

Yes, you're right - both CP Air and Wardair used to operate regular flights to Canada from CWL - as did Air Transat and, for a short period, Zoom.

 

[Qing4theloo]

This is exactly what Peel did

Peel? I think you need to get back to the DSA thread.

With that said, the Welsh Government have committed £100million to subsidise long-haul routes from CWL

It's a facility - to develop long term routes. Not necessarily for long-term subsidies. Which is why BRS are flogging a dead horse.

 

[pug]

Peel? I think you need to get back to the DSA thread.

It's a facility - to develop long term routes. Not necessarily for long-term subsidies. Which is why BRS are flogging a dead horse.

I was using Peel as an example of commercial arrangements with airlines at airports that are seen as less attractive, so it’s directly relevant to this thread.

It is a facility to enable ‘long term’ routes which will include subsidies, the CAT permitted it because the airport is technically in credit with lenders, nothing to do with subsidies. It’s simple as that really, but the ultimate problem for airports like CWL is that the market has evolved in such a way as to centralise operations at smaller number of airports around the U.K. due to high unit costs and critical mass keeping total costs lower.

In relevance to this thread, it will be interesting to see how this partnership develops.

 

[CAN&I]

Ultimately the Welsh Government own the airport, whilst we do not know the commercial terms that have been agreed as they’re comconf, it’s likely that they are subject to some kind of subsidy. Encouraging though that there seems to be some kind of bilateral tourism trade agreement to encourage two way travel.

With that said, if what has been posted by people elsewhere is true (and I’m not sure who in dried fruit you’re referring to as ‘muppet’), and the ticket prices are low, it would suggest lower yield which, though it might add strategic value to westjet presently, doesn’t necessarily lend the route longevity.

I have no skin in the game, just an interested observer. I personally dont see a sustainable regional U.K.-long haul narrow body network. Would be nice to be proven wrong.

There is, even if they’re paying 0 in HLN that constitutes a subsidy, and as is often the case subsidies are not direct cash payments but heavy incentives for things like marketing which can be shouldered by the airport OPCO amongst other things. This is exactly what Peel did, but people don’t see this side of it because it’s hidden behind commercial confidentiality and the costs are hidden behind ‘admin fees’ in the companies accounts. With that said, the Welsh Government have committed £100million to subsidise long-haul routes from CWL, a point that is well documented.

It is highly unlikely that WestJet have gone to CWL without this kind of support, but it is standard industry ops, particularly when it comes to regional airports - the cost in this instance is of course unclear, but a cost there will be.

It is a facility to enable ‘long term’ routes which will include subsidies, the CAT permitted it because the airport is technically in credit with lenders, nothing to do with subsidies. It’s simple as that really, but the ultimate problem for airports like CWL is that the market has evolved in such a way as to centralise operations at smaller number of airports around the U.K. due to high unit costs and critical mass keeping total costs lower.

No - we don't know the commercial terms. Nobody asides those very close to the deal does. However, what has been stated on public record by the Welsh Government is that no financial subsidy or direct payment to WestJet is involved.

There is also a difference between "subsidy" and "support". The former implies a direct monetary incentive paid directly to an airline by an airport or a governing body or other agency, which is not the case. The latter describes the situation we have previous outlined.

Your assertation that "some kind of subsidy is likely", is an opinion that doesn't align with the facts of the matter asides the support elements we've already shared, support that airlines, tourism boards and agencies agree with airports as par for the course.

Further, a condition of the £205.2m subsidy payment provided to Cardiff Airport by the Welsh Government FORBIDS the money to be used as direct subsidy payments to airlines. If we are going to present facts as "well documented" then we should at least present the full facts, not the "facts" as we believe them to be.

Your further comment that the CAT permitted the subsidy on the basis is also very, very wrong. Te CAT agreed with CWL partly on the basis that the subsidy would not be paid directly to airlines! It is to be used, amongst other things, to provide support but not to be paid directly as a subsidy as the basis of the WG subsidy forbids it!!!

Another assertion that "It is highly unlikely that WestJet have gone to CWL without this kind of support, but it is standard industry ops, particularly when it comes to regional airports - the cost in this instance is of course unclear, but a cost there will be" is an opinion, it is not factual. It also blurs the line between subsidy and the support provided as part of normal commercial engagement.

With regards the "muppet" we referred to, this individual seems to be a subject matter on everything from North American tourism to the inner workings and financial dealing of airlines and airports and has a particular fondness of heaping negative after negative on Cardiff Airport without so much as wishing to enter a reasonable discussion, never mind recognising where they are wrong or where the line between opinion and fact sits. Granted we could be talking about any of the armchair experts that lurk the forums of "pploon" but we are talking about one recognised individual.

Ticket prices and seat sales may appear low to those of us following the various conversations, theories and personal "certainties" but, again, 1) none of us know what "poor", "acceptable" or "good" looks like to WestJet or Cardiff Airport and 2) opinion and assumption counts for nothing when taking a view on route longevity or market sustainability as only those parties involved are fully qualified to make that call.

There is no evidence for that whatsoever.

It's a facility - to develop long term routes. Not necessarily for long-term subsidies. Which is why BRS are flogging a dead horse.

Precisely on the nail with both points Qing4theloo. There is no evidence. On the contray, it is a matter of public record that no monetary subsidy is involved whatsoever, neither is the WG funding designed to be sued to pay airline "subsidies". 👍

 

[pug]

No - we don't know the commercial terms. Nobody asides those very close to the deal does. However, what has been stated on public record by the Welsh Government is that no financial subsidy or direct payment to WestJet is involved. Your assertation that "some kind of subsidy is likely", is an opinion that doesn't align with the facts of the matter asides the support elements we've already shared, support that airlines and tourism boards and agencies agree with airports as par for the course.

With regards the "muppet" we referred to, this individual seems to be a subject matter on everything from north american tourism to the inner workings and financial dealing of airlines and airports and has a particular fondness of heaping negative after negative on Cardiff Airport without so much as wishing to enter a reasonable discussion, never mind recognising where they are wrong or where the line between opinion and fact sits. Granted we could be talking about any of the armchair experts that lurk the forums of "pploon" but we are talking about one recognised individual.

Ticket prices and seat sales may appear low to those of us following the various conversations, theories and personal "certainties" but, again, 1) none of us know what "poor", "acceptable" or "good" looks like to WestJet or Cardiff Airport and 2) opinion and assumption counts for nothing when taking a view on route longevity or market sustainability as only those parties involved are fully qualified to make that call.


Precisely. Conversely, it is a matter of public record that no monetary subsidy is involved whatsoever.

Speaking as someone who has been involved in such ‘deals’ in the past, whilst we can’t know the exact financial incentives experience does provide a knowledge on the sort of subsidies that will be on the table here.

Nobody mentioned direct cash payments. This would be exceptionally rare for a seasonal 3 x weekly service. However subsidies do take the form of other financial sweaters like 0 HLN, free advertising space in the terminal and marketing in general being borne by the airport OPCO and not by the airline. Obviously other factors such as tourist boards (at both ends), financial incentives to independent travel trade to push the flights ahead of other options, amongst many other things. This is known practice across the board, I’m not sure if you’re being purposefully disingenuous or completely misunderstanding my point.

That £100million allocated to this does not mean the airport are physically paying the airline, although I understand in the case of Flybe and project blackbird this was part of the deal - to underwrite the losses on every empty seat below break even load factor.

Using ‘nobody knows’ is a tiresome guardrail on the various aviation forums.

 

[CAN&I]

Speaking as someone who has been involved in such ‘deals’ in the past, whilst we can’t know the exact financial incentives experience does provide a knowledge on the sort of subsidies that will be on the table here.

Nobody mentioned direct cash payments. This would be exceptionally rare for a seasonal 3 x weekly service. However subsidies do take the form of other financial sweaters like 0 HLN, free advertising space in the terminal and marketing in general being borne by the airport OPCO and not by the airline. Obviously other factors such as tourist boards (at both ends), financial incentives to independent travel trade to push the flights ahead of other options, amongst many other things. This is known practice across the board, I’m not sure if you’re being purposefully disingenuous or completely misunderstanding my point.

That £100million allocated to this does not mean the airport are physically paying the airline, although I understand in the case of Flybe and project blackbird this was part of the deal - to underwrite the losses on every empty seat below break even load factor.

Using ‘nobody knows’ is a tiresome guardrail on the various aviation forums.

We are not being disingenuous, nor are we misunderstanding the point.

If you cannot enter into a debate without blurring the lines between fact and opinion, misusing basic industry terms, and ignoring substantiated facts, only to then deflect by accusing others of being disingenuous, then this conversation may as well end here with everyone agreeing you are right on every point.

A challenge to your logic is not a personal slight, and it is a shame you have chosen to take it as one. However, such is the norm in an aviation forum.

As someone who claims to have been close to such deals, it is surprising that you conflate "subsidies" with commercially agreed, non-monetary contract support or "sweeteners." This is a fundamental principle of commercial dealings and the words involved carry very different meanings in this context.

Furthermore, trying to draw a parallel with the historical Flybe model to prove your point and support innuendo elsewhere around underwriting possible losses or empty seats is irrelevant. That was an entirely different airport funding and commercial model. It is also a plublicly substantiated fact that such underwriting is not in place for WestJet.

We are dealing with the current Welsh Government subsidy package, under which direct cash payments of that nature are explicitly not allowed. This fact does not negate the presence of non-monetary support elements, as we already clearly stated in our previous comment.

By your own admission in your very first sentence, we cannot know the exact financial incentives of this specific deal. There is a vast difference between an educated guess based on general industry trends and experience and a concrete fact.

Dismissing the phrase “nobody knows” as a “tiresome guardrail” is a telling and cynical deflection tactic. It is an attempt to make a hard truth look weak simply because it gets in the way of your informed speculation.

Pointing out that a confidential contract is restricted to a very small group of people isn't a forum "guardrail"; it is just accuracy, regardless of anyone’s past industry experience.

 

[pug]

We are not being disingenuous, nor are we misunderstanding the point.

If you cannot enter into a debate without blurring the lines between fact and opinion, misusing basic industry terms, and ignoring substantiated facts, only to then deflect by accusing others of being disingenuous, then this conversation may as well end here with everyone agreeing you are right on every point.

A challenge to your logic is not a personal slight, and it is a shame you have chosen to take it as one. However, such is the norm in an aviation forum.

As someone who claims to have been close to such deals, it is surprising that you conflate "subsidies" with commercially agreed, non-monetary contract support or "sweeteners." This is a fundamental principle of commercial dealings and the words involved carry very different meanings in this context.

Furthermore, trying to draw a parallel with the historical Flybe model to prove your point and support innuendo elsewhere around underwriting possible losses or empty seats is irrelevant. That was an entirely different airport funding and commercial model. It is also a plublicly substantiated fact that such underwriting is not in place for WestJet.

We are dealing with the current Welsh Government subsidy package, under which direct cash payments of that nature are explicitly not allowed. This fact does not negate the presence of non-monetary support elements, as we already clearly stated in our previous comment.

By your own admission in your very first sentence, we cannot know the exact financial incentives of this specific deal. There is a vast difference between an educated guess based on general industry trends and experience and a concrete fact.

Dismissing the phrase “nobody knows” as a “tiresome guardrail” is a telling and cynical deflection tactic. It is an attempt to make a hard truth look weak simply because it gets in the way of your informed speculation.

Pointing out that a confidential contract is restricted to a very small group of people isn't a forum "guardrail"; it is just accuracy, regardless of anyone’s past industry experience.

Let’s look at the actual accounting. Claiming that waiving aeronautical fees, absorbing handling costs, or paying for marketing is 'non-monetary' is completely incorrect. Every single one of those things carries a defined commercial value. If a state-owned airport waives a fee for an airline, that is a direct reduction in revenue on the OPCO balance sheet. Economically and regulatory-wise, a selective cost-reduction functions exactly like an indirect subsidy.

You also completely misunderstood the CAT ruling. The tribunal approved the package under the Market Economy Operator Principle (MEOP) because the airport was deemed a viable commercial entity capable of handling its own structure over the long term. The funding goes to the OPCO, which then gives the airport the financial backing to offer the exact commercial incentives you just admitted are happening.

My reference to Flybe was clearly meant to contrast a direct capacity guarantee against indirect support, explicitly showing that I know WestJet isn't getting cash handouts.

Hiding behind 'nobody knows the contract' is just a way to shut down valid economic analysis. You don't need to see an NDA to know that a seasonal narrow-body route operating in a low-yield environment with cheap upgrades faces an uphill battle in a consolidating UK market.

If you want to end the conversation because the commercial reality doesn't match your definitions, that's fine. But let's not pretend a waived invoice has no monetary value

 

[CAN&I]

Let’s look at the actual accounting. Claiming that waiving aeronautical fees, absorbing handling costs, or paying for marketing is 'non-monetary' is completely incorrect. Every single one of those things carries a defined commercial value. If a state-owned airport waives a fee for an airline, that is a direct reduction in revenue on the OPCO balance sheet. Economically and regulatory-wise, a selective cost-reduction functions exactly like an indirect subsidy.

You also completely misunderstood the CAT ruling. The tribunal approved the package under the Market Economy Operator Principle (MEOP) because the airport was deemed a viable commercial entity capable of handling its own structure over the long term. The funding goes to the OPCO, which then gives the airport the financial backing to offer the exact commercial incentives you just admitted are happening.

My reference to Flybe was clearly meant to contrast a direct capacity guarantee against indirect support, explicitly showing that I know WestJet isn't getting cash handouts.
Hiding behind 'nobody knows the contract' is just a way to shut down valid economic analysis. You don't need to see an NDA to know that a seasonal narrow-body route operating in a low-yield environment with cheap upgrades faces an uphill battle in a consolidating UK market.

If you want to end the conversation because the commercial reality doesn't match your definitions, that's fine. But let's not pretend a waived invoice has no monetary value

No lessons in accounting are required to understand that waived fees carry commercial value on a balance sheet. The point you are continuously missing is that "monetary value" does not equate to a subsidy to an airline. That's not being pedantic with words either, that's being accurate.

You appear to be confusing accounting costs and your own naming conventions with accounting and legal definitions. A waived fee has a financial cost to an airport's balance sheet, but legally, regulatory-wise, and by the recent explicit CAT ruling, it is not a subsidy to the airline. So, lets stop calling such support and commercial leverage a "subsidy".

Your interpretation of the CAT findings regarding Bristol Airport v Welsh Ministers is also incorrect:

1. MEOP: Under the Subsidy Control Act 2022, if an authority proves a package meets a market operator test (MEOP/CMOP), it means the funding is not a subsidy. However, in this case, the Welsh Ministers openly accepted that the £205m package was a subsidy. The tribunal did not "approve it under MEOP" as you state, the CAT evaluated it as a declared public subsidy under the Act.
2. The "Downstream" Ruling: In its Ground 4, Bristol Airport made the exact argument you are trying to make here, i.e. downstream support like fee reductions and marketing assistance violated Section 28's prohibition on route subsidies. The Tribunal flatly rejected this, holding its finding that Section 28 applies only to direct subsidies to airlines.
3. The Legal Framework: Under the Grant Agreement, any downstream commercial support offered by the airport operator to airlines is explicitly required to comply with the Commercial Market Operator Principle (CMOP). The CAT explicitly ruled that because these elements must function on a commercial basis, they do not constitute subsidies under the Act at all. Legally and regulatory-wise, an airport's commercial trade-offs are entirely separate from government handouts.

As for your other points, shifting the goalposts to Flybe does not work. You previously asserted there had to be a subsidy in place. Backtracking now to say you brought up Flybe just to show you "know" WestJet isn't getting cash handouts directly contradicts your initial position.

Furthermore, doubling down on the "nobody knows" argument by calling your speculation "valid economic analysis" is quite a reach. Projecting your personal opinion about a seasonal narrow-body route's market challenges onto an NDA-protected commercial contract is your own educated guesswork, not substantiated data. Why? Because nobody knows what that data is aside from WestJet and Cardiff Airport.

You offered to end the conversation, and given that both the legal reality of the CAT ruling and your own skewed interpretation of my points contradict the facts, that sounds like a perfect place to leave it.

Safe flying. ✈️

 

[pug]

No lessons in accounting are required to understand that waived fees carry commercial value on a balance sheet. The point you are continuously missing is that "monetary value" does not equate to a subsidy to an airline. That's not being pedantic with words either, that's being accurate.

You appear to be confusing accounting costs and your own naming conventions with accounting and legal definitions. A waived fee has a financial cost to an airport's balance sheet, but legally, regulatory-wise, and by explicit CAT ruling, it is not a route subsidy to the airline. So, lets stop calling such support and commercial terms a "subsidy".

Your interpretation of the CAT findings regarding Bristol Airport v Welsh Ministers is also incorrect:

1. MEOP: Under the Subsidy Control Act 2022, if an authority proves a package meets a market operator test (MEOP/CMOP), it means the funding is not a subsidy. However, in this case, the Welsh Ministers openly accepted that the £205m package was a subsidy. The tribunal did not "approve it under MEOP" as you state, the CAT evaluated it as a declared public subsidy under the Act.
2. The "Downstream" Ruling: In Ground 4, Bristol Airport made the exact argument you are trying to make here, i.e. downstream support like fee reductions and marketing assistance violated Section 28's prohibition on route subsidies. The Tribunal flatly rejected this, holding that Section 28 applies only to direct subsidies to airlines.
3. The Legal Framework: Under the Grant Agreement, any downstream commercial support offered by the airport operator to airlines is explicitly required to comply with the Commercial Market Operator Principle (CMOP). The CAT explicitly ruled that because these elements must function on a commercial basis, they do not constitute subsidies under the Act at all. Legally and regulatory-wise, an airport's commercial trade-offs are entirely separate from government handouts.

As for your other points, shifting the goalposts to Flybe does not work. You previously asserted there had to be a subsidy in place. Backtracking now to say you brought up Flybe just to show you "know" WestJet isn't getting cash handouts directly contradicts your initial position.

Furthermore, doubling down on the "nobody knows" argument by calling your speculation "valid economic analysis" is quite a reach. Projecting your personal opinion about a seasonal narrow-body route's market challenges onto an NDA-protected commercial contract is your own educated guesswork, not substantiated data. Why? Because nobody knows what that data is aside from WestJet and Cardiff Airport.

You offered to end the conversation, and given that both the legal reality of the CAT ruling and your own skewed interpretation of my points contradict the facts, that sounds like a perfect place to leave it.

Safe flying. ✈️

We can absolutely leave it there, but let’s be entirely accurate before we do.

First, the Flybe and Project Blackbird reference is fundamentally relevant because it is the exact historical benchmark for this entire debate. That was a direct capacity guarantee model where public funds explicitly underwrote airline losses per seat. The entire reason the current Welsh Government package and Grant Agreement are structured the way they are now—explicitly forbidding direct airline payouts and forcing the airport to operate under the Commercial Market Operator Principle (CMOP)—is specifically to avoid the legal, financial, and regulatory pitfalls of that old Flybe model.

Second, you are hiding behind the legal text of the Subsidy Control Act to ignore basic aviation economics. Yes, the CAT evaluated the package as a declared public subsidy to the airport operator, and yes, any subsequent downstream commercial arrangements must meet CMOP to be legally permissible. But a state-owned airport backed by a £205.2m public injection has the unique financial luxury to make aggressive 'commercial trade-offs'—like fee waivers, handling absorbencies, and terminal marketing support—that a purely private operator could never commercially justify. Whether the legal framework classifies a heavily discounted aeronautical fee as a 'commercial incentive' or an 'indirect subsidy' is pure semantics; the outcome on the airline's balance sheet is identical. Public infrastructure is underwriting the operational risk of the route.

Finally, dismissively labeling standard network planning analysis as 'educated guesswork' or doesn't change the realities of the industry. You do not need to see an NDA to know that a seasonal narrow-body long-haul route operating in a low-yield environment with cheap upgrades faces immense structural hurdles in a consolidating UK market.

Legal semantics will never change underlying network economics. The route's long-term sustainability once these introductory commercial incentives mature will provide the only data that actually matters, and like I put further upthread, I hope it proves us skeptics wrong as it’s often nice to see some of the left field routes becoming a long lasting niche/success, but I remain to be convinced.