Cardiff: WestJet Transatlantic News & Discussions

[CAN&I]

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.

No one is hiding behind legal text or ignoring aviation economics. The reality is that the legal text and aviation economics are entirely intertwined here.

Firstly, your point regarding Flybe and Project Blackbird actually reinforces the distinction we are making.

You note that the current Grant Agreement was specifically structured to forbid direct airline payouts and force CMOP compliance precisely to avoid the pitfalls of that historical model.

The point is that because the regulatory framework has fundamentally changed, using a discredited historical model as a historical economic "benchmark" to evaluate a completely different legal structure is a flawed comparison.

Second, your claim that a private operator could never commercially justify these trade-offs directly misinterprets how the Commercial Market Operator Principle (CMOP) functions.

Complying with CMOP means that an airport's commercial incentives must be structured precisely how a rational, private market operator would deploy them to maximize its own long-term commercial returns. If a private operator wouldn't do it, the terms would fail the CMOP test under the Grant Agreement.

The legal framework explicitly prevents public funds from being used to simply "underwrite the operational risk" of an airline.

Regarding your standard network planning analysis, nobody is disputing macro-level industry trends.

However, there is a fundamental difference between the analysis of high-level industry realities and proclaiming definitive conclusions about a specific, highly confidential commercial contract using one'sown "data" as the basis.

Projecting broad market conditions, not to mention personal assumption, onto a commercially confidential deal without visibility into target yield structures or risk-sharing boundaries remains, by definition, an educated guess and not a verified economic conclusion.

Finally, your statement that "the route's long-term sustainability... will provide the only data that actually matter" explicitly proves our original point and is exactly where we came into this discussion.

Further, by admitting that actual performance data is the only thing that matters, you have completely closed down your own "tiresome guardrail" argument.

Pointing out that neither of us has access to that data right now isn't an internet forum rule designed to stifle debate; it is a point of logical reality which you have just openly conceded to. Because that data belongs exclusively to both WestJet and Cardiff Airport, any definitive declarations by those not close to the deal are, by your own definition, pure opinion and guesswork.

Like you, we'd welcome an opportunity to leave the discussion there on a positive and very important note we both 100% agree on.

Ultimately, we hope, like you, that the route defies the sceptics, the doom-mongers and the "armchair experts" of "pploon" and beyond to become a long-lasting success for the region.

Only time, and the data, will tell.

Good night and safe flying. ✈️

 

[pug]

No one is hiding behind legal text or ignoring aviation economics. The reality is that the legal text and aviation economics are entirely intertwined here.

Firstly, your point regarding Flybe and Project Blackbird actually reinforces the distinction we are making.

You note that the current Grant Agreement was specifically structured to forbid direct airline payouts and force CMOP compliance precisely to avoid the pitfalls of that historical model.

The point is that because the regulatory framework has fundamentally changed, using a discredited historical model as a historical economic "benchmark" to evaluate a completely different legal structure is a flawed comparison.

Second, your claim that a private operator could never commercially justify these trade-offs directly misinterprets how the Commercial Market Operator Principle (CMOP) functions.

Complying with CMOP means that an airport's commercial incentives must be structured precisely how a rational, private market operator would deploy them to maximize its own long-term commercial returns. If a private operator wouldn't do it, the terms would fail the CMOP test under the Grant Agreement.

The legal framework explicitly prevents public funds from being used to simply "underwrite the operational risk" of an airline.

Regarding your standard network planning analysis, nobody is disputing macro-level industry trends.

However, there is a fundamental difference between the analysis of high-level industry realities and proclaiming definitive conclusions about a specific, highly confidential commercial contract using one'sown "data" as the basis.

Projecting broad market conditions, not to mention personal assumption, onto a commercially confidential deal without visibility into target yield structures or risk-sharing boundaries remains, by definition, an educated guess and not a verified economic conclusion.

Finally, your statement that "the route's long-term sustainability... will provide the only data that actually matter" explicitly proves our original point and is exactly where we came into this discussion.

Further, by admitting that actual performance data is the only thing that matters, you have completely closed down your own "tiresome guardrail" argument.

Pointing out that neither of us has access to that data right now isn't an internet forum rule designed to stifle debate; it is a point of logical reality which you have just openly conceded to. Because that data belongs exclusively to both WestJet and Cardiff Airport, any definitive declarations by those not close to the deal are, by your own definition, pure opinion and guesswork.

Like you, we'd welcome an opportunity to leave the discussion there on a positive and very important note we both 100% agree on.

Ultimately, we hope, like you, that the route defies the sceptics, the doom-mongers and the "armchair experts" of "pploon" and beyond to become a long-lasting success for the region.

Only time, and the data, will tell.

Good night and safe flying. ✈️

It’s a shame you felt the need to slide the 'armchair expert' label back into a closing sign-off while claiming to seek common ground. A professional debate on macro-level network strategy and regulatory frameworks shouldn't require combative jargon.

The core point remains: legal compliance with CMOP doesn’t change the source of the airport's financial muscle; it just ensures the resulting deal is structured within legal boundaries. A state-funded operator simply has the luxury to make risk trade-offs a purely private entity could not. Analyzing the public yield parameters of a route using standard industry principles isn't 'guesswork,' it's just business.

But as agreed, let's leave it there and let the numbers do the talking. Good night

 

[CAN&I]

It’s a shame you felt the need to slide the 'armchair expert' label back into a closing sign-off while claiming to seek common ground. A professional debate on macro-level network strategy and regulatory frameworks shouldn't require combative jargon.

The core point remains: legal compliance with CMOP doesn’t change the source of the airport's financial muscle; it just ensures the resulting deal is structured within legal boundaries. A state-funded operator simply has the luxury to make risk trade-offs a purely private entity could not. Analyzing the public yield parameters of a route using standard industry principles isn't 'guesswork,' it's just business.

But as agreed, let's leave it there and let the numbers do the talking. Good night

Can we please just move on from the playground behaviour?

Just because we don't see eye to eye on a set of technical and logical points, there is no reason to intentionally look for opportunities to take matters personally and seek victimhood. Surely an adult conversation can be had or is that too much to expect here as elsewhere?

You have either entirely misread that sentence, or have deliberately twisted our words and sentiments in order to purposely take offence where absolutely none was intended:

"Ultimately, we hope, like you, that the route defies the sceptics, the doom-mongers and the "armchair experts" of "pploon" and beyond to become a long-lasting success for the region."

The statement was a genuine attempt at an olive branch and to explicitly group us together in wishing the route success against the wider internet doubters, specifically those on "pploon".

It was a genuine nod to common ground, not a personal slight against you.

Before we conclude, and to address your second "core" point, analysis of high-level market parameters using standard industry principles is useful for general forecasting, but applying it to a specific, highly confidential commercial contract is entirely different.

One cannot apply analysis to specific route yield parameters when there is zero visibility of the actual target yield structures, premium cabin performance, cargo revenues, or the localised risk-sharing boundaries hidden within an NDA. Concluding how this specific deal operates based only on broad macro trends isn't "just business" as you say, it is, by definition, merely educated guesswork.

We need to stop positioning personal opinion, assumption, "guesstimates" and even "gut feel" built on past experience as if it is definitive, credible data that reflects the reality of the WestJet route. Opinion, assumption and guesswork does not equal the reality of what Cardiff Airport or WestJet would judge to be "poor", "acceptable" or "good" performance against their own commercial targets, no matter what our instincts tell us.

As for the framework, a state-owned operator does not have the unique "luxury" to make commercial risk trade-offs that a private entity could not. In fact, under the law, it is explicitly forbidden from doing so.

The entire mechanism of the CMOP test is to ensure that a public authority behaves exactly like a rational, purely private market operator driven strictly by commercial returns. If a private operator could never commercially justify the terms of a deal, then that deal fails CMOP and is legally an unlawful route subsidy under the Grant Agreement.

That is not a twist of a technicality or "combative jargon" as you put it, again overly defensively where there was no need. It is the literal legal reality governing the economics involved.

However, we completely agree on the final point that it is the actual data that will do the talking, and neither of us has access to it right now as we previously concluded.