Originally Posted by
OC37
That statement came from the chairman of two budget airlines who clearly has his head up his backside if he believes that EZY are a, quote, "true low cost airline" and if he thinks, quote, "people simply keep driving along the M4… and get to Bristol", that BRS is anywhere near to the M4 whilst he serves to reignite the CWL vs BRS animosity, that's truly mature of him!
Quoting this poster that CWL can sustain a loco during the summer, yes but what routes would they serve beside the same old 'bucket and spade' summer holiday destinations that have been successfully served from CWL since the launch of IT holidays and long before loco's became a more recent fad.
Are Vueling not a loco, have Vueling not been serving some of these bucket and spade routes successfully for a number of years now, have the likes of Thomas Cook (RIP) and TUI, to name but two, not been serving these bucket and spade routes also, CWL can successfully operate UK domestic routes with modestly sized aircraft, if BRS can do it with medium jet operators who have squeezed the airport for the lowest fees whilst transporting budget travellers many of whom shall keep their money in their pockets when transitting the airport then let them do so, if CWL were to even think about taking on BRS head-to-head in a price war then whilst the travelling public may benefit, BRS would ultimately win due to it's geographic location whilst both airports and airlines would suffer along with the Welsh taxpayers who subsidise CWL!
What springs to mind is a discussion I once had with a former colleague regarding tour operators, he was ex Britannia, Thomson were the No.1 UK tour operator, both on quality and quantity, Airtours came along and overtook them on numbers, on holidays sold and passengers transported but to do so they simply couldn't offer the quality that Thomson offered, should CWL be focusing on quality or quantity?
I imagine for the likes of TUI that CWL is pretty profitable for them. The amount of times you'll hear that CWL is more expensive than BRS, not just with low cost flights but with tour operator Holidays too. TUI (and TCX) had to deal with a lot more competition at BRS, BHX, and LGW. Which meant through basic economics that flights/holidays are cheaper. A family could save £100s flying from those rather than CWL.
CWL can often be competitive and even cheaper than other Airports. I have often been of the view that because there is less capacity offered at CWL but in general package holidays are very popular in Wales, that flights fill up quicker than at other bigger airports. Eventually the holiday prices do increase and that should likely make it more profitable for the carrier. That being said, if demand is there and capacity has been added, as with TUI, will that dilute profits if CWLs catchment can't fill the extra capacity?
So I agree, is less quantity better for a more profitable operation for the Airline, or is there a fine line at CWL between good profit and extra capacity with reduced profits. That is why i also believe Vueling haven't expanded, to maintain high profits but not off capacity to it's full potential (during summer).
The more media presence on the topic should hopefully help build momentum to restoring the passenger numbers at CWL. I'm now of the mindset that someone like Wizz would be best placed. No competition with themselves at BRS and a lower cost base than EZY. It would take some building up of brand awareness in South Wales but if Wizz can't make it work, then no-one can.
What didn't help Flybe was having EZY and FR who could easily undercut their fares over the bridge to squeeze Flybes performance at CWL. Even EZY would struggle to undercut Wizz prices.