Originally Posted by
TOM100
I don’t see HUY or MME as being so relevant as they have never really been of a size (pax wise) comparable to CWL. I made some points about SOU and SEN in earlier posts.
So, if I follow your train of thought through - the large airlines have chosen BRS and won’t operate at CWL and I don’t see new entrants into the UK market, then the aviation related business of CWL looks pretty bleak. I don’t see how non aviation businesses can make the airport a viable going concern.
i am going to bow out of the discussion as it would seem a lot of people feel management and leadership are entirely passive to the aviation part of this business. I take a different view as a customer of the airport and a taxpayer would like to see change and more transparent communication about a recovery business plan - whether that be aviation or non aviation growth. At the moment I see nothing and would like to see more than the maintenance of the status quo.
The reason I used them as an example is that they all have over 1 million people within a 60 minute drive of the airport, had a lot more flights than they do now and ultimately lost market share to competitors when airlines consolidated at larger departure points. It is therefore directly relevant. The BRS CWL is not a level playing field, the airlines prefer to risk new routes from BRS because it can pull from a larger catchment area which includes South Wales. Therefore ATNotts conclusion is correct.
That is why I can’t see how you conclude that the management are passive. You can’t attract business that doesn’t exist! I agree though, you have every right to question them as a tax payer, but they may find that other aviation revenue is needed and they can double down on the routes that are currently successful like the KLM.