Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Cardiff-2

Old 21st Aug 2020, 06:57
  #1661 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 5,488
if indeed their operations are viable.
Anything to suggest they are not?
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 21st Aug 2020, 07:44
  #1662 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 705
Originally Posted by TOM100 View Post
There is a lot of space at the southern end of the disused runway for Caerdav and eCube - if indeed their operations are viable.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=s...ABMWe6zNaF_T-M
It would certainly make sense to consolidate the 2 airfields and there is space on the South side for a BAMC sized shared hangar or 2 smaller hangars. Comparison of both airfields attached. Blue is Caerdav & yellow Ecube


This is also a good summary of current ongoings at the Airport along with challenges faced. It does highlight the support that CWL needs, however that doesn't mean its not a viable business in the long term... the link will open a WG pdf document.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...hqygRIf7zXLwih

caaardiff is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2020, 07:48
  #1663 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 5,488
Moving heavy engineering sites is such a quick and easy thing to do (and cheap!). The neighbours will be delighted!
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 21st Aug 2020, 09:17
  #1664 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Handcross
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by SWBKCB View Post
Moving heavy engineering sites is such a quick and easy thing to do (and cheap!). The neighbours will be delighted!
Did someone mention moving heavy engineering, such as a complete fleet of Nimrods manufactured in Wales?



OC37 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2020, 09:19
  #1665 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 275
Originally Posted by TOM100 View Post
There is a lot of space at the southern end of the disused runway for Caerdav and eCube - if indeed their operations are viable.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=s...ABMWe6zNaF_T-M
What ? So it’s too difficult let’s not even investigate. Neighbours didn’t like T5, LTN expansion or BRS new terminal - all were able to overcome objections in arguably much more sensitive areas. As you say may have been or being considered but a visible strategy to save and/or secure the business would be good to see. Didn’t CWL recently bid (and lost) for the site as a location for some Boeing maintenance facility ?
TOM100 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2020, 15:20
  #1666 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,184
Originally Posted by TOM100 View Post
What ? So it’s too difficult let’s not even investigate. Neighbours didn’t like T5, LTN expansion or BRS new terminal - all were able to overcome objections in arguably much more sensitive areas. As you say may have been or being considered but a visible strategy to save and/or secure the business would be good to see. Didn’t CWL recently bid (and lost) for the site as a location for some Boeing maintenance facility ?
I think Caerdav would be ideal. With Ecube I think it would be more about space for aircraft storage especially big aircraft like 747s which no doubt they'll be busy with soon enough. And the potential for FOD at an active airfield like cwl when they're breaking up the aircraft.
And yes they did bid for a Boeing maintenance facility.
PDXCWL45 is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2020, 13:51
  #1667 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,184
Between 20th September and 18th October Ryanair are adding a Sunday flight to the Faro route taking it back to 3 weekly! A bit of good news for CWL!
PDXCWL45 is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2020, 19:34
  #1668 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,184
Bit more Ryanair news for Summer 2021.
Malaga is now onsale the route operates 3 weekly Mon, Wed & Fri from 2/6/21 to 30/8/21
Malta 2 weekly Wed & Sun and Faro Mon & Fri are onsale as well.
Just missing Barcelona 😕
PDXCWL45 is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2020, 20:24
  #1669 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 272
Am sure we all knew this already...

Cardiff Airport “needs true low cost airline” to compete
fanrailuk is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2020, 20:40
  #1670 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: IOM
Posts: 932
Originally Posted by fanrailuk View Post
Whatever happened to Flyforbeans?
JSCL is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2020, 21:14
  #1671 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 100
Originally Posted by fanrailuk View Post
Don’t they have that already with RYR, just not the selection of routes?!
SKOJB is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2020, 23:11
  #1672 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 1,855
Is QR DOH gone for good?
CabinCrewe is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2020, 23:58
  #1673 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by fanrailuk View Post
I wish he had done his homework before opening his mouth. The market at Cardiff will sustain a low cost airline in the Summer, it will not sustain it during the Winter. You might say that this describes the whole of the low cost market but at Cardiff it is more pronounced because whilst some of the catchment is wealthy enough to to take multiple flights a year, a large part of the catchment historically only went on holiday once a year and now can only afford to go on holiday once a year if at all.
You cannot take back passengers from Bristol by, let us say, using support from the Welsh Government because that would be illegal state aid. After December 31st, we don’t know what the competition policy will be of the UK Governemnt but we already know that they won’t allow APD to be devolved and therefore don’t support the Welsh Government taking passengers back from Bristol.
Ther is a risk in having a dominant low cost based airline at an airport the size of Cardiff. They would demand and get lower aeronautical charges, other remaining airlines (such as they are) would demand the same to enable them to compete with the low cost carrier. The low cost carrier could then use commercial power to keep those charges low, taking away aeronautical income that would deny funds for further development of the airport.
Up until coronavirus, the policy of attracting low cost airlines to fly from their foreign bases seems very sensible until Cardiff could achieve a large enough density of passengers to allow multiple airlines to compete. The problem at Cardiff was the deal with Flybe which didn’t give the passenger numbers and growth that would have been provided by a low cost airline but dominated the airport and therefore discouraged competition.
I was never encouraged that the airport would get through the loss making part of the deal into the nirvana of the profitable end of the deal because nobody could tell me what the Flybe strategy would be in 3 years never mind ten years.
runway30 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2020, 00:56
  #1674 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Handcross
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by runway30 View Post
I wish he had done his homework before opening his mouth. The market at Cardiff will sustain a low cost airline in the Summer, it will not sustain it during the Winter. You might say that this describes the whole of the low cost market but at Cardiff it is more pronounced because whilst some of the catchment is wealthy enough to to take multiple flights a year, a large part of the catchment historically only went on holiday once a year and now can only afford to go on holiday once a year if at all.
You cannot take back passengers from Bristol by, let us say, using support from the Welsh Government because that would be illegal state aid. After December 31st, we don’t know what the competition policy will be of the UK Governemnt but we already know that they won’t allow APD to be devolved and therefore don’t support the Welsh Government taking passengers back from Bristol.
Ther is a risk in having a dominant low cost based airline at an airport the size of Cardiff. They would demand and get lower aeronautical charges, other remaining airlines (such as they are) would demand the same to enable them to compete with the low cost carrier. The low cost carrier could then use commercial power to keep those charges low, taking away aeronautical income that would deny funds for further development of the airport.
Up until coronavirus, the policy of attracting low cost airlines to fly from their foreign bases seems very sensible until Cardiff could achieve a large enough density of passengers to allow multiple airlines to compete. The problem at Cardiff was the deal with Flybe which didn’t give the passenger numbers and growth that would have been provided by a low cost airline but dominated the airport and therefore discouraged competition.
I was never encouraged that the airport would get through the loss making part of the deal into the nirvana of the profitable end of the deal because nobody could tell me what the Flybe strategy would be in 3 years never mind ten years.
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?
OC37 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2020, 01:56
  #1675 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 705
Originally Posted by OC37 View Post
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.
caaardiff is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2020, 10:20
  #1676 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Handcross
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by caaardiff View Post
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.
Perhaps what may be the answer is a new Wales based tour operator, there was Red Dragon Travel with Airways International Cymru, Aspro Holidays with Inter European Airways, with all these WG incentives for businesses can't they find a new tour operator with an in house or contracted airline focused on primarily serving Wales and without charging a supplement to do so?
OC37 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2020, 10:43
  #1677 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 705
Originally Posted by OC37 View Post
Perhaps what may be the answer is a new Wales based tour operator, there was Red Dragon Travel with Airways International Cymru, Aspro Holidays with Inter European Airways, with all these WG incentives for businesses can't they find a new tour operator with an in house or contracted airline focused on primarily serving Wales and without charging a supplement to do so?
The WG shouldn't be funding Tour Operators as it does nothing for the Welsh economy. However the suggestion of independent tour operators utilising a carrier should work. I posted an example of this elsewhere where if say Wizz were to base, the likes of Travel House & Hays could use them. Its viability would be better as the flights would be supported by holiday makers as well as Wizz flight only bookings. Im not sure if Tour Operators use the Ryanair flights to transport their customers but I know Vueling get used often.

If routes from CWL can't be run viably then the question needs to be asked as to why the routes are running in the first place? I'm sure we'd all love to see Air Wales reborn serving the domestic routes, with the right cost base, timings and aircraft it could work, but then it would remain a small specialist carrier with limited route options. Personally i feel the Flybe deal was all wrong. Another WG todger swinging vanity project to say 'look at the routes we have' that eventually the realisation become clear that some of the routes weren't sustainable. There could be many reasons as to why, but for now its back to square one in hope that we see a return to the routes that were viable.

Everyone needs to realise that the reset button has been hit again, just like it was in the early 2010s, and it will take several years for CWL to build back up. Consolidate and concentrate on what works, rebuild passenger confidence in looking at CWL and using it and making routes profitable for Airlines.
caaardiff is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2020, 10:48
  #1678 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 5,488
and without charging a supplement to do so?
Where do you get the scale to do this? And wouldn't a Cardiff based company mainly be serving South Wales?

What is the end game for WG - what would they regard as a "success" - operating at a profit? increased passenger numbers? "business friendly" flights to places of commercial/industrial importance? more links to hubs for global connectivity? cheap "bucket and spade" flights for welsh holidaymakers?
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 26th Aug 2020, 11:20
  #1679 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: on the border line
Posts: 217
Quote...The WG shouldn't be funding Tour Operators as it does nothing for the Welsh economy.

Teesside mayor doesn’t think so!
highwideandugly is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2020, 11:25
  #1680 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,184
Originally Posted by CabinCrewe View Post
Is QR DOH gone for good?
Last time I checked it was due to restart at the end of October
PDXCWL45 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.