Cardiff-2
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South West
Age: 35
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With RYR also growing at the airport, I'm not sure CWL needs a third predominantly holiday airline which serves mostly Mediterranean destinations (which are already well served by TUI, TCX, RYR and VLG) plus a few city break destinations? I'm almost certain if Jet2 arrived you would see either TCX move out, and/or a reduction in TUIs base.
Currently, the only UK airports that have TUI, TCX and EXS all based are MAN, STN, BHX, EMA, NCL, GLA and BFS - all of which handle (roughly) 5million+ passengers per year. Last year CWL handled around 1.6million passengers in comparison. This does not mean it won't happen, but is currently not happening in the industry.
Personally I think a few more Ryanair destinations would be best for CWL to compliment what they have on offer at their BRS base.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA Stats February 2019
78,061 passengers used the terminal in February no change on 2018. The rolling year was 1,582,000 passengers up 7.1% on 2018.
Top 10 routes
1. Amsterdam 11,876
2. Tenerife South 7093
3. Dublin 6913
4. Edinburgh 6442
5. Alicante 6120
6. Doha 5435
7. Belfast City 5408
8. Paris CDG 4470
9. Rome FCO 3951
10. Malaga 3828
78,061 passengers used the terminal in February no change on 2018. The rolling year was 1,582,000 passengers up 7.1% on 2018.
Top 10 routes
1. Amsterdam 11,876
2. Tenerife South 7093
3. Dublin 6913
4. Edinburgh 6442
5. Alicante 6120
6. Doha 5435
7. Belfast City 5408
8. Paris CDG 4470
9. Rome FCO 3951
10. Malaga 3828
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: London
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what the performance above for Doha means for load factor but it doesn't look very strong. Amsterdam is going gang busters!
Will CWL be pitching for Emirates 330 neo aircraft (much more suitable size) once they get them as Emirates to Dubai would command much stronger demand than Qatar to Doha.
Will CWL be pitching for Emirates 330 neo aircraft (much more suitable size) once they get them as Emirates to Dubai would command much stronger demand than Qatar to Doha.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what the performance above for Doha means for load factor but it doesn't look very strong. Amsterdam is going gang busters!
Will CWL be pitching for Emirates 330 neo aircraft (much more suitable size) once they get them as Emirates to Dubai would command much stronger demand than Qatar to Doha.
Will CWL be pitching for Emirates 330 neo aircraft (much more suitable size) once they get them as Emirates to Dubai would command much stronger demand than Qatar to Doha.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Crawley
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Emirates wanted to operate from Cardiff they would've done already. As for the performance of Doha February is disappointing but the route is in the first year and it will take time to mature, from May will be an indication of it's future in what sort of growth there is. I'd have thought though at the moment the airport won't be concerned about it but will be far more concerned about replacing the routes lost when Flybe pull out of at the end of October.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’d of thought CDG be a good keep for Flybe in a “W” pattern with another base as Paris loads have been good and steady.
Air France would be good but then mailing AF smallest aircraft is the A318 so it would have to go to Hop in that case.
Air France would be good but then mailing AF smallest aircraft is the A318 so it would have to go to Hop in that case.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem with that is they'll have to fit it into the schedule of other airports and you could ask is the route important enough? Cardiff wasn't important enough to kept as a base so is it important to use aircraft from other bases to operate 10 weekly flights to Paris. For the airport Air France/HOP! might be a better option. New airline plus its a flag carrier.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah agree there, Air France / HOP would be a great airline to get back in, it’s been a long time since Air France operates their own schedules with the SF3 and ATR.
Lets hope CWL secure that route, also Rome, Madrid, Venice would be fit for Ryanair but who knows
Lets hope CWL secure that route, also Rome, Madrid, Venice would be fit for Ryanair but who knows
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem with that is they'll have to fit it into the schedule of other airports and you could ask is the route important enough? Cardiff wasn't important enough to kept as a base so is it important to use aircraft from other bases to operate 10 weekly flights to Paris. For the airport Air France/HOP! might be a better option. New airline plus its a flag carrier.
If Paris made money, which i'd be surprised if it didn't, they will hopefully find a way to make it work. My thoughts is that it would likely have to be a GLA based aircraft so not to affect the timings on the return sector. GLA-CWL-CDG-CWL-GLA, all operated as separate flights rather than split like before.
If it was EDI/BHD based, then it would mean no early morning return flights to either of those bases.
EZY with double daily flights from BRS would be one to watch though that might affect this decision.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jerry, you seem to be forgetting that Flybe are a business. It might be better to rephrase "Cardiff wasn't important enough" to "Cardiff wasn't financially viable enough"
If Paris made money, which i'd be surprised if it didn't, they will hopefully find a way to make it work. My thoughts is that it would likely have to be a GLA based aircraft so not to affect the timings on the return sector. GLA-CWL-CDG-CWL-GLA, all operated as separate flights rather than split like before.
If it was EDI/BHD based, then it would mean no early morning return flights to either of those bases.
EZY with double daily flights from BRS would be one to watch though that might affect this decision.
If Paris made money, which i'd be surprised if it didn't, they will hopefully find a way to make it work. My thoughts is that it would likely have to be a GLA based aircraft so not to affect the timings on the return sector. GLA-CWL-CDG-CWL-GLA, all operated as separate flights rather than split like before.
If it was EDI/BHD based, then it would mean no early morning return flights to either of those bases.
EZY with double daily flights from BRS would be one to watch though that might affect this decision.
The reality is whether it's profitable doesn't matter the brutal truth is to Flybe CEOs, BA CEOs, EZY CEOs, Virgin CEOs and even FR CEOs Cardiff and Wales is a backwater to airlines like that.
The winter schedule will be very interesting to see whenever they finally release it.
Last edited by PDXCWL45; 18th Apr 2019 at 00:39.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure people are getting it. CWL is not a profitable base for Flybe even with government funding, which on the face of it isn't a massive amount. The main reason for the closure is a combination of poor returns and the ejets. Flybe, or Connect, or whatever you want to call them nowadays clearly want shot of all ejets, I've seen the operating costs, they are staggering, so with the ejets gone that means routes out of CWL that realistically can't be flown anymore are FCO, FAO, VRN, VCE, TXL, MUC and MXP. That leaves JER, DUB, CDG, EDI, GLA, ORK and BHD (maybe I've missed the odd one). These routes mean they can operate them out of base and it'll be far cheaper because to have a crew base on two aircraft would cost in the region of £200k per crew in base and you'd need to run a 2 aircraft base with at least 5.5 crews per airframe, do the maths. Why spend that money when you can operate the routes from already established bases that'll cost you nothing extra. Also regarding the deal, there's no way on this earth Flybe did a deal with the airport that they couldn't easily get out of.
I'm not sure people are getting it. CWL is not a profitable base for Flybe even with government funding, which on the face of it isn't a massive amount. The main reason for the closure is a combination of poor returns and the ejets. Flybe, or Connect, or whatever you want to call them nowadays clearly want shot of all ejets, I've seen the operating costs, they are staggering, so with the ejets gone that means routes out of CWL that realistically can't be flown anymore are FCO, FAO, VRN, VCE, TXL, MUC and MXP. That leaves JER, DUB, CDG, EDI, GLA, ORK and BHD (maybe I've missed the odd one). These routes mean they can operate them out of base and it'll be far cheaper because to have a crew base on two aircraft would cost in the region of £200k per crew in base and you'd need to run a 2 aircraft base with at least 5.5 crews per airframe, do the maths. Why spend that money when you can operate the routes from already established bases that'll cost you nothing extra. Also regarding the deal, there's no way on this earth Flybe did a deal with the airport that they couldn't easily get out of, how do I know this? Send me a pm and I'll tell you.
However, I'd suggest that MXP and VRN are feasible - some years ago I did BHX-BGY in a Dash 8 and it wasn't that much of an ordeal, so MXP should be possible as well as TXL. Whether the routes you have mentioned make a profit or not I don't know, but I get the definite impression from your posting record that you know a deal more than you could possibly post on a public forum. I think that key to the new strategy is to operate the airline as a profitable enterprise for the group, not as a some sort of social service.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure people are getting it. CWL is not a profitable base for Flybe even with government funding, which on the face of it isn't a massive amount. The main reason for the closure is a combination of poor returns and the ejets. Flybe, or Connect, or whatever you want to call them nowadays clearly want shot of all ejets, I've seen the operating costs, they are staggering, so with the ejets gone that means routes out of CWL that realistically can't be flown anymore are FCO, FAO, VRN, VCE, TXL, MUC and MXP. That leaves JER, DUB, CDG, EDI, GLA, ORK and BHD (maybe I've missed the odd one). These routes mean they can operate them out of base and it'll be far cheaper because to have a crew base on two aircraft would cost in the region of £200k per crew in base and you'd need to run a 2 aircraft base with at least 5.5 crews per airframe, do the maths. Why spend that money when you can operate the routes from already established bases that'll cost you nothing extra. Also regarding the deal, there's no way on this earth Flybe did a deal with the airport that they couldn't easily get out of.
Also Flybe operate other small bases ie Isle of Man and Newquay and Aberdeen and Glasgow yet a 2 to 3 Q400 aircraft base at Cardiff isn't viable like them?
As a customer what the Flybe withdrawal means is that Flybe will become less of an option for domestic routes especially and Easyjet will become much more of an option.
What I do hope is that the airport will be able to get other airlines on many of the routes that will be lost to minimise the damage.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure people are getting it. CWL is not a profitable base for Flybe even with government funding, which on the face of it isn't a massive amount. The main reason for the closure is a combination of poor returns and the ejets. Flybe, or Connect, or whatever you want to call them nowadays clearly want shot of all ejets, I've seen the operating costs, they are staggering, so with the ejets gone that means routes out of CWL that realistically can't be flown anymore are FCO, FAO, VRN, VCE, TXL, MUC and MXP. That leaves JER, DUB, CDG, EDI, GLA, ORK and BHD (maybe I've missed the odd one). These routes mean they can operate them out of base and it'll be far cheaper because to have a crew base on two aircraft would cost in the region of £200k per crew in base and you'd need to run a 2 aircraft base with at least 5.5 crews per airframe, do the maths. Why spend that money when you can operate the routes from already established bases that'll cost you nothing extra. Also regarding the deal, there's no way on this earth Flybe did a deal with the airport that they couldn't easily get out of.
Flybe, or Connect, or whatever you want to call them nowadays clearly want shot of all ejets, I've seen the operating costs, they are staggering
Also regarding the deal, there's no way on this earth Flybe did a deal with the airport that they couldn't easily get out of.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a customer what the Flybe withdrawal means is that Flybe will become less of an option for domestic routes especially and Easyjet will become much more of an option.
What I do hope is that the airport will be able to get other airlines on many of the routes that will be lost to minimise the damage.
What I do hope is that the airport will be able to get other airlines on many of the routes that will be lost to minimise the damage.
Remember the history behind the airline. Mr French struck deals with Embraer (or the leasing company, take your pick) that was a) unrealistic and b) virtually impossible to get out of, this was the case for the 175s and for the 195s the deal was literally impossible to get out of. Bye bye Mr French, hello Mr Hammad. Mr Hammad took a look at the lease deals and said "wtf?". It was Mr French who bough the aircraft and Mr Hammad who then struck the deal with the knowledge of what Mr French tied Flybe into for 13 years +.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think as I said, you have to look at what is realistic and realistically those routes, even though they can be done, are not very realistic on a Q400. MXP especially so due to Alpine Driftdown but also routes over 2hrs on a Q400 would be very selective.
I didn't really say it's profitable to run the routes non based, I was saying that they have that option should they make money. The stark reality is they may not make money even using out of base aircraft and you'll see them dropped if that's the case. I know that BHD is of particular concern, however it may continue,it may not. The winter schedule when released will be the defining teller.
Amen to that, but looking at the CAA stats can you see the lost routes being viable options for airlines that will have to place more seating capacity on routes that are quite thin, especially for 156+ seat jets? Who knows.
.
I didn't really say it's profitable to run the routes non based, I was saying that they have that option should they make money. The stark reality is they may not make money even using out of base aircraft and you'll see them dropped if that's the case. I know that BHD is of particular concern, however it may continue,it may not. The winter schedule when released will be the defining teller.
Amen to that, but looking at the CAA stats can you see the lost routes being viable options for airlines that will have to place more seating capacity on routes that are quite thin, especially for 156+ seat jets? Who knows.
.
As for the stats this is what Flybe carried out of CWL in 2018 excluding Guernsey, Newcastle and Anglesey as they are operated by other airlines. The seasonal routes have * next to them.
Belfast City 70,746
Edinburgh 101,671
Glasgow 33,261
Jersey 20,095
Paris CDG 75,402
Chambery 2709*
Berlin TXL 14,801
Dusseldorf 3235*
Munich 15,739
Cork 14,589
Dublin 104,890
Milan MXP 21,445
Rome FCO 17,584
Venice 8467*
Verona 8180*
Geneva 3213*
Faro 56,290 is shared with Ryanair who operate in the summer so for this exercise i'll guestimate 30,000 for Flybe on this route which is close to 2016s figure.
Rougly 540,000 people used Flybe from Cardiff in 2018 (i've allowed some discrepancy for rugby flights on Paris and Dublin).
That's roughly each aircraft carrying 180,000 passengers a year.
Hopefully those numbers will be attractive to airlines like Ryanair and Air France.