Regional Air Connectivity Fund - 19 routes

[NickBarnes]

Thought i'd start a separate thread as their are 19 routes that have been applied for, and will go through a couple of stages, with announcement to be made in July

Please see link below for full list

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418094/start-up-aid-applications-received.pdf

Link to Announcement

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/19-new-regional-air-routes-bid-for-start-up-aid-funding

[runway30]

I am surprised to see City Wing on the list because they are not a licenced Air Carrier as defined by the EU.

[LEEDS APPROACH]

How on earth is this legal? Private companies given tax payers money to help projects that cannot stand on their own two feet. Routes that do actually work (just) are not only not financially helped but in reality extremely damaged due to the few passengers that make them viable choosing the routes helped by state aid. It is a catch 22 unfair system of failure from an utterly clueless government when it comes to aviation.

For instance Newcastle to Belfast flights will now be damaged with a very real potential prospect of drop in frequency. It is often 2 or 3 passengers that can make a mid day service, for example, either profitable or not profitable.

This is because the government cannot seem to get it into their thick skulls that there are too many airports in this small country. The issue is not to pay for every little struggling airport but to make sure each region has an airport that is well connected and fit for purpose and then let the market and catchment decide.

I would put a very large bet on the Doncaster to Frankfurt route being given the go ahead (with tax payers money). This after one of the world's most successful airlines - easyjet could not make Amsterdam even work. Private companies given tax payers money while neighbouring private companies are given none.

[SWBKCB]

1. These are applications, not awards - nothing decided yet;

2. the aid is for start up only not long term;

3. Yes, it's legal - any grant will need to meet EU state aid rules

[NickBarnes]

From what I have seen, All Routes have to show they will be sustainable on their own after 3 years, any route that doesn't show growth or meet the expected demand will have the plug pulled even before the 3 years is up!

There is so much criteria that has to be met I can see a lot of those proposed not making it so I wouldn't worry to much

Yes we have a small country, that is coming ever more crowded!!!

[runway30]

How sustainable do we think Carlisle to Southend will be?

[EI-BUD]

Incredible;
Flybe suggested to relaunch Norwich Dublin, a route that they axed before and in order to meet passenger targets payed passengers to fly on the service to meet the numbers and then axed the route. SOU BCN was canned after they ran Vueling out of the market, yet double daily flights to MUC and LYS, sounds insane....

and as for Derry - Birmingham; been tried and tested and they axed it.

Carlisle will get a real chance at testing the market with reduced risk.

Surprised that Stobart has not applied for more routes ex SEN..

If Belfast City to Cork could be reinstated, which was previously a strong performer, and hit hard by recession and motorway etc. and the crash ultimately. I would see this as being a good option, sadly Stobart don't think so...

[NickBarnes]

Almost certainty those suggested Norwich services will not be operated by Flybe themselves using their aircraft, so smaller aircraft might work. But even still with it's history i can't see Dublin happening. Newcastle and Paris are the only 2 that might get it from NWI

As for Carlisle if Stobart have applied for those routes through the funding program, what happens if none of them get it? Will they try them without when it seems they need a bit of help?

as said all routes will be examined to their long term viability so a lot won't make it

[EK77WNCL]

If it includes a Lufty codeshare I wish DSA-FRA the best of luck, very very few international routes on there which is a real shame! I'd have loved to have seen NCL-FRA in place of... Say, MME-BFS/BHD.

I reckon quite a lot of those 19 will get through, if any don't I'd say they would probably be MME-BFS/BHD, DND-AMS and possibly SOU-LYS... Do they have a say on whether frequency can be reduced? Double daily is definitely too much I think.

I don't think many will last the 3 years though... If 10 out of the 19 made it I'd be very very surprised and probably call it a success. I think about 5 might make it. With a removal of domestic APD however! Very different story potentially!

I assume the new Scottish routes labeled "TBC" will be flown by the chosen operator of their beautiful new Viking twotters?

[philbky]

If it includes a Lufty codeshare I wish DSA-FRA the best of luck, very very few international routes on there which is a real shame! I'd have loved to have seen NCL-FRA in place of... Say, MME-BFS/BHD.

I reckon quite a lot of those 19 will get through, if any don't I'd say they would probably be MME-BFS/BHD, DND-AMS and possibly SOU-LYS... Do they have a say on whether frequency can be reduced? Double daily is definitely too much I think.

I don't think many will last the 3 years though... If 10 out of the 19 made it I'd be very very surprised and probably call it a success. I think about 5 might make it. With a removal of domestic APD however! Very different story potentially!

I assume the new Scottish routes labeled "TBC" will be flown by the chosen operator of their beautiful new Viking twotters?

This is the Tory sop to the regions, a short term promise to offset the mega millions they are to spend on Heathrow. Most of these are not viable. In three years time this will have gone by the board.

[EK77WNCL]

Sorry to change the topic but I agree... And I saw an advert in a magazine that almost had me shouting Tesco down, something about a kid from "the regions" who bakes cakes and sells them to Peru or something like that and how "he wants a third runway at Heathrow" and the "it benefits us all" trollop...

But I agree these route applications are underwhelming... They'll never work with APD the way it is. I hope for another round sometime soon but I fear this is the only one we're going to get.

[Cozy F]

Have to say "underwhelming" is being very kind to this elaborate Government diversion off the real topic.

They have shafted the UK aviation, tourism and hospitality industries, particularly in the regions, for the past 20 years with a punishing air tax which makes the industry completely uncompetitive in European terms, and when they come under increasing pressure to do the right thing and follow the lead of other European countries by removing the tax, they throw out a feeble gesture to be seen to be paying some attention to the problem, rather than having the basic substance to fix it.

As has been said, half of these applications have no chance, with APD to be applied on both legs of the journey in the UK, while frankly for the other half, the joint external beneficiaries like AMS, PAR, DUB, FRA, MUC are all more than big enough to support these minor developments in their own right without taking a UK taxpayers' handout. But I guess that's why these places are thriving at the UK's expense.

Still tis the season - there's a vote afoot, and baseless spin is in the ascendency.

[jensdad]

"and as for Derry - Birmingham; been tried and tested and they axed it."


Is that not the whole point of the state - to provide public services that the free market isn't able to provide? Can't see anything wrong with that myself.


(I appreciate that this makes me a Stalinist by PPRuNE standards, so my tin hat is well and truly on.)

[Fairdealfrank]

This is because the government cannot seem to get it into their thick skulls that there are too many airports in this small country.


Really LEEDS APPROACH, you’re having a laugh. To quote John McEnroe: you can not be serious!

Wasn’t it you proposing that we have another airport (Church Fenton) on another thread?





Is that not the whole point of the state - to provide public services that the free market isn't able to provide? Can't see anything wrong with that myself.


Indeed it is. The UK is very unusual in having privately owned airports. In most countries they are owned by local governments, e.g. USA, or central government, e.g. most European countries. There's nothing wrong with government assistance for industries (including aviation) where the market fails. Only obstacle: the EU as usual.


(I appreciate that this makes me a Stalinist by PPRuNE standards, so my tin hat is well and truly on.)


Maybe, maybe not.

[01475]

Urgh. So many better things public money could be spent on. The only reasonable suggestions in that lot might be the Oban ones, from the point of view of social benefit.

[Barnstable]

DSA is indeed a good bet. The M18 link road will be complete in early January 2016, and the airport hasn't got a link to any major European hub. Whether Frankfurt would be successful when there's not even any direct public transport from DSA to Sheffield, and a taxi costs 40 quid, remains to be seen.

[pug]

I think the key point here is the routes selected will need to prove their viability as stand alone services, otherwise the funding will get pulled. Gives a new slant on the list..

[PAXboy]

pugI think the key point here is the routes selected will need to prove their viability as stand alone services, otherwise the funding will get pulled. Gives a new slant on the list. Indeed! So the carriers can project three years ahead? On paper that's a doddle as that's how the Greeks entered the Euro! :ooh:

Given that in the past 30 years:-


Pax have found other routes domestically and to other hubs (MAN/GLA/FRA/AMS/CDG and then the middle east)
The LCCs have changed the short haul game
The ME operators have changed the long haul game
We are still trying to recover from the biggest financial crash since 1929

These routes are not going to be viable.

So, the govt, having sat back whilst LHR and BA trashed regional connectivity it's now time to artificially put it back? I thought the Tories liked the open market? Anyone would think there was:


An election on
Their mates in the airlines want some dosh

[Cyrano]

This whole thing makes very little sense to me.

The two routes which have been cited as beneficiaries of this fund so far are DND-STN and NQY-LGW. But both of these routes are PSOs, and as such they can be more or less totally funded.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think this latest tranche of 19 routes are being proposed for PSO support (which would require OJEU notification, open calls for tenders, etc.). Rather, they are just being put forward for "ordinary" support under this Regional Election Support Fund or whatever it's called.

So what level is this "ordinary" support? Well, have a look at the DfT guidance document (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397875/start-up-aid-initial-application-guidance-2a.pdf), specifically 2.6 and 2.12(v):
Startup aid offered cannot exceed 50% of airport charge.

The UK would normally expect airports to have published airport charges on their website and for this to act as the basis
for the amount of revenue eligible for aid.

So, the available funding will be a maximum of 50% of airport charges, and only in the case of airports with <3 million passengers per year. (The document states that for airports between 3 and 5 million passengers per year, an individual case needs to be made to the EC demonstrating exceptional circumstances, and the bar is set very high.)

I look at the list of the 19 routes and I struggle to see many that would be moved from loss to profit by a 50% discount on landing fees and PSC at one end of the route. There are some (Carlisle) which have effectively been pre-announced and which are obviously looking for a bit of extra dosh to reduce the inevitable losses. There are others (LBA-EDI) which don't seem to be eligible unless some sort of "exceptional" case can be made. In general, flybe in particular seem to have just tossed a whole pile of possible future routes into the mix in the hope that some might be approved.

Is it just me or is this a heap of nonsense?

[Fairdealfrank]

So, the govt, having sat back whilst LHR and BA trashed regional connectivity it's now time to artificially put it back? I thought the Tories liked the open market? Anyone would think there was:


An election on
Their mates in the airlines want some dosh



The Tories love of the open market is very selective. Clearly when it comes to aviation, the market is hobbled by excessive APD, and the answer is always "no".

[LEEDS APPROACH]

From what I have seen, All Routes have to show they will be sustainable on their own after 3 years, any route that doesn't show growth or meet the expected demand will have the plug pulled even before the 3 years is up!

There is so much criteria that has to be met I can see a lot of those proposed not making it so I wouldn't worry to much

Yes we have a small country, that is coming ever more crowded!!!

The point is I don't want my tax to be given to private companies to help them get rich. If a route is possibly sustainable then private companies should take a chance. It really is quite simple - if enough people want to use the route it will work. If there aren't enough people within a region the route wont work.

Yes the population of the country is expanding and when there is enough people within a region to make a route viable it will be viable. Completely agree with the posters on here - empty, damaging, ridiculous, pre election gestures throwing good tax payers money after bad. I would prefer that money to be spent on kids vaccinations etc.

Is that not the whole point of the state - to provide public services that the free market isn't able to provide? Can't see anything wrong with that myself.

Yes the service they have to provide is an airport (or bus station, hospital, library etc) for each region that can properly do the job. Thought has gone into deciding the best location. Making sure the airport has a suitable runway and is easily able to be accessed by road and rail. The airport must be able to provide the services that the individual region will VIABLY require. That is the Government's responsibility. The free market is able to provide these services but only if the Government do their jobs correctly and fairly. The government are artificially distorting demand by giving peoples hard earned money to private companies to help unviable routes work.

This is nothing more than a last ditch unfair way of the government helping finningley airport after they have thrown millions of pounds at it. Much better to do that than spend on ONE proper fit for purpose airport within Yorkshire. North west companies and North west airports will be laughing all the way to the bank.

[Barnstable]

This is nothing more than a last ditch unfair way of the government helping finningley airport after they have thrown millions of pounds at it. Much better to do that than spend on ONE proper fit for purpose airport within Yorkshire. North west companies and North west airports will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Wasn't LBA publicly owned and funded for most of its history?

As far as I can tell there are 19 routes that have applied for startup funding, and only one of them involves DSA (Finningly is the name of the former RAF base not the existing airport)

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Wasn't LBA publicly owned and funded for most of its history?

As far as I can tell there are 19 routes that have applied for startup funding, and only one of them involves DSA (Finningly is the name of the former RAF base not the existing airport)

Yes LBA was owned by local councils and there was a very good reason why they decided to sell it. It offers very little in terms of future prospects - exactly what local politicians who used to run the airport have publicly stated. This is not about who owns certain airports though. This is about central Government policy to hold back one region while helping another. Two airports fighting against each other in Yorkshire only serves to hold back the whole of Yorkshire and the Humber.

I have nothing against finningley if it was between Wakefield and Doncaster it would be ideal but where it is located it will never force LBA to close. Yorkshire already loses passengers to MAN and EMA and therefore it does not need two airports fighting against one another. 1 correctly placed and connected airport for Yorkshire would have 3 flights to Frankfurt without any taxpayers money needed.

The 19 routes will come down to 3 none of which can stand on their own feet. The Government is helping the two airports to limp along because they only truly want to spend money on Manchester. By announcing 19 routes nobody will cotton on.

The long term economic government plan for Yorkshire means making them fly from Manchester. More diversion and cancellations this morning at Britain's highest airport. Government say one thing while secretly planning the opposite.

[SWBKCB]

Government say one thing while secretly planning the opposite

And everybody knows that the Government is really controlled by a race of alien lizards... :ugh:

Where's my tinfoil hat!

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Was speaking to a family from Durham flying to Toronto this Summer. They would love not have to travel all the way to Manchester for their flight. The people of the North East would benefit from an airport at CF (if not the enthusiasts). How long from Durham to CF on the train? Ooops thread drift.

[davidjohnson6]

Has anything happened with the Regional Air Connectivity Fund n the last two months ? I thought that after two months, somebody in Govt might now be ready to make some sort of announcement as to which routes have passed the primary set of criteria prior to the routes being narrowed down to the final set that would receive funding

[N707ZS]

To answer Leeds approach, a long time ago there was at least on flight from Newcastle to Canada per week Wardair or CP air comes to mind with DC-10s. SWBKCB can possibly give more info on this route.

[litefoot1]

From an article on 27/3/15:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/19-new-regional-air-routes-bid-for-start-up-aid-funding

"The announcement of those routes which have passed the initial application stage has been delayed to allow the department more time to consider the relevant evidence before determining whether the route meets the European Commission guidelines.

The announcement of a short-list of routes that have met the criteria of the initial application stage will now be made in early May. Those routes that are successful at this stage will then move forward to the strategic and economic appraisal stage, with successful bids being announced in July 2015."

There wasn't any announcement in May - due to the election perhaps?

[latedownwind]

Indeed it was delayed due the election.

DfT is not able to make any comment re the process today (have just spoken with them)- but will hopefully make comment next week -- 8 or 9 June.

[Barling Magna]

According to Thursday's Guardian the Fund has been scrapped: "Savings of £16m are made by not subsidising further regional air links – the kind of money that has kept planes going to Newquay and Dundee (whose flights stay protected)."

George Osborne's £4.5bn savings plan: what's being cut? | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/04/george-osborne-45bn-savings-plan-whats-being-cut-department-guide)

[NickBarnes]

Yes looks like it's been all scrapped and once the period of routes that already have had it? Pressume there won't be anymore money

[litefoot1]

Shame. I was looking forward to booking an Oxford to Edinburgh flight.

[CabinCrewe]

Air Transat operated double drops to YYZ (? EXT) from NCL in the 90's. I dont recall CP or Wardair DC-10s.

[highwideandugly]

Air Canada dc8's. Wardair B747s. And DC10s CP AIR DC8s and DC10s. And also Odessey with B757 s. The market was well covered!!

[SWBKCB]

To be fair, back in the 70's this was the same at most of the major regional airports (at MAN there was regularly 3 or 4 Wardair widebodies on the ground at the same time). Market is a lot smaller now.

[EK77WNCL]

Has Canada gone down in popularity? I'd have thought the opposite would have been the case but aviation was very very different then.

I was surprised when Jet2 canned their planned Toronto charters (and Boston) a few years ago. Westjet is the only airline I could see being viable for Newcastle's future really... Not sure how an A319/A321 would go down on a transatlantic route with Air Canada Rouge... 767 more than likely too large unless it was a double drop with an existing route

[SWBKCB]

Yes - used to be a huge VFR market - judging by the number of wheelchairs that used to meet the MAN Wardair flights I'm not surprised the market has declined...

[EK77WNCL]

Oh dear I feel like I found that more funny than I should have!

Extremely good point made nonetheless...

[latedownwind]

Process now deferred until post July Budget !!

[Fairdealfrank]

Process now deferred until post July Budget !!


Yes, the din of more cans being kicked down the road is keeping me awake.

[BAladdy]

Someone has posted in another thread that the Regional Air Connectivity Fund has been scrapped. Tried to find out further information online, but was unable to find any articles regarding the fund being scrapped.

[LBIA]

I'm not 100% certain on this, but I'm sure I've read something elsewhere that the funding was cut after the Consertives won a Majority Government at the General Election in May.

[scodaman]

Government now making effort to point out that it was a policy of previous administration so not looking good.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/19-new-regional-air-routes-bid-for-start-up-aid-funding

[cornishsimon]

Cant understand why Flybe need a grant to operate NQY-LBA for example.


This route ran with good success for many years before the demise of SZ, just seems like they are holding out for a little extra cash to operate what would be a popular route anyway !




cs

[litefoot1]

Government now making effort to point out that it was a policy of previous administration so not looking good.

The game's not over. In fact, the Regional Connectivity Fund has sprung back to life!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/start-up-aid-for-airports-with-under-5-million-passengers-per-year-second-stage

So that's 15 routes that have reached round 2. I wonder how many of these will be successful?

List of routes that have passed the initial application stage:

Durham TV - Belfast, Links Air Double-daily return weekdays, single return Sunday
Carlisle - Belfast, Stobart Air Daily return
Carlisle - Dublin, Stobart Air Daily return
Carlisle - Southend, Stobart Air Daily return
Dundee - Amsterdam, Flybe Daily return
Doncaster Sheffield, - Frankfurt BMI regional Weekday return
Derry - Dublin, City Wings Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekends
Newquay - Leeds, Bradford Flybe Daily return (MWFSS) - summer and 3 daily returns (MFS) - winter
Norwich - Charles de Gaulle, Flybe Daily return
Norwich - Dublin, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekend
Norwich - Exeter, Flybe Daily return
Norwich - Newcastle, Links Air Weekday double-daily return
Oxford - Edinburgh, Links Air Double-daily weekdays and daily return Sunday
Southampton - Lyon, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekend
Southampton - Munich, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekend

[Centre cities]

I think that I have the terms of reference wrong. Most of these routes have alternates already available.

I can understand the Carlisle ones but little else.

Southampton to Munich. This is an airline trying to get a competitive advantage and nothing more as is most of the other applications.

I am surprised Manchester or Birmingham to Beijing is not in there as they have not got one at the moment. (sarcasm not serious)

Centre cities

[NickBarnes]

Norwich routes all quailify due to there been no alternatives within 100km of original airport using Google maps, nor any airport with in 60 minutes journey time, so if I'm reading it correctly, then they do quailify, correct me if I'm wrong.

[EK77WNCL]

Will there be any more of these?

NCL-LCY and NCL-FRA are two I think could be well funded, NCL-EWR as well!

[01475]

Not really understanding how the dropped routes differ from the ones going forward, with the exception of EDI-LBA (which didn't seem like a sensible suggestion).

I'd thought the Oban routes were the strongest candidates.

[davidjohnson6]

NCL-LCY and NCL-FRA are two I think could be well funded, NCL-EWR as well!NCL-LCY sounds an interesting route, but with existing routes on NCL-STN and NCL-LHR, it becomes difficult to see why public subsidy should be necessary for a route that will be using one of London's more expensive airports with small aircraft that make it harder to have low average fixed costs across the passenger base.

NCL-FRA might well be viable - but it should stand on its own two feet instead of needing public subsidy, particularly given that there are plenty of flights to two other major hubs, namely LHR and AMS. I can't see any reason as to why (potentially) Lufthansa should deserve public subsidy to Newcastle.

It would of course be nice to see a NCL - NY route - it'll happen eventually but as to when I'd struggle to guess. Sending people on foreign shopping trips definitely doesn't warrant public subsidy ! :}

[stab3.5up]

The LDY DUB is a winner but LDY ORK would also have been a strong route. Did NWI not offer route subsidies before and with little success. The rest look like complete donkeys tbh

[litefoot1]

The Carlisle routes will be interesting. Despite Oxford's chequered history I suspect the route to Edinburgh will get through. Derry to Dublin sounds ace and I'm hoping that one definitely makes it!

[fjencl]

In the latter stages of the Edinburgh - Oxford operation the load factors were getting much better, it just took time for people to realise the flights existed.

Good luck to all routes named in the above list.

[fjencl]

No other routes other than those listed below..........

List of routes that have passed the initial application stage:

Durham TV - Belfast, Links Air Double-daily return weekdays, single return Sunday
Carlisle - Belfast, Stobart Air Daily return
Carlisle - Dublin, Stobart Air Daily return
Carlisle - Southend, Stobart Air Daily return
Dundee - Amsterdam, Flybe Daily return
Doncaster Sheffield, - Frankfurt BMI regional Weekday return
Derry - Dublin, City Wings Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekends
Newquay - Leeds, Bradford Flybe Daily return (MWFSS) - summer and 3 daily returns (MFS) - winter
Norwich - Charles de Gaulle, Flybe Daily return
Norwich - Dublin, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekend
Norwich - Exeter, Flybe Daily return
Norwich - Newcastle, Links Air Weekday double-daily return
Oxford - Edinburgh, Links Air Double-daily weekdays and daily return Sunday
Southampton - Lyon, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekend
Southampton - Munich, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekend

[NickBarnes]

The LDY DUB is a winner but LDY ORK would also have been a strong route. Did NWI not offer route subsidies before and with little success. The rest look like complete donkeys tbh

Norwich routes weren't offered subsides before, Dublin had pax numbers of 40-50 when last operated all those years ago now, NWI set pax target that if flybe didn't reach they would be fined, relations went down after that, priced correctly the only one I can see been successful and Newcastle too, Paris and Exeter will never work in a million years

[globetrotter79]

...but are the NWI routes actually planned by flybe themselves (Dash 8/70-odd seats) or by Loganair on Dornier 328 (32-ish seats)...makes quite a difference, no?

[Dontgothere]

Maybe to find a middle ground between a Q400 and a Do328, Loganair could base a Saab 2000 at NWI, but then again, one is basing this more on hope than reality.

[virginblue]

So is my undertanding correct that the following have bitten the dust:

OBN-BRR
OBN-GLA
LDY-BHX
EDI-LBA

[Jamesair]

Yes.....The list shows all routes that have gone through to the next round, all routes not shown, failed the criteria.

[Barnstable]

Do we know how many will actually be approved for funding?

[Cyrano]

Just a note on this business of "funding". These aren't PSO routes where the taxpayer is essentially footing most of the bill for operating the route. From section 2.3 (7) of the original UK notification to the European Commission (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/454440/C_2015_5254_EN_ACTE_f.pdf) (PDF):
The proposed aid to support the launch of new routes is intended to cover up to 50% of the airport charges incurred in operating the new route.
Airport charges will typically only account for maybe 10%-15% of total operating costs of a route (less if you take discounts into account). So this Regional Air Connectivity funding has the potential to subsidise 50% of this, or say 5%, of total operating costs. Yes, it is a small help to the route economics, but not a significant one.

IMHO it's very clear that airlines have applied for routes which were in any case candidates for operation in the next year or two, on the basis that if they can get a bit of a helping hand from the taxpayer they won't refuse it.

[BigFrank]

I find it interesting, though frankly not surprising, that this UK centred discussion should be so light on the EU-rules aspect of this a-priori illegal state aid; unless it fully meets with the EU rules, that is.

Especially given quite how influential subsidies, especially by regional governments or municipalities around the EU have been in the enormous transformation of the European airline industry over the past 15 years or so.

And how inconsistently the EU has monitored still less "policed" these subsidies.

Not to mention how well some airlines have played the subsidy game to the very considerable benefit of their long term financial bottom line.

[SWBKCB]

If you read the original application documentation (admittedly, not many
contributors have), this competition does meet state aid rules.

And what is wrong with airlines playing the game?

[BigFrank]

No objections whatsoever to airlines "playing the game."

As long as the rules-of-the-game are:

i) transparent
ii) enforced
iii) enforced uniformly.

Now what makes me think that the second and third condition have been "conspicuous by their absence" in the airline/ airport subsidies "game" to date ?

[SWBKCB]

As far as I'm aware, it isn't EU money that's available - and it's normally the threat of "state aid" investigations which reigns in the regional/local authorities.

[BigFrank]

These objections to the theory and practice of state aid are at the heart of the "ever closer union" and, as such, apply equally to all aid from public bodies irrespective of the specific status of the state body involved.

So that fact that the thread is about cash from the UK exchequer is neither here nor there since all such subsidy is frowned upon due to its potential for distorting "the market."


My point, as before, is triple:

i) to highlight the theory
ii) to highlight how important, despite the theory, has been state aid to the current European airline industry
iii) to highlight the inconsistency with which judgements as to acceptability of subsidies have been delivered and subsequently monitored.

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Just a note on this business of "funding". These aren't PSO routes where the taxpayer is essentially footing most of the bill for operating the route. From section 2.3 (7) of the original UK notification to the European Commission (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/454440/C_2015_5254_EN_ACTE_f.pdf) (PDF):

Airport charges will typically only account for maybe 10%-15% of total operating costs of a route (less if you take discounts into account). So this Regional Air Connectivity funding has the potential to subsidise 50% of this, or say 5%, of total operating costs. Yes, it is a small help to the route economics, but not a significant one.

IMHO it's very clear that airlines have applied for routes which were in any case candidates for operation in the next year or two, on the basis that if they can get a bit of a helping hand from the taxpayer they won't refuse it.

I cannot agree with your statement. Can you offer some proof or link to your 10-15% figure? The word 'typically' simply cannot be used for two reasons. There is an absolute plethora of airline/airport deals lasting varying amounts of time and involving all kinds of sliding scale variables. Then there is the creative accounting that lumps huge amounts of operating costs into the actual deal. You simply cannot compare the operating costs into Munich or Frankfurt with the operating costs into Oban, Derry, Carlisle or Norwich etc.

It is an absolute scandalous disgrace that the public's personal money is going to be given to Private well established airline and airport companies to pay for expensive operations that cannot stand on their own two feet. If something works it does not need a 'helping hand'. Routes either work or do not work at certain points in time for very good scientific reasons involving location, competition, demand and price etc. This is what the Govt. should be spending Joe Public's hard earned on! As for the body that decides the 'criteria' for these routes - what an absolute (bad) joke.

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Basically Government UK civil aviation airport strategy (there isn't one) that has seen airports built and developed in the most ridiculous, inaccessible and unusable locations now leads to even recently developed airports completely failing as they struggle after the same passengers.

"I know we can sort this out by getting the public to pay for the routes that they will then have to pay for again."

Leave the routes alone (current) blundering Government and get on sorting out the country's airports. We need less airports. The airports that are developed need to be ideally located and ideally accessible and efficient and fully able to do the job.

There is absolutely no need for any interfering and 'helping out' of airline routes.

[Cyrano]

I cannot agree with your statement. Can you offer some proof or link to your 10-15% figure? The word 'typically' simply cannot be used for two reasons. There is an absolute plethora of airline/airport deals lasting varying amounts of time and involving all kinds of sliding scale variables. Then there is the creative accounting that lumps huge amounts of operating costs into the actual deal. You simply cannot compare the operating costs into Munich or Frankfurt with the operating costs into Oban, Derry, Carlisle or Norwich etc.

It is an absolute scandalous disgrace that the public's personal money is going to be given to Private well established airline and airport companies to pay for expensive operations that cannot stand on their own two feet. If something works it does not need a 'helping hand'. Routes either work or do not work at certain points in time for very good scientific reasons involving location, competition, demand and price etc. This is what the Govt. should be spending Joe Public's hard earned on! As for the body that decides the 'criteria' for these routes - what an absolute (bad) joke.

I'm not offering any "proof". I base the number on my own experience of evaluating route operating economics, and of course the proportion of airport costs will vary based on the airport deal, on the aircraft type, etc. I absolutely, totally agree with you that this varies hugely from route to route and airport to airport and that we can't compare Oban-Barra with Southampton-Lyon. The point I am simply trying to make is that this "funding" is not some sort of magic cure-all - it only addresses one component of the operating costs, and therefore will have a distinctly marginal effect on turning an unprofitable route into a profitable one. I am not in any way defending this scheme, which I think is a complete turkey.

[Barnstable]

Just posed this question on the DSA thread. Would an airline be in any way obliged to go ahead with it if they were awarded the funding, or could they just file a speculative application?

[rutankrd]

) transparent
ii) enforced
iii) enforced uniformly.

Now what makes me think that the second and third condition have been "conspicuous by their absence" in the airline/ airport subsidies "game" to date ?

Ask Malev and Cyprus Airways - Oh wait both fell fowl and result the EU rules forced their closure and thousands lost their livelihood.

Alitalia forced restructuring twice and required external financing from the sandpit.

Olympic forced into bankruptcy and restructuring and eventual merger with Aegean.

Plenty of cases where EU competition rules HAVE been enforced right across the continent actually.

As for PSOs on island and very narrow routes to distant corners they can be legal exception situations when considered vital

[Zaphod Beblebrox]

The US equivalent:

Essential Air Service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Essential Air Service (EAS) is a U.S. government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Government) program enacted to guarantee that small communities in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), which, prior to deregulation, were served by certificated airlines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline), maintained commercial service. Its aim is to maintain a minimal level of scheduled air service to these communities that otherwise would not be profitable. This came in response to the Airline Deregulation Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act), passed in 1978, which gave U.S. airlines almost total freedom to determine which markets to serve domestically and what fares to charge for that service.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_Air_Service#cite_note-***-1) The program is codified at 49 U.S.C. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_49_of_the_United_States_Code) §§ 41731 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/41731.html)–41748 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/41748.html).

[Paphian]

Trouble with CY was that it had poor management appointed by the government, and was run by the unions, Over paid Pilots and Cabin crew. night stops instead of return journey with the subsequent attractive expenses.
CY was in trouble before the EU but government loans, they hoped the EU would ignore. They Juggled with Eurocypria and that went down.;
Cyprus airways could not fly a kite.

[rutankrd]

Trouble with CY was that it had poor management appointed by the government, and was run by the unions, Over paid Pilots and Cabin crew. night stops instead of return journey with the subsequent attractive expenses.
CY was in trouble before the EU but government loans, they hoped the EU would ignore. They Juggled with Eurocypria and that went down.;
Cyprus airways could not fly a kite.

Not debuted however my response was more about others claiming EU rules never enforced - They evidently are and both Malev and Cyprus were victims of rule breaking !

[litefoot1]

The deadline for the five airlines to submit proposals for the 15 shortlisted routes is next week. Hopefully we will see some movement on this soon!

[BigFrank]

As you have previously copied, my central point was/is a three parter. That these rules should be:

i) transparent
ii) enforced
iii) enforced uniformly.

At no point have I belonged to those asserting, as you claim, "EU rules never enforced."

Leaving aside the first of the 3 points, for the moment, and repeating my last statement above, it strikes me that you see my 2nd and 3rd points as independent of one another, whereas nothing could be further from the truth.

Partial/ limited/ spasmodic/ slipshod/ politically-inspired "enforcement" of the rules (which you have highlighted, though certainly without characterising it as I have just done) is actually worse than "never enforcing" the rules, since at least in the latter case everyone is on a level, if chaotic, playing field. Whereas currently.....?

Whereas currently, as I stated above, the enforcement is, at best, politically inspired.

At best.

[davidjohnson6]

As has been mentioned elsewhere, Links Air have lost their AOC, and presumably now no longer qualify as an airline.

Does that mean we can assume that Durham-Belfast, Norwich-Newcastle and Oxford-Edinburgh are unlikely to be considered any further for Regional Air Connectivity Fund purposes ?

[cornishsimon]

When are we actually likely to see an outcome on this?


cs

[litefoot1]

Not a clue!

Meanwhile...

Roads first, air-route second said Councillor | Donegal Now (http://www.donegalnow.com/news/roads-first-air-route-second-said-councillor/51459)

Highland Radio ? Latest Donegal News and Sport » Doherty says Mac Giolla Easbuig?s opposition to Derry-Dublin air subvention is ?ill informed? (http://www.highlandradio.com/2015/10/22/110172/)

[litefoot1]

http://www.donegalnow.com/news/government-wont-cough-up-the-cash-for-derry-airport/56120

Irish Government questioned over funding for Derry-Dublin air link | Derry Now (http://www.derrynow.com/news/irish-government-questioned-over-funding-for-derry-dublin-air-link/56215)

[Cyrano]

The newspaper refers to the Derry-Dublin funding application being made for Citywing. How can Citywing be eligible? It is not an airline. It does not hold an AOC. This is an old tune, I know, but why is nothing changing?

[runway30]

You are correct, applicants had to hold an EU Operating Licence so application could have been made by City Wing on behalf of Van Air.

[Jamesair]

What happens to the route applications in the name of Links Air? are they automatically withdrawn from the shortlist?

[AerRyan]

Why would a buncranny TD be concerned about and want a route from Derry that would challenge the same route from the local airport?

[Cyrano]

Why would a buncranny TD be concerned about and want a route from Derry that would challenge the same route from the local airport?

Drive time from Buncrana to City of Derry Airport: about half an hour, says Google Maps (https://www.google.ie/maps/dir/Buncrana,+Co.+Donegal/City+of+Derry+Airport,+Londonderry,+UK/@55.0720754,-7.3863666,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x485ffb9ef969bd75:0xa00c7 a997317d60!2m2!1d-7.4534477!2d55.1346509!1m5!1m1!1s0x486009340ef58d03:0xef1f7e 03e8e3b79f!2m2!1d-7.161111!2d55.042778?hl=en)

Drive time from Buncrana to Donegal Airport: about 90 minutes (https://www.google.ie/maps/dir/Buncrana,+Co.+Donegal/Donegal+Airport,+Donegal/@54.9663086,-8.1612997,10z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x485ffb9ef969bd75:0xa00c7 a997317d60!2m2!1d-7.4534477!2d55.1346509!1m5!1m1!1s0x485f79c3b79c16b7:0x770063 f57866131c!2m2!1d-8.3401479!2d55.043874?hl=en)

Now, give us that point about "local airport" again...? ;)

[virginblue]

So if I read today's spending review correctly, the routes that will get funding are:


Carlisle - Belfast, Stobart Air Daily return
Carlisle - Southend, Stobart Air Daily return
Carlisle - Dublin, Stobart Air Daily return
Edinburgh - Oxford, Links Air Double-daily weekdays and daily return Sunday
Dundee - Amsterdam, Flybe Daily return
Derry - Dublin, City Wings Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekends
Leeds/Bradford - Newquay, Flybe, Daily return (MWFSS) - summer and 3 daily returns (MFS) - winter
Norwich - Newcastle, Links Air Weekday double-daily return
Norwich - Exeter, Flybe Daily return
Southampton - Munich, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return, weekend
Southampton - Lyon, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekend


I guess the Links Air routes could be a non-starter for obvious reasons.

Those four made it into the second round, but I do not see them mentioned in the spending review document:


Durham TV - Belfast, Links Air Double-daily return weekdays, single return Sunday
Doncaster Sheffield, - Frankfurt BMI regional Weekday return
Norwich - Charles de Gaulle, Flybe, Daily return
Norwich - Dublin, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekend


After the first round, those four had already dropped out:

Derry - Birmingham, Flybe, weekday return
Leeds/Bradford - Edinburgh, Flybe, double daily return weekdays, single daily return weekends
Oban - Glasgow, no operator specified, 2 daily return flights (MFS)
Oban - Barra, no operator specified, 3 daily flights (FS)

[davidjpowell]

Surprised about this one

Leeds/Bradford - Newquay, Flybe, Daily return (MWFSS) - summer and 3 daily returns (MFS) - winter

Given Flybe recent announcement on Doncaster - Newquay route

[virginblue]

I would not read too much into the applications. I don't think anyone is under an obligation to start the route and the funding is, if I am not mistaken, not spectacular (IIRC, something like a waiver of landing fees). I would be surprised if only half of the routes actually take off.

[Pain in the R's]

Shocking waste of money. While I can see why routes to the Scottish Islands should receive support and probably already do I am at a loss why any route on this list needs government money.

Stobart comes out as a villain in all of this with their proposal for their double whammy services from their Carlisle airport using their own airline across the Irish sea for a town that has a population of just 70,000. Yes I can see the area's sheep farmers queuing up in their thousands for weekends away.

As for Stobart's proposed Carlisle's Southend service, which is a triple whammy, as they also own Southend, what is that all about? Carlisle already has an hourly town centre train service to London which is as quick as any service to London via Southend when you factor in minimum check-in times and the fact that Southend is on the coast and not in London.

I don't blame Stobart for applying for funding that at a stroke benefits all 3 of their enterprises but the service isn't needed and if there is a demand then it is for Stobart to carry the risk rather than looking for a government revenue stream.

[cumbrianboy]

Don't quite see why Sotbart is a villain.

Carlisle seems to be the exact place that this fund is aimed to help. It's a region which needs economic stimulation and it's a long proven fact that air service connections are a catalyst to economic growth.

Stobart have 48 seat aircraft that are ideal for this market. The Carlise, Penrith and the wider Northumberland / Cumbrian catchment area is particularly poorly served by air transport, as the only options are MAN (2 hours away) or NCL - a difficult crossing especially in marginal weather.

So, you have some regional flights into the local airport, with what is a comparatively small amount of funding over a couple of years to help the service get off the ground and help to cover the losses in the first few years.

it provides employment, boosts economic growth … hence satisfying the aims of the fund.

the routes will lose money initially, all new air services lose money in the first few years. But with support for a few years they have time to mature and develop and become self sustaining.

So, as I say, why exactly is stobart the villain? Are they any more of a villain than Flybe wanting funding for a LBA- NQY service? I think not,

Just because you don't want to use the flights, doesn't mean the people of cumbria won't be delighted to have direct access to air travel

And I know the usual arguments about the train being a good service will come to the fore, and i'm not saying it isn't but not everyone wants to go to the west end of london, and if you want to go anywhere north or east, then actually an air service to Southend is probably more appealing, efficient and will be probably be cheaper.

[virginblue]

Well, as per the government document:

Funding can be provided to cover up to 50% of airport aeronautical charges

That's it. It is not as if taxpayers' money goes into propping up airlines or airports at a grand scale. I am not sure if that type of funding encourages the start of outlandish routes. I suppose it is more about encouraging the launch of routes that are deemed to be marginally profitable.

My understanding is that DND-STN and NQY-LGW already benefit from this type of funding (I don't think they are proper PSOs, but I might be wrong here).

[cornishsimon]

NQY-LGW is a PSO

NQY-LBA will work, it's previously been operated as a multi day via BRS by SZ so there are good numbers to back up this route. However it does make me wonder why it's not already operating !



cs

[Pain in the R's]

Funding can be provided to cover up to 50% of airport aeronautical charges

So with one company owning the airline and both Carlisle and Southend it is in their interests to set artificially high charges if they can claim 50% back.

[cumbrianboy]

Apart from th fact the charges are published and the fund will use industry benchmarks and it will have been included in the business case.

So again, no I don't think they are the villains and actually one could argue that by having a sole company you are reducing the profit margins and so reducing the overall costs.

I think you just have an issue with Stobart and Carlisle. Personally I think funding flybe from Southampton to Munich is much more questionable ... But if it passes the test then so be it

[SWBKCB]

Agreed - at least Stobarts have been talking about SEN and DUB ever since they have been looking to develop CAX.

Whether you agree that the Govt should be funding this sort of thing or not, they would be idiots not take advantage of any additional funding and reduce the risk of starting the services.

[Fairdealfrank]

So if I read today's spending review correctly, the routes that will get funding are:


Carlisle - Belfast, Stobart Air Daily return
Carlisle - Southend, Stobart Air Daily return
Carlisle - Dublin, Stobart Air Daily return
Edinburgh - Oxford, Links Air Double-daily weekdays and daily return Sunday
Dundee - Amsterdam, Flybe Daily return
Derry - Dublin, City Wings Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekends
Leeds/Bradford - Newquay, Flybe, Daily return (MWFSS) - summer and 3 daily returns (MFS) - winter
Norwich - Newcastle, Links Air Weekday double-daily return
Norwich - Exeter, Flybe Daily return
Southampton - Munich, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return, weekend
Southampton - Lyon, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekend


I guess the Links Air routes could be a non-starter for obvious reasons.

Those four made it into the second round, but I do not see them mentioned in the spending review document:


Durham TV - Belfast, Links Air Double-daily return weekdays, single return Sunday
Doncaster Sheffield, - Frankfurt BMI regional Weekday return
Norwich - Charles de Gaulle, Flybe, Daily return
Norwich - Dublin, Flybe Double-daily return weekdays, single return weekend


After the first round, those four had already dropped out:

Derry - Birmingham, Flybe, weekday return
Leeds/Bradford - Edinburgh, Flybe, double daily return weekdays, single daily return weekends
Oban - Glasgow, no operator specified, 2 daily return flights (MFS)
Oban - Barra, no operator specified, 3 daily flights (FS)

Quite surprised to see international routes on the PSO list for government funding!



Carlisle seems to be the exact place that this fund is aimed to help. It's a region which needs economic stimulation and it's a long proven fact that air service connections are a catalyst to economic growth.

Stobart have 48 seat aircraft that are ideal for this market. The Carlise, Penrith and the wider Northumberland / Cumbrian catchment area is particularly poorly served by air transport, as the only options are MAN (2 hours away) or NCL - a difficult crossing especially in marginal weather.

So, you have some regional flights into the local airport, with what is a comparatively small amount of funding over a couple of years to help the service get off the ground and help to cover the losses in the first few years.

it provides employment, boosts economic growth … hence satisfying the aims of the fund.

the routes will lose money initially, all new air services lose money in the first few years. But with support for a few years they have time to mature and develop and become self sustaining.
Exactly, and many other areas need this apart from Carlisle. Of course a route into Heathrow with all its connections to the world and access to the 300 odd company head offices nearby would be very helpful, and it can't easily be done by train.

Clearly this won't happen at present, but come the third rwy.......



And I know the usual arguments about the train being a good service will come to the fore, and i'm not saying it isn't but not everyone wants to go to the west end of london, and if you want to go anywhere north or east, then actually an air service to Southend is probably more appealing, efficient and will be probably be cheaper.
The train is good as well if headed for the middle of London, but it can be horrendously expensive. Shouldn't there be some level of choice, so that all circumstances can be catered for?

[Wycombe]

BBC South tonight reported that BEE will start SOU to LYS and MUC, but didn't say when.

[LAX_LHR]

I think it shows this route fund is a waste of money when Flybe can start an E195 DSA-NQY flight with no issues, yet, it can't possibly start an LBA-NQY DH8 flight without funding.

[Deano777]

LAX-LHR how do you come to the notion that Flybe operate DSA-NQY with no issues, as you put it? Flybe have obvious done a deal with DSA airport so the route is subsidised one way or the other. Your argument holds no water whatsoever.

[LAX_LHR]

Because the DSA route is using a discounted deal on fees etc set down by DSA/Peel. It's a business deal as opposed to using public money.

The LBA route is using government money to get it going.

What was stopping Flybe getting a good deal at LBA?

Why should my taxpayer money be used to subsidise a flight I will never use when Flybe are starting a similar route down the road with no such requirement for a hand out of public money?

You are missing the point that Flybe can start a route using traditional methods at one airport, but up the road couldn't possibly start the route without a public handout.

What makes LBA-NQY a PSO route but DSA-NQY not?

[virginblue]

Quite surprised to see international routes on the PSO list for government funding

These are not PSO routes. PSO is a different and much more comprehensive concept.


Why should my taxpayer money be used to subsidise a flight I will never use when Flybe are starting a similar route down the road with no such requirement for a hand out of public money?

I am pretty certain that the DSA deal was agreed much later than the deadline for submissions to the Regional Air Connectivity Fund. So it is open to discussion whether BE would have applied for LBA-NQY if the DSA-NQY had already been sealed. Plus BE is under no obligation to start LBA-NQY. Who knows if DSA has some small print in its deal with BE that BE is not allowed to start LBA-NQY as DSA will have been fully aware of the pendung application for that route.

You are missing the point that Flybe can start a route using traditional methods at one airport, but up the road couldn't possibly start the route without a public handout.

Not necessarily. The Regional Air Connectivity Fund rules stipulate that a consortium must apply, i.e. airport + airline together. So if NQY is not interested in a DSA route, there is no way BE could apply for monies from the fund.

[LAX_LHR]

But again, you seem to be missing the point.

Flybe has at some stage, decided that it cannot open LBA-NQY by traditional means (EI, without a government money).

Later on, it has decided that it can open a very similar route without that government money, at an airport not exactly a million miles away from LBA.

The point is, what criteria were looked at for the government to say 'yes, we can clearly see that you cannot operate without money from us', when, looking at the bigger picture, there seems to be no real tangible reason why the LBA route could not have been opened without public money given they have done exactly that down the road?

[virginblue]

Do you honestly believe that basing the largest aircraft in Flybe's fleet - the Embraer 195, for which the airline was unable to find useful employment even at its largest hubs like BHX and SOU - at struggling airports like CWL and DSA without any prior Flybe presence is a purely commercial operation not relying on any subsidies....? :=

[davidjohnson6]

Out of all the noise, there seems to be just 4 routes which are making use of Regional Air Connectivity Fund money, and 1 route that isn't using RACF cash but might not have existed had the RACF scheme not been announced

Using RACF cash:
Dundee-Amsterdam
Leeds-Newquay
Norwich-Exeter
Southampton-Lyon

Perhaps encouraged by the possibility of RACF cash for a competitor airline:
Southampton-Munich

Seems like the exercise has had relatively little in the way of substantial results. Has the whole exercise really been worthwhile ?

[blackbeard1]

Looks like FlyBe are taking advantage of the fund and moving the Newquay flight from DSA to LBA starting 28th Oct.

[EK77WNCL]

What were the limitations on this? Could it not be useful to prop up routes like BFS/NCL-EWR until they start making a profit, maybe BRS-EWR (although I don't think there would be a struggle there were it to be reinstated). Other potential routes like BFS-DXB, LBA/EMA-NYC/DXB, LBA-Pakistan, MAN-China, EDI-China, EVEN NCL-China

I know some of these are in the +5 mil category but surely the inbound trade is worth the investment, or is it not worth it because its not London? :rolleyes:

I feel a lot more could have come of this, even past the fact that 15 routes never happened, some of them were just weird, and even of the 4 that did happen, I only think 1 definitely makes sense on the surface of it, and that's Dundee to Amsterdam, but only with KLM codeshare, which currently isn't in place. Norwich - Exeter might make sense, I'm assuming business ties but I cant think of any massive benefit it brings, what links are there?

Were it subsidised I completely support bmi regional on SOU-MUC, not flybe though.

Southampton - Lyon and Leeds - Newquay though... Why? Are they not leisure routes? By that token why don't the government just plough money into MME/CVT/BLK - ALC/TFS/PMI/AGP?

[SWBKCB]

What were the limitations on this?

Read back through the thread and then Google "State Aid"

[Jamesair]

Unfortunately the problems with Airlink did for several routes i.e.
Norwich - Newcastle....MME -BFS....Oxford - Edinburgh

[virginblue]

Going through the list,

Carlisle - Belfast
Carlisle - Southend
Carlisle - Dublin

...are not really dead. Stobart has announced that they still plan to start them: Passenger flights from Carlisle Airport 'by this time next year' (http://www.cumberlandnews.co.uk/news/Passenger-flights-from-Carlisle-Airport-by-this-time-next-year-4e46e255-0821-4f3f-b080-c666372a604b-ds)

Edinburgh - Oxford,
Norwich - Newcastle

...were both auggested by Links Air which is now bancrupt, as I understand.

Dundee - Amsterdam
Leeds/Bradford - Newquay
Norwich - Exeter
Southampton - Munich
Southampton - Lyon

...have been launched.

Derry - Dublin

...is the only definite non-starter. We have not heard from Citywings what the reason is.

[Cyrano]

Derry - Dublin

...is the only definite non-starter. We have not heard from Citywings what the reason is.

Perhaps the fact that Citywing is not actually an airline, just a ticket seller which continues to exploit the shameful loophole in the ATOL rules to fool people into thinking they are booking with a real airline. I'd like to hope that the Regional Air Connectivity Fund includes some provision that only actual airlines are eligible.

[virginblue]

Well, they were awarded a grant together with Derry Airport, so obviously you're hoping in vain... But I have not seen the paperwork, maybe the true applicant was Vanair Europe.

[NickBarnes]

Don't think the Links Air routes will go to any other airline so they are a no go from what I've heard.

The ones that have begun if reports and figures are believed have started quite well