Ryanair News

[bspahh]

I believe it is indeed about features in the app, e.g. notifications of gate etc. It's all about efficiency of operations.

I daresay it will also include adverts and offers to sell you scratch cards.

 

[edwin_m]

I believe it is indeed about features in the app, e.g. notifications of gate etc. It's all about efficiency of operations.

That's sort of useful for passengers, although they can just get this information on their departure screen.

I daresay it will also include adverts and offers to sell you scratch cards.

That's less acceptable, especially if it does unsolicited notification or any sort of tracking. But it may just be to get the app on people's phones in the hope that will make them more likely to fly with them in future. In my case it will do the opposite - an extra task to load the app if I need to fly with them (and I will delete it afterwards!).

 

[jon0844]

I daresay it will also include adverts and offers to sell you scratch cards.

Data is worth a lot these days, so I'm sure they want you to install the app and let it monitor you in various ways.

I wonder what permissions it asks for. Clearly location will be one, so it can give notifications relating to your flight. It could perhaps then track where you visit (like Google does) to see what shops you visit and how long you spend in places. Maybe even track your movements when you're on holiday. Obviously to help the company plan routes and timetables more effectively than sell that data to advertisers.

FWIW I am not against having a lot of my daily movements tracked to better serve relevant adverts. I accept that to get free services I am paying in other ways. I also know how to stop that information being shared if I so wish. I would still likely use the app, but be very cynical at the same time.

Most people probably don't, or can't see how they give permission for one thing that leads to another (example when people gave permission for content to be used for things like generative AI. At the time, people didn't even know that was going to be a thing).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Aug 2025 ==

But it may just be to get the app on people's phones in the hope that will make them more likely to fly with them in future. In my case it will do the opposite - an extra task to load the app if I need to fly with them (and I will delete it afterwards!).

I think companies are far more aware of how to monetise apps and services so it's probably a number of reasons.

The easiest way to track tickets would be just to use Apple or Google wallets, but perhaps Ryanair would want you using their app instead of letting another platform do it.

Also,

Ryanair to increase oversized bag bonus

Michael O'Leary told the BBC the change would come in November, and that he made no apology for it.

www.bbc.com

The bounty for spotting an oversized bag will increase from €1.50 to €2.50 from November.

 

[Snow1964]

Ryanair have chosen to cut number of routes into Spain, after the State run airports operator (AENA) put up fees by a few percent.

Of course we all know Boeing is late delivering a number of planes, and Ryanair negotiating tactics expecting reduced fees or subsidies has helped them in the past.

Ryanair of course spin story one way, but this public reply from CEO of AENA does not mince words (definitely not diplomatic soft phrases). Impressive statement.

3 September 2025
It would be hard to find in contemporary business history another case such as Ryanair where the dissonance between a company’s operational excellence and the dishonesty of its communications policy is so striking.

Ryanair's impertinence and uninhibited public demands on democratic governments in countries where it operates its flights with the aim of obtaining economic advantages, shed light upon two deep-rooted and unedifying characteristics of this airline company. The first is that Ryanair has a disturbingly plutocratic idea of the political system, i.e. it seeks to intimidate public opinion by slashing its flights, calls for the resignation of ministers from half of Europe and the president of the European Commission, mocks democratically elected politicians, and calls for laws to be changed in its favour because it believes that government decision-making should bend to the interests of the most economically powerful companies such as Ryanair, instead of protecting the "general interest". The second characteristic is Ryanair's communications and institutional relations policy, which is in permanent and deliberate conflict with objective facts and truthfulness. Here are a few examples:

Ryanair's constant challenge of the Spanish regulatory framework for airports and Aena’s airport network model, considered a success story by experts worldwide, is not an isolated event. This is, in fact, Ryanair's modus operandi in all the countries in which it is present, where it deploys constant public pressing of central and regional governments for short-term financial gain at the expense of taxpayers' money and the long-term sustainability of the airport system. In 2024 and 2025 alone, Ryanair has threatened and attempted to intimidate public authorities in Germany, France, Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK, as demonstrated by the following link.

In 2025, the number of international tourists visiting Spain will approach an all-time record of 100 million, and the volume of air traffic scheduled by airlines in the "winter season 2025" (from the end of October 2025 until the end of March 2026) at Spanish airports, announced yesterday, is also a new all-time record. Under these circumstances, Ryanair's assertion in today's press conference that "Spain is now closed to tourism" and that "the Spanish government is anti-tourism" is astounding.

In accordance with the regulatory framework of Aena's activity (its cornerstone being Act 18/2014) and the obligatory application of objective mathematical formulas, Aena has proposed an increase of €0.68 in airport tariffs in 2026. Everyone knows that a person's decision of whether to take a plane or not does not depend on whether the ticket will cost 68 cents more next year, yet Ryanair insists again and again to the contrary, while it has itself brazenly raised its air fares in the last year by an average of 21%!

When Ryanair states that it could invest billions of euros in Spain with new air routes if Aena and the Spanish Government would subsidise its activity in regional airports, it simply misrepresents the reality: the vast majority of these investments referred to are the purchases of Boeing aircraft in its fleet, whose percentage of manufacturing in Spain is under 3%. Therefore, these aircraft purchases by Ryanair worth billions do not imply investing in Spain.

Ryanair states that Aena's investments in Spanish airports are paid for by the airlines, however, this is untrue: all of Aena's investments are fully paid for by Aena with its money. To argue otherwise is a sophistry tantamount to saying that Ryanair's investments when it purchases planes for its fleet are paid for by the passengers who buy the Irish airline's tickets; or that Inditex's investments in its factories are paid for by the citizens who buy its clothing.

The setting of Aena's airport charges is not the result of a capricious decision by Aena. Act 18/2014 and its subsequent regulatory implementations, which were drafted and approved by the People’s Party (PP) in 2014, exhaustively determine the approval of airport charges, which are legally "public property charges" since Aena's aeronautical activity is subject to economic regulation rooted in solid microeconomic principles. Contrary to what Ryanair maintains, airport tariffs that are defined by law cannot be modified by either the Spanish Government or Aena at will, since to distort public charges whose nature is very different from ordinary private prices without justification, would be committing an unlawful act. Ryanair is fully aware of this, but with its fallacious public statements, it seeks to mislead public opinion in order to promote its own interests.

Although Ryanair constantly denies it, Aena's airport charges are generally among the most competitive within Europe, thanks to a highly demanding regulation which, amongst other factors, leads to a high operational efficiency of the company.

Specifically, the airport charges paid by airlines for additional passengers in 2023 at Aena's regional airports amount to approximately €2, much lower than the average of €10.35 for Aena's airports in 2025. These subsidised fees of approximately €2 per additional passenger at regional airports explicitly demonstrate Aena’s efforts on one hand, and those of the Spanish Government by means of economic regulation on the other hand, to promote aeronautical activity in the regions. Ryanair’s statement that it is cancelling routes at these airports because the charges are exhorbitant is therefore untrue. The reality is more prosaic: Ryanair is cancelling them because it is transferring its aircraft to airports where it can set higher prices for its airline tickets and thus earn more money, such as at large Spanish airports (despite the fact that airport charges there are substantially higher than at regional airports). This economic reality is currently exacerbated by the fact that there is a global problem of delayed deliveries of aircraft purchased by airlines (a supply-side constraint).

It is not true that Ryanair is genuinely concerned about the welfare of Spanish citizens and the competitiveness of the regions. What Ryanair wants is to make more money, even if it is paid out of Spanish taxpayers' pockets. Proof of the above is that on 16 January 2025, Ryanair DAC CEO Eddie Wilson stated without batting an eyelid that his favourite airport model in Spain is that of Castellón Airport, owned by the Government of the Valencian Community, an ill-fated symbol of public waste in infrastructure and which lost 11.6 million euros in 2023, paid for by the citizens of the Valencian Community. Or to put it in other words: by praising Castellón Airport, Ryanair has shown its true colours. It is somewhat surprising that Ryanair's head of communications and institutional relations in Spain did not warn Eddie Wilson in advance of the tremendous reputational impact of his statements.

(Let me make it clear that, in a market economy, there is nothing wrong with a company seeking to make as much money as possible. But it would definitely be appreciated if Ryanair did not disguise its monetary goals with statements made in bad faith, and also if the money chased by the airline did not come out of Spanish taxpayers’ pockets).

Another proof of Ryanair’s real priorities and those of its executives is the stratospheric bonus of over 100 million euros! to be earned by Ryanair Group CEO Michael O'Leary based on the achievement of a series of targets and his staying on in the company (Michael O'Leary, a punto de ganar un bonus de 100 millones).

It is untrue that regional airports would be financially sustainable if airport charges were €0 for Ryanair, as proposed by the Irish airline (Ryanair exige a la Junta 750.000 euros para mantener el vuelo entre Valladolid y Barcelona). There is abundant empirical evidence that demonstrates that free airport infrastructures and services at regional airports are only possible if, instead of being paid for by Ryanair, they are paid for by Spanish taxpayers through subsidies from the Spanish Government, autonomous community governments, regional councils and municipal councils. For this reason, Ryanair is notorious among mayors and councillors of the governments of autonomous communities for its constant search for public money to finance its flights at regional airports.

It is not true, as Ryanair claims, that airport charges at regional airports and, in general, the functioning of the Spanish airport system, are an undesirable consequence of Aena's abuse of its 'dominant position'. As recommended by economic theory and empirical evidence from the field of microeconomics, the economic regulation arising from Act 18/2014 prevents Aena from taking advantage of the "market power" of its infrastructures, proof of which are the current good performance of Spanish airports (with continuous record traffic volumes) and the relatively quite low levels of airport charges.

Aena sincerely considers it a matter of good fortune that Ryanair, given its operational quality and efficiency, is one of the major airlines at Spanish airports. Contrary to what Ryanair's public statements imply, the airline is not obliged to use Aena airports: it uses them at its own will, and above all, because, in accordance with its emphatic objective of profit maximisation, it is in its interest to do so. No supernatural demonic force compels Ryanair to be one of Aena's biggest customers and to sell its tickets to more than 60 million people travelling to and from Spain.

It is not true that the routes cancelled by Ryanair cannot be recovered. A noteworthy example of this new winter season is the renewal of the Valladolid - Barcelona route thanks to Vueling, a route that had been cancelled by Ryanair with clear political intentions. Aena will continue to work hard to help regional and local governments and economic and tourism associations to boost connectivity and open new air routes.

One final example, representing the heights of dishonesty and poor taste, is the statistical method used by Ryanair in its press conference today to distort the real figures and make its message more provocative. The number of slots for the winter season formally requested by Ryanair, as recorded in the official databases (i.e. its schedule), is significantly higher than the figures reported by Ryanair in its press conference today. Ryanair urgently needs to clarify this quantitative discrepancy.

To conclude, a country such as Spain where tourism and air transport are so crucial for its economy, citizens’ welfare and regional cohesion, cannot design and formulate its airport system according to the spurious and selfish interests of a single airline. The Spanish airport model provides all regions of Spain with access to air transport, boosting regional structuring through economic solidarity between large and small airports. A part of the fees of the larger airports covers the losses at smaller airports and, in this way, Aena manages a large network of airports without seeking recourse to taxpayers' money.

If Spanish airports were to evolve to the tune of Ryanair's demands, whining, cajoling and unbearable extortionist strategies, they would cease to function well (as they do today) in the medium and long term, and would not be financially sustainable. Aena and its shareholders (the State, i.e. Spanish citizens, and private investors) deserve at least the same respect as Ryanair's shareholders. The Irish airline is undoubtedly an admirable business success story, which has helped to make air travel universal in the 21st century. It is clear that over the past decades, Aena has benefited from Ryanair's activity and drive; and, simultaneously, Ryanair has benefited from the high quality and efficiency of Aena's Spanish airports by freely deciding to assign a large number of its aircraft to Spanish routes. For some time now, however, Ryanair has sought to take advantage of its high market share in Spain to transform this symbiotic relationship into one of vassalage, which will never be accepted by Aena and which would seriously damage the functioning of the Spanish airport system. It is truly a pity that Ryanair's communications and institutional relations policy appears to be governed by hypocrisy, rudeness and blackmail.

Statement by the Chairman and CEO of Aena, Maurici Lucena, on the announcement by Ryanair

www.aena.es

 

[Elwyn]

A very impressive statement. And fair too.

 

[Bald Rick]

That‘s a belter. Cap doffed.

 

[Egg Centric]

Fantastic statement for people like us. But won't work in the court of public opinion imo - way too long. For winning that battle they'd have honestly been better off simply putting out a one line statement telling O'Leary to go and pleasure himself.

They'll also look weak when there's almost inevitably a "compromise" (even if said "compromise" is Ryanair rolling over on everything other than one tiny point).

Put another way you don't wrestle with a pig by doing your best WWE moves no matter how impressive it might be to wrestling fans.

 

[Snow1964]

Did a bit more digging, and it appears the Spanish airport fees have gone up 68 euro cents per passenger, which is about 6% and are still a lot lower than airport fees in many countries. So definitely O'Leary throwing his toys out of the pram

But reality is Ryanair needs Spain, it has about 5m passengers to or from Spain every month, it would be massive if Ryanair pulled all flights to/from Spain (including the Balearic islands and Canaries).

 

[mpthomson]

A very impressive statement. And fair too.

Not really, it's far too verbose and tries to take O'Leary on at his own game, which isn't going to end well.

 

[sprunt]

But reality is Ryanair needs Spain, it has about 5m passengers to or from Spain every month, it would be massive if Ryanair pulled all flights to/from Spain (including the Balearic islands and Canaries).

Yeah, I was thinking this. Are other airlines not going to jump in to claim all the slots Ryanair give up? People are still going to want to go to Spain for their holidays.

 

[cool110]

I daresay it will also include adverts and offers to sell you scratch cards.

It's done that for years, the packs of 7 are even BOGOF when ordered in app.

 

[TravelDream]

But reality is Ryanair needs Spain, it has about 5m passengers to or from Spain every month, it would be massive if Ryanair pulled all flights to/from Spain (including the Balearic islands and Canaries).

Yes, they do. That's why we aren't going to see Ryanair cut Malaga or Palma or Alicante or the like.
But Spanish non-touristy regional airports need Ryanair - especially in winter.
Most of those airports will be uncoordinated so not slot controlled. It's unlikely anyone else will jump in.

 

[pug1]

It is an excellent and rare response to the dealings airports have with Ryanair. In the U.K. they will fly to airports like Teesside without the added cost of setting up a base. They don’t do this to maximise profitability, they use them as negotiation collateral, soon as there is a falling out with an airport/Government those routes are the ones that get chopped and the subsequent press releases that follow.

They’ve been doing it for years and yet these small airports allow it to happen presumably out of desperation where other airlines wouldn’t even look at offering anything.

 

[185]

Yeah, I was thinking this. Are other airlines not going to jump in to claim all the slots Ryanair give up? People are still going to want to go to Spain for their holidays.

Many of the slots are for the old airport, Los Rodeos aka Tenerife North (TFN). The local paper El Dia has run a few stories on this in recent weeks, it was sort of expected. O'Leary has dumped TFN altogether - mostly impacting Spanish Peninsula residents, and local Canarios visiting mainland Spain. These are often not too full.

Most of their flights for foreigners, including Briitsh - into Reina Sofia aka Tenerife South (TFS) are unaffected. These are much higher value, operate at a much higher capacity and I can't see him abandoning them anytime soon.

It is a tactic which seems to have fair success, where business owners, politicians and locals have turned on Aena not Ryanair. Whilst everyone hates Ryanair (allegedly) the vitriol towards Aena has been quite a bit more, in my opinion. The argument locally is that the Canaries are almost entirely reliable on air traffic to enter the islands and state owned Aena's passenger fee should be lower to take account of their unusual situation; there is also some call for monopoly holder Aena to surrender some airports to competitors or local authorities.

 

[edwin_m]

O'Leary has dumped TFN altogether - mostly impacting Spanish Peninsula residents, and local Canarios visiting mainland Spain. These are often not too full.

And there, quite possibly, is the real reason.

 

[pug1]

And there, quite possibly, is the real reason.

The real reason yes. See my previous post which explains why I believe some routes are maintained when they probably offer marginal returns at best.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The argument locally is that the Canaries are almost entirely reliable on air traffic to enter the islands and state owned Aena's passenger fee should be lower to take account of their unusual situation; there is also some call for monopoly holder Aena to surrender some airports to competitors or local authorities.

Tenerife North should really be under the control of the Canary Islands Government rather than Aena, and to be honest, Aena should really be broken up with all their airports transferred to the autonomous communities. There's absolutely no reason for them to control the vast majority of airports, especially those that are of vital importance to local economies such as Tenerife North and Melilla.

I know in the case of Melilla, there have been quite a few issues caused by their non-investment in the airport. The autonomous city government is pretty much fed up with their lack of investment, especially as they badly need runway extensions at both ends to make commercial routes viable with jets without having to heavily restrict them.

But Spanish non-touristy regional airports need Ryanair - especially in winter.

A lot of these airports are economically absolutely pointless as well. For instance, there's absolutely no reason for Vigo to have an airport when Santiago and Porto are both 100km away at the most. Santiago could easily function as the gateway airport for Galicia, and it still makes zero sense for me that Aena are operating three airports in Galicia rather than simply building up Santiago as a single main airport. They could easily transfer Vigo and A Coruña to the Xunta de Galicia as well.

One thing I'd add: at least last winter, Ryanair were basically throwing away flights on these routes. You could easily pick up a return for 10-15 pounds for a domestic route in Spain!

 

[Snow1964]

Many of the slots are for the old airport, Los Rodeos aka Tenerife North (TFN). The local paper El Dia has run a few stories on this in recent weeks, it was sort of expected. O'Leary has dumped TFN altogether - mostly impacting Spanish Peninsula residents, and local Canarios visiting mainland Spain. These are often not too full.

They are also very seasonal, have been told by Canadian resort owners that during the winter Northern Europeans (including UK) visit the Canaries, but Spanish tend to go in high summer when mainland Spain is too hot.

So Ryanair is cutting services at a time of year when they almost certainly have other routes that will fill planes better (and presumably more profitably). But it is not realistic to cut all the staff at a local airport and assume you will be able to find trained staff again, if you resume months/years later.

 

[pug1]

They are also very seasonal, have been told by Canadian resort owners that during the winter Northern Europeans (including UK) visit the Canaries, but Spanish tend to go in high summer when mainland Spain is too hot.

So Ryanair is cutting services at a time of year when they almost certainly have other routes that will fill planes better (and presumably more profitably). But it is not realistic to cut all the staff at a local airport and assume you will be able to find trained staff again, if you resume months/years later.

Ryanair don’t employ many airport based staff if at all, it’s usually a ground handling agent occasionally wearing a Ryanair uniform if it’s part of the SLA (but I don’t think even this is common), so when they decide to return to these routes - which they will - it won’t be too difficult to reinstate the necessary ancillary staff.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Ryanair don’t employ many airport based staff if at all, it’s usually a ground handling agent occasionally wearing a Ryanair uniform if it’s part of the SLA (but I don’t think even this is common), so when they decide to return to these routes - which they will - it won’t be too difficult to reinstate the necessary ancillary staff.

At least in Spain, Azul Handling is a subsidiary of the Ryanair Group, and they do the bulk of the Ryanair Group's handling there. While they're not strictly speaking employed by Ryanair, they might as well be as it's not run as a hands-off operation. It's different to Blue Handling at Stansted where they have a very Ryanair-esque appearance, but the parent company isn't the Ryanair Group.

 

[Snow1964]

Following its cuts in Spain because it didn't like the €0.68 price rise, now seems it has done same in Austria and cut services to Vienna

Ryanair Cuts Operations in Vienna: High Taxes and Fees Lead to Route Closures​

Ryanair, has made a significant move in the lead-up to Winter 2025. The airline pointed to Austria’s high aviation taxes and rising airport fees as the driving factors behind these changes. Ryanair, has been an important carrier for both inbound and outbound travel, connecting Austria to major European cities and beyond.

Ryanair Cuts Operations in Vienna: High Taxes and Fees Lead to Route Closures - Travel And Tour World

Ryanair announces the removal of three aircraft and the closure of three routes from Vienna for Winter 2025, citing high aviation taxes and airport fees

www.travelandtourworld.com

 

[David M]

Am I missing something? They are cutting 3 routes but the routes aren't mentioned as far as I can see.

 

[1D54]

Billund, Santander and Tallinn.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Billund, Santander and Tallinn.

So another case of Ryanair cutting back unprofitable routes and blaming the airports for it.

They had already cut back from Billund to other destinations because of a lack of demand airport fees. High airport fees and/or Lego cutting back on corporate travel to and from Billund; you say potato, I say potato. Same reason why Sun-Air pulled out of Billund and the BA franchise agreement.

From the above article:

Tourism, which makes up a large portion of Vienna’s economy, could face challenges due to fewer affordable flight options for travellers

Oh please! I'm sure Vienna will somehow cope with the loss of the lucrative winter tourism market from Billund, a town of 7,000 people.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Not surprised, Wizz has recently announced the closure of their Vienna base. Obviously Ryanair isn't going as far as Wizz in this case, but it seems like Vienna isn't suited to the Low Cost operating model owing to costs.

Oh please! I'm sure Vienna will somehow cope with the loss of the lucrative winter tourism market from Billund, a town of 7,000 people.

Viennese people will lose out on a sunny holiday destination. If anything, Billund is the one losing out on some tourism as a result of this.

 

[Snow1964]

Not surprised, Wizz has recently announced the closure of their Vienna base. Obviously Ryanair isn't going as far as Wizz in this case, but it seems like Vienna isn't suited to the Low Cost operating model owing to costs.

Bratislava airport is about 55miles away by A6 and A4 motorway (nearer 45 miles direct), so takes about 70mins by express bus.

But low cost carriers tend to avoid the main city airports and find somewhere cheaper, even if it hour or so away.

 

[mpthomson]

Following its cuts in Spain because it didn't like the €0.68 price rise, now seems it has done same in Austria and cut services to Vienna

Ryanair Cuts Operations in Vienna: High Taxes and Fees Lead to Route Closures - Travel And Tour World

Ryanair announces the removal of three aircraft and the closure of three routes from Vienna for Winter 2025, citing high aviation taxes and airport fees

www.travelandtourworld.com

They'll be non-profitable routes, O'Leary is very good at blaming others when things don't pan out as desired. Apart from anything else it gets people discussing Ryanair, just as we are now.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Viennese people will lose out on a sunny holiday destination. If anything, Billund is the one losing out on some tourism as a result of this.

Billund is a lovely little town and Legoland is always a lot of fun, but it isn't sunny (certainly not in winter!) and it is nothing but a small town in Denmark. If it wasn't for Lego's corporate travel and cargo requirements it probably wouldn't even have an airport.

like Vienna isn't suited to the Low Cost operating model owing to costs.

It's got nothing to do with the low cost operating model and it's got nothing to do with airport fees.

Ryanair are pulling routes which aren't as popular as they'd hope. As always, they blame everyone and anyone else rather than simply admitting the routes weren't as possible as hoped for. Ryanair also still have significant aircraft shortages because of Boeing's ongoing issues.

Wizz have much bigger problems and that's why we're seeing so much retrenchment from them.

Wizz have been very badly affected by the ongoing Pratt and Whitney engine issues: on average over the last year they've had to ground 44 aircraft and, even now, 34 of their aircraft are still grounded because of them.

Wizz's profits are also down 62% compared to last year.

So no wonder they're retrenching. Nothing to do with anything Vienna airport has done.

Wizz Air sees profit slump after planes grounded over engine issues

The low-cost European airline was forced to ground an average of 44 planes

www.independent.co.uk

Wizz Air has reported a significant slump in annual profits, with operating profits dropping by 62% to €167.5 million (£141 million). The budget airline attributed the downturn to a fifth of its fleet being grounded due to engine issues.

 

[YorkRailFan]

It's got nothing to do with the low cost operating model and it's got nothing to do with airport fees.

I'd argue it very much is, Wizz and Ryanair aren't the only carriers to reduce their Vienna operations in recent years. Easyjet pulled out completely and now only serves Austria during the winter months, flying to Salzburg and Innsbruck. Austria has some of the highest tax rates globally for airlines, as does Germany which also struggles with low cost airlines. The Low Cost model doesn't like those big airport hubs because of fees, its one of the reasons why Ryanair (among others) doesn't use Heathrow.

Granted, the fees aren't the only reason Ryanair is pulling some routes, you mentions some of those reasons in your post, but if you look at other Low Cost Carriers in Vienna, fees are certainly one of the factors. Currently, Ryanair is the only low cost airline with a base in Vienna, and for direct flights to/from the UK with a low cost airline, your choices are Ryanair or the odd once a week flight with Jet2. This is one of the reasons why I stopped flying into Vienna a few years ago and now fly elsewhere and get a train.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The Low Cost model doesn't like those big airport hubs because of fees, its one of the reasons why Ryanair (among others) doesn't use Heathrow.

In fairness, the fees aren't a massive dealbreaker for the LCCs, it's really more the fact that these airports are just not very efficient when it comes to getting passengers in and out of them. Some airports like Munich can have horrendous amounts of time spent taxiing, which is expensive, both in terms of fuel and in terms of aircraft utilisation.

If it wasn't for Lego's corporate travel and cargo requirements it probably wouldn't even have an airport.

In fairness, Billund and the surrounding area is more than just Lego these days. There's quite a few attractions that have opened up in recent years, and the airport also does quite a bit of business with sun tourism too. Generally speaking, with Lego House opening, there's more of a trend there towards all-year tourism. It's true that the airport originally came about because of Lego's needs, but they've reasonably successfully managed to create a decent airport there.

Wizz have been very badly affected by the ongoing Pratt and Whitney engine issues: on average over the last year they've had to ground 44 aircraft and, even now, 34 of their aircraft are still grounded because of them.

It's hurting them a lot with flights too, as they're having to reposition aircraft quite a lot just to avoid cancelling flights. They're doing quite a few Luton-Gatwick flights just because they don't have the planes.

Ryanair also still have significant aircraft shortages because of Boeing's ongoing issues.

The Max-10 can't come soon enough for them!