Ryanair ready to leave Charleroi?

[sn26567]

In the latest news, beco reports:

According to the Financial Times, Ryanair Chief Executive Michael O'Leary said that his airline was ready to stop using Charleroi airport in Belgium if a European Commission finding (due this autumn) goes against him.

This would confirm what was already mentioned in another thread: https://www.aviation24.be/modules.php?name ... opic&t=746

However, today in La Libre Belgique, the Walloon economy minister Serge Kubla said that Ryanair was ready to amend its greement with BSCA if compelled by the European authorities. So, who is right?

Kubla will meet with O'Leary in the next few days to discuss the future of Ryanair in Charleroi. According to Kubla, many airports in Europe have offered even better conditions than BSCA to Ryanair.

[Comet]

Airlines like Ryanair are a blot on the aviation landscape. There are too many of them, and it does little for an airport's image to be associated with them (Stansted lost several proper carriers owing to its association with the cheap rubbish sector,) you look at STN flights now and all you see is one cheap rubbish airline after another. At least LHR is free of them now that TV no longer fly in there.
If Charleroi lost Ryanair, maybe they might attract some proper airlines.

[777]

Charleroi Airport has never attracted any decent airline, so if Ryanair would leave, the airport will remain empty like in the past.

Andre

[Comet]

If an airport is incapable of attracting proper airlines, then the best thing is for it to close.

Now that Ryanair have got their dirty claws into Ostend, that will rapidly go downhill.

Antwerp may be deadly quiet, but at least it attracts quality!!

[sn26567]

Charleroi Airport has never attracted any decent airline, so if Ryanair would leave, the airport will remain empty like in the past.

You forget the summer schedules of Air Algérie

[sn26567]

Antwerp may be deadly quiet, but at least it attracts quality!!

VLM and ... VLM, with 4 or 5 flights a day?

An airport cannot survive with such a small number of scheduled flights, unless it has other activities.

[Comet]

Antwerp may be deadly quiet, but at least it attracts quality!!

VLM and ... VLM, with 4 or 5 flights a day?

An airport cannot survive with such a small number of scheduled flights, unless it has other activities.

At least VLM are quality, better than Ryanair!

If VLM weren't so damned keen on hubbing at other airports such as LCY and Rotterdam, then maybe ANR would have more flights. I don't want to have to repeat myself and say again how bloody stupid VLM have been to axe the MAN-Rotterdam-ANR flight.

I would rather fly into a dead hole like ANR with VLM than fly into BRU with BA or BD.

Also, ANR had flights from Farnborough and somewhere in Italy today, and not with VLM. Farnborough is highly irregular for anywhere.

[airDD]

BRU should try to attract low-cost carriers and offer the old terminal with cheaper rates. This airport is half empty all the time...
While I never have flown on LLC's, I do think it is the future for short-haul.

It is ridiculous that tax-money is wasted on building a new terminal in CRL while only Ryanair flies there; als the only user of the airport they can "blackmail" the airport.

airDD

[Buzz]

At least VLM are quality, better than Ryanair!

there are a few people who want quality, and a hel of a lot who just want to get there as cheap as possible, maybe you belong to the first group, but most of us belong to the second...

I would rather fly into a dead hole like ANR with VLM than fly into BRU with BA or BD.

There you have it... Even someone who hates Ryanair admits that he rather flies to a dead hole... Your reason is you like VLM, I just want to get somewhere as cheap as possible, but we both don't mind flying to a dead hole

greetz
Jan

ps: the first thing I do after my exams : fly to Stansted for a day, just for fun for 30 euro's... try than on VLM, or any other for that mather...

[Comet]

At least VLM are quality, better than Ryanair!

there are a few people who want quality, and a hel of a lot who just want to get there as cheap as possible, maybe you belong to the first group, but most of us belong to the second...



There you have it... Even someone who hates Ryanair admits that he rather flies to a dead hole... Your reason is you like VLM, I just want to get somewhere as cheap as possible, but we both don't mind flying to a dead hole

greetz
Jan

ps: the first thing I do after my exams : fly to Stansted for a day, just for fun for 30 euro's... try than on VLM, or any other for that mather...

Just a small point. "Even someone who hates Ryanair admits that he.."
I am NOT a he I am a SHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reason is that I fly to ANR - there are no proper airlines offered by my travel company between England and Brussels, only BA and BD, and when I fly to Belgium, I will only do so on a Belgian airline. If it was possible for me to fly between LCY and BRU with VLM then I would gladly do so, as I did last year. But my travel company no longer offers this option.

[777]

Ostend won't go down that easily as there has always been movent on the airport, like many cargo planes, in the 50's and 60's the Carvairs.

It also has since a long time (like antwerp) an acceptable terminal.
Before Ryanair Charleroi had hardly anything.

Charleroi and Ostend just can't be compared.


Andre

[OO-SBZ]

Airlines like Ryanair are a blot on the aviation landscape. There are too many of them, and it does little for an airport's image to be associated with them (Stansted lost several proper carriers owing to its association with the cheap rubbish sector,) you look at STN flights now and all you see is one cheap rubbish airline after another. At least LHR is free of them now that TV no longer fly in there.
If Charleroi lost Ryanair, maybe they might attract some proper airlines.

8O I would like to comment on this highly polemical issue
STN is indeed invaded by cheapies... (just as Luton) whereas LHR (or LGW) is/are for the 'classical' airlines.

:fight: Yet I disagree with you when you associate 'cheap' with 'rubbish'. The service (of what they call service) is indeed 'not that good' on low-cost airlines but you don't pay too much for it either.

:teach: As a reminder, the so-called golden sixties (when Pan Am, TWA(*) and many others could still charge high fares for their 1st class service) are very far behind us. Face it!

Airlines such as Ryanair (the airlines I often love to hate), Easy Jet and Virgin ( my favourite low-cost) gave many people the opportunity to travel by plane.

Call this 'rubbish' :pang: . I call it 'affordable' :dance: ... and I really love the idea that many people can share this wonderful experience of flying, don't you? :waving:

Greetz

Ben



(*) I did not choose these airlines at random

[777]

Lets face it , the real problem is that passengers want service for cheap prices, and THAT is just not possible.

It is either or, not both.

You want service ,you have to pay for it (like the difference between first and economy class), you want cheap, you do not get any service. It is logical.

Andre

[777]

I adore the picture of Ryanair in Luchtzak 'Airlinemeals', but that is what you get for cheap.

Andre

[Comet]

LGW is hardly for classical airlines - the airport is full of charter carriers (fly by night operators, many don't last more than a couple of years).

No, I don't think as many people as possible should fly. There are some people who should never be allowed within 100 miles of an aircraft.

Give me the proper airlines such as SN Brussels and VLM any day.

[Buzz]

[quote="Comet"
Just a small point. "Even someone who hates Ryanair admits that he.."
I am NOT a he I am a SHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]

Sorry, I made a misconception (if that is the right word )

greetz
Jan

[SN30952]

"We know from a number of meetings with the Commission that the Commission is very supportive not only of Ryanair but of low-cost airlines in general," Ryanair Chief Executive Michael O'Leary told journalists on a visit to Sweden, Tue October 7, 2003.

"We will win the European Commission case and we will be back in Strasbourg."

State-owned Charleroi airport, situated south of Brussels, has provided cash and business incentives to encourage Ryanair to make the airport into one of its hubs. This has led to a complaint from the Belgian capital's main airport.
The Commission's verdict, which O'Leary expects in three weeks, is seen setting the ground rules on how far local authorities can go to attract low-cost airlines.

NEW HUB IN PIPELINE
The airline is looking for a new hub and expects a decision after Christmas.
"We are probably on the second round of negotiations with nine potential airports," O'Leary said, naming Spain, Italy, Germany, Scandinavia, Britain and possibly Ireland as new bases.

[777]

The best picture in 'Airline Meals' is that of Ryanair.

Andre

[OO-SBZ]

No, I don't think as many people as possible should fly. There are some people who should never be allowed within 100 miles of an aircraft.

8O Shall I comment? I hope I misread it, but I did NOT

I don't want to be fussy... but who do you mean by 'some people'? ? ?

[SN30952]

There are some people who should never be allowed within 100 miles of an aircraft.

I don't want to be fussy... but who do you mean by 'some people'? ? ?

SBZ difficult to say, because 'some people' are too many... For instanance all these that cannot go watch the football in Istanbul? That's already a couple of hundreds... Don't ask Comet to know these people by name, some are called hooligans! Or some Brittons that come to Pattaya to fight with the Russians overthere.

Do not whish Comet is right when she says: some people who should never be allowed within 100 miles of an aircraft.
I think some operators should be limited to the operation of wheelbarrows!

In Belgium there is still a law: Who (bar, restaurant or cafe) serves alcoholic beverage to a drunk is guilty.
That should be applicable for all airlines. But some operators are SELLING these beverages on board, and crew is getting a sales commission as well. Remove these people 100 miles of an aircraft, where possible.