The dispute over Wizz Air’s operations at Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport has continued to escalate, with the carrier warning that the potential closure of its base in the Serbian capital in November would lead to a significant drop in passenger numbers at the airport and deal a financial blow to its concessionaire, VINCI. The warning follows the introduction of new regulations by Serbia's Civil Aviation Directorate governing the operations of foreign carriers, which Wizz Air argues threaten the future of its Belgrade base. EX-YU Aviation News has contacted Belgrade Airport, the Serbian Civil Aviation Directorate and the Serbian Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure for comment on the broader issue, but none have responded. The latest development comes in the form of an open letter from more than 200 Belgrade-based Wizz Air employees to the Serbian government, warning that the recent amendments to the rulebook governing approvals for foreign airlines could jeopardise their jobs and lead to the closure of the carrier's Belgrade base.
In the letter, the employees say they have "built our careers, our families and our future around a company that believed in Belgrade when others did not", adding that the regulatory changes "threaten to end that in a matter of months". They claim Wizz Air has repeatedly sought clarification over the new rules but has received no response, prompting them to appeal directly to the authorities. The workers argue that the potential closure of the base would leave more than 200 employees without jobs in Serbia, forcing many to choose between continuing their careers abroad or remaining in the country. "We are currently in a situation where our company guarantees us employment, and the country of which we are citizens and where we pay taxes and contributions does not allow us to survive", the letter states.
The employees also question the wider economic impact of the decision, asking how the government intends to replace their jobs, offset lost tax revenues and social contributions, compensate for the potential loss of around two million annual Wizz Air passengers and address the impact on Belgrade Airport and its concessionaire, VINCI. They further ask how Serbia plans to accommodate increased passenger demand during Expo 2027 while reducing low cost airline capacity. In addition, the signatories reject what they describe as a recent media campaign against the airline, saying it has contained "a large number of falsehoods" about both Wizz Air and its employees. They stress that the carrier has operated from Belgrade "for 15 years without incident" and insist, "We will not accept our safety record being used as a political argument".
At the same time, a detailed article widely circulated in sections of the Serbian media argues that the dispute regarding the carrier’s safety practices in the country has been misrepresented by focusing on EASA Part-145 approvals and flight safety rather than the core regulatory issue. It maintains that Serbian authorities never questioned the airworthiness of Wizz Air's aircraft or the validity of the maintenance providers' EASA approvals but instead focused solely on compliance with Serbia's national rules governing ground handling services, including line maintenance. The article further claims that the maintenance providers initially engaged by Wizz Air did not hold the licences required under Serbian legislation at the time they were contracted, while arguing that European legislation obliges operators to comply with applicable national regulations in the countries where they operate.
They bring up valid points
ReplyDeleteThey'll stay. Just their base will be smaller, might cut some lines. I think what definitely irked Serbia is Wizz starting to operate more and more intra-regional flights, like Ljubljana-Skopje, Budapest-Split etc.
Delete^ yeah that really irked them lol
DeleteWhy a country with so much young people abroad looking for jobs, would want even more unemployment is beyond me.
DeleteSerbia's unemployment rate is rather low and it is importing foreign workers because it does not have enough of its own. You are a good example of a person who has no clue what you are writing.
DeleteSerbia's underemployment rate is, like all other countries in the wider region and southern Europe, very high. People might have jobs but their quality and standard remains fairly low. Kicking out Wizzair does not automatically mean such jobs will be replaced. The overall economic impact is likely to be high
DeleteYouth unemployment is quite high in Serbia. Wizz Air employs mostly younger people and they don't want to work at JU for a reason.
DeleteJU doesn't have good work conditions, that is why many people in Serbia would rather work for Wizz Air or for airBaltic and Bulgaria Air.
Well Wizz should aknowledg law in Serbia and will have no other issues!
DeleteWizz Air has been acknowledging it for 15 years now. The Serbian government is changing the interpretation now.
DeleteSeems like they can't find a solution to stay
ReplyDeleteExactly.
DeleteThis reeks of desperation.
Well Serbian customers are the ones who desperately want them to stay. They are paying taxes so the government should listen to them and not bureaucrats running JU
Delete@09:06 that is a good word to deacibe the GOS actions.
DeleteLow costs carriers dont pffer good job conditions and are inth west regurarely in legal diaputes so gighly doubbtful whether they are an interestjng employer
DeleteMost airlines nowadays have either industrial disputes or very shady methods of employing cabin crew through subsidiaries and the like which is a real pity i agree.
DeleteWizz left domestic flying in Norway and Norway was even better without them.
ReplyDeleteHow is that even comparable to this?
DeleteAha... yes because Air Serbia is comparable to Norwegian, Wideroe, SAS...?
DeleteAlso the market was fully developed before which is not the case with BEG.
100% comparable. Let Wizz go if they don't want to play by the rules (first union, second AOC for a base) and country will be even better without them.
DeleteHuh? How will the country be better when fares will go up and and competition down? The market does NOT win from such scenarios my friend.
DeleteOnly one who will profit is JU.
As if other airlines won't be allowed to open routes to Belgrade. Norway was better off without Wizz and it's a great example for others.
Delete^09:31 do you live in Norway?
DeleteOk then once JU is on par with Norwegian, SAS and Wideroe we can chase Wizz Air away, until then they stay
DeleteNoone would open a bunch of lines that wizz flies from Belgrade.
DeleteYou are unbelieveble, guys. Air Serbia's interest is not the public interest. Flying from Belgrade will become more expensive - we don't need that.
@09:39 +1 well said
DeleteKeep posting “+1” on your own comments, maybe you may fool
DeleteSomeone. JU’s interest is exactly public interest: to connect citizens of Serbia around the world. And that’s exactly opposite of W6’s interest: to earn money disregarding safety protocols
No, man. Public interest says that Belgrade should be well connected - including being connected at a price comparable to other spots around Europe. You know, there are hotels, restaurants, etc. all counting on cheaper tickrts -- there is tourist industry, that is - as well as there are local people flying, who are not eagar to pay for new Jat Airways.
DeleteI agree.
DeleteAlmost half of JU passengers are transfers. They carry almost the same number of O&D passengers as W6 which makes even less sense now to shut down the base
DeleteComparing Norway with Serbia, you are just amaizing. If you went to school you would now what is the best for end costumer, and that is competition and free market. But no, for you is better protectionism because you personally have benefit of it and you don't care about public interest.
DeleteIf JU's interest was to connect Serbia to the world then they wouldn't be charging us so much to fly with them.
DeleteJU is more affordable than most of European airlines.
Delete@12:11 that is a broad statement without factual basis. I can assure you its significantly cheaper to fly to/from and within many countries in Europe than it is Serbia due to large and healthy competition in developed and open markets.
DeleteYou can not assure anyone in anything with your pure assumptions and projections. You are just destroying any relevant discussion here in every thread with your nonsenseness
DeleteI agree with Anon 13.55 regarding his comment directed to Anon 12.11
Delete@9:03 bro what are you on about, domestic flights in Norway are ridiculously expensive. Lived in Oslo for 3 years and did a lot of travelling around the country, you could rarely get a return ticket to smth like Tromso for less than 200-300€. It's a duopoly between SAS and Norwegian/Widerøe which is hurting consumers and regional development
DeleteFlights of 39 eur are not sustainable. Someone HAS to pay the difference between that price and actual cost. Is it going to be airports providing subsidies? Is it going to be local unionised employees ceding jobs to cheaper, imported crew? If it was good for Norway and regional development they would have done. But like many other places, they are not. It's not as good as you think.
DeleteNot all seats were sold for €39, the lowest fare was.
DeleteThe fact none have responded to the inquiry only goes to show that they are not as confident in their decision. I think the government is starting to realize that this will not go down smoothly especially at a time when SNS is facing decreased popularity and general elections next year.
ReplyDeleteOn top of that, Belgrade Arena is also suing them and the Arena is expected to win. This might encourage Wizz Air to do the same.
Honestly, the fact they all remained silent shows that none of these three initiated this idea. Why should they? None of those three has anything to gain so the question remains...
...who is the only one who stands to profit from this decision? ;)
Don’t cry for me Argentina
ReplyDeleteWell Argentina is crying so what are we going to do about it?
Deletethey cry and they win
DeleteOh boy, that is so sad. Instead of whining left and right, they should have already have prepared paperwork for Serbian AOC. If they really do care about Serbian employees. Oh, wait…
ReplyDelete+100
DeleteThere is always that one delusional guy that thinks Serbia will allow Wizz to get Serbian AOC.
Delete@9.10 exactly
DeleteYou can't win a lottery if you don't buy a ticket. You can't get AOC if you don't try.
DeleteBy that logic, JU should be banned from wet leasing equipment because they are not hiring locals and supporting local economy. Why is the national carrier supporting tax revenue in Latvia and Bulgaria when they should be hiring local staff to fly planes?
DeleteSerbian AOC is almost useless for Wizz.
DeleteTo much hassle for little real advantage. Keeping the Serbian employees in Belgrade?
Some will move other will be jobless, just casualties of war.
@9.20 actually both Air Baltic and Bulgaria Air have sizeable local Serbian crew based in Belgrade.
DeleteThey are all hired by Bulgarian and Latvian companies, not Serbian ones so that tax income does not remain in Serbia. JU deal is much worse than keeping Wizz Air.
DeleteSo why doesn't the government ask JU to stop hiring foreign companies and to hire locals and to register more planes in Serbia.
You have 8 foreign planes operating for JU. Imagine all the lost income from that.
Anonymous 09:20
DeleteIf you bothered to read - and it was posted here on multiple occassions - Air Baltic recently hired Serbian crews, locally employed through Employer of Record. Bulgaria Air did the same last year including hiring pilots. Most of their crews are local now.
Ah you mean those hiring agencies which hire people as intermediaries so that they can fired more easily? On top of paying less taxes and benefits to the government?
DeleteWhy didn't JU hire these people as its own employees who will fly on these wet leased planes? Why are foreign companies hiring locals only to fly for JU? This seems like a scam. VJT should investigate this matter for corruption.
^ above you argued they pay no taxes. Now you have changed your argument that they pay taxes but less. Make up your mind.
DeleteI don't have to make up my mind. I am not dogmatic, you presented arguments which I accepted but they are now even worse arguments against JU. So you actually helped me.
DeleteYou have a Serbian airline hiring Latvian and Bulgarian companies to fly for them. Instead of hirign these people at JU they are doing it via these shady contract agencies.
So the real question here is: if Latvians and Bulgarians can find employees in Serbia, why is JU hiring them in the first place? Why not hire them as their own employees from day 1?
Stop with your delusions. Wet lease agreements are legal all around the world. It’s clear you lack of arguments, so you are trying to spin stupidness. But it doesn’t help at all. You are still pathetic
DeleteSo you gave no valid arguments? I see.
DeleteIf foreigners can find employees in Serbia and hire them then it means JU could too. Why don't those people want to work for JU?
And stop calling people pathetic
DeleteIt not people, it’s HIM (you). Pathetic and delusional in hatred. Wet lease agreements are temporary, limited by the contract duration. Everything else is pure spinning and false accusations
DeleteIf they get Serbien AOC ,they can fly to Podgorica. And then they can hurt JU big!
DeleteJU is alot more than just shuttling people down to Montenegro, however as people have stated the airline doesn't want, nor would Belgrade give them, an AOC.
DeleteAre you using Tarot cards, crystal ball or fortune teller to predict those outcomes? Unable to stick with facts?
DeleteFunny you attack others for supposedly not using facts when you are doing the same LOL!
DeleteWizz complained to the EU but EU didn't support them so far. With each passing day, it seems chances of Wizz being supported are diminishing.
ReplyDeleteNo major deal. Wizz will stay. They'll just make less profits. Few lines will be cut, others will operate in a W pattern. That's all.
DeletePS: Reminds us how they cared of their Tuzla employees and btw, 200 is certainly not a large number.
And why was Tuzla shut down? Because of Wizz Air or because of TZL which lied about installing lights on the runway etc.
DeleteBecause they are not right. They have advantages over Serbian companies that they will not be able to use anymore. That’s not in open skies
DeleteOk and why single out Wizz Air? Why not chase out all the foreign investors SNS invited over the years and gave them subsidies which were not given to locals?
DeleteCould it be because of Tuzla talking to Ryan?
Delete9:12
DeleteBecause rest are following Serbian rules
Serbian 'rules'
DeleteYes, rules such as laws.
DeleteYou mean new laws and regulations that are coming into force now?
DeleteSure. Rules and laws comes and goes, changes over time. Not familiar with that in your “country “?
DeleteWhat is the purpose of all these press realeses haha? , should i feel sorry for these 200 people? People loose jobs all the time. Its part of life. Im sure JU would hire many of them given the space that will clear up.
ReplyDelete200 (or rather 150?) Is not a large number to start with. Secondly, they won't lose their jobs. They'll just operate W patterns. Otherwise Ryanair will step in.
DeleteWorst case, some employees might have to move. But they already have to move, for example to Hungary for pilot training.
DeleteRyanair will not step in, they said the airport is overly expensive to them.
DeleteThat is the whole poing, guys, to keep major low costers away from Belgrade, and have them at Niš. It was said by... you know who.
@09:16 wishful thinking. If Ryanair moves in JU will see what a real professional outfit looks like. You obsessives in protecting something serbian will soon see what that means.
DeleteWishful thinking. FR will step in if government pay them 15 euro per passenger. And that will not happen, even in your whishful thinking
DeleteIts not even that. Ryanair will have a red warning sign over Serbia atm. Not a reliable partner.
DeleteRyanair is operating in Serbia, so much for that argument.
DeleteThey have a relatively small presence in Nis. But yet again the behaviour of the government is making the country look silly internationally.
DeleteWizz being such a drama queen for simply registering in a country, like they already did for example in the UK, makes Wizz look real funny to me.
DeleteI'm sure they don't need your money, so do a favour and fly another airline.
DeleteGreat advice, don't fly with Wizz, fly with other airlines. Thank you!
Delete^ Nope, just you. You personally should not. Use your dinars elsewhere :)
DeleteFor once thou i have to say its nice that its not lowcost carriers threathening, bullying and taking advantage of nations and airports. Not so fun when its the other way around.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that BEG is a blip on W6's radar and they won't feel the closure of this base if they are forced to do it. On the other hand its us, customers, who are going to pay the price. Why? Just so that Marek and JU can profit from less competition and higher fares.
DeleteWhat makes you think EasyJet, perhaps Ryanair and a number of other carriers won't profit by opening new BEG routes and offering deals to consumers?
DeleteWhat makes you think they will? There is no indication others will step in
DeleteCommon sense says others will step in only after Wizz really quits Belgrade. Which they might not as all of this might be just a big drama and a lot of hot air.
DeleteThose other airlines, even if they step in, won't have volume based discounts in BEG Wizz Air has right now. So even if someone launches flights, tickets won't be as cheap as costs will be higher. So even in that scenario passengers are losing.
DeleteOther airlines will be watching and viewing the Serbian aviation market as increasingly i reliable. Embarrising and tragic moves by thr state
DeleteExactly and then you have airlines like easyJet which already failed in BEG from so many markets, they won't be more aggressive. FR is ignorign BEG because it is too expensive...
DeleteSo yeah airlines are not rushing to launch or grow in BEG.
Again, no other airline will step in unless Wizz moves out. How difficult is it to comprehend this?
DeleteNo, you have no proof someone else will step in. Stop repeating it as if it's the truth. It's not.
DeleteI am not surprised that Directorate and Ministry are pretending dead, but that VANCI is not responding is just good proof how this situation is in on the wrong path
ReplyDeleteWizz Air should also escalate this matter with Vinci HQ.
DeleteWhy’s EU “pretending dead”?? No show for more than a month?Because this is not a case. Nothing illegal in DCV decisions. More and more countries will do the same now, Wizz will have to keep their assets on their soil
DeleteHow do you know that they are not already?
DeleteThe EU is bff with SNS. They ignored those massive protests so it's natural that they will ignore Wizz Air.
DeleteThe EU should be far firmer with the GOS on many issues including this one.
DeleteThere is nothing to be firm about, law is law.
DeleteThere is no law which clearly bans W6 from having a base in Serbia
DeleteYou can have a base. But you need an AOC and to pay taxes.
Delete@13:13 broken record.
DeleteAnon 13.13
DeleteSo we should sue the government for not chasing Wizz Air earlier, they are complicit in these illegal actions, is that what you are saying?
Who is we? We should support keeping things as they are. Wizzair base to stay!
DeleteThey’re being overly dramatic. No one is banning or restricting them in any way—the conditions applied are almost identical to those that Serbian carriers would face in EU countries. If they truly care about the market, they would legally register and obtain all the necessary licences to operate. But that takes time and, more importantly, money—so they’ll likely back out.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, what’s wrong with protecting the national carrier from competition? Serbia is not an EU member and has legal tools that allow it to implement protectionist policies, which are normal in other industries within growing and developing economies. True, passengers would have to adjust, but in the long term, this is a boost for Air Serbia and the Serbian economy. It would benefit the airport, the government, Air Serbia, its employees, the economy, and—last but not least—the passengers (in that order).
Once Serbia joins the EU (one day, lol), Air Serbia must be ready to compete in a much less regulated market, and for that, it needs scale. We saw what happened to JAT, Adria, Balkan, and others. We see how TAROM and Croatia Airlines are doing. They can’t simply limit everything.
Then just ban every airline that operates to Serbia.
DeleteThis comment make zero sense and you wanna know why? Because the Serbian government has ZERO protectionist policies when it comes to the Serbian economy.
DeleteLet's look at agriculture. Didn't Vucic say how we will start importing cheap tomato from Azerbaijan because he tried it and it's the best in the world. So now, in addition to cheap tomato from Albanian, Serbian peasants will have the one from Azerbaijan causing them trouble.
Yesterday raspberry farmers blocked streets because the government is trying to cheat them through low pricing. Then why did the number of pig farms considerably collapse since 2012? Why is the government allowing for cheap Argentinian meat to enter Serbia when we have local producers who are struggling.
So all these and many more are ignored by the government but all of a sudden and out of nowhere, civil aviation and Air Serbia are number 1 priority? Is JU more important than Serbian agriculture?
I will tell you why it's more important... because JU is government owned and it is obviously failing to fight Wizz Air fair and square in BEG. So top JU management and their SNS allies created this regulation which will limit competition not because it's good for the market but because it is good for them.
So for the first time ever, SNS is introducing protectionist policies not to defend the consumers but rather to protect its own interests and the interests of SNS people running JU.
That is why this move by the government can't be excused or understood under any condition especially when you look at the broader picture in Serbia.
Yawn!
DeleteAnon 10.44 so no arguments?
Delete"No one is banning or restricting them in any way—the conditions applied are almost identical to those that Serbian carriers would face in EU countries."
DeleteNothing is stopping Air Serbia from opening a base in FRA and operating to BEG and INI with crew and aircraft based in FRA. Now, whether that makes economic sense, that's a different story.
Plenty of examples of Wizz not being able to successfully compete across Europe. For example, Wizz is unable to compete in Germany where they don't have any bases despite being legally allowed to do so. Instead of addressing those problems, some comments revert to raspberries in Serbia to deflect from fundamental issues at Wizz. Where are you going to deploy hundreds of incoming planes in a profitable way? New bases in Spain? You would have done it long time ago if it was profitable.
DeleteWhat utter nonsense, I could only understand where you are coming from if you are working for JU.
DeleteRasperries and other comments are best proof how little the government cares about the local economy. If JU was a private company they wouldn't care. Since it's run by SNS they absolutely care and are fighting to protect them.
So what if Wizz Air was not very successful in Germany? Look at their growth in Italy for example. Why did you ignore them thriving over there? Then there is also Luton where they are doing really well. So there are some markets where they do better which is logical.
Issue is that in Serbia they were doing too well. Why? Because Serbs decided to travel with them instead of being forced to do so with JU.
Air Serbia didn't like it so their CEO and top management decided to chase them away so that people are forced to fly with them. That is where they got the government to step in and to be competitive for the first time.
Wizz with PR again. Haven't they try that already ?
ReplyDeleteHow much would getting an AOC cost, really ?
It will cost the Serbian market much more to lose the base.
DeleteWell, they won't. There'll be a few less flights, that's it.
DeleteAnd a lot more expensive tickets
Delete"How much would getting an AOC cost, really?"
DeleteCould be as far as infinity, if Serbian government wants to protect Air Serbia.
...or it could be next to nothing for a giant airline.
DeleteAhahahah Spin Air.
ReplyDeleteDid they warn Austrian Govt too about economic decline, lost jobs etc. I assume everyone there was super worried, including Vienna Airport.
If they care so much about Belgrade and Serbia, they will find a way to stay, because they do have options. 🍿
VIE is reporting declining passenger numbers so they are feeling their departure.
DeleteIf the Serbian government cared about their voters they would actually give up on this idea. This is not about Wizz Air, it's about the government.
Don't forget that Wizz Air was already forced to pay more some years ago. So this is a repeated attack on them by the Serbian authorities.
If Wizz cares about their BEG passengers and employees, they can apply for a base. So far it looks like they don't care.
DeleteIf serbia cares about tourism and sticking to past agreements it can keep things as they are. Simple
DeleteMost foreign tourists in Serbia arrive from Turkey, Ex Yu countries, Russia, China, Israel - NONE of them operated to Belgrade by Wizz!!!
DeleteWell then JU should not be threatened at all, should it? You do realise that VFR or 'diaspora' are also 'tourists' when it comes to returning and spending money. I personally hope that all those critics of wizzair don't spend their hard earned dinars on an airline they wish to drive out of town.
DeleteYou said Wizz should get a free pass from Serbia if country cares about tourism. I responded with facts denying your claim. Instead of accepting facts, you now want to redefine VFR as tourists, showing further ignorance and asking people not to spend on Air Serbia, accusing them of driving Wizz out, even though you presented no evidence for such claim. Are you okay?
DeleteI'm just fine. Are you?
Delete@The rather angry little comment at 15:43 seems to ignore that Serbian tourists use wizzair to leave the country, providing a service that, last time i looked, was a permissible thing.
DeleteHow are departing passengers good for Serbian tourism??? Are you able to comprehend you lost the "Wizz is good for Serbia tourism" argument once and for all?
DeleteI'm not arguing anything. You seem to be obtuse and believe that Serbian consumers don't deserve to be able to fly out of their country. You really are representative of a certain kind of unpleasant character online that regards things are national attacks. Very sad.
DeleteComment @15:18 was defeated using easily verifiable facts. That was the argument you clearly lost. Refusing to do so reflects on your ability to have fact-based conversation.
DeleteAnd no, at no point did I argue "that Serbian consumers don't deserve to be able to fly out of their country". That is completely false. Stick to the FACTS or admit you lost.
"If serbia cares about tourism" does not necessarily mean only inbound now does it? Or perhaps you are just so blind in your obsession about admitting loss? Have you asked yourself why that is? Perhaps a trauma?
DeleteNo country cares about outbound tourism. Are you okay?
DeleteYep. clearly you are not.
DeleteGovernment should care about outbound tourism because those people worked hard and deserve a holiday. Part of that is being able to afford a ticket and with less competition there will be fewer affordable fares out there on the market. It's very simple my friend.
DeleteAlso W6 keeps overall fares lower forcing JU to be competitive.
Im sure the same local patriots and infrastructure nationalists are the same types who are furious the airport has fewer passengers than Tirana and Budapest and who will be the first to be angry when passenger figures decline below Sofia and Thessaloniki if this occurs.
ReplyDeleteIt will occur once, as due to bad planning and investment policies Belgrade airport now has no room for sustainable expansion.
DeleteThe concession was a disaster overall.
Delete- Vinci wasn't required to build a new terminal, they're just extending corridors into the infinity
- There was no cargo terminal or development in that area
- Inserted runway is a stupidity of galactic scale; BEG needed a separate new runway and apron
- Vinci taking over nearby BUD was also something that should have been forbidden by agreement, but fortunately so far that didn't affect BEG much
To top it all, Vinci forbid the water salute 🤦🤦🤦. Is it is the same everywhere?
Passengers don't care for water salute. Concession is not even half way. There is a new Terminal (processor) building since 2023. New apron E was developed in the Cargo building area and now new stands replaced GA apron. Separate new runway would have been nice if money was not an object; inserted runway means new runway is not needed for decades.
DeleteWell, you can see that the French are building hospitals from scratch in France with no air-conditioning... What is a water salute for the stupidity of such scale anyway?
DeleteWe should've developed the airport ourselves, with the new apron and T3, as envisaged by the original plans, and note by those of Zorannah's witnesses.
I heard somewhere that BEG was one of the most profitable bases for them. Cheap workforce but Western prices. No wonder they don't want to leave.
ReplyDeleteGood to hear the competition has 'eastern prices'.
DeleteJU has even more expensive tickets
DeleteJU is a legacy carrier, what are you talking about.
DeleteJU is a legacy in name only, they charge you for anything and everything they can.
DeleteUnless you lived under the rock in the past 10-15 years, all airlines now charge for everything the can.
DeleteLegacy means nothing anyway. Ryanair is 40years old. Which in business terms is also a legacy. As an airline with 40% transfer traffic some of JUs best value fares are not aimed to point to point travellers originating or starting in Belgrade anyway. This is similar to other carries with this business model.
DeleteMaybe will better without W6.
ReplyDeleteIf you work for JU yes, for everyone else... no.
Deleteor maybe it wont...
DeleteIs it really so difficult for a large company with international capital to comply with the modest requirements of the host country's legislation, especially when they concern security? When you see the list of financial companies and funds that own this company, it is more than strange.
ReplyDeleteSerbian government is being naughty.
ReplyDeleteWell, they are playing something similar in Israel too, but the Israelis are like, no thank you!
ReplyDeleteEverything will be ok. Ths "drama" will end as silently as č-lend. As if nothing happened. Good for serbian consumers
ReplyDeleteAnon 13:32 I really hope you're right. Love the confidence. I need more new Wizz routes!!
Delete+1
DeleteThe attempt to do this to wizzair is somewhat ironic, or perhaps reflective of the 'competitiveness and inclusive growth' cluster that has now not been opened.
ReplyDeleteWizz Air just announced MAD & VLC bases this winter.
ReplyDeleteI guess MAD-BEG is safe, let's see if they launch VLC-BEG.
Thats a good development. Thanks for the news.
DeleteNo new W6 routes from Spain to Serbia were mentioned
DeleteIndeed. But having bases in Madrid and Valenica (if they decided to launch such a route)
Deleteat least means if GOS achieves its goal Wizzair could operate those routes from bases inside the EU.
What will happen to ALC,BSL,BER,CHQ,DTM,EIN,FDH,GOT,FKB,MMX,FMM,NCE,BVA,NYO is another matter.
Scandinavia can be covered from Polish bases like Gdansk, same with Germany which can be covered from Poland and Bratislava.
DeleteOnly Spain and BVA are problematic and Spain until now
@18:15 lets hope this doesn't have to be the case! No more Č views and more wizz in BG please.
DeleteI’m sorry, just so I understand: the issue is about the maintenance provider being registered and approved in Serbia, not about Wizz Air obtaining a Serbian AOC.
ReplyDeleteIf that’s the case, then this isn’t simply a question of market access.
Furthermore, if Air Serbia wanted to establish a permanent operating base in another ECAA or EU country, would it automatically be allowed to do so under exactly the same conditions? I’m not convinced the answer is always yes.
If reciprocity does not work both ways, then it is reasonable to ask why Serbia should be expected to accept conditions that others might not accept themselves.
I’m genuinely asking the question, as I’d like to better understand the legal and regulatory framework.
JU can set up a base but they need permits just like FR has a base in Morocco
DeleteAlso sorry, just to understand: Why did this suddenly become an issue now after all these years of Wizz freely operating a base in BEG?
DeleteBecause W6 is successfully growing +20% this year while JU is at +2.8%
Delete"I’m genuinely asking the question, as I’d like to better understand the legal and regulatory framework" you'll find many people will fervently defend the idea that Wizzair should not have a base out of some sad patriotism. But most normal people in Serbia want the situation to remain as is.
DeleteAny indication W6 growth is financially successful?
Delete@Anonymous 19:06 I’m sure there are many nationalistic people in Serbia, just as there are in every country. However, I’m not sure what that has to do with the question I asked.
DeleteWhat I do find rather disappointing is that you immediately question my motives instead of addressing the substance of the discussion. I was simply asking about the legal and regulatory framework, nothing more.
If asking whether the same rules apply to everyone is somehow perceived as controversial, then I’m sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. I believe questions about principles, reciprocity, and respect for the rules are perfectly legitimate.
If you know the legal answer, I’d genuinely appreciate hearing it. If not, that’s perfectly fine too. But let’s stick to facts rather than making assumptions about each other’s intentions
I support your question and motives completely. People will, no doubt, provide interpretations of the situation from both perspectives. Many people question the legal situation as things stand, or in my opinion (which views Wizzair as having a long-standing right to have a base) ignore it due to the aforementioned.
Delete