It was a ploy by the government to protect JU from competition.

So this means JU has the right to operate intra-EU routes?

@09:57 move on.

09.57
It will have that right once it becomes EU member. But stories about intention of Serbia to become full EU member are false and dishonest. At least at the moment. Directorate's actions and decisions prove it. And Commission just made it clear. Coming from independent observer, and big fan of JU

So you care to explain how JU can't base planes in say Athens or Warsaw and operate intra-EU routes?

10.24
In that case everything is perfectly fine. People don't want EU, government and (independent?) bodies don't want it as well, you expell Wizz, stay out of EU, and everyone happy. But obviously those in charge in Serbia want both, and it's impossible and EU finally started to realize it and to react to it

10.35
I have explained it in the first sentence of my first post. But you can go on pretending you didn't understand

So why does W6 has that right as of now?

@10:35 and do you think it would be a good business move to do such a thing? If/when Serbia ever joined. Of course not. Move on.

Where are the anonyms that said wait a couple of weeks and you'll see? Where are all of them know cheering for W6 closure because the law needs to be obeyed? Where are all of those saying EU will do nothing, and this 6 more months is just implemented in goodwill for W6 to organize it's schedule? Are you still here?

Actually you don't know how this may end. There is no official commission statement, just one representative answering to a portal. This would have never started without true legal basis.

@10:49, you have great confidence...greater perhaps than the evidence of governance would suggest.

There is an official position from the European Commission because the response was provided by the Commission itself, not by an individual speaking in a personal capacity. The Commission explicitly stated that it considers the regulation incompatible with Serbia’s obligations under the ECAA and that it urged the Serbian authorities to suspend its application. Of course, the article does not claim to know how the issue will ultimately be resolved. In fact, the Commission itself said discussions with the Serbian authorities will continue. And the fact that a regulation was adopted with a legal rationale does not automatically mean that it is compatible with Serbia’s obligations under an international agreement. That is precisely the point now under dispute.

@10:49
Dude just give it up! Stop embarrassing yourself.

@EX-YU Aviation thank you for explanation!

@10:35

"So you care to explain how JU can't base planes in say Athens or Warsaw and operate intra-EU routes?"

For the 1001st time, as i and many others have explained (and even ChatGPT could, proving how lazy you are):
AirSerbia CAN BASE PLANES in the EU, but can only fly to Serbia from there, so to BEG, INI and KVO. Flights from the AIRLINE'S COUNTRY, to another, or from a FOREIGN BASE, to HOME COUNTRY. Same as Wizz is doing from BEG - flights from a FOREIGN (to them) base, to a destination in their HOME COUNTRY - so entire EU (Wizz Hungary or Malta AOC) or the UK (Wizz UK AOC).

FOr the 1002nd time, NEITHER JU nor WIZZ have rights to fly DOMESTIC flights in foreign countries. Wizz cant fly BEG-INI, same as JU cant do any intra-EU flights.
If you now hit me with the "the EU is multiple countries, why cant JU fly intra-country there" argument, i will firstly bang my head against the nearest wall repeatedly, and then remind you, AGAIN, that the EU, and all fully fledged ECAA members are considered A SINGLE UNIFIED MARKET. Thats the entire point of the ECAA. Intra EU flights are, same as for border questions (Schengen etc.) all considered DO-MES-TIC flights.

This all proves again all people against Wizz here are either paid shills or simply horrendously uninformed to the point where they should not be making definitive opinionated comments, as even you guys who say JU should be able to base in EU and fly intra EU should be FOR Serbia joining the ECAA, not AGAINST, since if we fully joined, JU could fly literally anywhere within the EU.

Well said sir.

@Anon 12:27
Great post!

hopefully thi is the end of the crooks in the power

🙌🏼🙌🏼

09:04
+1000 🤞🏼

Exactly. Those who were cheering for closing W6 base can choose to fly with JU more often.
The rest of us will continue to choose the most convenient and affordable option. 🤷‍♂️

Anon 09:10
+ 1000 . And who knows what the prices will be with this oil situation madness !

Not sure why many loathe Wizz Air? I think that they’re a great airline. Affordable, new planes and great crew. Meanwhile JU lease some of their old aircraft inc. seats so not sure why you’d pay more for this?

I don't fly W6 but I'm happy they are preventing legacies from going crazy with prices.

I loathe WizzAir because with the carry-on baggage, their prices are barely lower than JU, because their website is a pure scam and I loathe any airline that tries to trick their passengers like that, because their legroom is bare minimum. But I don't avoid flying with them only because of that, but because their flight times are also inconvenient for me (on the route that I fly the most).

Having said all that, I am looking forward to this charade being over. We do need competition and WizzAir is still the most affordable option for very short trips when you can get by with a backpack. Losing the WizzAir base in Belgrade would have been a very bad thing.

@10:35 great you can afford to be selective. Don't fly 'em like you said. But supporting them being on the market is the right thing to do.

10.35
Signing under every single word

@10:35 'loathing' an airline is hyperbolic in regards the relationship the average flyer has with aviation. I 'loathe' taking the bus but many people are forced to out of finances or lack of options. But i agree in regards timings, its an often overlooked decider for many, myself included.

@10:48
"Loathe" is probably too strong, but I was just replying to @9:43 using their choice of word. I use Wizz and other LCC when they are more convenient or significantly cheaper and they are important for markets, no matter what I think of them. I do not, however, in any way approve the way they try to trick users with their websites. I might not fall for their tricks and just find them annoying, but I know many people who are not frequent flyers, or are just seniors, who are either tricked into buying options they never intended to or are unable to check in on their own at all. I would really hate if that was to become industry standard across the board.

@16:03 given the way the world is regarding AI, targeted marketing and algorithms deciding what degree of bile and horrendousness we are bombarded with i think Wizzair's website is fairly clear, at least for the majority of passengers. Personally I find Lufthansa's website a shiteshow, just my personal experience. I think we can agree having options is vital, both for the health of the market and customer choice.

The fanboys of JU have the motivation of wanting the domestic company to hold the market share vs a foreign company. It's a national interest position, not a passenger position. To them, paying an extra 50 Euro for a flight is fine if that means that their national carrier survives and even prospers. They want the profits to stay home as opposed to going to a German billionaire.

Yeah. Rather tragic but true.

Punished you mean? Some clerk maybe or the cleaning lady at DCA.

First a foremost the director of the CAA should be fired. Ironically, they chased out the former professional director of the CAA into retirement so they could implement this farce.

@09:05.
Sad but true. 😠

Yes punished sorry. This is above all embarrassing for the government. They pushed this without first checking what the law says.

Well it's not a law, it's a contract. The thing is, it does not say anything explicitly as the article points out. But if you don't have an issue with it for 15 years, then it really makes no sense that you have an issue with it now.

Yeah but when someone came up with the idea someone else in Serbia should have told them that the Commission would rule this way since there are grounds for such action.

^ the person who told them that was told to retire or face consequences. So she retired.

@anon 9.16 in our legal system, international contracts are higher source of law than laws as such

It is small chance that new government will respect contracts and expel Wizz.

The new government should expel from public service a whole lot of incompetent people who only got hired because they are friends with the current government.

+100

I'm still confident that 99% of people did not even hear about this news or knew this was going on.

True. Most people check prices via skyscanner and book etc. But thank godness Wizzair stood their ground.

Some commenters were cheering for them to leave.

Most people welcome competition and options.

That's what people at Tuzla wanted - competition and options, but when they were just thinking about opening up to Ryan in addition to existing W6, Wizz started moving out of TZL. All of it without much care for employees, and no interest in TZL passengers having a choice and options.

Indeed!

That would be awesome!
I could see ATH 3-4 times a week, Poland, Itaky and boosting of frequencies everywhere.

ATH would indeed be very welcome!

BEG ATH consumers already have a choice from multiple airlines. Did EC rule only W6 counts as a choice?

@09:55 What are you talking about?

Fifith plane?? Hohohoho, they're closing FDH and doesn't have idea where to fly with present four planes. More likely they will cut to three. Copy JU, paste W6

@10:49 tragic viewpoint. But whatever keeps you happy.

@Anonymous10:49
Just take the L like a man and quit posting your fantasies as predictions of the future.
You already saw that you have zero knowledge what is going on and what the ECAA says.

There is many posibilities.

^are*

That could be said for many things in this part of the world

Some markets such as Norway managed to fight Wizz using worker laws if I remember correctly. Other markets manage to keep them out using airport pricing. All of that happening in the same part of the world, Europe.

Well if you want to hurt consumers in Serbia that a route one can try to take. Most normal people want them to stay and will welcome this. Lets hope they expand.

People in Norway and Vienna are mostly normal, yet they didn't want Wizz to stay or operate domestic routes.

People in Norway and Vienna are indeed normal and wish for healthy aviation markets which is not actually the case domestically in Norway and increasingly from Vienna internationally.

So far this year VIE is recording a drop of 6%. Not good, a lot of their passengers switched to BTS which makes sense.

They did what's best for them. Endless growth is unsustainable long-term, as seen at other airports.

Wtf you on about.

I bet some people cheering for the Directorate's actions wanted exactly that.
Every pilot and flight attendant who wished to live in Serbia to be only able to get a job at ASL with the conditions and salaries ASL management wants to offer and nothing more.

Now describe what choice pilots and FA's living in SKP, LJU or TZL have?

Have you read the article?

“The Commission finds the new Regulation incompatible with Serbia’s obligations under the European Common Aviation Area Agreement. It has urged the Serbian authorities to suspend the application of these measures. Serbia has postponed their application to March 2027. The Commission will continue discussions with the Serbian authorities”.

There is no explanation as to why EC found it incomparible.

After all propaganda and W6 backlash you created, you're now begging for explanation lolol. This country is soo messed up I can't even

This statement given to ExYu aviation news, not official one. There are contradictory questions without answers: what are the incompatibilties, why there are further discussions, why is decision delayed and not retracted? What will happen in 6 months?

This is an official position from the European Commission because the response was provided by the Commission itself, not by an individual speaking in a personal capacity. The Commission explicitly stated that it considers the regulation incompatible with Serbia’s obligations under the ECAA and that it urged the Serbian authorities to suspend its application.

@10:54
Cope harder!

If this was a case at a regular justice system, court ruling would include details of the decisions and judgments. EC has been described as bureaucratic behemoth and it's not a surprise to me that no further explanation is provided by that arrogant body.

^ Well the directory or better yet Air Serbia (who is the real instigator of these actions) can go any time they like to the European Court of Justice and demand to be exempt from the ECAA.
Or better yet if they think the European Commission is wrong in its interpretation of the ECAA rules regarding Serbia to not only get the changes they want but also demand compensation from the EU.

Comments from previous weeks and months asked for evidence of your clam about the real instigator, and we are still waiting for any to show up.

Serbia does not need European Court of Justice to leave ECAA as far as I know.

Not sure how do you imagine European Commission could be challenged to change their mind regarding interpretation of the ECAA rules when no explanation has been given by the EC?

Well you can doubt it but then again you don't need to be a part of the ECAA and you can choose to be a pariah instead.

@09:29 they are more competant than the current government.

EC also made a decision years ago about opening Belgrade Rome route to competition yet no airline took that opportunity for years. Comments at that time questioned EC decision.

They opened it up for competition because route was only operated by Alitalia and Air Serbia, both of which had Etihad ownership.

Point is that no airline took the misguided EC rule for many years, questioning EC decision making abilities.

@Anonymous 10:02
What are you on about?

@10:02

Your opinion is misguided. The EC was correct to recommend entry of a third competitor on the route, which is clear to anyone with even a basic idea of how Etihad associated airlines operated at the time. Easyjet did take up the offer, and started flying the route, and then closed not even a year later since it was pushed out by sinchronous price dumping from Alitalia and JU, thus fully proving the EC's point, and you, wrong.

Facts paint a different picture: before Easyjet, Wizz operated Belgrade-Rome route but decided to suspend it in July 2012 when it was competing against weak JAT, and to continue as summer seasonal, only to cancel it altogether in April of 2013, before Etihad-Jat deal. Lowcost option therefore existed on the route before Easyjet and was not pushed out by the "duopoly" of Etihad and Air Serbia. Current market conditions are open to LCC competition , such as VIE-BEG, even though current operators don't belong to same alliance, let alone same owner.

That EC recommendation was completely wrong, and it reflected concerns published at the time by some aviation leaders from Germany regarding fears about Etihad's role in Europe, not actual market realities.

100%

mine too.

None from me. Incompetent airline. When they were lacking of planes, BEG was first to cut, while growing at BUD, OTP, VIE. Now they're crying all around. Would be great to replace them with FR. If they survive the winter at all.

^ I bet you would be crying the most if FR came to BEG and trashed JU yields on every market it chose to fly!

@10:57 they'll survive the winter mate. Calm down and enjoy whichever companies you decide to use.

Wizz unlike our national carrier has hedged it's fuel needs for 2027.

11:15

Yeah, your wet dreams as usual. Like W6 trashed JU on no route ever. JU doesn't care less for W6, they're irrelevant as JU is setting records YoY. Keep crying

@14:54 calm down.

In my own personal opinion, they do comply. Given complete absence of explanation from EC, it is prudent to question if EC decided to tilt the playing field in favour of EU-based airline over non-EU based airline?

Well your opinion is just that. Unless you are an lawyer with international experience i would cease to concern yourself.

No need to be a lawyer to question if the bias exists.

@16:21
Well the Civil Aviation Directorate or better yet Air Serbia (who is the real instigator of these anticompetitive actions) can go any time they like to the European Court of Justice and demand to be exempt from the ECAA.
Or better yet if they think the European Commission is wrong in its interpretation of the ECAA rules regarding Serbia they can sue to not only get the changes they want but also demand compensation from the EU.

And provided a terrible sign to other companies.

No other foreign company has a base at Belgrade Airport.

Trust me bro..But yeah I hope it does.

Hardly, they are cutting to 3 planes this winter, closing FDH and cutting frequencies.

Hopefully now they will expand. We want that.