Ryanair attributes the Belgian decision to policy-driven cost increases. In its communications, the airline points to the federal government’s plan to double the aviation tax—raising it to €10 per passenger for flights departing Belgium from 2027—and to a proposal in Charleroi to introduce an additional €3 local charge per passenger starting next year. The carrier claims these measures materially increase the cost of flying from Belgium and risk diverting passengers to alternative airports in neighbouring countries. From the company’s perspective, the combined effect is to make Belgium less competitive than other European jurisdictions that have sought to contain or reduce aviation taxes in order to stimulate connectivity, tourism demand and employment.
Belgium, however, is not the only country experiencing cutbacks. In Germany, Ryanair has also announced reductions for a winter season, including the withdrawal of approximately 800,000 seats and the cancellation of 24 routes across multiple airports. The airline has repeatedly highlighted the cost environment in the German market—particularly what it describes as high access and operational charges—as a key reason for limiting its growth there, despite the strategic importance of Germany for European connectivity.
France has faced a similar dynamic, especially in regional markets. Ryanair has pulled services from several secondary airports for the winter season, affecting connectivity for both domestic travellers and inbound passengers from the United Kingdom and other European countries. In these cases, the airline has linked its decisions to the fiscal framework applied to air tickets and the broader cost base associated with operating at smaller airports, where route profitability is more sensitive to incremental taxes and fees.
Spain has also been included in Ryanair’s broader review of capacity and bases, particularly in regional airports. The carrier has previously indicated that it has reduced seat supply in certain Spanish markets following changes in airport costs. While the impacts vary by location, the overarching message from the airline is consistent: where costs rise faster than demand can absorb—without undermining the low-fare promise—the company prefers to redeploy aircraft to airports and countries that offer a more supportive operating environment.
Across these markets, the operational consequences are tangible. Route cancellations reduce direct connectivity, limit schedule options for residents and visitors, and may push travellers to seek alternatives via competing airports or airlines. For destinations, fewer seats can translate into weaker tourism inflows, reduced competitiveness in short-break and city-break segments, and pressure on local hospitality ecosystems that depend on affordable air access. At airport level, capacity cuts can affect commercial revenues and employment linked to airline operations, ground handling and ancillary passenger services.
Ryanair’s position is that governments should carefully assess the economic trade-offs of additional aviation taxes. The airline claims that higher charges ultimately raise prices for consumers, suppress demand and make it harder for regions to sustain year-round air links—particularly outside peak periods. In contrast, Ryanair frequently points to countries it says have adopted more growth-oriented policies, including places where aviation taxes have been reduced or removed to strengthen competitiveness and expand traffic.
The Belgian cuts mark a high-profile escalation of a broader European trend: Ryanair is actively reshaping its footprint in response to taxation and cost policies. For governments, airports and tourism stakeholders, the situation underlines a strategic tension between public revenue measures and the connectivity required to sustain travel demand, regional development and tourism performance across Europe.
