Vienna’s Low-Cost Exodus: Ryanair, Wizz Air, and the (maybe) High Price of Taxes

This must make Scott Kirby very happy!

When two of Europe’s largest low-cost carriers announce they’re cutting back in the same city, it’s not just a scheduling tweak — it’s a shot across the bow.

Ryanair is pulling three based aircraft out of Vienna this winter and cutting three routes (Billund, Santander, Tallinn). They blame “sky-high airport fees” and Austria’s €12 per-passenger Air Transport Levy (Ryanair Corporate Newsroom).

Wizz Air is going even further: closing its entire Vienna base by March 2026, after a gradual withdrawal that starts this October. The airline calls the rising airport charges and ground-handling fees “incompatible with its ultra-low-cost model” (Reuters).

Sound familiar? It should. EasyJet scaled back its Vienna footprint years ago despite basing a substantial part of its fleet in Austria. IAG’s LEVEL never grew beyond a token presence. The pattern is hard to ignore.

Is This Really About Taxes?

Sure, Austria’s aviation tax is a blunt instrument — €12 per passenger is no small amount in a world where Ryanair’s average fare hovers around €50. But is this just about costs, or are we watching a strategic game of chicken?

Ryanair isn’t just leaving. They’re bargaining in public, dangling a carrot (and carrying a very large bully club) :

“Reduce taxes, fees and access costs and we will expand in Austria – adding up to 10 more aircraft and 12m passengers by 2030.”

(Ryanair Press Statement)

Translation: cut our costs or watch us redeploy capacity elsewhere.

Vienna: A Victim of Its Own Success?

Vienna is a strong O&D market with a hub carrier (Austrian Airlines), plenty of business demand, and a growing tourist base. But ULCCs thrive on razor-thin margins. Add higher airport charges, inflation-pumped ground-handling costs, and environmental levies designed to nudge passengers onto trains — and the economics break down.

Wizz Air has already been shifting its growth focus to Central/Eastern Europe, where airports offer incentives and cost per passenger is lower (EX-YU Aviation).

Winners & Losers

Losers:

• Consumers who enjoyed cheap flights and multiple options.

• Vienna’s tourism sector, which risks losing point-to-point connectivity.

• Vienna Airport’s growth story.

Winners:

• Austrian Airlines (and Lufthansa Group) which may gain back market share.

• Neighbouring airports like Bratislava or Budapest, which could absorb displaced capacity.

• Other European states — if Ryanair & Wizz choose to redeploy capacity there.

What Comes Next

We’ve seen this movie before: capacity cuts, tough talk, and then either policy concessions or a permanent reset of the market. The Austrian government must now choose:

• Stay the course on environmental levies and high fees, and accept reduced connectivity.

• Or renegotiate fees/taxes to lure ULCC capacity back, risking criticism from green groups.

Either way, Vienna is at an inflection point. If it misplays this moment, it could lose not just Ryanair and Wizz Air, but the competitive tension that keeps fares low.

My Take

This isn’t just about Vienna — it’s a test case for Europe. As governments layer on aviation taxes and green policies, ULCCs will keep walking when margins go red. The question is whether Vienna is the canary in the coal mine — or just the first domino. We have seen Ryanair wield its stick in Berlin, Spain and Bordeaux. 

If Austria blinks and cuts fees, Vienna may roar back. If not, expect Bratislava to have its moment in the sun.

Over to You

What do you think? Is this smart airline strategy, or regulatory overreach pushing airlines out? Will we see new players step in — or will Vienna quietly slide back to being a legacy-carrier stronghold?

Sources

• Ryanair Corporate: Vienna Cuts Announcement

• Reuters: Wizz Air to Cease Vienna Base

• EX-YU Aviation: Vienna Exit Details

New Head of USPTO promises a path different and less conservative.

 

Yesterday the U.S. Senate confirmed John A. Squires as the new Director / Under Secretary for IP at the USPTO.  His confirmation brings with it statements and commitments that should give startups, inventors and IP stakeholders cause for comfort — but also make clear that a potential overreaction could create unintended problems down the road. https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/09/18/squires-confirmed-uspto-recapping-statements-plans-office/id=192298/  AND for once someone competent in the role!

What gives reason for optimism

1. Backlog & Pendency Addressed

   Squires has pledged to reduce the massive backlog of patent applications and speed up examination without sacrificing quality.  For those of us who have seen novel ideas languish or risk being scooped or rendered obsolete by slow processes, that is good news.

2. “Born Strong” Patents & Quality Improvements

   He talks about making sure grants are of “provable quality,” and about refining front-end examination (e.g. prior art search, enablement, written description, definiteness) as well as improving post-grant review accuracy. 

3. Use of AI as a Tool, Not a Panacea

   Squires supports integrating AI tools into the examination process, particularly for repetitive tasks, searching prior art, etc., to help examiners.  That could be a force multiplier if done with good guardrails.

4. Balance & Transparency in PTAB / Post-Grant Proceedings

   He seems to be aware of concerns about how PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) proceedings have been used (and perhaps abused), and has committed to stakeholder engagement, improving transparency (including funding of litigation), and preserving access to review. 

---

But: Why startups / patent actors should also stay alert

Given these good signals, there is potential risk — especially if we in the startup / inventor community misinterpret leniency or pro-patent leanings as carte blanche to accelerate filings indiscriminately. Here are some warning flags:

1. Quality vs Quantity Trade-off

   If the USPTO pushes too hard to clear backlog or approve faster, there’s always risk that “speed” comes at cost to examination rigor. Weak patents issued too fast can become liabilities: easy to challenge, worthless when enforced, or worse, open avenues for litigation risk. As someone with 7 patents (and more underway), I’ve seen what strong claims look like — and what weak ones regretfully become.

2. Encouraging a Rush Could Create a Patent “Bubble”

   If many inventors start racing to file simply because they expect easier or faster examination / looser thresholds, we could see an inflation of low-value patents. That could burden the system (more prior art to search against, more invalidity proceedings), increase uncertainty, litigation risk, and dilute the value of strong patents.

3. Legislative & Regulatory Uncertainty Remains

   Even with Squires’ commitments, many of the critical elements (e.g. patent eligibility rules under Section 101, PTAB reform, third-party litigation funding, standing requirements, etc.) are still in flux.  Startups must plan with uncertainty in mind: what seems “good now” could be modified.

4. Overreliance on AI Without Adequate Oversight

   While AI tools can help examiners, they’re only as good as the training data, the controls, and oversight. Mistakes (missed prior art, bias, misuse) could propagate. Guardrails, validation, continuous evaluation are essential.

5. Potential for Abuse or Gaming

   Even with improved transparency, patent trolls or “predatory arbitrage” players may try to exploit weaker patents, or use disputes over eligibility / invalidity just to force settlements. Ensuring there are clear mechanisms for challenging weak patents efficiently, and defending legitimate ones, will be essential.

My take — what I’ll be watching closely (as someone with 7 patents, and more in the works)

• Will “born strong” really mean stronger upfront examination, or just more verbal kudos with same old thresholds?

• Will AI applications actually reduce examiner pendency and maintain high disclosure / prior art standards?

• How will fees / enforcement / litigation risk shift? Will stronger patents mean more enforcement opportunities, but also more risk?

• How will startups with constrained budgets handle changing demands (e.g. stronger disclosures, more expensive search requirements, etc.)?

• How will global IP competition (e.g., from China) shape how the USPTO positions itself? Will this push toward hyper-protection even at cost of overbroad grants?

Conclusion

John Squires’ confirmation is broadly good news for innovators, startups, and the IP ecosystem. It signals a willingness to rebuild trust in the system: faster, more predictable, and more meaningfully protective of inventions. But we must not let optimism lead to a free fall toward quantity over quality. As in any system, incentives matter — what the USPTO rewards through examination policy, what Congress legislates, what courts interpret — that will determine whether this turns into a sustainable boon for innovation, or a source of future drag and conflict.

#Patents #Innovation #IPPolicy #Startups #USPTO #PatentQuality #PatentRisk #AIinIP