Serbia risks losing a significant part of its low-cost air network as Ryanair prepares to withdraw from Niš and Wizz Air considers closing its four-aircraft base in Belgrade, raising concerns about higher fares, reduced connectivity and the country’s treatment of foreign investors.
Ryanair has confirmed that it will suspend all services to and from Niš from the start of the 2026 winter season, citing unspecified “fuel regulatory problems” affecting Konstantin Veliki airport. The Irish carrier operates year-round links to Vienna and Malta and seasonal services to Stockholm and Corfu. It has served Niš since 2016.
The decision comes as sanctions-related uncertainty surrounding Serbian oil company NIS complicates the supply of aviation fuel. Ryanair has not explained precisely which regulation made its operations unviable, leaving open the possibility that airport charges, commercial terms and demand also contributed to the withdrawal.
In Belgrade, the more consequential dispute concerns amendments adopted by Serbia’s Civil Aviation Directorate in March. The rules govern permits for foreign airlines exercising so-called third- and fourth-freedom traffic rights.
Wizz Air argues that the wording would prevent its aircraft and crews from beginning and ending their operating cycles in Serbia. The Hungarian airline says this could force it to close its Belgrade base from November, although it has not announced a final decision and expects to determine its plans by late September. Even if the base closes, Wizz has indicated that it could continue serving Belgrade from aircraft stationed elsewhere, but with fewer flights.
The airline has accused the authorities of seeking to protect state-owned Air Serbia. The regulator rejects that allegation, saying the amendments apply equally to all carriers and neither prohibit flights between Serbia and the EU nor prevent airlines from opening routes permitted under international agreements.
Wizz Air’s possible retrenchment would nevertheless represent a material change in the competitive structure of Serbian aviation. It operates four aircraft from Belgrade and accounts for about 21 per cent of the airport’s seat capacity, compared with roughly 52 per cent for Air Serbia, according to OAG data cited by Aviation Week. The carrier says it has transported more than 14mn passengers to and from Serbia since entering the market in 2010.
The immediate effect on ticket prices would vary by route. Where Wizz Air competes directly with Air Serbia or another carrier, removing frequencies would probably weaken fare competition and reduce the number of discounted seats. Routes left with a single operator would be particularly exposed.
Fares would not necessarily rise uniformly, however. Airlines based elsewhere could replace some capacity, while Air Serbia might increase frequencies where demand is strong. Wizz Air could also continue operating selected services without maintaining aircraft overnight in Belgrade. But such operations are generally less flexible and may be more expensive, reducing the commercial case for marginal destinations.
Industry figures interviewed by Nova Ekonomija have also linked the pressure on low-cost airlines to the state’s concession agreement with France’s Vinci, which has operated Belgrade’s Nikola Tesla airport since 2018. They argue that limiting the growth of Niš may protect traffic and revenue at the capital’s airport. That claim has not been established publicly, and the detailed commercial protections contained in the concession remain central to the debate.
The economics are not entirely straightforward. Vinci ordinarily benefits from higher passenger volumes, regardless of the airline carrying them. A reduction in Wizz Air traffic would therefore help the concessionaire only if Air Serbia or other operators replaced most of the lost capacity—or if the concession contains protections against competition from regional airports.
For Air Serbia, the benefits are clearer in the short term. Reduced low-cost competition could improve yields and strengthen its position on European routes. But protecting the flag carrier would carry wider costs if it led to fewer visitors, weaker business connections and diminished access to affordable travel for Serbian residents and the country’s large diaspora.
The dispute also presents a risk to Serbia’s EU ambitions. Wizz Air maintains that the new rules conflict with the European Common Aviation Area agreement, which integrates Serbia into much of the EU’s liberalised aviation market. The European Commission has begun examining the amendments, while the Serbian government has discussed possible changes to the framework.
The larger issue is therefore not simply whether two low-cost carriers reduce their schedules. It is whether Serbia intends to manage aviation as a competitive market or as a strategic sector organised around a national airline and a dominant concession airport.
Unless Belgrade resolves the regulatory dispute and establishes a credible fuel-supply framework for regional airports, passengers are likely to face less choice. Higher fares would then be less a direct regulatory charge than the predictable consequence of fewer airlines competing for their business.
