Wil Williams argues that Wales needs a business support system that is transparent, honest, radical, decisive and bold; everything that it has not been since 2006.

When the Welsh Development Agency was scrapped in 2006, it was presented as modernisation. The language was sound; alignment, accountability and efficiency. However, in reality, the removal of the WDA was driven by ideology and dogma, with outcome far less impressive than the original rhetoric.

The organisation that understood how to build firms and sectors was dismantled and folded into a structure designed to manage risk rather than create value; namely the Welsh Government.

Nearly twenty years on, the results are hard to ignore. Wales has constructed a business support landscape that is active, visible and permanently engaged in something. What it has not done is consistently help firms to grow. The system looks busy because it is busy. That is not the same as being effective.

The failure of the business support system is not abstract. The absence of medium -sized firms is not an abstract concern; it sits at the heart of Wales’ productivity problem. Too many businesses remain small, under capitalised and structurally fragile. The system that was supposed to support the Mittelstand has, at best, provided guidance. At worst, it has absorbed significant public funding while producing very little in the way of sustained economic transformation.

READ MORE: The expected final cost of the South Wales Metro soars to £1.3bnREAD MORE: First Minister rules out new WDA but wants to empower the Development Bank of Wales

The contrast with what came before is instructive. The WDA was far from perfect, but it understood something fundamental; economic development is an operational discipline. It is a cultural mindset. It requires judgement, pace and a willingness to act. It had a clear line of sight from policy to delivery, a strong regional presence and the authority to make decisions. It behaved like an organisation expected to produce outcomes, not reports.

When those functions were absorbed into government, the character of the system changed. Decision making slowed. Authority dispersed. Activity increased, but coherence declined.

Over time, the culture shifted from commercial delivery to programme management. This is not a criticism of individuals; it is simply what happens when an operational function is placed inside a system designed around compliance, procurement and control; in other words, government.

The modern landscape reflects that shift. There is no shortage of provision. Business Wales offers advice. The Development Bank of Wales provides finance. City Deals and local authorities run their own initiatives. UK wide schemes sit alongside them. Innovation bodies, export support and sector programmes all play their part. On paper, it is comprehensive. In practice, it is fragmented.

Firms do not experience this as a system. They experience it as a maze. Multiple entry points. Repeated diagnostics. Different priorities depending on who they happen to speak to. Occasional support, rarely continuity. Plenty of conversation, not enough follow through.

This is why satisfaction scores, often self-reported, can look respectable while outcomes remain stubbornly weak. Advice is relatively easy to provide and generally well-received. Scaling a business is not. It requires capital, capability, leadership and sustained joined-up engagement over time. That is where the current model struggles.

The deeper issue is cultural rather than structural. The post 2006 environment rewards careful administration. Success is often measured by activity; programmes delivered, funds allocated, targets met. What matters to the economy is different; firms that grow, export, invest and employ. The two are not the same, and the gap between them has widened.

The consequences are visible across the economy. Wales continues to produce fewer medium sized firms than comparable regions. Productivity remains low. That is a function of the paucity of Wales’ Mittelstand. Regional disparities persist, particularly between Cardiff and the rest of the country. There is a growing tendency to accept this as normal, even to dress it up as progress – see the last review Welsh Government Business Support Review, November 2025 – a few tweaks to the system will fix any issues.

The upcoming Senedd Election presents an opportunity, although not a guaranteed one. A new administration will arrive with the usual choice; adjust around the edges or address the problem properly, radically and innovatively. The system will naturally advocate for incremental change. It always does. Incremental change is comfortable. It is also how a failing model is preserved.

A more serious response would start from first principles. Businesses do not need more programmes. They need a coherent system. One front door, not many. A single relationship that follows the firm as it grows. That relationship must be transparent.

Regional teams with enough authority to act, rather than constantly referring decisions back to Cardiff. Finance that aligns with the realities of scaling, not just early-stage support or asset backed lending. Export, innovation and capability development integrated into a single growth pathway rather than treated as separate activities.

None of this is especially novel. That is precisely the point. These are the basics of economic development; understood decades ago and quietly set aside in favour of something more administratively convenient.

Recreating a delivery focused system, call it WDA 2.0 if you like, would not require reinvention. It though would require: discipline; fewer programmes; clearer missions; harder measures of success; and a willingness to stop doing things that do not work. Most of all, it would require a shift in mindset; from managing activity to driving outcomes.

That is the uncomfortable part. Structural reform is relatively straightforward. Cultural change is not. It demands political will and a tolerance for decisions that may not please everyone, particularly those invested in the current arrangements.

If the next administration chooses caution, the system will continue as it is; busy, well-intentioned and fundamentally ineffective. If it chooses to act, it will need to do so with clarity and conviction.

At first glance, there appears to be some tension in this argument. On the one hand, there is a clear case for stronger regional and local delivery, including through bodies such as CJCs (corporate joint committees that includes the Cardiff Capital Region). That is essential. But it must sit within a disciplined national framework; one that is relentlessly focused on what actually matters; business creation, survival and growth.

The same applies to consistency. The system does need greater coherence and stability in how support is offered. However, that does not mean rigidity. A practical shift is required; one that allows for structured experimentation (innovation within a 100% commercial framework) in the design and delivery of economic support programmes. This means learning from what has worked elsewhere; testing different approaches in live economic conditions; and reporting outcomes honestly and in real time, including where things fail.

That approach demands a different type of organisation. One with the imagination and confidence to act; open to new ideas; prepared to challenge its own assumptions; and grounded in commercial reality rather than administrative comfort. In that context, experimentation is not a contradiction of consistency; it is the mechanism through which genuinely consistent and effective programmes are built over time.

The name of the organisation matters less than its function, although I believe there remains value in the WDA brand some twenty years on. A single entity should be established as an operational agency; separate from government, but clearly accountable to it. It must hold authority over the principal levers of economic value creation; including Business Wales, the Development Bank of Wales the £547m Local Growth Fund for Wales, strategic land and property assets, and export and inward investment functions.

At the same time, it must remain connected to place; transparent and accountable to the Senedd; working in close alignment with local authorities, through the CJCs, a regional tier of sufficient scale to act strategically while remaining grounded in local economic realities.

Let us hope that a new administration does not default to what the system will inevitably recommend; incremental change, the status quo. The new business support system must be transparent, honest, radical, decisive and bold; everything that it has not been since 2006.

• Wil Williams is co-founder of LearnerMetrics and a former chief executive of the Alacrity Foundation.

This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Major airlines around the world have begun canceling thousands of flights and raising fares as jet fuel prices have more than doubled and physical supplies have tightened in the wake of the ongoing war in Iran and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

United Airlines became the first major U.S. carrier to announce capacity cuts, trimming about 5% of planned flights on less profitable routes. International carriers have moved more aggressively, with Scandinavian Airlines canceling around 1,000 flights in April, Air New Zealand axing 1,100 services through early May, and carriers in Vietnam and elsewhere suspending domestic routes due to fuel constraints.

The disruptions stem from the conflict that escalated in late February when U.S. and Israeli strikes targeted Iran, prompting Iranian retaliation that effectively halted most commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. The narrow waterway, which normally carries about one-fifth of global seaborne oil trade, has seen traffic reduced to a trickle amid attacks on vessels, soaring insurance costs and safety fears.

Jet fuel prices, which averaged around $2.17 per gallon in the United States before the escalation, surged past $4.57 per gallon by late March, according to the Argus U.S. Jet Fuel Index. In some Asian and European markets, prices have doubled or more, reaching record levels near $200 per barrel or higher in spot trading. The crack spread — the premium for refining jet fuel from crude — has exploded, reflecting acute shortages of the refined product rather than just higher crude costs.

“Jet fuel prices have more than doubled in the last three weeks,” United CEO Scott Kirby said in a recent statement. “If prices stayed at this level, it would mean an extra $11 billion in annual expense just for jet fuel.” Kirby noted the carrier is “tactically pruning flying that’s temporarily unprofitable” while warning of broader impacts if the situation persists.

Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary warned that if the Hormuz disruption continues into May and beyond, European airlines could face shortages of 10% to 20% of normal fuel supply by June, potentially forcing cancellation of 5% to 10% of summer flights. He said cuts would target the most constrained airports with little advance notice from suppliers.

The crisis has hit regions differently. Middle Eastern carriers such as Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad have canceled tens of thousands of flights due to airspace closures and safety concerns in addition to fuel issues. Asian airlines, heavily reliant on Middle Eastern crude refined in South Korea, China and elsewhere, have faced export restrictions and local shortages. Vietnam Airlines has suspended multiple domestic routes, while Korean Air has entered “emergency management mode.”

In Europe, the last major jet fuel shipments from the Middle East to the U.K. were expected to arrive this week, leaving airlines with limited reserves. Some Italian airports have already imposed refueling restrictions for certain operators. Lufthansa has prepared contingency plans that could include grounding portions of its fleet.

U.S. carriers benefit from greater domestic refining capacity and have so far relied more on fare increases and baggage fee hikes than widespread cancellations. JetBlue and others have raised checked baggage fees, while carriers across the board have introduced or increased fuel surcharges on international routes. Air France-KLM added €50 ($58) to long-haul tickets, and several Asian carriers have followed suit.

Aviation analytics firm Cirium reported that on one recent Monday, more than 7,000 flights — nearly 7% of the global schedule — were canceled, far above typical rates. North American departures saw cancellation rates spike to 14.6% on that day.

The International Air Transport Association had forecast a record $41 billion in net profits for the global airline industry in 2026 before the conflict. That outlook is now at serious risk as higher fuel costs coincide with potential weakening in travel demand from elevated gasoline prices and broader economic uncertainty.

Analysts describe the situation as a “perfect storm.” Longer reroutes to avoid Middle Eastern airspace burn extra fuel, compounding costs. Refineries in Asia have cut jet fuel production due to feedstock shortages, while strategic reserves are being drawn down in some countries.

Travelers are already feeling the pinch. Airfares on many routes have risen sharply, with some long-haul examples nearly tripling in price in extreme cases. Industry experts advise passengers to monitor bookings closely, consider flexible tickets and expect potential disruptions through the summer if the conflict drags on.

The war has also disrupted related supply chains. Cargo operators face higher costs and delays, while the broader energy shock has lifted diesel and gasoline prices, adding pressure on household budgets and potentially curbing discretionary travel.

Governments are responding variably. Some Asian nations have redirected fuel stocks domestically or sought emergency assistance. In the U.S., domestic production provides a buffer, but analysts warn that prolonged global tightness could still affect American carriers through higher prices and knock-on effects on international partners.

Billionaire aviation figures have sounded alarms. One Dubai-based jet tycoon warned that if the crisis lasts more than a month, the first airline bankruptcies could emerge as weaker carriers struggle with unsustainable costs.

The situation remains fluid. Diplomatic efforts continue, with some reports of signals from involved parties about willingness to de-escalate, but the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed to routine tanker traffic. Any resolution could ease pressures quickly, as shipping resumes and refineries ramp up, but a prolonged standoff risks deeper economic pain.

For now, airlines are prioritizing cash preservation. Many have shifted to shorter-haul or more fuel-efficient operations where possible and are reviewing summer schedules. Low-cost carriers, with thinner margins, face particular strain despite hedging strategies that have partially mitigated the spike for some.

Passengers planning travel are urged to check airline updates frequently, as last-minute cancellations tied to fuel availability at specific airports could occur with minimal notice. Travel insurance that covers trip interruptions is recommended.

The crisis highlights the vulnerability of global aviation to energy chokepoints. Jet fuel, derived from kerosene, requires specific refining processes, and there is limited spare capacity worldwide to quickly replace lost volumes from the Gulf.

As April unfolds, more carriers are expected to announce adjustments. United’s early move may foreshadow broader U.S. capacity reductions if prices remain elevated. Delta has indicated it could trim schedules, while others watch inventory levels closely.

The human impact extends beyond higher ticket prices. Flight crews face schedule changes, airports deal with irregular operations, and tourism-dependent economies — from Europe to Southeast Asia and Australia — brace for reduced visitor numbers.

Environmental goals may also take a backseat temporarily, as airlines prioritize operational survival over sustainability initiatives that rely on costly sustainable aviation fuel.

Industry groups like IATA have called for strengthened jet fuel resilience, including dedicated reserves and diversified sourcing. The current events underscore how concentrated supply routes create systemic risks.

With no immediate end to the conflict in sight, the aviation sector faces one of its most challenging periods in years. What began as a geopolitical confrontation has rapidly translated into higher costs and fewer flights for travelers worldwide, serving as a stark reminder of interconnected global energy markets.