AvioRadar’s survey on the most desirable new Croatia Airlines routes received 270 responses and a total of 1,200 destination suggestions. The results reveal particularly strong interest in Portugal and Iceland, alongside numerous proposals for improving connectivity at Croatia’s smaller airports.

Where would AvioRadar readers like to fly in summer 2027? That was the question we asked in our survey dedicated to the potential development of Croatia Airlines’ route network. A total of 270 responses containing 1,200 destination suggestions were submitted, representing an average of 4.44 suggestions per response.

Participants could propose up to three destinations from each of the seven Croatian departure airports included in the survey: Zagreb, Split, Dubrovnik, Zadar, Pula, Rijeka and Osijek.

During the statistical analysis, different spellings of the same destinations were standardised, while suggestions for existing or already announced nonstop routes were excluded from the final ranking, regardless of which airline operates them. Destinations beyond the nominal range of Croatia Airlines’ current fleet, as well as suggestions where the destination airport could not be clearly identified, were also excluded.

Following this process, 810 suggestions covering 94 different airport–destination combinations remained, representing 67.5% of all submitted choices.

Portugal Takes a Clear Lead, with Iceland in Second Place

When suggestions from all seven Croatian airports are combined, Lisbon emerges as the most requested new destination, with 160 votes. Reykjavík follows in second place with 85 suggestions, while Porto ranks third with 35.

Edinburgh, Madeira and Budapest each received 30 suggestions, followed by Podgorica with 25 and Cairo with 20. Helsinki, Tenerife and Santorini also feature among the more frequently requested destinations, each receiving 15 votes.

The results become particularly interesting when the three Portuguese destinations are considered together. Lisbon, Porto and Madeira received 225 suggestions, accounting for 27.8% of all votes for new routes.

Portugal features not only among the preferred destinations of respondents proposing flights from Zagreb, but also in suggestions from other Croatian regions. Such a concentration suggests that some readers see an opportunity to improve direct connectivity with the Portuguese market.

Reykjavík presents another interesting case. Its 85 suggestions come primarily from Split and Zagreb, with particularly strong interest in restoring regular nonstop services between Split and Iceland.

Naturally, the number of suggestions should not be confused with actual market demand. A destination’s popularity among readers does not guarantee sufficient aircraft occupancy, nor does it indicate how much passengers would be willing to pay for a ticket.

Zagreb – Lisbon Far Ahead of the Competition

Unsurprisingly, Zagreb attracted the largest number of suggestions. Of the 270 survey participants, 200 included at least one destination from Zagreb, generating a total of 525 choices. After excluding existing routes and other ineligible suggestions, 385 votes remained for 34 potential new routes.

Lisbon received by far the most votes, with 90 suggestions. This represents 17.1% of all destinations submitted for Zagreb, while the Portuguese capital was listed as the first choice on as many as 70 occasions.

Reykjavík ranks second with 30 suggestions, while Edinburgh and Porto share third place with 25 each. Podgorica follows with 20, while Helsinki and Tenerife each received 15 suggestions.

The results for Zagreb are particularly interesting because of the diversity of the proposed destinations. While Lisbon, Porto and Tenerife would likely have a strong leisure component, destinations such as Podgorica, Riga, Tallinn and Chișinău raise the question of developing additional regional and connecting traffic.

For Croatia Airlines, whose network also relies on connecting Zagreb with other European hubs, transfer potential could be an important factor when evaluating potential new routes. However, their economic success would depend on flight schedules, connection quality and demand in both directions.

Split – Strong Interest in Reykjavík

Split received 125 responses containing a total of 325 destination suggestions. Of these, 160 concerned potentially feasible new routes, with Reykjavík clearly leading the ranking on 50 votes. The Icelandic destination was selected as the first choice on 40 occasions.

Lisbon ranks second with 35 suggestions, followed by Budapest with 15. Tunis, Cairo, Dubai and Madeira each received ten votes.

Interest in Reykjavík is particularly noteworthy given Split’s history of direct connectivity with Iceland. Icelandic carrier PLAY previously operated flights between Keflavík and Split, while charter services serving the Icelandic tourism market also operated during 2026.

The result can therefore be interpreted as interest in restoring regular nonstop connectivity rather than establishing an entirely new market.

Lisbon is also worth highlighting, as it ranks highly among the preferred destinations from both of Croatia’s largest airports. Introducing a route from Split would require an assessment of seasonal demand, as well as the potential to attract Portuguese travellers to Dalmatia.

It is also worth noting that certain destinations received votes despite already being served or having announced services by other carriers. Edinburgh and Porto, for example, were excluded from Split’s final ranking because flights for the 2027 season had already been announced.

Smaller Croatian Airports Seek Better International Connectivity

Although most responses focused on Zagreb and Split, the results from the five remaining airports are equally interesting.

In both Dubrovnik and Zadar, Lisbon emerged as the most requested new destination, receiving ten suggestions from each airport. Other destinations mentioned for Dubrovnik include Pisa, Porto, Madeira, Santorini and Innsbruck, while respondents proposing flights from Zadar also expressed interest in Dresden, Nice, Athens, Skopje and a domestic nonstop connection to Dubrovnik.

The results for Pula were closely balanced. Paris had a narrow lead with six suggestions, while Budapest, Skopje and Lisbon each received five, followed by Dublin with four.

In Rijeka, Budapest came first with ten votes, followed by Prague with seven, and Istanbul and Vienna with six each.

For Osijek, Stuttgart led the ranking with ten votes, followed by Nuremberg, Vienna and Paris. Interestingly, a large proportion of the other suggestions concerned German cities, including Düsseldorf, Hanover, Cologne, Memmingen and Berlin.

These results can also be viewed in the context of different passenger markets. While leisure routes naturally attract interest at Adriatic airports, Osijek’s results raise the question of better connectivity with destinations where members of the Croatian diaspora live and work.

However, particular caution is needed when interpreting the results for smaller airports. At least one destination was proposed in 15 responses for Pula, 20 for Rijeka, 25 each for Dubrovnik and Zadar, and 35 for Osijek. A difference of just a few suggestions therefore cannot provide a reliable basis for establishing market priorities.

Complete Overview of All Proposed New Routes

To ensure that no eligible suggestion is overlooked, we present the complete overview of all 94 proposed airport–destination combinations, using a provisional reconstruction of the smaller individual vote counts.*

Zagreb – 385 suggestions for 34 new routes

Lisbon (90), Reykjavík (30), Edinburgh (25), Porto (25), Podgorica (20), Helsinki (15), Tenerife (15), Cairo (10), Riga (10), Glasgow (10), Bilbao (10), Madeira (10), Tallinn (10), Manchester (7), Turin (7), Chișinău (7), Ohrid (7), Lyon (7), Antalya (6), Gdańsk (6), Hanover (6), Nice (6), Yerevan (6), Santorini (5), Ibiza (4), Venice (4), Izmir (4), Seville (4), Kraków (4), Abu Dhabi (3), Baku (3), Frankfurt-Hahn (3), Bari (3) and Tivat (3).

Split – 160 suggestions for 11 new routes

Reykjavík (50), Lisbon (35), Budapest (15), Tunis (10), Cairo (10), Dubai (10), Madeira (10), Seville (7), Larnaca (6), Florence (4) and Cagliari (3).

Dubrovnik – 35 suggestions for 6 new routes

Lisbon (10), Pisa (6), Porto (5), Madeira (5), Santorini (5) and Innsbruck (4).

Zadar – 50 suggestions for 9 new routes

Lisbon (10), Dresden (7), Nice (6), Athens (5), Porto (5), Madeira (5), Reykjavík (5), Skopje (4) and Dubrovnik (3).

Pula – 25 suggestions for 5 new routes

Paris (6), Budapest (5), Skopje (5), Lisbon (5) and Dublin (4).

Rijeka – 60 suggestions for 11 new routes

Budapest (10), Prague (7), Istanbul (6), Vienna (6), Ohrid (5), Edinburgh (5), Santorini (5), Lisbon (5), Copenhagen (4), Warsaw (4) and Madrid (3).

Osijek – 95 suggestions for 18 new routes

Stuttgart (10), Nuremberg (7), Vienna (7), Paris (7), Athens (6), Memmingen (6), Berlin (6), Basel (6), Düsseldorf (5), Podgorica (5), Lisbon (5), Cork (4), Larnaca (4), Zurich (4), Barcelona (4), Hanover (3), Cologne (3) and Frankfurt-Hahn (3).

Why Were Some Suggestions Excluded?

Of the 1,200 submitted suggestions, 295 concerned existing or already announced nonstop routes. Although some of these destinations received a considerable number of votes, they were excluded from the final ranking because the survey aimed to identify preferences for new routes rather than rank the entire existing network.

A further 65 suggestions concerned destinations beyond the nominal range of the Airbus A220 fleet. These included distant intercontinental destinations that Croatia Airlines could not regularly serve with nonstop flights without a different aircraft type or operating model.

The remaining 30 suggestions were excluded because they did not clearly identify a destination airport.

The final ranking therefore includes 810 suggestions, representing 67.5% of all submitted choices.

It should be emphasised that excluding a particular route from the statistical ranking is not an assessment of its commercial viability. An existing route, for example, may have considerable potential for additional frequencies, but that question was outside the scope of this survey.

What About Brač? Readers Contacted Our Editorial Team

In addition to responses submitted through the survey form, AvioRadar’s editorial team received emails from readers expressing disappointment that Brač Airport had not been included among the available departure airports.

They asked us to acknowledge their views when publishing the results, particularly their support for international services connecting Brač with Munich or Frankfurt, Amsterdam and London.

Their suggestions cannot be statistically included in the survey results because Brač was not an option in the original questionnaire. Nevertheless, their views certainly deserve attention.

Brač is in a rather specific position compared with Croatia’s other airports. Its runway is 1,760 metres long and 30 metres wide, while the airport is located at an elevation of approximately 541 metres above sea level.

The combination of runway length, elevation, surrounding terrain and high summer temperatures may impose limitations on the operation of larger jet aircraft. Aircraft performance must therefore be assessed individually, particularly regarding available take-off distance, payload and meteorological conditions.

Although the possibility of operating Airbus A220 aircraft at Brač has previously been considered, technical feasibility does not automatically mean that all proposed routes could be operated without restrictions.

Commercial viability presents an additional challenge. Brač is a strongly seasonal tourist destination with a relatively small local market, meaning that scheduled services to major European hubs would depend heavily on sufficient leisure demand in both directions.

Smaller turboprop aircraft could offer a more suitable solution for certain seasonal routes. However, with Croatia Airlines increasingly relying on its new A220 fleet and using additional turboprop capacity through contractual arrangements, the availability of such aircraft for new services cannot be taken for granted.

That does not mean Brač should be excluded from future route development. On the contrary, its tourism potential and geographical position justify a separate discussion about improving international connectivity, including seasonal scheduled flights, charter operations and cooperation with the tourism industry.

The suggestions submitted by our readers could provide a useful starting point for such a discussion.

The New Fleet Creates Opportunities, but Does Not Guarantee New Routes

Croatia Airlines plans to complete its fleet renewal during 2027, with the fleet expected to consist of 15 Airbus A220 aircraft. This will include 13 A220-300s with 149 seats and two A220-100s with 127 seats.

The new fleet offers greater range and more efficient operations compared with some of the aircraft it replaces, opening opportunities for the national carrier to consider new destinations across Europe, North Africa and parts of the Middle East.

Nevertheless, aircraft range alone is not sufficient justification for introducing a new route. Croatia Airlines must consider aircraft availability, demand patterns, seasonality, operating costs, airport slots and the possibility of connecting flights through Zagreb.

Aircraft size is another important consideration. An Airbus A220-300 with 149 seats can be highly efficient on a route with sufficient demand, but may not necessarily be the most suitable aircraft for a smaller regional market where a service could be commercially sustainable with significantly less capacity.

It would therefore be unreasonable to consider every suggestion on the list equally realistic. Some destinations might be suitable for two or three weekly flights during the summer months, while others would require year-round demand or enough connecting passengers to remain viable.

The survey results should consequently not be interpreted as a prediction of Croatia Airlines’ future schedule, but rather as an insight into the preferences of part of the aviation community.

What Do the Results Actually Tell Us?

Although this voluntary survey does not allow conclusions to be drawn about the entire Croatian passenger market, several patterns stand out.

The first is the remarkable popularity of Portugal, particularly Lisbon, which appears among the leading suggestions from several Croatian airports.

The second is the interest in Reykjavík, especially from Split, where restoring regular nonstop connectivity with Iceland would clearly be welcomed by some readers.

The third is the desire for a more diverse route network from regional airports. Suggestions from Osijek, Rijeka, Pula, Zadar and Dubrovnik demonstrate that passengers’ aspirations are not limited to Croatia’s largest airports.

Finally, the results raise the question of how far Croatia Airlines could use its new fleet to diversify its route network rather than simply replace existing capacity.

Whether any of the proposed routes eventually become reality will depend on future flight schedules. What is already clear, however, is that AvioRadar readers have expressed an interest in expanding the national carrier’s network towards markets that remain underrepresented in the current offering of nonstop services.

We would like to thank all our readers who participated in the survey and submitted their suggestions.

This survey is an independent initiative by AvioRadar and is not affiliated with Croatia Airlines. Its results do not represent the national airline’s official plans.