The Future of Swedish Airports: A Balancing Act Between Investment and Efficiency
Swedavia, the state-owned company operating Sweden’s airports, faces a complex challenge. While embarking on significant investments to modernize and expand its facilities, particularly at Arlanda Airport’s Terminal 5, the company is grappling with the potential financial strain of maintaining Bromma Airport in Stockholm. The recent announcement by domestic airline BRA to consolidate its operations at Arlanda, moving away from Bromma, has cast a shadow over the smaller airport’s future and Swedavia’s financial stability. This transition leaves Bromma with significantly reduced revenue streams while operational costs remain largely unchanged.
The significant investment in Arlanda’s Terminal 5, a critical component of Swedavia’s modernization efforts, necessitates a strong focus on cost-effectiveness and revenue generation. Jonas Abrahamsson, Swedavia’s CEO, emphasizes the importance of maintaining an efficient airport network to support these investments. The consolidation of domestic traffic at Arlanda is seen as a necessary step towards achieving this efficiency, as Abrahamsson argues the market doesn’t justify two airports so close in proximity. However, the future of Bromma is a political decision, currently tied to the Tidö Agreement, which prevents its closure before the 2026 general election.
Swedavia urges a swift resolution to the Bromma dilemma. The company anticipates a dramatic financial impact once BRA relocates its operations, severely impacting Swedavia’s overall financial health and its ability to invest in vital infrastructure upgrades at other airports. While respecting existing political agreements, Abrahamsson stresses the need for reassessment in light of the drastically altered market dynamics. The current political stance, influenced by the Tidö Agreement supported by the Sweden Democrats, prioritizes Bromma’s perceived importance for ambulance flights and national preparedness.
Abrahamsson counters these arguments, highlighting that Bromma is not part of the state’s designated preparedness airports. This omission suggests that the state itself does not consider Bromma essential for national defense, a perspective echoed by the Swedish Armed Forces. Furthermore, Abrahamsson argues against burdening commercial airport operations with functions related to national security, suggesting a more strategic approach to resource allocation. He emphasizes that the commercial viability of the airport network, crucial for ensuring accessibility across Sweden, should not be compromised by extraneous considerations.
The financial fallout from Bromma’s declining revenue could have ripple effects across Swedavia’s operations. A weakened financial position would hinder crucial development projects at Arlanda and potentially force higher airport fees, ultimately passed on to passengers. This cost increase comes on the heels of a recent 9% rise in Swedavia’s per-passenger fee, already set to take effect in the new year. The aviation landscape has undergone significant changes post-pandemic, with Bromma operating at half its capacity, further compounding the financial challenges.
Swedavia’s long-term projections anticipate growth in international travel while domestic travel remains stagnant. This trend highlights the importance of focusing resources on expanding and improving facilities like Arlanda, which serves as the primary hub for international flights. The company manages a portfolio of airports across Sweden, including Stockholm Arlanda, Bromma Stockholm, Göteborg Landvetter, Malmö, Kiruna, Umeå, Åre Östersund, and Visby, along with overseeing commercial traffic at Luleå and Ronneby. While the total passenger count across these airports has increased by 130% compared to 2022, the growth is primarily attributed to international travel, further underscoring the need for strategic decisions regarding Bromma’s future.
