"Swedavia's statements are deeply problematic"

When state-owned Swedavia lowers charges at Arlanda while sharply increasing them at Bromma, it is difficult to see how this contributes to fair competition. Even more remarkable is that Swedavia’s own management is simultaneously speaking about Bromma’s future as though the airport’s fate had already been decided. Who should really decide where people want to fly: travellers or the state-owned airport company?

From 1 January 2027, Swedavia will introduce a new charging model with major consequences for airlines and competition within Swedish domestic aviation.

At Arlanda, the passenger charge will be reduced from SEK 91 to SEK 81. At Bromma, the same charge will be increased from SEK 128 to SEK 154. This means that the passenger charge at Bromma will be 90 per cent higher than at Arlanda.

In addition, Swedavia is introducing a new Hub Incentive programme at Arlanda, under which airlines meeting certain conditions can receive an average additional discount of 40 per cent on passenger and landing charges. No equivalent discount is offered at Bromma. As a result, the already substantial difference in charges risks increasing even further. How can a state-owned airport company justify this?

This comes as Swedavia says it wants to stimulate domestic air travel in Sweden. 

Why should a state-owned airport company actively create financial advantages for traffic to one Stockholm airport while worsening the conditions for traffic to the other? 

The state's role cannot be to pick winners 

We fully understand Arlanda's importance as an international hub. Sweden needs a well-functioning major airport with good connections to the rest of the world. 

But one does not have to exclude the other. 

Bromma serves a different purpose. It is a city-centre airport offering fast and efficient journeys, particularly for business travellers and people who need to travel between Stockholm and the country's regions. 

For many travellers, it is not the number of international connections that determines which airport they prefer. It is the total travel time, accessibility and how easy it is to get from door to door. 

This is precisely where Bromma's strength lies.

We meet travellers who actively request Bromma as an alternative to Arlanda. That demand should be taken seriously and given the opportunity to develop on commercial terms. 

It is important to emphasise that we welcome competition and customers’ ability to choose between Arlanda and Bromma from our airports. This creates more departures, more passengers and, consequently, increased revenue for the airports.

Swedavia’s fee model risks making it more difficult for airlines to offer the alternative that these customers demand.

Swedavia’s own remit must also apply to Bromma

Swedavia itself describes its remit as operating and developing the airports in the national core network and contributing to improved accessibility for Sweden and its regions. The company also states that its operations are to be evaluated on the basis of, among other things, accessibility and how the transport system functions for citizens and businesses.

In Swedavia’s own organisational description, Bromma is also listed among the international airports, while Malmö and Visby are classified as regional airports. Regardless of organisational classification, the question remains the same: how does the remit to operate and develop airports align with a fee model that makes it more difficult to compete at Bromma, and public statements discouraging airlines from investing there?

This is not about every airport having identical charges. Differences may have legitimate cost-related explanations. But when the same state-owned company both decides the terms and speaks in favour of traffic being moved from one of its own airports to another, particular transparency is required. There is a clear line somewhere between developing an airport system and actively making competition more difficult for operators at Bromma.

Remarkable statements from Swedavia’s management

In an article in Travel News on 2 November, Swedavia’s commercial director describes Bromma as an airport living on borrowed time.

When asked what he would like to say to the companies operating at Bromma, his answer is that they should come to Arlanda and help build a strong hub.

We find these statements deeply problematic.

Swedavia is a state-owned company responsible for both Arlanda and Bromma. The company’s representatives should therefore be particularly aware of the signal their statements send to airlines, investors, businesses and travellers.

How can an airline dare to invest in new routes, marketing and long-term customer relationships at Bromma if the airport’s own operator publicly signals that its future has already been determined? As far as we are aware, 2038 remains the date applicable to any potential closure, and the owners have communicated nothing else.

Such statements risk creating precisely the uncertainty that is then used as an argument that the airport has no future.

This is a development we cannot accept without questioning it.

Swedish domestic aviation needs more alternatives, not fewer

Swedish domestic aviation has gone through a very difficult period. Since 2019, passenger volumes have declined sharply. Several regions have experienced reduced accessibility, and airlines have struggled with weak profitability.

In this situation, the focus should be on creating conditions for new routes, more passengers and increased competition.

We represent three companies that believe in Swedish regional aviation and in Bromma’s potential, that competition is good and that more operators bring more passengers to and from Stockholm.

We invest time, capital and resources to create services demanded by both private individuals and businesses. We do so in the conviction that a functioning domestic aviation sector is important for Sweden’s accessibility and competitiveness as a whole.

It is difficult to understand why Swedavia claims, on the one hand, that it wants to strengthen domestic aviation, while, on the other, introducing fee changes that risk worsening the competitive conditions for airlines that choose Bromma.

At the same time, we would like to emphasise that Swedavia’s general incentive programmes, which are offered to airlines on equal and transparent terms, are both positive and important for the development of aviation. Such programmes can encourage new entrants, increase traffic and contribute to better accessibility. It is therefore not the incentives themselves that we question, but rather when specific financial advantages are directed towards Arlanda while conditions deteriorate for operators at Bromma. Stimulating air traffic is good. Risking distortion of competition between two state-operated airports is something entirely different.

Let travellers and the market decide

If Swedavia wants to stimulate domestic traffic through financial incentives, it should also be able to explain why equivalent opportunities are not offered to airlines operating at Bromma.

We therefore want Swedavia to openly disclose how it has analysed the effects of the fee changes on competition between Arlanda and Bromma.

We also want to see a clear explanation of how the company’s responsibility as an airport operator is compatible with statements that, in practice, encourage airlines to leave one of the airports for which it is itself responsible.

This must also become a matter for the government and the responsible minister. As owner, the state needs to clarify whether Swedavia’s actions are in line with the company’s remit and transport policy objectives. We call for a public account of the competition analysis and a clear statement of the conditions that should apply to companies wishing to develop services at Bromma.

Finally, we believe that the owner, the Swedish state, needs to ensure that Swedavia’s actions are compatible with the objective of good accessibility and well-functioning competition within Swedish aviation.

Bromma’s future must not be decided through a combination of increased charges, selective discounts and statements that undermine confidence in the airport.

It should be decided through open political decisions, transparent conditions and a serious assessment of the needs of travellers and businesses.

We believe in Bromma. We believe in competition. And we believe that Sweden needs domestic aviation in which travellers’ needs carry greater weight than a state-owned company’s desire to concentrate traffic at a single airport.

Jens Harrysson, commercial director, Skåne Aviation
Henrik Svensson, CEO, Brommaflyg  
Anna Petre, CEO, Västflyg