Response to interpellation 2022/23:50 on the future of Bromma Airport
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the future of Bromma Airport. KD considers that the airport should be preserved as it is important for accessibility, the business community, socially important transports such as ambulance flights 1 2 3 and can serve as a pilot for fossil-free aviation 2 3. KD argues that it is irresponsible to phase it out now 3 4. S argues that the airport lacks development potential, is not profitable and costs taxpayers large sums 5 6. S wants to prioritize Arlanda and argues that phasing it out enables 30,000 homes 5 7 6. MP considers that the airport is obsolete and blocks housing construction 8 9. MP wants to consolidate flight operations to Arlanda 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Kadir Kasirga has asked me if I intend to accommodate the City of Stockholm's plans to build a new district at Bromma Airport and work to renegotiate the agreement between Swedavia and the City of Stockholm to facilitate the construction of new housing. Kadir Kasirga has also asked me if I consider it commercially justified to operate a business that reduces its market share and, if that is not the case, what measures I intend to take.
The pandemic affected travel dramatically, and air travel decreased sharply. In recent times, however, there has been a marked increase in air travel. According to the latest traffic statistics from Swedavia, the number of passengers at Swedavia's airports amounts to 77 percent of the 2019 levels, and the number of destinations has recovered to 80 percent. We are, however, in an uncertain economic and global situation where the future prospects are difficult to assess. In Transportstyrelsen's latest forecast, air traffic is judged to be almost back to the same levels as before the pandemic in 2028.
For me and the government, it is important to be able to give clear and distinct messages regarding what applies to the future of Bromma Airport. This is essential for the aviation industry, regions and municipalities that are dependent on good accessibility to and from the Stockholm area and, not least, to provide Swedavia with clear planning conditions.
As Kadir Kasirga correctly points out, the government notes in the budget bill for 2023 that Bromma Airport shall be preserved. Against that background, it is therefore not relevant for me to take the initiative to renegotiate the 2007 agreement that exists between Swedavia and the City of Stockholm regarding the lease of the Bromma Airport area.
As I just mentioned, air travel is increasing significantly after the pandemic. Swedavia has the mission to conduct airport operations at the ten airports included in the national base supply of airports decided by the government. Furthermore, the company is tasked with actively participating in the development of the transport sector within the framework of business viability and contributing to the achievement of the transport policy goals decided by the Riksdag.
It is Swedavia's board and management that are responsible for the company's organization and the ongoing management of the operational activities within the framework of the articles of association.
Kadir Kasirga (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for the answer to my interpellation, but in the name of honesty, it is not much of an answer.
Bromma Airport was inaugurated in the spring of 1936 and functioned as Sweden's main airport for civil aviation until Arlanda was inaugurated in 1962. It is also important to add that Swedavia, that is to say the state, today leases the land from the City of Stockholm with heavily subsidized rent.
Madam Speaker! The question of Bromma Airport's future has been discussed many times in this chamber. During the previous parliamentary term, several reports and investigations were presented, not only from the state side but also from the business community, stating that Bromma Airport should be decommissioned. Investigations and reports from the state side have justified their conclusions by stating that it is no longer profitable to operate Bromma Airport. The Bromma investigation also established that it is possible to carry out a decommissioning as early as before 2038.
Bromma Airport lacks development potential and costs taxpayers several hundred million kronor per year in direct and indirect subsidies. We believe that Arlanda Airport must be prioritized and strengthened as a national hub for aviation in Sweden.
Madam Speaker! Arlanda Airport is today strongly threatened by Kastrup as Scandinavia's future airport. A weakened Arlanda also means fewer direct flights and more connecting flights, which increases the environmental impact for those of us who travel in the future.
I also want to inform the minister that at Kastrup in Copenhagen, people are acting today so that Bromma airport shall remain. Today, it is Denmark that is most pleased with the right-conservative government's decision to preserve Bromma airport.
Why insist on running an operation that is not profitable when there is an opportunity to build a climate-smart oasis, district, with up to 30,000 homes, preschools, schools and workplaces here in the Stockholm region, in the City of Stockholm?
I repeat my question: Will the Minister take the initiative for a meeting with the City of Stockholm to discuss the conditions for gaining access to the land earlier than 2038?
Daniel Helldén (MP)
Madam Speaker! We have now heard the Minister for Infrastructure explain his view on Bromma Airport. Yes, flying is increasing. The corona pandemic has ceased, but aviation is strongly affected by what has happened. Structural changes mean that flying will not return to the same levels, and this applies primarily to the business aviation that is Bromma's foundation. Not even the Transport Agency's analyses show that we will return to the levels before the corona pandemic.
Why do the minister and the government insist on Bromma as an airport? The closure of Bromma airport does not depend on whether there is a corona pandemic or not. It stands on its own. In conflict with all analyses regarding Bromma's future, Swedavia's needs, and Arlanda's development, the government declares in its budget that Bromma shall remain as an airport. This is done completely without basis or analysis and completely in conflict with how a serious government should act in this area.
The government acts in the same way as in other infrastructure areas, that is, makes decisions without grounds mostly to sink good policy, not because it is wrong but because one can do it.
The government scraps new main lines, removes the reduction obligation, removes the bonus for electric cars, tears up a revolutionary travel deduction, which they themselves were involved in making decisions about just before the summer, and chokes off the expansion of wind power. All this happens without any consequence analyses or ideas on how to handle the effects to meet the climate and environmental goals. The government does say that they will meet the goals, but they do not know how.
Madam Speaker! It is the same with Bromma Airport. Without any basis, it is said that the airport shall remain. It is an obsolete airport that has done its job. This is being done without blinking. One also blocks an enormous amount of housing. In that case, the Minister is also the Minister for Housing. He is a minister whom we would reasonably expect to safeguard housing construction for those in need of housing. But Andreas Carlson obviously safeguards an obsolete airport more than housing for those seeking housing.
The municipalities have a responsibility for housing supply, so does the City of Stockholm. According to the municipality's planning, Bromma is an urban development area. The area is included in the plan to meet the city's housing supply. An enormous housing resource currently lies idle and is waiting to become part of Stockholm's housing market. The housing minister clearly wants to deny Stockholm this, without a sensible reason or analysis, and in fact in conflict with all the analyses that have been conducted on the area.
Madam Speaker! How can the Minister for Housing stand for this, that is to say, blocking tens of thousands of homes for upwards of 100,000 housing seekers completely without basis? It should be more reasonable that a Minister for Housing stands for housing, closes an airport that has done its job and takes responsibility for the country.
TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN
I must remind you that this was not an interpellation regarding housing issues, but this was an interpellation regarding the future of Bromma Airport.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I welcome housing debates in the Swedish Riksdag. I have several scheduled, which I can inform the debaters about.
Now I shall provide answers to some of the questions concerning Bromma Airport, which the interpellation is about.
The airport lacks development potential, said Member Kasirga. That is not quite correct. Swedavia states in its referral response to Peter Norman's Arland investigation that Bromma could function perfectly as a pilot for future fossil-free aviation. There are opportunities for Bromma given the development that is occurring very rapidly in the aviation sector. Development is occurring in the form of biofuels in aircraft engines, which can significantly reduce emissions. The industry's own assessment is that we will have completely fossil-free aviation within a few years - 2030. Heart Aerospace, an exciting Swedish company, is investing heavily in electrified air transport. They are far ahead in their work and will have domestic flights in the air, according to their own assessment, in 2028. I believe this will shift the focus in the entire aviation debate. Aviation will be a very important and useful means of transport for our entire country.
Bromma Airport is of great importance for the accessibility of the Stockholm area but perhaps above all for the rest of the country, which means that the airport is important for, for example, the business sector and entrepreneurship.
Bromma Airport also has an important role in ensuring that socially important flights of various kinds, for example ambulance flights and fire and rescue flights, can be carried out quickly and efficiently at any time of the day.
I can highlight the uncertainty in our global situation as an important reason to keep Bromma Airport and to have several airports that are active, functioning, and kept running around our capital.
The Speaker Kasirga highlighted Arlanda and said that we should weaken Arlanda. No one has any ambition to weaken Arlanda, on the contrary. We need to develop Arlanda. There is an investigation on the government's desk, the Arlanda investigation. It is being prepared in the Government Offices. Peter Norman also has another assignment that will be handed over to the government in the near future, namely the airport investigation. We will return with various additional measures for how we should develop aviation in line with the transition within the aviation sector, which is now happening rapidly.
I know that many today use aviation as an important means of transport. One can many times do so with a good conscience considering that it is an important means of transport whose emissions are also decreasing. The reasons to do it with an even better conscience will increase as the emissions decrease, and then I believe the need will be great for more airports around our capital. That is the reason for, and it is the analysis that lies behind, that Bromma Airport needs to be developed and, above all, preserved and not decommissioned.
Will I take the initiative for meetings with the aim that the agreement can be concluded earlier than 2038? No, I will not do that. I am happy to have various meetings with dialogue, but the government will not take any initiatives to decommission Bromma Airport. That is my message.
Kadir Kasirga (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the honest answers. It is of course important to be clear in politics, also regionally towards those who work in the city of Stockholm.
Now the Minister says that he has no intentions to initiate any dialogue to, for example, make the airport land in Bromma available for early residential construction.
Madam Speaker! It is true that the Bromma investigation writes that Bromma Airport could be a hub for fossil-free aviation. At the same time, it is written, and there are other instances that also write, that it could also be moved to Arlanda. Arlanda does have capacity. We need to do much more.
When it comes to the business community, it is the case that the business community is unanimous on this, at least here in Stockholm. The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce has said that they think one should decommission Bromma Airport and invest in developing Arlanda Airport. It is Arlanda Airport that should be the window for Sweden to the rest of the world.
Madam Speaker! I know that this is not a housing policy debate. But Bromma Airport is also connected to housing policy, because more housing is also needed in Stockholm. Today, over 700,000 people are in the queue at the housing agency to get a home in Stockholm, and over 90,000 of these people in the queue are actively seeking a home. The housing shortage is also a difficulty and a major challenge for the business sector and the companies in the Stockholm region that want to recruit new staff and expand.
It is important to remember that 41 percent of Sweden's growth takes place in the Stockholm region. Access to housing and housing construction in Stockholm in general is of great national importance. Closing Bromma Airport and moving the flights to Arlanda would enable an addition of 30,000 homes on the airport land.
Concentrating aviation at Arlanda, where we are investing to be able to meet the entire country's needs for both domestic and international flights, also benefits our regional airports. Such an investment also enables decisions for more and better transports to and from Arlanda.
A decommissioning of Bromma Airport would thus enable a development of Arlanda Airport, Madam Speaker, and that is the future. Political prestige must not be a reason to keep an unprofitable airport alive. For me, it is incomprehensible that the right-conservative government subsidizes an airport that is no longer profitable.
Daniel Helldén (MP)
Madam Speaker! The interpellor Kadir Kasirga asks about the possibility of helping to secure housing in Bromma and therefore closing the airport. Therefore, I think it is relevant to discuss that question. Just as the interpellor says, this is a question of housing supply and the need for an airport.
Now the Minister says that Bromma is well-suited as a pilot airport for biofuels and possibly electric aviation or something of the sort. Biofuels can be put into any aircraft, it is mostly a question of cost, and that can be done at Arlanda. You do not need Bromma for that.
All the investigations talk about the other aviation that exists there. It is possible to move it over, and these investigations have shown that. Instead, the minister says there is a referral response from an instance that says something and has an idea about it. But there are three, four, five investigations that say that the airport can be closed. It is entirely possible, and it has nothing to do with corona. But corona has helped in that context because the flying has gone down so much, so we can in principle close Bromma now. It is entirely possible.
Regarding the electric aviation that the Minister highlights, it is a hybrid aircraft that we do not even know if exists. There is not even a prototype in this context.
It is also interesting regarding the aviation in Stockholm that by [keeping] Bromma, one splits the airport operations. By moving everything over to Arlanda, we get a consolidation. It is better for Swedish aviation, the aviation that we actually need. It is also central, but those analyses do not exist at all. It is more that this government wants to keep Bromma airport just to keep Bromma airport, not because there is any other reason.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I have indeed, as one has heard if one has listened carefully to this debate, put forward a number of reasons why Bromma Airport has an important role - potentially also in the future, seen from the technical development that is occurring and which is important to enable the green transition that we need in order to be able to reach the goals that we agree that we shall reach when it comes to reducing emissions, not least in the transport sector, where aviation accounts for a large part.
I see great development opportunities given what is actually already happening within the electrification of aviation. I believe that it will be able to change travel habits and travel patterns and also make aviation one of the most environmentally friendly modes of transport in our sparsely populated country with long distances.
Bromma will be able to be an important part of that mix. It is therefore important not to phase out Bromma based on political prestige, to use Kasirga's words, but to see the reality based on the development that is occurring. It is therefore that we see that Bromma should be preserved and not phased out.
Bromma was in 2019, before the pandemic, Sweden's third largest airport with just under 2.4 million passengers. Only Arlanda and Landvetter were larger. Bromma is a distinct domestic airport, and that is why Bromma is so appreciated and important for many who live in different parts of the country and travel into Stockholm. There is, however, also international traffic, primarily to Brussels.
BRA, which dominates at Bromma, has, following its reconstruction, gradually restarted domestic traffic at Bromma. There is also taxi and business aviation activity. Bromma also has significance, as I mentioned in my interpellation answer, for socially important aviation. For example, Bromma Air Maintenance AB, BAM, delivers maintenance services for aircraft and helicopters with both public and private customers within ambulance flights, business flights, and scheduled flights. BAM performs maintenance on virtually all ambulance aircraft in Sweden and Norway. They also have their own design department that develops special solutions for, for example, ambulance installations and surveillance equipment for coast guard aircraft.
We have made the assessment, based on the situation we have in the global environment, that it is important not to decommission Bromma in this situation. We will, of course, also return with other measures to develop aviation based on the opportunities provided, given the very rapid technological development, once the airport investigation has been presented.
This does not mean in any way that Arlanda does not need to be developed. As I said earlier, there is on the contrary potential in both of these for Sweden's important airports.
I do not think this should be seen as a matter of prestige. One cannot back out into the future. I also do not think it should be seen as completely binary. For example, electrified aircraft will have a completely different opportunity for development at Bromma Airport when noise is reduced. In a future, there may be other types of requirements that would make it irresponsible to decommission Bromma Airport at this stage. Only in a few years can we have a completely different situation in the aviation sector and a completely different demand for climate-smart, environmentally friendly travel by plane. There, Bromma can be an important part.
It is from that analysis that the government is not now moving forward with decommissioning Bromma but has a different political direction. We want to preserve Bromma.
Kadir Kasirga (S)
Madam Speaker! I am pleased that we are at least in agreement that Arlanda Airport is important and that we need to invest in and develop it so that it can compete with Kastrup.
The Minister for Infrastructure has started this mandate period by first stopping investments in main lines and then stopping the decommissioning of Bromma Airport - this in defiance of the government inquiries Brommautredningen and Arlandautredningen and all reports from, for example, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce which point out that Bromma Airport is no longer profitable for the state. It then becomes incomprehensible that the government continues to insist on pumping in millions of kronor to keep a dying airport alive.
When it comes to socially important flight operations, such operations can actually also be moved to Arlanda Airport. The investigations have also established this.
Madam Speaker! Swedavia has reported that they do not believe Bromma Airport will return to the same level as before. The question then becomes: Why not manage our tax money in a responsible way and invest in the future? Why not make it possible for the land at Bromma Airport to be used for more housing for the people of Stockholm and for the Swedes who will move to Stockholm at some point in time?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question that gave rise to the interesting conversation we have had here in the chamber this evening. I am happy to continue a dialogue on important infrastructure issues, as well as housing policy issues.
But it is also important to see this in a slightly larger context. Just as I have touched upon, this is an important airport for the whole of Sweden to function, so that one can travel smoothly into Stockholm from other parts of the country. That is why Bromma Airport is an appreciated airport in many of the towns and in the cities where one today has a connection to Stockholm via Bromma.
We believe that it is important to preserve Bromma for the reasons I have already stated in the debate. It is also important for the government to give clear and distinct messages regarding what applies to Bromma's future. We have already done that, and I have repeated the messages tonight. The government also states in the budget for 2023 that Bromma shall be preserved. Against that background, it is not relevant to take the initiative to renegotiate the agreement.
Madam Speaker! I am, however, as I said, happy to engage in a dialogue with different parties about how we can develop both the specific airport that we have talked about tonight and aviation in general, how we can embrace and, through political decisions, enable the technological development that allows us to strengthen Swedish competitiveness while simultaneously accelerating the green transition. We must think long-term in various potential decommissioning decisions or preservation decisions, and it is from that aspect that the government has concluded that it would be unwise to decommission Bromma at this stage. We want to preserve Bromma instead.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.