Response to interpellation 2023/24:518 on Bromma Airport and its impact on Arlanda
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that Bromma Airport should be preserved as it is important for the business community, accessibility, and competition. KD argues that the airport can become a transition hub for electric aviation and that its preservation is necessary for redundancy and security policy reasons 1. KD emphasizes that one should not get rid of infrastructure due to short-term pandemic effects 1. KD considers that electric aviation is expected to be in operational service within five years and that the development is moving fast 2. KD argues that it is about sustainable aviation in general 2. S considers that Bromma is a financially unprofitable operation that should be phased out to free up land for housing construction 3 4. S suggests that one should invest in Arlanda and introduce differentiated landing fees 5.
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! [The member] has asked me a number of questions regarding Bromma Airport and its impact on Arlanda Airport.
The government established a national base supply of ten airports in 2009. Both Arlanda Airport and Bromma Airport are included in the base supply.
The Government has since taking office been very clear that Bromma Airport shall be preserved. As I mentioned in a question answer on March 15, 2023, Bromma Airport is of great importance for accessibility to both the Stockholm area and the rest of the country, which means that the airport is important for, among other things, the business sector and entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the airport can contribute to increased competition in the aviation market and create a larger route offering with more transport options.
As I also mentioned in my answer to the question, the government sees that Bromma Airport could become a transition hub for green aviation. In the future, electric aviation will contribute significant benefits in the form of the increased accessibility that the new technology can provide. Electric aviation also enables the establishment of new so-called point-to-point flight routes in Sweden, that is, direct lines between, for example, smaller, regional airports around the country. I see that even Bromma Airport can come to be of great importance in the establishment of such new flight routes. An increased use of electric aircraft and hybrid planes will also lead to significantly reduced emissions.
Swedavia AB has the mandate to operate and develop Bromma Airport, as well as the other nine airports in the national base supply. Swedavia shall furthermore, according to its articles of association and within the framework of business principles, actively participate in the development of the transport sector and contribute to the achievement of the transport policy goals decided by the Riksdag.
When it comes to Stockholm Municipality's plans for how they want to use the land where Bromma Airport is located, I have no reason to comment on that. The municipalities have, through the planning monopoly, the greatest responsibility for physical planning in Sweden.
The government is working for increased housing construction through measures to increase the availability of buildable land, simplify building regulations, shorten lead times in the planning and building process, and improve the opportunities for home ownership. These priorities are structurally motivated and independent of how the airports in the Stockholm area are developed.
Kadir Kasirga (S)
Madam Speaker! We are talking about an airport that, after the pandemic, is only utilized to half of its capacity. It is an operation that finds itself in limbo. It is burdened by financial unprofitability and abandoned by airlines that would rather move to Arlanda.
The State leases Bromma Airport from the City of Stockholm at a subsidized cost. In defiance of investigations and reports from both the state level and the business community, we are throwing tax money at an airport that fails to recover. Arlanda has regained 85 percent of its passengers. Bromma has only regained half.
In today's DN, there is an article where Andreas Hatzigeorgiou, CEO of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, is interviewed. He also wonders why the government is investing in a sinking ship, which Bromma Airport actually is, and recommends that one should invest in Arlanda instead. Wouldn't it be better to invest in Arlanda and at the same time free up land for housing construction and a new district in the city of Stockholm?
Madam Speaker! We are debating an airport whose status is wavering. There are investigations stating that socially important flight operations can be moved to Arlanda. Some airlines have already chosen to move from Bromma Airport, and more have expressed interest in doing the same. Bromma Airport is no longer a viable business, but the government and Minister Andreas Carlson can save the situation and create something positive from this. The government can, together with the City of Stockholm, open the land for residential construction and contribute to alleviating the housing shortage in Stockholm.
I feel a need to remind the Minister Andreas Carlson that Stockholm accounts for 41 percent of Sweden's growth. Therefore, access to housing and housing construction in Stockholm is of great national importance. People come here from all corners of Sweden. We need to create housing for these people and housing for the future.
We cannot turn a blind eye to the facts. We cannot wiggle out with evasive answers. Why does the government insist on running an operation that is no longer profitable when we can create a climate-smart oasis - a district with up to 22,000 homes?
We need to act now. We need to invest in Arlanda and develop and strengthen Arlanda as a strong national hub for aviation in Sweden. We also need to see Bromma Airport for what it is: a fallen star that can be transformed into something better. This is an opportunity to build a stronger future for the people of Stockholm and for Sweden.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I intended to avoid evasive answers, as the member spoke about in his speech.
We have not given any evasive answer. We have given a very clear answer: Bromma Airport shall remain.
The investigation that Peter Norman presented pointed out that Bromma could be a hub for electric aviation. In my interpellation answer, I said that I see great potential in Bromma when it comes to the development occurring with the transition of aviation. There are various studies and sketches on how, with future travel in the air – with drones and electric aviation and with more vertical landing – one could combine this type of airport with the construction of more housing. I think this should be taken into account when approaching the question of Bromma airport.
The reasoning that Kadir Kasirga presents here is quite short-sighted, Madam Speaker. The member said that one should see Bromma for what it is, but I think that in the security policy situation we find ourselves in, we also need to see Bromma for what it can be. We cannot get rid of socially important infrastructure solely because of how things look today in the wake of a pandemic. We need to think further, so that in 10, 20, or 30 years we are not standing there saying that we did not see it coming. This applies, for example, to the need for redundancy in air traffic around our capital.
For these reasons, and due to the importance of aviation for the needs of the rescue services, healthcare, and defense, it is important to be cautious and take responsibility for the infrastructure we have today. Bromma is an airport that will soon have had air traffic for 100 years. If one were to get rid of this in one fell swoop, it is quite difficult to restore this type of land. I imagine that, furthermore, a considerable amount of remediation efforts will be required. It will not be possible to build housing on this specific site in the near future; if so, it is a long-term issue.
In the long term, one also needs to consider the security policy situation. Our Natointräde will place greater demands on our infrastructure, and this also includes our airports.
The background to the government and the coalition parties having concluded that Bromma Airport shall be preserved and that decisions to decommission it will not be made during this mandate period is an analysis that takes into account the security policy situation, the transition of aviation, and the need for accessibility - not only in the Stockholm region but also for the whole of Sweden to function. Bromma is an important airport for the business sector in other parts of the country.
This does not exclude in any way investments in Arlanda Airport. The Government has appointed an Arlanda coordinator who has a more operational mandate than a regular investigator, if I may put it that way, which concerns strengthening Arlanda's competitiveness. In parallel with this, we are working to strengthen the competitiveness of aviation so that aviation can recover after the pandemic.
We see a positive future for aviation. In this situation, we shall not get rid of an airport due to short-term thinking, but instead plan to have a redundant and sustainable airport system around our capital even in the future. This is not an evasive answer, Madam Speaker.
Kadir Kasirga (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
I noted that the Minister stated that Bromma Airport could become a transition hub for green aviation. I want to clarify that we Social Democrats are technology optimists and view the development of electric aviation positively, but there is nothing that says electric aviation needs to be locked to Bromma Airport. In addition to Arlanda, there are other airports, for example Skavsta, which could become a transition hub given the proximity to the Stockholm region.
Speaking of the security situation, the Armed Forces, I assure you, have not pointed out Bromma Airport. There is an airport investigation where the Armed Forces have specifically pointed out certain airports that are important.
Madam Speaker! I asked four questions to the Minister, and I expected him to answer them in detail. I think, however, that the Minister has avoided answering the questions, especially when it concerns how Bromma Airport contributes to the development of Arlanda.
There are previous investigations, both from the state and from the business sector, which establish that Bromma Airport is no longer profitable. Stockholm Chamber of Commerce writes that one could save 44 billion kronor by closing Bromma Airport. Jacob Wallenberg says that it serves Sweden better to close Bromma Airport, invest in Arlanda and build housing on Bromma Airport's land.
Madam Speaker! It is better to make investments in aviation's climate transition at airports that will not be decommissioned within a foreseeable future. The City of Stockholm is clear. They have made decisions to terminate the agreement with Swedavia. Should I interpret the Minister's words as that the government will not respect Stockholm's will to build new housing on the land where the airport is located today?
Increased environmental and climate ambitions for the aviation industry are about state policy measures, not about where an individual airport is located. My and the Social Democrats' proposal to the minister is that instead, action should be taken to reward aviation with lower climate impact, for example by introducing differentiated take-off and landing fees at airports such as Arlanda and Landvetter.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Kadir Kasirga for his commitment, for seeing the development positively and for providing constructive proposals that promote both the aviation industry's competitiveness and the transition.
I also wish to regret that it was, for the most part, eight lost years when the member's own party, the Socialdemokraterna, together with the government partner Miljöpartiet, laid a wet blanket over the development of aviation. There were also voices that sought to almost blame air travelers with the so-called flight shame.
Eight years of active opposition to aviation, together with the pandemic, paved the way for the situation we have today. The pandemic was of course negative and affected not only aviation but large parts of our society. But the recovery for aviation, not least domestic flights, is still ongoing.
Of course, no airports become competitive without passengers. It is positive that Kadir Kasirga says in the chamber today that he views the development of aviation's transition positively. I would welcome a continued dialogue on this, so that we can achieve a long-term perspective for aviation. It is one of the types of transport that is completely indispensable for a functioning, sustainable, and accessible transport system in our elongated country.
In this context, the public sector of course contributes. I am sometimes in municipalities that safeguard the regional and local airport while it is recommended in travel policies to refrain from flying. I can inform the Chamber that the Government Offices have changed its travel policy so that it is now travel-mode neutral.
Municipal and regional representatives who advocate for their regional airports can, of course, be involved and contribute to prioritizing sustainable aviation. There is already a possibility today to purchase biofuel. It is an issue where I hope that our parties can contribute. One can encourage individuals, companies, and the public sector with municipalities to highlight the social sustainability that aviation makes possible.
Skellefteå is an example in that context. There, it is made possible today for municipal employees to travel in a sustainable way by using the opportunities that exist to prioritize sustainable aviation. The development is indeed going in that direction.
Using calculations for the aviation statistics for Bromma Airport right now, in the wake of a pandemic and when we stand on the edge of a breakthrough, I mean is all too short-sighted. I believe that strengthened competitiveness for aviation and air transport ensures that both Bromma and Arlanda can be competitive even in the future. The government's work to strengthen Arlanda's competitiveness is, of course, seen together with our announcement that Bromma Airport can also have an important role in the airport infrastructure. There is, as I see it, no contradiction.
I hope that we can put the old conflict between different levels of the public sector and between different parties behind us and instead focus on the overarching issue: strengthening aviation's competitiveness. There is great potential for increased travel as it also becomes an increasingly sustainable alternative. It would be interesting to hear Kadir Kasirga elaborate on how he views the development of aviation also in the long term.
Kadir Kasirga (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister Andreas Carlson for the answer and the reflections.
We Social Democrats do not pit the transport laws against each other. We have not been the driving force when it comes to the "flight shame" etiquette. Travel by domestic flights actually began to decrease long before the pandemic and long before the debate about flight shame became relevant.
We live in a digitized world. The business sector is transitioning and using more digital tools to meet. A consequence of that is reduced travel with domestic flights. Bromma Airport is affected by this.
Madam Speaker! I note that the Minister has still not answered whether it is profitable to keep Bromma Airport. It is an airport that is bleeding. It costs and drains tax funds. Furthermore, the municipality, the City of Stockholm, has come forward with the proposal to build 22,000 new homes for Stockholm's residents. That is what the debate is actually about. What does the government say about that proposal?
The agreement applies until 2038. The Minister is talking about electric aviation, which will not be here tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. It is a long way off until we have electric aviation. Does the Minister mean that this losing deal should continue until 2038? I would like to get an answer to that from Andreas Carlson.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I do not think one needs to go further than 2038. Electric aviation is estimated to be in operational service within five years. The industry's own roadmap within the framework of Fossil-free Sweden is to have zero emissions in domestic aviation already by 2030. The development is therefore moving fast. It is about what confidence one has in the sector that has set those goals itself.
I have great confidence that we will see a development and transition that Swedish aviation leads not only at the EU level but also at a global level. It was a Swedish aircraft and a Swedish airline that were first in the world to have a plane operated on 100 percent sustainable aviation fuel, for example SAF. It is therefore not just about electric aviation but about sustainable aviation in general.
The agreement is valid until 2038. The municipality does not have any unilateral possibility to terminate it prematurely. One can therefore interpret the move that was made as a very early notification regarding the agreement. Given that the transition is going so fast, a lot might happen before 2038. I hope that we can have a constructive dialogue about the development and competitiveness of aviation.
The government's announcement, which is also established in the Tidö Agreement, is that no decision regarding the decommissioning of Bromma Airport will be made during the mandate period. Instead, we have taken important steps to strengthen aviation's competitiveness by providing 1 billion to settle a pandemic debt for baggage security management. We have doubled the operating support for the regional airports. It is the largest reinforcement of regional airports since that support was introduced. We have also appointed an Arlanda Coordinator with an operational mandate to strengthen Arlanda's competitiveness.
I hope that we can have a good consensus moving forward regarding the measures that the government takes to strengthen aviation's competitiveness in Sweden.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.