Response to interpellation 2024/25:20 on the decommissioning of Bromma Airport
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 KD considers that aviation is important for Sweden's economy and competitiveness 1. KD argues that Bromma airport is important for socially important aviation, future electric aviation 1 and that infrastructure is difficult to recreate 2. KD argues that the aviation tax has damaged Arlanda's competitiveness 3 and that Stockholm City's travel policy is harmful to aviation's competitiveness 3. KD argues that the public sector needs to take greater responsibility to consider reasons for not quickly phasing out airports 4. 5 S considers that the market has opted out of Bromma and that the airport should be phased out to invest in Arlanda 5. S argues that the development of electric aviation is not dependent on Bromma 5 6. S wants to convert the airfield into housing 5. S argues that it is economically and strategically correct to shut down Bromma 5. S argues that keeping Bromma is based on nostalgia and harms Sweden's competitiveness 6. 7 S considers it important to implement Fit for 55 and that Bromma airport will be almost empty from the turn of the year as the market shows no interest in the airport 7.
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 what measures I and the government intend to take following the announcement that Bromma Airport is losing 90 percent of its air traffic, and whether I intend to take the initiative to begin the decommissioning of Bromma Airport in order to strengthen Arlanda's international competitiveness.
Aviation is an important part of the transport system. Especially in a country like Sweden - with long distances and many sparsely populated areas - aviation is important for domestic travel and also has great significance for Sweden's economy, competitiveness, and openness towards the rest of the world.
Since the government took office, we have taken several measures to strengthen aviation's competitiveness and safeguard good accessibility by air. The common fee equalization system for security screening of passengers and their luggage (GAS) has received an additional 1.035 billion kronor to counteract fee increases. Furthermore, the state contribution for operating support to non-state airports has been doubled, and we have also recently announced that the aviation tax will be abolished from July 1, 2025, in order to, among other things, improve accessibility throughout the country.
The aviation industry is a market characterized by fierce competition, and we have seen several restructurings in recent times. I am convinced that there is a strong demand and need for good aviation connections within Sweden, regardless of which actors in the aviation market are willing to operate traffic.
When it comes to Bromma Airport, it is, as you know, part of the national base supply owned and operated by Swedavia AB. In addition to scheduled traffic, I can state that Bromma Airport is also important for socially significant aviation, not least for ambulance flights.
The airport is also important for creating robustness in the Swedish airport system as a complement to other airports in the Stockholm area. And as I have stated previously, I see that Bromma Airport could have a role for future electric aviation, where there is currently a rapid development taking place.
With that said, I think it is important not to draw too quick conclusions from the recent announcements from SAS and BRA. The Government and I are following the developments closely, and we are now analyzing how the aviation market may be affected.
Kadir Kasirga (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer to my interpellation!
We now stand at a crossroads regarding the future of Bromma Airport. It is 90 percent of the air traffic that will disappear from the turn of the year. It is a clear signal that the market has already opted out of Bromma Airport.
The government must listen to what the developments within the aviation sector are saying: It is time to decommission the airport and instead invest in the aviation infrastructure of the future where Arlanda is a natural central point.
I agree with Minister Andreas Carlson that aviation is an important part of the transport system, especially for a country like Sweden with its large distances and need for both domestic and international connections. But we cannot turn a blind eye to the changes occurring in the industry.
The aviation market has undergone restructuring, and intense competition has resulted in Bromma Airport no longer fulfilling the same function as before. With a 90 percent reduction in traffic, there is no economically or strategically justifiable reason to continue operating the airport.
We need instead to focus on developing Arlanda as our international hub. By strengthening Arlanda and consolidating air traffic there, we can improve accessibility, create better conditions for international connections, and at the same time reduce double infrastructure that consumes taxpayers' funds.
Madam Speaker! The Minister has highlighted electric aviation as an opportunity for Bromma in the future. Electric aviation is an important part of future aviation, and it is something we all look forward to. But, Madam Speaker, we must also be realistic. The commercial breakthrough of electric aviation lies further ahead in time, and Bromma airport's role in this is not decisive. It is not the airport's existence that will drive the development of electric aviation. It will occur through investments and innovation on a broader level, where Arlanda airport can play an at least equally important role with its already established infrastructure and capacity.
Madam Speaker! The Minister says in his response that we should not draw hasty conclusions about Bromma's future based on the recent restructurings within the aviation industry. My question to the Minister is then: If 90 percent of air traffic is already leaving Bromma Airport, what exactly needs to happen for the government to change its position? Should we not now draw the conclusion that Bromma Airport is no longer necessary and instead focus on strengthening Arlanda and the regional airports that are actually needed?
We must also look at the environmental and urban advantages of a closure of Bromma. Converting the large airfield into housing and urban development would contribute to solving some of the Stockholm region's most acute needs and create a sustainable development that benefits both today's and tomorrow's generations.
Overall, it is economically, environmentally and strategically correct to begin the decommissioning of Bromma Airport and it also actually accords with the City of Stockholm's termination of the agreement with Swedavia.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Member Kadir Kasirga for the commitment to aviation, for Arlanda's competitiveness, and for aviation as a means of transport in a long country like Sweden. I share the view of aviation as an important part of the transport system.
The Chairman highlights that we should focus the efforts on Arlanda. In that regard, I just want to remind of the measures that the government has already taken to strengthen Arlanda's competitiveness. We have appointed a coordinator, Peter Norman, who is to submit proposals to the government on what can be done to strengthen public transport and travel possibilities to and from the airport. If these measures in the infrastructure that can strengthen Arlanda's competitiveness are to be reported, he will submit a partial report now during the autumn and later in a further partial report.
These are not new questions; they have been on the table previously as well. Even previous governments have known that when, for example, Förbifart Stockholm is completed, there will be a very significant bottleneck when the new Förbifart joins the current E4 a bit north of Stockholm, but one has, with eyes wide open, chosen not to prioritize measures that would strengthen the capacity for, for example, bus traffic and taxis. Even rail-bound proposals have been on the table.
I therefore hope that the commitment the member shows today can also lead to a certain self-reflection: What could have been done to strengthen Arlanda's competitiveness? The competitiveness really needs to be strengthened, and it is associated with measures in the infrastructure that strengthen accessibility to and from the airport. This does not only benefit the Stockholm area and Mälardalen, but it is important for the whole country because Arlanda has such an important function as a hub, a node, or however one shall express it for the transport system in all of Sweden.
That work is already underway, and it is no less important when a notice such as the one we have now received from Bra and SAS, which has an impact on the traffic at Bromma, arrives.
What I am saying in the response and in this debate is that we need to analyze what the consequences will be now. It is easy to make a decision to shut down infrastructure that is of social importance, such as an airport, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to recreate it if, for example, in a few years, when we see the commercialization of electric aviation as the member mentions, we realize that a specific airport is needed for it.
We do not have all the answers today. There are various questions regarding charging possibilities combined with other fuels at an airport, for example. How do you ensure safety? How do you ensure that route planning becomes as efficient as possible?
We do not know exactly what the impact of electric aviation will be on other flights with other fuels in the initial phase, and it would be very unfortunate if, through political decisions, one were to brake the introduction of electric aviation because one had not thought carefully before getting rid of an important infrastructure such as the airport is.
That is what I urge. I share the commitment to aviation, but I urge a bit of reflection. It is easy to draw hasty conclusions, but we do not know – in a few years we might need this infrastructure.
I am fully aware that this will have an impact on the lines to and from Bromma, but we know that major changes are occurring within aviation, and therefore it is far too early to conclude that we might as well shut it down. That is what this analysis is intended to capture, Madam Speaker.
Kadir Kasirga (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
As I said in my post, the development of electric aviation does not depend on whether Bromma Airport exists or not. This interpellation is about the new events which mean that Bra has decided to move its air traffic to Arlanda, and then 90 percent of the air traffic from Bromma will disappear next year.
This raises questions about the airport's future. Several business leaders have now urged the government to rethink and shut down Bromma in order to instead invest in strengthening Arlanda as Sweden's central airport for both domestic and international travel.
Sweden has long been a country that safeguards good accessibility and strong competitiveness, but today's situation harms these very values. We now stand with two weak airports instead of one strong, well-functioning airport that can handle both domestic and international connections. Retaining Bromma Airport somewhat based on nostalgic feelings and perhaps also ideological blinkers rather than for business reasons risks further worsening Sweden's position in the world.
Business representatives such as Haval van Drumpt, CEO of the telecommunications company Tre, clearly expressed in Aftonbladet on October 3 their concern that Swedish companies are now losing competitiveness. Travelers are often forced to transit in Copenhagen to travel to and from Sweden, which is not only inefficient but also negative for Swedish companies and business travelers.
State-owned Swedavia has also clearly stated that it is no longer commercially sustainable to continue operating Bromma Airport and, following the recent events, has signaled the closure of Bromma Airport. If Bromma cannot sustain itself economically, why does the government insist on keeping the airport open, especially when important resources from Arlanda must be used to cover the losses?
The question to the Minister and the Government is therefore simple: When business leaders, Swedavia and the majority of the aviation industry are now pleading to invest in Arlanda and let Bromma be decommissioned for purely business reasons - why does the Government let nostalgia stand in the way of making decisions that are best for Sweden's future competitiveness?
Madam Speaker! We need to focus on developing Arlanda. I agree with the Minister that it is a matter of better communications, more lines and a smoother check-in, so that we can strengthen Sweden's international competitiveness and ensure accessibility for both companies and travelers. It is high time to let go of Bromma and build for the future.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I appreciate that one can have a discussion in substance, but in that case, I think one should stick to it and address what the person one is debating with has said in a debate. I have not said anything about nostalgia. It is remarkable that the member takes up as one of the main arguments in the exchange of remarks that nostalgic feelings should be involved. Rather, it is about not drawing hasty conclusions.
We know that Bromma today has an important function for, for example, ambulance flights. How does one ensure that in a future? There are also question marks surrounding the development of electric aviation. It is not the case that one can already say so clearly and distinctly today that the development of electric aviation is not dependent on another airport. We do not know exactly how the situation will be at Arlanda Airport, whether it will be the case that there are safety reasons to hold back on, for example, sustainable aviation fuel. There are many questions that must be analyzed.
At the same time, the agreement that exists with the City of Stockholm extends to 2038. It needs to be clarified that the notice that the City of Stockholm has given is a preliminary notice of a termination that will occur far into the future. It is not until 36 months before the agreement's expiration date that the termination of the agreement can be made.
There is time to conduct thorough analyses so as not to risk having to say at some point in the future: We did not think of this. We did not see it coming. We were naive. It is therefore important not to draw hasty conclusions.
I agree that more lines to Arlanda are needed. The competitiveness of Arlanda must be strengthened, and we must strengthen the accessibility to Arlanda. This is not in contradiction to not drawing hasty conclusions regarding Bromma airport.
The major effect that has truly weakened Sweden's and Arlanda's competitiveness on the aviation side is the aviation tax introduced by the previous government. The tax has caused international lines to dramatically shift to nearby airports outside Sweden, and this has been highlighted by many as very harmful. There are also no climatic reasons to keep such a policy instrument given that there are now EU regulations that govern both more accurately and more strictly than this general aviation tax.
I am pleased, Madam Speaker, that Kadir Kasirga's party accepts the removal of the aviation tax in the budget motion that the party has presented in the Riksdag in response to the government's budget bill. It is an important announcement. We need to secure long-term conditions for aviation and end the stigmatization of air travel. Therefore, I wonder if Kadir Kasirga can tell us what the discussions look like in the opposition. Can it be trusted that the Social Democrats' announcement will now hold in a possible future—many years from now, of course—if one returns to government power, or will the aviation tax be reintroduced?
I would also like to raise the very regrettable decision that the red-green government in the City of Stockholm has made, namely regarding a new travel policy that prohibits employees from flying from Stockholm to Gothenburg and Malmö on business. It is directly harmful to aviation's competitiveness. There is, today, an opportunity to purchase sustainable aviation fuel and thereby participate in accelerating the transition. It is something that I believe has a direct impact on how the public actors act to strengthen Arlanda's competitiveness. There is also a call for reflection and self-reflection here, Madam Speaker.
Kadir Kasirga (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answers to the questions.
We think it is important that we in Sweden implement Fit for 55 all the way. Thus, there is another tool that can replace and complement what the aviation tax represented when it was introduced.
Madam Speaker! From the turn of the year, Bromma Airport will be almost empty. We can now state that. Who is it that will be flying from Bromma Airport from the turn of the year? Is it Martians, or will the airfield be used for go-karting or ice skating? It will be an empty place.
We are now in the middle of the parliamentary term. What I hear from Andreas Carlson is that there is no intention whatsoever to review the question of whether it is time to close the airport. The market has spoken now. There is no interest in Bromma Airport, but it is Arlanda that the aviation industry wants to invest in. A complete electrification, digitalization, and adaptation to electric aviation and so on is taking place. It is not that nothing is happening at Arlanda.
Madam Speaker! This government began its term in office by stopping the construction of new main lines and halted the decommissioning of Bromma Airport, despite our warnings that it would not be sustainable in the long run. Now that half of the parliamentary term has passed, we face the fact that Bromma Airport will be empty starting from the turn of the year.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! It is commendable and interesting to hear Kadir Kasirgas's complete confidence in the market. It is a somewhat reversed situation compared to normal debates with Social Democrats. But it is positive to hear the confidence in the market so palpably in all members' contributions. I mean that the public sector needs to take a slightly greater responsibility to consider if there are other reasons not to quickly decommission an airport that it will not be possible to restore if one realizes that it would be needed in the future. It could be from a preparedness point of view, for socially important aviation, for example ambulance flights, and it could be for circumstances in the transition of aviation that we do not yet know anything about.
Madam Speaker! I have been clear in the response and in the debate that we are now analyzing the changed conditions. That analysis is ongoing, and I also want to say that I appreciate the debate and the exchange. I did not hear the member comment on the City of Stockholm's new travel policy. It has a dramatic impact on Arlanda's competitiveness. If one is serious about wanting to strengthen Arlanda's competitiveness, one cannot do one thing with one hand and something else with the other. I hope that the Social Democrats take responsibility and can change such a travel policy. That would be commendable. I meet many municipal representatives around the country who speak well of their own airport, but when one then looks at their travel policy, they are advised against using it. It is also a reflection of the trust in the market, that is to say that it is only the market that should fly and we in the politically steered organization should be advised against the flight. That does not sound right, and it is not in harmony with the fine words in the debate about the importance of aviation.
Here we do something completely different, namely to strengthen aviation's competitiveness, and we have changed the Government Offices' travel policy so that it is travel-mode neutral. There is something to look at there for Kadir Kasirga and other Social Democrats.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.