Response to interpellation 2024/25:555 on Bromma Airport and the cost to taxpayers
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 it is not relevant to decommission Bromma Airport during the current mandate period as it appears from the Tidö Agreement 1. KD emphasizes that the airport is part of a larger system where issues regarding total defense, airspace surveillance, and medical transports must be investigated before decisions are made 1. KD argues that one should exercise patience and wait for an in-depth analysis 2. KD considers that the airport's infrastructure, financing, and basic supply should be reviewed to strengthen competitiveness and security 2. KD calls for a mapping of the total defense authorities' needs for the airport 3.
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 how I justify that Bromma Airport should be kept open, despite the fact that scheduled flights have practically ceased, how I view the large socio-economic costs that taxpayers are expected to bear if the airport is kept open until 2038, and whether I intend to reconsider the decision to keep Bromma Airport open with regard to the climate, the economy, and the need for housing development in Stockholm.
I have had a number of interpellation debates regarding Bromma Airport recently. As recently as October last year, I and Kadir Kasirga debated the question of the future for the airport. My answer today will largely be the same as it has been previously in these debates.
Let me initially point out again that 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.
That is also why the government has taken several important measures to strengthen the competitiveness of aviation and improve the conditions for good accessibility by air. I can mention, as an example, the abolition of the aviation tax from July 1 this year and an increase in the state contribution for operating support for non-state airports.
When it comes to Bromma Airport, I have been very clear. It is not relevant to make any decision regarding closure during this mandate period. This is stated in the Tidö Agreement.
As I have previously mentioned, an internal analysis has taken place at the Government Offices to systematically review important issues and assess the situation for Bromma Airport. The coalition parties have subsequently concluded that several issues need to be investigated more in-depth before further positions can be taken.
It is, for example, about the changed conditions for civil defense needs as a result of the changed global situation and the NATO accession and what significance Bromma Airport can have in these respects. It is also about what the state's basic supply of airports should look like, including financing issues. One should remember that Bromma Airport is part of the basic supply and is therefore part of a larger system.
The conditions for existing remaining operations at Bromma Airport also need to be investigated. This concerns general aviation, including socially important aviation such as ambulance flights, ambulance helicopters, and police helicopters.
Another question that is important to investigate is what possibilities exist to ensure a secure airspace for remaining traffic over and around Stockholm, for example for the police and for medical transports but also from a total defense perspective, if the operations at Bromma Airport are significantly changed.
It is, as I have said on several occasions, important to emphasize that the Armed Forces have pointed out that the total defense authorities' needs for Bromma Airport should be mapped out. These and several other issues will therefore be investigated. As I have informed about previously, the government intends to return to the forms for this investigation.
Kadir Kasirga (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer – even though it is largely identical to previous answers, despite the fact that the circumstances are now completely different.
The reason for this interpellation was that Dagens Nyheter recently described how a billionaire flew from Bromma to the Alps with his pug. It sounds like an April Fool's joke, but it is a representative example of the flight activity from Bromma airport today. Almost 90 percent of the flights from Bromma now consist of private jets. Regular flights have practically ceased.
At the same time, the airport occupies 130 hectares of land that belongs to the most attractive in Stockholm. It is an area almost as large as Södermalm north of Hornsgatan which today is used almost exclusively for an exclusive minority of travelers.
And this has a cost. According to the City of Stockholm, the socio-economic loss amounts to over 1.3 billion kronor if the area is not developed before 2038. Despite this, we hear here in the chamber from Minister Andreas Carlson that one has gotten stuck in a no – not because there is a strong basis, but because that is what it says in the Tidö Agreement. Neither Swedavia, the City of Stockholm, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, nor even the Minister's own party, Kristdemokraterna, stand behind this any longer. Kristdemokraterna recently came forward with a proposal that they want to initiate a phasing out of Bromma Airport.
My question to the Minister therefore remains: What is the actual reason for keeping Bromma Airport open when scheduled flights have disappeared and the social utility is minimal?
Linus Lakso (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Andreas Carlson, and thank you, Kadir Kasirga, for an important interpellation!
Madam Speaker! Andreas Carlson says in his response that since this is regulated in the Tidö Agreement, it is not relevant to decommission Bromma. I would much prefer a policy that is based on reality, where one takes off the ideological blinkers and acts according to the facts on the table. Swedavia has made the assessment that the airport can no longer be operated profitably and has pleaded with the government to shut it down because it is not needed.
In both January and February this year, 89 percent of all passenger flights were private jets, according to Swedavia's statistics. As we read about in DN, it is therefore about luxury trips to exclusive ski resorts in the Alps, which the taxpayers are to finance. One really could have believed it was an April Fool's joke, but that is not the case – this is what our tax money is going towards. It should also be mentioned that private aviation has between 5 and 14 times higher emissions than regular passenger planes. And if one looks at this from a global perspective, one sees that traffic with private jets has increased by approximately 46 percent over the last four years.
Madam Speaker! Is it really this that Andreas Carlson thinks we should spend our tax money on? It is about up to 1.3 billion if we do not face reality and start making decisions to decommission Bromma Airport prematurely. In a time when over a quarter of all single parents struggle to put food on the table for their children, our tax money should go towards lower taxes for the rich and, even worse actually, towards billionaires' luxury trips to the Alps. I think this is an outrageous way to handle tax money.
My question to Andreas Carlson is: Is there no possibility within the Tidö Agreement to base it on reality, look at what the conditions actually are, and adjust your policy accordingly?
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Linus Lakso speaks of ideological blinkers. I wonder if he didn't have the ideological earplugs in. I gave quite a few different reasons as to why it is important not to draw hasty conclusions or make decisions that one might perhaps best evaluate in hindsight, for example, based on the needs of the total defense and not least against the background of what the Armed Forces have stated on this issue.
When it comes to critical social infrastructure, such as Bromma Airport is, the question is whether the members, who are convinced that this is a simple decision, can guarantee that a decommissioning of the airport will not affect the total defense or the state of readiness. We have drawn a different conclusion, largely based on the Swedish Armed Forces' statement. To ensure that all aspects are properly illuminated, the government, together with the coalition partner, will conduct an in-depth investigation.
All airspace surveillance of the capital is carried out from Bromma Airport. I have not heard anyone in this debate so far have come forward with an alternative as to where the surveillance of the airspace around the capital should take place instead in a very security-politically sensitive situation. This is a reasonable question to investigate and look into before one here in the chamber allows oneself to draw hasty conclusions, which I believe the members are doing.
There are also other important parts. It is not least about medical transports – the proximity to the hospitals in the Stockholm area means that Bromma Airport is well-suited for ambulance transports and medical transports. It needs to be investigated, of course, what the situation would be if one only had one airport, Arlanda.
This needs to happen in line with the assignment we have given Arland Coordinator Peter Norman, namely to look at and strengthen the accessibility to and from Arlanda. There have been proposals from Trafikverket earlier, not just one but, I believe, two times, about strengthening the road connection on the E4 to Arlanda and northwards to be prepared when the Förbifarten opens, for example. These are important parts that could have been in place earlier but are not in place.
There are, Madam Speaker, many different factors that I believe one needs to look at in light of the fact that we now need to focus on the needs of the total defense. That is why we have signaled a review and an investigation and, until then, have not made any decisions to phase out activities. It is important that this is allowed to take time. The statement we have given, that no decision of this type will be made during the mandate period, remains firm.
To answer Linus Lakso's question, we look at the different aspects in light of the situation that now prevails at Bromma as a result of Bras and SAS's business decisions. It is clear that this needs to be investigated and done in good order. It is not just the regular flights but the airspace movements over all of Stockholm that need to be looked at, not least against the background that all airspace surveillance takes place from Bromma airport.
If the members have any thoughts regarding this, please do share them! We can discuss them. But let us not engage in frivolousness in the debate. I think we can keep ourselves at a more objective level. I believe the members, who also sit on the Transport Committee, are very well aware of the challenges that exist regarding total defense, preparedness, and a secure airspace over our capital.
Kadir Kasirga (S)
Madam Speaker! I would, of course, very much like to debate Peter Norman's partial report on the Arlanda investigation. But that will have to be another interpellation.
I can still state that regular air traffic at Bromma Airport has collapsed since the turn of the year. The little that remains is an average of five people per plane with a private jet, often to holiday destinations, for example to the Alps. The social benefit is minimal, but the climate impact is, as Linus Lakso pointed out, maximal. But still, the government continues to defend the status quo.
The Minister mentions the need to investigate civil defense, Nato, ambulance flights and helicopters, but he mentions no concrete requirements from the Armed Forces, only saying that the need "should be mapped out." Thus, Nato is used as an argument without being able to show that it is actually needed. Society-critical aviation is important, but it does not require 130 hectares of land in the middle of Stockholm. It can be solved in other ways. It is disproportionate to let this area be blocked for a few helicopter take-offs.
The most remarkable thing, however, is what the minister does not say, namely that not even the Christian Democrats' working group any longer has confidence that Bromma Airport has a future.
Bromma Airport has played out its role. Next year, 2026, Bromma Airport turns 90 years old. It should be appropriate to inform Swedish taxpayers that it is time to decommission Bromma Airport.
Linus Lakso (MP)
Madam Speaker! Yes, of course, one must investigate a number of different things. The airspace has been partially investigated, and the investigator who in 2021 produced an SOU on this notes that the complexity actually decreases if Bromma is decommissioned. On the other hand, one must of course find solutions for the airspace surveillance. Even ambulance flights and the like have been investigated, and other solutions have been pointed out. I do not think this is an argument for not moving forward and looking at how one can concretely solve the whole thing.
To not provide a direction but only refer to the fact that it stands in the Tidö Agreement that Bromma shall remain – without taking reality into account – is, for me, an incredibly weak argument.
It is a fact that we have an airport in central Stockholm that is used by private jets flying billionaires to luxury resorts in the Alps. How can this be a reasonable use of tax money, Madam Speaker? It actually defies my understanding. I understand that it may take some time to get a handle on the questions that need to be answered in order to decommission Bromma. But that one does not dare to make the decision, point out a clear direction, and tackle what needs to be done is very strange to me. It is an all too weak answer for me to be satisfied.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Let me first note that in Kadir Kasirgas's contribution, I do not hear a single word about how the airspace surveillance over Stockholm and the capital is to be handled. That question deserves to be discussed. Linus Lakso raises it, but he also says that he is not satisfied with an answer that does not anticipate an analysis. Let us await that in-depth analysis.
Kadir Kasirga perceived it as the Armed Forces have emphasized, namely that the total defense authorities' needs for Bromma Airport should be mapped out. Should they not be mapped out? What is it that is doubtful? It is clear that we need to let the total defense authorities' needs for Bromma Airport be mapped out in a very serious and sensitive security policy situation.
Let us cooperate regarding Arlanda Airport and the competitiveness regarding Arlanda. I know that Kadir Kasirga is very engaged in the issue. Looking back, we see that part of the situation that has arisen is actually a consequence of the previous government, where Linus Laksos Miljöparti and Kadir Kasirga Socialdemokrater could not quite agree, to put it mildly. Therefore, the Arlanda Council's report was put in the filing cabinet. Therefore, we have today an unsatisfactory situation at Sweden's largest airport.
When the Green Party was in government, all plans to develop Arlanda as a strong hub for air traffic were interrupted. Now we have taken up that work. The coordinator has presented various partial reports and will present their final report on how the accessibility to Arlanda can be strengthened.
Arlanda needs better ground infrastructure to and from the airport. The abolished aviation tax strengthens Arlanda's competitiveness in relation to other airports. A more holistic view of the different types of traffic that does not rule out aviation in advance would also be welcome. Here, I think the discussion moving forward can center around how we can strengthen the airport infrastructure. This will also be included in the assignment for an investigation that I have announced. Even the financing of the airport infrastructure and the basic supply will be included in the review that is to be made.
This is a question that is not only about Bromma and Arlanda but also concerns the competitiveness and capacity of the entire airport infrastructure in our country. We know that aviation is important for the business sector but also for socially important transport for healthcare. I am happy to take that discussion.
It is, as said, Madam Speaker, simple to make decisions about decommissioning. But we also see that there are other tendencies. The aviation transition may mean that other requirements are placed on airport infrastructure in just a few years. It does not seem appropriate to make the whole thing a simple question of just closing down Bromma.
My perception is that it is wise to have patience and wait for the analysis. We should not anticipate it or have a very clear opinion on what it is going to conclude. We can have an in-depth analysis and an investigation, and then we can discuss the conclusions and what the investigation comes up with in the future? We might not agree on every detail, but I believe it is very important that we act based on the security policy situation we have and the demands that it places on us.
Kadir Kasirga (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to give a direct answer regarding this matter of the airspace over Stockholm. I do not believe that 130 hectares of land are needed in order to be able to control the airspace over Stockholm. Other solutions can be looked at.
I hear that the Minister is hiding a bit and dodging behind technicalities. This is about political will. We have an airport that has played out its role. It is almost empty. It is only private jets that fly from there.
This costs the taxpayers money. Should land in Stockholm be used for private jets or to meet people's needs for housing, schools, and sustainable transport? Right now, Bromma Airport is a luxury project at the taxpayers' expense. We are paying for others to be able to fly privately to the Alps while our young people have stood in housing queues for ten years here in Stockholm.
I think the government's response is passive, unclear, and contradictory. One hides behind technicalities. I don't really get an answer – despite having mentioned this repeatedly – regarding the Christian Democrats' new line concerning the trust in the future of Bromma Airport. Does Andreas Carlson stand behind the working group that has proposed that the phasing out of Bromma Airport should begin? It is the Christian Democrats' proposal.
I urge the government to begin the decommissioning and let Stockholm grow sustainably, fairly and wisely. It is also good for Sweden.
Statsrådet Andreas Carlson (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking you for the debate and for the commitment.
I urge the member to take a closer look at what the two individual members are actually proposing. Much of what I have pointed out here – functions that exist at Bromma Airport that cannot be easily accommodated at Arlanda – is precisely what the members are also pointing out.
How the airspace over the capital can be monitored cannot be reduced to a mere technicality. I note that Kadir Kasirga says that we should nevertheless look at other solutions. Yes, but let us do that then. Let us do that first. Let us have patience. Let the analysis that I have announced take its course, so that those other solutions can certainly be in place before any decision is made.
I understand that it can be a bit tempting to make a quick decision. Then, in a few years' time, one might stand there and say: We didn't see it coming. We were naive.
But I will not stoop to that. I think it is important that politics takes responsibility in the security situation we are in right now and that analyses are made for precisely security reasons. The Armed Forces have pointed out that the total defense authorities' needs for Bromma Airport should be mapped out. Let us map it out. We can see what emerges in that mapping. Then we can see what is concluded in the analysis and in the investigation that I have announced. We can do this instead of being completely convinced in advance of what the analysis will contain and instead of pretending here in the chamber that this is a simple decision that we can make quickly.
It is not that simple, and I have highlighted that in this debate. It is a similar answer to Kadir Kasirga that I have given in other debates. It is because the situation in the world around us has unfortunately not changed. The need to take security policy into account has not diminished.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.