Response to interpellation 2025/26:196 on Swedavia Airport and the state's ownership policy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns Swedavia's operations, the state's ownership policy, and the future of Bromma Airport. M argues that Swedavia should follow the Companies Act and the ownership policy, which means that the board is responsible for the day-to-day operations and that the company should generate profit 1. M emphasizes that the government is investigating the state's role as an owner to ensure long-term economic sustainability and accessibility 1. S argues that Bromma causes large losses that drain Swedavia's other airports 2. S argues that the Tidö Agreement's wording regarding not closing Bromma contradicts the ownership policy and puts the board in an impossible situation 2 3. S demands that the state compensate for unprofitable operations 2.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Marianne Fundahn has asked me two questions – first, whether I intend to take any measures to ensure that Swedavia's operations comply with the state's ownership policy that state-owned companies, just like privately owned ones, shall generate a profit, and second, whether I intend to take any measures so that Swedavia's opportunities to develop other airports are not risked to be affected, and if so, which ones.
Swedavia is a state-owned company that operates and develops the ten airports that are part of the national basic supply. To change which airports shall be included in the national basic supply, a decision of the Riksdag is required.
Swedavia, just like all companies with state ownership, shall follow the same laws as private companies, including the Companies Act (2005:551). It is stated there that it is the board and the management that are responsible for the company's organization and the daily operations. How Swedavia conducts its operational activities within the framework of the company's mandate are therefore matters for the board and the management to handle. It is also the responsibility of the board and the management to ensure that the operations are conducted in a business-like manner and in accordance with the state's ownership policy.
According to the ownership policy, state-owned companies shall provide a market-based return unless the Riksdag has decided otherwise. The companies shall act commercially, sustainably, and exemplarily in a way that maintains public confidence. The business model shall be economically sustainable and efficient. Swedavia shall also, within the framework of commerciality, actively participate in the development of the transport sector and contribute to the achievement of the transport policy goals decided by the Riksdag. I have full confidence that Swedavia's board acts in accordance with this. The Government monitors Swedavia's economic development and goal achievement, among other things, through ownership dialogues.
As an active owner, the state shall continuously review the reasons for the various missions and directions of the state-owned companies. The slow recovery of air traffic in Sweden after the pandemic, together with ongoing challenges such as a deteriorated security policy situation and tough international competition, affect the conditions for profitability for the Swedish airports. In addition, the total defense's need for airports has changed as a result of the worsened global situation and Sweden's entry into Nato. At the same time, Bromma Airport has lost a majority of its traffic, which has also raised several questions about the airport's function and future.
That is why the government in May 2025 commissioned a special investigator to investigate and evaluate the state's role as owner and manager of airports and the current national base supply of airports (dir. 2025:55). The investigator shall, among other things, evaluate and provide proposals on models and principles for ownership, organization, and financing of the state-owned airports. The proposals shall contribute to increased competitiveness and long-term economic sustainability for the state-owned airports. The proposals shall simultaneously ensure good accessibility throughout the country, to the outside world, and a robust airport system. The assignment shall be reported by September 30, 2026, at the latest.
Marianne Fundahn (S)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by thanking you for the long answer. It was not actually a direct answer to my questions, but rather it described the government's view on state-owned companies more generally.
It is now one year since Bra stopped flying to Bromma, and the airport is almost deserted today. There are two daily departures with Västflyg to Trollhättan and Växjö as well as one line to Gotland. The largest part of the traffic consists of business aviation, private aviation, and ambulance flights. Nine out of ten flights are private flights. One can say today that Bromma is primarily an airport for business and private aviation.
Even though Bromma has received a few new lines, the number of passengers is not anywhere near previous levels. This means that the costs for Bromma must be taken from Swedavia's other airports, which in practice means that airlines operating at other airports also have to finance Bromma.
The annual loss is, what I have heard, 1 billion – this the Finance Minister surely knows significantly better than I do. But due to provisions in the Tidö Agreement that Bromma shall not be closed during the mandate period, Swedavia's board is prevented from acting. Instead, the government has appointed an inquiry that shall review, among other things, Bromma airport and the state's role as the owner of the airport.
Elisabeth Svantesson has in interpellation debates here – even today – pointed out the total defense's need for airports due to the deteriorated global situation and that this therefore needs to be investigated. I can understand that, as the previous investigations that proposed closure are a number of years old and there have been major changes in our global environment. But is it a commercially-driven state-owned company that should pay for this? Should the costs for this not be covered?
If the state requires unprofitable activity, one should receive compensation for it. How else can the board live up to the requirements of the Companies Act regarding the company's interests and the owners' requirements to generate profit?
This stands in total contrast to what the government says in the ownership policy. The government has high expectations that the companies' business activities are conducted exemplarily in accordance with seven principles. The principles are also guiding for the government's management of the companies. It is also stated that activities in companies with state ownership, just like privately owned companies, have the purpose of generating profit for the shareholders.
Does the Minister for Finance consider the wording in the Tidö Agreement stating that Bromma Airport shall be preserved to be compatible with the state's ownership policy? I wonder if it does not put Swedavia's board in an impossible position, in terms of carrying out its mandate according to the Companies Act, when the government publicly says: Do not shut it down!
Or has the government changed the articles of association for Swedavia so that the requirement for profitability is lower or removed, or have new ownership directives been specified at the meeting for Swedavia?
What I actually want to know is: Has any formal decision been made not to close Bromma Airport during the mandate period? I have not been able to find anything that indicates that.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Marianne Fundahn, for this interpellation!
This is an issue that affects many. It certainly affects Swedavia. That is why I am here; I am responsible for the state-owned companies. But it also affects very many who previously flew, for example, from Bromma but who today cannot do so. It is quite empty there, so to speak. I understand the question, and I understand that it is important for many.
I would like to emphasize something that I think is very important here. It is partly about more than Bromma, but I still want to say this. Bromma's future is an important issue. I am glad that we are not rushing through this, so to speak. The decisions that the government makes for Bromma and other airports will be very difficult to back out of. Therefore, the issue is being investigated in the way it is currently being done.
I am responsible for the companies. I know that Swedavia and this entire industry are having a very tough time. After the pandemic, completely new conditions have taken shape. New travel patterns, aviation tax, and much more have affected domestic flights. When it comes to Swedavia specifically, Madam Speaker, I will just say that until the outbreak of the pandemic six years ago, they had a positive development in both turnover and profitability. Now they are again seeing a more positive development as the recovery is coming anyway. But it is still very tough, and the recovery is moving slowly.
When it comes to the operational activities themselves and Swedavia's economy, it is the management and the company's board that have to handle this. It is clear that this affects the company's operations. But it is also the case that a decision made too quickly – regardless of what that decision becomes regarding Bromma – can have devastating consequences for both the company and other things. I feel very secure that the government is working on this issue in a calm and steady manner – one is not slow but deliberate. I also feel very secure that Swedavia's board and management are very well able to handle this situation.
Marianne Fundahn (S)
Madam Speaker! The Riksdag decides on the principles for how the state's assets shall be managed and disposed of, which includes the state-owned companies. According to guidelines decided by the Riksdag in the spring of 1996, the following main principles shall apply for the management of companies with state ownership:
A state-owned company shall operate under requirements for efficiency, return on the capital the company represents, and structural adjustment.
The person who manages a state-owned enterprise shall, based on set operational goals, actively monitor the company's development and take necessary measures so that the company meets the requirements for efficiency, return, and structural adjustment.
The state may weigh in on public interest when it comes to the management of the state-owned companies, but the state must do so in its capacity as owner, not as a political power holder on the sidelines.
If no formal decision has been made, the Tidö Agreement is not a corporate law document and is not binding for the board, nor is it an ownership directive.
Have there been discussions from the owner's side with Swedavia's board regarding the fact that closing Bromma is not an option? Have other alternatives been discussed to reduce the problem of Swedavia's decreased revenues from Bromma Airport?
Continuing the operations means tying up capital with low or no return, and it impairs the group's total return as well as goes against business logic. For Swedavia, it means a deterioration in results. The deficit must be borne by the group. Profits from the other airports are used to cover Bromma's loss and so on. The board ends up in a situation where business logic points in one direction and political decisions in another.
Another problem is: If the state requires unprofitable operation without market-based compensation, it can in theory trigger EU state aid rules, even though airport infrastructure is often given a certain amount of leeway.
The consequences for Swedavia's economy of retaining Bromma Airport need to be reported. Such a report should also highlight the consequences for the company's profitability and the possibility of delivering a return to the state.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I can only very briefly summarize that since I am responsible for the state-owned companies, I feel very secure in the new ownership policy that we have worked out. I feel very secure that the boards that we appoint in the various companies mostly carry out their mandate in an absolutely splendid way, and I feel very secure that Swedavia's management and board are handling this situation, which is obviously difficult.
Why is it difficult? Well, as the interpellor began with, it is a question of what the future for Bromma should look like. It is well-understood that this question is discussed with Swedavia, but it is also well-understood that a government must have a good basis to decide what Bromma airport shall be in the future. Is it to be an airport? What type of airport? If it is not to be an airport, what shall it be instead?
This should also be seen in a security policy situation that has changed quite dramatically in recent years. I believe it would be bad to run too fast and decide what Bromma should be in five and ten years. It would also be bad for Swedavia.
Of course, Swedavia's operations are affected by this. Just to have it said: All companies, not just state-owned ones, are affected by various political decisions. It is not that strange.
I feel calm and secure that things will work out both for Bromma Airport, that is to say the future for this place, and that Swedavia's management can continue to handle these issues in an absolutely brilliant and professional manner, even though it is shaking right now not only because Bromma is being investigated but because the entire behavioral pattern regarding how we travel has changed. It affects airlines, and it also affects those who operate and own airports, of course.
Marianne Fundahn (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Finance points to Swedavia's responsibility for the operations and that they decide how they run their operations. But why is there then the provision about not closing Bromma in the Tidö Agreement? That question should, in that case, be decided by the board.
Swedavia's CEO Jonas Abrahamsson said in his speech at the 2025 annual general meeting that the decision to lay off employees at Bromma was difficult, but that they see that a consolidated domestic traffic at Arlanda can, in the long run, benefit both airlines, resources, and airport operations.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! The person concerned has presumably gotten a new job now?
I share the assessment that all companies, both private and state-owned, are affected by political decisions. That is obvious. This is an important issue. It is an important issue for Stockholm, of course; the City of Stockholm has its own interests in this. This is also important from a total defense perspective, and it is important for travel in Sweden.
This will also be important for Swedavia. But Bromma does not exist for Swedavia's sake. Swedavia exists right now to manage the situation until we know how it will turn out for Bromma.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.