The Tribune

BY CAPTAIN RANDY BUTLER

Dear Editor,

THE RECENT reporting concerning proposed new and increased airport fees for North Eleuthera, Governor’s Harbour and Exuma raises important questions that deserve careful consideration before the proposed January 1, 2027, implementation.

I write not in opposition to airport development, private investment or reasonable cost recovery. The Bahamas needs modern, safe and resilient airports, particularly throughout our Family Islands. Investors who commit capital under properly structured arrangements are also entitled to a reasonable opportunity to recover legitimate costs and earn an appropriate return.

My concern is with the process.

Having spent many years in aviation as an operator, former regulator and aviation safety professional, I have seen occasions where public discussion, newspaper reports, individual conversations or reactions after a proposal becomes public are subsequently characterised as evidence that “the industry was consulted”.

Public awareness is not necessarily consultation. Media interviews are not consultation. Receiving a schedule of charges is not, by itself, consultation.

A meaningful consultation process should give affected users adequate information and a reasonable opportunity to examine and comment upon a proposal before material decisions are finalised.

The September 3 Tribune Business report is particularly noteworthy because the president of the Bahamas Association of Air Transport Operators reportedly said he was unaware of the proposed increases until contacted by the newspaper. The Government, meanwhile, has indicated that the proposed charges are under review and discussions with Island Airport Development Partners (IADP), the private sector consortium set to take over operations at the three airports, and industry stakeholders are continuing. 

The September 4 follow-up raises further questions. The newspaper reports that IADP has a 50-year design, build, finance, operate and maintain concession covering the three airports, and that about $132m in investment is involved. The same report says IADP and Plenary did not answer questions concerning how the proposed fees were calculated, whether prior stakeholder consultation occurred, or whether competitiveness benchmarking was undertaken. 

Those circumstances make a transparent consultation particularly important.

Before implementation, I respectfully suggest that the Government and IADP publish sufficient information to permit stakeholders to answer several straightforward questions:

1. What constitutes the $132m investment, and what portion represents private capital actually at risk?

2. What public funds, government expenditure, grants, guarantees, land, existing infrastructure or other state contributions form part of these projects?

3. What rate of return is contemplated under the concession, and over what recovery period?

4. What traffic and passenger forecasts support the proposed charging structure?

5. How were the passenger facility, processing, landing, terminal and parking charges calculated?

6. What regional and international benchmarking was undertaken?

7. What consultation has occurred with Bahamian airlines, international carriers, charter operators, private aviation, tourism stakeholders and affected Family Island communities?

8. What mechanism exists for stakeholders to submit comments and receive a reasoned response before the charges are approved?

9. Who ultimately approves the charges, and what economic regulatory test is applied?

10. How will Government ensure that publicly-financed infrastructure is not inadvertently included again in a private cost recovery base?

These are not arguments against development. They are questions intended to help ensure that development remains financially sustainable for the investor, aviation operators, residents, visitors and the Bahamian economy.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation’s (ICAO) airport charging policies emphasise principles including cost-relatedness, transparency, consultation with users and non-discrimination. These principles are especially relevant for an archipelagic nation such as The Bahamas, where aviation is not merely a tourism product but essential transportation infrastructure.

I therefore respectfully suggest a formal, documented consultation before implementation of the proposed charges, including publication of the charging methodology and appropriate supporting financial assumptions. Participants, submissions, Government/IADP responses and resulting amendments should form part of an identifiable consultation record.

That would also remove future uncertainty over an important question: Was the aviation industry actually consulted, or was it simply informed after the proposed charges had already been developed?

Airport modernisation and affordability do not have to be competing objectives. Transparency and genuine consultation can help us achieve both.

Captain Randy L. Butler

Principal consultant

Aviation Safety & Security Consultants Ltd