I’m thrilled to sit down with Katarina Railko, a seasoned expert in hospitality, travel, and tourism, who has also made her mark in the entertainment and events sector with a particular passion for expos and conferences. With her deep understanding of the industry, Katarina offers invaluable insights into the complex world of aviation and airport management. Today, we’ll dive into the recent concerns raised by Aena regarding an amendment to Spain’s Sustainable Mobility Bill, exploring its potential impact on airport operations, regulatory frameworks, tourism growth, and regional development.
How do you interpret the amendment to Spain’s Sustainable Mobility Bill, particularly in terms of its approach to airport charges?
I see this amendment, introduced by the Grupo Parlamentario Popular, as an attempt to impose tighter controls or even a freeze on airport charges. It’s a significant shift from the existing framework, which ties charges to a cost-recovery system aligned with investments in airports of general interest. The current model, in place since 2015, has provided predictability and stability, so this proposal feels like a departure that could introduce uncertainty. What’s particularly tricky is the vague language—described as foggy and confusing—which makes it hard to pin down the exact scope and application of these changes.
What do you think are the broader implications of this amendment for the regulatory framework governing airports in Spain?
The implications could be quite disruptive. By potentially freezing charges or altering how they’re set, the amendment risks breaking the critical link between investments and cost recovery. This could lead to legal and constitutional challenges, as it may not align with established laws like Act 18/2014. Beyond that, there’s a real concern about creating uncertainty in the sector. Airports rely on a stable regulatory environment to plan long-term investments, and any sudden shift could undermine that, affecting not just operations but also investor confidence.
Can you elaborate on why the current regulatory model has been viewed as successful, and how it has contributed to Spain’s tourism and aviation boom?
Absolutely. Since Aena’s IPO in 2015 and the introduction of Act 18/2014, the regulatory model has created a solid foundation for growth. It’s allowed for efficient management of Spain’s airport network, which has been a backbone for the massive surge in tourism and aviation. We’ve seen record passenger numbers and improved connectivity, which have directly fueled economic activity. The model’s success lies in its balance—ensuring investments are made where needed while keeping charges reasonable. It’s ironic that the same political group that championed this framework is now proposing changes that could unravel some of those achievements.
There’s a debate about whether airport charges influence airfare prices. How do you view the data and arguments presented on this topic?
The data I’ve seen suggests there’s little to no direct correlation between airport charges and airfare prices. For instance, between summer 2022 and summer 2025, domestic airfares in Spain rose by 28% and international fares by 9%, while airport charges only increased by 4.6%. That’s a stark difference, showing that ticket prices are driven more by factors like fuel costs, demand, and airline strategies. Airport fees are just a small slice of the overall cost for passengers, especially in package travel scenarios, so they’re unlikely to sway someone’s decision to fly. It’s an important point because it shifts the focus away from charges as a scapegoat for rising fares.
Why do you think there’s a growing urgency for investment in Spanish airports right now?
The urgency comes down to evolving demands. For the past decade, charge increases were limited because investment needs were relatively low. But now, with passenger numbers climbing, there’s a pressing need for expanded capacity to prevent bottlenecks. Beyond that, areas like physical and cybersecurity are critical—airports are vital infrastructure, and protecting them is non-negotiable. If the amendment forces a rethink of investment plans, it could delay these upgrades, which would be a setback for both operational efficiency and passenger experience.
How might this amendment impact regional development and competitiveness across Spain?
Regional airports, often smaller in scale, could be hit hardest by this. They play a huge role in connecting less central areas to major hubs, driving local economies through tourism and business travel. If investment plans are stalled or scaled back due to regulatory uncertainty or frozen charges, these airports might struggle to maintain or expand services. That could widen the gap between well-served urban centers and rural regions, ultimately hurting Spain’s overall competitiveness as a destination. It’s a ripple effect—less connectivity means fewer visitors, which means slower growth for those communities.
What is your forecast for the future of airport management in Spain if this amendment moves forward?
Looking ahead, I think we’re at a crossroads. If this amendment passes in its current form, it could introduce a period of instability for airport management in Spain. The uncertainty around charges and investment could deter both domestic and international investors who’ve relied on a predictable framework for over a decade. On the flip side, if further debate in the Congress of Deputies leads to clearer language and a more balanced approach, there’s a chance to mitigate some of these risks. My hope is that stakeholders across the travel and aviation sectors will push for a solution that preserves the growth we’ve seen while addressing any genuine concerns about costs. It’s a delicate balance, but critical for Spain’s position as a global tourism leader.
