Canada’s airlines are objecting to Ottawa’s plan to bring private investors into the country’s biggest airports. Their main worry is simple. A for-profit operator needs a return, and airlines fear that return will come out of airport fees that eventually show up in ticket prices.
The debate is still early, and many of the key details haven’t been settled. This article looks at what the government has proposed, what airlines are asking for, and what the evidence from other countries suggests so far.
What Ottawa Has Actually Proposed
Prime Minister Mark Carney unveiled the plan on Sept. 15 to sell operating concessions for Canada’s four largest airports. The government would keep ownership of the land and assets and take stakes in the companies through its sovereign wealth fund.[1] The airports are Toronto Pearson, Vancouver, Montréal–Trudeau and Calgary.[2] Carney has framed this as a change in operating structure, not a sale. He said the government isn’t looking to privatize airports but to let private operators “manage the airports for a period of decades.”[3]
The idea didn’t come out of nowhere. The government has signalled interest since November’s budget, and May’s spring economic update said it would introduce legislation to explore the possibility.[4] The Globe and Mail has reported, citing sources, that Vancouver is the likely first candidate, partly because Ottawa expects to attract First Nations investment.[5] Yet Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon has said no decision has been made on which airport moves first.[6]
How Canada’s Airports Make Money Today
The current system is unusual. The federal government owns about two dozen large airports and leases the grounds to non-profit airport authorities that oversee operations.[4] Those authorities fund themselves through a range of fees charged to passengers, airlines, restaurants and shops.[7] They are financially independent and set their own fees.[3]
Passengers feel this most through airport improvement fees. Toronto Pearson charges $40 per departing passenger and $10 for connecting passengers, before tax. Vancouver charges $25 for flights outside British Columbia and Yukon, and $5 within them.[8] Airlines pay too, through landing and terminal charges. That’s the pool of money airlines worry a private operator would try to grow.
Why Airlines Say Private Returns Mean Higher Costs
The sharpest criticism so far has come from the International Air Transport Association. IATA’s Nick Careen said the plan would drive up fees paid by airlines, which would then have to pass the costs on to travellers.[1] He argued that fees tend to rise when investment funds seeking returns of 8 or 12 per cent become airport owners.[1] IATA’s membership includes Air Canada and WestJet.
Careen also said the plan cuts against Ottawa’s stated goal of cheaper travel. He said it “flies in the face of the argument that we’re trying to make travel in Canada less expensive.”[1] Carney sees it differently. He has said the change is meant to improve passenger services and find efficiencies, and that “travel costs go down over time.”[1] The two sides are reading the same international record very differently.
What the Transport Minister Has Promised
Ottawa has tried to reassure travellers without offering a guarantee. MacKinnon won’t promise that the cost to fly won’t go up, but he does promise an improved experience and partial regulation.[10] He has acknowledged that private operators bring new incentives to make money, and said the government will act to rein in increases such as airport improvement fees.[11]
The mechanism is the open question. MacKinnon told an aviation conference in Ottawa that the government will “regulate through contract,” with concessions containing fee moderation.[9] Ottawa hasn’t said whether it will impose general caps on landing fees and other charges, or negotiate restrictions separately for each airport.[9] That’s exactly the detail airlines say they need first.
What Australia and Other Countries Show
Both sides point abroad. A Gowling analysis found more than 850 airports in over 90 countries involve some private-sector participation, covering roughly 43 percent of global passenger traffic.[12] So the model is common. Whether it lowers costs for travellers is the contested part.
Australia is the example airlines cite most. The country’s competition watchdog says the four biggest airports raised their airline fees by $1.6 billion, or 81 per cent, in the decade leading up to 2015.[6] The same reporting notes that privatization there has also brought billions in capital investment, along with faster baggage handling, quicker check-in and more lounges.[6] The record is mixed, and it depends heavily on how each country designed its regulation.
The Rent Question Behind the Fee Debate
Rent paid to Ottawa is a major part of this story. Under a 2005 formula, authorities pay on a sliding scale that reaches 12% of gross revenue above $250 million.[8] Published totals differ slightly by source and year. The Globe reports $556 million in 2025[1], while the Canadian Airports Council has put the annual figure at $525 million[4], and the Public Accounts show $559.6 million for fiscal 2024–25.[8]
Airlines argue that money should go back into the airports. Careen said Ottawa should reinvest the rent it collects in the airports instead of adding it to general revenue.[1] Critics worry about the reverse risk. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives notes the spring statement promised to “update the framework for airport rents,” and suggests that could mean lower or zero rent for for-profit operators.[13] That’s analysis, not a confirmed plan, but it shows why the rent terms matter.
