Can Airport Privatization Make Flying in Canada More Affordable?

On September 15, Prime Minister Mark Carney stood on stage at the Canada Investment Summit in Toronto and said something that could change how Canadians think about their next flight home.

He wants to open the country's four largest airports, Toronto Pearson, Vancouver, Montreal-Trudeau and Calgary, to private investment through long-term operating concessions.

He was careful about the wording. "We're selling a concession, not privatizing the airport," Carney said, meaning Ottawa keeps the land and the underlying assets while a private operator takes over running the airport, likely for decades, under contract.

The reaction came fast, Labor groups warned it could push up costs and squeeze airport workers, the Conservative opposition asked what savings travelers would actually see, and the NDP said flatly it is against privatizing airports at all.

A previous government looked at something similar and shelved it after mixed feedback from stakeholders.

This time, consultations are expected to run over the coming weeks, with safety and security standards staying with federal regulators either way.

That is the policy version of the story and here is the version most of us in reality live.

Imagine a wedding invitation arrives from another province, a parent asks when you are coming to visit, a long weekend opens up, and you start wondering whether there is enough time to get home.

Then you check the flights.

For anyone whose family, friends or work are spread across Canada, that moment can change the entire conversation: You compare dates, shorten the visit and weigh the cost against everything else the month requires, the distance was always there yet the price just makes you feel it.

It is not only a feeling, either.

The Competition Bureau's 2025 airline study backs up a frustration Canadians bring up constantly: flying internationally can sometimes cost less than flying within our own country.

So, when PM talks about capital, infrastructure and operating agreements, what travelers want to know is simpler: will any of this make it easier to say yes to the next invitation?

I think private investment is worth a serious look but to understand what it could realistically achieve, we need to follow the money behind a ticket and ask, honestly, where a different airport model could make a real difference, and where it can't.

 

1. The cost of a flight starts long before the plane takes off

When a ticket feels expensive, the airline usually takes the blame.

It sets the fare; it takes your payment but a chunk of what you pay is funding a much bigger system working behind the scenes.

Airports charge for their facilities, planes need navigation services to get in the air, and security screening isn't free. Some of these costs show up on your booking confirmation. Others get folded quietly into the airline's operating expenses before you ever see a number.

WestJet has argued that government and third-party costs add up to at least $75 per flight before the airline even sets its own fare. That's WestJet's own advocacy number, mixing direct and indirect costs together, and it shouldn't be read as some fixed government fee stamped on every domestic ticket.

Still, the underlying problem is real.

An airline can offer you a cheaper seat, but it can't independently erase every other cost tied to getting you on that plane.

Take one specific example. Air Canada's September 2026 schedule lists Winnipeg's airport improvement charge at $39.90.

For a family of four flying out together, that is $159.60 before anyone has boarded. Comparing airports gets tricky here too, since the schedule separates improvement fees from improvement fee deposits, and each airport handles its own tax and collection setup a little differently.

None of this infrastructure pays for itself. Runways need to be safe, terminals need to function, baggage systems need to work. But when four people are travelling together, these small individual charges stop feeling small.

If we want a more affordable system, we must look at how that infrastructure gets financed, and whether every traveler needs to shoulder as much of it as they currently do.

 

2. Changing who runs the airport wouldn't touch some of these costs at all

Once you separate out the charges, the limits of privatization start to show.

Canada's domestic Air Travelers Security Charge sits at $9.46 per chargeable departure before GST/HST, and up to $18.92 where it applies to the full air transportation service.

That's a federal charge. Swapping out the airport operator wouldn't change that number on its own.

Airport ground rent is a different kind of cost, and a bit more hidden. Major airport authorities lease their land from the federal government and absorb that expense into their overall budget.

You won't see "rent" as a line item on your ticket, but it's baked into the airport's finances all the same.

The federal reform agenda already includes reviewing how that rent is calculated and extending some leases.

Before we celebrate a new operating agreement as some kind of affordability breakthrough, it is worth asking what these policy changes could achieve on their own, without bringing in a private operator at all. If rent relief comes bundled with private investment, how much of any improvement is the new operator's doing, and how much is just the government changing the terms?

That distinction may seem technical until you ask whether privatization was necessary to deliver the promised savings.

3. Private investment could improve the airport, but travelers need to see the benefit too

Canada's major airports already run with a lot of commercial independence. Most are managed by private, not-for-profit airport authorities or other public entities, so business-style management isn't new here.

Carney's proposal centers on long-term private operating concessions at Pearson, Vancouver, Montreal-Trudeau and Calgary, with Ottawa keeping the underlying land and assets. Winnipeg isn't part of that first group, though the affordability conversation matters well beyond those four cities.

An experienced investor could genuinely bring something useful to the table: sharper project delivery, smarter commercial development, better use of terminal space. More capacity could help airlines grow their schedules. More reliable operations could take some of the sting out of travelling.

Anyone who has stood beside an empty baggage carousel, or watched a tight connection quietly slip away, knows a better airport experience is worth something.

But here's the financial reality. Investors expect a return on their money. That return can come from growing traffic and building new revenue streams, or it can come from raising the charges travelers pay.

International research on airport ownership found real improvements in traffic, efficiency and service quality under private equity ownership, alongside higher prices and more retail revenue. The outcomes shifted depending on the type of ownership and how much competition existed.

That's exactly why a nicer terminal and a cheaper trip need to be judged separately. An airport can look more impressive while the trip through it quietly gets harder to afford.

4. The next airline on the departure board might matter as much as who runs the airport

Even if flying through an airport gets cheaper, you still need airlines willing to compete for your business.

The Competition Bureau found that adding just one more competitor to route cut fares by 9% on average. That single number gives the affordability conversation a clear direction: making it easier for real competitors to enter a market and stay there.

We've already watched how fast that competition can disappear. Lynx Air and Canada Jetlines both shut down in 2024, and Swoop was folded back into WestJet in 2023. Those situations were all different, and none should be pinned entirely on airport charges. But together, they show why keeping real competition alive deserves attention, not just praise when a new route launches.

This is where airport reform could genuinely help. Reasonable charges and fair access to gates and facilities can help a new airline build something that lasts. Expensive, restrictive arrangements do the opposite.

For a traveler, a new route can mean more than one more destination on the board. It can mean a direct flight instead of a connection, a departure time that fits your work schedule, or a competing fare that finally makes the trip possible.

Whatever an airport does for affordability should include how much room it leaves for airlines to compete.

 

5. Whatever gets signed needs to say what changes for the person buying the ticket

Canada's size and scattered population make airline economics genuinely hard.

Northern and remote communities depend on aviation for essential supplies and access to healthcare, not just weekend trips. Any national reform must account for that.

Our geography is exactly why affordability deserves to be taken seriously. It's also exactly why no single operating model is going to fix everything at once.

In my view, private investment should be measured against clear commitments Canadians can understand how airport charges will be reviewed, which infrastructure upgrades are guaranteed, what happens when service standards slip, and how new airlines will receive fair access.

If rent relief or any other public benefit comes attached to this deal, someone needs to explain how airport users are supposed to see that benefit too.

The same scrutiny should apply to whatever reforms are already possible under the system we have today.

Lower airport costs won't automatically mean a cheaper ticket on every route or every date. Demand, competition and everything else an airline pays for still shape the final fare. But clear, public commitments would at least give Canadians a way to judge whether this reform delivers more than a good headline.

In the end, this whole Flying in Canada More Affordable debate comes back to the moment someone opens a booking page.

The wedding date hasn't changed.

Your parents still hope you'll visit. The days off are still limited.

What matters is whether that trip has gotten a little more within reach.

Now maybe we have a better idea if Flying in Canada More Affordable?

Private investment could help get us there, but only if lower costs, reliable service and real competition are written into the deal from the start. Canadians should be able to see that benefit in the trips they can afford to take.