…Demands joint audit to fix multiple charges, tax burden
By Chinelo Obogo
A former Vice President at Arik Air and Africa Representative for Moov AG, Lanre Bamgbose, has said that single-digit financing for Nigerian airlines is nothing more than a palliative. Speaking to Daily Sun on the industry’s festering crisis, Bamgbose said that high and volatile fuel costs, naira-dollar currency mismatches, multiple taxation, duplicated charges, and a fragmented market are some of the major reasons crippling airlines. He insisted that without addressing these structural failures, domestic carriers will remain in cycle of borrowing just to stay afloat.
What is your view on the single-digit interest loans being asked for by domestic carriers? Are they the “ultimate lifeline”
Having been in that space and particularly participated at a senior level in an airline that utilized single-digit interest capital under a structured finance regime with exim finance corporations ,I can tell you, yes with such capital, you have addressed the price of money and I must admit it solved a lot of problems notwithstanding that the abrupt disruption of that particular transaction created a larger problem. However, the cost of money is not the cost of running an airline and that’s why single digit funds fall short as the ultimate lifeline. It is more of short-term liquidity relief, but Nigerian carriers face a deeper structural problem: high and volatile fuel costs as it is currently what the AON had been talking about, trading currency mismatches (naira revenues vs. dollar expenses), multiple taxation and duplicated charges, weak infrastructure, and an over-fragmented market that lacks systemic integration. Look at the country- no state sells curated destinations with a touristic/commercial value proposition. So, regardless of how cheap financing becomes, elevated costs and thin margins erode whatever value you may think you have from it. Without fixing the underlying cost structure and industry inefficiencies, airlines will remain trapped in a cycle of borrowing to survive rather than operating sustainably. So rather than sustainable, single-digit financing is a palliative.
How does the “structural decay” you refer to undermine the effectiveness of cheap capital?
Perhaps I should say structural misalignments that may turn cheap capital into a temporary buffer rather than a catalyst which it should be .Now let’s look at the ecosystem, security is a broader national issue that affects airport operating hours and implicitly optimum aircraft utilization. That security concern also implies restricted or limited hours out of the 24 hrs/day for both production and secured movement of people, goods and services. The supply of jet fuel ( a major cost center) may have been addressed to an extent by Dangote refinery, the airlines are still complaining about prohibitive pricing- they want cheaper fuel. Don’t forget that as much as it is a free market airline operators cannot take a shot at certain levels of fare increases without reprisal , then there is trading currency mismatch (naira revenues vs. dollar expenses), and now the wave of over fragmented market and perhaps undercapitalized airline landscape may induce a deeper distortion in the already fractured marketplace, now that so many states are buying aircraft and launching airlines , so also is the multiple taxation and duplicated charges concerns., Some of these factors drive operating costs high and margins persistently thin until these core issues are addressed and resolved cheapest capital is not a silver bullet, airlines will only use cheaper funds to survive within a broken system rather than achieve sustainable profitability. So you see, the problem isn’t only the cost of money, it’s the cost of the system.
What are the underlying inefficiencies in the sector that must be addressed before any financing solution can truly stabilize Nigerian airlines?
Insecurity is a broader national challenge beyond aviation which affects aircraft utilisation, airport operating hours – limited night operations or navigational constraints at some airports, restrict movements of persons and goods. Environmental issues of bird strikes costing airlines huge money they do not have to spend leading to disruption of schedules in addition to already congested terminals. There is also the issue of increasing maintenance costs for airlines in the absence of robust local MRO capacity for heavy checks. The combined effect is lower aircraft productivity with low load factors and suppressed yields and higher cost of operations.. All of these among others feed into one outcome: high cost of operation and low asset productivity. Until they’re addressed, any cheap financing will only provide temporary relief. True stabilization comes from lowering the system’s cost base, improving efficiency, and restructuring the industry and governance, not just throwing single digit funds at aircraft acquisition. That’s why in my view capital alone cannot stabilize the sector, it must follow structural reform, not substitute for it.
Domestic airlines have lamented the taxes, charges and fees they pay but the government says the airlines don’t pay as much as they claim. What is the way forward for both sides (Airlines and FG) on how this issue of multiple charges can be addressed.
If we continue to bicker, whether charges are “too high” or “not enough, we won’t get anything fixed. The way forward in my view is to hit the hard reset by agreeing where and how we place aviation in our economic framework. We are a country of about 200 million with technically less than 10 million flying is not great for the industry. We really need to get more people airborne; we must treat aviation as a strategic economic enabler.
As seen in countries where aviation is positioned as growth engines rather than a tax base, the broader economy expands and the government ultimately earns more from growth than from excessive charges.
First, take the approach advocated by Taiwo Oyedele, now Minister of Finance when he led the tax reform initiative of the FG, to recalibrate, we must “establish the facts” and we cannot continue to bicker on this subject. As a sector, we must constructively engage these issues, perhaps consider a joint audit of all aviation-related charges, taxes, regulatory fees, and service charges, separate perception from reality and create a single, trusted baseline with the government. Then, we rationalize the system, consolidate the so-called multiple levies into fewer, transparent, cost-reflective charges and this will reduce inefficiency without necessarily reducing government revenue.
We should all agree as a country to reposition aviation as an economic catalyst, not a revenue extraction point as it is currently positioned. I am not saying costs should not be recovered or that we commence another regime of subsidy leading nowhere. But we must minimise sectoral tax burdens to grow traffic, invest in infrastructure upgrades as it is being done currently in Lagos and other airports by the FG. Revisit and unlock tourism and trade potentials (state governments need to work with the private sector, otherwise we won’t achieve much here). The result will be a much larger economic base from which the government ultimately earns more.
Finally, any relief must be tied to accountability, better financial and governance transparency, operational efficiency, and measurable performance by airlines, airport administration, handling companies, jet fuel suppliers and all stakeholders. We must adopt a pro-growth aviation policy. That’s how we move from recurring disputes to a system where both airlines, government and all stakeholders win.
Leave a comment