Major airlines operating in Spain are required by law to share their air traffic forecasts with Aena, the airport manager, so the authority can calculate how proposed charges will affect yearly airport fares. Without these precise forecasts, neither Aena, which submitted the proposal, nor the National Markets and Competition Commission CNMC, which approved it, can determine the proper fare adjustments for carriers using Spanish airports. The process hinges on accurate data about passenger volumes and market dynamics, ensuring that fee structures reflect actual usage and investment needs.
The requirement targets the top ten carriers by air traffic volume. Airlines must provide Aena with segmented forecasts that cover national and international passenger flows. For the international segment, the forecasts should distinguish traffic within the European Union from traffic outside it, and further differentiate between medium and long-haul routes. Each year, the major airlines supply these inputs at Aena’s request. In recent years, however, some carriers have failed to comply with the obligation, creating gaps in the regulator’s ability to calibrate charges precisely.
Last year, according to CNMC decisions on airport fees, some airlines did not meet the disclosure requirement. Air Nostrum, Binter Canarias and Norwegian were cited as noncompliant. In the previous year Eurowings, a subsidiary of Lufthansa, also did not provide the requested data. The decisions note that the obligations established by Law No. 18/2014 and the related Airport Regulatory Documents, which govern Aena’s activities, investments, and fees, were not fully observed over the relevant five year periods. The absence of complete data raised questions about the integrity of the fee-setting process and the ability to transparently justify annual adjustments.
Despite these findings, neither enforcement action nor sanctions were pursued against the airlines. The Ministry of Transport and CNMC appeared to disagree on which authority should proceed. The Ministry argued it should assess possible violations, while CNMC contended that the remit of its work did not extend to sanctions in this area and that violations should be reported to the Ministry for potential action. This stance was echoed by a major Spanish newspaper in the same publishing group, which noted that no formal enforcement procedures had been activated in this domain. The situation highlighted the political and institutional friction over who bears responsibility for ensuring compliance with disclosure requirements in the airport charges process.
The legal and regulatory framework prompts questions about how violations of Law No. 18/2014 should be addressed. When it comes to penalties, the scope of enforcement authority is contested among the General Directorate of Civil Aviation, the State Aviation Safety Agency, and the Civil Directorate of General Aviation. The distribution of responsibilities makes it crucial to determine who identifies non-disclosure and incomplete or inaccurate information in the fee consultation process. CNMC currently interprets its role as overseeing Aena’s adherence to transparency guidelines and ensuring that charges align with regulatory standards. It has stressed that sanctions for non-disclosure laid out in the law apply to Aena, and that airlines may bear no direct penalties under this specific provision, a position that many observers view as imbalanced for the overall system. In practice, this means that airline-related issues are routed to the General Directorate of Civil Aviation and, if appropriate, to the Ministry of Transport for potential action, though actual penalties have not materialized in the cases cited.
In CNMC’s view, the central task remains ensuring that Aena follows the consultation and transparency procedures and that the resulting rates comply with current regulations. The commission has argued that any severe sanctions for non-disclosure should be reserved for Aena, with airline noncompliance treated as a secondary matter that merits escalation to the appropriate aviation authorities rather than direct penalization by CNMC. This approach reflects a broader debate about the proper allocation of regulatory power and the practical consequences for market fairness when information disclosure falters. The broader implication is clear: the integrity of airport fee-setting depends on a robust, accountable framework that clearly assigns responsibility for reporting, monitoring, and enforcing disclosures across all involved parties, including Aena and the airlines themselves. It is a balance between safeguarding competition and ensuring operational certainty for both carriers and passengers, a balance that regulators in Canada and the United States watch closely when considering analogous fee structures and transparency requirements in their own markets.