|
IN BRIEF |
|
In France, abundance is cultivated… especially in terms of airports. Almost 120 commercial platforms crisscross the Hexagon, a record density in Europe, while ten of them concentrate nearly 90% of the traffic and around thirty do not exceed 10,000 passengers/year. A legacy of a post-war network and enthusiastic local choices, this network today aligns subsidized routes at a high price, sometimes more expensive than the ticket itself, while high-speed trains and highways have changed the game. Between territorial continuity and budgetary efficiency, should we maintain these runways or rethink the plan? Understanding a French exception that intrigues as much as it costs.
France collects airports like others stack rare stamps. Result: an extremely dense sky, underutilized platforms, and soaring subsidies. This article dissects why the Hexagon has about 120 commercial airports, how ten of them concentrate the overwhelming majority of traffic, and why the others struggle to take off without public aid. We trace the historical thread, compare with our neighbors, assess costs, and explore avenues to better connect territories without strapping down public finances.
In tourism as elsewhere, one often surprises oneself by asking the simplest question in the world: why? Why so many airports in France? Why so many silent runways when, elsewhere in Europe, the system operates with significantly fewer? And above all: for whom, for what, and at what cost?
Why ask the question?
Because, at a time when we speak of savings, France displays a density of airports that is exceptional. Because such a fine network was logical in an era of slow roads and not-so-fast trains, but becomes questionable in the age of high-speed trains, highways, and intermodality. And because maintaining structures with low traffic has a very real cost for taxpayers.
120 commercial airports: asset or aberration?
According to definitions, France has about 120 commercial airports, mixing regular and seasonal connections. A figure that would make us champions of airport density in Europe, while Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, or Italy hover around 50, without their skies crashing down. Look for the error… or the national specificity.
A notion that varies according to sources
The perimeter of what is “commercial” fluctuates: some platforms operate only a few scheduled flights, sometimes only in summer. This inflates the numbers… without filling the boarding halls.
European comparisons
Our neighbors rely on fewer platforms, but better sized, with efficient hubs and quick land connections. In short: fewer runways, more passengers per runway, and more understandable costs.
Who really boards? Anatomy of traffic
Recent figures are clear: about ten metropolitan airports concentrate around 90% of national traffic. Only about twenty platforms have enough passengers to remain breakeven without constant aid.
The giants and the others
We count roughly ten airports above 5 million travelers per year, five between 1 and 5 million: these are the most robust. Next come six platforms between 500,000 and 1 million, then about fifteen between 100,000 and 500,000. Below that, the curve drops sharply: around thirty airports show less than 10,000 passengers/year — meaning barely 30 people/day.
When boarding feels like a family reunion
In practice, some airports remain open for a few weekly flights, with usage sometimes very seasonal. This raises an unrelenting question: what is the economic model when not even a shuttle bus is filled per day?
The cost of landing: subsidies and deficits
For an airport to succeed, it often needs to exceed the threshold of about 1 million passengers per year. However, more than half of French airports remain well below that, showing a deficit operation and under public aid.
When the drip becomes the flight plan
According to regularly cited orders of magnitude, the bill would reach nearly 200 million euros per year (operating subsidies, investments, boosts to airlines). On some routes, the subsidy could climb to more than 1,500 € per passenger. A cost that sometimes benefits a few low-cost airlines more than local dynamism.
Territorial continuity: the exception that proves the rule
There are solid justifications, such as territorial continuity for Corsica or overseas. But outside of these cases, maintaining underutilized infrastructures often results from reflex rather than strategy.
How did we get here? History and planning
France was a pioneer in civil aviation. Post-war, the country massively invested to connect cities to each other and to the capital: a coherent decision when neither highways nor high-speed trains offered a rapid alternative. The problem: the world has changed, the tracks have modernized, but the air network has not been significantly rethought.
When decentralization adds political kerosene
The management — even ownership — of many airports has been entrusted to regional authorities. Each runway has become a symbol of local development, even an electoral issue. Result: it is difficult to close, even when economic viability is lacking. We can count the decibels of the engines; we measure the inertia of decisions less well.
What alternatives in the short and medium term?
Without depriving territories of access, we can rationalize intelligently: prioritize truly useful air routes, facilitate connections to major platforms and strengthen rail and road where it is more relevant.
Winning intermodality
Develop rapid connections by train or express buses to major hubs, synchronize schedules, create relay parking, and pool safety services between nearby platforms. These are all solutions tailored for travelers… and for finances.
Targeted public service obligations
Limit subsidized routes to truly essential journeys, regularly audit load rates and economic impact, condition aid to clear objectives (frequencies, capped prices, alternatives studied).
When current events shake terminals
Aerial transport does not live in a vacuum. Recent disruptions in the United States remind us that global shocks affect the entire network, from the giant to the small aerodrome. For example, the disruptions in air transport in Dallas, where the domino effect affected thousands of passengers and disrupted entire schedules.
In terms of safety, updating rules and equipment incurs significant costs. The UK has initiated security changes in its airports, while Italy has begun to turn the page on the famous 100 ml rule in Italian airports. Adaptation requires heavy investments that small platforms struggle to absorb.
The digital realm opens another front: cyberattacks against European airports demonstrate that cyber resilience is now an essential budget line item. And when an airline suffers a major IT incident, the fallout extends: the recent system failure at United Airlines illustrates just how interconnected the chain is.
Can we turn back?
Not without finesse. Closing for closure’s sake puts territories in a bind. But maintaining everything in the name of a superficial egalitarianism is not sustainable. There are middle grounds: targeted conversions and smarter role-sharing between platforms.
Reinventing low-traffic sites
Transforming certain airports into bases for light aviation, training centers, drone hubs, maintenance sites, or regional logistics platforms; leveraging the spaces for renewable energy projects; maintaining seasonal activities or medical flights when relevant.
Governance and transparency
Publishing simple dashboards: real costs, subsidies per passenger, emissions, available alternatives. Competing options (rail, road, air) line by line. And linking any public aid to a measurable trajectory of viability or demonstrable public service.
