Government not coming to save Kāpiti Airport, as demand for Auckland route falls short

In an exclusive report, Local Aotearoa can reveal that the Government is not coming to the rescue of Kāpiti Airport.

Newly released OIA material also shows passenger demand on the Kāpiti to Auckland route was not high enough to make the service viable, even after Air Chathams reduced its schedule following disruption caused by the United States-Iran War.

In an OIA response containing questions about the airport’s future, Associate Transport Minister James Meager has confirmed the Government “does not have a position” on whether Kāpiti Airport must remain open. He noted that, beyond the five joint venture airports owned by the Crown and councils, and “some specialist amenities, such as Milford Aerodrome”, decisions about privately owned airports like Kāpiti are ultimately up to their operators.

It is a significant statement, and one that cuts through much of the recent political noise surrounding the airport.

For months, the public campaign to save Kāpiti Airport has leaned heavily on the idea that it is not just a local airport, but an essential piece of regional infrastructure. It has been described as an economic asset, a lifeline and civil defence utility, a regional connectivity hub, and something the wider Wellington region cannot afford to lose.

But newly released Official Information Act material points to a more complicated picture.

Along with the Government leaving decisions about the airport’s future in the hands of its owners, in the same OIA material, Air Chathams’ own chief executive privately told Meager in mid-May that Kāpiti demand was “really poor”, even with a reduced flight schedule. A week later, he gave Meager a heads-up about the upcoming announcement on the temporary suspension of services, saying that they weren’t selling enough seats to “cover the direct operating costs” and that the Kāpiti to Auckland service was unlikely to return.

This decisively undercuts claims from airport supporters that there was plenty of demand.

What’s more, a separate OIA response from Emergency Management Minister Mark Mitchell confirms his office has received no correspondence, briefings, meeting notes, summaries, or engagement records relating to Kāpiti Airport over the past year. This is notable because airport supporters tell us over and over again how essential the airport would be in a major disaster in the Wellington region. If this was the case, and you were worried about it closing, it is basic lobbying 101 that you would take concerns about losing it to the Minister for Emergency Management.

Taken together, the paper trail suggests the airport rescue campaign has a problem. The public rhetoric says Kāpiti Airport is essential. The official record is much less convincing. While I do not doubt that airport advocates have been engaging among themselves and with potential third parties, the gaps in their advocacy to central government, and central government’s clear reluctance to get involved, is telling.

The clearest test of the Government’s position came from the airport’s owner.

In May, lawyers acting for Kāpiti Coast Airport Holdings Limited wrote to Ministers Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop seeking clarity on whether the Government believed Kāpiti Airport must remain open, and whether government funding would be available if necessary to support that position.

That was a revealing question.

It showed the airport owner wanted to know whether the political campaign to keep the airport open was backed by actual government policy, or whether it was simply advocacy from local MP Tim Costley.

The answer now appears to be the latter.

Meager’s response does not commit the Government to keeping Kāpiti Airport open. Instead, it points to the Government’s valuing of regional air connections through the regional airline loan package, as well as mentioning and the possibility of airports applying to the Regional Infrastructure Fund for specific capital projects that improve regional growth, resilience, or productivity.

That is not nothing. But it also clearly demonstrates there is no appetite by the Government to rescue Kāpiti Airport.

There is a major difference between saying regional connectivity matters and saying one privately owned airport must remain open. There is also a major difference between saying an airport could apply for infrastructure funding and saying taxpayers will step in to preserve the airport’s current use.

The Government appears willing to talk about regional air connectivity. But it does not appear willing to say Kāpiti Airport must be saved, and that is telling.

The OIA material also complicates the argument that the Kāpiti to Auckland route was simply a victim of cost pressures, council loan demands, or uncertainty over the airport’s future.

In released WhatsApp messages, Air Chathams chief executive Duane Emeny told Meager that “Kāpiti demand is really poor as well even with reduced flight schedule.”

That is an important private acknowledgement.

Public discussion about Air Chathams’ Kāpiti service has often focused on the $500,000 interest-free loan provided by Kāpiti Coast District Council during the pandemic (a loan which I voted for while I was on council), the airline’s difficulty repaying it, the cost of operating from the airport, and the future of the Aerodrome Flight Information Service, or AFIS.

Those issues may all be real. Regional aviation is difficult, and small regional airlines face genuine cost pressures. But demand matters too and it is now crystal clear that demand from Kāpiti residents for this service simply was not there.

If the airline itself was telling the Minister that Kāpiti demand was “really poor”, then the problem cannot simply be blamed on the council, the airport owner, or the cost of AFIS.

It suggests the route had a more basic commercial challenge: not enough people were using it.

That does not mean the service had no value. It does not mean nobody relied on it. But it does weaken the argument that the Auckland route was fundamentally viable apart from one or two fixable cost barriers.

It also raises a harder public policy question.

Should public money be used to maintain a route where the airline itself privately acknowledged weak demand? Or should any public investment be limited to clearly demonstrated emergency and resilience needs, if those needs can actually be proven?

From my perspective, Kāpiti has certainly done enough having provided more than $1 million in support for the service to try to get the route to work. But if residents were not willing to turn up and fly locally, then any further argument to try to continue to subsidise a route that has had plenty of time to prove its viability is denying reality.

The airport’s supporters have repeatedly leaned on its lifeline role as reason for its retention.

Local MP Costley has argued that Kāpiti Airport is listed as a major hub of operations in the Wellington Civil Defence plan, is used by Life Flight aircraft when Wellington Airport is closed or affected by weather, and could be important for staging between fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft in a crisis.

Those are serious claims.

But serious claims should leave a serious paper trail.

A separate OIA response from Emergency Management Minister Mark Mitchell shows they do not appear to have done so.

Asked for all correspondence, briefings, reports, meeting notes, summaries, documents, and engagement records relating to Kāpiti Airport over the past 12 months, Mitchell’s office found nothing.

No correspondence from members of the public.

No correspondence from advocacy groups.

No correspondence from local government representatives.

No correspondence from Members of Parliament.

No correspondence from airport owners or aviation organisations.

No meetings, phone calls, briefings, summaries, or notes.

No information in scope was identified.

That does not prove Kāpiti Airport has no emergency management value. But it does show that the lifeline case has not been prosecuted through the most obvious ministerial channel. I say this as someone who has worked extensively in lobbying and has succeeded in getting ministers to fund major infrastructure assets.

If the airport is genuinely a critical emergency management asset for the wider Wellington region, why has the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery apparently not been contacted? There’s no advice, no briefings, no meetings, no correspondence for 12 months, including after claims of a possible purchase offer for the airport came to light in May.

If, as we have been told, those trying to save the airport have been working “tirelessly” behind the scenes, this seems like a significant omission.

That is especially true given that the response to a major Wellington earthquake would involve the activation of the Wellington Earthquake National Initial Response Plan. That is a plan that sits with the National Emergency Management Agency. Notably, for all the citing of that plan by airport advocates, the plan in question assumes Wellington Airport is likely to have 1,200 metres of runway available within 48 hours to service military aircraft, and also assumes there will likely be damage to Kāpiti Airport too, though this can similarly be repaired quickly.

As we also saw in the Christchurch earthquakes, any suitably large park or field can be used as a staging and refuelling area for helicopters. There is no shortage of those in Kāpiti, even without the airport.

The OIA material also shows Costley has been pursuing the potential removal of AFIS at Kāpiti Airport as a way to reduce costs.

In his letter to Meager, Costley made the significant claim that AFIS was not required at Kāpiti and that removing it could save up towards $1 million in annual operating costs for the airport, as well as around $35 per ticket for passengers.

If a regulatory requirement is imposing major costs that are not proportionate to the safety need, then it should absolutely be reviewed through the proper process. But the documents also show this is not simply a matter of political will.

CAA officials told Costley that, in order to reduce the level of service, the aerodrome would need to submit an aeronautical study to CAA. Airways could potentially work with the aerodrome on that process, but CAA’s role would be to assess a submission once it was received.

Meager made a similar point in his response, noting that the current system requires the aerodrome owner to be an active participant in any proposed change to service levels, including whether AFIS is necessary.

In other words, AFIS cannot simply be wished away by politicians.

This is a safety process, and there are no doubt significant issues of legal liability at play too. The airport owner has to be involved. Airways and CAA have roles to play. If the service is to be removed or changed, the case has to be made through the proper regulatory channels.

The OIA shows the airport owner has also pushed back on the idea that removing AFIS should be treated as a simple cost-saving win. In earlier correspondence to Costley, Kāpiti Coast Airport Holdings said AFIS exists first and foremost as a safety measure, and that safety remains its key priority.

That does not mean AFIS should never change. But it does mean removing it should not be presented as a rescue plan unless the safety case has actually been made through the appropriate authorities.

The problem for the save-the-airport campaign is not that Kāpiti Airport has no use. It clearly does. It has aviation users. It has some emergency and medical flight relevance. It has symbolic and nostalgic value for parts of the community. It may provide resilience benefits in some situations where other parts of the region’s transport system are under pressure.

But useful is not the same as essential. It is also not the same as commercially viable. And it is certainly not the same as proving the public should carry the cost and risk of preserving a privately owned airport.

The latest OIA material points to a gap between the public campaign and the official record.

The local MP says the airport is a lifeline asset, but the Emergency Management Minister has no records about it.

The airline has pointed to cost pressures, but its own chief executive privately told the Minister that demand was really poor.

The local MP wants the airport kept operational, but the Government says it has no position on whether it must remain open.

The airport owner has asked whether the Government actually has a position on the airport staying open, and whether funding would be available if necessary. The answer appears to be no, at least when it comes to any clear rescue commitment.

There are quite a few unanswered questions. There are other OIAs and LGOIMA requests with responses due in the coming weeks to other ministers and entities which may show other advocacy taking place.

There is also a familiar rhythm to all of this. The Kāpiti Airport debate has a habit of going quiet for long stretches, only to burst back into life around local or central government election cycles, usually with fresh claims of imminent closure, mysterious benefactors, or rescue plans that never quite seem to land. Taken together with what these OIA responses now show with very little engagement over the past 12 months, a cynic might wonder whether this debate has become less about what is actually best for the community and more about the politics of being seen to fight for the airport. I genuinely hope that is not the case, because the last thing Kāpiti needs is for the community to be taken for a ride again.

All this leaves the airport debate exactly where it has been for years.

If Kāpiti Airport is a commercial airport, then its future depends on commercial reality: passenger demand, operating costs, supporting revenue, land value, airline viability, and the decisions of its private owner. If it is a local community asset, then Kāpiti needs an honest debate about whether ratepayers should continue to contribute, how much they should contribute, and what they would give up or how much more they would pay to do so - and we can look at other regional airports around the country to understand the significant operational and capital commitments we’re talking about here.

If it is a regional or national lifeline utility, then the case needs to be made through the appropriate emergency management system, backed by evidence, planning, and funding from the agencies that would rely on it, likely at a regional and national level.

What cannot continue is the airport being treated as all three at once, depending on which argument is most convenient at the time.

The OIA material does not settle every question about Kāpiti Airport’s future. But it does make one thing much clearer.

At this stage, the Government is not coming to save Kāpiti Airport. Unless political pressure causes them to change their minds (which given their broader cost cutting approach, seems unlikely), or a different group of private investors can come up with the cash to buy it and subsidise it, then the airport’s future remains uncertain.

It is worth noting at this point, despite the various colourful comments often directed at the owners of the airport, since purchasing it they have continued to quietly get on with operating it as an airport. This includes, as I understand it, continuing to provide peppercorn rents for community groups and low cost fees for light aircraft. While I do not doubt for a second they have done some in-depth investigations around their options for the site, despite rumours claiming it has been on the verge of closing every Christmas and Easter, this has not eventuated yet. None of this is the behaviour of an organisation that, as some would have us believe, is hellbent on closing the airport at any moment.

If Kāpiti Airport is to have a future that includes an actual airport, it will need to be built on evidence, money, and reality - not rumours, rescue fantasies, and election-year runway lights.

For full transparency, you can read the OIA responses below:

Some have seen my commentary on this issue as being too negative about Kāpiti Airport. That misses the point.

There is nothing wrong with wanting the airport to stay open. There is nothing wrong with valuing its history, recognising its usefulness, or wanting Kāpiti to retain as much local infrastructure as possible. Many people have fond memories of the airport, and some people still use it, rely on it, or see potential in it.

But public debate cannot run on sentiment alone.

When a privately owned airport is being described as a lifeline utility, a regional resilience asset, and something that central or local government should help save, the standard of evidence has to rise. That is not negativity. That is basic accountability.

If the airport is commercially viable, then its supporters should be able to show how it can operate sustainably, which the latest revelations around a lack of demand make a lot harder, while questions remain whether the economics of the hybrid-model touted by some really stack up.

If it is not commercially viable but has a public-good role, then its supporters should be clear about what that role is, who benefits from it, who should pay for it, and what other options for provisioning that role have been tested. And if it is truly essential emergency management infrastructure, then the case should be backed by emergency management advice, regional resilience planning, and central government engagement through the relevant portfolios.

Stories of the Hurricanes Poua team being saved an extra 90 minute drive to Palmerston North to make a charter flight make for a warm and fuzzy story, but they also highlight how few people actually beyond air ambulance services genuinely depend on the airport, even when Wellington is disrupted.

None of this is anti-airport.

It is pro-evidence.

Kāpiti deserves more than hopeful claims, mysterious rescue plans, and repeated suggestions that someone else might eventually step in. The community deserves to know whether saving the airport is realistic, what it would cost, who would pay, and whether the claimed benefits stack up against other possible uses for the land or public money. Given what is at stake and the trade-offs involved one way or the other, we need to think carefully about all options and their implications.

Being honest about those questions is not talking the airport down. It is treating the public and the debate with respect.

From campaigning with Nathan Guy to attract Air Chathams when Air New Zealand departed, through to voting in council support of financial support for air services, I have done much more than most others to try and make the airport viable. I also have made use of the airport over the years and have plenty of fond memories of it, including flying from it using both Air New Zealand and Air Chathams, going on aerobatic flights with the Aeroclub, and going to gliding camps there many moons ago. So it is not as if I have no sympathy for, or understanding of, the airport and how it is used.

As I have said multiple times, I would welcome an altruistic group of private investors stepping in to save the airport at their own expense.

But if past history is anything to go by, we should be mindful of the motives of would-be benefactors. Previous lofty visions for hybrid airport developments appear to have gone only as far as increasing the site’s resale value, rather than forming the basis of serious long-term proposals.

This is a common development model. A landowner or developer can create value by taking a site through design and consenting, sometimes with enough work to demonstrate proof of concept, before selling the consented development opportunity to another party to deliver.

Ultimately, I understand that public finances are finite. There are many other, and often more worthy, projects and initiatives where that money could be put to greater use. I also know that nostalgia and vibes are not going to pay the bills.

That is not negativity. It is being realistic.