National Carrier Debate: Here We Go Again

National carriers are usually set up at the teething stage of a country’s civil aviation and are regularly propped up with numerous protectionist policies, such as financial aid, privatization, technical partnership etc. When these policies fail they are sold, liquidated or shredded like Gulf Air.

They are sometimes brought back to life, though at great cost and risk to absorb employees of failed major carriers. It provides employment and assuages nerves of restive unions, LAFSA was a paper airline formed by the Argentine government to absorb staff of two failed private carriers (LAPA and DINAR) in Argentina.

They may act as a means of providing additional fleet, capacity, and frequency in support of other registered carriers or investors. The aim is to operate several routes, compete internationally and keep the flag flying, which was exemplified by Greek government support for the fumbling Olympic Airways/Airlines and the initial backing of Brussels Airline by the Belgian Government at the demise of Sabena.

They may also be set up to fill a vacuum or to avert the monopolistic tendencies of the surviving airlines, which may encourage price fixing. The government through the consumer protection arm ensures and encourages competition. The Australian government encouraged the quick emergence of some airlines at the demise of Ansett Airlines which gave Qantas dominance over the Aussie airspace.

Looking at the three scenarios enumerated above, the first scenario is belated, considering it is almost eight years now after the demise of the flying elephant, Nigeria Airways (WT). The employees have simply moved on with their lives.

The second scenario is the crux of the present agitation for another national carrier, considering the flag carriers are floundering with suffocating debts. Also, the international routes and frequencies that should be money spinners are apparently within the terrain of foreign airlines that are operating into Nigeria. This is evident in the audacious request of Emirates to build a terminal at the international wing of MMIA for its passengers.

The third scenario does not really fit, because the domestic market is swarming with airlines. What we lack are undiluted low cost carriers, adequate regional jets or props, finance and a regulated consolidation regime that will bolster the critical mass.



Government should urgently start a consolidation process. The last consolidation exercise was a ruse as the only beneficiary of that process is the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), due to the hefty taxes collected from airlines. It is pertinent to note that barely six months after the paper consolidation process; two domestic airlines that passed the process were grounded over maintenance related issues, four other airlines have beaten the dust thereafter. Let us learn from Mexico and India which both had two national carriers. India is merging Air India and Indian Airlines, while the Mexican government has sold Mexicana and Aero Mexico.

Government can also tow the line of the Chinese and Russian Governments by directing the NCAA to enforce and not just encourage the merging of domestic airlines or the Indonesian option, which has increased the minimum aircraft an airline can own to five from two as presently allowed by the NCAA. The process will separate the boys from the men.

Also, the skewed air service agreements should be reviewed to give breathing space to our carriers, while working assiduously for the CAT 1 attainment, which is a cost and operational advantage to American carriers. Nigerian carriers cannot operate directly to the USA with Nigerian registered aircraft, they are left with the options of leasing aircraft from countries that have attained FAA Category 1 status, or registering aircraft in countries that have attained that status, or as a last option take the Southern Wind (SW) of Argentina option. When Argentina was downgraded to CAT 2, they sold their B767 to Air Atlanta of Iceland and had to wet lease the same aircraft from Air Atlanta in order to operate into the USA. The penalty being an extra $3.6m cost to the airline, can the new Wasting Time (WT) start with such risk?


A national carrier is not a requirement for CAT 1 attainment as erroneously espoused recently, neither is it needed to negotiate bilateral agreements. Also countries like Greece, Argentina, Ghana, Senegal, Cameroun, Gabon and Zambia have liquidated their national carriers and have tried unsuccessfully to have another despite sinking a lot of public funds.

We should not forgot that Nigeria Airways (WT) failed with absolute monopoly of the Bilateral Air Services Agreement (BASA), therefore we can boldly say the new national carrier will fail woefully in the new competitive and concession ridden aviation industry.

If we must have a national carrier, then we should ponder over the cost, risk and lessons from other climes. It is a better option for the government to buy into our flag carriers, namely Aero, Air Nigeria and Arik, which will be held in trust for Nigerians and sold at a future date.

Thereafter, the government can look for a reputable mega-carrier or institutions to manage their interest in them, while Government continue to protect, legislate and provide the coveted public travel (Fly Nigeria Act) to these carriers in the absence of an essential air services programme. In the interim Arik and Aero should re-brand to reflect Nigerian, their identity outside Nigerian airspace is opaque.