Regional Airport Developments in the Maldives

Given the country’s geographical formation—thousands of scattered small islands—Maldivians have long faced challenges in traveling conveniently and frequently within the nation. This has led to a range of social and economic repercussions. To overcome this natural barrier, the Maldivian government and its people have continually sought effective solutions.

Among various options, air transport has emerged as the leading mode of addressing this immense challenge. In response, the Maldivian government initiated the development of several regional airports during the 1980s and 1990s.

Early Domestic Airport Developments

Aviation activities in the Maldives date back to the 1950s, beginning with the construction of Gan Airport (GAN) in 1956 by the British for regional military operations. GAN recorded its first aircraft movement on August 15, 1959. Aviation development gradually expanded during the 1960s with the inauguration of Hulhulé Airport, which marked a turning point as the Maldivian government became actively involved in the country’s aviation sector.

Following independence from Britain, GAN Airport was handed over to the Maldivian government in 1976. Although a short-lived domestic air service between Malé (MLE) and Gan operated in the early 1970s, regular domestic air services did not begin until the early 2000s.

Laamu Kaadedhoo Airport (KDO), located in the central southern province, was the first regional airport developed by the Maldivian government with partial funding from UNDP, ICAO, and OPEC. Opened in 1986, KDO represented a significant milestone in the government’s efforts to enhance regional connectivity and accessibility.

Following KDO, the mobility challenges faced by residents in the northern atolls—particularly for travel between the region and the capital via sea transport—were alleviated with the opening of Hanimaadhoo Airport (HAQ) in 1990.

Kaadedhoo Airport (KDM), opened in 1993, was the last regional airport constructed under President Gayyoom’s administration in this series of developments that began after he took office in 1978.

Together with GAN and MLE, these three regional airports formed the backbone of Maldives’ early airport infrastructure and air connectivity. Air Maldives, established in 1974, played a crucial role in supporting this network until it ceased operations in 2000.

Strategic Characteristics of Early Airport Development

Airport planners of the 1980s and 1990s followed a set of strategic principles when selecting locations for these critical infrastructures. Unlike today, tourism establishments were largely absent near these airports, meaning operations depended almost entirely on demand from local markets within their respective catchment areas. Key considerations included:

A. Proximity to Large Local Populations:

• KDO, located in Laamu Atoll, served a combined population of 19,701 with Thaa Atoll in 1995.

• KDM, located in Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll, served a combined population of 20,152 with Gaafu Alifu Atoll and was adjacent to Thinadhoo Island, which had 4,408 residents in 1995.

• HAQ, situated in Haa Dhaalu Atoll, served a combined population of 29,041 with Haa Alifu Atoll and was located a few kilometers from Kulhudhufushi Island, home to 5,467 residents in 1995.

Collectively, these three airports provided access to approximately 28% of the Maldivian population in 1995.

B. Distance from the Capital: Each airport was situated at a significant distance from Malé, where access by sea was both inconvenient and costly: KDO – 261 km, KDM – 418 km, and HAQ – 285 km.

C. Land Availability: All three airports were developed on large islands where sufficient land was available, eliminating the need for land reclamation and thereby reducing development costs.

History of Regional Airport Administration

Globally, the development, funding, operation, and management of airports have traditionally remained the responsibility of governments. In the Maldives, this process began with the establishment of the Airport Office in 1966, created specifically to govern and administer Hulhulé Airport. With its renaming to Malé International Airport (MIA), the airport was officially upgraded to international status in 1981.

In the same year, the Airport Office was replaced by the newly established Maldives Airports Authority (MAA). The MAA’s portfolio was expanded to include all regional airports, rather than focusing solely on MIA. Alongside MAA, the Ministry of Defence and National Security and the State Trading Organization played crucial roles in developing, operating, and managing regional airports until the early 1990s.

To support the growing network of regional airports, the government established the Regional Airports Authority (RAA) on September 1, 1991, with operations effective from September 9, 1991. RAA functioned as a separate division of MAA with its own dedicated budget.

As MIA continued to grow, it became necessary for the airport to be operated and managed on a commercial basis. Consequently, the Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) was established in 1994. Following the creation of MACL, MAA ceased operations, and the governance and administration of regional airports were transferred to the Ministry of Transport on August 30, 2000.

RAA continued operations under the Ministry of Transport until the government established the Regional Airports Company (RACL) in 2020. In 2025, RACL was merged with MACL, which continues to operate under the MACL name. Following this merger, the government began allocating infrastructure projects beyond MACL’s original scope, leading to the creation of Peninsula Infrastructure, a fully government-owned private company, on October 6, 2025, to undertake various infrastructure projects, including regional airports.

Timeline of the Airport governance and administrative authority changes

Regional Airports Governance and Administration Policies

Understanding the purpose of developing regional airports, as well as the governing and administrative models under which they operate, is critical. These airports can be managed under a commercial model, a public service model, or a hybrid approach. However, the majority of current regional airports—whether in operation, under development, or planned for the future—lack the characteristics necessary to function under a fully commercial model. The likelihood of them becoming commercially viable in the foreseeable future remains minimal unless significant policy reforms are implemented. Consequently, most of these infrastructures must be governed and administered under a public service obligation model.

The development of KDO, HAQ, and KDM was carried out as part of this public service mandate, with the government facilitating regional connectivity and accessibility. Initially, the Regional Airports Authority (RAA) was established to operate as a public service entity. However, a commercial framework was incorporated to ensure that government contributions for maintenance, staffing, and operational costs were adequately managed. Notably, RACL, though structured as a company, was never intended to operate primarily as a commercial entity.

This reality highlights the government’s acknowledgment that regional airports are not capable of operating independently on a commercial basis. This raises several critical questions about how the government currently approaches regional airport development:

1. Why does the government continue to develop numerous regional airports despite knowing they cannot operate commercially?

2. Is the government willing to bear the economic burden of these airports in the name of regional connectivity? If so, to what extent and for how long?

3. Does the government believe the market will eventually grow large enough for these airports to become commercially viable?

4. Is the government struggling to identify an effective strategy for regional airport development in a politically dynamic environment?

Regional airport development can be justified for several reasons, including projected economic and social benefits, enhanced regional connectivity, improved accessibility, social cohesion, and emergency response capabilities etc.

Private sector involvement in regional airport development in the Maldives dates back to the late 1980s. However, it was not until 2008 that the private sector began contributing significantly, following the introduction of the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model under a formal policy framework.

Theoretically, the PPP model aims to deliver financial efficiency, operational effectiveness, and improved risk management. The model can take various forms, including share flotations, trade sales, concessions, management contracts, and Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreements.

With rapid tourism growth from the early 2000s, modernizing the aging Malé International Airport became a necessity rather than an expansion initiative. To support this, a PPP concession agreement was signed in 2010 with an international consortium, GMR. However, the contract was terminated in 2012 due to contractual disputes.

The PPP model was subsequently extended to regional airport development under a solicited proposal approach, in which the government published tenders for selected projects. In some cases, joint ventures with the government incorporated cross-subsidization, where islands, lands, or lagoons allocated for tourism development were used to support airport projects—a practice in effect since 2010.

Building on lessons from the GMR case, the PPP framework was further enhanced in 2019 with the introduction of the Unsolicited Proposal Policy (USP), allowing private firms to propose infrastructure projects instead of relying solely on government-proposed projects. A key feature of the USP is its multi-layered review process before proposals are approved or rejected.

The PPP model was made even more attractive with the introduction of Cross-Subsidization policy in 2021 (Regulations R-114/2021). These regulations offered an alternative to public bidding and created opportunities for cash-rich hospitality groups, in addition to traditional construction and utility service developers, to participate in airport infrastructure development.

Since 2010, the PPP model has driven a surge in new regional airport projects across the Maldives. Fifteen years on, however, it is worth asking whether the government has truly achieved the intended financial, operational, and strategic outcomes envisioned under the PPP framework for regional airport development.

Lack of Public Awareness

The introduction of the PPP model eased the government’s funding burdens and significantly accelerated the pace of regional airport development. Since 2010, a series of new regional airports have been constructed, and many more are planned. However, expectations regarding improved risk management under the PPP model remain uncertain.

The general public quickly embraced regional airports as a solution to isolation and mobility challenges. These airports were also seen as drivers of regional socioeconomic growth, particularly by supporting local tourism developments.

Beyond their functional role, regional airports often serve as a source of pride for local communities. In remote areas with small populations, rural airfields—rather than fully developed airports—can effectively provide mobility and accessibility in a cost-efficient and sustainable manner. However, the majority of the public perceives that airport infrastructure should include fully operational facilities, such as state-of-the-art passenger terminals and larger air traffic control towers. The absence of such facilities is often viewed as inadequate or even an insult to them.

Public expectations extend to frequent and scheduled flight operations, regardless of the limited market size in the surrounding areas. This places substantial pressure on airlines serving these routes.

Furthermore, the public often expects an international-flight experience on domestic services, despite average domestic flight durations of less than 40 minutes. Complaints frequently cite discomfort, insufficient cabin amenities, and a lack of inflight services, including entertainment, food, and beverages.

The cost of air travel remains a national discussion point in the Maldives. Domestic air services are inherently expensive, and the costs increase when infrastructure and regulatory frameworks are developed without a systematic and orderly approach, while simultaneously accommodating unrealistic public demands and navigating a politically dynamic environment.

How many airports is too many?

It is difficult to deny the positive impacts of regional airports. They serve as vital nodes that generate significant multiplier effects for the economy.

Governments especially in small island states constructs airports for number of reasons:

 1- Geography and Fragmented Territories

2- Economic dependence on Tourism

3- National Security and Disaster Readiness

4- Politics and Regional Development Pressures

5- Limited Alternatives to Mobile

Even as a public service, however, the government can allocate only a finite number of resources, balancing minor trade-offs as part of development expenditures and national priorities. Over time, the government should consider governing and administering regional airports using a commercial model, at least in part. Otherwise, the growing administrative and operational burdens will inevitably compel the government to address them.

There is no officially defined ideal number of airports that a state should have. The appropriate number largely depends on the five factors mentioned above. For instance, Singapore—a major global aviation hub—operates only one commercial airport. Malta, with a land area of 316 square kilometers, has four airports, while Luxembourg, with a land area of 2,586 square kilometers, has just two. Fiji, with a population of nearly one million, operates 33 airports, including several remote airstrips. Mauritius, with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of USD 14.4 billion, has three airports, including an airstrip. In comparison, the Maldives—a leading tourism destination with a local population of 382,639, a GDP of USD 6.5 billion, and with approximately 1192 islands scattered across a total land area of 298 square kilometers—has 20 airports.

Economic and financial activity in the Maldives is highly centralized in the capital. MLE, serving as the primary hub for both international and domestic air services, functions as either the origin or destination for nearly every flight in the country.

Currently, the Maldives has 20 operational airports, including Velana International Airport (MLE). Six additional airports have been announced, and many more have been proposed by politicians outside the national development plan.

This raises several questions: Are we developing too many regional airports? Are all of them necessary? How many are too many? Following are certain metrics developed to understand this.

1. Airport density - The Maldives has an airport density of approximately 0.067 airports per square kilometre, or equivalently, about 1 airport per 15 square kilometres. This is among the highest comparing other island states.

2. Airport Per Capita - There is approximately 1 airport for every 25,757 people in the Maldives. This figure further diminishes to 19,132 people when only the local population is considered. This is among the highest comparing other island states.

3. Airports per GDP - Maldives has about 2.78 airports for every billion USD of GDP which is quite high compared to larger economies.

4. Airports per Tourist Establishment - There is approximately 1 airport for every 62 tourist establishments in the Maldives.

Comparison of number of airports developed in other island States.

An index specific in identifying domestic remoteness and isolation is not available for these States.

Although developing and operating regional airports involves substantial financial, economic, and environmental opportunity costs, the general public has limited understanding of the resources required to sustain these infrastructures. The challenges become even more pronounced when airports are overbuilt or located in close proximity, particularly where market demand is insufficient to support operations.

Regional Airports Accessibility

Traditionally, private hires have been the most common means of accessing regional airports due to their convenience and availability. However, private hires are costly, and accessibility costs often equal or exceed airfares, effectively doubling travel expenses.

The introduction of scheduled ferry services in 2008, and a high-speed ferry network in 2023, has improved regional connectivity, convenience, and affordability. However, there remains a notable absence of formal coordination between ferry operators and regional airlines, resulting in misaligned schedules that reduce public convenience.

Impacts on Regional Airlines

Three airlines currently provide regional air services in the Maldives: Maldivian (government-owned), Manta Air (privately owned), and Villa Air (privately owned). While privately owned carriers operate on a strictly commercial basis, Maldivian functions under a social service model. As the national carrier, it is obligated to serve routes where private carriers are absent, regardless of economic feasibility. More regional airports increase the number of routes Maldivian must operate, regardless of profitability.

Regional carriers typically employ a linear route network, making multiple stops between origin and destination. Small market sizes and limited fleet capacity force airlines to adopt this model. While it enhances connectivity, it significantly increases operational costs, making sustainable operations nearly impossible without government support. Globally, remote air services are often subsidized by governments. In the Maldives, Maldivian’s domestic operations are partially and informally subsidized through fare differentiation between local residents and foreign tourists. Domestic air fare price ceilings set by the government prevent Maldivian from fully applying market-based commercial practices, unlike private carriers.

Linear route networks also result in more frequent short-sector flights, increasing aircraft maintenance cycles and intervals, reducing aircraft utilization rates, and raising fuel consumption. It also contributes to schedule irregularities and a poorer passenger experience. Ultimately, airlines are forced to increase fares, creating additional burdens for the public and affecting their brand image.

Economic and Social Impact

The clustering of multiple regional airports within close proximity has significant economic and social consequences. Traffic is divided across several airports, making it difficult for any single airport to achieve economic sustainability, especially where market growth is minimal or non-existent. Airlines are often forced to reduce flight frequencies and consolidate short sectors.

The opportunity to develop a single airport gradually with enhanced features is lost as resources are dispersed across multiple facilities. As a result, all airports in the cluster forgo potential future development. Economic activities around these airports have stagnated for years, and adding new airports increases administrative and operational costs.

The land value of airports is also affected, reducing opportunities for local councils to repurpose land for alternative projects or optimize limited resources. Examples of such clusters include:

1. Hanimaadhoo and Kulhudhufushi

2. Faresmathoda and Maavarulu

3. Dharavandhoo and Thulhaadhoo (if built)

4. Thiamarafushi and Guraidhoo (if built)

5. Ifuru and Alifushi (if built)

Environmental and Sustainability Impact

Where land availability is limited, reclamation is often the only option, with significant consequences for surrounding marine ecosystems. This can negatively impact local tourism development efforts.

Airports have a minimum lifespan of 50 to 100 years. The land they occupy and the socioeconomic benefits they generate must be balanced between commercial viability and public service obligations.

Although noise pollution from aircraft at regional airports has not been widely reported, limited flights still create localized noise impacts. Changing wind patterns, particularly during severe weather, can adversely affect local residents, nearby tourist establishments, and surrounding wildlife and marine ecosystems.

A potential solution?

The high level of remoteness in the past—and to some extent even today—once justified the development of additional regional airports. However, this justification holds true only in the absence of viable alternative modes of transportation. The Raajje Transport Link (RTL) has effectively begun to bridge this gap. Therefore, the once boldly rolled idea of connecting every inhabited island to a regional airport within 30 minutes loses its economic and social rationale if it necessitates the construction of more regional airports, especially given the country’s current transport infrastructure. The Maldives does not require the development of new regional airports; and if a need does arise, such airports should not be located in close proximity to existing ones. Rather than investing in new regional airports, strengthening the RTL network offers far greater economic and social value.

The fleet and network structure of regional airlines are not adequately designed to address the operational and economic challenges posed by the existing regional airport network across the country. Under the current circumstances, what the government urgently needs is the introduction of a strong, transparent, and legally backed Remote Air Services Subsidy Scheme (RASSS). Under an integrated model inclusive of the existing network of regional airports, the implementation of the RASSS together with the RTL can enable the Maldives’ domestic aviation sector to develop in a more economically viable and socially sustainable manner.

Lack of a Strategic and Systematic Approach

The root cause of the unsystematic and disorderly development of regional airport infrastructure in the Maldives lies in the absence of a strategic and systematic approach. Equally concerning is the lack of accountability for misleading a misinformed public and mismanaging valuable resources and funds allocated for regional airport projects and related infrastructure. The negative impacts of these practices are likely to persist for decades.

Can this situation be rectified? If so, how?

One of the most common findings from the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program (USOAP) is that many States, particularly smaller ones, maintain weak aviation regulatory frameworks. The primary contributors to this issue are insufficient funding, limited expertise, and a lack of adequate resources to operate and manage the aviation regulator as an independent authority.

Aviation development inherently requires a strategic and orderly approach, supported by robust legislation, clear policies, and strict enforcement. This is essential due to the complexity of aviation projects, their significant financial requirements, and their long-term impact on the national economy.

At the core of a nation’s aviation development lies with the national aviation policy, aligned with the national development plan and transportation policy. In some countries, embedded within a broader national aviation policy, while in others it exists as a standalone policy that outlines the strategy for the development, operation, and management of airports through a framework known as the national airport system. The responsibility for creating and implementing these strategic policies rests with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

A comprehensive national airport system typically includes:

1. A categorized network of airports based on purpose, status, ownership, and governance model

2. Land use plans

3. Economic regulations

4. Safety and security regulations, including airspace management and air navigation services

5. Environmental regulations

All these areas are underpinned by strong legislation and enforceable policies.

The Maldives currently lacks both a national transportation policy and a fully developed national aviation policy. The aviation policy published in 2020 by the Maldives Civil Aviation Authority (MCAA), titled “The Flight Plan – 2020-2025”, has now expired, and no updated version has been released. While this plan addressed five key areas—safety, security, environmental protection, consumer rights, and enhancing the MCAA as an authority—it was only a preliminary step toward a comprehensive national aviation strategy. In comparison, the Maldives Tourism Master Plan incorporates more detailed aviation strategies than the documents published by the MCAA.

The absence of a robust national aviation policy, coupled with weak enforcement of existing regulations, has largely hindered the orderly development of the Maldivian aviation sector. It is also a principal factor behind the politically driven and economically inefficient approach to regional airport development, which has often resulted in reckless use of public funds.

Although there are some integrated policy approaches for tourism and aviation, these frameworks require significant revision. Developing a standalone national aviation policy, incorporating a prioritized and structured national airport system, is essential to ensure sustainable, strategic, and accountable development in the sector.

Political Influence in Regional Airport Development

Unlike the 1980s and 1990s, the introduction of a multi-party-political system in 2008 significantly increased public influence over key infrastructure projects in the Maldives, including harbours, sewerage systems, and airports. However, final decisions regarding these projects often occur through informal processes heavily influenced by politics.

Political parties and their respective Members of Parliament frequently treat regional airport projects as political tools rather than strategic infrastructure. Whether these projects make economic sense or align with the national development plan, they are often used to influence voters and manipulate electoral outcomes. A significant proportion of such projects are therefore driven by political interests rather than national priorities, taking advantage of a vulnerable and uninformed public.

Government policies on regional connectivity and accessibility frequently conflict with the selection of locations for airport developments. It is common for an island or lagoon designated for a regional airport development to end up being located far from the major inhabited population centres or tourism hubs, leading to economic inefficiencies.

The practice of opening tenders for new regional airports near election periods has become routine. Political campaigns are often filled with promises of airport developments that cater to unrealistic public demands. This raises serious integrity concerns for both the government and the awarded contractors. Instead of aligning with the national development plan or broader national interests, such projects are sometimes exploited as a mechanism to generate funds for political campaigns through inflated contract values.

The limited role of the regulator (MCAA) in regional airport development is particularly concerning. Despite being an independent entity with legal authority, its ability to advocate for systematic and orderly aviation development is frequently undermined by political influence.

It appears increasingly evident that regional airport developments, particularly those executed under the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model and the cross-subsidization policy, are often driven more by the desire to secure islands for tourism development than by genuine interest in developing and sustaining airport operations.

While developers fulfil their obligations once the airport infrastructure is delivered, operational and management responsibilities are often transferred to under-resourced entities such as the Regional Airports Company Limited (RACL) or the national airline. These entities frequently lack the financial and organizational capacity to operate the airports effectively. Operational costs often exceed potential revenues, imposing additional financial burdens on government-owned entities.

Even though developers profit from the associated islands, the airports themselves frequently underperform. While development costs may be covered through cross-subsidization, ongoing operational expenses continue to create significant burdens for both the public and the managing authorities.

There is a clear need to establish a robust mechanism to monitor, regulate, and control regional airport development to ensure alignment with national priorities, financial sustainability, and operational efficiency.