Who Owns the Runway? From Athens to Vancouver, Carney Opens Canada's Airports to Private Capital

By Yiannis Damellos

November 14, 2026

Greece offers a revealing precedent for Mark Carney's airport concession plan: the state can retain ownership while private investors collect substantial returns and exercise majority control. And in Athens, the majority investor is ultimately Canadian.

Prime Minister Mark Carney wants private capital to operate Canada's four largest airports under concessions lasting between 40 and 50 years. Toronto Pearson, Vancouver International, Montréal-Trudeau and Calgary International are at the centre of the government's plan. Ottawa insists that Canadians will retain ownership of the underlying land and assets, while private investors will bring in capital, expertise and operational efficiency. The government promises that the proceeds will be reinvested in regional airports, transportation infrastructure and other national projects. It is an ambitious proposition, but there is a question Canadians should ask before accepting it: what happens when the operation of essential public infrastructure becomes a long-term commercial investment? Greece has already conducted an experiment that offers some important answers.

Athens International Airport, Eleftherios Venizelos, began operating in 2001 under a public-private partnership established in 1996. The original concession granted the airport company exclusive rights to finance, construct, maintain and operate the facility for 30 years. In 2019, the Greek government extended the agreement by another 20 years, taking it to June 11, 2046. The extension cost the airport company €1.403 billion, including VAT, of which €1.132 billion represented net proceeds for Greece's privatization programme. The Greek privatization authority estimated at the time that the overall benefit to the state over the extended period could exceed €6 billion, counting the extension payment, future remuneration, taxes and dividends. These were projections, not a guarantee of money already collected. The agreement also provides that the airport will revert to the Greek state at the end of the concession, without payment, subject to the contractual provisions.

The ownership structure is where the Greek experience becomes particularly interesting for Canadian taxpayers. In February 2024, Athens International Airport entered the stock market, and the German-based infrastructure company AviAlliance increased its holding to a majority stake. By December 2025, AviAlliance held approximately 50.2% of the airport company, while Greece's Hellenic Corporation of Assets and Participations, known as Growthfund, retained approximately 25.6%. The remaining shares were publicly traded. Who owns AviAlliance? Canada's Public Sector Pension Investment Board, PSP Investments, is its ultimate parent. The Canadian pension investment organization is therefore the ultimate owner of the company holding majority control of Athens airport. This is not a minor detail: Canadian public-sector pension capital is already participating in the commercial operation of one of Greece's most important national gateways.

And the airport is a substantial business. Its 2025 financial report recorded €675.6 million in revenue and other income, €409.9 million in EBITDA and €207.3 million in after-tax profit. Commercial activities, including retail concessions, generated €170.7 million, while regulated aviation activities generated €504.9 million. The company also reported a €235.9 million dividend distribution during 2025, relating to its preceding financial performance. These figures demonstrate the economic value of operating a major international airport. They do not, by themselves, establish that privatization improved or worsened passenger affordability, service quality or employment conditions. But they show clearly that an airport is not simply a public transportation facility: it is also a highly valuable commercial enterprise capable of generating substantial returns for its shareholders.

The Greek agreement also illustrates how governments can protect public interests without necessarily operating the infrastructure themselves. Athens airport's aviation activities are subject to a contractual return ceiling, while its non-aviation commercial activities operate under a different financial regime. The company also pays fees to the Greek state under the concession agreement, including a variable component linked to operating profits. These provisions matter because airport operators collect revenue from airlines, passengers and commercial tenants. Landing charges, passenger fees, retail rents, parking and other services all contribute to the business. Ultimately, some costs can be passed along to travellers through airline ticket prices and consumer spending. The existence of contractual safeguards does not eliminate the need for scrutiny; it makes the precise wording and enforcement of those safeguards essential.

Carney's Canadian proposal is not identical to the Greek arrangement. Athens operates through a public-private partnership and a publicly traded airport company with a private majority shareholder. Canada's proposed model is based on long-term operating concessions, under which the government says it will retain ownership of airport land and assets. Budget 2026 describes concessions lasting 40 to 50 years, with private operators responsible for daily operations, maintenance and investment. The government promises oversight covering affordability, service standards, investment obligations, worker protections, safety, security and regional connectivity. It also proposes equity participation for the Canada Strong Fund and local Indigenous communities. The first concession process is intended to select an operator by early 2029, following due diligence and the development of the legal and commercial framework. In other words, the decisive contracts have not yet been awarded, and the public still needs to see the detailed rules.

The financial question is what Canada receives in exchange for granting private investors decades of operating rights. Ottawa says concession proceeds will be reinvested in regional airports, air connections, local transportation infrastructure and potentially a sovereign broadband backbone. That could provide meaningful public benefits, particularly for communities that have struggled with inadequate transportation links. But an upfront payment is not the same thing as the long-term economic value of the business being transferred. A government can collect substantial proceeds today while surrendering future operating income, commercial opportunities and a degree of influence over strategic infrastructure. The final balance depends on the concession price, investment commitments, operating costs, revenue-sharing arrangements, financing terms and enforceable public protections. Canadians deserve to see those calculations before the contracts are signed.

There is another dimension that deserves attention: the role of pension funds. Carney has repeatedly presented Canadian pension capital as a source of investment expertise that can help modernize domestic infrastructure. The Athens example demonstrates how this works in practice. PSP Investments owns the majority investor in the Greek airport company, and the returns generated by that investment contribute to the financial interests of the pension system it manages. There is nothing inherently improper about pension funds investing in infrastructure; their purpose is to generate returns for beneficiaries. But the public interest and the investor's commercial interest are not automatically identical. A pension fund seeks a satisfactory return on capital. Travellers want affordable tickets and airport services. Workers want stable employment and fair conditions. Regional communities want reliable connections. The concession agreements must reconcile these interests rather than assume that private profitability will automatically deliver every public benefit.

The Greek experience does not prove that Canada's airports will become more expensive or that private operators will neglect their responsibilities. Nor does retaining public ownership of the land guarantee that the public will retain meaningful control over every commercial decision. Athens demonstrates both sides of the arrangement: Greece secured substantial upfront proceeds, continues to receive contractual payments and retains a minority shareholding, while a private majority investor controls the airport company and participates in its profits. Canada is now considering a different structure with similarly long horizons. The real test will be whether Ottawa negotiates agreements that protect passengers, workers, regional communities and national security while ensuring that Canadians receive a fair share of the economic value created by their airports.

Canada does not have to sell the land to surrender much of the economic control over what happens on it.** A 40- or 50-year concession is a major commitment, potentially extending across several governments and generations of travellers. Before the first contract is awarded, Canadians should know who will operate their airports, how investors will be paid, what limits will apply to passenger charges, what happens when promised investments are not delivered, and how the public can enforce its rights. Athens has already shown that the distinction between public ownership and private control is more than a technicality. It is the central question of the entire debate.

The National Security Question: Who Controls Canada's Strategic Gateways?

There is another dimension to the airport concession plan that cannot be measured simply in dollars and dividends: national security. Canada's largest airports are strategic infrastructure, connecting the country's borders, trade networks, telecommunications systems and emergency transportation capabilities. Although Transport Canada, CATSA, CBSA, the RCMP and CSIS will retain their respective security responsibilities, private operators will manage facilities and systems essential to the functioning of these gateways. Their influence over technology procurement, contractors, maintenance, operational data and infrastructure investment creates responsibilities that extend well beyond commercial efficiency. The government must therefore establish strict rules governing beneficial ownership, foreign state influence, cybersecurity, sensitive information and access to critical systems. It must also retain the power to intervene immediately during a national emergency or a threat to Canadian sovereignty. Canada's Investment Canada Act provides mechanisms to scrutinize foreign investments on national-security grounds, but the concession agreements must go further by establishing permanent security obligations for operators and their subcontractors. A Canadian pension fund may be a responsible investor, but the nationality of an investor is not a substitute for security safeguards. When the asset is an international gateway, commercial returns cannot take precedence over national sovereignty.