reprinted from:

There is a precedent. Palmerston North Airport brought in a $3 departure tax in 1990, and for the same reason, and this provides a lesson for Nelson. The charge was supposed to apply for an estimated five years, until the debt incurred by developing the terminal was reduced. However, six years later the airport company declared that the debt, instead of falling, had actually risen slightly. There was a strong possibility, the company said, that the departure tax would become permanent -- and this has proven to be correct. Travellers are still handing over their $3 today.

It can't be denied that the residents of Palmerston North and the surrounding region have come to accept the charge. The terminal they have today is streets ahead of the original and they appear reasonably happy to keep paying so that further airport improvements can be made. But visitors are not similarly persuaded. They are not going to enjoy the benefits that they are contributing towards and they have a natural difficulty in understanding why Palmerston North levies a domestic departure tax but other New Zealand airports do not.

The most outspoken critic of the tax is a local councillor involved in the tourism industry. He loses no opportunity to remind the company of the damage done by making visitors pay a tax as their last act in the district. Remembering that Palmerston North and its hinterland offer small pickings to overseas visitors and, frankly, very little to attract domestic tourists either, this is a point which should be given due weight in the Nelson debate. Tourism here, both international and domestic, has much untapped potential and impediments to growth must be avoided.

Of course, Nelson Airport is crying out for redevelopment. The main terminal is bordering on shoddy and the hard-wearing carpet is famous for its outdated look, as well as its biliousness. The cafe, when compared with what is available around Nelson and district, hardly qualifies for the name. More importantly, the baggage claim area needs to be improved, the traffic flow outside requires re-ordering, and costly work on the runway and taxiways is looming. When it is all added together, millions of dollars are needed, and much of the work will not wait.

However, Mr Kearney's mention of other options provides a clue as to where the company could, and probably should go for the improved revenue stream that it requires: the airlines. More than most other parts of New Zealand, Nelson is a virtually captive market for airlines, because of its relative isolation. That is why it has become the country's fourth busiest airport -- and why its landing charges, static for over a decade, should be the company's first avenue for improving the bottom line.