De Ridder Defends Airport Deal Amid Subsidy Uproar

Flemish Mobility Minister Annick De Ridder (N-VA) has defended a confidential settlement with the operators of Flanders’ regional airports, insisting she never claimed the subsidies would fall — even as her own website states the opposite. The minister made the remarks on VRT Radio 1’s “De Ochtend” on Thursday, ahead of an afternoon parliamentary committee hearing on the deal, which VRT NWS is following live.

“I never said anywhere that the subsidies would drop. I always spoke about the net financial impact,” De Ridder said. “If Flanders spends 10 euros and receives 3 back, the net impact is 7 euros. That is not creative arithmetic, just correct budget logic. I always said that in parliament. Check the report.”

The dispute centres on what the government actually promised when it approved a new subsidy framework for the airports of Antwerp-Deurne and Ostend-Bruges this summer — and on whether the minister misled parliament about it.

A Confidential Settlement

The controversy erupted in July, when the Flemish Parliament accidentally received the confidential “dading” — a settlement agreement — between the Flemish government and Egis, the French operator of the Antwerp and Ostend-Bruges airports. As VRT NWS reported, an incorrect link between a note and its appendices meant the whole parliament briefly had access to a document that had been kept secret.

Under the deal, both parties waive mutual claims. The airport operator had long demanded overdue subsidies totalling 12.1 million euros, including interest. With additional costs — PFAS soil investigations, levies on contaminated rainwater, and environmental permit costs — the total claim reached 14.8 million euros. The Flemish government, for its part, held a claim of more than 12 million euros for staff it had made available to the airports.

Critically, the settlement commits both parties to a subsidy agreement running from January 2026 to October 2039, binding future governments, and provides 96 million euros in subsidies for 2025-2029, down nominally from 131 million euros for 2020-2024.

The Contradiction at the Heart of the Case

The crux of the current controversy is a July statement on De Ridder’s own website, headlined “Less subsidy, more standing on one’s own feet: Flanders reforms policy for regional airports.” The page states that the airports will receive “more than 35 million euros less than before” and that “the net government support from Flanders in this legislature falls by more than 35 million euros.”

That framing appears to sit awkwardly alongside the minister’s insistence this week that she never said subsidies would decrease. When challenged on air, De Ridder pointed to the footnote on her statement, which specifies that it concerns “operating and investment funds.”

In comments carried by the Vlaams Belang website, MP Tom Lamont argued that the minister had given parliament a misleading account of the advice from the Inspectorate of Finance. The minister had suggested the Inspectorate adjusted its position as the government addressed its objections, but Lamont quoted the second advice as confirming the earlier negative opinion: “No new elements are being introduced that would lead to a change in this position.”

“The minister lied to parliament,” Lamont said. “She must come and provide explanations as soon as possible.”

Opposition and Coalition Criticism

The deal has drawn fire from across the political spectrum — including from within the governing coalition. As Groen noted in a September press release, MP Bogdan Vanden Berghe has pursued the dossier for months, alleging that a leaked 2023 letter showed the airport operator pressuring the then Flemish government by warning that “nobody would benefit from a bankruptcy.”

“I expect a minister to act in the general interest instead of dancing to the tune of an airport for the jet set of Flanders,” Vanden Berghe said. “If you lobby for the jet set and apply pressure, apparently you get a million-euro gift arranged here in Flanders.”

Vanden Berghe also raised the spectre of European state-aid rules. He noted that De Ridder had herself previously told parliament that such a payout would breach European rules — yet the settlement pays it anyway, raising the risk of an EU clawback.

Jos D’Haese of the far-left PVDA framed the issue in similar terms: “I don’t understand why we have to contribute with tax money when millionaires want to go on holiday in their private jets.”

Even Egbert Lachaert of the liberal opposition party Anders — who has since announced his resignation as parliamentary group leader — criticised the absence of a business case. “Investing tax money in an operation that has no business plan, that can present nothing viable, is throwing money down the drain,” he said, as quoted by VRT NWS.

The criticism was not confined to the opposition. Mien Van Olmen of coalition partner CD&V complained that parliamentarians could not inspect the overarching note on the dossier, arguing this “frustrates parliament’s oversight function.”

The Minister’s Defence

De Ridder has argued that the settlement ended legal disputes dating back to 2019 and that a 2024 court ruling went against Flanders on part of the subsidies. “The risk of further procedures and their escalation was very real,” she said, according to VRT NWS. “The conclusion was therefore that it was better to reach a settlement to avoid lengthy legal procedures and additional legal costs.”

She has framed the deal as “no blank cheque” and a step toward the airports “standing on their own two feet,” with concession fees rising by an average of 50 percent and dependence on government support declining.

Asked why Flanders continues to subsidise the airports, she rejected the suggestion that public money funds private jets. “We do not subsidise commercial activities. That is a big misconception,” she said. “We do it because those regional airports have economic and strategic added value. It concerns business aviation, for example, not little planes for the rich.”

What’s Next

The afternoon committee hearing is expected to press the minister on the sequencing of the Inspectorate’s advice, the content of the settlement, and the contradiction between her website and her recent statements. The opposition has demanded that all advices and documents be released in full to elected representatives.

Beyond the parliamentary arena, the deal faces two open risks: a possible European state-aid challenge, and the political fall-out for a coalition already navigating a difficult budget season. How coalition partners Vooruit and CD&V position themselves after the hearing could determine whether the controversy fades — or escalates.

For now, the central question remains unresolved: whether a minister who once warned that paying the overdue subsidies would breach European rules, and whose own website promised “less subsidy,” can credibly claim she never said the subsidies would fall.