Qualicum Beach Airport going in the wrong direction?
During the recent May 6 2026 council meeting, an updated airport fee bylaw was presented by Mr. Goldfuss, the airport manager, for Council to approve second and third readings. Significant amendments were made from the first reading of the proposed amended bylaw (presented in November 2025) resulting in what appears to be a reduction of current revenues rather than an increase to address the excessive amount QB taxpayers are continuing to shell out annually to subsidize the airport.
Quantifying taxpayer money used to support the airport
In the meeting we are told the gap (airport expenses versus revenues) paid by QB taxpayers is $235,000 based on the 2025 annual budget. It is now May, 5 months after year end and we are still not provided with actual year end results. Surely the Town's accounting records are sufficiently robust that we do not need to wait for the audited ,highly consolidated version, which no doubt, will not provide the level of detail required to pull out the airport from overall expenses. The town also failed to disclose that in the 2025 budget a further $130,000 was to be taken from QB taxpayer funded reserves to cover the cost of a one time operating expense project. This means the taxpayer funding subsidy would be $365,000. Additionally, we are given no details on actual capital improvements not 100% fully covered by grants. As I pointed out to council in 2024, airport expenses should also include an allocation for the significant amount of work done by Town hall staff in overseeing the airport. Cost center accounting is not unusual for governments and, in my opinion, the RDN makes masterful use of the approach. Given the time required to address the multitude of noise complaints, to manage leases/accounts payable, issue press releases, issue helicopter training notices, to negotiate with Nav Canada and other regulatory bodies, considerable Town hall staff time is consumed by the fact the Town owns and manages an airport. It is conceivable that the real financial gap at the QB airport could be over $500,000 a year if more robust and accurate accounting principals were applied.
It does not serve anyone to obfuscate or hide the true cost of owning and operating the airport. All stakeholders including Users, Council and QB taxpayers deserve to have factual and accurate financial information in a format they can understand and trust. At the end of the day, this is the basis of sound decision making.
Staff analysis undertaken
On December 11th 2024 council directed staff to undertake an airport bylaw review in 2025. As a result two staff reports were undertaken, one in Nov 26/25 (20 pages ) and a amended version on May 6th/26 (11 pages),along with a 26 page slide presentation.
As stated in the Town's financial plan "Fees and charges are periodically adjusted to reflect changes in service costs, inflation, and community needs, ensuring that those who directly benefit from services contribute a fair share."
Hangar fees
It is difficult to see how the proposed changes will ultimately improve recovery of the operating costs of the airport from those who directly benefit. In November staff recommended an increase in hangar fees from $0.39 to $0.55 per square foot to reflect the average of comparative airports. At that time, we were told that the increase (approximately 28%) would generate an annual increase of $18,000 in revenues. In May, after consultation with airport tenants, the 28% increase was proposed to be reduced to either 3% or 6.5%, with the actual amount to be determined by Council. The May report also states "The 2026 increase in hangar lease rates proposed would result in an increase in revenue of approximately $1900. annually." Unfortunately the report does not state which option, 3% or 6.5%, will create this $1900 increase.
Council ultimately gave second reading to the 6.5% increase in 2026 in line with the general property tax hike of 6.5%, however the bylaw amendment cannot be put in place until July at the earliest, so the annual lift in revenues for 2026 will still only be about $1900. Council also approved subsequent years (2027 through 2030) increasing by only 3% per year. Council also directed staff to further engage with the tenants prior to third reading presumably to confirm that the now reduced increases are acceptable to them. No engagement with QB taxpayers has been undertaken nor is it envisioned before 3rd reading.
Hanger lease rates, per sq ft | ||||
Current 2025 | Proposed Nov 2025 | Option A May 2026 at 3% | Option B May 2026 at 6.5% 2027-2030 3% | |
Row A | 0.43 | 0.55 | 0.44 | 0.46 |
Row B | 0.38 | 0.47 | 0.39 | 0.40 |
Row C | 0.31 | 0.39 | 0.32 | 0.33 |
General User Fees
The town billed $17,800 in 2024 (no numbers given for 2025) in Airport user fees.
In 2025 there were only 3 companies charged user fees (Sealand, VI Skydive and Ascent Helicopters). Most airports generate this type of revenue through alternate fee structures such as landing fees. Private pleasure aircraft and transient aircraft currently do not pay user or landing fees.
The revised bylaw proposes to apply reduced user fees of $2897 per year to commercial entities based at the airport and to now also apply user fees of $517.50 per year to private users based at the airport. Offsite commercial users who register will now be assessed $3749.75 annually. Not withstanding that the town has now approved charging user fees to private onsite based aircraft, it is not clear that this proposal will actual produce greater revenue. When asked how many planes are based at the airport, the airport manager said he did not know, nor did he venture a guess. No proforma calculations have been undertaken to validate that this fee structure will indeed increase the revenue. Further, this fee structure will require airport users to self identify. Additionally, the Town will be required to maintain a list of registered users to facilitate billing as frequently as weekly. I see staffing implications in this approach that have not been costed into the analysis. My back of the envelope math, assuming 3 commercial operators and say 15 private aircraft, that comes out to $17,000, which is less than the amount collected in 2024. I applaud the effort to try to find a way to make the airport more viable, but this approach has not had the depth of analysis required to confirm that it is based on sound assumptions. The goal appears to be to spread existing revenues more fairly among the tenants, rather than increasing the revenues to offset the ongoing taxpayer subsidy.
Assistance to Iskwew Air
Iskwew Air is currently the only commercial scheduled service operating from the QB Airport.
Terminal lease rates were not addressed in this bylaw review, however the bylaw amendment now envisions Iskwew receiving a second free parking spot on the tarmac. As indicated above, only 3 commercial operators have been paying user fees to date so it appears Iskwew may not be paying any user fees currently. It is also not clear if Iskwew will be paying user fees under the amended bylaw as the bylaw does not specifically include commercial carriers.
Further the amended bylaw proposes to reduce the passenger fee from the current $11.00 per passenger to $5 to match the fee charged by CYVR. We are told this change will reduce airport revenue by $17,000 per year. According to their website Iskwew Air charges the same price for a ticket whether the flight originates in QB or CYVR. The all in price is $160.65
yet the base price from CYVR is $143, and from QB the base price is $137 so presumably the impact of reducing our passenger fee to $5 will not reduce the base fare it will simply remove money from airport revenues and into Iskwew's revenue which is essentially the town giving assistance to a business. The purpose of a passenger fee is to help offset the towns costs to operate the airport. The town has been increasing these passenger fees from $8.00 in 2021 to $10.00 in 2022, to $11.00 in 2023 to date. The November staff recommendation was to increase the fee to $13 which was reported to be the average across comparative airports. Now in May after consultation with the carrier, staff is proposing to reduce the fee to $5.00. There were no questions nor discussion by council with respect to this change.
Further, Iskwew will benefit from a new voucher system providing free parking for Iskwew passengers departing from QB airport for the duration of their trip. In the rational for this change, we are told all other (non vouchered) long term parking would increase from $5 to $8 per day, generating an additional $4000 a year. However, this will be offset by the loss of Iskwew passenger parking revenue, which was unquantified. Given that Iskwew is the only scheduled air carrier, I cannot see many non plane owners actually parking long term at the airport. This proposal lacks in-depth analysis to determine the true financial impact of granting free parking for Iskwew passengers.
It is important to understand the motive behind the Town financially supporting Iskwew.
In order for the Town to apply for certain grant money from both the province and the federal government, the airport needs to have a commercial carrier with scheduled flights throughout the year, that move a minimum of 1000 passengers a year. (I have included a link below that includes more details on the grant availability). If Iskwew Air discontinues service from Qualicum Beach, the Town can no longer make application for these funds until another scheduled air carrier is found. It is also important to note that when the town accepts these grants they must also commit to keeping the airport open for a further 10 years otherwise these grant monies may need to be repaid.
This brings us to the the viability of a small air carrier in a relatively small market area with lots of alternatives. Travelling to the mainland, QB residents have multiple choices including BC Ferries (where seniors can often travel for free), Hullo Ferry, HeliJet, and both Nanaimo and Comox airports which offer airlines with "connecting flight protection' that Iskwew cannot offer. Other than the owner, no one knows the viability of Iskwew Air, however the Town does know how many passengers flew from QB airport as they have been collecting passenger fees. The Town needs to determine how far they are willing and legally permitted to subsidize Iskwew or any other commercial carrier so we can continue to apply for the grants. Grants keep the airport in good shape not only for Iskwew but also for the non passenger commercial and recreational aviation users. Should we significantly increase the other commercial users fees to offset the subsidy to Iskwew? After all Ascent and others are very profitable operations using QB taxpayer funded airport assets?
Conclusion...just my opinion
I have been following the finances at the airport from a taxpayers perspective for several years now advocating for greater transparency and action to reduce the cost to QB taxpayers. We seem to get at least one consulting report per council term and, at the end of the day, we are no closer to understanding the real cost of the airport or how to make it financially viable in the long term. In my opinion, the process of the latest bylaw review confirms several issues. Firstly, there appears to be an ongoing bias in favour of the airport user group with little to no consideration for the general QB taxpayers. This is demonstrated by a lack of balance in collecting appropriate user based fees, not those based on what the users want to pay. This bias continues with failure to fully disclose all costs related to operating the airport. No one (neither Staff nor Council) is asking and seeking answers for questions such as 1) Is the airport operating at a scale and service level that it can ever become self supporting? 2) Is the local demand for flight services out of Qualicum Beach sufficient to keep Iskwew or any other air carrier viable in the long term? 3) Is the airport truly a regional resource and, if so, how do you prove this to the regional partners from whom you are expecting financial assistance with the goal of reducing QB taxation? 4)What is plan B for questions 1,2,3...What other options need to be explored?
The airport's heavy reliance on local taxpayer funding is not new but it appears to be growing with these concession's and the overall annual amount is significant. This is a result of successive Councils lacking the leadership, financial acumen and critical thinking skills to effectively direct staff to seek solutions for festering problems. In my opinion it is not ok to keep kicking the problem down the road and expecting tax payers to continually accept unsustainable property tax increases that arise in part due to poor fiscal management. The airport user group, are essentially being given a 3% increase for the next 5 years when general property taxation is planned to increase by 6.5% in 2026, and an average of 7% for the following 4 years. Council appears to consider this approach as "good governance" and is giving the user group yet another a opportunity to lobby for further reductions .
QB residents should bear this in mind when considering candidates for our next council.
Marie Noel
May 9 2026
We welcome your comments and feedback.
You can email us at Qualicumbeachinsights@gmail.com
More info
Other minor financial changes approved to second reading include:
-Cancellation of the Authorized Sublease Maintenance Fee ( $250 per month)
-Free aircraft parking for one aircraft for "Flying Schools" and "Sky Dive" companies who lease terminal office space.
-Free aircraft parking for 2 aircraft for the commercial air carrier, leasing terminal space.
-Reserved tie-down spaces for lease holders and regular users, a separate area will be designated for transient aircraft parking.
-Tie down fees were increased by 3% although no financial impact was outlined in the report. It would have been nice to know how much if any revenue is currently being generated from this source. The increase is $0.25 per day each year from 2026 - 2030.
given that the commercial airline has been given an additional fee space and terminal lease holders already get one space free it is unlikely the changes will result in any meaningful revenue lift to effect the airports deficit.
-Fuel charge changes from $ 0.27 to the greater of 20% markup over cost or $0.27 per litre
no analysis was provided to determine the financial impact.
Link to Federal airport grants acap
Link to May6 2026 council meeting agenda package which includes both reports
Link to May 6 2026 council meeting slides
