Former Libyan Airlines Chief Says Libya Could Earn US$70-80 Million a Year from Overflight Fees
Why It MattersOverflight income depends less on geography than on credible safety oversight and fee design, so states with attractive routings still need regulatory standing before airlines will route through their airspace.
What happened
Mohamed Issa, a former General Manager of state flag carrier Libyan Airlines, addressed the Libya International Aviation Forum and Exhibition, held in Tripoli on 3-4 November. His paper, titled "Maximising the Economic Return of Libya's Airspace", argued that the country should exploit its geographical position.
Issa said the recent lifting of overflight restrictions by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) should be welcomed but must not be confused with the lifting of the EU flight embargo on Libya. He said Libya could earn increased revenues because of its strategic location, the Iran war, higher aviation fuel costs and a rise in flights and cargo flights.
To capture that traffic, Issa said, Libya must invest in aviation infrastructure and human-resources development, and improve and upgrade its safety protocols and aviation management.
Issa also said Libya should review its overflight fees, choosing between a flat rate and a rate based on variables such as distance or aircraft weight. He said the country must weigh higher rates, which may attract fewer overflights, against lower fees that might attract more, and adopt a sustainable system that gives carriers realistic value for money. Asked by the Libya Herald how much Libya could earn from overflight fees, he estimated about US$70 million to US$80 million per year.
Industry impact & what to watch
Overflight revenue is a function of routing choice by airlines, and routing choice is driven by cost, safety confidence and regulatory standing at least as much as by the map. A state sitting on a convenient corridor can only monetise it if carriers and their insurers regard its airspace management as dependable, which is why Issa tied the revenue case to safety protocols and aviation management rather than to pricing alone.
The fee-structure choice he describes is a familiar trade-off in en-route charging. A flat rate is simple to administer but ignores how much airspace a flight uses; distance- or weight-based charging tracks usage more closely but is more complex to run. Set too high, charges push airlines onto alternative tracks; set too low, they leave revenue uncollected. The US$70-80 million figure is one speaker's estimate given in an interview, not an official projection.
The distinction Issa drew between the ICAO decision and the EU flight embargo marks the practical limit on the upside: the two measures cover different things, and the embargo remains a separate matter. The next concrete signal would be any change to the EU position or an announced revision of Libya's overflight fee schedule.
