Sequencing and Planning Challenges in VIA's Expansion 2016 – 2023: A Case Study in MACL Board Oversight Risk

The out-of-sequence nature in which the development of VIA was undertaken means that the new upgrades, while in addition to costing more, may have begun to depreciate well before certain facilities went into service.

The expansion of the Maldives Airports Company Limited (MACL) managed Velana International Airport (VIA) between 2016 and 2023 was one of the most ambitious infrastructure programmes undertaken by the Maldives. The new Code-F runway, the Noovilu seaplane terminal and the new passenger terminal were designed to secure the country’s primary aviation gateway for decades and support long-term tourism growth.

The expansion was necessary.

However, infrastructure programmes of this scale succeed not only through construction but through coordination. Available operational observations suggest that several key assets were delivered before a fully synchronised operational and commercial activation plan was in place. The result has been delayed utilisation of critical infrastructure, early congestion across the resort-transfer chain and the growing likelihood that additional corrective investment may be required far earlier than originally anticipated.

Taken together, these outcomes highlight the importance of examining sequencing and planning decisions made during implementation of the airport expansion programme and the oversight responsibilities of the MACL Board.

The sequence illustrated above highlights how infrastructure delivery and operational readiness evolved across multiple phases of the expansion programme.

A runway completed years before it could operate as intended

The Code-F runway at Velana International Airport was completed in 2018. Yet it did not enter full operational use as the airport’s primary wide-body runway until several years later. During that period, the runway functioned largely as a taxiway.

This delay occurred because seaplane operations remained within the runway safety envelope and had to be relocated before full runway utilisation became possible.

In major airport expansion programmes, enabling infrastructure is normally commissioned before primary infrastructure becomes operational. In this case, the sequence appears to have been reversed.

As a result, one of the largest infrastructure investments in the country’s history began accumulating depreciation and financing costs before delivering its intended throughput benefits.

For a tourism-dependent economy built around a single international gateway, this represents a measurable economic cost rather than just a mere technical inconvenience.

A seaplane terminal delivered before its operating framework was finalised

The construction of the Noovilu seaplane terminal represented a structural change in how resort transfers were organised at VIA.

Before its construction, seaplane operators largely managed their own docking and transfer infrastructure. Under the new system, ownership shifted to MACL and operators were expected to transition into a centrally managed terminal model based on user fees and facility rentals.

However, the commercial framework governing how operators would use the new terminal was not finalised before the infrastructure itself was completed. The transition to the new operating structure took an estimated 18 to 24 months to stabilise.

Because relocation of seaplane operations was directly linked to activation of the Code-F runway, the delay in establishing the terminal’s commercial operating model contributed directly to delayed system-level utilisation of both assets.

Transfer-chain congestion now appearing earlier than expected

The new passenger terminal was designed with a long planning horizon intended to accommodate decades of passenger growth. Yet congestion is already appearing during peak arrival windows in the transfer corridors linking international arrivals with seaplane and marine departures.

Lagoon docking congestion may signal emerging structural constraints

Reports of increasing waiting times for docking space during peak arrival periods suggest that marine transfer frontage may already be approaching operational limits earlier than expected.

Road transfer congestion between terminals introduces a new operational bottleneck

Another emerging pressure point lies in the road-based transfer corridor linking the main international terminal on the western side of the runway with the seaplane terminal located on the eastern side.

Airside geometry between water and land runways introduces future separation constraints

The operational alignment between the seaplane water aerodrome and the Code-F runway introduces additional movement-separation requirements as traffic density increases.

Domestic aviation growth is creating a layered aerodrome congestion environment

Expansion of regional airport infrastructure across the Maldives has increased domestic fixed-wing aircraft movements operating through VIA’s aerodrome control environment. This layered movement pattern increases scheduling complexity and contributes to cumulative pressure on shared airspace capacity.

Operational constraints of this nature do not remain technical issues alone. Over time, they translate to measurable financial and capital consequences.

The financial cost of delayed activation and planning gaps

The financial estimates presented below are order-of-magnitude planning estimates intended to illustrate potential infrastructure efficiency risks rather than precise financial forecasts. The opportunity cost estimates reflect foregone incremental revenue potential associated with delayed activation periods, while corrective infrastructure estimates are based on commonly observed retrofit benchmarks in island airport and regional hub environments.

Taken together, the delay in activating the runway and the delay in finalising the seaplane terminal operating model created a combined opportunity cost during a critical recovery period for Maldivian tourism estimated at approximately USD 75 million to USD 100 million.

This estimate reflects foregone incremental aviation-linked revenue potential during the delayed activation period and is derived by comparing observed post-activation revenue performance with projected utilisation scenarios on a pro-rata basis.

The likelihood of premature corrective infrastructure investment

Industry-level planning benchmarks drawn from comparable island airport retrofit and capacity-expansion environments indicate that cumulative corrective infrastructure interventions could plausibly fall within a range of approximately USD 200 million to USD 300 million, depending on scope and timing of intervention.

These benchmarks reflect commonly observed corrective interventions such as passenger transfer system upgrades, apron expansion, utilities reinforcement and marine basin modifications frequently encountered in island airport retrofit programmes.

Emerging medium-term realignment requirements across the airport system

Maintaining efficient landside transfer performance between terminals, addressing runway-water aerodrome interaction constraints and accommodating increasing domestic aircraft movements may require additional infrastructure adjustments involving substantial capital investment potentially comparable to major prior expansion phases, depending on traffic growth patterns and infrastructure interaction constraints.

Taken together, delayed activation impacts, near-term transfer-chain corrections, and medium-term realignment requirements suggest that sequencing and planning decisions during implementation may already have created significant infrastructure-efficiency exposure during the early operational life of the expansion programme. The scale of this exposure will ultimately depend on the timing and scope of corrective interventions required as traffic demand continues to grow.

Sequencing responsibility sits at the programme-oversight level

Airport infrastructure does not function as a collection of independent projects. It functions as a transfer system.

As the apex governance body responsible for strategic direction and implementation sequencing during the expansion period, the MACL Board played a central role in ensuring that infrastructure delivery, operating frameworks, and transfer-chain readiness progressed in a coordinated manner.

The experience highlights the importance of integrated activation planning in large-scale infrastructure programmes. Future expansion phases may benefit from stronger alignment between construction delivery timelines, commercial operating frameworks and transfer-chain readiness to ensure that capacity investments translate into operational value as early as possible.

The estimates presented here are intended as indicative planning references rather than predictive financial projections. Their purpose is to highlight how sequencing decisions in large-scale infrastructure programmes can generate measurable long-term operational and capital consequences when system integration timelines are not carefully aligned.