Montenegro’s airport investment strategy has moved into a direct dispute over who should fund and control the expansion of Podgorica and Tivat airports, after Corporación América Airports (CAAP) challenged government signals that the state could pursue an alternative to the long-running concession process.
CAAP, the only remaining qualified bidder, said it was “extremely concerned” that Montenegro might abandon a private-concession model under which the operator would finance airport expansion, in favour of a structure that could leave the state or Aerodromi Crne Gore responsible for raising the required capital.
The company said it improved its bid on July 29, offering an upfront concession payment of €101 million and annual payments equal to 35.21% of airport gross revenue over the concession period.
The dispute leaves Montenegro weighing two very different investment models at a time when both airports require substantial capacity expansion.
Under a concession, a private operator would finance much of the investment in return for long-term operating rights while paying the state concession fees.
If the airports remain under state financing, Montenegro would retain future airport earnings and control but would also have to fund expansion through retained profits, borrowing, budget resources or another financing structure.
CAAP said airport management has estimated required investment at €250 million-€300 million.
The government has not adopted that figure as its own financing estimate.
It said on Sept. 2 that an interministerial group chaired by Prime Minister Milojko Spajić would accelerate development of Podgorica and Tivat airports, with terminal expansion, additional gates and other works targeted ahead of the 2027 summer season.
A new long-term master plan is also planned after years of passenger growth put increasing pressure on existing infrastructure.
The government had already considered cancelling the concession procedure in July after South Korea’s Incheon International Airport Corporation withdrew from the tender.
CAAP argues that the procedure remains legally unresolved and that abandoning it after bidders had completed years of qualification and tender work would damage confidence in Montenegro’s treatment of foreign infrastructure investors.
That creates a second issue beyond financing.
The airport concession process has lasted around seven years, making the way Montenegro closes or continues it a test of procurement predictability as the country moves closer to EU membership.
CAAP explicitly linked the dispute to Montenegro’s EU accession ambitions.
That is the company’s position, not a conclusion publicly endorsed by the European Commission, but predictable procurement and equal treatment of investors remain important parts of the wider accession environment.
The commercial choice is also becoming more urgent.
Passenger traffic has been running at record levels, while airport capacity is increasingly becoming a constraint during the summer tourism season.
The government therefore needs investment regardless of which ownership model it ultimately chooses.
Supporters of continued state control argue that rising passenger volumes could allow Aerodromi Crne Gore to finance more of the development itself while preserving future profits for Montenegro.
A concession would move more construction and financing risk to the private investor but give up part of the airports’ future cash flow.
The decision therefore comes down to more than the headline €101 million concession payment.
Montenegro must decide what value it places on retaining long-term airport earnings against the cost and risk of financing as much as €250 million-€300 million of expansion itself.
After seven years of tendering, the investment question is no longer whether Podgorica and Tivat need more capacity.
It is who writes the cheque — and how much control Montenegro is prepared to exchange for having someone else write it.
