Africa’s Gulf Air Detour Exposes the Cost of Missing Direct Routes

For some African travellers, a trip to another country on the continent means first flying to Dubai, Doha, Abu Dhabi, Istanbul or Europe. That detour has become a source of vulnerability as Middle East conflict disrupts Gulf airspace. Airlines have had to change routes, passengers face delays and cargo takes longer to arrive, according to an analysis by aviation law researcher Arthur Shirichena published by The Independent Uganda from The Conversation.

The disruption exposes a business problem that extends well beyond inconvenient connections. The African Airlines Association estimates that airlines based outside Africa provide almost 70% of the continent’s intercontinental capacity — the available air transport linking Africa with other continents. That reliance allows trouble at distant hubs to feed quickly into African transport costs and trade. Shirichena argues that more direct links between African destinations would make the system more efficient and less vulnerable to external shocks.

More direct connections within Africa would improve both efficiency and aviation resilience, Shirichena argues.

Longer flights, thinner margins

Airspace closures force aircraft onto longer journeys, using more fuel and increasing crew expenses. Insurance becomes more expensive when flights operate near conflict areas. Aircraft also become less productive, spreading delays through airline networks. These pressures compound an existing disadvantage: African airlines already operate in one of the world’s most expensive aviation environments, leaving them exposed when disruption adds another layer of expense.

Fuel represents between 30% and 40% of African airlines’ operating costs, the analysis says. At many African airports, it costs more than at major European or Middle Eastern hubs because of reliance on imports, taxes, fragmented supply chains and limited refining capacity. Every airline buying fuel at those airports faces the higher prices. But African carriers often fly a greater proportion of their services within the continent, making the burden heavier for them. Larger international competitors also benefit from scale and integrated fuel supply systems.

The stakes reach farms as well as departure lounges. African exporters increasingly use air freight to carry fresh vegetables to world markets. A delay of only a few hours can damage quality, increase waste and weaken their ability to compete. For those businesses, a predictable flight schedule is part of getting a perishable product to customers, not simply a matter of convenience.

Airports need rules that work

The roots of the problem run deep. Colonial-era air networks connected African territories with European capitals rather than neighbouring markets. National airlines followed independence, but international routes and commercial agreements retained that outward focus. Today, restrictive access to routes and uneven regulation continue to hold back continental connections. Shirichena points to Ethiopian Airlines as an example of what consistent institutional backing and freedom to run operations can achieve, while stressing that it remains an exception.

African hubs including Addis Ababa, Nairobi, Johannesburg, Cairo and Casablanca could handle a greater share of traffic. Yet additional airport capacity and larger fleets cannot resolve the problem alone. The analysis calls for a stronger mandate and sufficient resources for the African Civil Aviation Commission, alongside more reliable enforcement of market-opening commitments. Airlines still face rejected route applications, discriminatory treatment and regulatory obstacles despite those commitments.

The next test is whether governments turn integration pledges into dependable access. Shirichena calls for strengthening the dispute settlement system under the Single African Air Transport Market, the continental initiative to open airline markets. Europe’s experience, he argues, shows that opening routes must come with institutions able to apply rules consistently and settle disagreements. What matters next is whether those rules hold when external shocks put governments under pressure to protect national carriers.