The industrial action by aviation workers that disrupted operations across all airports in Kenya was more than an industrial-relations dispute. It exposed a larger question: Can Kenya protect and strengthen its position as East Africa’s aviation, trade and logistics gateway?
Workers have a legitimate right to collective bargaining, fair pay, decent working conditions and a voice in decisions affecting their employment. Those rights must be respected. Employers and the government also have a responsibility to negotiate in good faith, honour agreements, provide safe workplaces and address legitimate grievances before they escalate into strikes.
At the same time, workers and their unions have a responsibility to consider the wider consequences of industrial action, particularly in a strategic sector such as aviation.
The debate cannot stop at how much workers should be paid. It must also ask what value is being created, what productivity gains accompany higher remuneration, what disruption costs the wider economy and what happens when passengers, airlines and investors begin choosing alternative gateways.
At the centre of Kenya’s aviation sector is JKIA. JKIA is not merely an airport, it is a critical national economic asset.
The International Air Transport Association estimates that aviation and aviation-related tourism generate about $3.3 billion annually in economic activity in Kenya-equivalent to 3.1 per cent of GDP-and support approximately 460,000 jobs. Kenya’s aviation system also handles about 380,000 tonnes of air cargo, making it an important freight gateway.
When an airport stops functioning efficiently, the effects extend far beyond delayed flights. A missed connection can mean a lost business meeting. A delayed shipment can interrupt production. A stranded tourist can disrupt an entire holiday itinerary.
For such travellers, a prolonged delay is far more than a minor inconvenience; it can impose substantial economic and human costs through lost productive time, foregone income, missed business or investment opportunities, disrupted education, and irreversible personal consequences.
A passenger may be travelling for medical treatment, accompanying a critically ill relative, reporting to university, securing a business contract, or attending a funeral. In such circumstances, disruption may mean a lost livelihood, a missed opportunity, deteriorating health, or, in extreme cases, loss of life.
That is why the conversation must include not only workers and management, but also passengers, airlines, businesses, investors, tourism operators, cargo companies, healthcare providers and taxpayers.
The strategic danger Kenya cannot ignore
The most important question is not only what happens to JKIA during a dispute, but whether the airport can remain competitive in the years ahead.
Nairobi’s location, Kenya Airways’ network, JKIA’s established infrastructure and Kenya’s relatively diversified economy have made Nairobi a natural regional hub.
But geography is an advantage, not a permanent entitlement.
Other African countries are investing heavily to turn geographical advantages into durable competitive positions.
Ethiopia, for example, is building an aviation ecosystem around Ethiopian Airlines and major airport infrastructure at a cost of $12.5 billion. The proposed Bishoftu International Airport, about 40 kilometres from Addis Ababa, is designed to handle 60 million passengers annually in its first phase and up to 110 million in the long term. The African Development Bank has committed $500 million and is expected to help mobilise further financing.
This investment is taking place alongside the expansion of Ethiopian Airlines, whose revenues reached US$7.6 billion in the financial year ended June 2025. IATA estimates that aviation already supports about $2 billion in economic activity and 527,000 jobs in Ethiopia, with passenger demand expected to grow sharply over the next two decades..
Ethiopia is not waiting for a hub to emerge. It is deliberately building one.
Rwanda is pursuing a similar strategy. It is developing the New Kigali International Airport at Bugesera as a regional passenger and cargo hub, with substantial investment from Qatar and the Rwandan government. Rwanda is also expanding RwandAir as part of an integrated aviation strategy.
The message from Addis Ababa and Kigali is clear: Aviation is being treated not simply as an airport operation, but as an economic-development strategy. To this end, Kenya must respond accordingly.
Infrastructure is necessary, but not sufficient
Kenya recognises the need to modernise JKIA. In June 2026, the government signed a $1.2 billion agreement to expand and upgrade the airport, with the stated aim of increasing annual passenger capacity from approximately 7.5 million to 22 million. The project includes a new terminal, upgrades to existing facilities and improvements to airside and landside operations
That investment is important, but infrastructure alone will not secure JKIA’s future.
A competitive airport also requires reliable air-traffic management, efficient ground handling, predictable immigration and customs procedures, modern digital systems, professional management, competitive costs, safety, punctuality and strong customer service.
It requires a workforce whose productivity matches its remuneration.
But productivity cannot be demanded in isolation. Workers need adequate staffing, functioning equipment, appropriate technology, effective supervision, safe working conditions and clear operational systems. Where those conditions are absent, management and government must accept responsibility rather than attributing every failure to employee performance.
The question is therefore not whether aviation workers deserve better pay.They do.
The harder question is: What productivity, service quality and measurable public value should accompany higher pay-and what resources must management provide to make those improvements possible?
Kenya should consider linking part of future remuneration improvements to clearly defined performance indicators, provided those indicators are negotiated transparently and applied fairly.
Airport workers and management could agree on targets covering passenger-processing times, aircraft turnaround, baggage handling, cargo throughput, safety, service reliability, revenue collection and customer satisfaction.
Such targets should not become a mechanism for arbitrary punishment or unilateral wage reductions. They should be based on reliable data, take account of factors outside workers’ control and be accompanied by investment in equipment, staffing and training. Where productivity gains are achieved, workers should share in the resulting benefits.
Collective bargaining should therefore connect remuneration, institutional performance and working conditions without reducing labour relations to a simple exchange of higher pay for higher output.
This is not an attack on workers. A productive workforce is more valuable-and therefore more defensible-than one whose wage demands are repeatedly disconnected from institutional performance. But a productive workforce also deserves competent management, safe conditions and a fair share of the value it helps create.
The bigger economic question
The dispute also reflects a broader national weakness. Kenya has become adept at debating how to share the cake, but less focused on how to make it bigger.
Public debate repeatedly returns to salaries, allowances, benefits and revenue allocation. Less attention goes to productivity, investment, innovation, export competitiveness, private-sector growth and efficient infrastructure.
Yet government cannot sustainably raise compensation unless the productive economy expands enough to finance it.
The choice is not between workers and government. It is between a larger, more productive economy that can reward its people sustainably and a stagnant fiscal base over which distributional battles become increasingly intense.
That is why public-sector pay should be discussed not only as an industrial-relations issue, but also as a question of economic architecture.
However, fiscal discipline must not become a pretext for indefinite wage suppression. If the state expects restraint from workers, it must demonstrate restraint in other areas, improve revenue management, reduce waste, honour negotiated agreements and explain clearly how public resources are being allocated. Workers are more likely to accept productivity-linked reforms when they trust that the benefits will not be absorbed by inefficiency, corruption or poorly managed procurement.
A credible productivity compact must therefore apply to the whole institution-not only to employees.
The passenger must remain central
The customer is often missing from industrial disputes, yet aviation customers have choices.
Airlines can reroute. Travellers can choose different connections. Multinational companies can base regional operations around more reliable hubs. Cargo can move through alternative gateways.
Once such decisions become routine, recovering lost traffic can be difficult.
Aviation hubs are built on confidence. Passengers must trust that they will depart on time. Airlines must know that their aircraft will be handled efficiently. Cargo operators need predictable movement. Investors need confidence that infrastructure will function. Tourists and business travellers need reliable connectivity.
A hub is ultimately a promise of connectivity, and every major disruption weakens that promise.
This does not justify suppressing legitimate labour action. Nor does it mean that passengers should be used to delegitimise workers’ grievances. It does, however, require disputes in nationally critical infrastructure to be addressed early, through credible negotiation, mediation and dispute-resolution mechanisms, before an entire economic ecosystem becomes collateral damage.
The government and airport management should also maintain effective contingency plans so that essential services continue during disputes. Business continuity is not a substitute for fair labour relations, but neither should the absence of contingency planning be used to shift the full cost of a dispute onto passengers and the wider economy.
Kenya needs a new social compact
The lesson from the JKIA dispute is not that workers should stop demanding better pay. It is that pay, productivity, working conditions and national competitiveness must be addressed together.
Kenya needs a social compact in which:
Workers demand fair remuneration while championing productivity and protecting the quality of essential services.
Management demands performance while providing the tools, staffing, safety standards and infrastructure needed to deliver it.
Government negotiates fairly, honours agreements and protects the national economic interest without undermining workers’ constitutional rights.
Unions defend workers while recognising the wider cost of disrupting critical infrastructure and using strikes as a last resort after meaningful negotiation and mediation.
Investors provide capital while accepting obligations of efficiency, transparency and accountability.
Customers are treated not as collateral damage, but as the ultimate beneficiaries of a functioning public service.
Independent dispute-resolution institutions help ensure that disagreements are settled through credible processes before they escalate into national disruption.
The most constructive demand Kenya could hear from public servants is not simply: ‘Pay us more.’
It is:
‘Give us the infrastructure, technology, skills and systems we need to deliver more-and reward us when we do.’
But employers and government should answer with an equally important commitment:
‘We will provide the conditions, resources and accountability needed for you to deliver-and we will negotiate fairly when the value created increases.’
Kenya does not have to choose between workers’ rights and national competitiveness. It needs both.
But competitive advantage must be earned every day. Ethiopia is investing. Rwanda is investing. Other African economies are positioning themselves for the aviation growth that IATA expects across the continent.
Africa’s aviation market is projected to expand strongly over the next two decades. The opportunity is substantial, but Kenya’s share is not guaranteed.
The question facing Kenya is therefore larger than the current strike:
Will the country defend the advantages of yesterday, or invest, reform and improve productivity to compete for tomorrow’s opportunities?
JKIA can remain East Africa’s gateway. But it will not do so merely because Nairobi is well located.
It will remain the gateway only if Kenya makes it the region’s most reliable, efficient, competitive and customer-focused hub.
That requires more than negotiating the next salary increment. It requires fair labour relations, competent management, accountable public investment and a workforce equipped to deliver high-quality services.
It requires Kenya to start baking a bigger cake-and ensuring that those who bake it share fairly in its growth.