Cross-Border M&A in Aviation (Commercial & Charter Operators): Where Regulatory Approval and Operational Control Decide the Outcome in 2025

Cross-border M&A in aviation is frequently approached as a variation of asset-backed transportation investing. Aircraft values are observable, lease markets are transparent, and demand for lift remains global across both commercial and charter segments. These characteristics encourage the belief that aviation assets can be reallocated across borders with relative ease. In 2025, however, most cross-border aviation transactions are decided far from the financial model. Outcomes are determined instead by regulatory assessments of control and by the practical question of whether aircraft, crews, and safety systems can continue operating seamlessly under new ownership. Cross-border advisory in aviation exists to reconcile those realities before transactions become structurally unexecutable.

‍

Unlike most industries, aviation has a non-negotiable gating issue that sits above valuation and structure. Regulators care less about who owns the economics and far more about who exercises effective control. Across jurisdictions, aviation authorities draw explicit and implicit distinctions between economic ownership, voting rights, operational authority, and ultimate responsibility for safety and compliance. Foreign ownership thresholds may be published and seemingly permissive, yet effective control tests are often discretionary and enforced through regulatory interpretation rather than statute. In 2025, these distinctions are being applied with greater rigor as aviation is increasingly viewed through the lens of national security, connectivity resilience, and strategic infrastructure. Transactions that satisfy ownership limits but fail the control test do not close, regardless of price or strategic logic. Experienced cross-border advisors force this question to the forefront early, rather than allowing it to surface after momentum has already been lost.

‍

A second structural constraint is the non-transferability of the operating platform itself. Airlines and charter operators are not freely transferable enterprises in the way industrial assets are. The Air Operator Certificate is jurisdiction-specific, operator-specific, and tightly linked to management, safety systems, and regulatory trust. In any cross-border transaction, buyers must assess whether the existing certificate can be preserved, whether it must be revalidated following a change in ownership, or whether an entirely new certificate is required. Each scenario carries materially different risk. Revalidation or reissuance introduces timing uncertainty, crew and insurance re-approval risk, and the possibility of operational disruption or fleet grounding. Sellers often assume continuity based on past experience. Regulators do not. In 2025, AOC risk must be underwritten as a primary determinant of feasibility rather than treated as an operational detail to be resolved later.

‍

Regulators rarely articulate their decision-making frameworks in formal terms, but in practice they evaluate cross-border aviation transactions through a hierarchy of confidence. At the top sit safety management systems, regulatory credibility, and demonstrated operational competence. Economic benefits, employment preservation, or fleet investment commitments carry little weight if regulators lack confidence in these foundational elements. When trust erodes at this level, transactions stall regardless of how compelling the commercial rationale appears. Cross-border advisory plays a critical role in aligning transaction design with how regulators actually assess risk, not how buyers wish they would.

‍

While commercial airlines and charter operators face different revenue models and market dynamics, cross-border risk converges around the same issue: control. For commercial carriers, regulators focus on slot allocation, route rights, national connectivity obligations, and financial resilience under stress. For charter, ACMI, and business aviation operators, scrutiny centers on safety management systems, crew licensing and training, maintenance oversight, and liability exposure. In both cases, the identity of the decision-maker matters more than the identity of the capital provider. Ownership without operational authority rarely satisfies regulatory expectations.

‍

Labor and licensing complexity further complicate cross-border execution. Aircraft can be repositioned quickly. Crews cannot. Buyers routinely underestimate the friction associated with pilot licensing equivalency, conversion timelines, nationality requirements, labor agreements, and base-of-operation restrictions. In 2025, these challenges are amplified by persistent pilot shortages, stricter fatigue regulations, and heightened safety scrutiny. Transactions that appear operationally straightforward on paper can become constrained once crews cannot be redeployed or scheduled as assumed. Effective advisory ensures that labor and licensing constraints are incorporated realistically into underwriting rather than discounted as transitional issues.

‍

Cross-border aviation processes also progress differently from those in most other sectors. Many transactions lose momentum before exclusivity, often following informal regulatory feedback that signals concern over control or continuity. Economic logic frequently collides with regulatory interpretation earlier than expected, and once doubt is introduced, it is difficult to reverse. The most common failure point occurs when buyers underestimate the gap between formal compliance and regulatory comfort. Disciplined advisors recognize these signals early and adjust structure or expectations accordingly.

‍

Valuation outcomes in 2025 reflect these structural realities. Buyers apply a clear cross-border discount to aviation transactions, even in strong demand environments. AOC risk, uncertainty around uninterrupted operations, limitations on post-close control, labor rigidity, and regulatory approval risk all compress multiples. Two operators with similar fleets and reported earnings can achieve materially different outcomes depending on how confidently regulators and counterparties believe operations will continue unchanged under new ownership. In aviation, buyers are pricing continuity and permission to operate, not just capacity or asset value.

‍

Transaction structure therefore becomes a regulatory necessity rather than a financial optimization exercise. Minority investments with negative control rights, joint ventures with locally controlled operators, staged ownership increases contingent on regulatory comfort, management agreements that separate economics from operations, and seller rollovers to preserve leadership continuity are increasingly common. These structures are designed to align economic exposure with regulatory reality and to allow ownership to evolve over time rather than force immediate control. Transactions that ignore this reality fail regardless of valuation.

‍

Post-close integration in aviation demands a fundamentally different mindset than in other asset-intensive industries. Value is preserved by maintaining safety, reliability, and regulatory confidence rather than by extracting synergies. Successful acquirers leave safety management systems intact, avoid rapid changes to crew scheduling or maintenance practices, preserve continuity in regulator-facing leadership, and centralize financial oversight quietly and incrementally. Operational disruption in aviation destroys value quickly and visibly. Integration assumptions embedded in underwriting must therefore be conservative and aligned with regulatory tolerance.

‍

The buyers and sellers that succeed in cross-border aviation M&A in 2025 exhibit a consistent discipline. They respect regulatory discretion rather than relying solely on written rules, prioritize operational continuity over control optics, and structure transactions to evolve as confidence is earned. They recognize that in aviation, permission to operate is often more valuable than ownership itself.

‍

For both buyers and sellers, cross-border aviation transactions reward realism. Sellers who understand regulatory and operational constraints achieve cleaner and faster outcomes. Buyers who underwrite control risk honestly, structure intelligently, and integrate cautiously outperform those pursuing fleet scale or market share alone. Cross-border advisory remains essential not to internationalize aviation assets, but to ensure aircraft remain flying, regulators remain confident, and enterprise value survives the border crossing.