CanAm’s initial route concept should be understood through three distinct traffic flows: North America to Gran Canaria, North America to Africa via Gran Canaria, and local traffic between Gran Canaria and Africa. These flows are commercially connected, but they should not be treated as the same legal case.
Flights between the United States and Gran Canaria
These fall within the general logic of the EU–US Open Skies framework. Under this structure, services between points in the United States and points in the European Union are generally possible for eligible carriers. This makes North America–LPA the cleanest and most straightforward part of the CanAm route structure.
The second flow is North America to Africa via Gran Canaria.
A route such as Washington Dulles–Gran Canaria–Abuja is strategically attractive because LPA functions as an intermediate Atlantic gateway. For the passenger, the product is a North America–Africa connection. For CanAm, LPA is the controlled transfer, cargo and premium handling point. This structure is more defensible than presenting the project as a simple Spain–Africa airline operation.
Nigeria is particularly relevant because the United States and Nigeria have an Open Skies Air Transport Agreement, which entered into force in May 2024 after having been provisionally applied for many years. This makes Abuja a logical first African anchor and a more suitable initial case than more complicated markets.
Fifth Freedom Routing for local Traffic
The more sensitive question applying not to the main targeted passenger flow, but to passengers within the local traffic between Gran Canaria and an African destination, for example Gran Canaria–Abuja, Gran Canaria–Abidjan or Gran Canaria–Cape Town. If CanAm is a US carrier and sells local traffic between Spain and an African state, this requires fifth-freedom traffic rights or another specific authorization. This point must be handled carefully. A passenger travelling from the United States to Africa via LPA is one case. A passenger travelling only from LPA to Africa is another case. The second case is more sensitive and should be reviewed separately for each African destination.
Flights operated by USC
If initial flights are operated by USC under the AOC of USC, the traffic-rights picture changes. USC would be the operating carrier, while CanAm would initially act as the commercial platform, brand, route developer and possibly charterer or marketing structure, depending on the final arrangement. This may be helpful for LPA–Africa, because the operating carrier would be a European AOC holder rather than a US carrier. However, it does not remove the need to check the applicable route permissions. It changes the legal and operational starting point.
The relevant questions then become what rights USC has or can obtain as operating carrier, whether the operation is structured as charter or scheduled service, who sells the ticket, whose flight number is used, whether local LPA–Africa traffic is sold, whether fifth-freedom or equivalent approvals are required, and what approvals are required in the United States if USC operates into the US.
Dedicated CanAm Gateway Facilities
CanAm facilities at LPA and at the African destination do not automatically create traffic rights. They do, however, strengthen the case for obtaining them. A terminal or dedicated widebody facility changes the argument from a request to operate a route into a proposal to build a controlled Atlantic gateway for premium passengers, cargo, widebody operations and North America–Africa connectivity.
This is commercially and politically stronger. It also helps explain why local LPA–Africa traffic may be necessary: it supports the economics of the gateway infrastructure, rather than merely the economics of one flight.
CanAm should therefore keep the initial traffic-rights strategy disciplined. North America–LPA should be treated as the cleanest first traffic flow. North America–Africa via LPA should be developed as the strategic long-haul proposition, with Abuja as the preferred first African anchor. Local LPA–Africa sales should remain a separate regulatory workstream. USC ACMI operations can provide a risk-reduced operational bridge, provided all public communication remains clear that flights are operated by USC under the USC AOC. The CanAm Atlantic Gateway Facility should be presented as strategic infrastructure, not as a cosmetic terminal project.
Summary
The core logic is simple. North America–LPA is straightforward. North America–LPA–Abuja is strategically strong. Local LPA–Africa traffic is possible, but requires separate route-rights analysis and approval. USC ACMI is a useful bridge if operator, seller, flight number and traffic rights are clearly defined. Terminal infrastructure does not create traffic rights, but it creates powerful political and strategic leverage.
The key is to avoid overclaiming. CanAm should not present the route-rights issue as solved before it is formally solved. CanAm should present the project as a disciplined, phased gateway strategy in which route rights, terminal infrastructure, cargo flows and premium passenger demand reinforce each other.