When you tira essas pessoas dos aviões, you tira the multiplier effect
Em meio à reforma tributária brasileira, as maiores companhias aéreas do país erguem sua voz contra um possível aumento de impostos que, segundo elas, não apenas encareceria passagens, mas sufocaria o turismo doméstico e o tecido econômico que dele depende. Os CEOs da Azul e da Latam argumentam que tributar a aviação de forma mais pesada é uma contradição em termos: ao reduzir o fluxo de viajantes, o Estado acabaria por diminuir a própria arrecadação que busca ampliar. O debate aponta para uma tensão clássica entre a necessidade fiscal imediata e a visão estratégica de longo prazo sobre quais setores sustentam o crescimento coletivo.
- A reforma tributária em curso pode triplicar a carga fiscal da Latam — de R$ 2 bilhões para R$ 6 bilhões anuais —, um impacto que a empresa já avisa que será repassado integralmente ao passageiro.
- O CEO da Azul chamou o aumento de impostos sobre a aviação de 'a coisa mais tola que se pode fazer', alertando que passagens mais caras esvaziam hotéis, restaurantes e toda a cadeia turística.
- As companhias aéreas denunciam um ambiente estruturalmente hostil: querosene entre os mais caros do mundo e uma concentração desproporcional de processos judiciais contra o setor no Brasil.
- Diante do risco, Azul e Latam buscam diálogo com o governo para que a aviação seja reconhecida como setor estratégico para o desenvolvimento econômico, e não como alvo de arrecadação.
- O setor aponta que países vizinhos como Chile, Colômbia e México têm taxas de viagem per capita superiores às do Brasil — um potencial desperdiçado caso as tarifas subam ainda mais.
As duas maiores companhias aéreas do Brasil estão travando uma batalha aberta contra os possíveis efeitos da reforma tributária sobre o setor. Em fórum empresarial realizado esta semana, os presidentes da Azul e da Latam apresentaram seus argumentos com clareza incomum: tributar mais a aviação, disseram, é economicamente contraproducente.
John Rodgerson, da Azul, foi categórico ao chamar o aumento de impostos de 'a coisa mais tola que se pode fazer'. Seu raciocínio vai além das margens das companhias: quando as passagens encarecem, menos pessoas viajam — e quando menos pessoas viajam, hotéis, restaurantes, motoristas de aplicativo e comerciantes em destinos turísticos perdem renda. O efeito multiplicador que movimenta a economia simplesmente desaparece.
Jerome Cadier, presidente da Latam no Brasil, foi ainda mais enfático, descrevendo a reforma como uma 'bomba nuclear' para o setor caso a aviação não receba tratamento diferenciado. A empresa paga hoje cerca de R$ 2 bilhões em impostos por ano; sob as novas regras, esse valor poderia chegar a R$ 6 bilhões. E a conta, frisou Cadier, não fica com a companhia — ela vai direto para o bolso do passageiro.
Os executivos reconheceram que o governo tem demonstrado disposição para ouvir, e que negociações estão em curso para revisar as regras específicas do setor. Rodgerson defendeu que a aviação seja tratada como instrumento de desenvolvimento econômico, não como fonte de receita fácil. Ele destacou que o Brasil já enfrenta desvantagens estruturais — querosene caríssimo e uma concentração absurda de processos judiciais contra companhias aéreas — e que o caminho deveria ser o oposto: baratear o transporte aéreo para estimular o turismo doméstico e ampliar a base tributária por meio do crescimento econômico.
O episódio expõe uma tensão central da reforma fiscal brasileira: como aumentar a arrecadação sem comprometer setores que geram prosperidade em cadeia. Para as aéreas, a resposta é clara — tributar mais a aviação é uma estratégia que encolhe o bolo em vez de dividi-lo melhor.
Brazil's two largest airlines are mounting a forceful campaign against proposed tax increases on aviation, warning that higher levies would ripple through the economy far beyond the ticket counter. The pushback came this week during a business forum, where executives from Azul and Latam laid out their case with unusual bluntness: taxing airlines, they argue, is economically self-defeating.
John Rodgerson, CEO of Azul, was direct about his view of the proposed changes. He called increased taxation on aviation "the most foolish thing you can do," speaking at a seminar hosted by business group Lide. His concern is not merely about airline profits. When ticket prices rise, he explained, fewer people fly. And when fewer people fly, the damage spreads across an entire ecosystem—hotels lose guests, restaurants see fewer customers, ride-sharing drivers pick up fewer airport runs, small merchants in tourist destinations lose business. The multiplier effect that generates income throughout Brazil simply vanishes.
Latam's Brazil chief, Jerome Cadier, framed the situation in starker terms. He called the fiscal reform a "nuclear bomb" for aviation if the sector is not treated differently under the new rules. Right now, Latam pays roughly two billion reais annually in taxes. Under the proposed system, that figure could climb to six billion—a tripling of the burden. But Cadier made a crucial distinction: the airline does not absorb these costs. It passes them directly to passengers. The customer, ultimately, is the one who pays.
The two executives were speaking in the context of Brazil's broader tax reform, which is reshaping how the country collects revenue. Airlines argue the new framework would significantly increase their tax obligations, which would then translate into higher ticket prices. Both men suggested the government has shown willingness to listen, and that their companies are actively discussing how to revise the rules for aviation specifically.
Rodgerson went further, making a case for treating aviation as a strategic tool for economic development rather than simply another revenue source. He pointed out that Brazil has some of the world's most expensive jet fuel, a structural disadvantage that makes no economic sense. He also noted a peculiar imbalance: Brazil accounts for roughly three percent of global flights but faces nearly all the lawsuits filed against airlines worldwide. His argument was that the country should instead be encouraging domestic tourism by keeping travel affordable, which would ultimately expand the tax base through increased economic activity in tourist destinations.
The airline leaders suggested Brazil is underutilizing its tourism potential. They pointed to neighboring countries—Chile, Colombia, Mexico—where residents travel more frequently per capita. Brazil could reach similar levels, they argued, if the government treated aviation as an engine of growth rather than a tax target. Lower costs and reduced levies would mean more flights, more travelers, and more spending in hotels, restaurants, and local businesses across the country.
The conversation reflects a broader tension in Brazil's fiscal reform: how to raise revenue while maintaining economic competitiveness in sectors that generate broader prosperity. For now, the airlines are betting that government officials will see the logic in their position—that taxing aviation more heavily is a strategy that ultimately shrinks the pie rather than enlarging it.
Notable Quotes
Taxing aviation is the most foolish thing you can do, because it removes the multiplier effect that generates income throughout Brazil.— John Rodgerson, CEO of Azul
The airline does not pay the tax. The airline passes it on. The customer is the one who pays.— Jerome Cadier, CEO of Latam Brazil
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why do airline executives think higher taxes specifically on aviation are different from taxes on other industries?
Because aviation is a gateway. When you tax a hotel, the hotel absorbs some cost and passes some to guests. But when you tax flights, you're taxing the decision to travel itself. Fewer people buy tickets, and that collapse ripples outward—the hotel never gets the guest in the first place.
But doesn't the government need revenue? Why should aviation be exempt?
They're not arguing for exemption. They're arguing that aviation should be treated as strategic infrastructure, like roads or ports. The idea is that lower costs generate more travel, which generates more economic activity, which generates more tax revenue overall—just spread across more transactions.
Is that actually true, or is it just what airlines want to believe?
It's plausible, but it's also an article of faith in the industry. The real question is whether the government believes it. Right now, they're listening. Whether they act on it is another matter.
What's the most vulnerable part of their argument?
That Brazil's fuel is already the world's most expensive, and that hasn't stopped people from flying. So maybe taxes aren't the binding constraint. Maybe the real issue is that the government needs money and has to get it somewhere.
And if the taxes go through anyway?
Ticket prices rise, fewer Brazilians travel, and the airlines will say they told you so. The government will have the revenue but less economic activity to show for it.