How has Norway managed to circumvent that regulation?
By not being a member of the EU ?
Ok, it appears that things are a tad more difficult here.
Wikipedia brings forth this:
The airport is situated on land owned by the city of Lugano, whilst management is the responsibility of Lugano Airport SA, whose shares are owned by the canton of Ticino (12.5%) and the city (87.5%).
So actually both the infrastructure = Land as well as the operating company was owned by the canton and the city. There was a referendum due whether to re-finance the airport but it got delayed due to the Corona outbreak. Hence, the money has now run out or rather, it will end of Mai.
So even if the operator Airport Lugano SA gets liquidated, the land is still owned by the city of Lugano. With their tourism orientation and the fact that quite a few biz jets e.t.c. operate in there, they will not be in a hurry to just sell the terrain off hopefully.
By the looks of it, the operating company was primarily orientated towards scheduled services and biz travel and, with 76 people, quite large. For GA purposes, a much smaller organisation might be conceived to do the necessary stuff, but it won’t need a lot of people who so far were essential, such as handling and similar. They still will need airfield maintenance, they still will need ATC (if they remain IFR) which so far is provided by Skyguide and they will need some staff to oversee the daily ops, such as collecting fees e.t.c.
It remains to be seen what the future brings. The Ticino does have another airport at Locarno, which is owned by the canton and the military but is operated civil. It has no IFR however.
76 people? Is this in Switzerland, or Spain? 
airways wrote:
By not being a member of the EU ?
Norway is part of the EEA and has to abide by all EU regulations relating to the European Single Market. Or so I thought.
Peter wrote:
76 people? Is this in Switzerland, or Spain?
The operator of Lugano Airport at the time of the shutdown of scheduled services had 76 employees if that is what you mean.
Airborne_Again wrote:
How has Norway managed to circumvent that regulation?
Actually, all these airports are operated by a one operator, Avinor. So I guess that you cannot really talk about subsidies, since it is only some part of the company paying for other part of the same company. Not sure that is the complete answer though…
The operator of Lugano Airport at the time of the shutdown of scheduled services had 76 employees
Yes; you don’t need 76 people unless you have a lot of airline traffic.
So I guess that you cannot really talk about subsidies
That’s a neat way to sidestep EU prohibitions on regional subsidies 
WingsWaterAndWheels wrote:
Actually, all these airports are operated by a one operator, Avinor. So I guess that you cannot really talk about subsidies, since it is only some part of the company paying for other part of the same company. Not sure that is the complete answer though…
Aha! The problem in Sweden was that most of the smaller airports are operated by the local municipality.
Peter wrote:
Yes; you don’t need 76 people unless you have a lot of airline traffic.
It depends which parts of the actual airport is actually run by that operating company. If it’s “only” the bare necessities then over 70 people is certainly over the top. If however they also employ all the side branches such as security, restaurants, some shops e.t.c. under that company, it is pretty easy to reach this kind of figures.
I cant say if it is good or bad, but the LSZA/LSZB situation is surely not unique in Europe. Since EC COVID-rescue schemes are being drafted for the whole industry, I would not be surprised to see airports being included. Is this kind of proceeding unthinkable of at Swiss level?
Personally I am biased against subsidies, but, like the 2008 rescuing of financial companies, sometimes there is simply no alternative. Then it is no longer a matter or of ‘if’ but ‘how’
