Puente's Vueling defense backfires as passenger data contradicts him

Puente's retort to Díez debunked by passenger figures

Oscar Puente has once again used Twitter with his characteristic tone. The Minister of Transport responded this week to economist José Carlos Díez with a label not reproduced by serious press, after Díez criticized the government's airport policy. The reason: Ryanair leaving an airport and being replaced by Vueling. Puente sold it as a success. Circulating data points to the opposite.

According to the figures handled, in 2023 the route operated by Ryanair moved 209,000 passengers. After the change of company, the figure fell to 87,500 in 2025. The minister boasted of 49% growth in July, but the year-to-date total remains far below previous figures: in the first seven months of 2026 barely exceed 60,000 travelers. Projecting the trend, the year would close around 110,000, 45% less than in 2023.

Success or statistical makeup?

The trap in Puente's argument is the same as always: comparing with the immediately preceding year, which was already bad. A 49% growth on a sunk base does not recover lost traffic. It is the difference between saying a patient's fever rose from 10 to 15 degrees and claiming they are cured because the fever increased by 50%. Complete calculations, item by item, have circulated alongside the exchange and expose the image operation.

The subsidies front: who gets paid and who doesn't

Another open point is public aid. From critical circles, it is maintained that Vueling receives subsidies from the Spanish Government, while Ryanair does not. Defending this thesis clashes with European regulations: direct aid to airlines is very limited; support mechanisms exist for unprofitable routes with requirements that Ryanair, according to several interpretations, does not meet by refusing to operate under certain conditions. The issue remains open because each side interprets the regulation their own way.

A minister who tweets like an influencer and the institutional cost

Beyond the anecdote, the episode reopens the question of public officials' behavior. Insulting an economist from a ministry's official account is not a communication strategy, it is a sign of degradation of public life. Some readings compare it with practices in authoritarian regimes where power responds not with data, but with disqualification. The problem is not that a politician criticizes an analyst; it is that he does so with tavern language and with figures that do not withstand scrutiny.

The episode leaves two sarracena. First: in airport policy, triumphant announcements last as long as it takes a flight attendant to stow luggage. Second: a minister who confuses record with recovery and mocks those showing him the spreadsheet should not be surprised if citizens distrust official data. Next time he celebrates a success, let him look at the numbers before. And after.